Mosque near ground zero?
14 July 2010 by Stardust
Most of you are probably aware of the battle going on in New York City over whether a mosque and Muslim community center should be allowed to be built at Ground Zero.
Opponents pack hearing on mosque near ground zero
NEW YORK – Dozens of opponents and some supporters of a mosque planned near ground zero attended a raucous hearing Tuesday about whether the building where the Muslim place of worship would be created warrants designation as a city landmark and should be protected from development.
*snip*
After noting the lower Manhattan building’s history and architectural significance, Lazio said it also warranted landmark designation because on Sept. 11, 2001, it was struck by airplane debris from the terror attacks against the nearby World Trade Center. That connection to the attacks, he said, made it “a place of deep historical significance and a reminder of just what happened on New York’s darkest day.”
As hard as I try to be open-minded on this one, I am having great difficulty with it. For Muslims to even consider putting a mosque and Muslim community center right next door to ground zero is highly insensitive to the people of New York City and to the remaining family members and friends of the 911 victims. I hope that the building can get historical status and they can build their mosque somewhere else. Having a mosque at ground zero will only intensify the memories of the “Allah Akbar!” shouts as planes flew into the Twin Towers, destroying lives, families and our national security in the name of the Muslim god.
14 July 2010, on 11:12 am
I have a hard time being open-minded about the Ground Zero “cultural house” (or whatever it’s being called these days) as well.
The risk that a Muslim building there is seen as a victory by Islamists is much greater than any benefit that might result. There is no possible benefit that could be greater than the cost in this case.
I’m fine with Muslims wanting to build a center where everyone can come share their absurd notions about god(s) and the supernatural — just not there, please.
Of course, I would also oppose any other religion exploiting Ground Zero as well.
14 July 2010, on 12:18 pm
No-one would have cared if it was a Christian church rather than a mosque and the government would have ignored it. The whole meaning of a secular nation is that the government does not favour one religion over another (or none).
Sorry, but the whole founding principle of America, and what makes it so much better than the theocracies most Muslims have fled from, from means that, as bad as it feels, they should be allowed to go ahead.
14 July 2010, on 1:34 pm
After reading the “mission statements” of most of these mosque websites, it’s even more disturbing than the Christians. We are getting it here in this country from both now as the Muslim population grows.
14 July 2010, on 3:00 pm
And now the boo-hooing “I want it too” starts with the Christians. You give in to one, then all the delusional start competing with each other.
From Salon
Birther pastor: “9/11 Christian Center” not confrontational to “the Muslims
Liar!
Got news for you Mr. Keller…ALL religions are false and you can war with each other until you wipe each other out and it won’t make your sky daddy beliefs any more real. Too bad after you all kill each other over it, none of you will even be around to know the truth.
14 July 2010, on 7:52 pm
I’d be interested in your reaction should a Christian church be proposed near the Oklahoma City bombing memorial. Timothy McVeigh was a fundamentalist Christian.
14 July 2010, on 8:41 pm
I think it’s pretty simple. Religion caused the destruction of the WTC. Religion caused the deaths. No house of religious worship should be allowed anywhere near the new building. Fuck them all equally.
14 July 2010, on 9:02 pm
From their actions, it would appear that Muslims lack any feelings of remorse for their abominable maneuver, or they are throwing this Mosque in our face as a symbol of (we fucked you once, we fuck you again) contempt. For this manipulation, as a freedom loving American, I say, they should pick up their theistic book and quickly,quietly and with reverence for American hospitality, go back to where they came from.
14 July 2010, on 9:54 pm
These muzzies really need a PR firm urgently. They’re even worse than the catho’s with their child rape utterences. The PR firm could perhaps commence with a lecture on manners and what they are and what they mean. They could then advise the client to offer some positoive comment on the evils of terrorism. Never hear a word against terrorism from the muzzies. I know it’s their baby, and its not good to speak ill of the kids, but really. Even the totally deluded muzzie (or chrizzie or jewish person) knows it’s all nonsense. They just to scared to admit it.
14 July 2010, on 10:21 pm
Even the totally deluded muzzie (or chrizzie or jewish person) knows it’s all nonsense. They just to scared to admit it.
Robster, That’s what it all comes down to…many people, if not most (even most atheists) are afraid to diss the Muslims. All too often when criticisms of the Muslim religion are made, even many atheists jump in to defend them by bringing up Xianity, pointing out how “bad the Christians are, so they should be allowed to be like they are.” I just don’t get it. The Abrahamic religions SUCK. Period. And to put a mosque anywhere near ground zero is rubbing salt into big wounds. No matter what opinions are out there for reasons for 911, it was a horrific act and done in the name of a horrible religion that condones terrorism. They might say they are a religion of peace, just like Christians claim Christianity is a religion of peace, but just take time to read and analyze their “holy” books.
15 July 2010, on 1:22 am
There are already a dozen churches (including NY’s oldest), synagogues, and yes, a mosque in lower Manhattan. Amazing how all of your American principles vanish when your emotions are hurt…just like the fundies. So much for your supposed first amendment principles. The 1st amendment was MEANT to protect unpopular actions, like atheist billboards.
Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.
15 July 2010, on 1:24 am
@ Robster: Muzzies? How about raghead? Sand Ni**er?
You disgust me.
15 July 2010, on 2:11 am
Call me crazy, but I support the Constitution. The Muslims who want to build the mosque are citizens, no matter how much that pisses people off, and have constitutional rights. By what legal justification can we deny them the right to free exercise of their religion? Just because enough other people are pissed off about it? The funny thing is that the people who are shouting the loudest about it are the ones who are always draping themselves in the Constitution as it is, and yet how quickly that all goes out the window once they get worked up enough.
15 July 2010, on 5:17 am
Exactly Angus, in the same way people are totally free speech except when they don’t like what is being said.
15 July 2010, on 5:43 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Global Atheist, God is for Suckers!. God is for Suckers! said: New Post: Mosque near ground zero?: Most of you are probably aware of the battle going on in New York City over wh… http://bit.ly/avp9e3 [...]
15 July 2010, on 6:33 am
I for one will be happy to see this mosque idea defeated. It would send a message to the religious that we in the US can place limits on religious acceptance. Then maybe we can start start denouncing any religious building in inappropritate places.
I hoped that they would rebuild the towers. But If they decide to turn the ground into a park or some such so be it. I just hope that they include a statement in many languages stating that Muslim extremists murdered the 3,000+ people. Also I would hope that they prohibit burques in such a place.
15 July 2010, on 11:02 am
@ Robster: Muzzies? How about raghead? Sand Ni**er?
JJ, Robsters remark was about a RELIGION, not a race. Muslims are Arab, or African or even America or from any other country. The term “muzzies” is used like we call fundamentalist Christians, “fundies”. It’s the religion we are against, not the race. Understand now? In general we could just lump them all as “delusionals”.
