NBC/CBS reject "Kill the Ground Zero Mosque" ad

Against what? What are people defending by saying "you shouldn't build any Islamic-related buildings here"?

The fact that people recognize that their opposition to this is blatantly unconstitutional, but still defend their view on some half-assed "decency" grounds, makes me wonder about the state of mind in this country even more than usual. This Islamic center is using the exact same constitutional grounds that Fred Phelps and his clan use to protest military funerals... but somehow these same people just let Fred Phelps get away with his shit, because it's "a constitutional right".

You know who should be on the side of the Islamic center? Tea partyers. Especially the ones who carry around the Constitution in their pocket. They rattle on about the "true meaning" of the Constitution, and how nobody's following the meaning of the Constitution anymore... well, the Constitution gives these people the right to assemble freely and express their religion anywhere they want.

I have no idea. He's strongly Christian. That discussion stupidly became "can a Muslim be a good American?", which made it even more confusing because my dad said yes on the theological side, but then pulled the 180 and said we must "defend our lands". I guess he thinks all Muslims are terrorists. He's never even met a Muslim!
 
the way they have it planned: on the top floor where the actual mosque is, they have windows looking straight out to ground zero. that's messed up. not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim.

Some widows in Oklahoma City would like to have a word with you.
 
I have no idea. He's strongly Christian. That discussion stupidly became "can a Muslim be a good American?", which made it even more confusing because my dad said yes on the theological side, but then pulled the 180 and said we must "defend our lands". I guess he thinks all Muslims are terrorists. He's never even met a Muslim!

Show him these.

http://img30.imageshack.**/img30/7748/muslimgrave.jpg

http://img175.imageshack.**/img175/330/aymantaha.jpg

I could post dozens more, but that should get the point across.
 
the way they have it planned: on the top floor where the actual mosque is, they have windows looking straight out to ground zero. that's messed up. not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim.
iirc, you cant see Ground Zero from the mosque/ymma/whatever
 
Oh, this is still going on lol.
We already went over the fact that some people can find this project offensive and disrespectful. In fact, iirc, we even agreed on that point. No reason to try and argue that its impossible to see it as such.
Just because we all acknowledge that it's possible to see it as disrespectful doesn't mean we think it's alright. In fact, I believe that's what the first six pages of the thread were about.

And that's why there's universal disapproval of the ADL in this thread, too; because they're trying to say that "because some people find this project offensive and disrespectful, even though the line of thought is bigoted and irrational, that's okay".

Some widows in Oklahoma City would like to have a word with you.
And furthermore, it's not like Islam is the only religion to have people carry out a "holy war", either.
 
Last edited:
We already went over the fact that some people can find this project offensive and disrespectful. In fact, iirc, we even agreed on that point.

I agreed that some people find it offensive and disrespectful. I never agreed that it actually was. And I never agreed that people who DO think it's offensive and disrespectful are motivated by anything better than misinformation and unconscious bigotry.
 
the way they have it planned: on the top floor where the actual mosque is, they have windows looking straight out to ground zero. that's messed up. not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim.

Computer problems that have so far gotten the better of me are sparing you a multipage post on the history of non-muslim terrorists. I just can't type something like that out on my iPhone.
 
So holocaust and september 11 survivors have the right to think irrational and out of this wprld?
Then I guess all those families and people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine who lost their children (who didn't even know how to say the word terrorists), wifes, brothers, sisters, husbands and who-not also have the right to be irrational and out of this world.
Dunno how I missed this, but that's totally spot on. You know what people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine do when they start thinking irrationally after a tragedy? They blow themselves up.

Following the ADL's logic, that's totally justified.
 
Last edited:
Dunno how I missed this, but that's totally spot on. You know what people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine do when they start thinking irrationally after a tragedy? They blow themselves up.

Following the ADL's logic, that's totally justified.

Being irrational means "not endowed with reason", so a irrational person can do anything and justify it by saying that he lost someone so he's irrational ( that's the viewpoint of ADL, isn't it?)

I'm not justifying anyone who blows himself up in the name of religion. I'm just saying if they can be irrational, so can be others.
 
Last edited:
I think we can all agree that the ADL are complete idiots.

I just hope that nobody reading this thread actually thinks that they represent the views of the majority of American Jewry (on this project or on other issues).
 
Computer problems that have so far gotten the better of me are sparing you a multipage post on the history of non-muslim terrorists. I just can't type something like that out on my iPhone.

It's alright. Someone already did it. All fmsdaman needs to do is go down this list (including the year-by-year accounts since 1970), noting every attack carried out by the KKK, the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the ELN, FARC, the Irgun, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and of course, Eric Robert Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, and Ted Kaczynski.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
 
I think we can all agree that the ADL are complete idiots.
We can, but they've conveniently taken it upon themselves to define the opposition to this project (and agree with it), so now they're the scapegoats.

And yes, that's the argument, predator101; if these people are justified in "being irrational" because they've suffered in their lives, then suicide bombers are also justified in their irrationality.
 
I think we can all agree that the ADL are complete idiots.

I just hope that nobody reading this thread actually thinks that they represent the views of the majority of American Jewry (on this project or on other issues).

And I hope by whatever people see on the media, don't think that terrorists represent the whole of the Muslim community (on this project or on other issues)
 
Alan Dershowitz, professor at Harvard Law, political commentator, and frequent vocal defender of Israel in public debates, has slammed the ADL's stance on Cordoba House.

