Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[ChristopherJB5]

This post identifies some very important issues, not previously stated, that everyone needs to read and pass along on other forums.

Thanks, I’m flattered.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

If you were to build a Catholic parish, you would build it near or in an area with a large Catholic community. Right? So you would imagine they would do the same when building a mosque. It’s just common sense.

Here’s the thing, the highest population of Muslims in NYC is in Brooklyn, not lower Manhattan. So for most people, to travel to this mosque they will need to travel across the Brooklyn Bridge and travel a distance and pass many other mosques along the way. It doesn’t seem very convenient.

My main problem is a- the funding, and b- the imam. First off, we don’t know where the funding is coming from. I remember reading an article recently saying that the imam was traveling to the Middle East to help fund the mosque. And secondly, the imam troubles me. He has said, on more than one occasion that the U.S. has a structure that would easily allow sharia law and that it should implement sharia. Not only that, but he also believes that the U.S. should allow religions to self govern their adherents. So there will be a Muslim court, a Jewish court, a Protestant court, and a Catholic court. Does it make sense? It’s on its way to this. A judge in NJ recently claimed that it was lawful for a man to rape his wife if his faith said it was OK ( secularnewsdaily.com/2010/07/28/nj-judge-oks-rape-of-wife-by-muslim-citing-religious-belief-overturned-on-appeal/ ).

And if I remember correctly, when I first started reading on this issue, those who were trying to build it were saying they wanted this mosque to be a place to bring understanding on the Muslim faith and that is why that site is the best place to build it. Now they are saying it has nothing to do with 9/11.

Every way you look at this, it just smells fishy.

They have the right to build it, but I just don’t think it’s wise to do it. At least address the issues of financing and the imam’s controversial statements.

It is silly to say that mosques and churches should be built in areas of greatest religious density, I think it is more likely that you require a church or mosque when the concentration of religious reaches some threshold level in the area.

I hear that some Catholics take pilgrimages to the middle east, clearly that means some Catholics have dubious ties.

Catholics already self regulate to a certain extent, look at the sex abuse cases.

None of those other allegations are backed up with evidence. I would be very interested in the source of the allegation that the imam supports sharia law.

 

[estesbob]

A solvent point: twitter.com/jasonmustian/status/21337496786

More from the blame America first crowd.

 

[ChristopherJB5]

Are you suggesting the core of Islam is violent?

Well, yeah.

The only way that Islam can preach, universally, against all unqualified violence–as Christianity does–is if everyone in the entire world is a pious Muslim.

 

[josephdavid]

So what?? What possible bearing doesThomas Jefferson’s incorrect rants about the alleged shortcoming of Christianity have to do with the propriety of building a mosque near Ground Zero?

Incorrect? I find that humorous.

They can build a mosque anywhere they please. It is their property and it is their freedom to assmemble and worship their religion. It seems you and like all other new-Conservatives use another wedge to divide Americans with fear and misunderstanding.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Not only that, but he also believes that the U.S. should allow religions to self govern their adherents. So there will be a Muslim court, a Jewish court, a Protestant court, and a Catholic court. Does it make sense? It’s on its way to this.

There are already Jewish civil courts in the United States called Beth Din.

 

[ChristopherJB5]

Is that not in the Christian Bible also? Sorry you must try again. Unless you do not accept the Old Testement.

Yeah, its there, but do Christians obey the dietary laws laid out in Levititicus? No. Just because its there doesn’t mean that its a firm moral injunction.

The Muslims have the Qur’an, Shari’a, Hadith, and Community concensus.

In each of the above, there is no unconditional rejection of violence. In fact, there are many places where violence is explicitly spelled out as legitimate–in many cases, these passages are dedicated solely to the treatment of non-Muslims.

Revisit the New Testament–the culmination of all the Old Testament books and prophesies. We are exhorted to love, to build, and to live in God’s spirit. This is the book that Christendom–insofar as it is Christian–is based on.

The New Testament is the ‘final word’ on the catalogs of violence and war that compose certain chapters of the Old Testament. It is a welcome relief from the fate Man was doomed to when we were expelled from the Garden.

If you’re going to make a point, please keep it thoughtful and consistent. I’m sick of having to rebuke people for obvious fallacies.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Very interesting Joseph. Except that we are not Jewish. Try again.

TheTrue Centrist,
Also a nice try. Race is not the same thing as a political ideology or religion, which are freely chosen.

This is more comparable to someone donning a KKK outfit and greeting the people exiting a majority-black Southern Baptist church with a burning cross. Does he have a legal right to be there, on public property? Yes. Should he be there? No. Should the black people exiting the church take his action as an affront, or just assume that he just happened to feel the urge to stand on that particular spot? You decide. Are the black people who claim that the KKK is anti-republican, racist, and inherently violent just a bunch of hate-mongers, or might they have some sort of point?

