# So, Do you support the Mr. Obama's Stance on the Lower Mahaten Mosque?



## camorristi

President Obama had no choice but the general path he took. No president, of any party or ideology, could tell millions of Americans that their sacred building desecrates American holy ground. This would understandably be taken as a presidential assault on the deepest beliefs of his fellow citizens. It would be an unprecedented act of sectarianism, alienating an entire faith tradition from the American experiment. If a church or synagogue can be built on a commercial street in Lower Manhattan, declaring a mosque off-limits would officially equate Islam with violence and terrorism. No president would consider making such a statement. And those commentators who urge the president to do so fundamentally misunderstand the presidency itself. What does this community of well dressed and well informed gentleman think?

*So, Do you support the Mr. Obama's Stance on the Lower Manhattan Mosque? (yeah it's a typo get over it :icon_smile_big: )
*


----------



## WouldaShoulda

camorristi said:


> If a church or synagogue can be built on a commercial street in Lower Manhattan, declaring a mosque off-limits would officially equate Islam with violence and terrorism.


Oh, sure, THAT's why some people equate Islam with violence and terrorism!!


----------



## Howard

Could that trigger more violence?


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

I voted I guess I do as I am not a US citizen so it's none of my beeswax. But I think it was the right decision.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Maybe you can tell us how that huge cement mosque in London is inspiring Peace and Goodwill among men there??


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

I have no idea I avoid London as much as possible, but the huge one in Glasgow causes no problems and provides free parking for the solicitors and staff at the Sheriff Court house across the road from it. (I somehow think that was not their intent when they built it). I don't remember any problems at the one in West Ham either when I did visit London a while ago.

To me the issue is not peace and goodwill but freedom of worship. I find Jehovah's witnesses and western Buddhist converts a royal pain in the rump but would never try to ban them.

I also have no problem with terrorists finding themselves with their 72 virgins or whatever sooner than they wanted. Doesn't mean their co religionists should go the same way.


----------



## VictorRomeo

WouldaShoulda said:


> Maybe you can tell us how that huge cement mosque in London is inspiring Peace and Goodwill among men there??


Without ever visiting, how will you ever know?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> Without ever visiting, how will you ever know?


I wouldn't.

I was hoping for a report from the field.

Maybe they were having a non-Islamic public service day and open house??


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> I find Jehovah's witnesses and western Buddhist converts a royal pain in the rump but would never try to ban them.


Compared to Jew-Hating Head-Chopping Jihadists, those busybodies are the WORST!!


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

WouldaShoulda said:


> Compared to Jew-Hating Head-Chopping Jihadists, those busybodies are the WORST!!


I haven't seen much any Jew hating from Muslims in Glasgow and head chopping is only allowed when they can't find a ball to play polo with for moderates.


----------



## smujd

I pretty much disagree with Obama on everything else, but he's right on this. They do have the right to build their mosque anywhere they can acquire the land, zoning, etc.

The fact that they would proceed with this particular location does evidence how little regard they have for America, though.


----------



## VictorRomeo

WouldaShoulda said:


> Compared to Jew-Hating Head-Chopping Jihadists, those busybodies are the WORST!!


Oh I don't know.... pointy headed Klu Klux Kristians would give them a good run for their money.... Sure, there's less lynching these days but..... you know, it's still such a 'supreme' tradition.....


----------



## VictorRomeo

smujd said:


> The fact that they would proceed with this particular location does evidence how little regard they have for America, though.


Why is that?! American citizens want to build somewhere to meet, play, eat and maybe worship. You know there's already a Mosque 5 blocks from ground zero..... why not a cultural centre in the same location?!


----------



## Jovan

To all who so vehemently oppose this:

They have a right to build wherever they want. Get over your religious intolerance and stop using "it will cause problems!!!" as a rationalisation for it. The point is _not_ to piss off Americans. The fact that unsophisticated minds want to blame Islam as a whole for the attacks doesn't, and shouldn't, mean squat.

Also, no more of this "Islam is a violent religion" argument. Has anyone who makes that argument ever read about the Crusades?


----------



## VictorRomeo

Jovan said:


> Also, no more of this "Islam is a violent religion" argument. Has anyone who makes that argument ever read about the Crusades?


Or attended a school run by the Catholic Clergy in Ireland in the 1970s..... It was beyond violent.....

Very well said, Jovan.


----------



## smujd

Jovan said:


> To all who so vehemently oppose this:
> 
> They have a right to build wherever they want. Get over your religious intolerance and stop using "it will cause problems!!!" as a rationalisation for it. The point is _not_ to piss off Americans. The fact that unsophisticated minds want to blame Islam as a whole for the attacks doesn't, and shouldn't, mean squat.
> 
> Also, no more of this "Islam is a violent religion" argument. Has anyone who makes that argument ever read about the Crusades?


Yes, they have a right to do so. No question. I'm not sure how you know that the point is--whether to "piss off Americans" or not--I certainly don't know (or understand) what the point is.

When you say "the Crusades," are you refering to the Crusades launched in response to Islamic/Muslim aggression? Those Crusdaes?


----------



## smujd

VictorRomeo said:


> Why is that?! American citizens want to build somewhere to meet, play, eat and maybe worship. You know there's already a Mosque 5 blocks from ground zero..... why not a cultural centre in the same location?!


Are you really serious or are you playing devil's advocate? For the same reason I would oppse a Japanese cultural center near Pearl Harbor or a KKK center near the Lorraine Motel/National Civil Rights Museum.


----------



## young guy

You either believe in freedom of religion or you don't. 

it really is a simple as that


----------



## young guy

smujd said:


> Are you really serious or are you playing devil's advocate? For the same reason I would oppse a Japanese cultural center near Pearl Harbor or a KKK center near the Lorraine Motel/National Civil Rights Museum.


and neither of those are protected by the constitution like religion


----------



## Pentheos

Jovan said:


> Has anyone who makes that argument ever read about the Crusades?


Has anyone who makes this argument ever taken a history class?

