Mosque near ground zero

[yoda]

Mosque must be built near 9/11 site: Bloomberg http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/aug/26/mosque-must-be-built-near-9-11-site-bloomberg.htm

[Clarke]

Here's an idea: spare the $100 million for land of the pure

[punjabi_khota]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque Perhaps spatial reality functions differently on the other side of the Atlantic, but here in London, something that is "two minutes' walk and round a corner" from something else isn't actually "in" the same place at all. I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain. It's also how distance works in America, of course, but some people are currently pretending it doesn't, for daft political ends.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[yoda]

BTW why do they really need 100 million to build this "center"? I am guessing it is the cost of construction in Manhattan, but still seems very lavish.

[Gotham Cronie]

Stewart has been on fire http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

[Kriterion]

That building was damaged in the 9/11 attacks perpetrated by your co-religionists. So technically' date=' it is part of the destruction caused on that day. [/quote'] i just got back from Park51... the above statement is completely incorrect, seedhi. the building in question is an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory....it was never destroyed by anything ever. not only is not at ground zero - a name spun by the media to evoke sentiment - its not even part of the "collateral damage" as you claim above, and as i accepted as plausible before today.

Now, the organization that is building the mosque is the Cordoba Foundation. It supposedly is funded from Malaysia (though they decline to reveal the funding source). Why are the Malaysians funding the mosque, why is it not being funded solely by American Muslims? Why is it called the Cordoba Foundation - after a place in Spain which the Arabs Muslim invaders first conquered? Also, a country like Malaysia which has much less religious freedom is funding this mosque in the name of freedom etc. The whole agenda seems to be to provoke the Americans.

i have also found out that the GZ "mosque" does not have funding...they are still raising money from the congregation...a few women offered up a few thousand dollars today, in fact. truth of the matter is the GZ "mosque" is 10-20 years away from actually existing. not only that, but this community has had a mosque nearby since 1970...its not something coming after 9/11...its been here before. the reason its an issue now, instead of whenever it actually comes to fruition 10-20 years down the road is because this is a midterm election year and apparently, the republicans need to distract people from the fact that they have shot down a Congressional bill which would have supported all the people who got sick from the air immediately after 9/11.

[Jadoo]

Note to Outsider, If he is gonna close the thread created discussing the verdict on Ram Temple/babri majid, he might as well close this thread as well. BTW, I'm sure your probably an atheist, though that does give you a right to talk smack about other beliefs as you did in that particular thread.

[The Outsider]

Note to Outsider, If he is gonna close the thread created discussing the verdict on Ram Temple/babri majid, he might as well close this thread as well. BTW, I'm sure your probably an atheist, though that does give you a right to talk smack about other beliefs as you did in that particular thread.

I did not close the Ram temple thread. As a rule, I don't moderate threads I am actively participating in.

[punjabi_khota]

open the ram janambhoomi thread :protest:

[Jadoo]

I did not close the Ram temple thread. As a rule, I don't moderate threads I am actively participating in.

Well, if that is the case than I apolgise as I had thought you had closed it. It's a shame that for someone who shows great qualities in his moderations cannot refrain himself from mocking religious beliefs.

[seedhi]

i just got back from Park51... the above statement is completely incorrect, seedhi. the building in question is an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory....it was never destroyed by anything ever. not only is not at ground zero - a name spun by the media to evoke sentiment - its not even part of the "collateral damage" as you claim above, and as i accepted as plausible before today.

Well you are wrong. The damage to the building by the plane debris has been reported extensively. Here is what the wikipedia says.

When United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, part of the plane's landing gear and fuselage came out the north side of the tower and crashed through the roof of 45–47 Park Place, and through two of its floors. The plane parts destroyed three floor beams, and severely compromised the building's internal structure.[40][24][41][42][43] The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes later, soon followed by the North Tower and 7 World Trade Center later in the day.[40] During the attacks, the then-five-story building at 45–47 Park Place, between West Broadway and Church Street, was severely damaged.[6][41][44]

You can check up the listed references.

[punjabi_khota]

^It says 45-47 Park Place, while the building is 51 Park Place, isn't it ?

[The Outsider]

Well, if that is the case than I apolgise as I had thought you had closed it. It's a shame that for someone who shows great qualities in his moderations cannot refrain himself from mocking religious beliefs.

I was merely contending the point made by another poster that there is a 'consensus' about the existence of Ram, albeit in a slightly caustic manner. I can't see where I disparaged any religious belief, yes I did question their historical authenticity. I have no problems if you believe Ram existed or whatever. Just don't try to peddle it as some universal 'consensus' when there are clearly quite a few historical loopholes. Anyhow, no point carrying the same discussion here if the previous thread was closed for whatever reasons, and there was no intention to mock anyone's religious belief.