So much for your supposed first amendment principles. The 1st amendment was MEANT to protect unpopular actions, like atheist billboards.
We have not seen any atheist billboards containing hate speech or slanderous against an individual or even a group of people. They simply say “We are here and this is our view about gods…there are none”. First amendment speech does not allow for slander. There are laws to protect individuals against slander and hate speech.
15 July 2010, on 11:05 am
By what legal justification can we deny them the right to free exercise of their religion?
Having the building declared historical status. That would be legal. If they can’t do that, then there is nothing anyone can do about where they put their mosque. However, by doing so the Muslims of this “community group” are just antagonizing many New Yorkers and not helping to alleviate tensions between many Americans and the people of Muslim faith.
15 July 2010, on 11:19 am
We cannot forget that many muslims look at 911 as some kind of victory and then to plant their mosque and community center there is akin to bombing an enemy village and then setting up camp on top of the dead.
15 July 2010, on 12:49 pm
^ Yeah, Stardust; RE all your, IMO, excellent comments…
I say, (the somewhat antiquated; ala, perhaps, the Founding Fathers style lingo?)
“Hear, hear!”
15 July 2010, on 2:27 pm
If one’s primary argument is that a Muslim community center should not be allowed to be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero, then what distance is deemed acceptable? 10 blocks? 20?
Is every building in lower Manhattan that was struck by pieces of debris on 9/11 supposed to be given landmark status?
Let’s not also forget that some of the people in the Twin Towers who died on 9/11 were themselves Muslims.
to plant their mosque and community center there is akin to bombing an enemy village and then setting up camp on top of the dead.
Stardust, can you offer any evidence that the people behind Cordoba House in any way supported the 9/11 attacks or provide support to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida? If so, then I would say you have a point. On the other hand, if their goals are truly honest, as per the except from their web page below, then you do not.
This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form – compassion, generosity, and respect for all
The website for the Cordoba Intitiative is here: http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/cordoba-house-new-york-city
I work in NYC and went to high school with one of the victims in the Twin Towers and had met several others. As an atheist, I attack religious nutiness on my own blog and elsewhere, include Islamic fundamentalism. But the reality of the situation is that we can’t wave some magic wand and make the world’s Muslims disappear. As with adherents of just about any religion, its followers will run the game from very moderate to very extreme. I should think that we would all want the moderates to prevail over the extremists. If the people behind Cordoba House are firmly in the moderate camp, then I see no purpose served by opposing their community center.
15 July 2010, on 3:00 pm
Don’t we often say here though that it is the moderates who enable the fundamentlists?
As to your question Tommy if I have any evidence that shows that the people behind Cordoba House in any way supported the 9/11 attacks, no I admit I do not. I will check out your link.
15 July 2010, on 3:14 pm
I haven’t gotten through the whole Cordoba House site yet, but this paragraph stands out to me:
“Soiling the Abrahamic Ethic”??? We atheists know what that “Abrahamic Ethic” actually is. Is the Abrahamic Ethic actually a good thing? We have many, many posts and comments here at GifS and other atheist sites denouncing the “Abrahamic Ethic”.
15 July 2010, on 6:27 pm
The spread of religion — any religion — is antithetical to the spread of personal freedom. The two cannot coexist. Where there is religion, personal freedoms are limited and sometimes stamped out entirely. The Muslim religion is to personal freedom what cancer is to good health.
How any serious atheist can hope for more moderates — in ANY religion — is baffling to me. Religious moderates are the people who make the extremists possible. They are the ones who cut the path for extremists. They add legitimacy to extremists. And moderates never — ever, EVER, in ANY circumstance — oppose extremists. They EXCUSE them. They make APOLOGIES for them. When was the last time you heard a “moderate” Christian condemn the hateful remarks of douchebags like Pat Robertson or the fortunately late Jerry Falwell? They don’t. EVER. Moderates really ARE the problem. Moderates make it harder to address the problem of extremism. And how — somebody please tell me, HOW — can one be a “moderate” in a religion whose stated purpose is WORLD DOMINATION AT THE END OF A FUCKING SWORD? Christianity is not a religion of “love” simply because dim-bulb Christians SAY it is. It is, in fact, the exact OPPOSITE. And the Muslim faith is not a religion of “peace” simply because “moderate” Muslims SAY it is. It is, in fact, the exact OPPOSITE. Anyone who thinks it’s a religion of peace either hasn’t been paying attention, is deeply deluded or suffering from some kind of mental incapability, or has an unspoken agenda.
And can we please get one thing straight once and for all? A person who is a Muslim is a person who subscribes to the Muslim RELIGION. It is NOT a race. If “Muslim” is a race, then so is “Republican” and “Rotarian” and “Californian” and “Sagittarian.” It’s hard enough to battle the irrational and harmful claims and demands of religion without adding to the problem the absolutely MORONIC claim that “Muslim” is a race.
15 July 2010, on 7:34 pm
I’d like to clarify my comments for those with their undies in a twist up above. I am a firm believer in freedom of speech. So fundies of all types are certainly quite free to spout off about their imaginary omnipotent, psychotic sky fairies all the want. Of course if I went around demanding respect for a belief, say, in a six foot tall invisible rabbit who lived in my attic I’d no doubt be put in protective custody as a danger to myself and others.
My problem, my undie twister, is that they get to build tax free shrines to their delusions on public land that could be put to better use as just about anything else. And when their imaginary psychotic friend is an excuse to murder innocents it’s salt on an open wound.
So I repeat. Fuck their mosque. And while we are at it fuck any church, mosque, synagogue or any other religious shit-pile near the WTC site or anywhere else.
Clear?
15 July 2010, on 8:18 pm
>And moderates never — ever, EVER, in ANY circumstance — oppose extremists.
What planet are we talking about here?
Moderates Christians make up more than half the people who protest Westboro Baptist Church. Moderates Christians were largely responsible for throwing the creationist school board members in Texas out on their ear. There are plenty of other examples. You may wish that more moderates opposed these extremists, and I’d agree with you. But to say it never happens – never EVER – is itself an extremist viewpoint not supported by facts.
15 July 2010, on 8:30 pm
I have never seen so much prejudice from our side.
“The Muslims” didn’t destroy the Twin Towers. Nineteen evil, twisted criminals did, in the name of a bizarre cult headed by a wealthy Saudi Arabian heir.
“The Christians” didn’t assassinate Dr. George Tiller. A crazy little bastard with a gun did. He subscribed to an extreme anti-abortion philosophy and happened to be a Christian.
Would you object to the erection of a Catholic church near Auschwitz? Hitler was a Catholic.
Let’s try to be a little more tolerant than the religious fanatics. I don’t care where they build their little funhouses.