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

smujd said:


> I pretty much disagree with Obama on everything else, but he's right on this. They do have the right to build their mosque anywhere they can acquire the land, zoning, etc.
> 
> The fact that they would proceed with this particular location does evidence how little regard they have for America, though.


All BS aside, that sums it up perfectly!!

Obama should have bothered to mention the second part of your summery.

But he didn't. HUGE fail on his part.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Pentheos said:


> Has anyone who makes this argument ever taken a history class?
> 
> I'll just leave this here.


I'm quite satisfied with the progress Christianity has made over the last several hundred years!!

Others, well, not so much.


----------



## Helvetia

Couldn't agree with the POTUS more on this issue. If you knock down this domino where does it end. If the USA was founded on any one premise - it was that of religous freedom.


----------



## smujd

young guy said:


> and neither of those are protected by the constitution like religion


Hmm...the First and Fourteenth Amendments would suggest otherwise.


----------



## beherethen

smujd said:


> Are you really serious or are you playing devil's advocate? For the same reason I would oppse a Japanese cultural center near Pearl Harbor or a KKK center near the Lorraine Motel/National Civil Rights Museum.


Maybe it would also be in good taste for someone to open a Nazi shop that sells flags and copies of Mein Kampf next to the Holocaust Museum. You could do a brisk business in selling fake Hitler Youth knives that have the swastika on the handle.

It is their right to do it, but if I were the mayor of NYC, I'd make sure it was up to code. I don't mean the normal "substantial compliance with the codes", but every building-electrical-plumbing code ever written. When and if they were able to get the thing up to code, I'd ask the City Council for an ordinance that makes it illegal to leave your shoes off upon entering a building, with the penalty being a mandatory year of hard labor. I would also send a memo to the chief of police, to devote as much time as it deserves in finding people who should commit crimes against the members of the mosque, right after they find my gym shoes that were lost at LaGuardia Airport about 10 years ago. I think they were green.


----------



## VictorRomeo

I am very serious. Are you?! 

You know, not all Americans are white, speak English and are Christian or perscribe to some form of a Judeo-Christian belief system. No matter how much it might displease people, there are American citizens who are Muslim. 

Amazingly, and you might need a seat for this..... This makes them.... American!

So, they way I see it America has a choice here. To all live under the one constitution. A constitution that framed/s your nation and transcends all forms of language, religious and ethnic divides. Of course the opposite to this is the 'cultural standard' that is the root cause of this problem. That is to say that all newcomers to this fair land must adopt to the cultural norms set by the predominantly Anglo-Saxon protestant founding fathers, or else they can't be an American. 

Your comparison is deeply flawed too, by the way. Oh, there's also a decent(sic) McDonalds with free wifi in Hiroshima.

Here's an interesting question for those of you to ponder on that have a deep belief in whatever "Judeo-Christian belief system"....

Are you American(or whatever) first and Christian(or whatever) second? Or the other way around, of course.....


----------



## Quay

President Obama is simply following the grand tradition started by George W. Bush, who spoke out often, forcefully and remarkably clearly in the days after 9/11 on the obvious distinction between terrorists and the whole of Islam. We are at war with the former and are true friends to the latter, especially including our fellow Americans whose religion that happens to be. All Americans should be deeply concerned when the actions of a few are used by clever propagandists, politicians, talk show hosts or the generally ignorant to denigrate the whole of a people, nation or religion.


----------



## mrkleen

I agree with the sentiment that this is a bad idea and one that the leaders of the mosque should be sensitive to. It would be in their best long term interest to NOT inflame the situation by building this place of worship so close to Ground Zero. 

However, bad taste and bad public relations aside - they absolutely have the right to build it where they want and it puts the President of a very precarious situation. He has no choice but to stand in support of their religious freedom and their right to practice what and where they see fit.

Anyone that doesn't give the POTUS the benefit of the doubt here, realizing that he is in a no win situation - is someone that is hell bent on criticizing everything President Obama says and does, and not a fair minded person. President Bush upset many in his base by saying right after 9/11 that this was a war on terror, not a war on Islam. That was the right thing to say - same with what President Obama said.

Anyway you look at it, over time, the issue will pass. But for now, it is just a bad decision by members of that mosque - they might as well paint a big bulls-eye on the front of the building.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

beherethen said:


> Maybe it would also be in good taste for someone to open a Nazi shop that sells flags and copies of Mein Kampf next to the Holocaust Museum. You could do a brisk business in selling fake Hitler Youth knives that have the swastika on the handle.
> 
> It is their right to do it, but if I were the mayor of NYC, I'd make sure it was up to code. I don't mean the normal "substantial compliance with the codes", but every building-electrical-plumbing code ever written. When and if they were able to get the thing up to code, I'd ask the City Council for an ordinance that makes it illegal to leave your shoes off upon entering a building, with the penalty being a mandatory year of hard labor. I would also send a memo to the chief of police, to devote as much time as it deserves in finding people who should commit crimes against the members of the mosque, right after they find my gym shoes that were lost at LaGuardia Airport about 10 years ago. I think they were green.


Too funny!!

Times like these I almost miss the Mafia!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> I am very serious. Are you?!


Have you found out anything more about the Mosque in London??

Is there a boot sale or bring and buy going on this weekend??


----------



## Pentheos

WouldaShoulda said:


> Too funny!!
> 
> Times like these I almost miss the Mafia!!


You laugh, but plans for a huge mosque in London fell through due to paperwork not being filed on time. According to this site, the British government is blocking construction.


----------



## DCLawyer68

Do they have a "right"?

Yes.

Should you do everything you have a right to do?

No.


----------



## JohnRov

I don't agree with the President on much, but he's correct on this. He was correct when he said they have the right to do it and he was correct when he made the distinction that he was not commenting on the wisdom of building it in that particular location.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JohnRov said:


> I don't agree with the President on much, but he's correct on this. He was correct when he said they have the right to do it
> 
> and he was correct when he made the distinction that he was not commenting on the wisdom of building it in that particular location.


