|
|
| Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied (644780) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 9 |
||
|
| (644886) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 16:31:46 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 16:03:19 2010. That's not the question. Would you put a LGBT community center in the 9/11 zone just because you could, since you brought that up? |
|
|
| (644888) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 16:34:43 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Easy on Tue Aug 3 12:23:06 2010. The mosque is being built to show that Islam is making headway in the US as a result of 9/11Islam as a political system, not just a religion. |
|
|
| (644889) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 3 16:38:56 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 16:30:31 2010. Turks are plenty active at it too ... |
|
|
| (644895) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 16:53:23 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:29:46 2010. AGAIN, I'm not degending the Muslims per se, but the concept of restricting their religious expression. It's not what America should be doing. |
|
|
| (644896) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 16:55:44 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 16:53:23 2010. No one wants to "restrict" them. People want them to rethink that location. That's all. |
|
|
| (644897) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 16:56:19 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 16:53:23 2010. I'm not degending the Muslims per se, but the concept of restricting their religious expressionThis is not about their religious expression. It's about their socio-political expression. |
|
|
| (644898) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:58:53 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 16:53:23 2010. This "mosque" is a POLITICAL statement, not a religious one. No one is against "the mosque", just where they want to locate it. |
|
|
| (644899) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 17:02:04 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 16:31:46 2010. Not a whole community center, but certainly a fitting memorial to all the gays and lesbians killed at the WTC on 9/11 (there are more than you think), as a reminder that gays and lesbians died trying to save lives, just as their straight colleagues did.As a side note, death certificate #1 of the thousands of 9/11 victims, was assigned to Mychal Judge, OFM, an openly gay FDNY chaplain. He had removed his helmet to administer last rites to a dying firefighter, when a huge chunk of iron fell off the tower and struck him in the head. Father Judge chose to be there with us on that horrible morning, and at that moment, nobody gave a fig if he was gay or straight; they were just glad he was there to offer spiritual comfort. If he had survived, I think he'd have a gentle word or two for all those trying to stop the construction of a house of worship on what is widely considered to be sacred ground... |
|
|
| (644900) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 17:03:57 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 17:02:04 2010. Not a whole community center, but certainly a fitting memorial to all the gays and lesbians killed at the WTC on 9/11 (there are more than you think), as a reminder that gays and lesbians died trying to save lives, just as their straight colleagues didThat's fair. Imam Rauf wants a lot more than that, though. |
|
|
| (644902) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 17:10:10 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:58:53 2010. What would you consider an "appropriate" location for a house of worship, if not on sacred ground, which Ground zero is widely held to be?I still think a memorial chapel catering to all the world's faiths would settle this issue. |
|
|
| (644905) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 17:19:14 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 17:02:04 2010. Not a whole community center, but certainly a fitting memorial to all the gays and lesbians killed at the WTC on 9/11 (there are more than you think), as a reminder that gays and lesbians died trying to save lives, just as their straight colleagues did.That's ridiculous. PEOPLE saved other's lives, not "gays, straights, blacks, or hispanics". Should we have a memorial for the blacks that died their saving people, or the WHITES that died their saving people, or the WOMEN that saved people. Why does everything have to be divided up into groups. PEOPLE saved others, not "gays, straights, or whatever. nobody gave a fig if he was gay or straight; they were just glad he was there to offer spiritual comfort. Of COURSE they didn't. And they don't care today. They don't need a "memorial dedicated to the gays that died there". Do you ever walk into a "store" as a MAN, instead of a "Gay Man"? It seems that being gay has to take up every aspect of everything you do. I don't walk into a store as a "straight man", I walk in as a man, but they way you talk here, it seems that you walk in as a "gay man". I just don't understand it. If he had survived, I think he'd have a gentle word or two for all those trying to stop the construction of a house of worship on what is widely considered to be sacred ground... For a group of people in a Religion practiced in many parts of the world that wouldn't think twice about beheading him or mutilating him simply because of who he was (a gay man). |
|
|
| (644907) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 17:20:09 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 17:10:10 2010. You are so left-wing it's amazing. You should have a show on progressive radio. Unreal. |
|
|
| (644908) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 17:21:20 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 17:10:10 2010. Religion has no place on the site. A secular memorial is all what should be put there. If people chose to pray there, that is their right. |