15 July 2010, on 8:34 pm
Angus, can you point me to some evidence that moderate Christians protest Westboro and that moderate Christians were responsible for throwing out those Texas school board members? Because this is the first I’ve heard of it. I’ve been dealing with Christians for my entire life and I have never once encountered a single solitary Christian who has protested any Christian extremism. I’ve encountered their BUTS. Christians have very big BUTS. They insert them into conversations as dividing lines. Before the BUT, the Christian will tell you what he thinks you want to hear to soften you up, to give you the idea that the two of you are simpatico. Then after the BUT, the Christian will say precisely what he thinks. The two always contradict one another. So the Christian might say he thinks this or that extremist is wrong, BUT … and then he will go on to give all kinds of reasons why the extremist really isn’t so bad after all. I’ve never known any Christian group to actively protest any other Christian group. I’ve never heard any Christian person or group flatly and unequivocally criticize, disagree with or denounce any form of Christian extremism. My earlier statement is based on my lifetime of experience on planet Earth. I would be very interested in some examples of Christian moderates opposing Christian extremism. So if you know of any, please share them. Because I’ve never seen any.
15 July 2010, on 8:36 pm
Littlejohn wrote: “Would you object to the erection of a Catholic church near Auschwitz? Hitler was a Catholic.”
Would you object to a memorial of Adolf Hitler being erected next door to Auschwitz?
15 July 2010, on 8:56 pm
Apparently their religious philosophy does not allow them to distinguish good from evil, to them all infidels are better dead than alive and they have adequately demonstrated this, with 911 and continue to demonstrate it, even on people of their own Religion. Pacifying this type of mentality is in my opinion wrong, since they only understand the ethics and morality that they have proven they live by.
15 July 2010, on 9:12 pm
I’m sorry, but I remember seeing Muslims dancing for joy in the streets after the tower bombings. I was absolutely horrified … so no to the bloody mosque and no to any other stupid religious building at all. I’m so angry still.
15 July 2010, on 9:35 pm
Here is another perspective:
Dr. Babu Suseelan, a Hindu human rights activist told the crowd:
Suseelan asks a good question
15 July 2010, on 10:47 pm
Stardust, I’m with you on this.
Matt, a commenter at GodlessGirl disagrees and told me to shut the f#%k up following the Muslims Want Mosques, Christians Go Apeshit post @ http://www.godlessgirl.com/2010/07/muslims-want-mosques-christians-go-apeshit/
I don’t understand the willingness of some to stand by and watch because they cannot understand the difference between government action and public intervention.
16 July 2010, on 7:37 am
Erin, I remember newscasts of African-Americans dancing and cheering when O.J. Simpson was acquitted of a double murder he obviously committed. Do you hate all black people?
A statue of Adolf Hitler is an obvious non sequitur. He was not defined by his Catholicism, nor is he remembered as any sort of Catholic saint.
I would suggest you read the latest installment at Friendly Atheist, where Hemant puts this far more eloquently than I.
16 July 2010, on 8:34 am
littlejohn, I think you are turning this into a race thing again and not understanding that we are talking about the religion and its adherents. Reading the texts that are the foundation of the Islamic religion, the religion of Islam is against freedom because Allah places restrictions in their lives that they believe ALL people should live by. There is no separation of church and state in their teachings. It is a western concept in their eyes that must change…most Muslims wish to make this transition peacefully, others are in a bigger hurry. Also, as far as their religion is concerned, it is okay to lie and trick infidels in order to gradually obtain control.
We are always ranting here about the Christian right and their interference in government and attempting (and oftentimes succeeding) to interject their religion into our supposedly secular government. But when we point out that Islam is worse when it comes to separation of church and state because they believe the two are not inseparable, people start crying that we are being racist and just picking on a certain people because of who they are. This is not the case. We criticize them and oppose them for what they believe and want to spead. Their religion is quietly encroaching. When it becomes a majority (most likely not in our lifetime, but quite possibly our children or grandchildren’s lifetime), do you think that there will be such a thing as separation of church and state? Homosexuality will be outlawed as it is in Muslim nations, Sharia Law will be installed.
I don’t understand the defense of Islam and at the same time the disdain for the Christian right. Are we against white people when we make fun of, protest against the Christian right? That is ridiculous to bring race into a site that promotes diversity, a site that is against bigotry and hatred of people simply for the color of their skin. We are talking RELIGION when it comes to Islam and it’s a fucking scary one no matter how peaceful their sheeple moderates might seem.
(And there is no way we can even compare the O.J. Simpson thing to the great tragedy of 911, not at all.)
16 July 2010, on 9:16 am
So, Stardust, I take it it’s your position that we should ignore the Freedom clause of the First Amendment because you don’t like the creed of a particular religion.
We can certainly compare 9-11 to the Spanish Inquisition. Anyplace you think it should be illegal to build, with private funds, a Catholic church?
Madison must be spinning in his grave. Again, I recommend Hemant Mehta’s comments this morning.
16 July 2010, on 9:56 am
They have a right to buy a building and move in if it is for sale and they probably will if the building does not get the historical status some are seeking. So no, we should not ignore the first amendment. They have the right in this country to build their mosque there even if it comes back to bite us in the ass.
All I am saying is that I am cheering for the historical status of the building to be made so they will have to go somewhere else. It’s a personal wish and not against a people, but of a dreadful religion of which the mosque is a symbol.
I am curious as to why if you defend Islam and against watchdogging it’s encroachment, why do you feel we need to single out only Christianity?
Hemant is basically saying the same thing I am. He is not in favor of a mosque being built, but if the building doesn’t gain historical status, then there is nothing we can say. (Also scroll down a couple of posts at the Friendly Atheist and see Atheist in the Maldives Kills Himself…and see what a Muslim culture does for people. Moderate Muslims will not denounce poor treatment and discrimination of non-believers or those who believe differently because they cannot condone it according to their beliefs. We are infidel, we deserve to die.)
16 July 2010, on 10:21 am
Stardust, why so keen to change the Constitution?
This is not an anti-Christian, pro-Muslim issue, it is the defense of the Bill of Rights.
As soon as we start restricting people’s speech or rights because we don’t like what we think they think then we are a totalitarian state.
When Muslims start trying to inject their nonsense into government we will call them out on it like we do the Christians. What we can’t do is try to pre-empt that by making their form of delusion subject to different laws than anyone else’s form of delusion.
@Ray Garton
“Would you object to a memorial of Adolf Hitler being erected next door to Auschwitz?”
If someone bought some land near Auschwitz and wanted to erect a monument to Hitler I would absolutely support their right to do so, while criticizing them for doing it. (Except such a thing is illegal in Austria if memory serves.) As Voltaire may have said: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.”
