CapitalistSwine Posted July 15, 2010 Report Share Posted July 15, 2010 (edited) If the organizers behind the mosque are linked to terrorists, surely the whole debate about the location of the mosque is a red herring. If they are guilty of a crime, they should be arrested or thrown out of the country. This has always been my position personally. I haven't really said anything regarding all of this property proximity stuff. Edited July 15, 2010 by CapitalistSwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted July 15, 2010 Report Share Posted July 15, 2010 I think what Grames is trying to say is this: http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/456/mg0200.jpg No, I reasoned my way to a position founded within property law. An unreasoned emotional demonstration of outrage is useless and impotent, which those demonstrators are going to find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted July 16, 2010 Report Share Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) No, I reasoned my way to a position founded within property law. An unreasoned emotional demonstration of outrage is useless and impotent, which those demonstrators are going to find out. was more a joke, I should have been more clear. Should it be illegal to build a memorial to Hitler near Auschwitz? Not necessarily, but good luck getting that to happen in the first place. Too much outrage would come about. As for the second sign, Saudi Arabia does not allow non-muslim symbols in their country; does that imply the U.S. should ban certain religious symbols as well? No, we are not Saudi Arabia. Edited July 16, 2010 by CapitalistSwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skap35 Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 I agree that property rights should be respected here. However, the real problem I have is this. Say I had a non-profit that went around educating people on the evils of Islam. If I bought the lot across the street from the mosque and wanted to build an "educational center teaching the evils of Islam," the zoning board would turn me down instantly. I think the morally superior way to try and stop this mosque would be to put significant pressure on the zoning board to allow exactly that type of response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 17, 2010 Report Share Posted July 17, 2010 If I bought the lot across the street from the mosque and wanted to build an "educational center teaching the evils of Islam," the zoning board would turn me down instantly.What is your evidence that this is true? In some backwater village in Alabama, it's possible that a zoning board might think that would be allowed, but in a real city like New York, they have lawyers that they can and will consult, and would know that such an action would be unconstitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonJ Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 (edited) What is your evidence that this is true? In some backwater village in Alabama, it's possible that a zoning board might think that would be allowed, but in a real city like New York, they have lawyers that they can and will consult, and would know that such an action would be unconstitutional. As corrupt as most MAJOR cities are, and as easily swayed by PC attitudes, its very likely they would be turned down. Edited July 18, 2010 by SimonJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 As corrupt as most MAJOR cities are, and as easily swayed by PC attitudes, its very likely they would be turned down.I will repeat: What is your evidence that this is true? In some backwater village in Alabama, it's possible that a zoning board might think that would be allowed, but in a real city like New York, they have lawyers that they can and will consult, and would know that such an action would be unconstitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonJ Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 I will repeat: What is your evidence that this is true? In some backwater village in Alabama, it's possible that a zoning board might think that would be allowed, but in a real city like New York, they have lawyers that they can and will consult, and would know that such an action would be unconstitutional. Do you not keep up with current events and news from large cities? The politics in most is a joke. How many dead or imprisoned voted in the last election? What makes you think that a lwyer would be honest? Arent most politicians lawyers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Do you not keep up with current events and news from large cities? The politics in most is a joke. How many dead or imprisoned voted in the last election? What makes you think that a lwyer would be honest? Arent most politicians lawyers? You're utterly missing the point. It's not a matter of honesty, it's a matter of knowing what the law is, and know what will be enforced. You give not a shred of evidence that officials in NYC are so dumb that they'd do somthing that any judge would strike down in a New York minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonJ Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 You're utterly missing the point. It's not a matter of honesty, it's a matter of knowing what the law is, and know what will be enforced. You give not a shred of evidence that officials in NYC are so dumb that they'd do somthing that any judge would strike down in a New York minute. Not missing any point. It happens that Ive seen laws flouted by judges and lawyers as well many places, many times. An honest lawyer or judge is scarce as a hen with teeth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 In some backwater village in Alabama, it's possible that a zoning board might think that would be allowed, but in a real city like New York... Tak, tsk. Do I detect a regional bias here? Toothless rednecks and all that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Tak, tsk. Do I detect a regional bias here? Toothless rednecks and all that?Nah, just redneck judges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonJ Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 It takes a Brit to put into words what we should be saying. Pat Condell is a British stand-up comedian, but this video isn't comic, it's pure truth, and utterly brilliant. