Supermosque for 70,000 will be blocked

MrsRaven said:
The odd athlete might be Christian, Buddist, Moslem etc and would appreciate a bit of religious down time between competitions - Me I like the idea of the pub Wyvern!

I thought all they needed was a mat and a compas... someone needs to get a grip... it's not as if I'd only travel to places where the locals had built a church... duh... how obsessed has the gvt. become?
 
Bert_Preast said:
MrsRaven said:
Why is a mosque any more frightening than a Mormon Temple, a Synagogue or a church?

Because nobody ever quoting a temple, synagogue or church ever tried to kill me. D'you see?

You've just been lucky and at the same time don't boher looking at your history books, sevrsal chaps claiming to be good christians used to take pot shots at my mates and some athieists used to shoot at my dad, whilst some quoting the synagogue shot at his mates.

The reality is that people have used religion, and lack of religion as an excuse for killing people from time immemorial, Muslims being relative newcomers to the religion game are just trying to make up for lost time.
 

spiffy

War Hero
maxi_77 said:
Bert_Preast said:
MrsRaven said:
Why is a mosque any more frightening than a Mormon Temple, a Synagogue or a church?

Because nobody ever quoting a temple, synagogue or church ever tried to kill me. D'you see?

You've just been lucky and at the same time don't boher looking at your history books, sevrsal chaps claiming to be good christians used to take pot shots at my mates and some athieists used to shoot at my dad, whilst some quoting the synagogue shot at his mates.

The reality is that people have used religion, and lack of religion as an excuse for killing people from time immemorial, Muslims being relative newcomers to the religion game are just trying to make up for lost time.

Splendid, but have you voted no to "Islamic Terrorist Training Center, oops I mean Mosque"
 
spiffy said:
maxi_77 said:
Bert_Preast said:
MrsRaven said:
Why is a mosque any more frightening than a Mormon Temple, a Synagogue or a church?

Because nobody ever quoting a temple, synagogue or church ever tried to kill me. D'you see?

You've just been lucky and at the same time don't boher looking at your history books, sevrsal chaps claiming to be good christians used to take pot shots at my mates and some athieists used to shoot at my dad, whilst some quoting the synagogue shot at his mates.

The reality is that people have used religion, and lack of religion as an excuse for killing people from time immemorial, Muslims being relative newcomers to the religion game are just trying to make up for lost time.

Splendid, but have you voted no to "Islamic Terrorist Training Center, oops I mean Mosque"

The building means little you need to deal with the people who preach violence not the buildings. Building themselves do not create violence. To complain about the building is to support the idea that guns run down the road all by themselves and shoot people.

Peter
 
Wyvern said:
shouldn't be a problem - as long as they also build a church, synogogue, and sikh/hindu/buddhist temples as well. And maybe a couple of pubs, for the non believers.
What do you mean "pubs for the non believers" ... I believe in pubs, I've seen quite a few - the same cannot be said about the various deities some people worship! :winkrazz:
 

spiffy

War Hero
maxi_77 said:
spiffy said:
maxi_77 said:
Bert_Preast said:
MrsRaven said:
Why is a mosque any more frightening than a Mormon Temple, a Synagogue or a church?

Because nobody ever quoting a temple, synagogue or church ever tried to kill me. D'you see?

You've just been lucky and at the same time don't boher looking at your history books, sevrsal chaps claiming to be good christians used to take pot shots at my mates and some athieists used to shoot at my dad, whilst some quoting the synagogue shot at his mates.

The reality is that people have used religion, and lack of religion as an excuse for killing people from time immemorial, Muslims being relative newcomers to the religion game are just trying to make up for lost time.

Splendid, but have you voted no to "Islamic Terrorist Training Center, oops I mean Mosque"

The building means little you need to deal with the people who preach violence not the buildings. Building themselves do not create violence. To complain about the building is to support the idea that guns run down the road all by themselves and shoot people.

Peter

So you haven't voted no to "Islamic Terrorist Training Center, oops I mean Mosque"
 

intli

War Hero
I don't think the matter is whether to build a mosque or not. There was a previous thread on this. The land was purchased before we did our Olympics bid and Newham plus Red Ken are very keen to allow the mosque to be built on the site as part of their 'celebrating diversity' policy.

There are several mosques in various towns and cities around UK, just like churches, synagogues, Hindu temples, mormon temples, jehovahs witnesses etc. There should be freedom for all religions and for people to have a place to worship their respective faith with others.

