Should An Islamic Mosque Be Built At Ground Zero?

[WinePusher]

In New York City, there is a contreversy on whether or not to construct a Mosque near the grounds of the 9/11 attack. This is completly outraegous and infuriating because no one seems to be able to answer the question Why There? Why build a Islamic mosque at the site of a place that was destroyed by Islamic Jihadists? I'm sure there are plently of other land space where a mosque can be built, but why have these Muslims decided to build it so close to Ground Zero? Are they oblivious to the fact that at that area, thousands of americans were killed by Muslim Jihadists?

Should a mosque be built at ground zero?

[East of Eden]

Nobody here hates all Muslims, although I do strongly dislike radical Islam.

You and I both strongly dislike radical Islam.

That is as ridiculous and offensive as it we were to call you Christian-hating because of your diatribes.

I strongly dislike radical Christianity too.

What is a radical Christian, Mother Theresa? Someone who disagrees with you on gay marriage? There are no such radical Christians committing such crimes on an Islamic scale, or radical atheists either, for the moment.

No, I doubt it. I lost colleagues at the WTC. It is not, in my opinion, insensitive. It is an effort on the part of these Muslims to say that they were hurt by this thing too and that they need to be part of the solution.

If they want to promote tolerance and understanding their time would be better spent protesting in Saudi Arabia, for example, which has no religious freedom, and where Bibles are confiscated at the airport and run through a paper shredder, not to mention women are treated as property.

[lo_rez]

What is a radical Christian, Mother Theresa? Someone who disagrees with you on gay marriage? There are no such radical Christians committing such crimes on an Islamic scale, or radical atheists either, for the moment.

Fair enough. If we're talking scale, can you ballpark the number of bodies a christian terrorist would need to pile up before you'd find a site profaned by a church or christian monument?

[East of Eden]

What is a radical Christian, Mother Theresa? Someone who disagrees with you on gay marriage? There are no such radical Christians committing such crimes on an Islamic scale, or radical atheists either, for the moment.

Fair enough. If we're talking scale, can you ballpark the number of bodies a christian terrorist would need to pile up before you'd find a site profaned by a church or christian monument?

If a Christian shot an abortion doctor, no I don't think it appropriate for his church to build a memorial next to the building, or in it.

[East of Eden]

You mean the most trusted name in news? Why don't you drop the ad homimem and address the content, if you can.

I am no fan of Islam. I find it as absurd, fictional, misguided and hate filled as Christianity.

So why are you so quick to defend the religion responsible for the vast majority of terror attacks in the world today?

Once again we see the most hate-filled people throw the word hate around more than anyone. Do I get to call you a hater because I disagree with you?

Don't you agree we should be fair and honest even in exposing the enemy? You simply are using slurs against Muslims and Islam. It is not an ad hominem to point out you are not being fair.

Your ad hominem was in smearing the Norwegian TV news program that confirmed my point.

I did not call you a hater, I said that Islam is no more hate filled than Christianity.

The atheists here can't seem to get a paragraph out without their favorite word. It doesn't help your cause any.

Why do you misstate what I said? I am not defending Islam. I am pointing out you used grossly misleading statistics. You claimed that ALL rapes in Norway were committed by Muslims

That is a fabrication, I said the OSLO rapes were commited by Muslims, which was confirmed by the Norwegian TV station.

when the truth is "European [rape] perpetrators are in the majority, and they are mostly Norwegian."

So now you switch from Norway to Europe, just like that?

My own heritage is Christian and Norwegian, but that does not make me give you a pass for quoting misleading statistics from hate sites.

You've already been caught using racist sites to promote your views. Now you use hate groups who misrepresent statistics and facts.

Another ad hominem, argue the points presented, if you can. And while you're at it, show me a news source that is perfect.

Islam can be exposed for what it is without resort to distorting facts.

Complain to the Norwegian TV station, it would seem you're doing the distorting here. Here's another story on Muslim mayhem in Sweden. Malmo has a huge Muslim population and has a rape rate 5-6 times bigger than Copenhagen, a larger city.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/mu ... n-and.html

I'm sure you'll be busily scouring the website for any non-politically correct thought so you can dismiss the facts.

Only slightly off topic, here's a story from today of Jihadist vermin hacking a soldier to death on a London street:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/22 ... in-london/

[Danmark]

You mean the most trusted name in news? Why don't you drop the ad homimem and address the content, if you can.

I am no fan of Islam. I find it as absurd, fictional, misguided and hate filled as Christianity.

So why are you so quick to defend the religion responsible for the vast majority of terror attacks in the world today?

Once again we see the most hate-filled people throw the word hate around more than anyone. Do I get to call you a hater because I disagree with you?

