The Mosque Should Be Built!

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Liberal

It's abundantly clear, here, that many folks here believe that righteousness can be legislated. I'm appalled at the notion that political activism positively impacts the cause of Christ. There isn't anything in the New Testament that encourages us, as Followers, to care one way or the other if our government is propagating godliness, nor is there any instruction to seek silly token symbolic gestures, such as "In God We Trust", on our money.

I see and hear so many talk about the power of the Holy Ghost. Do you all trust the Spirit to lead people to righteousness or do you need law to help?

I, for one, don't believe this is a religious argument many are making.

I do, however, believe there is much in Scripture that talks about "furthering the cause of Christ (read: GOD) in terms of caring for the poor, the oppressed the powerless, etc.... We don't legislate the cause of Christ. But this is a straw man argument because thus far I haven't heard that.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

The issue is not if they have a legal, constitutional right at all.

The People DO have a right to express their disapproval. That may or may not effect the outcome.

It amazes me that some not only oppose those who are not in support of this building plan, but actually SUPPORT and are proponents for the Mosque to be built. Makes me scratch my head. It's like those who see issues with the Church, and their critique sounds more like a "everything not associated with the church is awesome -- while anything to do with church folks is horrendous." I've heard this in several books I've read recently. Fortunately, I was able to strip it down and hear their critique over their anti-church rhetoric. This doesn't apply to you, but just a general commentary. Self-righteousness isn't just an issue for ultra cons -- it affects all those who boast their social justice efforts, those who think they know it all and have all the answers to all things while looking low on those who aren't as arrived as them, etc...

Yes, I just took a HUGE tangent... ah well.

Your huge tangent aside, my primary issue here has nothing to do with my like or dislike of "The Church." You know, actually, that's not true. It has to do with my "Like" of "The Church. I've said this 'til I'm blue in the face, but when the precedent is set of being able to block a church establishment simply because of the "kind" of religion it is, the pattern will be established of preventing other religions...maybe yours...from establishing your local church.

Just imagine if you were from a very liberal city, Seattle or San Francisco for example, that already has a bent toward disliking religion, if this effort in NYC succeeds, how long will it be until liberal cities use this as a precedent to shut down your church?

[Maximilian]

Wow, even the 9/11 Conspirators made their rounds on this post.

I suspect this thread is made up of contributions of 20 accounts, but only 5 people. Just a feelin'...

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I, for one, don't believe this is a religious argument many are making.

I do, however, believe there is much in Scripture that talks about "furthering the cause of Christ (read: GOD) in terms of caring for the poor, the oppressed the powerless, etc.... We don't legislate the cause of Christ. But this is a straw man argument because thus far I haven't heard that.

Well then, you didn't read everything. Jason made it very clear. Well, as "Clear" as that goofiness can be.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Your huge tangent aside, my primary issue here has nothing to do with my like or dislike of "The Church." You know, actually, that's not true. It has to do with my "Like" of "The Church. I've said this 'til I'm blue in the face, but when the precedent is set of being able to block a church establishment simply because of the "kind" of religion it is, the pattern will be established of preventing other religions...maybe yours...from establishing your local church.

Just imagine if you were from a very liberal city, Seattle or San Francisco for example, that already has a bent toward disliking religion, if this effort in NYC succeeds, how long will it be until liberal cities use this as a precedent to shut down your church?

That's really not the issue at all. And if you keep repeating that, you are only showing an inability to hear the issue and arguments by others. It's not an issue of "your x religion, so we don't like you and you can't have your building." That's rather simplistic and naive way to understand this situation.

I wouldn't support any government by saying "just because you are x religion, you can't have a building." Again, you are not broadening what the argument really is.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

That's really not the issue at all. And if you keep repeating that, you are only showing an inability to hear the issue and arguments by others. It's not an issue of "your x religion, so we don't like you and you can't have your building." That's rather simplistic and naive way to understand this situation.

I wouldn't support any government by saying "just because you are x religion, you can't have a building." Again, you are not broadening what the argument really is.

Thanks for being concerned about what the issue is, but whether you like it or not, it's MY issue and precedent means everything in law, so therefore I'm making it an issue and it's the issue this thread was based on. If you don't want that to be the issue, then start your own Mosque thread.

When you said, "Naive" I literally laughed out loud here in my living room. Whatever, Maxi.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Was it hit by a jet liner too?

See here are the factors. It was hit buy a jetliner traveling pretty fast. That impact weakened the structural integrity.

The fire, only added to the weakening. It was the several thousand tons of steel and concrete resting ON the impact area that eventually collapsed the support and sent tons of steel and concrete crashing down onto the next level

BTW Here is a video for you: The video shows a fire from a tanker that spilled out, caught on fire and collapsed the overpass from the heat.The fire melted the overpass. Concrete, rebar and all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXb5M...eature=related

You're kidding, right...??

You're comparing a 110 story skyscraper to a freeway overpass...??