Also Ray, an example of Christians calling out the extremists would be the UK where many Christians, including Catholics, publicly denounce(d) they IRA’s use of terror. Or many Christians’ (inc. Catholics) condemnation of the Pope’s stance on contraception, especially in AIDS-ridden Africa.
I am truly appalled at so many atheists wishing to abandon the principles of a secular government because they don’t like what one group stands for. The law must apply equally! Which also means all religions should be taxed as businesses, but that’s off topic.
16 July 2010, on 10:24 am
Keddaw, you obviously are not reading the comments. I never said to change the constitution and I said they have a right to build there if historical status for the building cannot be obtained. Most people are not happy about it, and don’t want it there, but if no historical status is obtained, they have a right to build whether we like it or not. So, please go back and read my comment above yours. Thanks.
Keddaw, why would you criticize when you are in favor of them being able to do what they want?
(first of all, where was anything written about abandoning the principles of a secular government?)
And I am appalled at so many atheists who defend a religion that stands firmly for theocracy and the gradual dismantling of our secular government. That is what they hope to have in this country one day, a Muslim theocracy….they may just get their way with your help. It is their mission, their unified goal.
16 July 2010, on 11:27 am
@Stardust, that comment came through after I posted, I was referring to the one above that. And there’s no edit button for the comments. Sorry for the confusion.
Well, that’s just silly. I can criticise people for many things while still being in favour of them being allowed to do it. Wanna have a 12th kid/abortion, I will defend your right to treat your body however you please, but I will be critical of you for your choice. Want to spend all your money on a masterpiece and then burn it? Go ahead, I deplore your actions but it is your property. See, there are many times you can criticise people while defending their right to do it.
Here are some examples from the comments (not yours):
The other reason this is wrong, from the government perspective, is that this would not be a story and never be brought up if it were a Christian outreach centre. The government are making their rules purely because of the religion of the people involved. That doesn’t seem secular.
On a general note, I’m all for more moderate Muslims, as long as they come either from, or at the expense of, extremists.
As for the Muslims ‘outbreeding’ us there will still be a Constitution that will require a super-majority to change and once that happens then tough. If 85% of US citizens are Muslim and they want to change the state to a theocracy then that’s just your tough luck, democracy’s a bitch. Of course this assumes that Muslims brought up in a free country will remain so extreme, how many Christians actually want to stone adulterers? How many want to punish people for working on the Sabbath, or for being homosexual? (Okay, quite a few, but not enough to enshrine it in law.) If Christians can break away/ignore their idiotic religion then why can’t Muslims?
16 July 2010, on 12:14 pm
History has shown time and time again that there need be no “super-majority” to change things. Just look how the fundamentalist Christians now are getting their way on so many things in government right on up to Washington D.C and infiltrating our military branches.
Because Christians didn’t commit the terrorist acts on 911! I like others above am not thrilled about any more palaces dedicated to imaginary friends being built anywhere, but legally they can do it. I don’t see anyone even trying to pass laws where mosques and churches cannot be built on bought land. However, there ARE laws that say where buildings can be built. Any type of building. People protested a mosque being built in Orland Park near where I live, saying that traffic would be a problem (the real reason we know is that the residents didn’t want a big mosque with calls to prayer blaring in their neighborhood five times a day), but they lost. The mosque sits there with it’s big shiny gold dome like a big middle finger to all of the residents above the trees. So, no one is taking their rights away…the law prevails.
And I think we are losing track here of what is being proposed. Legally, politicians know there is nothing they can do if the Muslim group buys the land and wants to build. They are trying to “create” a legal loophole which would force them to build it somewhere else. Personally, I think no religious buildings should be erected near ground zero. That just adds to tensions on both sides.
Unfortunately, it’s usually the other way around, Extremism comes from moderate. Rarely, if ever, do extremists “see the light” and become moderate.
And a note about taxing churches and religious organizations. Then they will want more control since they are paying taxes and will want even more say than they have now. I used to say the same thing, but after rethinking that, it may not be such a good idea.
16 July 2010, on 1:40 pm
Hi Stardust, as you may recall, I’m your nurse. It’s time for your medication. The doctor says it’s very important for you not to get over-excited. That’s right. Let’s just lower the TV volume a bit.
16 July 2010, on 2:00 pm
Keddaw wrote: “If someone bought some land near Auschwitz and wanted to erect a monument to Hitler I would absolutely support their right to do so, while criticizing them for doing it.”
And that’s all anyone is doing here. No one is even implying that the Constitution be changed. The Constitution provides Muslims with the freedom to practice their religion in this country, and that is ALL. The fact that they CAN erect their building there doesn’t mean they SHOULD, and everyone is free to criticize them for it to their hearts’ content. The ones who seem to be getting their panties in a bunch here are you and Littlejohn. You seem to expect everyone to just roll over and accept this. You’re upset by the fact that people don’t like what they want to do, but you recognize that it’s unreasonable to condemn that, so you must concoct this nonsense about someone wanting to change the Constitution and argue with that. You sound exactly like Sarah Palin — this is the kind of “logic” she employs all the time. You’re shouting about the Constitution, but the Constitution isn’t being violated. Welcome to a free society. At least, it’s free now. The Muslim religion has made it clear that it will not tolerate a free society and that it wants its own religious laws legislated by any government under which Muslims live. You want that? Fine. But be HONEST about it. SAY that’s what you want and quit dicking around. If you don’t want that, then educate yourself — learn about the religion you’re so feverishly defending. I do not want that and neither do a lot of other people — people who appear to be more familiar with this religion than you. The Muslim religion is openly seditious. We’re already dealing with enough sedition from the Christians who want to legislate THEIR religion. We don’t need another one. Those who disagree with that are free to voice their disagreement and work against these efforts — because the Constitution you keep babbling about GIVES them that freedom.
16 July 2010, on 2:23 pm
Hi Stardust, as you may recall, I’m your nurse. It’s time for your medication. The doctor says it’s very important for you not to get over-excited. That’s right. Let’s just lower the TV volume a bit.
littlejohn, there is no need to insult the main moderator of this forum for simply sharing my views. Your latest comment is unnecessary and you also have obviously not read anything that I have written here. Have you not a more intelligent response? Or is it that you know deep down I am right about this religion?
Why do you condemn Christianity but cannot find it in yourself to do the same for Islam, even to say that there are too many fucking mosques going up? Again, we are not talking about race, we are talking about a religion. Nothing we can do about their “right” to build them, but we don’t have to sit around and pretend that we are all okay with it.
I still do not understand atheists defending a religion that is worse than the one they condemn on a regular basis.
16 July 2010, on 4:07 pm
I think the overwhelming majority of us atheists were heavily brainwashed/programmed/indoctrinated (take your pick?) from early childhood, in one of the totally absurd prevailing mythologies…mostly, of course, the Christian variety.