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rearden_Steel Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 " To begin with, the proposed Islamic center – not a mosque, but the Muslim equivalent of the YMCA – a nonprofit foundation wants to build in New York City isn’t at "ground zero," it is four blocks from the site of the World Trade Center. Is this correct? I read it here: Haters Go After the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. If this is true I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) "The mosque is part of a proposed 13-storey Muslim community centre, which will include a swimming pool, gym, theatre and sports facilities. The building, which was damaged by the fuselage of one of the hijacked planes, is at 45 Park Place -- just two blocks from Ground Zero. The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, "where a piece of the wreckage fell," said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, "sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11." We want to push back against the extremists," added Imam Feisal, 61. The Imam states: My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. ... People who are stakeholders in society, who believe they are welcomed as equal partners, do not want to destroy it. ... And there's no better demonstration of our desire to build than the construction of this center. ... The project has been mischaracterized... It is not a mosque, although it will include a space for Muslim prayer services. It will have a swimming pool [etc.] ... And, yes, the center will have a public memorial to the victims of 9/11 as well as a meditation room where all will be welcome... The center will be open to all regardless of religion. ... What grieves me most is the false reporting that leads some families of 9/11 victims to think this project somehow is designed by Muslims to gloat over the attack. That could not be further from the truth. My heart goes out to all of the victims of 9/11. ... Freedom of religion is something we hold dear. It is the core of what America is all about, and it is what people worldwide respect about our country. The Koran itself says compulsion in religion is wrong. American Muslims want to be both good Americans and good Muslims. They can be the best assets the United States has in combatting radicalism. They know that many American values -- freedom of religion, human dignity and opportunity for prosperity -- are also Muslim values. ... I have been the imam at a mosque in Tribeca for 27 years. ... My work is to make sure mosques are not recruiting grounds for radicals. To do that, Muslims must feel they are welcome in New York. Alienated people are open to cynicism and radicalism. Any group that believes it is under attack will breed rebellion. The proposed center is an attempt to prevent the next 9/11." Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/05/26/2010-05-26_the_truth_about_the_mosque_the_leader_of_proposed_muslim_center_near_ground_zero.html In response to your comment, yes I certainly do believe this has been blown way out of proportion. Edited July 23, 2010 by CapitalistSwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Is this correct? I read it here: Haters Go After the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. If this is true I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. It is not correct, because there is not any valid distinction between a so-called Islamic center and a mosque. In fact it is evidence of carrying out the strategy in this document: An Explanatory Memorandum 4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal. 17- Understanding the role and the nature of work of "The Islamic Center" in every city with what achieves the goal of the process of settlement: The center we seek is the one which constitutes the "axis" of our Movement, the "perimeter" of the circle of our work, our "balance center", the "base" for our rise and our "Dar al-Arqam" to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the "niche" of our prayers. This is in order for the Islamic center to turn - in action not in words - into a seed "for a small Islamic society" which is a reflection and a mirror to our central organizations. The center ought to turn into a "beehive" which produces sweet honey. Thus, the Islamic center would turn into a place for study, family, battalion, course, seminar, visit, sport, school, social club, women gathering, kindergarten for male and female youngsters, the office of the domestic political resolution, and the center for distributing our newspapers, magazines, books and our audio and visual tapes. In brief we say: we would like for the Islamic center to become "The House of Dawa"' and "the general center" in deeds first before name. As much as we own and direct these centers at the continent level, we can say we are marching successfully towards the settlement of