This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Pat Condell - No Mosque At Ground Zero

Pat Condell - No Mosque At Ground Zero - Comments

sirmailbox's Avatar Comment 1 by sirmailbox

Definitely tasteless. Build the thing elsewhere, and not on September 11th.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 04:05:02 UTC | #476562

unclexbob's Avatar Comment 2 by unclexbob

I used to like Condell, but each new video he puts out are more disturbing than the last one.

He sounds just like the raging right wing loonies now, minus the jesus talk.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 04:22:02 UTC | #476568

Chrysippus_Maximus's Avatar Comment 3 by Chrysippus_Maximus

A gurdwara, a mandir, and a stupa would be great too.

Architecture ftw.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 05:05:36 UTC | #476571

mlgatheist's Avatar Comment 4 by mlgatheist

I am offened that anyone would want to build that disgusting mosque here in my home state of Arizona.

Death Valley is a good place for it.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 04:56:18 UTC | #476572

-TheCodeCrack-'s Avatar Comment 5 by -TheCodeCrack-

An incubator for the ideology, that drove people to suicide attack the towers in the first place, is going to sit right next to the now defunct towers that collapsed, taking several thousand people with them to their nightmarish deaths. These Muslim fanatics have no shame.

I see building a mosque there on par with building a racist-national-socialist building right next to a place where Jews were slaughtered, with a great big swastika overhanging their death places.

It's so immensely un-classy, wrong, distasteful, disgusting, shameful, sadistic; it shows no thought for the deceased victims or family members.

I can't believe they would do something as overtly shocking and purposely confronting as building a superstitious inducing, hate filling incubator directly near the murder site where other incubators of this variety, motivated past people to mass slaughter other people at the same site.

Shame.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 05:46:07 UTC | #476576

zengardener's Avatar Comment 6 by zengardener

I don't want any mosques to be built any were, but if they purchase the property, pay the taxes, and follow the law, I don't see any problem with it.

Of course, they won't pay their taxes.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 05:53:37 UTC | #476580

Ramases's Avatar Comment 7 by Ramases

I have never been able to stand Condell, and it is good to see some people at last waking up to the guy.

I hope that Condell will increasingly be seen for what he is - a representative of the extreme xenophobic anti-immigrant right.

From the beginning it should have been clear that he is not a secularist. He has said consistently that Muslims and Islam do not "belong" and Britain, and even on occasion that they should be sent back to where they came from.

Freedom of belief is essential to any sane society. I would defend anyone's right to practice a religion as strongly as I would my right to laugh at them for doing so.

The anti-immigrant right works through many channels - the churches being one of them. The main difference with Condell is that he is a anti-immigrant xenophobe working through the atheist movement.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:11:06 UTC | #476589

root2squared's Avatar Comment 8 by root2squared

This is pretty stupid. Secular laws have to be followed. End of debate.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:50:30 UTC | #476595

jhellegers's Avatar Comment 9 by jhellegers

Dear webmaster,

Could you please remove the video above? It contradicts the the mission statement of the Richard Dawkins Foundation of tolerance and superstition.

First of all, the attacks of 9/11 is one made by a terrorist organisation, not by a whole religion. As can be read herelink text, the overwhelming majority of muslims do not "endorse violence" and reject attacks on citizens. The assumption that Islam, which is, after all, the commonly held belief of all muslims, is a religion that supports the attacks of 9/11 is nothing short of superstition, and therefore in contradiction to your mission statement. As for the Cordoba Mosque, it was not built by muslim invaders celebrating their conquest of Spain. Muslims bought (!) a church which was subsequently changed into a mosque, and named to honour his wife. Cordoba soon grew to be the largest Western European city and a centre foreconomics and learning for muslims, christians and jews. Again a lack of regard for evidence. Furthermore, framing the building of a mosque as islamization of a country is nonsense - the building of a mosque merely acoomodates a group of people holding a private belief in holding private meetings. It is not any more public than starting a golf club[2]. To say that the mosque is triumphalistic, celebrating the 9/11 attacks is nothing more than an illusion presented whitout even a shred of evidence. When dealing with actual evidence, such as the statements by the committee organizing the building of the mosque, saying it is a tribute to the victims, mr. Condell chooses to disregard it. He continues by saying that it makes him "sick to his stomach that Islam is allowed near Ground Zero". As many of the victims of the attacks were indeed muslim, it is not only impossible not to allow "Islam" near Ground Zero, but also to allow families of the victims to mourn their lost ones in their own ways. Again, mr. Condell chooses to showdisregard for the facts.