The main point on this particular building is it is designed to be the biggest mosque outside of the Middle East, it is to house 70,000 moslems.
The area around the proposed development is already zooming up in land value as more moslems are buying the properties to be near to the new mosque.

This will be the moslem equivalent of St Pauls or Notre Dame and now the bid has been successful will be adjacent to the Olympic village.

The costs for the Olympics are spiralling daily, how much do you think it is going to end up costing them if some of the mosque land or surround is going to be required for part of the Olympic scheme?

I think the mosque should be allowed - I don't think a 70,000 building should be though. It's hardly going to blend into the surrounds of sunny Newham is it?

Also if the building goes ahead you will end up with a de facto ghetto as everyone else (non-moslem) will sell up to cash in on the land values or to get away from an influx of non-white/black/chinese or whatever (even though there will be a small amount of none ME/Asian Moslems as well)

It will all end in tears - and profits for lawyers!
 

Bert_Preast

War Hero
maxi_77 said:
The building means little you need to deal with the people who preach violence not the buildings. Building themselves do not create violence. To complain about the building is to support the idea that guns run down the road all by themselves and shoot people.

Peter

Is that right?
 
It will scrap traditional arts activities on the Continent, such as orchestral tours and artistic commissions, in favour of projects designed to prevent Muslim youths from being indoctrinated by extremists sympathetic to al-Qaeda.

So the British Council will move from 'passive propaganda' showcasing the best of British, and the positive things Britain can do , for those foreigners who like or love Britain to 'overt aggressive propaganda'?

Whose bright idea is this? The British Council is a charity isn't it , chiefly concerned with education.

When did it become a tool of Government policy? An overly aggressive stance will be doomed to be rejected by the locals, and in my opinion , will devalue the perceived neutral stance of the BC.

I have used the British Council in various foreign sh*tholes just to remind me of home, it's great , it really is.

It actively promotes a vision of a Britain I love , which is ironic in a way , because in some respects the vision it promotes is how we would love to think of ourselves, not the mundane reality. But, when you're far from home, it's a vision you want.

Foreigners I knew in various places loved using the BC's facilities, for English studies or to become more immersed in British culture.

The Syrian mate for example got her scholarship to study here from the BC , and is now making an active and considerable contribution to Britain's interests. The BC already provides a vital role , in identifying and helping foreign nationals , it does this without having to overtly propagandize.

Leave the British Council alone, it does an outstanding job , by being perceived as an organisation that shows the best side of Britain to foreign nationals.

I'd hate to see them become targeted for abandoning this stance.
 
PartTimePongo said:
So the British Council will move from 'passive propaganda' showcasing the best of British, and the positive things Britain can do , for those foreigners who like or love Britain to 'overt aggressive propaganda'?

Whose bright idea is this? The British Council is a charity isn't it , chiefly concerned with education.

The answer is found in the very next paragraph of The Times article I linked:
It is motivated by changes in policy at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which gives the council £186 million of taxpayers’ money each year, and by the realisation that much of the organisation’s work in Europe can be conducted over the internet.

PartTimePongo said:
When did it become a tool of Government policy?

In a passive way, it always was. As you point out, it's now just becoming more reactive.

PartTimePongo said:
An overly aggressive stance will be doomed to be rejected by the locals, and in my opinion , will devalue the perceived neutral stance of the BC.

What I think the decision makers have also missed is this:
It supplements its £186 million annual grant with about £300 million in revenue from its educational work

Who is coughing up this £300 million? For the most part, it's good old Europeans, not Islamic extreamists from far off Middle Eastern or Asian countries. There just seems to be this hope that these Europeans will continue to fork out huge sums of cash for English language training and exams with nothing more than the internet as the user interface!

From a business point of view, this can only spell bad news for the British Council. :x
 
not Islamic extreamists from far off Middle Eastern or Asian countries

My point exactly! Instead the BC attracts high calibre people from these areas, who will return to their countries of origin, in many cases , as Anglophiles.

These people in the future, will in many cases be in a position to influence their countries stance to Britain in a favourable fashion. We need to continue concentrating on these candidates.

To propose re-educating 'Year Zero" Islamic deadenders , is a waste of time and resources , and will devalue the BC in the eyes of the very people we hope to attract. We also run the danger of apparing to be attempting to subvert their culture , which will attract a backlash.

