Fox News Host Announces Plans for Muslim Gay Bar Next to Ground Zero Mosque

im not sure how to feel about any of this...i think some may not like there being a ground zero mosque and i know a lot wont like a ground zero gay bar aiming to attract muslim people from essentially next door...go pray then go dance in a thong or summat i dunno.

i think its all just a bit insensitive..a monument commemorating those lost and then build around it a atmosphere of cafes and bars etc...but nothing too specific that could in anyway cause upset..it just isnt the place in my opinion.

 

Ugh.

I hate how they keep saying "next to ground zero" It's two blocks away. You have strip clubs, drug houses, and prostitution rings on the same street as ground zero and people are complaining about a mosque two blocks away? Prejudice. That's all that is. It is NOT next door. :|

Also, this person is not serious. He always says stuff like this to get attention then never does it. He is, along with the rest of the Fox News Network, attention whores.

 

Yeah, but I don't think it was a girl with fake tits named "Chastity" dancing at the local strip joint that hopped in the cockpit of a 767 and took a turn to Manhattan.

From what I understand, this building is where the rear landing gear from the first plane landed...which is why some were trying to get this designated a historical landmark.

IMO, those that are spearheading this project (I have no idea if they have ties to radical sects or not) should have been a little more sensitive to the area. With the amount of money that is reported to be involved in this, they could have picked anywhere in Manhattan. But, neither is it the government's role to say a religious establishment cannot build in a certain area.

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago comparing this to the Auschwitz Nuns. A convent established a prayer center near the infamous Nazi death camp, and the survivors and family members of survivors of the Holocaust we upset because of the reports that the Catholic Church provided shelter to fleeing Nazi war criminals, and turning a blind eye to these crimes. Can't remember who wrote it but an interesting comparison.

 

this can only end well...

 

a homophobic host with a history of gay bashing.

jackass.

 

I stopped reading right there.

I'm sorry, and I've gotten in trouble for this before but I really don't care right now. No one will ever get away with saying something bad about an entire group of people around me. So you get the good ol' flame from me, Steve, it's nice to meet you.

First of all, the people who actually did that distorted the religion so much that you can't even call it Islam.

Secondly, not all Muslims are terrorists. That mosque is for everyday Muslims, not terrorist groups half way around the world that are living in caves because everyone, including Muslims, want them dead.

Thirdly, are you forgetting that Freedom of Religion is what started this country? And don't say that has nothing to do with where you worship. It does. With Freedom of Religion you get Freedom to Worship anywhere you so please.

You don't find it a little prejudice that even though they have the money to buy the lot and build the mosque, people are trying to deny them the chance to do so just because of their religion? But someone who wants to build a strip club there will be allowed to. If you seriously believe that people can do that to another person just because of their religion and some bad people in it, you are no better than a homophobe, a racist, or an anti-semite.

And as I said before, not all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, real Muslims hate terrorist organizations. Real Muslims want them destroyed, in fact, they are the leading force AGAINST terrorist organizations, not any single government or army. Real Muslims want nothing more than peace.

Mel Gibson is a racist, homophobe, and so on. I guess it's safe to assume every Christian is like that, since it's okay to say every Muslim is a terrorist.

I'm going to stop there. :|

 

Well, if you had read the entire post you would have found that:
1) No where did I say that all Muslims were terrorist. Nor did I say, nor imply, that was a representation of the entire religion. That was simply in response to your comparison of strip clubs and why people are not so upset about them being in the area. And I fail to see how you cannot understand why people would still be sensitive in regards to this matter. Regardless if they are right or wrong in their concerns, they have every right to express their concerns and disagreements just as YOU do. You simply appear to take the approach that well, ANYONE that has expressed opposition or concern about this is a racist bigot...you seem to not really be concerned of why they may feel that way in the first place. I'm sorry, that is a line of reason that I simply do not subscribe to.

2) I clearly pointed out that it was not the governments role in saying that a religious group cannot build in a particular site. This building, I believe it is going to be some kind of community center and not an actual mosque, is certainly protected. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

Jeez.

 

Yes, you did imply that all Muslims were terrorists because you said that the reason they should not be able to build a mosque is because they flew a planes into buildings. That is what you said.

 

It seems to me that this guy is clearly doing this, not because he believes in liberal ideologies (i mean, he works for fox ), but rather its a sarcastic measure, designed to poke at the mosque being built. I don't for a minute think he is doing this to highlight the homophobic attitude of some (not all) Muslims. He's trying to offend Muslims, the same way he believes they are offending some people by building their mosque.

 

Fucking brilliant.

Lex

 

Haha, ok...whatever man. Continue to flame away.
That logic is so flawed it's comical. Are you serious?

So, using your logic: all those historians who noted that there were nazi sympathizers in the Catholic Church...hmmm....I guess they were condemning the entire Catholic Church, and staying the ALL Catholics world-wide were anti-semetic. Interesting. Can't say I follow that logic...but..umm...interesting.

My point, which once again you have completely chosen to ignore, is I can understand why people in that area...or those who survived or those who lost loved ones in those attacks...would be very emotional and sensitive regarding this issue. I don't think they are bigots or racists. It is a piece of haunted history that they will never forget. And if you can't comprehend that or understand why someone that lost a son, daughter or mother that day would have an issue with this...well...then I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

Certainly it is all about understanding. But guess what? Understanding something is not a one sided issue. The burden of tolerance and understanding doesn't just rest on the ones that are opposed to it...the ones that are building it should keep that in mind as well.

 

This is the point: that sentence you said could be seen as insulting to a LOT of people. The WTC area if anything should help bring more peace and understanding to the world. Bring something positive out of a tragic event, not use it as a way to discriminate and hate. Otherwise we're no better than terrorists.

 

You are absolutely correct, very good point. WTC area should be used to bring more peace and understanding. But, I don't think this situation is bringing a lot of peace or understanding.
All I'm saying is that I understand why people would be opposed to it. Hell, my Granddad still utterly despises the Japanese...and he hasn't had any dealings with them since 1945.

 

I certainly think this entire issue is in bad taste. I can understand the people who feel insulted on both sides, but when you get down to the crunch, the Muslim mosque/convention centre/party palace has the same rights as anyone to build there. I'm an anti-theist and I generally oppose church/mosque/temple/whatever construction since I'm not a big fan of religious organizations, but I'm not going to remove a person's rights because of some perceived insult.

 

Hahaha... I happen to find this quite brilliant as well...

It brings to light the question of: rights vs. goodwill; sometimes it will always be a compromise

They obviously have the rights to build a mosque; even if it means that it will offend some (some would argue that only those who are prejudiced would be offended)

Similarly, they also have the rights to build a gay bar; even if it means that it will offend some (which arguably would be those who are prejudiced)

What are rights? How far are we to go in enforcing these so called "rights"? Who are we willing to offend?