Also, it's obvious you haven't done your homework. Building 7 was not hit by a plane. This building plummeted to the ground in about 7 seconds. Here is the video, again, showing the freefall fashion of demolition, not fire.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...73116607499063

Again, the fact still stands that no other steel formed skyscraper in the history of the World has ever collapsed because of fire.

Also, you cannot match the structural integrity of a freeway overpass with the ingenuity of the Twin Towers. They don't even come close. These buildings fell “Free Fall” to the ground in 10 seconds, scientifically debunking the Pancake Theory.

Now, I watched your video. Will you take the time to watch this one? This video shows how the Twin Towers were built, revealing the “Core” that so many don’t know anything about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVcn84cyGiE

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

The issue is not if they have a legal, constitutional right at all.

The People DO have a right to express their disapproval. That may or may not effect the outcome.

It amazes me that some not only oppose those who are not in support of this building plan, but actually SUPPORT and are proponents for the Mosque to be built. Makes me scratch my head. It's like those who see issues with the Church, and their critique sounds more like a "everything not associated with the church is awesome -- while anything to do with church folks is horrendous." I've heard this in several books I've read recently. Fortunately, I was able to strip it down and hear their critique over their anti-church rhetoric. This doesn't apply to you, but just a general commentary. Self-righteousness isn't just an issue for ultra cons -- it affects all those who boast their social justice efforts, those who think they know it all and have all the answers to all things while looking low on those who aren't as arrived as them, etc...

Yes, I just took a HUGE tangent... ah well.

Maybe it's like reverse racism? People in American will have been known in the future as the people that shot thenselves in the foot

How to stick it to Christians? Support more Mosques.
How to stick it to the white man? Hire more blacks than whites (never mind that there are other races too)
How to stick it to the government? Support Communisim

Maybe that's exaggerated but it seems that in America it's chic to go oppose something. We see it here in this forum when it comes to the UPC...Don't just leave and go somewhere else, be belligerently anti UPC at least in rhetoric.

America, if it is ever to succumb to Jihad, will do so by hanging itself. What did they say about Capitalists,the communists? about hanging the last capitalist with the rope they sold us? If there is to be a Jihad or if there is one already it will be one where they can mostly sit back and watch us destroy ourselves. One in which there will be no bloody war. They will immigrate here, reproduce in large numbers, use and manipulate politics and leftists until they are a majority.

That's what happened in Lebanon. They were a Christian nation by majority. They took in muslims as part of their humanitarianism. They gave them equality in politics. The Muslims became the majority and now it's a completely different nation

The problem wasn't the nominal Muslim. It's the ambitious political Imams who, along with other Imam's and political groups like Iran, want to bury Israel and spread Islam all over the world. I suspect most Muslims are unwitting partners in that at least in most places.

In Israel when you read of the riots in the street, it always was preceded by a meeting in a Mosque where a Imam preached a fiery sermon about how evil Jews are. People would be whipped into a frenzy and come pouring out of the mosques with hatred enflamed. I say enflamed because that's not all to say there isn't a need for healing, but it's clear the Imams and others at the top don't want healing and see the ordinary citizens as fodder for their cause

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

(laughing)@ "last guy".

Not sister of Moses, but sister of Aaron.....in context meaning "righteous like Aaron and how could this happen to you"

In context:

27. Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said: "O Mary! Indeed you have brought a thing Fariya (an unheard mighty thing).

28. "O sister (i.e. the like) of Harun (Aaron) (Mary)]! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman."

Naturally LOL the line gets taken out of context but this one is not one of the (12) or (13) known discrepencies in the Quran

Thanks for the exegesis, Wii.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

You're kidding, right...??

You're comparing a 110 story skyscraper to a freeway overpass...??

Also, it's obvious you haven't done your homework. Building 7 was not hit by a plane. This building plummeted to the ground in about 7 seconds. Here is the video, again, showing the freefall fashion of demolition, not fire.

First Im not talking about building 7. Let's talk about the towers. It was NOT just a fire. That needs to be addressed

Second the fire on the freeway over pass was important for your information to show what a fire can do to a structure to weaken it. Concrete and rebar

It wasn't a comparison. It was an example of how a fire can weaken structural integrity. You argued it can't but it can and does. In the case I provided it was fuel burning...lots and lots of it.

In the 2 buildings we have fuel, lots and lots of it. We also have other fuel provided by the building. We have it enclosed as well and prolonged in a concentrated area. So it got really really hot.

As I explained before that weakened the structural integrity, not destroyed it. What brought those 2 towers down was the total weight of hundreds of tons of concrete and steel sitting on top of it.

As for building 7?

A team of engineers investigated that. Here are some of the results. To begin with the team members came from these groups

In response to FEMA's concerns, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead an investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center. The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).

Ok so far?

In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest facade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south facade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.

A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds

The working hypothesis, released in the June 2004 progress report and reiterated in a June 2007 status update, was that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say that the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition. The draft NIST report rejected this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.


The use of thermate instead of explosives is discarded by NIST on the basis that it is unlikely the necessary 100 pounds of thermate for each steel column could have been planted without being discovered

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center