"Ground Zero" mosque approved, Obama supports

[Katganistan]

No im saying that US citizen might do this because we dont exactly love muslims you know with the 3,000 murders in a matter of hours thing on 9-11-01

Have you got mice in your pocket?

No. He's the Queen of England Great Britain.

Sorry.

Pet peeve.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp& ... 0ccbc1a062

Blame Google for supporting this misconception.

[The blessed Chris]

No im saying that US citizen might do this because we dont exactly love muslims you know with the 3,000 murders in a matter of hours thing on 9-11-01

Have you got mice in your pocket?

No. He's the Queen of England Great Britain.

Sorry.

Pet peeve.

The correct style, the great constititional historian Prof. Wikipedia informs me, is;

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

Should she technically be sovereign of the United Kingdom and Berwick upon Tweed?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

If memory serves, there was even one that was shut down during and after WWII that sued the government for the right to reopen and won. *wonders where to begin searching for reference*

[Lunatic Goofballs]

No im saying that US citizen might do this because we dont exactly love muslims you know with the 3,000 murders in a matter of hours thing on 9-11-01

Have you got mice in your pocket?

No. He's the Queen of England Great Britain.

Sorry.

Pet peeve.

The correct style, the great constititional historian Prof. Wikipedia informs me, is;

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

Should she technically be sovereign of the United Kingdom and Berwick upon Tweed?

She's also the Sovereign of my heart.

[The blessed Chris]

No im saying that US citizen might do this because we dont exactly love muslims you know with the 3,000 murders in a matter of hours thing on 9-11-01

Have you got mice in your pocket?

No. He's the Queen of England Great Britain.

Sorry.

Pet peeve.

The correct style, the great constititional historian Prof. Wikipedia informs me, is;

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

Should she technically be sovereign of the United Kingdom and Berwick upon Tweed?

She's also the Sovereign of my heart.

Glad to hear it. You're not Prince Phillip are you?

[Karsol]

No im saying that US citizen might do this because we dont exactly love muslims you know with the 3,000 murders in a matter of hours thing on 9-11-01

Have you got mice in your pocket?

No. He's the Queen of England Great Britain.

Sorry.

Pet peeve.

The correct style, the great constititional historian Prof. Wikipedia informs me, is;

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

Should she technically be sovereign of the United Kingdom and Berwick upon Tweed?

She's also the Sovereign of my heart.

Bit old for you isn't she?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

She's also the Sovereign of my heart.

Bit old for you isn't she?

Maybe a tad.

[Katganistan]

If memory serves, there was even one that was shut down during and after WWII that sued the government for the right to reopen and won. *wonders where to begin searching for reference*

Izumo Taisha Cultural Hall, I believe, is what you're looking for...

[Hyde2]

the thing is, they don't oppose the building of a mosque. they oppose the existence of others in USia, and are willing to overturn some of our greatest cultural achievements to get it. i don't give a fuck about muslim community centers, except when the forces of reaction make it into an issue. then the bigots can go right to fucking hell. they have ginned up a controversy where there was none and are attempting to make potential allies into enemies. seriously, even laura ingrahm was polite about the whole thing back in december when the wife of the founder dude went on fox's o'reilly factor, ending the interview by saying "I like what you're trying to do." it was only later that the right-wing whine machine geared up, and suddenly the ottoman empire has returned to avenge the crusades.

I'm not talking about any right wing fringe pressure group, Soyut and you made a deceleration, implying that unless you support the building of the mosque (i.e if you oppose it), you are worse than terrorists, which is obviously nonsense. At the very least, your statements have been horribly worded.

[Free Soviets]

I'm not talking about any right wing fringe pressure group, Soyut and you made a deceleration, implying that unless you support the building of the mosque (i.e if you oppose it), you are worse than terrorists, which is obviously nonsense. At the very least, your statements have been horribly worded.

alright, let me clarify. the proper attitude for most people is one of not giving a shit. hypothetical opposition is tolerable (not liking it but also not doing anything about it). actual opposition grounded in anything other than universal anti-clericalism is bullshit, and exists only due to people that seriously are worse for the world than some murderous losers with delusions of grandeur.