|
|
| (644915) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 17:57:31 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:26:00 2010. Hypocrites. You only care what they think when we do things that you disagree with. |
|
|
| (644916) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 17:58:19 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 17:10:10 2010. Ground zero is not sacred ground. It's owned by the government. |
|
|
| (644917) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 18:01:22 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 17:02:04 2010. Why not a whole community center? I wouldn't see a problem with it, or even a gay or lesbian bar. We're talking about the 9/11 "zone" as Olog-hai put it, not Ground Zero itself. |
|
|
| (644918) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 18:02:12 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 17:57:31 2010. False. When have I ever defended Muslims extremists here? I said many times here, I have absolutely NO tolerance for religious extremists. Whether they be Christian, Jewish, OR Muslim |
|
|
| (644921) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 18:11:07 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 18:02:12 2010. Who said anything about defending them. You seem to care how Muslims in other countries see this mosques. But on other issues like our foreign policy, you have no concern what they think. Which is it? |
|
|
| (644923) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Aug 3 18:12:30 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 17:10:10 2010. I don't understand who an interfaith chapel would be designed to please. Are Christians looking for more Islam in their religion? Muslim's looking to worship with Jews?People worship separately because they have different beliefs. It seems to me that the people that would support an interfaith chapel (aside from any particular reason, such as a lack of people or resources) are probably not especially religious and see it being more a place for community than a place to worship. |
|
|
| (644925) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 18:18:17 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 18:11:07 2010. I don't care what they think in regards to our foreign policy, because they want to CHANGE and are trying to change who we are.i CARE what they think in regards to a political statement like this mosque is, becuase they want to and are trying to change who we are. |
|
|
| (644926) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 18:18:38 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 18:11:07 2010. It's a valid point that this supermosque and community center will be seen as a symbol of victory around the world. |
|
|
| (644927) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 18:19:55 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 17:58:19 2010. 3,000 people died there at the hands of MUSLIM terrorists. It is sacred ground. |
|
|
| (644929) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 3 18:21:57 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 17:19:14 2010. Divide and conquer ... the more of us going after each other, the less of us going after our manipulators. :( |
|
|
| (644932) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 18:27:35 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 18:18:17 2010. So you think that their opinion should affect one aspect of our society but not another. Interesting. |
|
|
| (644933) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 18:28:13 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 18:18:38 2010. And yet when it comes the way our other actions are seen around the world, you don't give a shit. |
|
|
| (644934) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 18:28:41 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 18:19:55 2010. No, it's not. |
|
|
| (644936) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Aug 3 18:29:41 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 3 12:27:49 2010. Chris R16 is just like Archie bunker, just dumber. |
|
|
| (644937) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 18:30:10 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 18:28:13 2010. not true. |
|
|
| (644951) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Tue Aug 3 19:11:24 2010, in response to Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 10:16:21 2010. I personally think this is a non-issue. Whichever side wins, if they build it or not, once the hysteria dies down nobody will even think about it. |
|
|
| (644973) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue Aug 3 20:04:28 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Jeff Rosen on Tue Aug 3 19:11:24 2010. yea like the other mosques in the area that grooms all the terrorist attacks, "no one" in the general public will care except for a few weeks after every hate attack.but at least it'll have a nifty memorial probably for the hijackers. |
|
|
| (644976) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue Aug 3 20:07:11 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 12:51:33 2010. no separation of mosque and state? or church and everything else.You say interfaith chapel. Meanwhile everytime a muzzie kills somewhere, which is daily, we have to get rid of ALL religion becuase of theirs. Both cases seem to miss the mark imo. |
|
|
| (644978) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue Aug 3 20:08:05 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 10:26:53 2010. "Religious freedom is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, and it's one of the reasons Al-Qaeda targeted the WTC over in the first place"I'm stop this one by only pointing out that the WTC was not a place of worship, unless you think it's a place of worship over money maybe that i've heard before. |
|
|
| (644990) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Aug 3 20:42:27 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Aug 3 18:29:41 2010. Archie Bunker was a loyal American. ChrisR16 is NOT!!!! He should go where his number sake went. |
