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

ahmunnaeetchoo's Avatar Comment 31 by ahmunnaeetchoo

Yup, not impressed with Pat's argument here.

He has made plenty of well reasoned points in the past and his recent efforts shouldn't detract from those. Unfortunately human nature tends to be very anti-Satre.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:40:30 UTC | #476671

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 32 by Jos Gibbons

Regarding jhelleger's argument for why this should be removed by the webmaster, yes, there may be a case that what Condell is saying is contrary to this websites' central ideals - but then, so are plenty of articles of "the opposition" we publish herein. (Pretty much everything by theists, for example.) Even if it were a matter of universal agreement amongst those on this site that Condell was wrong to the core, that would hardly be a first. We should republish here a wide variety of views, so we can at least double-check the views with which we disagree really are baseless. (I don't make any statement here regarding the merits or demerits of this video.)

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:47:27 UTC | #476674

KJinAsia's Avatar Comment 33 by KJinAsia

Of course, but it's not the only principle of value and sometimes when we think bigger picture and longer term we realize that the future is better served by not applying the central principle absolutely.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:07:14 UTC | #476677

jmomeara's Avatar Comment 34 by jmomeara

As an American I would have to say I agree with Pat 100%. As for those who say the majority of muslims are innocent and we should not hold ALL of them accountable for 9-11, you could not be more wrong and I think this outlines the main issue. Sure, I do not hold the innocent 17 year old female student who had not idea this was going to happen responsible, not directly anyways. But when you get through all of the politically correct nonsense, you are left with the fact that muslims around the world fund these operations through the work of mosques. And now one will sit near ground zero? If you do not think that is an exclamation of victory over the enemy, then open your eyes, that is what this is all about. Sure it is headed by the fundies, but it is the little guys all across the globe that are not only allowing, but making it happen. And this subject is not in a vacuum. It is everywhere ancient myths take precedence over fact. I feel similar toward any practicing catholic. Sure, granny in the front pew may not have raped little boys and made their backsides bleed while telling them they should be enjoying it, but she is funding it and allowing it to happen by supporting her organization. None of this nonsense will cease until religion is seen for what it really is - poison.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:30:07 UTC | #476678

TobySaunders's Avatar Comment 35 by TobySaunders

Religion is equated with race: that is a big problem. People with otherwise good ethically-progressive views are tempted to see anti-Islam as anti-Arab... or anti-Judaism with anti-Jewish-race or anti-Christian with anti-American. Let's hammer the truth: religion is a psychological programme (software) while race is more of a 'hardware' description.

The confusion, again, is between software & hardware (it happens a lot but it shouldn't).

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:35:43 UTC | #476680

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 36 by Long Johns Silver

Just as Condell says, ISLAM IS WORSE THAN NAZISM. For instance, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project 2009, 83% of Pakistanis believe in stoning adulterers (presumably to death, and presumably the poll was too politically correct to clarify this detail). Clearly, Islam is overwhelmingly the greatest force for evil on the planet.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:43:34 UTC | #476683

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 37 by Long Johns Silver

Condell and yourself are advocating a position of religious and political totalitarianism. Totalitarian because he doesn't think a Mosque should be built near Ground Zero? Despite that (a) the killers were Muslim, and (b) a huge percentage of the world's Muslims (perhaps the majority of them) rejoiced over the killings?

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:46:20 UTC | #476686

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 38 by Richard Dawkins

Dear webmaster,

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

No, please DON'T remove it. I don't know what you mean by the "Richard Dawkins Foundation of tolerance and superstition" (is that a joke or a typo?), but I believe Pat Condell deserves a hearing. He may sound extreme, but that could just reflect the extremes he is fighting against. I don't know the corresponding figures for America, but polls in Britain suggest that an alarmingly high percentage of young British Muslims support the terrorists of 9/11 and 7/7, and some 40% of Muslims want Sharia Law introduced into Britain. Disquietingly high percentages supported the death sentence against Salman Rushdie and the threats of violence against the Danish cartoonists. Even 'moderate' Muslim leaders support the principle that apostasy deserves the death penalty, even if they are too nice to carry out the sentence themselves.

I think it is well arguable that Islam is the greatest man-made force for evil in the world today. Pat Condell is one of the few with the courage to say so. Before condemning his 'extremism', at least consider the possibility that it may be justified.