Don't you agree we should be fair and honest even in exposing the enemy? You simply are using slurs against Muslims and Islam. It is not an ad hominem to point out you are not being fair.

Your ad hominem was in smearing the Norwegian TV news program that confirmed my point.

I did not call you a hater, I said that Islam is no more hate filled than Christianity.

The atheists here can't seem to get a paragraph out without their favorite word. It doesn't help your cause any.

Why do you misstate what I said? I am not defending Islam. I am pointing out you used grossly misleading statistics. You claimed that ALL rapes in Norway were committed by Muslims

That is a fabrication, I said the OSLO rapes were commited by Muslims, which was confirmed by the Norwegian TV station.

when the truth is "European [rape] perpetrators are in the majority, and they are mostly Norwegian."

So now you switch from Norway to Europe, just like that?

My own heritage is Christian and Norwegian, but that does not make me give you a pass for quoting misleading statistics from hate sites.

You've already been caught using racist sites to promote your views. Now you use hate groups who misrepresent statistics and facts.

Another ad hominem, argue the points presented, if you can. And while you're at it, show me a news source that is perfect.

Islam can be exposed for what it is without resort to distorting facts.

Complain to the Norwegian TV station, it would seem you're doing the distorting here. Here's another story on Muslim mayhem in Sweden. Malmo has a huge Muslim population and has a rape rate 5-6 times bigger than Copenhagen, a larger city.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/mu ... n-and.html

I'm sure you'll be busily scouring the website for any non-politically correct thought so you can dismiss the facts.

Only slightly off topic, here's a story from today of Jihadist vermin hacking a soldier to death on a London street:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/22 ... in-london/

This is really a pathetic attempt. Instead of looking at the actual data, you talk as if Norway is a monolith; as if they do not have the same variety of news coverage, from biased to the left, from biased to the right, that we have in the United States.

No, I don't need to scour anything. I already went to a primary source. You are a Muslim hater. This is typical of the biases that are built into your thinking process that makes you a victim of religious extremism. There's really little difference between you fundamentalists. Some of you are Christian, some Islamic. You have many things in common, including sourcing information from foxnews and its biased equivalents.

[Danmark]

I wouldn't think I would have to explain it to you. You claim it is wrong to put a mosque near the site of the WTC. Are you in equal agreement there should be no church or Christian shrine or cross or memorial near the site?

Why would I, Christians didn't commit those murders, and most of the victims were Christian, so yes I think it would be entirely appropriate.

How large a perimeter of the former WTC site should be off limits to religious memorials or temples and restricted to secular establishments?

You'd like that, wouldn't you. Nice, using a tragedy to further the cause of militant secularism.

Which position are you taking? That only Christians can build a church to honor the dead, but Muslims cannot build one next to it for the same purpose.

Or that only secular establishments may be built in the area. Like most atheists and non theists, I do not have a 'secular' agenda. My only agenda is for truth and fairness and freedom from irrational religious fundamentalism whether it wears a cross or a crescent.

[WinePusher]

The only reason why he wants the mosque there is because he thinks it will promote healing and unity. He is doing it specifically because of the fact that the 9/11 towers were brought down by people who followed the Islamic faith. He is foolish and wrong. It has not promoted any type of healing and it has done a disservice to the Muslim community. This mosque has done nothing to make Americans more accepting of Muslims, in fact it has done the exact opposite.

Yes, we wouldn't want to allow anyone to take measures to promote healing and unity.

I NEVER SAID THAT. I said that this Mosque does not promote healing and unity, it has done the exact opposite. You are one of the most dishonest users on this site. If you can't debate me without sarcastically misrepresenting my position then I have nothing further to say to you.

Is the mosque that is being proposed a Wahhabi mosque or is it for a more liberal interpretation of Islam?

Doesn't matter. The Catholic convent that was going to be built near a Holocaust concentration camp was not representative of the extremist version of Catholic that some of the Nazis followed, yet the Pope still had enough human decency to move it away. I guess Muslims have no shame.

[East of Eden]

I wouldn't think I would have to explain it to you. You claim it is wrong to put a mosque near the site of the WTC. Are you in equal agreement there should be no church or Christian shrine or cross or memorial near the site?

Why would I, Christians didn't commit those murders, and most of the victims were Christian, so yes I think it would be entirely appropriate.

How large a perimeter of the former WTC site should be off limits to religious memorials or temples and restricted to secular establishments?

You'd like that, wouldn't you. Nice, using a tragedy to further the cause of militant secularism.

Which position are you taking? That only Christians can build a church to honor the dead, but Muslims cannot build one next to it for the same purpose.

So are they doing to to honor Muslim dead, or to mark their territory?