1) I agree.

2) How come the President didn't say so at the moment?? Why does he always seem to have to come back for clarification later??


----------



## camorristi

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) I agree.
> 
> 2) How come the President didn't say so at the moment?? Why does he always seem to have to come back for clarification later??


Listening is more important than talking. Just hit your mark and believe what you say. Just listen to people and react to what they are saying. He will clarify as needed.


----------



## harvey_birdman

smujd said:


> I pretty much disagree with Obama on everything else, but he's right on this. They do have the right to build their mosque anywhere they can acquire the land, zoning, etc.
> 
> The fact that they would proceed with this particular location does evidence how little regard they have for America, though.


This, exactly this. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something. The Muslims have every right to build such a mosque, but one would have hoped they had the good sense not to do so.


----------



## JJR512

President Obama said:


> As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.


(Transcript of the President's speech: )

This is Obama's "stance on the lower Manhattan mosque". As it is a matter of simple legal fact, yes, I support his stance. The original question (the poll question), just like Obama's comments thus far, have nothing to do with whether or not it's actually a good idea to build mosques there.


----------



## Quay

^ Thanks for posting that. These distinctions between a right to something and its appropriateness are important.


----------



## JDC

^^ Ditto. No shortage of spin on this topic.

For me the question is, if the 911 perpetrators had been Christian nutcases instead of Islamic, and a proposal was made to put a Christian church at ground zero, would I support it? No I wouldn't. 911 had squat to do with Islam or any other religion, it was an attack on our government and private business sector. Therefore IMO a mosque isn't appropriate. It's got nothing to do with Islam as a religion.

Of course that's an entirely separate issue from whether people have a right to build what they want on private property.


----------



## Pentheos

FrankDC said:


> 911 had squat to do with Islam or any other religion, it was an attack on our government and private business sector. Therefore IMO a mosque isn't appropriate. It's got nothing to do with Islam as a religion.


So when a terrorist is reciting the takbir as he crashes a plane into a field in Pennsylvania, he's just joshing, right?


----------



## MikeDT

President Obama?? When did that happen? What happened to Bush?


----------



## JJR512

FrankDC said:


> For me the question is, if the 911 perpetrators had been Christian nutcases instead of Islamic, and a proposal was made to put a Christian church at ground zero, would I support it? No I wouldn't. 911 had squat to do with Islam or any other religion, it was an attack on our government and private business sector. Therefore IMO a mosque isn't appropriate. It's got nothing to do with Islam as a religion.


Something about this doesn't seem right to me, but I'm having a hard time articulating what I feel. I think that part of my problem is that I just don't understand what you're saying. Here's how I interpret it, you can correct me where I've gotten it wrong: "9/11 had nothing to do with Islam, but they shouldn't build a mosque there anyway, and my opinion that affects an entire religion has nothing to do with that religion."


----------



## JDC

Pentheos said:


> So when a terrorist is reciting the takbir as he crashes a plane into a field in Pennsylvania, he's just joshing, right?


Mass murder of innocent people is not religion. That's true regardless of whether a terrorist is reciting takbir, Hail Marys or Green Eggs and Ham. Victims aren't more or less dead depending on why they were attacked.


----------



## JJR512

FrankDC said:


> Mass murder of innocent people is not religion. That's true regardless of whether a terrorist is reciting takbir, Hail Marys or Green Eggs and Ham. Victims aren't more or less dead depending on why they were attacked.


Ah, that's exactly right! So why say, then, that it's inappropriate for the entire religion to build a mosque there?


----------



## JDC

JJR512 said:


> Something about this doesn't seem right to me, but I'm having a hard time articulating what I feel. I think that part of my problem is that I just don't understand what you're saying. Here's how I interpret it, you can correct me where I've gotten it wrong: "9/11 had nothing to do with Islam, but they shouldn't build a mosque there anyway, and my opinion that affects an entire religion has nothing to do with that religion."


Basically. I don't think it's appropriate because it reinforces the myth that 911 was somehow related to authentic religion.


----------



## camorristi

FrankDC said:


> Basically. I don't think it's appropriate because it reinforces the myth that 911 was somehow related to authentic religion.


What a misguided oxymoron! My dear Californian friend don't you see what you just said?! Between all people, Californians should know about myths better than anyone else (get it ). Are you a man of principal or a man of myth?! If they don't build their mosque in that location, it will only enforce that myth to a level that it won't be a myth anymore. They're not even feeling guilty about it, because they had nothing to do with the 9/11 tragedy. If your cousin robs a bank tomorrow, will you feel guilty and ashamed for his actions?! For a future reference to the man of mystery and myths, an entire group of individuals cannot be punished because of the misguided actions of certain members of that group.


----------



## JohnRov

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) I agree.
> 
> 2) How come the President didn't say so at the moment?? Why does he always seem to have to come back for clarification later??


Because he's not the communicator many make him out to be. His administration and those who advise him don't know how to get on top of something and address it in such a way that they have communicated a clear message. That's my take. I'm just addressing the content, not the delivery.


----------



## camorristi

Pentheos said:


> So when a terrorist is reciting the takbir as he crashes a plane into a field in Pennsylvania, he's just joshing, right?


They're on a run :icon_smile_big:! So, apart from being sarcastic, what exactly is your point here? I mean, really?! Are you that misinformed?! You weren't born last Wednesday by any chance were you?! I'll give you the benefit of doubt, and tell you this; Always think before you say something, because if you don't, you look exactly like you're looking right now ic12337:.



Pentheos said:


> You laugh, but plans for a huge mosque in London fell through due to paperwork not being filed on time. According to this site, the British government is blocking construction.


Oh, so you have read the British Constitution?! What's the point of posting such an irrelevant article here?! We're not discussing Islam in the United Kingdom, the Maldives, or the Philippines, we're discussing whether we support our Commander In Chief or not.


----------



## camorristi

JohnRov said:


> Because he's not the communicator many make him out to be. His administration and those who advise him don't know how to get on top of something and address it in such a way that they have communicated a clear message. That's my take. I'm just addressing the content, not the delivery.