It seems to me to be a whole, enormous, waste of time to be arguing amongst each other about two of the obviously dumb, outrageously imaginary, historically dangerous…even viral-like insane…sources of longtime human misery.
If either littlejohn or Keddaw forgets (or is secretly a believer?) just HOW fucking insane the Abrahamic monstrosities are…for a quick reminder, go to the right panel/Gifs Info, and click on either or both of the Skeptics Annotated links to the Bible, Quran…and while you’re at either of those, also check the, equally…if not more stupid…Book of Morons.
All great links to pass on, by the way…when appropriate…to various viral infected family members, supposed “friends”, and (those all-too fickle and temporary) associates.
What!…(cue echo/reverb) “TESTING, TESTING!!!”?
As to this Post’s issue at hand; until these motherfucking, bastard, totally delusional religions start paying mandatory taxes…both personal AND property…for all the incredible bullshit and outrageous damage they’ve caused throughout the history of THIS nation alone…I say…they should stay the fuck away from anywhere close to vicinity of the 9/11 catastrophe.
If there’s anything this nation DOESN’T need…it’s more fucking, untaxed properties and places for actually CELEBRATING total bullshit.
Fuck religion in general; but in particular, all three fucking, bastard, insane, Abrahamic crocks of the worst shit humans ever came up with!!! Total, moronic, made-up stupidity!
Every fucking war, whether past, or currently going on in this cockamamie world is related in some way or another to their outrageous, lying, insanities.
Talk about “dying in vain”!
IMO, for atheists…ESPECIALLY at this particular time in our history, and with all the bullshit going on in our current politics, etc…and on GIFS, no less…to be coddling that bullshit, is in effect, chicken-shit, pussy-footing…even kissing total ass…to totally outdated lies and demonstrable ignorance. That includes the kissing ass to the “middle-of-the-road” variety of, in essence, spineless believers; who just can’t seem to let go of, no matter what, such demonstrably obvious stupidity.
What!…”Just sayin’ “?
Fuckin’ A!!!
[Or is it...Chuckin'A!!! ?]
16 July 2010, on 4:23 pm
Stardust: I hate Islam. There, feel better?
I’m not afraid of anything. Except bears. Bears are scary.
When everyone is jumping on you, doesn’t it occur to you that you might not making the best impression?
16 July 2010, on 4:23 pm
Preach it brother Chuck!
16 July 2010, on 4:24 pm
When everyone is jumping on you, doesn’t it occur to you that you might not making the best impression?
“Everybody”??? I don’t see “everybody” jumping on me. Again, I don’t think you are reading the comments.
And again, I am not saying they can’t have their goddamn mosque. I am saying that I wish they would take it someplace else. Not have it where it can sit there like a big middle finger to America and NYC. They are doing what the Xians do and lying about their true motives. “We just want to bring people together”…BULLSHIT. When has religion EVER brought people of different beliefs and ways of life together?
16 July 2010, on 5:49 pm
If the Muslims who want to put that Mosque in that particular spot were truly interested in bringing people together, they would be sensitive to the feelings of so many New Yorkers and would not FORCE themselves on them in this way. But they’re not sensitive. And as far as bringing people together, they’re lying. Whenever religion — any religion — talks about itself, its actions, its motives, it is lying. Always. Without exception. They cannot tell the truth about themselves because the truth is not on their side. When Christianity says it’s concerned about unborn lives and abortion is murder, it’s lying; it wants those unwanted babies to be born because it needs children to indoctrinate so it can propagate. When Muslims say they simply want the freedom to practice their religion in America like everyone else, they are lying; they want to get a foothold in his country so they can do everything possible to abolish those freedoms.
Every single thing religion does is for its own propagation and dominance. Everything it does is done to gain power. Everything. No exceptions. There may be some people within a religion who are selfless and genuinely want to help others, but they are a very small minority, and if their selflessness does anything to stand in the way of the propagation and dominance of the religion, they will be ejected. And by the way, those people are selfless simply because they are good people — it has absolutely nothing to do with their religion. Religion does not make people into better people — it makes them work for the religion, nothing more.
And speaking of Islam, the “religion of peace” claims another life and essentially gets away with it:
http://www.canada.com/news/Outrage+over+ruling+that+strangled+daughter+jailed/3284086/story.html
16 July 2010, on 7:07 pm
“History has shown time and time again that there need be no “super-majority” to change things” This is all Stardust would have had to say for me to agree with her on this topic.
Muslims have done it in Europe, and they will soon do it here!
16 July 2010, on 8:23 pm
Not many people know this, but the prophet Mohammed won his flying horse in a bar bet.
16 July 2010, on 9:19 pm
“History has shown time and time again that there need be no “super-majority” to change things” This is all Stardust would have had to say for me to agree with her on this topic.
I appreciate that Christopher, and I there are others here who agree with both of us.
Not many people know this, but the prophet Mohammed won his flying horse in a bar bet.
LOL!
17 July 2010, on 5:11 am
19 evil bastard Muslims, funded and supported by a network of hundreds if not thousands of other evil bastard Muslims brought down the twin towers using planes. If some other insensitive Muslim bastards want to buy the plot and build a giant middle finger pointing up to the sky, rubbing salt, vinegar and iodine into the wound of New York then that is their right. Or, if some rich foreign people want to erect a building that represents their own country then that too is their right.
This is NOT about supporting Muslims, they can take their backwards, misogynistic, gay hating, shoe throwing death cult and feck off. However, fundamentalist Muslims are EXACTLY the same as fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Jews. They want a theocracy where their version of what is (patently not) right and wrong is enshrined in law and punishment is severe.
Ray, did you not read the quotes I gave to Stardust, they were quite clearly calling for changes to law in breach of the Constitution. The fact that this is an issue at all is because the people involved are Muslim is in itself a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Even the Catholics and Jews on the Supreme Court will recognize that if it gets that far.
It is interesting that pretty much only littlejohn and myself seem able to separate out the raw emotion and hatred of the people who committed the atrocities in the name of a religion from the wish to punish that religion using the law. Maybe it’s because I am British and the terrorists we usually deal with are Christians. Maybe its because we have devloped a way of coping that the good ole US of A hasn’t. Pre 9/11 the US thought they were perfectly safe. Post 9/11 you allowed the Patriot Act to pass so you’d feel safer. After that you thought you were fighting them over there so you wouldn’t have to fight them over here, little realising that fighting them over there made some of them over here more extreme and meant you were fighting more of them over here than you would otherwise have been…
Ray, I don’t want to re-quote Voltaire, but I can detest a religion, or any ideology, and still think that the proponents have the inalienable right to propose, and try to get everyone to come round to, their point of view. If my argument doesn’t beat theirs in the public sphere then I have to reformulate my argument (or find a different public sphere!) What I cannot do is simply say that these people should be denied their rights, or (possibly worse) use some obscure local rule to deny them their rights so that the only place they can own and meet is some field in Idaho. No offence to Idaho.
