NY Mosque/TwinTowers controversy: Deeper analysis than simply hot-headed talking pointsShare. Today at 10:14am | Edit Note | Delete
In this thread:
of the group titled: "PEOPLE WHO LOVE AMERICA, AND CHERISH THE SACRED GROUND OF SEPT 11TH," I made this post:
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: I read the latest email from the list owner: If indeed the Muslim faith teaches a type of shiara law that is repugnant to the constitution, then ALL Muslim churches should be IMMEDIATELY removed from this country. But, seeing as America has the highest divorce rate in the world, were we to do that, then a good case could be made against American Protestant and Catholic churches (of the which I am a member, being a Protestant Christian myself) ...as I was saying, were we to do that, then a good case could be made that American churches are even lower in morals, and we would have a hard time proving otherwise. -- Any suggestions here?? One thing to remember: God (whomever He is) is fair and will not play favorites here.
---
Below that, I posted this clarification in the 'comments' section:
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: In other words, not *JUST* the Mosque at Ground Zero in NY, but ALL Mosques -if indeed our logic is sound. If on the other hand, a complelling argument can not be made to remove ALL mosques, then we would not only have a hard time singling out this one, but it might turn against us - see the latest statistics on divorce amongst American Christians -as high -or higher than out nations, and, get this: America's divorce is the highest in the world -sadly:
CF:
33 minutes ago · LikeUnlike ·
---
There was a response:
Helen Heubel Vopasek wrote: What's your point. Do you know why divorce is so low in Muslim countries? Because the other choice is death.
---
I replied:
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote:My point, Helen, is to gather sufficient information to be able to make a fair, but effective, decision as to what is the best choice of action. Regardless of any views or sentiments you may have, I don't currently know enough to be able to say with confidence one way or anther what should be done, and I don't get bullied into jumping to fast conclusions. -- Now, a better question might be asked about whether *most* members of these Mosques are truly and genuinely intent on blowing up American businesses -- If indeed you can put forth an argument on that head, then the divorce stats become meaningless, and you have a case for the removal of ALL mosques in America. If, on the other hand, you can not, then the opposite is true. It is too close for me to call, seeing as I see just enough evidence on both sides of the argument for a colorful argument (in legal terms: a fighting chance) -and having many friends of many different faiths and ethnic backgrounds. Your input on the moral character of the majority of the Mosque attendants WITH DOCUMENTATION would be greatly appreciates.
(-:/
By the way, I'm not a liberal pussy -simply because I am hesitant to “kill, kill, kill.” Observe
alt:
Besides being the guy whose lawsuit ALMOST saved Terri Schiavo's life -and a staunch supporter of the Constitution, I am exceedingly conservative -socially, politically, and morally.
---
MORE REPLIES:
Rachel Fry wrote: I think you missed the point Gordon ..Im sure not all Muslims want to kill us..however the people who did 9/11 did it in their name..so in my opinion to let someone put up a mosque on that site would just plain not be right.
7 minutes ago · LikeUnlike · Flag.
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: Rachel, by your logic, it would be OK to ban the church of which I am a member, the local First Baptist Church at the Mall, because their divorce rate (highest in the WORLD!!) was done in the name of the church. After all, all marriages are not private or secular events: They bear the imprimatur of *whatever* church performed the ceremony -in this case, my Southern Baptist church -a very good church when it comes to helping poor and hungry people. -- I am still looking for evidence -one way or the other -regarding the *majority* of the Muslims who attend their mosques -and I say "one way or the other" because I am not looking to defend one side or the other -but rather to get to the bottom of the situation & find out the truth. Is there a truth present which is repugnant to mention about orselves?
a few seconds ago · LikeUnlike · .
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: I can tell by the way you write, Rachel, that you probably think I am defending the "other side," but read what I wrote -not what you see -and you will see otherwise.
2 seconds ago · LikeUnlike ·
---
OK, as you see, I'm archiving these posts in case some hot-head deletes them,-GW
---
I ADDED one more clarifying point to that post:
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: OK, I think this will clarify my position of the Consitution with regard to the mosque controversy, and pay close attention to the 'Open Press Doctrine' and the 'Cacophony of voices':
ISSN 1062-7421
Vol. 12 No. 2 (February 2002) pp. 79-83.
THE FOUNDING OF AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC PRESS LIBERTY, 1640-1800 by Robert W. T. Martin. New York: New York University Press, 2001. 238 pp. Cloth $40.00. ISBN: 0-8147-5655-7
Reviewed by Rick A. Swanson, Department of Political Science, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
"This history is based on a sometimes unified, sometimes bifurcated conceptual framework of early American thinkers: the "free and open press." "Free press doctrine lionized the press as the prime defender of public liberty in its role as a bulwark against governmental tyranny. Open press doctrine, on the other hand, stressed the individual right of every man to air his sentiments for all to consider, regardless of his political perspective or the consequences for the people's liberty." (p. 3)."