If you give away more information than needed, your enemies could use it against you. I think he follows that principal, you'll know what you need to know when you need to know it.


----------



## VictorRomeo

You know there are those that believe your president to be a closet Muslim too..... 

Laughable and pathetic really.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

camorristi said:


> If you give away more information than needed, your enemies could use it against you. I think he follows that principal, you'll know what you need to know when you need to know it.


The Obama is SO brilliant, you morons can't figure him out!!

Got it!!


----------



## Centaur

*A mosque in Parliament Square?*

If I were an American, I think I would object very strongly to the building of a mosque on Lower Manhattan, just as, to be honest, I would object to the presence of a mosque in any prominent place in London (the one in Regent's Park is bad enough, but what if there were a mosque in Trafalgar Square, or on the Mall?).

I'm not anti-Islam by the way, but in my view, the cultural belief systems of many muslims are not compatible with western democratic liberal values.

It's foolish to think that those muslims who seek to impose their religion by violent means and terror are in any way representative of the great mass of sincerely peace-loving muslims; but it's also foolish to overlook the great symbolic power of large religious buildings like mosques and cathedrals. American society may be a melting pot of different cultures, but is it ready to embrace hard-line, fundamentalist Islam at home, at the same time as it is fighting a deadly 'war on terror' against those very values in Afghanistan?

It's quite clear that mosque-building holds great fear for some people, rooted in concerns about the undermining of certain cultural values that they hold dear. Quite recently, the Swiss voted in a national referendum to ban the building of mosques in their country.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Centaur said:


> If I were an American, I think I would object very strongly to the building of a mosque on Lower Manhattan...


In the words of our Great Leader, "I just want to be clear on this," I do not object to the legality of it, just the massive tacky insensitivity of it.

BTW~Between the new London Mosque being turned down, no burqas in France and now the Swiss ban I wonder when the Liberal Media here will get behind this new sophisticated Euro-trend??


----------



## JohnRov

camorristi said:


> If you give away more information than needed, your enemies could use it against you. I think he follows that principal, you'll know what you need to know when you need to know it.


While that principle is useful, when you do make a statement it needs to be coherent and clear. His messages have been anything but. When you have the opportunity to address something, you do so decisively so as to avoid having to look like you are on the defensive by responding to reporters chasing you down.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Centaur said:


> Quite recently, the Swiss voted in a national referendum to ban the building of mosques in their country.


Not so. They banned the building of minarets on Mosques.

Big difference.


----------



## Centaur

VictorRomeo said:


> Not so. They banned the building of minarets on Mosques.
> 
> Big difference.


OK a technical detail, but the reason they banned minarets had nothing to do with building regulations, it was because they were opposed to the manifestation of an alien cultural emblem.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Centaur said:


> OK a technical detail


Hardly!!!


----------



## TMMKC

I don't like it. I don't support it (though "techincally" the POTUS is correct).

If anything is shows incredible lack of sensitivity on the part fo the Muslim community in that area.


----------



## maxnharry

I guess I am unclear why anyone thinks they get a say. This mosque is being opened on private property with private money and last I checked, the Constitution provides Americans with freedom of religious expression.


----------



## TMMKC

maxnharry said:


> I guess I am unclear why anyone thinks they get a say. This mosque is being opened on private property with private money and last I checked, the Constitution provides Americans with freedom of religious expression.


Because opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one.

In a so-called democracy, everyone at least gets a say. It doesn't matter if they have any power to back up their opinions. If only those with power were allowed to comment and critique, we'd have no art critics, reality shows or AAAC!:biggrin:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

maxnharry said:


> I guess I am unclear why anyone thinks they get a say. This mosque is being opened on private property with private money and last I checked, the Constitution provides Americans with freedom of religious expression.


Hey!!

You aren't permitted to grasp the obvious without a lecture from Obama first.

The only issue is the propriety of the Mosque and Obama has promised us NO lectures on that front!!

Of course, he also said AZ was a local issue, and that the Police "acted stupidly" in Boston was local too. So you never really know for sure with him!!

Stay tuned...


----------



## TMMKC

WouldaShoulda said:


> Of course, he also said AZ was a local issue, and that the Police "acted stupidly" in Boston was local too. So you never really know for sure with him!!
> 
> Stay tuned...


+1...BAWH! LOL! Maybe Obama will have all sides to the White House for some beers...and an O'Douls for the cleric. Because, if we just talk it out and get lectured by the POTUS, everything will be just dandy!


----------



## Asterix

How about the "I could careless" option for the poll?


----------



## maxnharry

WouldaShoulda said:


> Hey!!
> 
> You aren't permitted to grasp the obvious without a lecture from Obama first.
> 
> The only issue is the propriety of the Mosque and Obama has promised us NO lectures on that front!!
> 
> Of course, he also said AZ was a local issue, and that the Police "acted stupidly" in Boston was local too. So you never really know for sure with him!!
> 
> Stay tuned...


Yes-lectures from him are annoying, just like lectures from Glen Beck and others who are trying to make something out of this nothing.


----------



## VictorRomeo

maxnharry said:


> Glen Beck


Hey.... Fox News viewers..... Did he cry over this issue yet?


----------



## JohnRov

maxnharry said:


> Yes-lectures from him are annoying, just like lectures from Glen Beck and others who are trying to make something out of this nothing.


Beck and others are out for ratings, he's the President, they should be held to different standards.


----------



## TMMKC

JohnRov said:


> Beck and others are out for ratings, he's the President, they should be held to different standards.


Ratings...poll numbers. Really, what's the difference? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JohnRov said:


> Beck and others are out for ratings, he's the President, they should be held to different standards.


Some people sure have lowered their expectations of Obama, but I never expected them to lower him to the same standard as "Faux News!!"


----------



## Quay

TMMKC said:


> Ratings...poll numbers. Really, what's the difference? :icon_smile_wink:


Higher ratings means you get rich. Higher poll numbers mean you also get rich, but usually with other people's money.