Lets see if they are so different:

This is more comparable to a black person sitting in the front of a bus when white people want to sit there. Does he have a legal right to be there, on public property? Yes. Should he be there? No. Should the white people looking for a seat take his action as an affront, or just assume that he just happened to feel the urge to sit in that particular seat? You decide. Are the white people who claim that black people are anti-republican, racist, and inherently violent just a bunch of hate-mongers, or might they have some sort of point?

edit so if someone invented surgery that could effectively change skin color, it would be acceptable to frown on people being black, because it is now a choice?

 

[SalesianSDB]

I hear that some Catholics take pilgrimages to the middle east, clearly that means some Catholics have dubious ties.

Yes, because Catholics go to the Middle East to raise money for a Church and there are chances that some of these financiers are violent radical Muslims.

Catholics already self regulate to a certain extent, look at the sex abuse cases.

So you would be fine with a Muslim court implimenting sharia law for Muslim Americans which would lead to the stoning of women?

None of those other allegations are backed up with evidence. I would be very interested in the source of the allegation that the imam supports sharia law.

911familiesforamerica.org/?p=3941

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

If it is a serious matter, then you should use serious arguments. As I have shown, the line of reasoning you used can be used to legitimize racism. I seriously suggest you reconsider your rationale.

In this thread, I have provided several rational points regarding this topic. I have not fallen victim to the PC/multiculturalism mindset. Muslims just love PC lemmings and useful idiots. And, even though only a narrow breed of Christians think it’s okay to lie for Jesus, Muslims believe that using deception and lies on non-Muslims, as a means to an end, (conversion and Sharia Law in all nations), is perfectly acceptable.

I don’t know you. So, let me ask you this. Do you think lying for Jesus is acceptable and justified, yes or no?

 

[estesbob]

Incorrect? I find that humorous.quote]

Yes he is incorrect. It is a myth that millions and millions of men women and children were burned to death and tortured in the name of Christianity.In the whole 400 year of the Spanish Inquisition , for isnatnce, a grand total of 4000 people were executed-none by the Church. That great atheist Stalin killed 1000 times more people in 30 years athan Christianity allgedly did in 2000 years

They can build a mosque anywhere they please. It is their property and it is their freedom to assmemble and worship their religion. It seems you and like all other new-Conservatives use another wedge to divide Americans with fear and misunderstanding.

 

[4elise]

If you were to build a Catholic parish, you would build it near or in an area with a large Catholic community. Right? So you would imagine they would do the same when building a mosque. It’s just common sense.

Here’s the thing, the highest population of Muslims in NYC is in Brooklyn, not lower Manhattan. So for most people, to travel to this mosque they will need to travel across the Brooklyn Bridge and travel a distance and pass many other mosques along the way. It doesn’t seem very convenient.

My main problem is a- the funding, and b- the imam. First off, we don’t know where the funding is coming from. I remember reading an article recently saying that the imam was traveling to the Middle East to help fund the mosque. And secondly, the imam troubles me. He has said, on more than one occasion that the U.S. has a structure that would easily allow sharia law and that it should implement sharia. Not only that, but he also believes that the U.S. should allow religions to self govern their adherents. So there will be a Muslim court, a Jewish court, a Protestant court, and a Catholic court. Does it make sense? It’s on its way to this. A judge in NJ recently claimed that it was lawful for a man to rape his wife if his faith said it was OK ( secularnewsdaily.com/2010/07/28/nj-judge-oks-rape-of-wife-by-muslim-citing-religious-belief-overturned-on-appeal/ ).

And if I remember correctly, when I first started reading on this issue, those who were trying to build it were saying they wanted this mosque to be a place to bring understanding on the Muslim faith and that is why that site is the best place to build it. Now they are saying it has nothing to do with 9/11.

Every way you look at this, it just smells fishy.

They have the right to build it, but I just don’t think it’s wise to do it. At least address the issues of financing and the imam’s controversial statements.

From that article: (proving that our laws trump this error)

The appellate court determined:

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.

And this is a good point - we have laws. We are a country of laws. If anything goes on in or as a result of activities of the Islamic Cultural Center that is against the law, they will be subject to law.

Do people believe that they will be there plotting attacks from there? Is that what people are really afraid of…

 

[ChristopherJB5]

Good! I was worried that you mistrusted those involved with the construction because they were Muslims! Just to be clear, why is it that you think the reason for the Mosque’s construction is all of the offensive, hard-line, traditional stuff you posted, instead of the groups stated goals: park51.org/mission.htm

Pretty sure it is not being ‘constructed’ by Muslims. Please be clearer in your terms, then perhaps your reasoning would be less muddled.