See also the end of the 6th parahraph here:
"What we need is more free speech, more robust dialogue. We need a cacophony of voices. Let's hear all sides here.""
---
RACHEL REPLIED:
Rachel Fry wrote: You missed my point..lol..I dont think you are defending the other-side..I understand an informed decision..which we should make..Im not a member of any church frankly I think they all are brainwashing institutes(im sure that will win me points)..and i dont hate all muslims..im just saying that the people who downed the towers did it in the muslim name..and its out of respect we dont put a monument up to the people who did it..if people would have killed in the catholic name i wouldnt put up a catholic church there either..
9 minutes ago · LikeUnlike · Flag
**I** REPLIED -- TWICE:
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: @Rachel- you have not lost any respect wrt 2 yr church comment -in fact, I agree, most or all ARE hypocrites who DON'T take in the homeless person as mandated per Isaiah 58"6-7 & Matthew 25:31-46 - they send'em to shelters instead, LOL, where they are often forces to get up even if sick & go 'do something' -in any event, I do see yr point: Even if it's not illegal, it may not be wise for the Muslims to build a church there. Even Saul of Tarsus, a famed Bible writer, said as much - TWICE:
1 Corinthians 6:12 (Amplified Bible)
12Everything is permissible (allowable and lawful) for me; but not all things are helpful (good for me to do, expedient and profitable when considered with other things). Everything is lawful for me, but I will not become the slave of anything or be brought under its power.
1 Corinthians 10:23 (Amplified Bible)
23All things are legitimate [permissible--and we are free to do anything we please], but not all things are helpful (expedient, profitable, and wholesome). All things are legitimate, but not all things are constructive [to character] and edifying [to spiritual life].
But, unless we want our own (Protestant/Catholic Judeao-Christian) churches to be told 'no,' we must leave the decision up to THEM -unless there IS evidence as I requested above wrt the actual members of the church. In any event, I don't recall ANY historical figure of repute suggesting what you're suggesting – I mean, when's the last time Jesus said to remove certain temples ourselves -no, he said HE would tear down the temple -both symbolic to His body and literal to the actual temple. We must not do God's job – we have enough ourselves to do. He is more qualified to do His job then we ourselves.
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: Rachel wrote: ("..if people would have killed in the catholic name i wouldnt put up a catholic church there either..") Actually, there WERE Catholic inquisitions ... and not just done by Catholics either -let's be fair.
about a minute ago · LikeUnlike ·
---
I FOLLOWED-UP with this:
a few seconds ago · LikeUnlike · .Write a comment....Older Posts..
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: Inspiration hit me: Since the constitution -and those closely allied to it - suggest more voices, not less, then the 'right' thing to do would be to build several different churches of different faiths in that area -and let them compete with one another on who best helps the poor, homeless, hungry, needy, etc. -- If you don't believe me, see the citations wrt to the Constitution I posted above. I think this would work here -as it has in other cities with places of worship of many faiths..
---
5 minutes ago · LikeUnlike · .
Rachel Fry wrote: On the Catholic thing I know there where inquisitions..my point was if they did something like that now I would not build a church on the site it happened..Im not all for telling people that they are not allowed to do anything Gordon..it just seems wrong to build one on that spot. Its like building a hitler memorial on Aushwitz ground..its just not right. And Goran Jesus was a hell of alot more forgiving than me :) This is what makes America great...the fact that we have an opinion and are allowed to have it..
2 minutes ago · UnlikeLike · 1 person
Loading... · Flag.
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: @Rachel - you seem to make good sense on the whole, but using the Hitlar comparison is a bit of a stretch, because he was ONE BAD dude, and yet the Muslims are a 'wide range' of people of many different levels of morality. "You got your good Muslims, and you got your bad Muslims..."
(-:/
a few seconds ago · LikeUnlike ·
------
(Note: 'wrt' is an abbreviation for 'with respect to')
That's all for now.-GW
--- MORE FEEDBACK:
Rachel Fry wrote: Agreed Gordon..Hitler was a bit much..but I guess it was my point..not all Germans where bad..but hitler was..and he did Aushwitz...not all muslims are bad..but the ones who did sep 11th where..I have no problems with muslims as a whole..
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike · Flag.
Roy Dickerson wrote: Remember though, that they all follow the same book and are thus capable of the same level of commitment as the radicals if they are obedient to their dead god mohammad!
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike · Flag.