Dawa' in this country. Meaning that the "center's" role should be the same as the "mosque's" role during the time of God's prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, when he marched to "settle" the Dawa' in its first generation in Madina. from the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew. This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into "operations rooms" for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role model to be followed. edit: And could you try to be a little less naive and credulous when an article is a) posted at a place called antiwar.com calls names in the headline of the article. These are dead giveaways that you should be on the lookout for non-objective thinking. Edited July 23, 2010 by Grames Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 For the record, Grames, after mulling over the info you and others have provided, as well as doing my own research, I agree with your position on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rearden_Steel Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 edit: And could you try to be a little less naive and credulous when an article is a) posted at a place called antiwar.com calls names in the headline of the article. These are dead giveaways that you should be on the lookout for non-objective thinking. No, I figured they were full of it. That's why I asked for clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) could you try to be a little less naive and credulous when an article is a) posted at a place called antiwar.com Half the people on this website get their "unbiased news" from Jihadwatch.org or Breitbart, neither of which I consider proper sources of information on the subject, that aside....the content of the article should be what is judged not what website it is on. "I agree with your position on the matter." http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/2010/07/three-arguments-for-blocking-cordoba.html @Grames I have not seen evidence thus far in my fairly thorough research on this subject that the Imam or anyone else directly affiliated with the property are directly affiliated with the Muslim brotherhood. Could you source me this info? (I do not consider sites that start off with jihad, religionofpeace, infidels, breitbart, atlasshrugs2000 (Pamela's site), capitalism magazine or pajamasmedia as sources when making this request, just so we don't waste each others time). I have only seen evidence of such regarding the Imam's father. Edited July 24, 2010 by CapitalistSwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 @Grames I have not seen evidence thus far in my fairly thorough research on this subject that the Imam or anyone else directly affiliated with the property are affiliated with the Muslim brotherhood. Could you source me this info? (I do not consider sites that start off with jihad, religionofpeace, infidels, breitbart, atlasshrugs2000 (Pamela's site), capitalism magazine or pajamasmedia as sources when making this request, just so we don't waste each others time). I have only seen evidence of such regarding the Imam's father. It is impossible to determine if Faisal's heart is true or not. It does not matter. The building is the problem not the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) It is impossible to determine if Faisal's heart is true or not. It does not matter. The building is the problem not the man. I am glad you and I agree on that point (about the man). It was more of a question of personal interest than anything. I never tried to suggest it was something substantial or consequential when it comes to this discussion. Though I would say the building is not the problem either, but rather our government and our foreign policy. I allude to Ari Armstrong's comments here. Edited July 24, 2010 by CapitalistSwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonJ Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 As much as many wish to stand on Principle, if the Muslims wins in this we lose. Sorry for such a short comment Ryan. But I dont deal in long winded verbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) As much as many wish to stand on Principle, if the Muslims wins in this we lose. I hope you don't consider yourself an Objectivist if you have such a position. Sorry for such a short comment Ryan. But I dont deal in long winded verbage. You have nothing to apologize for. Edited July 24, 2010 by CapitalistSwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakeside Posted September 20, 2010 Report Share Posted September 20, 2010 I'm not sure who said it up there, but the Mosque may end up being built with tax dollars, in part. Now, does using public money to build on private property ring well? What about a building that many of the direct constituents do not want built? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted September 20, 2010 Report Share Posted September 20, 2010 I'm not sure who said it up there, but the Mosque may end up being built with tax dollars, in part. Now, does using public money to build on private property ring well? What about a building that many of the direct constituents do not want built? That's a matter for the other thread you started (about the morality of taxes). Objectivism is opposed to any kind of taxation, or spending on private projects. From a legal perspective, the US Constitution and laws allow for both taxation and spending on private property. In fact, US laws specifically prohibit discriminating against a project just because Muslims are involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.