Historically Muslims have built over holy site in the area that they conquered. The temple of the mount is an example, it is built over the site of the second Jewish temple, tell me that isn't a slap in the face like the mosque in NYC. I have heard that the Imam that is in charge of this is a huge advocate of Sharia law in the US, that shit can't stand. If Sharia law was adopted I could see some violence happening.
Any conquering nation/religion builds over symbols of a previous regime. There's nothing special about Islam doing it in the past. The Christians were doing it almost 2000 years ago. Modern Catholic churches resemble ancient temples dedicated to Zeus because they just took over the buildings when Christianity started popping up all over Rome after Constantine made a political move to make it legal. And an Imam liking Sharia law is like a Catholic priest agreeing with the Pope's opinion on abortion and other social issues. It's not a big deal. Stop watching Fox News. Sharia law will never be implemented in the United States. But hell.. it's not like Christian law hasn't invaded our society.
Never watched Fox News honestly, at least not by choice. Sharia law is in several countries in Europe. I don't have anything against it if that is what they want, however the difference in my opinion is that America was founded on an idea and as such we should try to remain true to that. If this were a Jewish or Christian subset of laws I would feel the same way. Christian law and some Sharia law is based on the same things we have now, no murder, rape etc. The code of Hammurabi is the foundation for many laws, Islam and Hebrew are directly influenced by this, chronologically we are just building up on the laws of old. American Pickers is on so I have completely lost track because of this show...
United Kingdom http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
A Sharia Court does not equate to Sharia law. Both parties have to agree to settle their dispute in Sharia court. It's completely different from Sharia law and non-Muslim's aren't affected by it at all. There are Jewish courts (the name eludes me right now) that have been in the UK for over 100 years now and no one ever got all up at arms with that. The only countries with Sharia law are ones like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Yemen etc. And some of those only use Sharia in supplement with their national law.
benny hinn will GOT THOSE MOOOSSLIMS!! [video=youtube;c9U_lWmAsYM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9U_lWmAsYM[/video]
What makes you think they're not? It's just that the news outlets are more interested in the incendiary ones on the fringe. Tea Party supporters should understand this phenomenon, fer gosh sake! [video=youtube;LW_AoEUwFZA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW_AoEUwFZA[/video]
and all you guys rambling about sharia law: http://www.slate.com/id/2262495/ Doesn't seem like a terrorist to me...
Haven't read too much in this thread but I seem to have the basic idea of who stands where. I'd say if you've ever used the argument that the troops are fighting for our freedoms, then you can't argue about this Mosque being built because it's one of the same freedoms they are "fighting for". If you really think about it, it makes way more sense for them to build that mosque there.
Not saying he is a terrorist, I feel that a Sharia court isn't in the spirit of our country. It could set a precedence for changes no one would want.
How is it not in the spirit of our country? Free to choose if you want your family dispute to be handled by your religion if both parties agree to it? Seems pretty in line with our whole freedom thing to me.
I'm not totally against them building there. I just think it is an ass-hole move and will be taken as an ass-hole move by the majority. Thus a known measure of counterproductivity will defeat any outreach effort. IMHO: it's a stupid move and we already have enough stupid shit going on. Why purposefully stir up shit. that Imam isn't that ignorant, not even walmartians are. I stand corrected:
It doesn't matter if the mosque is two blocks or two miles away from ground zero the fact that a mosque is being built in NYC would piss off somebody. As far as the Imam being an asshole he seems to have a lot of company. lol
There are Christian churches near the Hospital that was blown up in Oklahoma City. How about we tear those down?
Um.. Tex kinda rebuffed your whole "Imam loves sharia law" thing above. http://www.slate.com/id/2262495/ As a person who grew up in the New York suburbs, I'm fine with this. Most people in Manhattan are fine with it, even if new yorkers as a whole are slightly against it. From a PR standpoint, I don't think its the smartest idea for the Muslim population, but that's only because there are plenty of racist demagogues who will twist what is a good intentioned project into a vehicle of spreading fear. However, looking at it from what our nation's mores are supposed to be, I feel like allowing this to go through is the strongest case we can make that we will not succumb to the fear terrorist attacks want to engender in our country. America is supposed to be about freedom of speech, dialogue and compromise. We hold to those ideals in the face of fundamentalist opposition. Once we start compromising those principles, I feel that we start to lose the qualities that gave this country such strength in the first place.
Isn't that a bit extreme? No ones talking about tearing down houses of worship. Poor taste? Seems to be a common theme in all religions.
Oklahoma city was the Muhr Federal Building. US governement offices, not a hospital. And yes, this issue in NYC, is about permiting the construction, not denying one that's already built.
