NYC Mosque Gets the go!

Zachstar · 08-03-10, 11:34 AM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...Ep4qgD9HC2OM80

Quote:

NEW YORK — A city commission on Tuesday denied landmark status to a building near the World Trade Center site, freeing a group to convert the property into an Islamic community center and mosque that has drawn national opposition.

HAHA! Idiot racists did not manage to get a single vote to stop the construction. I could not believe my ears when I heard some idiot caller to a talk show claim he thinks the new mosque was being built to house and train terrorists

...

Normally I would not even care but in the past few days the rabbid of the right have been going ape over the concept and I am glad to see them get another pie to the face.

Sailor Steve · 08-03-10, 11:40 AM

Argue about the reasons this is bad all you want, we can't say we live by 'Rule Of Law' and then turn that on its head when the rules allow something that offends us. There is no legal reason why this should not take place.

On the other hand...

Quote:

...the rabbid of the right...

I would have more respect if you had equal disdain for the rabid of the left. It's not your comments that offend me - it's their one-sidedness.

Oberon · 08-03-10, 11:44 AM

Both sides have their rabid dogs, that's politics for you, some people get more excited about it than others.

mookiemookie · 08-03-10, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Argue about the reasons this is bad all you want, we can't say we live by 'Rule Of Law' and then turn that on its head when the rules allow something that offends us. There is no legal reason why this should not take place.

Exactly how I see it. I'm no fan of this, but if you want freedom of religion this is what you get. If you want no holds barred capitalism, then you pretty much can't tell people who can buy what and what they can build there unless you're a dirty gubmint type/fascist/socialist/whatever -ist you want to call it.

AVGWarhawk · 08-03-10, 12:11 PM

To be sure the building will be a target by the nuts. If there are those that are so passionate about abortion clinics and bombing them this new building in NY will become a passion of someone who just does not agree with it's construction and what it represents. If it is drawing this much attention already I believe we are looking at problem waiting to happen.

Edit for spelling. Thank you Steve!

Sailor Steve · 08-03-10, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

...compassionate...

I'm sure you meant "passionate"? Most compassionate people don't do bad things ever.

AVGWarhawk · 08-03-10, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I'm sure you meant "passionate"? Most compassionate people don't do bad things ever.

Sorry, yes.

mookiemookie · 08-03-10, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

To be sure the building will be a target by the nuts. If there are those that are so compassionate about abortion clinics and bombing them this new building in NY will become a compassion of someone who just does not agree with it's construction and what it represents. If it is drawing this much attention already I believe we are looking at problem waiting to happen.

I'm not so sure. If someone was that fired up about it, they would have already done something to the other mosque near ground zero.

antikristuseke · 08-03-10, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I'm not so sure. If someone was that fired up about it, they would have already done something to the other mosque near ground zero.

You give the kinds of idiots likely to actually attack the place a bit too much credit.

AVGWarhawk · 08-03-10, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I'm not so sure. If someone was that fired up about it, they would have already done something to the other mosque near ground zero.

If someone is willing to shoot a president to show his devoted love to of all people, Jody Foster,...someone will be around the way before long and attempt to do something to this mosque. Just a matter of time. Even today in Baltimore Jewish synoguagues still get vandalized wth swastikas. Beside, this is in the media and people are tuned in. Would it be smart to go do something right now? This will be a hate crime in the news. Just a matter of time.

Weiss Pinguin · 08-03-10, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I'm not so sure. If someone was that fired up about it, they would have already done something to the other mosque near ground zero.

How long has that one been there?

mookiemookie · 08-03-10, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weiss Pinguin

How long has that one been there?

40 years.

SteamWake · 08-03-10, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zachstar

HAHA! Idiot racists did not manage to get a single vote to stop the construction.

Not supprising really consider whom was doing the 'voting' besides this was just a side trip. I dont think any panel would say the site was of any historical signifigance.

I wont waste your time with the ties to the radical cleric proposing the site.

This is just one of those things that when you hear it you think to yourself "This isnt going to end well".

antikristuseke · 08-03-10, 03:16 PM

It is religion and politics, how could that cluster**** ever end well?

Skybird · 08-03-10, 03:20 PM

Appeasement and self-deception was what was wanted, and that goal defined the outcome of the voting since the beginning of the debate. It is no surprise, nor is it a sign of reason. It simply is ideologically motivated calculation in action. and this ideology says: we must befriend with Islam and embrace it, no matter what people feel and say about that - we MUST!

it's also a small illustration of where it leads you if you accept that there are no limits to freedom and tolerance: you end up by tolerating what does not tolerate you, and giving freedom to what wants to take away freedom from you.

to throw in some advise from Karl Popper:

On the pursuit of happiness:
Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle — the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be left, in the main, to private initiative.

On tolerance:
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

On mutual communication:
There are many difficulties impeding the rapid spread of reasonableness. One of the main difficulties is that it always takes two to make a discussion reasonable. Each of the parties must be ready to learn from the other. You cannot have a rational discussion with a man who prefers shooting you to being convinced by you.

On freedom:
It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it.

And finally, once again, consider the background of those people hiding in the background who are behind erecting this mosque at Ground Zero - and then tell me that they really mean it well.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MmNhNTg0ZmY1NzA4NWJmMjM0YjI1MzAwNzljYjFiNDM=

08-03-10, 12:11 PM	#5
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,253 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	To be sure the building will be a target by the nuts. If there are those that are so passionate about abortion clinics and bombing them this new building in NY will become a passion of someone who just does not agree with it's construction and what it represents. If it is drawing this much attention already I believe we are looking at problem waiting to happen. Edit for spelling. Thank you Steve! __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road Last edited by AVGWarhawk; 08-03-10 at 12:32 PM.

08-03-10, 03:20 PM	#15
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Appeasement and self-deception was what was wanted, and that goal defined the outcome of the voting since the beginning of the debate. It is no surprise, nor is it a sign of reason. It simply is ideologically motivated calculation in action. and this ideology says: we must befriend with Islam and embrace it, no matter what people feel and say about that - we MUST! it's also a small illustration of where it leads you if you accept that there are no limits to freedom and tolerance: you end up by tolerating what does not tolerate you, and giving freedom to what wants to take away freedom from you. to throw in some advise from Karl Popper: On the pursuit of happiness: Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle — the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be left, in the main, to private initiative. On tolerance: The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. On mutual communication: There are many difficulties impeding the rapid spread of reasonableness. One of the main difficulties is that it always takes two to make a discussion reasonable. Each of the parties must be ready to learn from the other. You cannot have a rational discussion with a man who prefers shooting you to being convinced by you. On freedom: It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it. And finally, once again, consider the background of those people hiding in the background who are behind erecting this mosque at Ground Zero - and then tell me that they really mean it well. http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MmNhNTg0ZmY1NzA4NWJmMjM0YjI1MzAwNzljYjFiNDM= __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 08-03-10 at 03:35 PM.

08-03-10, 11:44 AM	#3
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Both sides have their rabid dogs, that's politics for you, some people get more excited about it than others.

08-03-10, 03:16 PM	#14
antikristuseke Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Estland Posts: 4,330 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	It is religion and politics, how could that cluster**** ever end well?