07310 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
We are really off the topic, when we bring up people celebrating or dancing over tragedies. The issue is about saving the facade of the building or at least not having them destroyed. But since it was brought up. Here is an article about a former neighbor of Van Vorst Park who died on 9/11, written by his cousin. She brings up the issue of dancing and celebrating over this tragedy. I knew John well, so this is sad. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/41898/ ... ho-did-it-who-celebrated/

Thank you for the link to this article. Jon was a close friend we used to go camping and had many mutual friends. I still miss him and whenever I see his name on the memorial in JC across from the WTC site it still makes me sad.

Yvonne wrote:
We are really off the topic, when we bring up people celebrating or dancing over tragedies. The issue is about saving the facade of the building or at least not having them destroyed. But since it was brought up. Here is an article about a former neighbor of Van Vorst Park who died on 9/11, written by his cousin. She brings up the issue of dancing and celebrating over this tragedy. I knew John well, so this is sad. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/41898/ ... ho-did-it-who-celebrated/

papadage wrote:
Who the heel did that, moron?

As an atheist, all religions are a blight to me, but I do not try to tar all adherents here with the acts of those overseas, unlike some bigots.

And Yvonne, stay classy..

papadage wrote:
Hey moron, guess what. I am not Muslim.

And I do not attack entire groups, just draw parallels to stick your bigotry out in the open.

Idiot.

papadage wrote:
And the chest beating and whinging by the bigots begins.

Here's a clue. If you need to tar an entire culture or religion with he actions of a few, or bring in unrelated issues, you're a bigot.

Just like every story about the priests buggering little kids is not an indictment of the entire Catholic laity, despite the pervasive cover up by the Church hierarchy, all the way to the Vatican.

Actions by a Muslin congregation possibly violating hsitoric preservation standards to not warrant an attack in the entire membership of the religion, and definitely do not warrant using criticism based on activity in the First Millennium.

But keep going with your claptrap. It's nice to know who the morons are on the board, and nicer to know that due to their well written posts, that they are nor bigots out of ignorance, but actual real, purposeful scum.

If its now a muslim mosque then there should be only muslim icons on display

Mao wrote:
Friends:

Well no one wants the Lions of Judah destroyed- we can agree on that. So why the ad hominem attacks. If I think there is something problematic in Islam, I am attacked? That contributes to dialogue?

JPhurst wrote:
1. The buliding is located in the Van Vorst Park Historic District.

2. The land was used for a church back in the 19th century, but the building that you see today was always a synagogue.

3. There was a restrictive covenant on the building which said if sold it could not be used for any religious purpose other than an Orthodox Synagogue. That was set aside by a court as illegal.

4. At one time, Jersey City's Historic Preservation ordinance exempted religious buildings, but that exemption no longer exists.

5. The mosque did previously start to remove the Lions and was told that it had to stop because the building was protected.

6. The mosque has, for some time, wanted to remove the lions. I do not know the exact reason behind the doctrine but I believe it relates to such portrayals being considered idolatrous.

7. I talked with the Historic Preservation Office about this a long time ago, and was told that, if they were going to receive an exemption, they would have to make it up in another way such as creating signage and other exhibits highlighting the history of the building and the congregation. Eventually the congregation dropped or mothballed the issue. I guess it's back.

Mao wrote:
Friends:

Well no one wants the Lions of Judah destroyed- we can agree on that. So why the ad hominem attacks. If I think there is something problematic in Islam, I am attacked? That contributes to dialogue?

As an exercise, it would be good to avoid attacking the person and engage the message. Bigot, hater, religious bigot, rat bigot, ignorant bigot, etc. etc. There have been, I concede, some thoughtful comments but these are obscured by the attacks. Gosh, Jersey Mom, to think you have to live among us trolls.

OK, ok, I get it. You are all light years beyond me in moral and intellectual evolution and I don't belong on this board or even in this society. No dissent allowed! If the Lions of Judah are smashed, it is an innocent act of a peaceful cultivated egalitarian religion that is also really cool and a bit exotic still but not nearly as exotic as it was twenty years ago. And yes, jihad is nothing other than spiritual growth and struggle, like studying for your bar mitzvah or doing penance during Lent and the current war, the unending terror attacks, the resistance to assimilation, the degradation of women, the inability to separate the secular from the religious, the static sense of history- these are all accidents of Islamic culture cause by the evils of Christianity, Judaism, western Europe and the hegemonic US.

Now can I join your club?

Mao

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

Nice to know who the religious bigots are on here.

1+

I'm astounded by the vast, sweeping generalizations and outright ignorance/bigotry in this thread - and most JCList threads that deal with Islam. Awfully sad as I thought we were (for the most part) a pretty well-informed group.

I am astounded that people who want to save the facade of the building or at least not see the lions destroy are called a bigot.

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

I am astounded that people who want to save the facade of the building or at least not see the lions destroy are called a bigot.

When you connect said removal of lions to an act of "jihad" (please inform yourself about what this word REALLY means); or condemn all the good citizens of a mosque in Jersey City as being complicit and accepting of acts of worldwide, cultural-based violence; or view congregants who worship God under an umbrella of suspicion just because they are Muslim, then yes, you're a bigot.

I am astounded that people who want to save the facade of the building or at least not see the lions destroy are called a bigot.