I can't see the BC going for this in the Kingdom of Hypocrasy for example....

Let's concentrate on those we can help, who want to be helped and invest in their futures, and ultimately ours, rather than those who think writing in a Latin script or speaking English is an unholy affront to the prophet.

Leave the BC alone!

From a commercial view, I think it will be a disaster, it's looking to compete with Amazon etc. What I see as a more positive link , would be to overtly work with the DTi , in forging links between Britain and potential trading partners, and have a DTi presence centered on the BC, rather than in Embassies etc.

Though it's nice to do business and other bits and bobs in the Pink Club etc :D
 

Contrarian

War Hero
A bloody £100million mosque? :thumbdown: That would certainly a symbol of the ascendancy of Islam in the UK. A similar, but smaller, project has recently been refused planning permission in Dudley in the West Midlands. It seems as if Dudley Muslim Association were initially given the go-ahead to develop the site by the local council, only for the council to change their mind when thousands of local people objected. DMA have accused the planning committee of being racist and islamophobic for refusing to grant planning permission. Generally speaking, though, the local non-muslim community are jubilant. :thumright:

Express and Star video
 
Cross-Party rejection of this willy-waving exercise.

Appeal all you want, it's not going to change anything.The objections weren't about allowing a Mosque per se , it was about the size of the thing, and it's actual purpose and use for the entire community once built.

I still remain to be convinced of the benefits to the entire commnity, as does Dudley Council and the people of Dudley.

Still it does beg the question - Why are there no proposed Christian supercentres?
 
PartTimePongo said:
Still it does beg the question - Why are there no proposed Christian supercentres?

There are no proposed Christian supercentres because there isn't the demand for it - despite the UK being nominally a Christian country, estimates put the number of regular church-goers at around 7-11% of the population. Churches regularly stand 2/3s empty even on Sundays.
 
PartTimePongo said:
Still it does beg the question - Why are there no proposed Christian supercentres?

Because they were all built in the 14th century. There's one at Durham, another in Winchester, a particularly good one at Salisbury.. :thumright:
 
PartTimePongo said:
Cross-Party rejection of this willy-waving exercise.

Appeal all you want, it's not going to change anything.The objections weren't about allowing a Mosque per se , it was about the size of the thing, and it's actual purpose and use for the entire community once built.

I still remain to be convinced of the benefits to the entire commnity, as does Dudley Council and the people of Dudley.

Still it does beg the question - Why are there no proposed Christian supercentres?

Because the Mormon temple in Preston has already been built - damn Mormons won't even let other Christians in! :tongue:
 
castlereagh said:
PartTimePongo said:
Cross-Party rejection of this willy-waving exercise.

Appeal all you want, it's not going to change anything.The objections weren't about allowing a Mosque per se , it was about the size of the thing, and it's actual purpose and use for the entire community once built.

I still remain to be convinced of the benefits to the entire commnity, as does Dudley Council and the people of Dudley.

Still it does beg the question - Why are there no proposed Christian supercentres?

Because the Mormon temple in Preston has already been built - damn Mormons won't even let other Christians in! :tongue:


Your not wrong when it first opended they let the locals in then once the open day was finished they ripped out the carpets they were walking on.

One reason for not having it I've got to put up with the god botherers from there pestering in the street..I'd imagine it would be the same there only 700 times worse!
 
angular said:
PartTimePongo said:
Still it does beg the question - Why are there no proposed Christian supercentres?

Because they were all built in the 14th century. There's one at Durham, another in Winchester, a particularly good one at Salisbury.. :thumright:

Not strictly true.

Just up the road from the proposed site for the mosque is the Kingsway International Christian Centre (KICC) based next to the former Hackney dog track in some former industrial buildings. It attracts literally thousands of worshippers, primarily from those of Afro-Carribean/African origins. The whole area grinds to a halt when an event is on with cars parked on every spare space & smartly dressed worshippers streaming from every direction - in an era of declining church attendance, it is something to behold (whether you agree with the superstition or not).

KICC (who occupy without the strict benefit of planning permission ISTR) are being kicked out by the Olympics and are difficult to rehouse because of the vast scale of the operation. The utterly sensible, non-sectarian, pro-harmony solution would be to allow the building of one huge 'faith centre' which could be shared by both groups of superstitious on different days.

So sensible it'll never happen.
 

Latest Threads

Top