[Hyde2]

actual opposition grounded in anything other than universal anti-clericalism is bullshit

What if you oppose it because you think there are much better buildings could be built in that area, despite not being anticlerical?
What if you oppose it because you think that it actually *shock horror* does offend people and does harm relations between the west and Islam, whether you like the fact that people are offended or not (as if 90% of the time when people are offended by anything, it's not grounded in non-rational emotional or symbolic things)?

I have a feeling that if this was about Americans insisting on building a Church in the middle of Baghdad, near a site where a huge amount of Muslims were killed by Americans, despite large opposition in the area, everyone would think the Americans are total wankers - whilst at the same time acknowledging that the opposition from Muslims is not necessarily logical or rational (i.e. these particular American Christians had nothing to do with the deaths, they have a right to property there). It's possible to hold both positions at the same time you know.

[Tekania]

I'm not talking about any right wing fringe pressure group, Soyut and you made a deceleration, implying that unless you support the building of the mosque (i.e if you oppose it), you are worse than terrorists, which is obviously nonsense. At the very least, your statements have been horribly worded.

alright, let me clarify. the proper attitude for most people is one of not giving a shit. hypothetical opposition is tolerable (not liking it but also not doing anything about it). actual opposition grounded in anything other than universal anti-clericalism is bullshit, and exists only due to people that seriously are worse for the world than some murderous losers with delusions of grandeur.

I agree with your point, and will second it... Those who oppose this "Mosque" are worse than terrorists... Terrorists merely have the power to do minor and casual damage to some people, destroy some property, but have little power over our ideals... The people who oppose this "Mosque" are doing damage to our very foundational ideologies... striking at the true heart of America and doing lasting damage... The direction they attempt is far more sinister, far more hatefull, and far more lasting damaging than hundreds of 9/11 terrorists.

Terrorists can merely kill us... These "Mosque" opposers can destroy everything we're supposed to stand for as a nation.

[Tekania]

I have a feeling that if this was about Americans insisting on building a Church in the middle of Baghdad, near a site where a huge amount of Muslims were killed by Americans, despite large opposition in the area, everyone would think the Americans are total wankers - whilst at the same time acknowledging that the opposition from Muslims is not necessarily logical or rational (i.e. these particular American Christians had nothing to do with the deaths, they have a right to property there). It's possible to hold both positions at the same time you know.

This is a bad comparison. An accurate comparison would be a situation where a group of Baghdad Christian Arabs wanted to build a Church near where Americans killed people.

But thank you for cementing to me the fact that the beginning of your post was actually a lie.

[Cosmopoles]

I have a feeling that if this was about Americans insisting on building a Church in the middle of Baghdad, near a site where a huge amount of Muslims were killed by Americans, despite large opposition in the area, everyone would think the Americans are total wankers - whilst at the same time acknowledging that the opposition from Muslims is not necessarily logical or rational (i.e. these particular American Christians had nothing to do with the deaths, they have a right to property there). It's possible to hold both positions at the same time you know.

There's a key difference between the two situations - the mosque near ground zero is being built in America, by American muslims and for mostly American people to attend. If the Americans insisted on building a Christian church in Iraq near the site of some great act of violence against Muslims it smacks of cultural imperialism. However, if Iraqi Christians sought to build a church in the same location, then I would place any Muslims opposing that within the same category of assorted pondlife who have opposed the mosque.

edit: yeah, what he^ said, sort of.

[Dempublicents1]

I bet nobody would complain if it was a church there instead of a mosque.

... of course not? the only objection seems to be that it's somehow glorifying the Muslim extremists or denigrating the memories of those who died neither of which would apply to a church of another religion.

Of course, neither applies here either.

Why should I support the building of the mosque in the first place (note this is not the same as supporting their right, I still support their right to build it, that doesn't mean I should approve)? I think there are much better things that could be built there, from museums to real estate, why am I obliged to support the building of a mosque. The stated goal of this is to build relations with Islam and the west, nothing could do more damage to these relations now than this mosque, I can't understand why any reasonable person would support or approve of it.

