LOL. Do I need to put it in my signature? My first post in this thread clarified my religious neutrality, so I gave a reasonable effort in that regard, anybody who missed it can just go read the whole thread, as they probably should do anyway with a topic this sticky and icky.
So now you're against the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. Wow. And here, I thought you fanatics only wanted to change the 14th Amendment.
I'm not sure who you are quoting but there are many Muslim businesses in that area and also there is a small mosque in that area already. Muslims are required to pray 5 times a day so a mosque in a commercial district helps to facilitate that. The battle against the 11 September terrorists isn't a Muslim battle except in the minds of those who look at it only in terms of absolutes.
why do you think someone who thinks the US bears responsibility for 9/11 is motivated by reconciliation?
Abdul Rahman al-Rashid, director of al-Arabiya TV and former editor of London’s Arab daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.
because i'm bored: westboro baptist church is to a normal church as those responsible for the attacks on 9/11 are to those wanting to build this mosque with an inter****ingfaith meeting center. but yeah, you're not a bigot at all for comparing the two.
No, I wouldn't, but if zoning allowed it and neighborhood association rules allowed it, it is their right to do so. And I am very familiar with that area, having lived there for years before moving to Austin. I also don't support Hyde Park Baptist Church tearing down historic buildings in the Hyde Park neighborhood north of UT in order to build ****ing parking lots, and that has been a big issue in Austin for years. If neighborhood assciation rules allow it, and zoning allows it, however, it is within their rights to build those ****ing parking lots. Thank goodness, zoning has prevented some of them. Houston has no zoning.
Is that your answer to my question, or someone else's? I asked you. I should've expected you wouldn't actually have your own reasoning, though. I'm open to reasoning why not to build a cultural center there, and that seems like solid reasoning to me, albeit a bit misinformed -- it's not a mosque that's being built, so the prevalence of other places of worship in the area is irrelevant. If the premise is based on an irrelevant idea, then while not bigoted, the reasoning is still not valid.
You're punishing the Muslims that want to build this structure for the actions of other Muslims. I fail to see how that is different from holding all Muslims responsible for 9/11. As mentioned by others already, the mosque would NOT be a powerful symbol to the fascists who attacked us. The exact opposite is true. If this mosque had gone up with no protests, that would have proven that those terrorists can not goad America into a religious war with Islam, cannot get us to give up on our principles of religious freedom, and cannot get us to give in to fear and paranoia. Unfortunately, the right wing opposition to this mosque has proven that those terrorists have done exactly what they set out to do.
no one disputes that. but assuming you harbored some objection, would you not explore means to keep them from building there, including various forms of protest, and perhaps a lawsuit, on whatever basis you thought might succeed?
You can't ration with Basso man. He doesn't care about these things. Muslims are "one entity" to him. Since a few took down the WTC, then it's all of them that are a problem. The religious war between the West and Islam is on.
Maybe this article will help change his mind: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/opinion/17dalrymple.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
