Hallowed ground? (Another take on that ‘mosque’)

There’s a saying that “a picture says a thousand words” (or something like that!). Daryl’s comments are also spot-on.

Other than the offtrack betting and the strip club I have no problem with the other things being built. However, those things are not as close to the 9/11 site as the mosque. When one looks at the fact that they don’t have any money to build it, the guy owes back property taxes on the site in the amount of $250,000.00, questions about where the money is coming from, comments he made regarding the US on 9/11 and the events leading up to it, many Muslims being against it, the insensativity to the people of New York, the lack of support for zoning laws that should have a proper protocol for this sort of thing, etc. should be enough for the place to be at a different location. As one can see the reasons for not having this mosque/center are many and outside of the “religious take” that is the sole focus of some whether in support of the mosque or against the mosque.

Well the mosque still has a chance to not be built. The guy owes $250,000.00 in back taxes and currently doesn’t have the wherewithal to come up with the $100 million price tag. That is unless he raises money from sources that maybe of ill-repute. What bank would loan money for a guy to build a church when the guy owes $250,000.00 in back property taxes and doesn’t have the necessary collateral to come up with the money to fund the project? As an ex-banker and MBA Finance, these questions are begged.

Tony, the questions about where he raises the money would be the same regardless of who the person was or from what group it was. If a person (whoever it may be) wanted to put anything on the site and has a $250,000 property tax unpaid bill and had no money to pay it and has only $18,000.00 in the bank and wants to build any church it would only be reasonable to questions where the person would get the money and it would beg the question as to the reliablity of the source/s providing the funds and their specific rationale. So you see it isn’t calling the pot black for my statement would be the same if all of the financial things were the same, add to that the inflammatory comments he made, add to that the provocative nature of the location when other locations could be better in light of the multiple mosques that are in NYC which I have no problem. With regard to wealth and having it from illrepute, I don’t buy your reasoning. Wealth is not a zero-sum-game. Just because someone is wealthy doesn’t necessarliy mean that someone has to be poor. I reject your argument because the reasoning is flawed by being based on wealth a zero sum game which it isn’t. Your argument is also a total red herring at the very least. Money from terrorism is equivilent to how you describe? hogwash Also I see your “angle internationally” as being totally wrong.

Tony, I have read the post by Ben and like I said I’m just as angry that there are betting complex’s and stripese places as Ben. So you see he’s barking up the wrong tree with me when he and I happen to agree on that point. The fact remains the supermajority who are against the mosque being built are not against the mosque being built but the location. To label people against the mosque as “anti-muslim propaganda is extreme overgeneralization that really is not based in reality in the majority sense of the word. The location is also too provocative. For instance, I wouldn’t suggest putting an Evangelical Center next to an atheistic center for the very same reasons.

DH: ‘For instance, I wouldn’t suggest putting an Evangelical Center next to an atheistic center for the very same reasons.’

Why do you keep bringing this up? I don’t think any of us here would have any problem with the idea of putting an ‘evangelical centre’ (whatever that means) beside an ‘atheistic centre’ (whatever that means). Most of the atheists I know would be rubbing their hands in glee at the chance to refute the standard Christian arguments - and from the Christian side, I’d be happy to be close to them so that we could have discussions. (By the way, you have yet to give us documentation of when this happened).

Also, it’s not a parallel situation. Christians and atheists might be considered to be antagonists, but 9/11 victims and Muslims are not antagonists; as has been previously stated, 10% of the 9/11 victims were Muslims.

Tim, just like it was claimed wrongly that I associate by being against the Mosque with those who are discriminatory toward Muslims so are you guys in relation to being discriminatory toward Evangelicals. The majority of those who are for the Mosque are against an Evangelical Center next to an atheistic center. So therefore, using this logic that was used toward me in agnosium, those who are for the mosque are associating with those who are disciminatory toward Evangelicals.

It is similar not in terms of being antagonist as you misunderstood from my posts but in terms of the negative provocative nature of the centers being built. Just like having an Evangelical center next to an atheistic center is negative/provocative so it is with the Mosque being built at that specific location.

