OT mosque at wtc site

Manni,sorry if I wasn't clear, I was born in the US, but to answer your question, I was putting myself in the position of someone who was not. And no, if I lived in my husband's country of origin, I would not because I would not be allowed. Which was kinda my point.

Ok. Suppose you were allowed to do so in your husband's country, would you?

Manni,She said if she were the one to have moved here, she would have. She answered your question. Lots of people have answered your questions, and yet you still refuse to stop asking the same one.I have a question for you. If you feel that the mosque should not be built out of fear of offending some people, what do you say to those of us who are offended by the notion of having our religious freedoms curtailed out of fear of offending some?I am a christian, and I know that christianity is offensive to some. Should I not celebrate? Should I not put up my manger set, on the chance that I offend someone? I attend a Jewish school. Should I tell them not to display the minorah, because it offends my religion?There is a larger issue here than a few people who are offended by a building going up near ground zero. The issue is one of our consitutionally protected freedoms. If any one group is denied their constitutionally protected freedoms, what is to stop someone from denying me my constitutionally protected freedoms? What is to stop me from denying you your consitutionally protected freedoms?This issue is, at its most basic, a threat to our constitutional freedoms. Those same freedoms that our military, including my father, fought and died for. It has not one single thing to do with whether people are offended or should they compromise.

Vegan: There have been many cases where people have filed lawsuits against Religious holiday decorations being displayed in government offices, property or schools. I personally don't agree, but the courts have. So some of our religious freedoms have been curtailed. Prayers in public schools-they have been banned because it has been implied it's mixing church with government or some people find it offensive because they're of a different faith or Atheist. The same goes for the Pledge of Allegiance. The use of the words " one nation under God", people have found offensive, and now a child in a public school has the right not to pledge ( which is their constitutional right). She didn't answer my question. I asked if she had moved to another country would she do the same thing that is being done here ? The only person who answered either "yes" or "no" Momloriane. I asked the same question several times, and even gave an example so people would understand what I was asking, and everyone was evasive. Which to me most likely means "no", they would not do what is being done here if they were living in another country. -Manni:wings:

if I could do so legally and safely, I most certainly would. However, there are many countries where I could not build a religious community center legally and safely. I personally do not want to live in one of those countries. I do not want the country I live in to become one of those countries. And I'm sorry, but religious decorations in government buildings is a completely different issue.

Someone: Thank you for answering my question. So you would regardless if it was offensive. Religious holiday decorations in US government buildings/property/schools are the same, at least to me. I grew up in the 70's and 80's and it was common to put up a baby Jesus with a Christmas tree and a Menorah. Later other religious symbols were added to include other faiths. But someone( or some people) thought it was offensive and challenged these displays and filed lawsuits. They stated because these displays were on government property, or in federally funded schools, it was illegal according to the constitution and the courts agreed. The same for the Pledge of Allegiance and prayers in the schools. Don't get me wrong everyone one has a right to freedom, but I wanted to point out ( to Vegan and others) that sometime Americans have had to comprise according to our constitutional laws. -Manni

Hi Someonenamedleah - welcome to the forums, And that is what it is really important. That the FREEDOM to practice any religion, have the right to FREE speech, to READ the books you wish to read, to sing, dance and TRAVEL freely within the borders, to go to school, the right to vote, protest, own property, start a business, be employed...the list is endless in the USA and other countries - but the list is very small in other countries and then only for a select few. Like Saya said - who is it that is stirring the pot? My LEAST favorite network appears to be doing just that, and others 'individuals' who some, myself included would say are coming very close? to the line of being a fanatic. Kind regards,Dickons

What is your point Manni? Something that does not violate the constitution and is indeed protected by the constitution, is the same as something that the courts have ruled do violate the constitution? Apples and oranges. We all compromise and when it comes right down to it - Muslims most likely compromise the most right now in this era simply because some people deem them suspicious because of their religion. And by the way Vegas is not Vegan... Kind regards,Dickons

Ok, your'e entitled to your opinion-it's your right( even though I see it as double standards). We compromised why can't others?

Manni, Muslims are compromising in every word they utter - they are currently between a rock and a hard place... So lets talk compromise in other areas... I think that early pre-birth matching is wrong because it can create by the sheer relationship an obligation to place for those most vulnerable and then having the paps at the hospital reinforces that obligation...along with a whole lot of other less then ethical practices like dangling the carrot of openess...and agencies get away with this because the laws are not strong enough so they 'aren't breaking the law'... My issues with the above practices as an adoptee whose mother had no other choice than to place me for adoption are real and valid. And I am not the only adoptee who feels this way and there are adoptees who do not feel this way...opinions on both side of the issue. But if those issues come up they are shut down because 'adoption is good' and sunshine and roses...we can't even get adoptive parents who should be first and foremost in line to make sure it is done ethically all on the same side - because their self interests conflict...How many AP's who have figured out something was wrong with their agencies ethical practices reported it to the authorities? How many wrote to their congressmen? How many stepped up and demanded the laws be changed? So why aren't my sensitivities being taken into consideration? Where is the compromise in changing the laws and outcry against the rights of the mother to make the decision to place without manipulations and the carrot of open adoption without legal backing to uphold the contract of openness? Where is FOX news and the Christian organizations outcry - oh right - they love adoption because unwed mothers should have no right to raise their child. Talk about hypocritical. Kind regards,Dickons

The key to this is they were in government buildings. If they're in a government building, there's an implication that is in violation of the separation of church and state. If it's in my house or yard, there is no church/state issue, yet some people are still offended.

Here are the facts about Park51: The Burlington Coat Factory building was hit by debris from 9/11 and they had to close the factory. Building was sold to a developer who initially thought to build condos there. He then began a partnership to build a Islamic community center modeled after the Jewish Community center on 92nd st.( which serves it community regardless of faith) Meanwhile the building is being used for daily Islamic prayer(5 times a day since July 2009 and also areas are being used by other groups for different purposes including religious worship that is not Muslim. Plans were presented to the local Community Board, who approved the new building. Not once, but twice. (Local. The people who actually live right there) There was no large amount of opposition until an OUTSIDE group began making waves and calling the project a Mosque at Ground Zero. In summary, the building has been used for over a year as a place of worship for Muslims and no one decided that was a problem until they got to the point of replacing the burned out building with a new one. (Only a small portion of the building is presently usable due to fire damage.) Make sure you are reading this correctly- they have been there for over a year doing exactly the same thing they will do in a new building except offer more space and services to the local community. NO ONE has a reasonable argument against this center except that the builders are Muslim. Which brings it back to equating anyone who is Muslim with the terrorists of 9/11 simply because they are Muslim. I challenge anyone to bring forward an argument against the center based on any other logical reason that does not include the words Muslim or Islam.

I'm not sure how I could have been more clear I was answering the question...But if you insist on continuing to dismiss those of us that keep answering your question (admittedly not with the answer you like - which is perhaps why you keep taking issue) I don't see why many of us should continue to engage in this conversation.

TMG: The question wasn't addressed to you, so I don't see why you're posting this response? The poster ( who wasn't you) didn't answer my question.

The baiting, snippy retorts, repeated points etc. are signs that EVERYONE needs a break from this discussion. Go enjoy your family, friends, pets, and what have you today and we'll see about re-opening for further discussion. Thanks!