Like most atheists and non theists, I do not have a 'secular' agenda. My only agenda is for truth and fairness and freedom from irrational religious fundamentalism whether it wears a cross or a crescent.

Oh, the irony in the last two sentances. You're one of the bigger evangelists here.

[East of Eden]

You mean the most trusted name in news? Why don't you drop the ad homimem and address the content, if you can.

I am no fan of Islam. I find it as absurd, fictional, misguided and hate filled as Christianity.

So why are you so quick to defend the religion responsible for the vast majority of terror attacks in the world today?

Once again we see the most hate-filled people throw the word hate around more than anyone. Do I get to call you a hater because I disagree with you?

Don't you agree we should be fair and honest even in exposing the enemy? You simply are using slurs against Muslims and Islam. It is not an ad hominem to point out you are not being fair.

Your ad hominem was in smearing the Norwegian TV news program that confirmed my point.

I did not call you a hater, I said that Islam is no more hate filled than Christianity.

The atheists here can't seem to get a paragraph out without their favorite word. It doesn't help your cause any.

Why do you misstate what I said? I am not defending Islam. I am pointing out you used grossly misleading statistics. You claimed that ALL rapes in Norway were committed by Muslims

That is a fabrication, I said the OSLO rapes were commited by Muslims, which was confirmed by the Norwegian TV station.

when the truth is "European [rape] perpetrators are in the majority, and they are mostly Norwegian."

So now you switch from Norway to Europe, just like that?

My own heritage is Christian and Norwegian, but that does not make me give you a pass for quoting misleading statistics from hate sites.

You've already been caught using racist sites to promote your views. Now you use hate groups who misrepresent statistics and facts.

Another ad hominem, argue the points presented, if you can. And while you're at it, show me a news source that is perfect.

Islam can be exposed for what it is without resort to distorting facts.

Complain to the Norwegian TV station, it would seem you're doing the distorting here. Here's another story on Muslim mayhem in Sweden. Malmo has a huge Muslim population and has a rape rate 5-6 times bigger than Copenhagen, a larger city.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/mu ... n-and.html

I'm sure you'll be busily scouring the website for any non-politically correct thought so you can dismiss the facts.

Only slightly off topic, here's a story from today of Jihadist vermin hacking a soldier to death on a London street:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/22 ... in-london/

This is really a pathetic attempt. Instead of looking at the actual data,

Sorry, it is you who refuse to do that.

you talk as if Norway is a monolith;

Cite or retract.

as if they do not have the same variety of news coverage, from biased to the left, from biased to the right, that we have in the United States.

Unlike you, I care about the facts presented, not the source. Address the facts, if you can.

No, I don't need to scour anything. I already went to a primary source. You are a Muslim hater.

Your cheap little name calling tricks may work other places, but not here.

This is typical of the biases that are built into your thinking process that makes you a victim of religious extremism. There's really little difference between you fundamentalists. Some of you are Christian, some Islamic. You have many things in common, including sourcing information from foxnews and its biased equivalents.

Yes, the same except Islam has done 15,000 terror attacks since 9/11 and Christians haven't. Take the PC blinders off before you embarass yourself further. Man are you Fox obsessed, not to mention illogical. If Fox reports a fact, does that make the fact false?


You guys are funny, you nitpick Christianity to death but when radical Islam is exposed you go all dhimmi on their behalf. If liberals didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any at all.

[East of Eden]

The only reason why he wants the mosque there is because he thinks it will promote healing and unity. He is doing it specifically because of the fact that the 9/11 towers were brought down by people who followed the Islamic faith. He is foolish and wrong. It has not promoted any type of healing and it has done a disservice to the Muslim community. This mosque has done nothing to make Americans more accepting of Muslims, in fact it has done the exact opposite.

Yes, we wouldn't want to allow anyone to take measures to promote healing and unity.

I NEVER SAID THAT. I said that this Mosque does not promote healing and unity, it has done the exact opposite. You are one of the most dishonest users on this site. If you can't debate me without sarcastically misrepresenting my position then I have nothing further to say to you.

Is the mosque that is being proposed a Wahhabi mosque or is it for a more liberal interpretation of Islam?

Doesn't matter. The Catholic convent that was going to be built near a Holocaust concentration camp was not representative of the extremist version of Catholic that some of the Nazis followed, yet the Pope still had enough human decency to move it away. I guess Muslims have no shame.

Neither do their apologists either.

Hate to crowd out today's news of a jihadist executing a British soldier in the streets of London, here is a story today of Muslims in Sweden burning cars:

http://www.thelocal.se/48006/20130520/#.UZ1Nnm-siSp

Being politically correct, they don't seem to think the fact they were Muslims is relevant to the story.