So what’s next? The next place Muslims want to build something it’s a nature reserve? Or building permits are turned down? This kind of act sounds frighteningly familiar and I’ll leave it to you to figure out which people were subject to such treatment last.
17 July 2010, on 5:54 am
Keddaw wrote: “It is interesting that pretty much only littlejohn and myself seem able to separate out the raw emotion and hatred of the people who committed the atrocities in the name of a religion from the wish to punish that religion using the law.”
You’re still misrepresenting everyone who disagrees with you. Are you sure you’re not a Christian, Keddaw? Because you certainly argue like one. Either you’re astonishingly bad at understanding what others say or you are deliberately misrepresenting what they’re saying in order to somehow bolster whatever it is you’re saying. Either way, it is VERY annoying and I think it would be good idea from now on if you stuck to stating YOUR opinion and quit misstating the opinions of others. You’re beginning to come off as a troll.
17 July 2010, on 7:39 am
Ray, my opinion is very clear and very simple. People should be allowed to do what they want to within the law.
I think the people trying to build an Islamic centre near the site of the twin towers are shooting themselves in the foot, it is insensitive and likely to lead to resentment, but that in no way shape or form means that anyone should be trying to pervert the legal system to try and find some way to stop them. And the only reason anyone is trying to stop them is because they are a religion that people don’t like. That is wrong.
So Ray, if you and others really want to criticise them for doing this rather than try to force them not to, then stop try to engage with them and try to make them see why their choice is insensitive and how it will negatively impact people’s views of their religion, but what you’re actually doing is hoping the courts will make a special case because of the religion of the people involved.
Finally Ray, I’d appreciate it if you stopped trying to insult me or my opinions by saying I am defending Islam and then calling me a Christian. It is a poor way to argue a point that I can see you feel very strongly about, but it does ensure that the logic in your argument is obfuscated by your vitriol. I would rather meet the logic head on than have to defend myself against insults.
To whit, why SHOULD (your capitals) people not build an insulting(?) and inciteful monument on land they own? Do you feel so insulted or threatened by this that you think the best chance of stopping their freedom of expression is not through rational discussion (with religious people???) but through the courts? I await your calm and reasoned response.
17 July 2010, on 7:46 am
Please ignore the ’stop’ in the third paragraph, bit of a typo.
To anyone else (and Ray), if you think I have been unreasonable or in any way pro-Christian or pro-Islam could you please say how I have come across as that and provide a quote as an example. Thanks.
17 July 2010, on 8:01 am
Keddaw, this is total bullshit. Do you not keep up with current events? The recent bombings, threats etc in the UK have been committed by MUSLIMS. (Also want to point out that if the mosque is prevented from being built, it will be within the law. But unfortunately, it will probably not be able to be passed fast enough and that mosque will be built,legally…and will cause more tensions in that city.)
However, you are being rather inconsistent in your statements…you hate them, you defend them, you criticize Christians, but don’t want to criticize Islamists, you then say you do want to criticize Islamists and hate the extremists but have respect for moderates. You can’t have it all ways. And if you want to “respect” all religions and hope for a lovey dovey world where all religious people will just get along very pleasantly, you are not living in reality. As long as there is religion, there will be another reason, and a huge reason to be warring with each other.
Read the top of our page again and look at our bi-line.
Since you do not live in the USA you cannot fully understand the problem here. You seem to not understand the Muslim teachings. Have you even read a mission statement of even your local mosque? Muslims in Europe are attempting to …mostly peacefully take over the governments and implement Sharia Law. They do not love your government and ways of doing things in England or all of the western nations. If you know the religion, you will understand that they believe they cannot separate the two.
Maybe you don’t mind living under Sharia Law (which seems like you might just be doing that real soon if the Muslims in Parliament get there way…I do read British news and have several British friends who are not happy about the Muslims pushing for parts of Sharia Law to be implemented into your government.)
We have had enough watchingdogging the bullshit Christian agenda, and now we have to do so with the Muslims, as well.
Now, do me a favor and go research some of the doctrines of your nearby mosques. It will be a real eye-opener. These are not oppressed people, these are people taking advantage of your “tolerance”. Well, I for one will not tolerate another threat to our secular government.
17 July 2010, on 8:21 am
Ray, did you not read the quotes I gave to Stardust, they were quite clearly calling for changes to law in breach of the Constitution.
Keddaw, once again that is not what was going on. The politicians are playing games of “Find the loophole” and trying to give the building the Muslims want to buy LEGAL HISTORICAL STATUS which would make them unable to tear the building down to build their mosque. They are not attempting to change the Constitution. We have stated this time and time again what is happening and maybe you don’t get the proper news over there in England, but you have gotten false information. You might just want to check out the New York Times or some credible source and find out what is really going on. SOME politicians are simply trying to change the status of the building so it cannot be torn down….legally. No attempts to change the Constitution and NO ONE HERE IS ADVOCATING CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION FOR ANY REASON. GOT IT?
I think the horse is dead on this one…
Muslims want to tear down a building a build a mosque and community center at ground zero.
Some of us don’t like that idea and some politicians are trying to get historical status so the building cannot be torn down and preserved, therefore forcing the Muslims to go build their mosque somewhere else.
If this attempt to make them move somewhere else fails, they are free to build their mosque there.
No one is trying to change the Constitution here except the fundamentalist Christians bastards like Mike Huckabee, and Muslims who devoutly believe there can be no separation between Allah and goverment.
17 July 2010, on 8:24 am
Stardust, you misunderstand the meaning of one of my comments, I simply meant I’d rather have a moderate religious nutjob than an extremist. I’d obviously rather have neither, but that doesn’t seem likely any time soon.
As for Muslims wanting a theocratic state that promotes their single brand of woo – so what? I want a much more libertarian form of society and the local communists want complete state ownership. This difference of opinion is healthy and the arguments are good. I have no problem with people wanting things and if they can convince enough of their fellow citizens that that is the correct way for society to function then I have failed in my arguments. That’s democracy. Where we agree, whole-heartedy, is that no one group should be getting special* or preferential treatment by the state, especially when they are religious.
In a free country people are free to believe whatever they want, be it religious or political. What they can’t do is expect treatment any different from any other citizen based on their, or the other person’s, beliefs.
I happen to agree with you that the doctrines of Islam are especially dangerous in our current time, but all religions are dangerous when it comes to a secular government. However, if the time comes when the vast majority of people in the country want a theocratic government then what will you do? How will “Well, I for one will not tolerate another threat to our secular government.” play out?
