The Ground-zero mosque, continued

[fallstuff]

Yes, you are right - I have hear Americans say that freedom is not free. To be free of opposers they have to be confronted and with the law on your side, more than half the battle is won.

Agreed. You have to face it and look at straight in the eyes and not blink. Basically people are now trying to stare these guys down.

I commend your endeaver in putting some sense into some of the opposers, but you may have better luck talking sense into this:

BTW heard about Fareed Zakaria, finally this guy is making himself useful, watch this:

 

[GentlemanObserver]

Sums it all up nicely:

 

[muse]

Moha

I think the key here is to be united and withi the constitution -- sooner or later that US government has to be involved - see, by simply hoping that it will skirt the issue and not have to make a stand, the US government pretty much left itself open in the sense that the opposers actions, such as tghe arson attack in TN has now made it such that the issue will attract more and more attention not just in the US but around the world.

American ideals are respected worldwide but not when they are selecteively applied, in fact most people think that is betrayal - but opposers entire mission is to betray American ideals - the soldiers fighting for "freeedom" in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the same freedom is denied in the US? Soldiers fighting for a terror free life in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that there will be a terror filled life for Americans in the US?

 

[gambit]

^^ I don't know if i should laugh or cry at Unbeliever's post and the logic exhibited within.

You should do both. And we encourage you to do so. You need the practice for when the American and European public respond negatively to Islam in the near future.

So if the victim's families don't have a problem... What is the "big deal" here. And FYI No.2, it's no where near Ground Zero... Learn to read maps!

You are wrong. One or a few supporters among the victims' families does not make the majority. The first opponents of this proposes triumphalist structure were those families. The words spread and now the majority of America oppose it.

 

[GentlemanObserver]

^ Gambit, kindly refer to my post:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/69822-ground-zero-mosque-continued-19.html#post1102709

Enjoy

 

[gambit]

And of course US law also gaurantees right to private property and Religious freedoms - I think that gthere should not be much of a problem raising money in the US and Europe and in Middle East and in Asia - i like it.

Of course, American muslims can always build this mosque themselves with their own money and labor. They can contribute to pay off the back taxes owed. Then no laws are violated. Christians are morally obligated to pay %10 of their income -- tithing. No laws, other than moral ones, compelled many of them to give their monies. Surely muslims, in America and elsewhere who are shedding their crocodile tears over this alleged violation of their Constitutional liberties, can do better? Show US infidels that you are better.

 

[muse]

Show US infidels that you are better

I really think you are very confused - The US constitution is not about Americans showing each other who is better - it is about equality before the law, that's all.

Today you find yourself in an extraordinary position because your argument is positioned outside the constitution - you keep saying that it's not about the constitution, but that does not make it so. Reality is that opposers have chosen to attack private property and the US constitution while claiming that their position has nothing to do with these and is instead about "emotions" and "sensitivities" - but America has been there before, done that before - that's why there is a growing chorus against the opposers; the arson attack in TN is being called terrorism and questions posed seeking an explantion of how opposers are different from AQ in their intolerance and hatred - and yet opposers claim that it has nothing to do with the constitution, so why not, why not take recourse to the constitution, or is it that you don't you find any benefit for your position in it?

 

[gambit]

I really think you are very confused - The US constitution is not about Americans showing each other who is better - it is about equality before the law, that's all.

Today you find yourself in an extraordinary position because your argument is positioned outside the constitution - you keep saying that it's not about the constitution, but that does not make it so. Reality is that opposers have chosen to attack private property and the US constitution while claiming that their position has nothing to do with these and is instead about "emotions" and "sensitivities" - but America has been there before, done that before - that's why there is a growing chorus against the opposers;...

The confused one here is YOU who falsely associated anything outside of the US Constitution is 'illegal'. There is a chasm, recognized by Constitution attorneys and scholars, between something being UN-Constitutional versus NON-Constitutional. The commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is non-Constitutional. Or more accurately non-legal. It is a moral edict from an authority perceived by some to be higher than human laws. Laws that prosecute murderers or rapists or thieves are legal proscriptions in this life, not the afterlife. A country can have no laws at all regarding murders but that still does not, according to some people, override the 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' commandment from that higher authority. In muslim countries, a husband can coerce sexual intercourse from his wife and there is nothing the government can/will do about it. But if all muslims believe that it is immoral to such coercion even from one's wife, then there is no need for any law, or even a Constitution for that matter.

The Federalist #51

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

Objections to this mosque are non-Constitutional, but NOT un-Constitutional.

...the arson attack in TN is being called terrorism and questions posed seeking an explantion of how opposers are different from AQ in their intolerance and hatred - and yet opposers claim that it has nothing to do with the constitution, so why not, why not take recourse to the constitution, or is it that you don't you find any benefit for your position in it?

So now the US is the equivalent of al-Qaeda. Just like Rauf said.

 

[Devil Soul]

Developer Behind NYC Mosque Talks About His Vision

NEW YORK (AP) -- The developer behind an Islamic cultural center and mosque planned near ground zero says it never occurred to him that building it near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks would stir up so much debate.

Sharif El-Gamal told CBS News in an interview broadcast on Monday it hadn't even crossed his mind once because he didn't hold himself or Islam "accountable for that tragedy."

He said the center, which would include a health club, exhibition space and a Sept. 11 memorial, should be "universally known as a hub of culture, a hub of coexistence, a hub of bringing people together."

El-Gamal leads a real estate investment firm that owns the lower Manhattan building where the $100 million center, known as Park51, would open.

The plans have led to a national discussion over freedom of religion and the sensitivities of the relatives of Sept. 11 victims, with everyone from President Barack Obama and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin weighing in. Some conservative candidates have seized on the issue as November congressional elections near.

