New Bar at Gound Zero - Page 12

Socialite · #**111** 08-13-2010, 02:25 PM

MB, the problem with using the KKK/Rosa Parks analogy, is that it assumes "All Muslims are American-hating extremists."

I think I can agree with the analogy in degree, but it certainly ups the ante for what is really happening and exposes maybe unfair logical assumptions on our part.

geekette · #**112** 08-13-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The building is special to the people as a piece of the plane went through the roof and down to the basement. They want it landmarked for that reason also.

They feel it an affront to have a mosque in that building. That is the issue. Perhaps you were not aware of that.

The use of Cordoba was intentional. The had plenty of other names to choose from, but they wanted that one. Now, when they build it, it will be called Park51, but Muslims all over the world will know it as Cordoba House.

Do you know anything about the history of Cordoba the city?

As far as this business of a piece of the airplane going into the building making it sacred: My friends who lived in Manhattan at the time of 9/11 sucked in dirty, nasty, ash-laden air for days and weeks afterwards. (One now has lung issues likely attributable to 9/11 as a result.) Uh, should they themselves be declared sacred because they sucked in a mixture of the 9/11 disaster--plane, jet fuel, people, concrete, steel, wiring, drywall, etc.?

This opposition to Cordoba House is based in religious prejudice, pure and simple. You'd not put up with it if it was an Apostolic church, but it's OK because it's a bunch of Muslims who hold evil and wrong beliefs.

I'm going to have to withdraw from this discussion because I can't engage with the kind of irrational thinking going on here. I should point out that eventually, there's going to be a new WTC building at the 9/11 site, and there are going to be cutthroat deals going down, just like before, and I can just about guarantee that it's not going to be anywhere near as "sacred" as some people think it should be.

Pressing-On · #**113** 08-13-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geekette

No they wouldn't.

Seriously, they wouldn't, because first of all, they'd never hear about it, and if they did hear about it, they'd be so browbeaten by "touch not thine anointed" and "if you don't like it, get out, 'God' is in charge here" that they'd never ask. Besides, if a Christian does it, it's never terrorism, even if it's bombing an abortion clinic or killing a doctor. Or merely just trying to take over the government for Jesus (e.g., "seven mountains mandate").

That is not how our church operates. And my husband is on the Board and you bet they would be asking.

Quote:

It's only terrorism if someone whose beliefs you dislike does it. And yes, there is terrorism incited by radical Islamic jihadist beliefs--beliefs that most Muslims do not hold. I have harsh, unprintable opinions about the Taliban, for example.

There is also a peaceful or quiet jihad. Sharia Law being implemented into our financial sector is one way. It is not how the financing is set up, it's that it is being set up under Sharia Law. Study AIG and you will know more.

Quote:

And, if churches don't have to present papers laying out their funding to be able to build, then neither should this mosque. I hope that this group is very open and aboveboard about all of its funding. That way we all can check 'em out--which is more than I can say for your average megachurch.

Didn't say they had to. The background in this situation is a bit different. Mainly, Rauf refuses to disclose his backers, his father was also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, no one is sure whether Rauf has ties with them as well. It is just a trail that leaves people uncomfortable.

Now, I do believe they have the right, under our Constitution, to build their mosque and exercise their religious freedom. The angst over the whole issue is that it is a poor choice of location and a very poor, initial choice, in naming the project. Immediately, everything was suspect. If they were going to do relationship healing and building, I find it strange that they used the location and name to do it. Apparently, so do the majority of Americans as they are against it.

Pressing-On · #**114** 08-13-2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geekette

Do you know anything about the history of Cordoba the city?

Yes, I most certainly do. . The Caliphate of Cordoba ruled from Cordoba. The rule of the Caliphate is known as the heyday of Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula.

Very significant.

Quote:

As far as this business of a piece of the airplane going into the building making it sacred: My friends who lived in Manhattan at the time of 9/11 sucked in dirty, nasty, ash-laden air for days and weeks afterwards. (One now has lung issues likely attributable to 9/11 as a result.) Uh, should they themselves be declared sacred because they sucked in a mixture of the 9/11 disaster--plane, jet fuel, people, concrete, steel, wiring, drywall, etc.?

Ridiculous. A building already tabled for landmark status and especially after the plane's fuselage hit the basement floor. Not a place to set up a Muslim mosque, IMO.

Quote:

This opposition to Cordoba House is based in religious prejudice, pure and simple. You'd not put up with it if it was an Apostolic church, but it's OK because it's a bunch of Muslims who hold evil and wrong beliefs.

Yes, probably it is based on religious prejudice, so why did Rauf decide to go with that name? He certainly knew it would offer suspicion, which it indeed did.

Quote:

I'm going to have to withdraw from this discussion because I can't engage with the kind of irrational thinking going on here. I should point out that eventually, there's going to be a new WTC building at the 9/11 site, and there are going to be cutthroat deals going down, just like before, and I can just about guarantee that it's not going to be anywhere near as "sacred" as some people think it should be.

That's fine. I'm just reporting the news and all that is being discussed on this issue in NY and around the country.

Twisp · #**115** 08-13-2010, 03:51 PM

Appreciate geekette taking over for a while. It was starting to sound like a birther thread in here, lol.

Pressing-On · #**116** 08-13-2010, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

Appreciate geekette taking over for a while. It was starting to sound like a birther thread in here, lol.

You have to admit that was kind of fun!

Twisp · #**117** 08-13-2010, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I know, I know, I am a riot. Good discussion today, PO. It was muy enjoyable. At the end of the day, our opinions are a wash and won't amount to a hill of beans. But I enjoyed the debate. Definitely made the day go by faster.

Now let's start on anchor babies...

lol

Pressing-On · #**118** 08-13-2010, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

I know, I know, I am a riot. Good discussion today, PO. At the end of the day, our opinions are a wash and won't amount to a hill of beans. But I enjoyed the debate. Definitely made the day go by faster.

Yes, it did go by fast and I had a free day for it. You are right, our opinions, at the end of day, don't make a hill of beans.

Thanks for the entertainment, you knothead!

Quote:

Now let's start on anchor babies...

lol

Oh my gosh, you probably think we should allow it! Am I right?!!!!!

Twisp · #**119** 08-13-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Yes, it did go by fast and I had a free day for it. You are right, our opinions, at the end of day, don't make a hill of beans.

Thanks for the entertainment, you knothead!

You also, you also!

Quote:

Oh my gosh, you probably think we should allow it! Am I right?!!!!!

Allow it? Shoot, we should encourage it and move those babies into government housing, STAT! lol