Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site
BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.
Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children
Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC
Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims
1.) The Islamic center is not AT Ground Zero, its a few blocks away.
2.) It's not a mosque.
3.) The people building it do not "secretly support" the terrorists.
4.) The building has been in the planning stages since long before 9/11
And even so, yes. I would still support this hypothetical Megachurch. It's called freedom to use private property however you like.
Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.
Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children
Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC
Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims
Public school teachers molest more children every year than Catholic priests do (I think more even than the total number of priests accused of this), and we allow THEM near schools, so shut the fuck up with the anti-Catholic bigotry.
Plumbers have raped children. No plumbers near schools.
The vast majority of catholic priests have never abused a child. You are applying the rule of the exception.
Plumbers have raped children. No plumbers near schools.
The vast majority of catholic priests have never abused a child. You are applying the rule of the exception.
The vast majority of Muslims have never blown up a building.
You are guilty of the same thing.
Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children
Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC
Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims
Public school teachers molest more children every year than Catholic priests do (I think more even than the total number of priests accused of this), and we allow THEM near schools, so shut the fuck up with the anti-Catholic bigotry.
I would be shocked if Sangha showed back up in this thread. But isn't is funny how he/she can lecture us on being bigoted towards Muslim terrorists while at the same time being bigoted against Christians of any sect?
Public school teachers molest more children every year than Catholic priests do (I think more even than the total number of priests accused of this), and we allow THEM near schools, so shut the fuck up with the anti-Catholic bigotry.
I would be shocked if Sangha showed back up in this thread. But isn't is funny how he/she can lecture us on being bigoted towards Muslim terrorists while at the same time being bigoted against Christians of any sect?
And that is the problem with muslims and the left. The lefties will defend Islam while demonizing Christianity. Muslims are "victims" in the lefty mind. Yes, terrorists are bad, but "most" muslims are peaceful and nice so they can come and go whereever they please because they are "victims" of those mean nasty right wing Christians.
The left will defend any religion other than Christianity? Why? Because it is the Christian right who stands in their way of running everything.
Let's do a little thought experiment.
Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.
Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.
Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history? Are grass root opponents of the mega church Christophobes, or just citizens seeing this as highly inappropriate?
Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.
a- A distinction without a meaning.IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site
BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.
Once again, Sangha is either misinformed, stupid, or a liar.
A) No one is claiming they are building this on the site, only that they're building it NEAR the site, near enough that most rational people consider it to be part of the disaster area, because oh it actually was.
B) There most certainly will be a mosque inside this community center
A) as the highlighted part of the OP shows, the OP's analogy implies the mosque is being built at "the same location"
b) So you agree that they aren't building a mosque! Thanks for proving me right
Let's do a little thought experiment.
Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.
Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.
Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history? Are grass root opponents of the mega church Christophobes, or just citizens seeing this as highly inappropriate?
Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.
I don't have an opinion on this so please help me form one.
I can understand not wanting Muslims to do this while at the same time thing tfb, freedom of speech applies to all.
But who are these Muslims? Just like Christians, Muslims have their fundies. Are the mosque builders fundies or moderates? Should we encourage the moderates or should we lump them all into the fundamental terrorist group?
I think it is important to know the motives, beliefs, and goals of the group that wants to build the mosque.
Doesn't answer the question one bit.
The church wouldn't be built by the radicals either. But you are saying that because there are 1.2 billion muslims, they can rightfully exclude a church from being build within spitting distance of the disaster caused by adherents of the same religion?
No ...what I am saying is that the US was built on religious tolerance, while Kuala Lampur was not. That is why I am proud to be an American
No hypocrisy involved at all. The US is officially tolerant of other faiths whyile others are not
wait til Christmas. Then tell us again about religious tolerance. whydonchya?
Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site
BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.
Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children
Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC
Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims
For Americans to rise above it ALL and embrace the idea of mosque near the site of 9/11 would be one of the most stunningly noble gestures in the history of religious freedom and tolerance...
...or, put another way, Americans aren't capable of acting out the ideals their country is founded upon.
He says of a country that just elected a black man with the middle name "Hussein".For Americans to rise above it ALL and embrace the idea of mosque near the site of 9/11 would be one of the most stunningly noble gestures in the history of religious freedom and tolerance...
...or, put another way, Americans aren't capable of acting out the ideals their country is founded upon.
For Americans to rise above it ALL and embrace the idea of mosque near the site of 9/11 would be one of the most stunningly noble gestures in the history of religious freedom and tolerance...
...or, put another way, Americans aren't capable of acting out the ideals their country is founded upon.