Richard

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:47:30 UTC | #476687

Ramases's Avatar Comment 39 by Ramases

Richard,

So what would your opinion be of the fact that Condell is a member of a party that has the climate change denying clown Christopher Monckton as its science advisor?

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:04:22 UTC | #476691

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 40 by Long Johns Silver

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.

This statement is either questionable or trivially correct.

Compare it with the statement that the majority of Nazis were no more responsible for Auschwitz than you or I. In the most simpleminded sense, this statement holds true, because the majority of Nazis did not directly play a role in Holocaust and weren't even aware it was being carried out. In a somewhat more nuanced way, the majority of Nazis were absolutely culpable. They shared and helped perpetuate many of the fundamental dogmas that actually led to the killings.

The same goes with Muslims. They like to organize marches against Israel and the United States, yet where are your Muslims against Jihadism marches? Where are Muslims against the Burqa? Nowhere to be found. Faced with a choice between (1) cleaning up their own lot, and (2) apologetics for anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, they opted for door number 2.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:07:41 UTC | #476694

inquisador's Avatar Comment 41 by inquisador

I agree completely with Pat Condell. He has seen through the false claims of the Islamic apologists and correctly identified the menace of aggressive, intolerant militant jihad.

Islam calls for a state of war to exist permanently, though not always openly, toward the non-Muslims who would obstruct the spread and the dominance of Islam.

This mosque is a statement of political power and triumph over the kuffar.

The truth can be understood by studying the canonical texts of Islam. It is a political as well as a religious ideology. It should not be accorded the customary respect of other religions, but criticised the same as any totalitarian ideology.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:11:55 UTC | #476696

inquisador's Avatar Comment 42 by inquisador

Richard,

Thank you for the inspiring words. You are a rare beacon of bright sanity in a world increasingly dominated by complacency and dimness.

Rameses,

Maybe climate change should be on a separate thread.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:21:15 UTC | #476700

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 43 by Long Johns Silver

Richard,

Let's remember, those are just the Muslims prepared to own up to their views IN PUBLIC POLLS. The actual figures of British Muslims supporting 9/11 and 7/7 might be even higher.

As for what the figures are: Even back in 2004, 13% of British Muslims explicitly supported "further attacks by Al Qaeda or a similar organization". An additional 13% "didn't know", and an additional 2% refused to answer.

Using present figures, 13% of British Muslims means around 260,000 people at least. So, under the best of circumstances, we have 260,000 people walking around in the UK, who support terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:27:01 UTC | #476701

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 44 by Carl Sai Baba

If Pat Condell thinks "Public Opinion" should determine whether or not someone is able to legally purchase and use a building, then he doesn't understand "America" any more than the Muslims do. Some of our biggest offenses against our own principles fall under that mob behavior.

"A few yards" is a bit misleading. Looking at the map, it may be as much as 200 yards away from the wreckage depending on how you measure it. In NYC, which has 8 million people in only a few hundred square miles, 2 football fields is not the same as being neighbors.

There must be a dozen Christian churches sitting right on the edge of that hole in the ground, and Islam stole half of its bullshit from the same books as the Christians and Jews.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:25:12 UTC | #476702

CleverCarbon's Avatar Comment 45 by CleverCarbon

Comment 39 by Ramases - This comment seems on the cusp of being a Ad Hominem attack against Pat. You seem to be implying (or about to imply), heavily, that because he supports a scientifically illiterate political party (UKIP) that his views on this separate subject are questionable, based on that fact.

Might I suggest you stick well clear of easily recognizable Fallacies. Pat Condell's support of UKIP is entirely irrelevant to this subject, and you only seem to of brought it up to discredit him by association.

If you weren't about to do that then I apologize, but you certainly look like you're about to do that.

Anyway, My view on the subject is fairly simple -

I hold no patch of ground, or vague area of space, to be sacred, so it is of my opinion that they should be able to build whatever they want, wherever they want. My objection to them building a mosque at ground zero would be based purely on the fact that I'd rather not see any more mosques anywhere, Or churches, Or temples or any building which represents all the very worst things about humanity. I honestly could not care less about where they're building their house of lies and bigotry.