* The Muslims are currently getting special treatment because people want the courts to make a building ‘important’ when it really isn’t purely because people who want to use it are Muslims and they want to do Muslim-y things with it.
17 July 2010, on 8:34 am
Stardust
The quotes were from comments on this thread and quite clearly were calling for special treatment based on people’s religion. Seems to me that the Supreme Court has ruled that this is in violation of the 1st Amendment. (Whether it is or not is actually open to speculation.)
Some politicians are playing find the loophole to stop an unpopular group building an unpopular building in a sensitive area. Did the whites in local government not do the exact same thing to stop blacks building homes and businesses in some areas to get around Federal laws that said they were allowed to?
By supporting this action you may not technically be supporting any breach of the constitution but you are certainly violating the spirit of it. So, to Ray especially, the only thing I am trying to defend here is the equal treatment under law of all citizens as mandated by the Constitution of the United States of America. You have one and I want one over here.
17 July 2010, on 8:35 am
That may happen sooner than you think. Do you even know what is going on in your own government in England? The current attempts to implement parts of Sharia Law? It’;s been here in our news. My several British penfriends know about it.
So we just sit back and let all the religions take over because they are all bad? “What are you gonna do attitude” will have you under Sharia Law in no time. Hope you enjoy it.
And why are you here on a site that is against theocratic rule in the U.S when you really don’t want to do anything about it?
17 July 2010, on 8:47 am
I am against theocratic rule everywhere. Especially in my own country or anywhere I may go on holiday, or a superpower! And you do not know what I do in my own country, I speak up against any injustice I see and against every law that is against my personal beliefs. I happen to think the US is a special case, it is (was) a beacon of light to those in a country which not only has a state religion but also a monarch! In the 21st century!
But this is so obviously not about theocratic rule, it’s about trying to deny citizens their rights by finding, or making!, a loophole because you don’t like who they are, what they say or what their ultimate goal is.
17 July 2010, on 11:00 am
keddaw
Rights are not absolutes. Rights are basicly a two way street. Complete with give and take. Since there are plenty of mosques in this area of NY then no denial of rights can be attributed to the people protesting this Mosque. They are not saying don’t practise your religion. They are saying don’t build your church/Mosque here. Nothing else. The muslims can go elsewhere and not be harmed or find controversy.
The rights of the society as a whole carries more weight.
As a side note We in the US got rid of people we “don’t like who they are, what they say or what their ultimate goal is.” That is in fact how we got rid of a monarchy and institutionalized religion.
17 July 2010, on 12:12 pm
For what it’s worth (considering Keddaw is “British”)…
Here’s British comedian Pat Condell’s take on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=patcondell#p/u/1/vjS0Novt3X4
I say: “You go, Pat!!!” Or maybe…
“Hear, hear!”
Related to some of what Stardust said RE the situation in the UK…
I’m also remembering a rather recent ruling (I’ll have to try to ‘dig up’ the BBC article link) RE atheists in the UK being threatened by arrest for simply carrying materials which MIGHT “offend” the fucking religious; which I’m sure would include those Sharia law loving Islamists. It seems that “Libertarian” Keddaw is surrounded by rather “Un-libertarian” style people who aren’t quite as concerned about his freedom to express what we here at GifS are consistently engaged in…for one important aspect…
making fun of ALL religions.
17 July 2010, on 2:57 pm
Realizing this is rather tangential…
Here’s the link to that above mentioned “offensive atheist” UK article…
(not BBC).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7624578/Atheist-given-Asbo-for-leaflets-mocking-Jesus.html
I posted that link on May 1, 2010. I was originally alerted to the story by a former GifS contributor…”The Old Git”, who lives in the UK.
Quoting from the article:
“He was sentenced to six months in jail suspended for two years, ordered to perform 100 hours’ of unpaid work and pay £250 costs”….
just for POSSIBLY “offending” some totally deluded Jesus fucktards!
So this is what its come to in ‘Merry Old England’…AGAIN???…Huh?…
say what?…or…
“Say no more; nudge, nudge!”…?
Kissing ass, in ANY way, to moronic fucking religion is, IMO, the road that leads to the insidious RETURN of “Pre-Enlightenment” religious slavery.
“Give ‘em an inch…
and they’ll expand it to 12 inches…Bless it…sprinkle it with Holy water, or “anointing (annoying?) oil…and then shove it right up your ass…
without using a condom!”
For what it’s worth (as a reminder?), here’s the main portion of my original comment post from 5/1/10:
…(as Old Git informed me):
“An ‘asbo’, by the way is an ‘anti-social behavior order’ which is passed on someone by the courts and it is enforceable by a jail sentence if not complied with!”
IOW…just carrying atheist materials on your person…like, f’rnstance…Dawkin’s “The God Delusion”…COULD result in your being charged under that outrageously stupid ’statute’.
As you may know, the fucking Church of England has quite a few “reserved (and quite privileged) seats”(?) in the House of Lords.
I’ll defer to any of our UK friends for any clarification on all that longtime, traditionally delusional, bullshit.
I guess the Brits have got their own peculiar version similar to what’s going on in Arizona RE the illegals…Soooo…
BE CAREFUL, atheists, if you’re planning at all on vacationing in the UK…?”
17 July 2010, on 4:34 pm
Keddaw wrote: “Ray, my opinion is very clear and very simple.”
I have no problem with your opinion. I have a BIG problem with the way you characterize MY opinion! Please, Keddaw, do me a favor — using specific quotes, tell me where I have stated that I want to “punish that religion using the law.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not is own facts.” I would paraphrase that by saying that you are entitled to YOUR opinion, Keddaw, but you are NOT entitled to misrepresent MY opinion. I have no difficulty communicating my thoughts. I do that quite clearly. I’ve made a living at it for almost thirty years. I have made my opinions quite clear, and yet you are accusing me of holding opinions I DO NOT HOLD. I’m pretty sure the problem here is not on my end.
Keddaw wrote: “Finally Ray, I’d appreciate it if you stopped trying to insult me or my opinions by saying I am defending Islam and then calling me a Christian.”
I did not call you a Christian. I asked if you WERE a Christian because you argue like one. The simplest way to clear up that misconception is to STOP ARGUING LIKE A CHRISTIAN. Keep your feet planted firmly in the discussion. Don’t misrepresent what others are saying. Be clear and consistent. Don’t tap-dance.
Keddaw wrote: “It is a poor way to argue a point that I can see you feel very strongly about, but it does ensure that the logic in your argument is obfuscated by your vitriol.”
My vitriol has absolutely nothing to do with the logic of my argument and everything to do with your inability to logically argue.
Keddaw wrote: “Do you feel so insulted or threatened by this that you think the best chance of stopping their freedom of expression is not through rational discussion (with religious people???) but through the courts?”