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: @Roy - 'Their Book,' as you call it has many things in it -both good and bad. If you overlook the 5 Pillars of Islam, you are not seeing whe whole of the picture. Although the Muslims do not give Jesus of Nazereth the proper credit he deserves as Messiah, he is still creditied with being a prophet, and this 'book' as you call it is part of the same religion that has 'The 'Five Pillars' of Islam, which are the foundation of Muslim life:
1) Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
2) Establishment of the daily prayers;
3) Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
4) Self-purification through fasting; and
5) The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.
Instead of focusing on fringe elements (on either side), to make your argument, you should cite information regarding what ALL Muslims do - not merely what they are *capable* of doing, for, indeed, ALL of us are capable of much evil -even the 'best' religions, such as Protestant Judeo-Christianity, of the which I AM a member -as I demonstrated in my prior posts.
Lack of hard evidence allows an open door for innuendo and prejudice. Don't let that happen, Roy.
a few seconds ago · LikeUnlike ·
---
That's all for now.-GW.Written 13 hours ago · Comment ·LikeUnlike
1st comment -by me:
When I suggested this morning that perhaps this thread was *right* about its claims/allegations regarding the mosques -and suggested that, if true, it would only be fair to apply it to *all* mosques -thus telling them to leave, I also had to point out in all fairness that if this could not be done, then the Constitutional First Amendment would necessarily protect *this* mosque here too -and it looks like I offended someone, as evidenced by the fact that my post is gone, deleted by an admin. Observe:
""The post is not available anymore.""
While that is the Open Press rights of the First Amendment as outlined in this mirror here:
*nonetheless* it seems to me that if the admin who deleted my post can't offer any better argument for his/her position other than "I have the delete key," this is good evidence for me to conclude my 'conservative investigative journalism' investigation -and find in favour for those who want to build the mosque -based on the fact that even the staunchest opponents could not raise any argument other than 'we hold the delete key.' I am keeping a journalistic record of the arguments for/against the NY Mosque here, with one mirror on my Wall linked above, and this new turn of events weighs against those making the argument to block/remove the NYC Mosque.
But I could be wrong - I am open to any *real* arguments. "Delete" keys don't count.
.Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: The admin who deleted my post is giving clear evidence that his/her argument is weak, and he/she must resort to 'Delete' keys.
-- bears repeating so there is initial visibility to the reader without having to click 'See More.''
26 minutes ago · UnlikeLike · 1 person
Loading... · .
Gordon Wayne Watts wrote: Four (4) possible solutions: (all different)
#1 - Do nothing: The First Amendment covers exercise of religion of the mosque and those who attend it.
#2 - If you wish to remove the mosque, you must not single out the one in NY. ~~~ If you think this mosque has followers who violate the laws and constitution, then all mosques in the U.S.A. must be moved for that same reason -IF you are correct. (Conversely, if you can't make a case to remove ALL mosques, than you can not make a case to remove this one here.)
#3 - You could prohibit ALL religious buildings anywhere near the Twin Towers -and this would fill your bill -and stop the mosque.
#4 - a more popular solution (according to the informal survey's I've done among fellow conservatives) is to allow/encourage *many* different religious faiths to build churches/temples/mosques /etc., near ground zero -and compete against each other regarding how many poor, needy, hungry people they can help. --I lean towards number 4 here.
2 seconds ago · LikeUnlike · .
Gordon Wayne Watts This post appeared on the wall above: "Ronnie Risi wrote:
Gordon Wayne Watts, Congrats, you are deleted and banned.
6 hours ago · Comment · Like · Flag"
--- And then I got this email from Roni, the admin:
From: Ronnie Risi
To: Gordon Wayne Watts
Subject: congrats
Date: July 18 at 2:44am
Between You and Ronnie Risi
July 18 at 2:44am you have been delete and banned from the group.
If you did not agree with the group purpose and used it as a forum
for your own agenda, please start your own group
17 minutes ago · UnlikeLike · 1 person
Loading... · .
Gordon Wayne Watts I honestly did/am not trying to insult/offend Roni Risi (or her colleagues), and God loves Roni Risi & her friends, but HEADS-UP: She can't stand the heat of debating her case, and if she cant stand the heat, maybe she doesn't belong in the kitchen. ~~ We need to pray for Roni Risi & people like her: It's pretty bad when *I* am making better arguments against building the mosque (such the the utility argument cited by Saul of Tarsus in my post above) than this so-called professional group. --LOL--
14 minutes ago · UnlikeLike · 1 person
Loading... · .
Gordon Wayne Watts One more thing: Liberals don't punish terrorists and criminals sufficiently, and this allows people to build rage -and it spills over onto innocent Muslims, those not involved in terrorism --and that is what I think we're seeing here in this Wall above. ~~~ Those posting to the wall (and the creators of the wall linked above) would have you believe they are conservative, but since they seem to punish the innocent Muslims too much --and punish the guilty ones too little, then I think they are liberals -dealing an unfair balance and an unjust measuring weight in their analyses.