But before the Brooklyn-born El-Gamal was the center of attention, he had only a few modest real estate deals to his name.

El-Gamal, the 37-year-old son of a Polish mother and Egyptian father, went through a rough period in his life in the early 1990s with run-ins with law enforcement.

In Nassau County, just east of New York, he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in 1990, driving while intoxicated in 1992 and attempted petit larceny in 1993, authorities said.

In Manhattan, he was arrested in 1994 on a charge of patronizing a prostitute, which was pleaded down to disorderly conduct, a violation. He also pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after an arrest in 1998 for petty larceny and after an arrest in 1999 for trespassing.

Then, in 2006, El-Gamal was sued by a tenant who said El-Gamal had roughed him up in a rent dispute, according to court records and the tenant's lawyer.

The case was settled in 2008, records show. The tenant's lawyer said El-Gamal paid Vassiliev $15,000.

El-Gamal blamed his transgressions on his age at the time.

"I regret many things that I did in my youth. I have not always led a perfect life," El-Gamal said in a statement. "My faith teaches me every day about humility. I have been humbled by my imperfections. But my faith also teaches me about forgiveness. While I might not be proud of some of my actions in the past, I am extremely proud of the Park51 project and what it will mean to thousands of New Yorkers of all faiths and denominations who live in Lower Manhattan."

 

[Coltsfan]

You are wrong. One or a few supporters among the victims' families does not make the majority. The first opponents of this proposes triumphalist structure were those families. The words spread and now the majority of America oppose it.

Yeah the word spread thanks to Faux News and Republican Leadership (Gingrich included) and with help from Sarah Palin with her posse of Teabaggers.

Besides majority of America is easily fooled {Last fall "majority of america" had no idea that Medicare is a Govt run health program and they were standing with "Keep Govt off my Medicare" signs at Teabagger rallies.........}.

It is easy to fool them on this issue because they are ill-informed and this issues has been made a false choice between a Mosque and Honoring victims of 9/11.

 

[gambit]

Yeah the word spread thanks to Faux News and Republican Leadership (Gingrich included) and with help from Sarah Palin with her posse of Teabaggers.

Besides majority of America is easily fooled {Last fall "majority of america" had no idea that Medicare is a Govt run health program and they were standing with "Keep Govt off my Medicare" signs at Teabagger rallies.........}.

It is easy to fool them on this issue because they are ill-informed and this issues has been made a false choice between a Mosque and Honoring victims of 9/11.

Uh...Huh...And speaking of being fools...How many Indians are 'fooled' by the promise of an afterlife?

 

[muse]

There is a chasm, recognized by Constitution attorneys and scholars, between something being UN-Constitutional versus NON-Constitutional.

Indeed, b ut the country in question is non other than the US, where the constitution is the supreme law of the land - protecting property, life and liberty -- now you may find that this doe snot apply to US muslims, which is fine, but of course, it's also of no consequence - see, when opposers decided to make political capital of an otherwise ordinary event, the building of a religious establishment on private property, they themselves invited the constitutal gaurantee argument.

Today, the positionof the opposers is garnering such negative publicity that even the NYT has sought to distance itself from the opposers and side with Mayor Bloomberg and is now openly asking whether there are any other politicians with courage left in the US:
Qte
August 30, 2010
Who Else Will Speak Up?

The hate-filled signs carried recently by protesters trying to halt plans to build an Islamic center and mosque in Lower Manhattan were chilling. We were cheered to see people willing to challenge their taunts and champion tolerance and the First Amendment. But opportunistic politicians are continuing to foment this noxious anger. It is a dangerous pursuit.

Already New Yorkers have seen a troubled young man slash a Muslim taxi driver with a knife. A zealot in Florida is threatening to burn a stack of Korans on the anniversary of Sept. 11. Where does this end?

The country needs strong and sane voices to push back against the hatred and irrational fears. President Obama made a passionate defense of the mosque, but only once. Most Democratic politicians are ducking. So far, the leader with the courage to make the case repeatedly is Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

He has said firmly that the developers have a right to build and that New York needs a powerful memorial to those who died, surrounded by a living city. He has rejected efforts to move the mosque, noting that for opponents no distance will be far enough. At a Ramadan iftar dinner last week, Mr. Bloomberg declared that “Islam did not attack the World Trade Center — Al Qaeda did.”

Later, the mayor invited the wounded taxi driver, Ahmed Sharif, to City Hall. Then he went on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” to remind non-New Yorkers that “there’s already another mosque down there within four blocks of the World Trade Center. There’s porno places; there’s fast-food places. It’s a vibrant community. It’s New York.” Surely, Mr. Bloomberg isn’t the only politician left out there with courage and good sense.

unqte

Nopw if the NYT is changing it's tune and running for cover, what do you think it says about the position of the opposers? It will be intersting to read editorial positions of papers in TN.

 

[GentlemanObserver]

Uh...Huh...And speaking of being fools...How many Indians are 'fooled' by the promise of an afterlife?

Personal attacks... Wow! This is a new low!

 

[gambit]

Personal attacks... Wow! This is a new low!

That is not a personal attack. That is an equivalent response to the charge that Americans in general are easily fooled. More victimization, I see.

 

[GentlemanObserver]

That is not a personal attack. That is an equivalent response to the charge that Americans in general are easily fooled. More victimization, I see.

How many Indians are 'fooled' by the promise of an afterlife?

How an attack on religious belief "an equivalent response to the charge that Americans in general are easily fooled. "

More victimization, I see.

The only one crying victimisation here is You sir.