(08-30-2010 07:17 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2010 07:06 PM)Paul M Wrote:  New York is considering granting the group a reported $70 million in public funding.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67Q5BW20100827

Will separation of Church and State give you any cause for pause?

I oppose this as much as I would oppose financing a community center with a chapel in it.

Not sure I understand your reply Fo. You do oppose public funds for this or you don't any more than you would a community center with a chapel in it?

(08-30-2010 07:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-30-2010 07:17 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2010 07:06 PM)Paul M Wrote:  New York is considering granting the group a reported $70 million in public funding.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67Q5BW20100827

Will separation of Church and State give you any cause for pause?

I oppose this as much as I would oppose financing a community center with a chapel in it.

Not sure I understand your reply Fo. You do oppose public funds for this or you don't any more than you would a community center with a chapel in it?

Let me clarify....This is suppose to be an community center with a mosque in it. I oppose public funding for it. I also would oppose funding for a community center with a chapel in it. I oppose any use of public funds that include non secular activities.

Thanks Fo. That's what I thought your position would be, just didn't want to make an assumption.

Now that you quoted me so Mach can see it, maybe he will reply. The reason I asked the question is the people who can be counted on to consistently oppose all things religious, quite often on the separation of Church and State claim, are the ones for the most part standing up for this abomination. Just curious how, if public fund become available, they can square their past objections.

(08-30-2010 06:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  ok

here's is a poll that 63 % oppose it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010...zero_N.htm


So if it continues to trend down into the 50's. Is this really a good reason to oppose it? I don't hold much weight in polls. More about what is right and wrong and smart and dumb. This one falls into the smart and right category.

First, two polls do not make a trend... but I digress. Still, by a wide margin... people are against it.

Personally, I think it absolutely moronic, arrogant and insulting for someone claiming to want to bridge the gap between peoples to START by insulting 60+% of them... and then when told they've offended 60+%, to have them hold fast to their now KNOWN offensive position. They haven't offered compromise... they haven't offered apology or reconciliation... They've simply ignored the complaints. That's not how you bridge gaps between people.... a 3rd grader knows this... but it certainly seems consistent with Sharia law. The fact that some portion of the majority may ultimately get over it and move on doesn't make it any smarter.

You REALLY think this is RIGHT and SMART?

I hope I've misread you, because if not, I just lost any shred of respect I had for you.

Seriously

Call it legal and "logical from their perspective" all you want.... Don't call is smart and right.

(08-30-2010 07:06 PM)Paul M Wrote:  New York is considering granting the group a reported $70 million in public funding.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67Q5BW20100827

Will separation of Church and State give you any cause for pause?

One of the proposed solutions to move the victory mosque was made by the state of New York to provide state lands as an alternate site. That ran afoul of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (rightly so, imho). They should equally oppose this kind of financing.

So what's the solution to getting rid of Islamic terrorism? At least in the United States?

Hambone-

It's smart on our part. Not on their part. You have to remember it's our planes and tanks in their sphere of influence. As long as our war machines are over in the Middle East. I'm willing to let someone build a cultural center in Manhattan to hopefully bridege some gaps between our cultures.

(08-31-2010 02:17 AM)dwr0109 Wrote:  So what's the solution to getting rid of Islamic terrorism? At least in the United States?

I'd hold the "Government" of Yemen (or any other government) personally responsible if any group operating from their territory launced an attack inside the United States.

That gives the Yemeni leader an incentive to shut down the operations of these groups, or else a cruise missile will be coming through his window.

(08-31-2010 06:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hambone-

It's smart on our part. Not on their part. You have to remember it's our planes and tanks in their sphere of influence. As long as our war machines are over in the Middle East. I'm willing to let someone build a cultural center in Manhattan to hopefully bridege some gaps between our cultures.

They've always had and always will have the right to build, but once again, that's not what this is about.

And you really should learn about this culture you want to bridge with.

I've always believed they should be allowed to build, and if the mosque is built, it should be in the name of religious freedom and private property and advertised as such (no matter how foul the smell of close proximity's motive). But if the threat of terrorism ultimately determines what building is developed on such-and-such piece of our land, what's next?

This whole thing says a lot more about the state of Islam than anything else. A flood of "new recruits" are willing to blow up airplanes, busses, schools... because a city on the other side of the planet might not approve one building permit for one mosque?

That is, if we take the word of a 'Taliban official' as being anything close to honest.

And Newsweek, devoutly liberal as the magazine is, tried to work in the three Canadian terrorist suspects into the article, not-so-subtley trying to make a connection to the NYC mosque reaction (even though there is no connection at all).

(08-31-2010 07:15 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2010 06:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hambone-

It's smart on our part. Not on their part. You have to remember it's our planes and tanks in their sphere of influence. As long as our war machines are over in the Middle East. I'm willing to let someone build a cultural center in Manhattan to hopefully bridege some gaps between our cultures.

They've always had and always will have the right to build, but once again, that's not what this is about.

And you really should learn about this culture you want to bridge with.