To answer your question–and, yes, I’ve seen their site–if they were so concerned with tolerance and mutual-understanding they would understand the emotional impact of September 11th, and discretely, one might even say courteously decide to place it somewhere less inflammatory.

You don’t have to be Einstein to call a spade a spade, my friend.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So you would be fine with a Muslim court implimenting sharia law for Muslim Americans which would lead to the stoning of women?

911familiesforamerica.org/?p=3941

The video clip says that the US has no roadblocks for implementation of sharia law. You say that sharia law leads to stoning of women. Therefore the US must have no law prohibiting the stoning of women. Is that your position?

 

[Los_Angeles]

And yet… they are being opposed from coast to coast. So not sure where those ‘most’ Americans who wouldn’t oppose it elsewhere are? Maybe it is a ‘not in my backyard’ thing?

If they are not free to practice their religion neither am I, or you. We are all free, or none of us are.

Um, they are free to practice their religion in the USA, that is the point.

 

[josephdavid]

Yeah, its there, but do Christians obey the dietary laws laid out in Levititicus? No. Just because its there doesn’t mean that its a firm moral injunction.

The Muslims have the Qur’an, Shari’a, Hadith, and Community concensus.

In each of the above, there is no unconditional rejection of violence. In fact, there are many places where violence is explicitly spelled out as legitimate–in many cases, these passages are dedicated solely to the treatment of non-Muslims.

Revisit the New Testament–the culmination of all the Old Testament books and prophesies. We are exhorted to love, to build, and to live in God’s spirit. This is the book that Christendom–insofar as it is Christian–is based on.

The New Testament is the ‘final word’ on the catalogs of violence and war that compose certain chapters of the Old Testament. It is a welcome relief from the fate Man was doomed to when we were expelled from the Garden.

If you’re going to make a point, please keep it thoughtful and consistent. I’m sick of having to rebuke people for obvious fallacies.

You choose to ingore what is in our Scriptures. I am sick of having to rebuke hypocrites who pick and choose what they are to follow in the Scriptures and ignore it and come up with straw man arguments.

What you are thus saying is that Scripture contradicts itself and that our Faith contradicts itself?

From CCC 105-106
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

 

[ChristopherJB5]

Lets see if they are so different:

This is more comparable to a black person sitting in the front of a bus when white people want to sit there. Does he have a legal right to be there, on public property? Yes. Should he be there? No. Should the white people looking for a seat take his action as an affront, or just assume that he just happened to feel the urge to sit in that particular seat? You decide. Are the white people who claim that black people are anti-republican, racist, and inherently violent just a bunch of hate-mongers, or might they have some sort of point?

edit so if someone invented surgery that could effectively change skin color, it would be acceptable to frown on people being black, because it is now a choice?

Wait, you lost me when you started talking about something totally irrelevant.

 

[CatholicGerman]

Is that not in the Christian Bible also? Sorry you must try again. Unless you do not accept the Old Testement.

I am Catholic. Jesus fulfilled the law and the Church helps us to interpret it. We are not bound by Leviticus’ inane rules, for example.

 

[ChristopherJB5]

Lets try this substitution game:

From a variety of different surveys, we know that a large majority of Americans and New Yorkers are against blacks sitting in the front of a bus. Count me in with that group. There are several different lines of inquiry, all pointing to a majority in opposition to blacks sitting in the front of a bus. If the black’s intentions were benevolent, altruistic and pure, he’d say something along the lines of, “Hey, guys. I didn’t realize how this would be so controversial, offensive and insulting.That wasn’t my intentions. You are right. I’ll sit elsewhere.”. If he were to do something like that, I’d have a hell of a lot more respect for him, and have a more positive view of black people.

But, no. He is driving this thing through, regardless of the consent of the citizenry. That tells me a different story about his true intentions.

I see that, being unable to keep up with me and Truth, you’ve decided to just go on and dive into some surreal dystopian fantasy full of blacks and whites on buses. Congratulations, you’re now finally in your element!

 

[SalesianSDB]

The video clip says that the US has no roadblocks for implementation of sharia law. You say that sharia law leads to stoning of women. Therefore the US must have no law prohibiting the stoning of women. Is that your position?

No I am not. He is saying that Sharia could be easily implemented in the US. Do you know what sharia law is? Keep it as far away from me as possible. I’m not saying that the US allows Sharia, but apparently the imam believes that if the US impliments sharia law, which he wants, it can do away with the constitution and just stick with Sharia law, which yes, stones women.

And I thought that this was interesting:
youtube.com/watch?v=XqXn1fcb8A0