But whoever wants this mosque built has got to be fucking stupid, he/she (oh who are we kidding, its a he, this is Islam after all) has SURELY got to know exactly what they're doing and understand popular opinion. Much like building a Pro-Nazi war museum in the middle of Auschwitz , they must surely know that they're being purposefully confrontational.

TL;DR - They should be allowed, but shouldn't do it if they care the smallest amount about Public Relations.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:38:59 UTC | #476705

Robotocracy's Avatar Comment 46 by Robotocracy

It's a privately-owned mosque on private property. Is it in poor taste to build it so close to ground zero? Clearly. But you cant just ban it; it's called freedom of speech. I understand where Pat Condell is coming from, the evils of Islam and sharia law are very real. But honestly he's going about it all wrong, and it's making him look like a right-wing fascist. The solution to Islam - or any religion for that matter - is not to attempt to censor or ban it, that will only make it worse. If we start compromising our liberties and values to fight Islam, how does that make us any better than them? What we need to do is simply expose the religious nuts to the ridicule they deserve, and to show the impotence and fear behind their threats. Freedom is the disinfectant that will oust Islamism, not the government bans Condell would propose.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:59:12 UTC | #476709

Ramases's Avatar Comment 47 by Ramases

Comment 45 by AdamSplitter :

Comment 39 by Ramases - This comment seems on the cusp of being a Ad Hominem attack against Pat. You seem to be implying (or about to imply), heavily, that because he supports a scientifically illiterate political party (UKIP) that his views on this separate subject are questionable, based on that fact.

No I wasn't actually. If you read back on my posts you will see I have addressed the substance and central arguments of this issue in a consistent manner.

I was actually genuinely curious about Richard's opinion on this, as he is defending Condell.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:06:10 UTC | #476711

Ramases's Avatar Comment 48 by Ramases

AdamSplitter,

By the way, I think you have one major misunderstanding of the issue. The site of the mosque is NOT next to the 9/11 site, or anything like it.

It is actually several blocks away. In a dense city like New York this is quite a way, and not considered near. If all site that distance or nearer were excluded it would rule out a fair proportion of the city.

Not that there would be anything wrong if it were closer. The supporters of the mosque had nothing to do with the criminal act of 9/11 and should not be held responsible for it.

The whole thing is a beat up by the extreme right, including Condell. I find it disappointing that so many fellow atheists, whom I hoped would be intelligent enough to know better, have fallen for it.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:18:38 UTC | #476716

huzonfurst's Avatar Comment 49 by huzonfurst

Good Lord (to coin a phrase), how can anyone not see the muslim middle finger (i.e. the minaret) sticking in your face if this mosque is built so close to Ground Zero?! This grotesque insult to the victims of 9/11 will make this country the laughingstock of the entire world, not just the islamic portion!

It will also embolden the jihadists into making further assaults on our society, with the expectation that we will ultimately cave in so as not to be thought of as "racist" or "intolerant" by the millions of ridiculously shallow thinkers out there. Perhaps, if this comes to pass, we will deserve our collapse - because we will have become a mewling remnant of what we once were, no longer willing to fight for our principles.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:27:09 UTC | #476719

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 50 by mordacious1

I wonder if I could build an aviation museum centered around the Enola Gay on Hiroshima? Oh wait, the Japanese were upset that such a thing was built in Virginia. I guess some people are sensitive to certain things.

I asked my wife (to the left of most lefties and pretty tolerant about everything) about this last night and she said, "To locate the mosque there is an unfortunate decision". Which I quess means that it would be nice of them to locate it elsewhere.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:27:24 UTC | #476720

CleverCarbon's Avatar Comment 51 by CleverCarbon

Ramases,

I didn't say I thought that it was next to Ground Zero. Just because I didn't point out that its 2 blocks away doesn't mean i'm not aware that its 2 blocks away, So you're mistaken about my "Major Misunderstanding".

And to restate my point, They could build a Mosque directly on top of where the towers fell, my objection would not have anything to do with the "where" it is being built, but "What" is being built and "What" that building represents. "Where" is a fairly irrelevant question, IMO.

And no, before anyone skews my opinion, I don't think mosques, churches, synagogues or temples should be banned From being built anywhere.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:30:49 UTC | #476722

Piero's Avatar Comment 52 by Piero

This is beyond belief.

