Obama, his true colours are now showing

[Grahame]

This statement from the developer of the site:

 

"Park51 will be a community center promoting tolerance and understanding through three types of programs: arts and culture, education and recreation. We’ll offer all New Yorkers valuable services, world-class facilities and empowering opportunities to learn more about the world around us and about each other.

 

http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/we_want_to_build_park51_so_it_has_something_for_everyone/

 

Political rhetoric. Can you see New Yorkers who lost families wanting anything to do with it.

[Grahame]

Well they need to adjust their thinking style or life will be forever full of disappointments beyond their control.

 

I think you need to get real and understand the emotions of the bereaved. Telling them they are wrong is callous and insensitive, just like the Muslims who are forcing it on people regardless of how they feel.

[boyfriday]

Political rhetoric.

Doesn't matter what it is, you bore false witness against your fellow man, or do you believe it's right to form conclusions about people without evidence?

 

Can you see New Yorkers who lost families wanting anything to do with it.

 

..and what does that have to do with the legitimacy of the project?

 

I'd be unlikely to have anything to do with the Womens Institute, but would fully support their right to associate as they wanted to, provided it was within the law.

[Grahame]

So you would have no problem with the relatives of the muslim dead saying "yes we want it built, get on with it".

 

The whole point of consultation is that people reach agreement. What is happening at the moment in that the president of America is saying, this is what is going to happen and people can stuff it.

 

What a way to run a country.

[boyfriday]

I think you need to get real and understand the emotions of the bereaved.

I'm not interested in the emotions of the bereaved, if those interests are irrationally and indiscriminately applied.

Telling them they are wrong is callous and insensitive, just like the Muslims who are forcing it on people regardless of how they feel.

..and how would you describe a group of people exerting their will against other citizens who are behaving entirely within the law?

[Grahame]

Did you read the thread? One of the 3 major groups representing the families of those who died has welcomed it.

 

That isn't a majority and according to another post two thirds of Americans are against it.

[Chris_Sleeps]

What is happening at the moment in that the president of America is saying, this is what is going to happen and people can stuff it.

He is supporting the law, not dictating what is going to happen. There are no legal reasons why the community centre shouldn't be built. It is on private land, and it is for the whole community to use. It is a religious centre with the idea of uniting people, not to celebrate the deaths of 9/11.

 

The only reasons against it are ethical reasons, because of a shared religion between terrorists and United States citizens. Should US citizens be punished because of the acts of terrorists? That is the debate.

[Grahame]

I'm not interested in the emotions of the bereaved, if those interests are irrationally and indiscriminately applied.

 

..and how would you describe a group of people exerting their will against other citizens who are behaving entirely within the law?

 

Both of your comments are totally callous.

 

They are using the law as a lever and disregarding peoples sensitivities. It would also be within the law not to build the mosque.

[Baz1]

They will see it as an insult, and understandably so seeing as it was Muslims who killed their family.

 

Its funny that Grahame- when you try (and often do) to re-direct blame on Christianity when people of your faith act against what you believe to be true christianity- you come up with "they're not true Christians".

 

So we will use your line of thought- "hey Grahame, they were not (true) muslims".

[Grahame]

No, he said that the constitution forbids someone banning a religious building of one religion, when permission would be given if it were another religion. Which is correct, and i would EXPECT the President to uphold the laws of his country, whereas apparently you don't expect the President to do that, you want him to illegally discriminate against one religion, in contravention of the constitution.

 

That isn't the situation.