Citizens cannot be held accountable for acts commited by others.

To do otherwise, and to make people complicit in the 9/11 attacks based on a specific shared trait (the professed religion), is nothing short of intolerance, as is the call for a stop of all people professing that faith (and that faith only) on building houses of worship.

To state that the 9/11 attacks were strictly a religious act, is clearly untrue, as the goals and demands of al Quaeda are primarily political, such as the military retreat of American troops from the Middle East. Indeed, much of the resentment in the world against America can be traced to American Capitalist Imperialism - to rebuild a business centre at Ground Zero can be seen as an insult to the memories of the victims as well. But that just goes to show that an insult is strictly personal and can never be a ground forgovernment policy. To forbid a mosque on the grounds of insult is the same as forbidding Draw Muhammed Day on the grounds of insult. Furthermore, Condell states that "without belief in the afterlife, the attacks would never have been committed". And again he is wrong, as there are numerous suicide attacks where the attackers were not persuaded by a belief in the afterlife, but by ideals or nationalism, as is the case by of probably the largest group of suicide killers, the kamikaze and kaiten pilots of WW II. Then, are the attacks on Madrid and London an attack on the free world as such? Certainly, the bombers seem to think otherwise. They cast their deeds as a political deed, a reaction to the invasion of Iraq in which both Spain and Britain participated. Should political ideologies be banned for hate? Certainly not. Not only do all political movements hate a specific behaviour or group (liberals do hate groups attacking individuality, corporatists hate groups attacking their social organization, communists hate capitalists (and vice versa). Only by engaging in informed dialogue one can hope to gain some understanding and try to convince others of your truth. Stating that Islam unncessarily dichotomizes the world is simply hilarious when coming for mr. Condells lips. He himself has lately devoted his life to dividing the world between the pure (us westerners) and the impure (muslims), even while muslims are integrating, befriending, working together with nonmuslims (as do most nonmuslims integrate with muslims).

On a sidenote: are all religions that endorse violence incapable of furthering spiritual enlightenment? Let us neglect for a second that virtually every religion has followers that endorse violence, and focus on the question, which does not have an obvious answer. Indeed, Nietzsche stated (following Aeschulos's Oresteia) that true knowledge, and great people, can only be forged by painful experiences which must be overcome and incorporated into one's soul.

[2] Except, of course, when these believers take along their children to their house of worship. ButI do not see why an exception should be made for Islam, as this happens in most other religions as well.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:55:00 UTC | #476598

Net's Avatar Comment 10 by Net

I used to like Condell, but each new video he puts out are more disturbing than the last one.

He sounds just like the raging right wing loonies now, minus the jesus talk

.

unclexbob, you have to be kidding. i think you should be disturbed by what condell has to say because what he says is right. what i find disturbing is attitudes like yours which, probably, you feel condell is talking about.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:03:12 UTC | #476601

Net's Avatar Comment 11 by Net

the commonly held belief of all muslims, is a religion that supports the attacks of 9/11 is nothing short of superstition

and this comment, too! i just can't believe it. it's pretty clear that there's a direct link from muslim thought, at least as express in the koran, to the sorts of things like 9/11 that go on. i'm pretty sure that the terrorists on those flights weren't shouting out that jaweh or jehovah or buddha is great.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:08:18 UTC | #476602

jhellegers's Avatar Comment 12 by jhellegers

Dear Net,

Wow, that is a clear and well-argumented refutation of my post. You have completely convinced me.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:17:19 UTC | #476603

jhellegers's Avatar Comment 13 by jhellegers

Dear Net,

Thank you for your well-argumented and clear total refutation of my post.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:19:08 UTC | #476605

Net's Avatar Comment 14 by Net

my dear ramases, i disagree with all religions. as a great man once said, "religion poisons everything". if you think i am pitting islam with christianity, then, again, you've got it wrong. and, furthermore, it's not a question of whether or not i "like" beliefs, as you put it. it am against the influence of anything faith-based on those of us who hold different views.

and jhellegers, you're welcome.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:43:11 UTC | #476609

Ramases's Avatar Comment 15 by Ramases

So, Net, exactly what other religions that you disagree with would you ban from near the 9/11 site?

Would a church be acceptable? How about an office of a secular society? Who and how would the suitability of any be decided?