The ADL's decision to oppose the building of a 13-story Muslim center two blocks from Ground Zero is inconsistent with its mission. The ADL has a long and distinguished history of opposing bigotry, supporting multiculturalism and advocating tolerance. Though it began as an organization dedicated to combating anti-Semitism, it has become one of the most potent forces against all forms of religious, ethnic and racial bigotry. Following the mass murders perpetrated on 9/11 by Islamic extremists, the ADL was in the forefront of standing up against those who would use this hateful attack to generalize hatred against all Muslims or all Arabs.

In light of this history, I would have expected the ADL to support the building of this Muslim community center, which would include a mosque, a performing arts center, a pool and a restaurant. At the very least I would have expected it to remain silent and not to lend its powerful and distinguished voice to an opposition that includes many bigots along with many decent people who have expressed legitimate concerns about the structure.

...

The ADL's decision to join this debate on the side of those who oppose the mosque was exacerbated by the reason given by Abe Foxman, a friend and a man who I admire, for why the opposition of some families was an important part of why the ADL came down against the project. Mr. Foxman, who himself survived the Holocaust, was quoted in The New York Times as follows:

"Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational," he said. Referring to the loved ones of the 9/11 victims, he said, "Their anguish entitles them to a position that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted."

This is a dangerous argument that has implications totally inconsistent with the mission of the ADL. Bigotry is often a result of victimization, perceived or real. Many Germans felt victimized following World War I, and some blamed the Jews. Although their position was "irrational or bigoted," they were not entitled to act on it. Nor are Palestinians who feel victimized by Israel entitled to be bigoted against Jews. There is simply is no excuse for bigotry, and the ADL ought to know that better than any other organization.

The ADL was founded as the result of irrational bigotry directed against a Jew named Leo Frank by a Ku Klux Klan type organization calling itself the Knights of Mary Phagan. They lynched Leo Frank in the name of an alleged victim of rape and murder. The fact that Frank was totally innocent didn't matter to them. Their anguish over her victimization did not entitle them to their irrationality and bigotry. The ADL should know better than to provide an "abuse excuse" to bigots based on perceived victimization.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/anti-defamation-league-sh_b_667478.html (the rest of his column is there as well)
 
And I hope by whatever people see on the media, don't think that terrorists represent the whole of the Muslim community (on this project or on other issues)
Unfortunately there are a lot of people who are just that ignorant.

Alan Dershowitz, professor at Harvard Law, political commentator, and frequent vocal defender of Israel in public debates, has slammed the ADL's stance on Cordoba House.
I really hope Foxman and the ADL are forced to eat those words. Dershowitz is dead on.
 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128950721&sc=fb&cc=fp

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission ? "responsible for identifying and designating the City's landmarks and the buildings in the City's historic districts" ? has decided not to assign landmark status to a building on Park Place, two blocks north of Ground Zero.

After the board's unanimous vote, its chairman, Robert B. Tierney, said the structure, which previously home to a Burlington Coat Factory, "does not rise to the level of an individual landmark."

Having surmounted the hurdle, a developer is now free to change or demolish the 152-year-old structure, clearing the way for the construction of a controversial $100 million, 13-story Islamic community center, which would include a mosque.

Last week, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) joined a loud chorus of opposition to such a facility near Ground Zero, whose ranks include Sarah Palin and several other politicians and activists.

"Some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values," the ADL said in a statement.
Ultimately, this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain unnecessarily, and that is not right.
Many critics of the community center, which is also known as the Cordoba House and Park51, say that there is no reason it needs to be built so close to Ground Zero.

The Wall Street Journal published a letter to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man charged with planning the community center, from Dan Senor ? an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a resident of Lower Manhattan, previously a senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

"While we continue to stand with you and your right to proceed with this project, we see no reason why it must necessarily be located so close to the site of the Setp. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks," he wrote. "Those attacks, as you well know, were committed in the name of Islam."
We applaud and thank every Muslim throughout the world who has rejected and denounced this association. But the fact remains that in the minds of many who are swayed by the most radical interpretations of Islam, the Cordoba House will not be seen as a center for peace and reconciliation. It will rather be celebrated as a Muslim monument erected on the site of a great Muslim "military" victory ? a milestone on the path of the further spread of Islam throughout the world.
According to The New York Times, today's meeting "was free of much of the vitriol that had marked previous hearings."
One by one, members of the commission debated the aesthetic significance of the building, designed in the Italian Renaissance Palazzo style by an unknown architect.
Before the hearing, Elisabeth de Bourbon, a spokeswoman for the Landmarks Preservation Commission, said that, "what we're looking at is whether the building has the architectural and historic significance to the city of New York to merit landmark designation." In other words, its members were not asked to consider the planned use of the structure or site.
 
The topic here has changed a bit...

I've said before that there's nothing that can or should be done about building Cordoba House, but on the other hand, all this about "what's right" does have a point.

I would consider it legal but highly insensitive for across the street from a mosque for a building to have a large-screen display that shows nothing but clips of women removing burkas to reveal they are wearing skimpy lingerie, interspersed with depictions of Allah engaged in sexual activities with farm animals.

Would it be legal to do such a thing? Of course. Would it be right? I don't think so.

Steve
 
Top