----------



## TMMKC

Quay said:


> Higher ratings means you get rich. Higher poll numbers mean you also get rich, but usually with other people's money.


Case in point. But I digress....


----------



## JJR512

I've seen several people making comments to the effect that building a mosque in this location shows incredible insensitivity from Muslims.

Why?

Timothy McVeigh was a Roman Catholic; would it have been insensitive for the Pope to condemn his actions or offer prayer for the souls of every person who died in the Oklahoma City bombing? Would it have been insensitive if, years later, the Catholic Church wanted to build a church across the street from where the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JJR512 said:


> I've seen several people making comments to the effect that building a mosque in this location shows incredible insensitivity from Muslims.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Timothy McVeigh was a Roman Catholic; would it have been insensitive for the Pope to condemn his actions or offer prayer for the souls of every person who died in the Oklahoma City bombing? Would it have been insensitive if, years later, the Catholic Church wanted to build a church across the street from where the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was?


Was McVeigh saying the Rosary as be blew up the building??

If he were, then yes, that's exactly what I'd expect the Pope to do.

Just like the Pope had a Nunnery moved from a Holocaust site not terribly long ago as I recall.

That will be 10 Hail Mary's for you Young Man!!


----------



## phyrpowr

maxnharry said:


> I guess I am unclear why anyone thinks they get a say. This mosque is being opened on private property with private money and last I checked, the Constitution provides Americans with freedom of religious expression.


Guess the ditto-heads forgot about the "my property I paid for it" part. I cannot object to it on any Constitutional grounds, and this is, after all, America.

I *do* hope it falls down as soon as it's built, gets rebuilt/falls down, etc....or a lightning strike, even better!


----------



## Pentheos

JJR512 said:


> Timothy McVeigh was a Roman Catholic; would it have been insensitive for the Pope to condemn his actions or offer prayer for the souls of every person who died in the Oklahoma City bombing? Would it have been insensitive if, years later, the Catholic Church wanted to build a church across the street from where the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was?


's McVeigh's explanation of why he bombed the federal building. In his own words,

"I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens."

In contrast, let's see what Mohammed Atta had to say:

"When you ride the (T) [probably for tayyara, aeroplane in Arabic], before your foot steps in it, and before you enter it, you make a prayer and supplications. Remember that this is a battle for the sake of God."

"When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers. God said: 'Strike above the neck, and strike at all of their extremities.'"

But don't forget,

"Check your weapon before you leave and long before you leave. (You must make your knife sharp and must not discomfort your animal during the slaughter)."

Finally,

"When the hour of reality approaches, the zero hour, [unclear] and wholeheartedly welcome death for the sake of God. Always be remembering God. Either end your life while praying, seconds before the target, or make your last words: 'There is no God but God, Muhammad is His messenger'."


----------



## smujd

JJR512 said:


> Timothy McVeigh was a Roman Catholic...


At some point in his life, yes, but it would appear not at the relevant points.

From Wikipedia:

In a recorded interview with _Time_ magazine McVeigh professed his belief in "a god", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic and regularly attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York. _The Guardian_ reported that McVeigh wrote a letter to them claiming to be an agnostic and that he did not believe in a hell. McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion."


----------



## camorristi

Pentheos said:


> 's McVeigh's explanation of why he bombed the federal building. In his own words,
> 
> "I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens."
> 
> In contrast, let's see what Mohammed Atta had to say:
> 
> "When you ride the (T) [probably for tayyara, aeroplane in Arabic], before your foot steps in it, and before you enter it, you make a prayer and supplications. Remember that this is a battle for the sake of God."
> 
> "When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers. God said: 'Strike above the neck, and strike at all of their extremities.'"
> 
> But don't forget,
> 
> "Check your weapon before you leave and long before you leave. (You must make your knife sharp and must not discomfort your animal during the slaughter)."
> 
> Finally,
> 
> "When the hour of reality approaches, the zero hour, [unclear] and wholeheartedly welcome death for the sake of God. Always be remembering God. Either end your life while praying, seconds before the target, or make your last words: 'There is no God but God, Muhammad is His messenger'."


Alright, here's a *yes *or *no *question for you: Do you really think those god damned 9/11 terrorists correctly interpreted and followed Islam's teachings that are mentioned in the Quran?



WouldaShoulda said:


> Was McVeigh saying the Rosary as be blew up the building??
> 
> If he were, then yes, that's exactly what I'd expect the Pope to do.
> 
> Just like the Pope had a Nunnery moved from a Holocaust site not terribly long ago as I recall.
> 
> That will be 10 Hail Mary's for you Young Man!!


The same question goes for you too sir.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

camorristi said:


> Alright, here's a *yes *or *no *question for you: Do you really think those god damned 9/11 terrorists correctly interpreted and followed Islam's teachings that are mentioned in the Quran?


To the untrained eye, yes.

The verses they quote appear to inspire their actions.

But I hate to judge or make hasty decisions!!

Let's get back to the failed Crusades and McVeigh analogies though.

Those always crack me up!!


----------



## JJR512

I read that paragraph at Wikipedia. That's where I found out what religion he was.

I think some of you fail to understand that just because somebody performs an action, it does not mean that what he's doing represents his religion, whether he says it does or not. And I'm talking about ordinary people here, not actual representatives of the religion, of course. Ordinary people like the Oklahoma City bombers, the 9/11 attackers, etc. What they're did, they did on their own. So punishing a terrorist's religion doesn't make very much sense and isn't very fair to the vast majority of the religion's followers, who are probably decent, law-abiding people.

And let me go on to say that in my opinion, if anyone thinks it's insensitive for Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero, the problem isn't with the Muslims who want it, the problem is with you. They're not trying to make you feel bad, but at the same time, they don't give a damn if you do, because apparently they feel that their right to worship is more important than how happy you are about that. So get over it. Live and let live.