And while you are banning, why not ban beliefs you don't like elsewhere as well? Should we set up a government office to decide these things? Who would be appoint to make the final decisions? What would the penalty be for infringing the rules?

What an awful world that would be.

Condell and yourself are advocating a position of religious and political totalitarianism.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:43:20 UTC | #476610

Ramases's Avatar Comment 16 by Ramases

Comment 14 by Net :

my dear ramases, i disagree with all religions. as a great man once said, "religion poisons everything". if you think i am pitting islam with christianity, then, again, you've got it wrong. and, furthermore, it's not a question of whether or not i "like" beliefs, as you put it. it am against the influence of anything faith-based on those of us who hold different views.

and jhellegers, you're welcome.

Well Net, thanks for making that clear!

So you would ban churches as well!

How incredibly even handed!

I would still like to hear some details of the mechanisms you would use to do this. A special branch of the police perhaps?

Have you ever heard, "I disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the utmost your right to say it"?

The test of a free society, and of an individual's commitment to freedom, is not the extent they advocate for their own freedoms. Commitment to freedom is measured in the extent to which advocate for the freedom of others - of people they disagree with.

It is a test you have pretty spectacularly failed. So has Condell.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:55:21 UTC | #476615

Net's Avatar Comment 17 by Net

dear ramases, i disagree with what you are saying but i will defend to the utmost your right to say it ... as long as that is all you do; just say it. don't force me to agree or subjugate me to your views or kill me for it.

religion poisons everything

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 08:59:31 UTC | #476618

Ramases's Avatar Comment 18 by Ramases

Comment 17 by Net :

dear ramases, i disagree with what you are saying but i will defend to the utmost your right to say it ... as long as that is all you do; just say it. don't force me to agree or subjugate me to your views or kill me for it.

religion poisons everything

Net, the only people I can see in this context who are advocating the forcing or the subjugation of others to their beliefs are yourself and Condell.

You are advocating the banning of a Mosque - of an institution that will follow beliefs and say things with which you disagree. Your are not advocating its banning for any other reason.

As I said previously, yourself and Condell are advocating a position of religious and political totalitarianism.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:22:27 UTC | #476622

Net's Avatar Comment 19 by Net

ramases, how does holding the view that religion poisons everything indicate my advocating religious totalitarianism? i take it that just because i've oppose your position, and pointed out its flaws this makes me an advocate of totalitarianism. fine, if that's the spin you want to put on it. but where have i seen such spin before? oh yes, in religious apologists.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:24:56 UTC | #476624

Ramases's Avatar Comment 20 by Ramases

Comment 19 by Net :

ramases, how does holding the view that religion poisons everything indicate my advocating religious totalitarianism? i take it that just because i've oppose your position, and pointed out its flaws this makes me an advocate of totalitarianism. fine, if that's the spin you want to put on it. but where have i seen such spin before? oh yes, in religious apologists.

Net, the view that religion poisons everything has nothing to do with it. That is a position which with I largely agree. Religion is bullshit, and we would be better off without it.

The point Condell is making, and which you are defending, is that Muslims should not have a right to build a mosque near the 9/11 site. In other words for banning it.

Banning beliefs you don't like or agree with is a formula for an awful society. It is also anti-secular, and against the fundamentals of human freedom.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:01:37 UTC | #476630

Krasny's Avatar Comment 21 by Krasny

Seems to me that building this uber mosque near ground zero is rather like building a Nazi party headquarters at Auschwitz. Or NAMBLA holding meetings in an orphanage.

I wholeheartedly support a movement to stop this Sphinx of cement and aluminium, before it bashes open our skulls and eats up our brains and imagination.

Apologies to Allen Ginsberg.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:19:07 UTC | #476633

Net's Avatar Comment 22 by Net

The point Condell is making, and which you are defending, is that Muslims should not have a right to build a mosque near the 9/11 site. In other words for banning it.

How is this banning the religion? It's mere banning the erection of a symbol of a belief system which caused the tragedy. It would be in the same bad taste as would allowing ku klux klan members to build their monuments in places where black have been persecuted or allowing neo-nazis to erect giant swastikas to be build near a synagogue....

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:19:57 UTC | #476634

Net's Avatar Comment 23 by Net

The point Condell is making, and which you are defending, is that Muslims should not have a right to build a mosque near the 9/11 site. In other words for banning it.