With regard to atheists and you being happy to have the Evangelical Center next to an atheistic center, the fact is you all are in the minority. I know many a church that was denied being built with the excuse of “property values” when the clear reason was discimination toward the church or proposed building being built.

Kim, with regard to beating a dead horse, all I have heard from the other side is the accusation of religious bigotry and as I have successfullt pointed out that is NOT the case. People in the majority who are against the mosque are not against mosques being built but the location and the due diligence that must be done with the group and/or builders/leaders to make sure there is financial wherewithal, the source of money is legit, etc. Heck we would do the same with regard to Catholic churches to make sure there isn’t mafia money being used and the same goes with regard to Evangelical churches as well.

Tim, I’m referring to churches beyond just one proposed by an atheistic center. There are many churches that are rejected on certain sites with the excuse “property values” when other true rationales are underlying.

With regard to the discriminatory toward Evangelical comment you proved my point. Therefore you cannot say that I’m discriminatory toward Muslims. If I’m claimed to be discriminatory toward Muslims by rejecting the mosque site in relation to associations who agree with me who are anti-Muslim mosque which I’m not and you believe in the mosque and associate with people who are for the mosque who happen to reject the atheistic center then it would be illogical for me to call you discriminatory toward Evangelicals (which I have not done) just as much as being illogical to say that I’m discriminatory toward Muslims.

I’ll repeat to help: I and others have accused me of being discrimatory toward Muslisms for being against the mosque for the reason that my view of being against the mosque is associated with those who are more anti-Muslim than myself. The reasons that this illogical and makes no sense ins the same reason it would be to call you discriminatory against Evangelicals in that your support for the mosque is associated with those who are against the Evangelical Center next to an Atheistic center. You said you are not discriminatory against Evangelicals of which I have never accused you and of which is consistent and therefore with the same logic it would be wrong to claim that I am discriminatory in another direction toward Muslims. Does that help or do you need me to clarify again?

In the spirit of Niemöller:

“And then they came for the Muslims, but I did not speak out -
because I was not a Muslim …”

He’s a real nowhere man …

I repeat what I have already said - the only reason for the protests against this centre is that the people who want to build it are Muslims. The financial stuff hasn’t hit any of the headlines I’ve read, and as afar as I understand would be resolved one way or another without the protests which have been taking place. The headline of the protest has always been “No mosque at Ground Zero.” That sums it up.

Tim, I’m not claiming it is a paralell. I’m point out how it is illogical to say that I’m discriminatory toward Muslims solely on the basis that my view is associated with those who are against all mosques in NY that was used earlier in the discussion. Assuming this is logical which it is not then one would say you are discriminatory toward Evangelicals because of your views being positive toward the mosque is associated with those against the Evangelical Center next to an atheistic center. You are not discriminatory toward Evangelicals because in fact you happen to be one. Therefore with that fact and proper logic one cannot claim I’m discriminatory toward Muslims.

http://www.wthr.com/global/Story.asp?s=6786498

This was the most similar things but a little different. However, the analogy of this to point out the illogical nature of calling me discriminatory against Muslims still applies. The very atheists that are for the mosque are the same ones who are against the building of this project.

Tim, you totally neglect the lack of logic of people accusing me of being discriminatory against Muslims.

Its not hypothetical but even if it was it proves my point even since there are many cases of Evangelical churches denied built with the lame excuse of “property values” with the real intent as being anti-religion.

You may listen to people who God says are “fools” aka “A fool says in his heart there is no God.” but I don’t.

DH:

I listen to people who give me evidence for what they say. And because of this, I’m quickly losing interest in listening to you. Ever since this conversation began you have been using this example of an evangelical centre being denied permission to build beside an atheist centre. I have asked you over and over again to give us information about when and where this happened. You have not.

As for listening to people who deny that there is a god, I have found from long experience as a pastor and an evangelist that listening to people rather than insulting them is usually a more effective strategy. Also, if I’m going to attempt to answer their arguments I first need to understand those arguments. Again, listening is vital.

Treat them as fools if you like, but I’m guessing that won’t attract them to your message.