----------



## camorristi

JJR512 said:


> I read that paragraph at Wikipedia. That's where I found out what religion he was.
> 
> I think some of you fail to understand that just because somebody performs an action, it does not mean that what he's doing represents his religion, whether he says it does or not. And I'm talking about ordinary people here, not actual representatives of the religion, of course. Ordinary people like the Oklahoma City bombers, the 9/11 attackers, etc. What they're did, they did on their own. So punishing a terrorist's religion doesn't make very much sense and isn't very fair to the vast majority of the religion's followers, who are probably decent, law-abiding people.
> 
> And let me go on to say that in my opinion, if anyone thinks it's insensitive for Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero, the problem isn't with the Muslims who want it, the problem is with you. They're not trying to make you feel bad, but at the same time, they don't give a damn if you do, because apparently they feel that their right to worship is more important than how happy you are about that. So get over it. Live and let live.


F***ing A sir! :aportnoy:Now, if someone does not understand the above statement, he's beyond salvation and there's no point explaining anything to him.


----------



## Pentheos

camorristi said:


> Alright, here's a *yes *or *no *question for you: Do you really think those god damned 9/11 terrorists correctly interpreted and followed Islam's teachings that are mentioned in the Quran?


That's the wrong question. It should be, "Did Islam, as the attackers understood it, motivate their actions?" Even you would have to say yes.

Your question implies that there is a single "correct" interpretation of Islam and of the Qur'an. 1.5 billion Muslims disagree. Perhaps with your knowledge of the Qur'an, Islamic philosophy, and of the Hadith you can help smooth the differences between the Sunni and the Shia? That'd be really helpful.

The notion that Islam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks is a dangerous myth.

"But," you'll utter through gnashed teeth,"Islam doesn't condone mass murder." That's true-to an extent. Islam does encourage martyrdom in the defense of itself (e.g., Qur'an 2:191-93). If that is what the attackers thought they were doing, I can't see anyone can say that they were mistaken.


----------



## Pentheos

I should add that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf genuinely seems like a good guy. More people like him are needed to bridge the gap between the West and the East. We do need dialogue. We need go-betweens. We can't handpick who these people will be. They need to emerge on their own. Some who do might have an unsavory past or will have said unfortunate things.


----------



## JDC

Pentheos said:


> That's the wrong question. It should be, "Did Islam, as the attackers understood it, motivate their actions?" Even you would have to say yes.


So what? Is Christianity responsible for the murder of abortion doctors?

The problem is ignorance not religion.

https://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm


----------



## camorristi

Pentheos said:


> That's the wrong question. It should be, "Did Islam, as the attackers understood it, motivate their actions?" Even you would have to say yes.
> 
> Your question implies that there is a single "correct" interpretation of Islam and of the Qur'an. 1.5 billion Muslims disagree. Perhaps with your knowledge of the Qur'an, Islamic philosophy, and of the Hadith you can help smooth the differences between the Sunni and the Shia? That'd be really helpful.
> 
> The notion that Islam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks is a dangerous myth.
> 
> "But," you'll utter through gnashed teeth,"Islam doesn't condone mass murder." That's true-to an extent. Islam does encourage martyrdom in the defense of itself (e.g., Qur'an 2:191-93). If that is what the attackers thought they were doing, I can't see anyone can say that they were mistaken.


My question is the right question. There is one single correct interpretation of Islam, that's a fact of life. Now, who decides which one is it, that I do not know. Prophet Mohamed said something about 70 different forms of Islam and only one is correct. Anyway, As you've quoted, Islam did encourage martyrdom in the defense of itself when it was a new religion, and killing innocent civilians is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran for _whatever _reason. The ONLY legitimate way to defend Islam is by having government approval, even then, the war will be against another country's armed forces or military, not civilians. For example, the war between Saudi Arabian forces and the Yemeni rebels not too long ago is considered a correct form of defending Islam. As WouldaShoulda have said, "To the untrained eye, yes.", so before you make any statements you better be well read!


----------



## camorristi

Pentheos said:


> I should add that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf genuinely seems like a good guy. More people like him are needed to bridge the gap between the West and the East. We do need dialogue. We need go-betweens. We can't handpick who these people will be. They need to emerge on their own. Some who do might have an unsavory past or will have said unfortunate things.


Also, the Saudi king's Interfaith Talks.


----------



## camorristi

FrankDC said:


> So what? Is Christianity responsible for the murder of abortion doctors?
> 
> The problem is ignorance not religion.
> 
> https://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm


Good luck explaining that to someone making $7.25 an hour! When people have crappy lives, they want someone to blame for their own failures.


----------



## camorristi

WouldaShoulda said:


> Hey!!
> 
> You aren't permitted to grasp the obvious without a lecture from Obama first.
> 
> The only issue is the propriety of the Mosque and Obama has promised us NO lectures on that front!!
> 
> Of course, he also said AZ was a local issue, and that the Police "acted stupidly" in Boston was local too. So you never really know for sure with him!!
> 
> Stay tuned...


Who's the one person that has devoted his entire life to serving the American people's best interest? The President of the United Sates, right?! Now, if the POTUS approves of the lower Manhattan Mosque, doesn't that tell you it's in the in best interest if the American people?!


----------



## VictorRomeo

phyrpowr said:


> I *do* hope it falls down as soon as it's built, gets rebuilt/falls down, etc....or a lightning strike, even better!


Gosh.... You really do seem to hate Muslims, don't you.......?


----------



## Pentheos

camorristi said:


> My question is the right question. There is one single correct interpretation of Islam, that's a fact of life. Now, who decides which one is it, that I do not know. Prophet Mohamed said something about 70 different forms of Islam and only one is correct. Anyway, As you've quoted, Islam did encourage martyrdom in the defense of itself when it was a new religion, and killing innocent civilians is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran for _whatever _reason. The ONLY legitimate way to defend Islam is by having government approval, even then, the war will be against another country's armed forces or military, not civilians. For example, the war between Saudi Arabian forces and the Yemeni rebels not too long ago is considered a correct form of defending Islam. As WouldaShoulda have said, "To the untrained eye, yes.", so before you make any statements you better be well read!