How is this banning the religion? It's mere banning the erection of a symbol of a belief system which caused the tragedy. It would be in the same bad taste as would allowing ku klux klan members to build their monuments in places where black have been persecuted or allowing neo-nazis to erect giant swastikas to be build near a synagogue....

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:21:31 UTC | #476635

Ramases's Avatar Comment 24 by Ramases

Net, forgive me, but your ignorance is astonishing.

The majority of Muslims are no more responsible for the atrocities of 9/11 than you and I are for the atrocities of Pol Pot.

Individual Muslims vary across the spectrum from the liberal and tolerant to the extreme dogmatic and intolerant. That is the same for most belief systems, even (as yourself and Condell so amply demonstrate) of atheists.

And your claim that banning a mosque does not amount to banning a religion is simplistic and self serving in the extreme. It is a bit like a dictator claiming he is not banning opposition ideas, only banning their publication in newspapers.

If you start banning, where do you stop? And as I asked you before, who decides and how? A branch of government perhaps? A branch of the police?

Freedom is only meaningful if it is freedom for everyone, even those with whom we disagree.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:00:30 UTC | #476642

KJinAsia's Avatar Comment 25 by KJinAsia

To those of you who defend the building of this mosque on human rights grounds, you are missing the big picture. I have no idea of the specific interpretations of Islam adopted by the financiers and facilitators of this project, but if you don't think that expansion of the religion via useful symbolism is a prominent motive, you are being hopelessly naive.

The affront to human rights of disallowing this project are miniscule compared to the affront to human rights embodied in what this mosque would (or could, if you prefer) spread by empowering Islam. Sometimes small sacrifices are justified in the light of a bigger and longer term picture and getting bogged down in the absolute application of principles, no matter how valid, becomes debilitating.

This seems to me a good place to make a stand, even if we may be temporarily allied with some Christian wingnuts in doing so. Let's not lose the plot. Religious power structures must be marginalized - everywhere.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:11:35 UTC | #476646

Bodom92's Avatar Comment 26 by Bodom92

I feel that I must share this video (which is not mine by the way) because it shows how hypocritical Pat Condell's views really are. The guy in it is neither a scientist nor a philosopher but he speaks his mind using evidence and I happen to agree with him.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:28:35 UTC | #476652

Ramases's Avatar Comment 27 by Ramases

Comment 26 by Bodom92 :

I feel that I must share this video (which is not mine by the way) because it shows how hypocritical Pat Condell's views really are. The guy in it is neither a scientist nor a philosopher but he speaks his mind using evidence and I happen to agree with him.

Thanks for this Bodom.

Gave some interesting background to an Australian like me not up with the details of minor UK parties.

It does not surprise me that Condell is a member of an extremist party which would abolish the human rights act. It’s in accordance with everything else he has said.

Doesn’t surprise me he is in the same party as “Lord” (sic) Monckton either.

Right wing lunies both.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:53:44 UTC | #476655

jinmane's Avatar Comment 28 by jinmane

It disturbs me to see how politically correct some people on this site are sometimes.

I wrote a blog post on political correctness and immigration here if anyone is bored enough to want to read it: http://jinmane.blogspot.com/

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:09:30 UTC | #476660

Quarky Gideon's Avatar Comment 29 by Quarky Gideon

I've never had such a massive U-turn faster in opinions than pat condell. He's spun an awful lot of bollocks in this video and his support of UKIP is disgusting.

The mosque/islamic centre is 2 blocks away from ground zero. I would say this centre will be like a catholic university; the issues won't be about terroism but about apologists and creationists as well as anti-science. Yes indeed it could potentially harbour terrorism but considering the mission of the initiative is to improve relations with the west/islamic worlds I doubt this. Although even without a "mega" mosque you could still organise terrorism without it.

Here is another good video on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMVIDGsDP1o

Also; what the fudge is a stealth jihad?

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:13:05 UTC | #476663

Ramases's Avatar Comment 30 by Ramases

Comment 28 by jinmane :

It disturbs me to see how politically correct some people on this site are sometimes.

Ha ha!

What a cliché!

I have to laugh when I read this term.

I am old enough to remember when they would have called us communists!

Labeling an opponent with a meaningless term is way to aviod engaging with arguments.

Supporting fundamental human rights is not "correct". It is the basis of freedom and human dignity and of the creation of any kind of half decent society.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:34:02 UTC | #476668