Any "culture" that allows a Parent to kill their child for bringing "dishonor" upon the family or allows the stoning of a woman for Adultery isn't anything I would want any type of connection to.

(08-31-2010 06:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hambone-

It's smart on our part. Not on their part. You have to remember it's our planes and tanks in their sphere of influence. As long as our war machines are over in the Middle East. I'm willing to let someone build a cultural center in Manhattan to hopefully bridege some gaps between our cultures.

And what bridges exactly need to be built?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03263.html

Your dhimmitude is showing again.

Guys again.............

I've broke bread with Muslims. I lived amongst them for two years. They are prideful and peaceful. I wish many of you could of been with me on Christmas Eve in 2008. It was the lowest of the lows and yet an experience I wouldn't trade.
At first they were very distrustful of me. After a couple of months of being in the same circumstances. The ice melted. THEY ARE NOT the boogeymen that they are portrayed as.

(08-31-2010 07:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guys again.............

I've broke bread with Muslims. I lived amongst them for two years. They are prideful and peaceful. I wish many of you could of been with me on Christmas Eve in 2008. It was the lowest of the lows and yet an experience I wouldn't trade.
At first they were very distrustful of me. After a couple of months of being in the same circumstances. The ice melted. THEY ARE NOT the boogeymen that they are portrayed as.

It took you two months to prove your willingness to be subservient to them? You must have been off your game.

I haven't read the entire thread, so my apologies if this point has already been made. But for me and for many others, the issue is not whether the "Cultural Center" (sic) should be built at all, but whether it should be built at the precise location being offered.

My biggest issue really boils down to the thread's title: "This is PRECISELY why you allow the cultural center."

No, you build the mosque to showboat our tolerance, freedom and respect for private property to the rest of the world. Not because a POS Taliban "official" says they'll recruit jihadis in order to force us into local, domestic building permit decisions.

I mean, why not have a title that says: "this is precisely why you criminalize drawing cartoons of Muhammed or ban documentaries critical to Islam"?

If a Vatican City bishop threatened violent 'crusade' on Indonesia if a Muslim city there opposed the building of a church, you don't use this as the reason as to why the Indonesia city oughta get to building the church.

(08-31-2010 09:00 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  My biggest issue really boils down to the thread's title: "This is PRECISELY why you allow the cultural center."

No, you build the mosque to showboat our tolerance, freedom and respect for private property to the rest of the world. Not because a POS Taliban "official" says they'll recruit jihadis in order to force us into local, domestic building permit decisions.

I mean, why not have a title that says: "this is precisely why you criminalize drawing cartoons of Muhammed or ban documentaries critical to Islam"?

If a Vatican City bishop threatened violent 'crusade' on Indonesia if a Muslim city there opposed the building of a church, you don't use this as the reason as to why the Indonesia city oughta get to building the church.

(08-31-2010 06:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hambone-

It's smart on our part. Not on their part. You have to remember it's our planes and tanks in their sphere of influence. As long as our war machines are over in the Middle East. I'm willing to let someone build a cultural center in Manhattan to hopefully bridege some gaps between our cultures.

Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for misunderstanding you. I can see the value in such an effort, but i don't want it to be seen by ANY of them as some sort of victory. Their right to build, and our right to protest, and then a compromise is what America is all about... something THEY would never do, despite generally "being so peaceful". Their laws are pretty black and white. This COULD be a HUGE lesson/example.

(08-31-2010 07:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guys again.............

I've broke bread with Muslims. I lived amongst them for two years. They are prideful and peaceful. I wish many of you could of been with me on Christmas Eve in 2008. It was the lowest of the lows and yet an experience I wouldn't trade.
At first they were very distrustful of me. After a couple of months of being in the same circumstances. The ice melted. THEY ARE NOT the boogeymen that they are portrayed as.

Most Doberman are also great big lap dogs... I know, having owned many... but you get a bad one and train it "wrong", and it's deadly. Most small-town, lower class anglos are also peaceful law abiding citizens... but a few of them burn crosses and beat up minorities for fun. This isn't about Muslims in general. If it were, there would be widespread general opposition to Mosques everywhere. I realize that there are a minority of people who fit that description, but the opposition is to THIS mosque on THIS site. Why? Because despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful (and those of you that disagree with that comment... just leave it out... even if we accept that fact, it doesn't change the argument) THIS site is the resting place of thousands of Americans who were killed by Muslims "In the name of Allah" for the sole and stated crime of BEING Americans. While the act of turning it into a "source of cultural understanding" is noble by the peaceful ones, it is also in the history of the culture to build temples on the site of their conquests. How do we know which purpose is ultimately being served? Why couldn't it represent both... just as the Qur'an apparently does? IOW, our concerns aren't unreasonable and unjustified.

The question remains... How would the stated purpose of the builders of the Mosque... who claim to represent the peaceful vast majority of the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world... be HURT by moving it by a few blocks... and ONCE AGAIN... why is this peaceful majority afraid to publicly stand up to the warring minority and do the "peaceful" thing called COMPROMISE??