Personally, I think building a community center there is a great idea. Taking an old, unused building, and creating a center with a gym, library, restaurant, culinary school, auditorium, exhibit spaces, etc. sounds like a pretty good way to get the community together. The fact that the space will also house a place of worship (which, by the way, it already does) seems rather inconsequential, if you ask me.

[Free Soviets]

What if you oppose it because you think there are much better buildings could be built in that area, despite not being anticlerical?
What if you oppose it because you think that it actually *shock horror* does offend people and does harm relations between the west and Islam, whether you like the fact that people are offended or not (as if 90% of the time when people are offended by anything, it's not grounded in non-rational emotional or symbolic things)?

1) that's a weird thing to care about.
B) offending the people offended by this is the right thing to do. just like offending white supremacists by integrating their schools was/is the right thing to do. just like offending homophobes by requiring them all to get gay married holding pride parades and normalizing gay relationships is the right thing to do. they'll get over it.

[Enadail]

What if you oppose it because you think there are much better buildings could be built in that area, despite not being anticlerical?

I oppose all religious buildings because I think the space could always be better used. Does this give me any grounds to argue why all religious buildings should be torn down? If I thought your house could be put to better use, would that give me grounds to argue for your eviction? Personal thoughts are not convincing arguments.

And yes, you'll respond that they have the right to build it there, but that they probably shouldn't, which both sounds like giving into fear mongering, and a "have your cake and eat it too" situation.

[Free Soviets]

just so we're clear, here are some of the other sights to see in the allegedly hallowed ground of within-two-blocks-of-the-wtc-site:







its new york. its dense and its crowded and life goes on.

[The Rich Port]

just so we're clear, here are some of the other sights to see in the allegedly hallowed ground of within-two-blocks-of-the-wtc-site:

.... There is no way that's near Ground Zero.

[Farnhamia]

just so we're clear, here are some of the other sights to see in the allegedly hallowed ground of within-two-blocks-of-the-wtc-site:

.... There is no way that's near Ground Zero.

New York Dolls is at 59 Murray Street, three blocks directly north, and around the corner. *nod*

[Geniasis]

Here's a nice example of the "too soon" argument taken to extreme. Skip ahead to when John Oliver shows up to find it, but the whole thing is worth a watch.

[The Rich Port]

just so we're clear, here are some of the other sights to see in the allegedly hallowed ground of within-two-blocks-of-the-wtc-site:

.... There is no way that's near Ground Zero.

New York Dolls is at 59 Murray Street, three blocks directly north, and around the corner. *nod*

There's a strip club, an mob money depository, and a BBQ pit near Ground Zero... AND THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT A MUSLIM COMMUNITY CENTER?

[Farnhamia]

just so we're clear, here are some of the other sights to see in the allegedly hallowed ground of within-two-blocks-of-the-wtc-site:

.... There is no way that's near Ground Zero.

New York Dolls is at 59 Murray Street, three blocks directly north, and around the corner. *nod*

There's a strip club, an mob money depository, and a BBQ pit near Ground Zero... AND THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT A MUSLIM COMMUNITY CENTER?

Nekkid wimmin, horse racing and barbeque are ALL AMERICAN! Muslims are forbidden all three, so they can't possibly be compatible with America.

[The Rich Port]

Here's a nice example of the "too soon" argument taken to extreme. Skip ahead to when John Oliver shows up to find it, but the whole thing is worth a watch.

CHURCH NEAR A PLAYGROUND.... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nekkid wimmin, horse racing and barbeque are ALL AMERICAN! Muslims are forbidden all three, so they can't possibly be compatible with America.

NOT what The Bible says.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

In this thread, and on TV, and anywhere else in the world, nobody has given a rational reason to oppose this. In this way it is much like the gay marriage debate, nobody in the world has a real, logical reason to oppose that either. Building a community center with private funds on private property is not objectionable, no matter how loud Sarah Palin and her buddies squeal and stamp their feet.