  1. 9/11 was brought about by muslims because they were muslims.

  2. There has been no clear, widespread condemnation of 9/11 in the muslim world, just as there was no clear, widespread condemnation of the fatwa against Rushdie.

  3. If someone puts a gun to my face and I shoot him first, that's not "stooping to his level": it's called "self defence".

  4. Whoever came up with the idea of building a mosque near Ground Zero was fully aware of the controversy it would raise. It is obviously intended as a provocation.

  5. A secular democracy only works because its citizens share a consensual set of rules. It cannot be extended to groups that reject those rules. That's why the Nazi party is outlawed in Germany, for example.

  6. A mosque is no ordinary building. It cannot be sold, demolished, expropriated, let or converted for other purposes. Hence, it cannot be subject to the normal rules of trade.

  7. jhellegers, ramases et al., are you all nuts?

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:41:17 UTC | #476723

Kenny18's Avatar Comment 53 by Kenny18

Comment 46 by Robotocracy :

It's a privately-owned mosque on private property. Is it in poor taste to build it so close to ground zero? Clearly. But you cant just ban it; it's called freedom of speech.

I understand where Pat Condell is coming from, the evils of Islam and sharia law are very real. But honestly he's going about it all wrong, and it's making him look like a right-wing fascist. The solution to Islam - or any religion for that matter - is not to attempt to censor or ban it, that will only make it worse. If we start compromising our liberties and values to fight Islam, how does that make us any better than them? What we need to do is simply expose the religious nuts to the ridicule they deserve, and to show the impotence and fear behind their threats. Freedom is the disinfectant that will oust Islamism, not the government bans Condell would propose.

Yes your "strategy" of, it will sort itself out if we just speak about it is really working in countries like france, isn't it? Mabey it's necessary to sacrifice our values of liberty so stop islam spreading it's hate and ignorance. If a bully keeps beating you up everyday and you decide to fight back just once, does that really make you as bad as him? Also I can't stand it when people call some muslims "moderate", THEY ARE NOT moderate according to our western enlightened values which is what we should judge them by and not the taliban for example.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:51:00 UTC | #476726

Kenny18's Avatar Comment 54 by Kenny18

couldn't have said it better myself Piero

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:52:19 UTC | #476728

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 55 by Carl Sai Baba

Comment 52 by Piero :

  • A mosque is no ordinary building. It cannot be sold, demolished, expropriated, let or converted for other purposes. Hence, it cannot be subject to the normal rules of trade.
  • I am not sure why you said any of that. If someone sells a mosque to ME, I am certainly going to demolish it, or at least convert it for another purpose.

    Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:10:51 UTC | #476730

    Piero's Avatar Comment 56 by Piero

    No mosque can be ever sold, to you or to anyone else. That's the point: you cannot apply the rules of a free-market economy within a secular democracy to objects that cannot be traded because their value lies in their being a symbol of conquest.

    Anyway, if you are willing to buy a mosque, I have a bridge in good condition you might be interested in...

    Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:17:44 UTC | #476731

    Piero's Avatar Comment 57 by Piero

    Sorry for the double post. Site misbehaviour.

    Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:19:21 UTC | #476733

    Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 58 by Carl Sai Baba

    Comment 56 by Piero :

    No mosque can be ever sold, to you or to anyone else.

    Again, I am not sure why you are saying that. Maybe you mean that you don't think the owners will ever sell it willingly? Or is there really some law which says they can't?

    It also isn't clear why someone is automatically not free to buy or build something just because they don't plan on selling it later.

    Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:43:37 UTC | #476737

    Piero's Avatar Comment 59 by Piero

    RightWingAtheist, my point is that a mosque cannot be sold because Islam forbids it. True, you can build whatever you want even if you plan never to sell it. But a mosque cannot be expropriated either: if it ever becomes necessary to demolish it because of new building regulations, for example, it cannot be done. That is, it cannot be done without a major row with muslims, and the consequent violence against American embassies and citizens around the muslim world. Do you think the muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons was over the top? You've seen nothing yet.

    Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:14:17 UTC | #476741

    Consciousmess's Avatar Comment 60 by Consciousmess

    Ban all mosques and eradicate Islam.

    I salute Pat Condell and I would be furious if a Mosque was built at ground zero.

    Jon

    Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:09:21 UTC | #476746