[King Tendulkar]

I was merely contending the point made by another poster that there is a 'consensus' about the existence of Ram, albeit in a slightly caustic manner. I can't see where I disparaged any religious belief, yes I did question their historical authenticity. I have no problems if you believe Ram existed or whatever. Just don't try to peddle it as some universal 'consensus' when there are clearly quite a few historical loopholes. Anyhow, no point carrying the same discussion here if the previous thread was closed for whatever reasons, and there was no intention to mock anyone's religious belief.

You totally mocked ram and hinduism in the other thread. And this is supposed to be a bharat website:((

[Clarke]

Well, if that is the case than I apolgise as I had thought you had closed it. It's a shame that for someone who shows great qualities in his moderations cannot refrain himself from mocking religious beliefs.

the bigger shame is the select few of most intelligent and senior members go about wildly bashing each other over national/international issues that shouldn't have existed in the first place. I don't expect the VHP or AIMPLB (atleast the latter suggested they are willing to live with the court verdict) to talk sensibly and figure out a solution but well educated, intelligent human beings should not indulge in such name calling.

[someone]

I was merely contending the point made by another poster that there is a 'consensus' about the existence of Ram, albeit in a slightly caustic manner. I can't see where I disparaged any religious belief, yes I did question their historical authenticity. I have no problems if you believe Ram existed or whatever. Just don't try to peddle it as some universal 'consensus' when there are clearly quite a few historical loopholes. Anyhow, no point carrying the same discussion here if the previous thread was closed for whatever reasons, and there was no intention to mock anyone's religious belief.

Hurray, now we need to prove to you. The point was about wondering what reaction would be if this was asked of other religion.(Imagine if Karunnidhi said that for other religion)

[Jadoo]

I was merely contending the point made by another poster that there is a 'consensus' about the existence of Ram, albeit in a slightly caustic manner. I can't see where I disparaged any religious belief, yes I did question their historical authenticity. I have no problems if you believe Ram existed or whatever. Just don't try to peddle it as some universal 'consensus' when there are clearly quite a few historical loopholes. Anyhow, no point carrying the same discussion here if the previous thread was closed for whatever reasons, and there was no intention to mock anyone's religious belief.

The issue isn't you contending the consensus on the existence of Ram, as obviously you are well within your right to that, though be careful not to point such thoughts about other religions, as there are fanatical loonies out there. The issue I have is with your post; qouted below. I ain't a professor, but have enough intelligence to know when someone is mocking. "Yeah right, there was Ram, talking monkeys, evil demons, spaceships, arrows which could split the Earth open, flying monkeys who could wreck entire countries by lighting them on fire etc. etc. 3000 odd years back."

[King Tendulkar]

The issue isn't you contending the consensus on the existence of Ram, as obviously you are well within your right to that, though be care to point such thoughts about other religions, as there are loonies out there. The issue I have is with your post I have qouted below. I ain't a professor, but have enough intelligence to know when someone is mocking. "Yeah right, there was Ram, talking monkeys, evil demons, spaceships, arrows which could split the Earth open, flying monkeys who could wreck entire countries by lighting them on fire etc. etc. 3000 odd years back."

Sadly we have mods on this indian website who mock hinduism as above(everyone knows he taking the piss) and also mock sikhs murdered in pakistan. If you want to behave like that then stop being mods and become one of the aam aadmi.

[The Outsider]

The issue isn't you contending the consensus on the existence of Ram, as obviously you are well within your right to that, though be careful not to point such thoughts about other religions, as there are fanatical loonies out there. The issue I have is with your post; qouted below. I ain't a professor, but have enough intelligence to know when someone is mocking. "Yeah right, there was Ram, talking monkeys, evil demons, spaceships, arrows which could split the Earth open, flying monkeys who could wreck entire countries by lighting them on fire etc. etc. 3000 odd years back."

I still can't see how religious mocking comes into the picture. I am merely questioning the poster's contention that there is a 'consensus' about the existence of Ram by giving an analogy that if there is a consensus that Ram exists then by extension there should also be a consensus that there were talking monkeys, spaceships, and evil demons for these objects are described in the same text as Ram. If it is someone's belief that Ram existed, all well and good just don't try to give it a historical and scientific cloak and if you are doing so, be prepared for criticism.

[Jadoo]

Sadly we have mods on this indian website who mock hinduism as above(everyone knows he taking the piss) and also mock sikhs murdered in pakistan. If you want to behave like that then stop being mods and become one of the aam aadmi.

Is that the thread which got moved to the jokes section by some dude named borris or something?