Qutbism is calling and wants its Islam back.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

camorristi said:


> Who's the one person that has devoted his entire life to serving the American people's best interest? The President of the United Sates, right?! Now, if the POTUS approves of the lower Manhattan Mosque, doesn't that tell you it's in the in best interest if the American people?!


That's what it seemed like Friday, but not so much Saturday.

But who am I to question The Great One.

I am not learned, I am not wise.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JJR512 said:


> Live and let live.


That appears to be a one way steet in Manhattan!!

I prefer to go the wrong way.


----------



## smujd

camorristi said:


> Who's the one person that has devoted his entire life to serving the American people's best interest? The President of the United Sates, right?! Now, if the POTUS approves of the lower Manhattan Mosque, doesn't that tell you it's in the in best interest if the American people?!


Yeah, sure. If the president approves of something it must be in America's best interest.  Right. (NB: this is the problem with the damn internet--my irony detector doesn't work as well.)

So, that means that slavery and internment of the Japanese were in America's best interest simply because a president aspproved of them? Ditto Watergate, Vietnam, and the Alien and Sedition Acts. And the Bay of Pigs. And the Chinese Exclusion Act. Shall we continue?


----------



## VictorRomeo

It's really hilarious how some of you lot are trying to hang this one 'round they neck of Obama along with everything else you feel is wrong with America......

But maybe the best way to resolve this is to put - say - a 10 block ban on _all_ 'cultural centres', places of worship and all forms of religious symbolism.

Would that make you feel better?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> But maybe the best way to resolve this is to put - say - a 10 block ban on _all_ 'cultural centres', places of worship and all forms of religious symbolism.
> 
> Would that make you feel better?


No, it would only make me feel better if MY feelings and MY sensitivity were considered.

Even just this once.

To be honest.


----------



## VictorRomeo

WouldaShoulda said:


> No, it would only make me feel better if MY feelings and MY sensitivity were considered.
> 
> Even just this once.
> 
> To be honest.


Well.... do tell......


----------



## JJR512

WouldaShoulda said:


> No, it would only make me feel better if MY feelings and MY sensitivity were considered.
> 
> Even just this once.
> 
> To be honest.


You know, I really do believe that openly honest bigots are a much better group of people than the ones that try to conceal their bigotry or claim they aren't. Sincerely. You get a round of applause from me.


----------



## beherethen

VictorRomeo said:


> Well.... do tell......


Quick off topic question-as you seem well versed in how Americans should feel-act ETC, I was wondering if you could give me any information on how to open an abortion clinic in Dublin. While some Americans can exhibit a little prejudice, particularly when one of our embassy buildings are held hostage, war is declared upon us and our buildings are bombed, surely a people as enlightened as the Irish should have no problems with a woman's right to choose. 
https://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/28/ireland-abortion-limits-violate-human-rights


----------



## RedBluff

As others have said it boils down to property owners right....the uncouthness, insensitivity, and the gall has no legal legs.
Only thing I would add is that as my wise older mentor said he should have skirted or avoided the question all together.
His answer only served to alienate him even more.


----------



## ButtondownMind

"declaring a mosque off-limits [near Ground Zero] would officially equate Islam with violence and terrorism."

So, when a group of Catholic nuns were ordered out of Auschwitz a few years ago, did this mean that nuns hereafter are equated with genocide? The Vatican ordered them to leave as a show on sensitivity to Jewish feelings about Auschwitz being similarly sacred ground. The Manhattan mosque builders ought to show a similarly ecumenical tolerance. That there are already 100 mosques in NYC pretty well establishes _ours_.

And to bring up the Crusades of a mere 8 centuries ago (and I'll even generously throw in witch burning and the Spanish Inquisition-which I bet you didn't expect) as a "we're-no-better" rhetorical device is like saying Western medicine is on a par with voodoo because, centuries ago, doctors relied on leeches and bloodletting. BTW, Osama and co. want a return to an 8th century theocracy, so a 12th century crusade still put us ahead of them.


----------



## Pentheos

Two things which I haven't seen mentioned:

1) The Cordoba Initiative's goal is to foster East-West dialogue, solve conflicts, etc. That ship seems to have sailed. What's the point now of a $100 million building?

2) Cordoba. Cordova. Shell cordovan!


----------



## JJR512

The proposed site of this mosque is two blocks away from the site of the World Trade Center. Just out of curiosity, how far away is far enough away? Three blocks? Five? 1.0 miles? Ten miles? Pennsylvania?

Anyway, you know what this issue is _really_ about, right? Politics.


> Some New Yorkers traumatized by the September 11, 2001 attacks have emotionally opposed a proposed Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center. *Republican politicians seeking to wrest control of Congress from Democrats in November elections have seized on the issue.*


https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67F4VY20100818

If the Republicans already had a President and a majority in Congress, I doubt this issue wouldn't be as big as it is.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JJR512 said:


> The proposed site of this mosque is two blocks away from the site of the World Trade Center. Just out of curiosity, how far away is far enough away? Three blocks? Five? 1.0 miles? Ten miles? Pennsylvania?
> 
> Anyway, you know what this issue is _really_ about, right? Politics.
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67F4VY20100818
> 
> If the Republicans already had a President and a majority in Congress, I doubt this issue wouldn't be as big as it is.


You are wise.

We are bigots.

Case closed!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Pentheos said:


> Two things which I haven't seen mentioned:
> 
> 1) The Cordoba Initiative's goal is to foster East-West dialogue, solve conflicts, etc. That ship seems to have sailed. What's the point now of a $100 million building?
> 
> 2) Cordoba. Cordova. Shell cordovan!


Easy, Pal.

It's called Park 51 now.

Just like any other spa or boutique hotel!!