There you go again. I give up. I leave you to your idiocy.
17 July 2010, on 6:03 pm
Okay Ray, I apologise if it appeared I was attributing everything I said to you, but there were at least 3 people and I was trying to cover them all with a single comment.
I completely accept that your opinion is that you’re making objections so that the people proposing this and the politicians know that there is unrest in the community over this. I get that. I agree with that.
Even Stardust is completely onside with this notion, however Stardust is keen on the politicians trying to find or create some legal quibble that will force them to move. That gets on to very shaky ground, especially when the historical status is based on something as flimsy as being hit by a piece of debris from the 9/11 disaster.
Some people apparently do wish for a change to the constitution though:
Can we at least agree that some of these comments from your commenters are at odds with the 1st amendment?
@ChuckA, worryingly I don’t recall ever hearing about that case, unless there was more to it than The Telegraph reports. I shall have to look into that, thanks for the link.
@jimmer, I cannot help but disagree with so much of what you said.
“Rights are not absolutes.” erm… they kind of are.
“Rights are basicly a two way street. Complete with give and take.” Not exactly, the right not to be murdered doesn’t have an opposite saying don’t kill people, it’s made redundant by the right of everyone not to be murdered. The Bill of Rights is all about what a citizens has the right to do and what limits are imposed on the government, there is nothing about restricting anyone’s rights that I can see.
“Since there are plenty of mosques in this area of NY then no denial of rights can be attributed to the people protesting this Mosque. They are not saying don’t practise your religion. They are saying don’t build your church/Mosque here. Nothing else. The muslims can go elsewhere and not be harmed or find controversy.” And if they don’t want to? Or they are building expecting future growth in their faith community? This is effectively saying “we have enough of your kind round here, we don’t need no more.” in my best southern drawl.
“The rights of the society as a whole carries more weight.” Than an individual I would guess you mean. I love Star Trek: “Sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” As long as society is not at risk the rights of the individual, the minority are very important. How we treat the worst of us is how we should be judged.
As a side note We in the US got rid of people we “don’t like who they are, what they say or what their ultimate goal is.” That is in fact how we got rid of a monarchy and institutionalized religion. Great, wanna help me do the same over this side of the pond?
17 July 2010, on 9:55 pm
Even Stardust is completely onside with this notion, however Stardust is keen on the politicians trying to find or create some legal quibble that will force them to move. That gets on to very shaky ground, especially when the historical status is based on something as flimsy as being hit by a piece of debris from the 9/11 disaster.
The same way I keep my fingers crossed that the local politicians can find a way to prevent another fucking Christian mythology temple from being built within several blocks of my house! And it wouldn’t be “creating” a quibble as far as the building in question is concerned, since many buildings in NYC have historical status. The factors to determine if a building can obtain historical status are many…age of a building, other historical factors as well. The building is old…built in the 1800s. It housed a well-known business for many years. As for this historical status loophole, the religious also use this to their advantage. For example, to prevent a rectory from being torn down at a Catholic church in my town, the church got the local politicians to side with them to obtain historical status and land developers cannot touch it now. Everybody plays the system. This is America. Whatever your opinion, it’s how it’s done.
Some people apparently do wish for a change to the constitution though
It seems you are either refusing to read, or being intentionally antagonistic. The examples you provided were OPINIONS and nowhere has anyone stated that the Constitution should be changed. And what do you know about the American Constitution anyway, keddaw? You, probably haven’t even read our Constitution and are no more familiar with it than what you have read here and there here in the blogosphere. And you certainly don’t know what is going on right in your own British Parliament. (I notice you never commented on recent attempts to interject parts of Sharia Law into British government.)
The First Amendment:
The amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
No one here has said they cannot practice their religion. No one is asking lawmakers to change the laws so that they cannot practice their religion, no one is saying they cannot build a million mosques on the land they purchase, no one says they cannot peaceably assemble. What some of us are hoping for is for lawmakers to find a LEGAL way to bring historical status to this building so this group of Muslims will just have to go purchase land in some other part of NYC. As for us outside of NYC, all we are are spectators and not a damn thing we can do except watch the whole thing unfold.
So why are you all worked up about us expressing our opinions about something of which we can do absolutely nothing about Keddaw?
And as far as any more discussion with you on this subject keddaw, as I have said before, the horse is dead. No more can be said on this subject that hasn’t already been said.
18 July 2010, on 12:12 am
Little known fact: Nothing made the prophet Mohammed laugh harder than “yo mama’s so fatwa” jokes.
18 July 2010, on 9:48 am
Little known fact: Nothing made the prophet Mohammed laugh harder than “yo mama’s so fatwa” jokes.
LOL!
Now Ray, don’t you know jokes about religion are supposed to be only for Xianity and Scientology?
snark
18 July 2010, on 9:56 am
Okay Stardust, a single question if I may:
What would you suggest should happen if the group bought the actual land the twin towers stood on and decided to build their Islamic Center there? (Bearing in mind it there is nothing standing there and so there are no existing legal technicalities would be in play.)
18 July 2010, on 10:47 am
What would you suggest should happen if the group bought the actual land the twin towers stood on and decided to build their Islamic Center there? (Bearing in mind it there is nothing standing there and so there are no existing legal technicalities would be in play.)
Now you are inventing random scenarios. (But for the sake of conversation and appeasing you…though I don’t know why I am bothering, same thing…though it would be a great insult to the families of the victims of 911, if they purchased the land…as we have stated time and time again above…they could build their damned mosque there if they purchased those plots of land.) That land is now “sacred” ground, and a memorial…unless the current landowners build new towers there. So you are wrong about the “no existing legal technicalities”…the landowners can pick and choose who they sell to, IF they sell.
Like I said before keddaw, this horse is dead. I am no longer repeating myself.
18 July 2010, on 6:15 pm
Thank you Stardust. Correct response, in my opinion, and I will leave it there.
19 July 2010, on 8:42 pm
Umm…no they aren’t. There is no absolute right to freedom of speech, there are restrictions. For it to be absolute, someone would be able to say anything they damn well please. There is no absolute freedom of press – if a reporter has the name & location of a mass murderer who will kill again, that effectively waivers the 1st amendment. Likewise, if someone were to say, resurrect the Aztec religion of killing virgins or tossing them into a volcano, that wouldn’t fall under the freedom of religion clause.
If these rights were absolute, they could whatever they please.
21 July 2010, on 10:16 am
KA: all rights are (well, should be) absolute as long as they do not interfere with anyone else’s rights. That’s kind of the point I was making.
Also, I have a very strong view on freedom of speech that doesn’t fit in with what most people think, e.g. falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre should not be illegal. The person should be banned for life and possibly sued, but not arrested.