|
|
| (644993) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Aug 3 21:13:40 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:50:58 2010. AND...if protesters try to stop construction vehicles...the vehicles should run right over them.That's insane. |
|
|
| (644994) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Aug 3 21:24:49 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 17:10:10 2010. I still think a memorial chapel catering to all the world's faiths would settle this issue.Terrible compromise with unintended consequnces. Not letting them build the mosque in exchange for such touchy-feely nonsense serves no purpose except to open the doors to the likes of Westboro Baptist Church to use such a chapel for "God Hates Fags" and "God Bless the 9/11 Terrorists" diatribes. You either make them build the mosque under the current zoning laws and our constitutional guarantees or you don't. The interfaith chapel idea is awful. |
|
|
| (644995) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Aug 3 21:27:53 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 17:02:04 2010. Father Judge needs to be canonized.He is a Saint and a Martyr. |
|
|
| (644996) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 21:31:24 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SMAZ on Tue Aug 3 21:13:40 2010. I disagree; if Israel could do it to bastards like Rachel Corrie (who to me is a turncoat)...what makes these protesters who would be refusing lawful orders any different? |
|
|
| (644997) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Aug 3 21:32:38 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue Aug 3 20:08:05 2010. I'm stop this one by only pointing out that the WTC was not a place of worship, unless you think it's a place of worship over money maybe that i've heard before.Holy Shit!! We AGREE!!! |
|
|
| (644998) | |
Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 21:34:27 2010, in response to Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 10:16:21 2010. And now, the first challenge that has to be slapped down:American Center for Law & Justice Poised to File Court Challenge to Proposed Ground Zero Mosque After NYC Declines to Landmark Historic Building Not only should the lawsuit be shot down quickly for lack of standing, but the ACLJ should be fined significantly and slapped with a show-cause order under which they would have to show cause before being allowed to file any more lawsuits for the next five years. Last I checked, the only entity with standing to challenge the Landmarks Preservation Commission's decision is the affected landlord. If said lawsuit delays construction, the mosque site owners should also sue the ACLJ for damages. |
|
|
| (645003) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Aug 3 21:38:50 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by monorail on Tue Aug 3 12:37:07 2010. To me it's neither excellent nor bad. I don't care either way.I would be pissed if they were demolishing something worth preserving. I at least hope the mosque will be aestethically pleasing. What's going to happen with the old building? |
|
|
| (645008) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Aug 3 21:43:08 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 21:31:24 2010. Rachel Corrie died in a war zone. One doesn't go into an active war zone, start shit as if she's in some sit-in in America and then have people cry for her because she got herself killed. She was an idiot.You equate Lower Manhattan with Gaza? That's even more insane! |
|
|
| (645013) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 21:49:18 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 21:31:24 2010. So you think that is how all protesters should be treated or people who may protest against the mosque?Do you favor police running down and killing "Critical Mass" bicyclists for example? |
|
|
| (645018) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 21:55:48 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 21:31:24 2010. if Israel could do it to bastards like Rachel Corrie (who to me is a turncoat)Israel did nothing to Rachel Corrie. Her death was not the bulldozer's doing. |
|
|
| (645022) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 21:58:00 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 21:55:48 2010. Notice how he always has to sneak in a backhanded slap at Israel, even if Israel is not the issue in this discussion |
|
|
| (645025) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 22:09:07 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 21:58:00 2010. The guy does have fascistic tendencies. He's expressed hatred for the US constitution in the past. |
|
|
| (645028) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 22:26:17 2010, in response to Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 21:34:27 2010. You're insane. |
|
|
| (645029) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 22:39:21 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 22:26:17 2010. How am I insane? On the surface, the lawsuit seems ridiculous, and delving into it, it seems absolutely without merit, as there is no aggrieved party here. |
|
|
| (645030) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 22:44:32 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 22:39:21 2010. story hereYou are right, there is no legal challenge here. But they should find another location. |
|
|
| (645032) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Aug 3 22:50:27 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 22:39:21 2010. Falcon Pawnch |
|
|
| (645035) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 22:54:12 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 22:39:21 2010. Because you believe some really crazy things about what should happen to plaintiffs who have no standing to sue. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 9 |
||