Re: Mosque over Ground Zero
Arseface;419642 said:
Considering it's illegal for the city to stop it from happening, I think it should go ahead.
That being said, would it be any different if was a Synagogue? Or a Stupa? Of course it would.
Of course, if the Mosque does end up being built, then the fundies will claim it as a victory.
So in summary: **** America and it's angry rednecks, and **** the Middle East and their angry fundies.
Duh.
Um, what? The whole stupid BS political attention-grab is based on the fact that the place is Muslim and Muslims carried out the attack. I could see people screaming over a stupa, though. Definitely over a gurdwara. They aren't picky. AAAAH! Brownish skin and a turban!!!! EVIL MUSLIM!!!
What? No, that would be a loss from their prospective.
In response: **** Australia and their angry rednecks. I realize that there's probably a better term, but I've read enough miscellaneous things on the internet about Aussie redneckism to know that the term applies.
Shadowtree;419646 said:
Look, if you ask me, I dont think they should build ANYTHING religious there.
Where, Manhattan?
I didn't want to argue this, but in the course of finding info, I came across a... very smart person talking about Japan and Hindu temples and Pearl Harbor in a completely balls-out brilliant kind of way. In response, I wanted to point out that there is a Japanese Cultural Center (like this is a Muslim cultural center) in Hololulu, less than eight miles from Hickam Field; as well as several Buddhist and Shinto places of worship in the area. Roughly 13% of that state is Japanese-American.
Additionally, there was somebody using the same analogy from the other side, that the Japanese wouldn't let a Christian church be built near their ground zero. They rebuilt the destroyed
Urakami/St Mary's Cathedral in 1959.