thats why its hyperbole, conquest happened all the time in that era of history, if we are going to label them radical because of conquest then we should label all conquest and the fruits of it radical. Also even in that conversion of the church Christians still held service there some 70 years after the conquest of Cordoba, Spain.
You sound like Obama. Look us in the eyes and lie and it becomes the truth. Fact: The Cordoba Mosque was a symbol of conquest for Muslims. Fact: Rauf named his project "The Cordoba Initiative.
I have no reason to lie, you can look up everything I just posted. I didnt deny it was about conquest, I question the context of it being radical and the timeline of when the mosque was actually built and completed. Im having a discussion about the historical aspect of the word, not about if the thing should be built or not and you come around with this bullshyt, invoking Obamas name again, you're an idiot.... so go phuck yourself,
Well it isn't radical for the time period, but do you think sharing the name is not a throwback to antiquity? Especially if sharia is espoused by this imam? If Christians started a group called the 'crusaders" and started preaching in the middle east, would anyone think they are unrelated? The crusaders were not radical in their day. It's not a coincidence that this project shares that name.
Its not hyperbole in my opinion, the word is viewed as a symbol of Muslim conquest, many other names could have been chosen that didn't have that stigma attached to it: The Ground Zero Mosque: Why the name "Cordoba House"? (Updated) :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience
Im not arguing that at all, but conquest isnt radical just because peoples dislike for muslims says it is. but I do get your point and I do agree with it, it could definitely be related.
they could have chosen another name, but im sure there would have been outrage from that name as well. I just dont like the fact of how constitutionality is being cherry picked in this matter. Should that build it probably not in my opinion, but dont use the constitution when it suits certain agendas but not others. Im not saying thats what you are doing, but alot of people are.
Who is arguing the constitutionality of it, other than people that don't know what they are talking about? And don't say the majority of the opposition, because poll numbers dispute that. Most people understand religious freedom, which is why Obama got such a backlash for lecturing us about that. Most people understand the principle of illegal search and seizure also. But when you see the "right" get warped in order to perpetrate something obviously wrong, people get outraged. Just like watching a guy caught with the smoking gun getting off on a technicality. There is law, and there is what's right. Everyone knows these two things are not colliding on this issue.
But it is also a symbol of muslim defeat, retreat, and humiliation. Ferdinand reconquered Cordorba in 1236 and the Great Mosque of Cordoba has been the Cathedral de Nuestra Señora de la Asunción for the last 774 years. I don't think that the name is the issue, but the insensitivity of muslims to this honored ground. The Israelis have the legal right to build a synagog on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, but they do not because they are sensitive to the feelings of the jerusalem muslims. The NY muslims must be convinced to show some respect and sensitivity for middle America. I'm not even sure if they absolutely need to move it, there is another mosque just as close to the WTC as this one and it has been there for many years. But they definitely need to drop the idea of a dazzling tower that would compete with the Freedom Tower for attention at Ground Zero.