----------



## VictorRomeo

beherethen said:


> Quick off topic question-as you seem well versed in how Americans should feel-act ETC, I was wondering if you could give me any information on how to open an abortion clinic in Dublin. While some Americans can exhibit a little prejudice, particularly when one of our embassy buildings are held hostage, war is declared upon us and our buildings are bombed, surely a people as enlightened as the Irish should have no problems with a woman's right to choose.
> https://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/28/ireland-abortion-limits-violate-human-rights


A flawed comparison, but ok.... I'll bite....

I think it's pretty disgraceful that the Government of Ireland continues to keep its head in the sand with this problem. They are happy that this problem exports itself to the myriad abortion clinics in the UK. Now with that said, we did have a constitutional referendum wrt abortion here a number of years ago and the Government's motion was carried. There is no abortion in Ireland. There is no information about abortion in Ireland. The people spoke and it's crazy. That all happened before the internet though so at least it's easy for people to get the information they need from international sources. 

But we're making good progress in other areas though&#8230;

We've pretty much eliminated members of the clergy from abusing children (yes, that's a very good thing) and a bill that allows same sex marriages to take place was recently approved and will pass into law next month.

Right&#8230;. back to the streets of New York. Now, if you think that 9/11 only affected Americans you're wrong. My fellow countrymen, women and children were killed that day too. There's also every chance I've spent more time in NYC than most people here, let alone those in the public eye criticising from say Alaska or Arizona. You see, I have an office there with 40 staff there and NYC is a place very close to my heart where I have many friends and family.

Who exactly has declared war on America? We all know AQ is a splinter cell terrorist group - albeit capable of the most heinous of crimes, but there's no point going further than that. Also and for the record, at its height there were 775 'enemy combatants' in Guantanamo. Today there are 176. There are 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet. You say "a little prejudice"?! Spare me!

If they all wanted us dead, we would be by now.

Finally, there's one thing the 'enlightened Irish' can smell a mile away&#8230;

Bigotry. Plain, old fashioned, mistrustful bigotry.

And there's an awful lot of it about here.


----------



## Pentheos

VictorRomeo said:


> If they all wanted us dead, we would be by now.


Among the many stupid things said on this thread, this may be the stupidest.


----------



## camorristi

Pentheos said:


> Among the many stupid things said on this thread, this may be the stupidest.


Boy, the respect I have for you! Not only you're familiar with the British Constitution, but you've figured out the Irish as well.


----------



## camorristi

Heads up, I just found out that Muslims have been praying 80ft. from the Pentagon since 2002! Question: Why no feelings were hurt at that time? Answer: There was no need, because Republicans were in power. Simple as that.


----------



## Pentheos

camorristi said:


> Boy, the respect I have for you! Not only you're familiar with the British Constitution, but you've figured out the Irish as well.


You haven't directly responded to a thing I've said, for some you think I'm talking about Ireland, and you keep saying that you read more than I do. I don't get it.

But the way you mangle other people's comments, obfuscate, and twist and turn around words makes me think you're a troll. The ad hominems make me suspect this as well.


----------



## camorristi

Pentheos said:


> You haven't directly responded to a thing I've said, for some you think I'm talking about Ireland, and you keep saying that you read more than I do. I don't get it.
> 
> But the way you mangle other people's comments, obfuscate, and twist and turn around words makes me think you're a troll. The ad hominems make me suspect this as well.


Apparently you did not understand any of the replies I sent to you, I would suggest you read my responses to you _throughly_. If you do that and still have questions try to be more specific of what you do not understand. I can assure you that no argumentum ad hominem was used in any of my arguments. VictorRomeo was discussing an Irish issue period. If you can't accept the facts that I mention, maybe you shouldn't be reading in the Interchange!


----------



## Pentheos

Someone isn't the shiniest Cadillac on the lot.


----------



## nick.mccann

It's private property, thus it should not be an issue.


----------



## beherethen

Anyone know how I can get a liquor license in Saudi Arabia? I've got this get name for a bar in Mecca, *The Black Rock Cafe. *In deference to the Muslim community, I think I should put the image of Muhammad on the bar napkins. How could they possibly object?


----------



## camorristi

beherethen said:


> Anyone know how I can get a liquor license in Saudi Arabia? I've got this get name for a bar in Mecca, *The Black Rock Cafe. *In deference to the Muslim community, I think I should put the image of Muhammad on the bar napkins. How could they possibly object?


Forgive my ignorance, but you're point behind this unintelligent sarcasm is?? Is Saudi Arabia an American State?! Saudi Arabia can ban whatever they want to ban, how is that your business?! France banned Niqab, good for them, they make their own rules. Are you saying, because some Muslim country bans alcohol, we should not give American members of the Islamic faith their constitution given rights?! The comparison that you're making is irrelevant and does not even make sense. If you want to say something, just say it without hiding behind slow-minded and irrelevant metaphors ic12337:.


----------



## camorristi

WouldaShoulda said:


> Easy, Pal.
> 
> It's called Park 51 now.
> 
> Just like any other spa or boutique hotel!!


They might even commission BB to make their uniforms


----------



## Bernie Zack

"Manhaten." Is that any where near Manhattan?


----------



## beherethen

JJR512 said:


> The proposed site of this mosque is two blocks away from the site of the World Trade Center. Just out of curiosity, how far away is far enough away? Three blocks? Five? 1.0 miles? Ten miles? Pennsylvania?
> .


How about putting it in Iraq? I think that's far enough away.


----------



## Bernie Zack

nick.mccann said:


> It's private property, thus it should not be an issue.


Really? Ever heard of ordinances that prohibit pornography from being sold within XX feet of a church? I doubt there's a city in America that doesn't have some ordinance that prohibits the "private property" rights of porn stores from peddling their wares next door to the "private property" of a church.


----------



## beherethen

camorristi said:


> Are you saying, because some Muslim country bans alcohol, we should not give American members of the Islamic faith their constitution given rights?! ic12337:.


I'm saying that because members of of the Islamic faith have captured our embassy, declared war on us, pledged to push the Israelis to the sea and bombed our buildings, I'm unwilling to extend to them *our* constitutional rights. Let them go home and enjoy the rights under the governments they've created.


----------



## beherethen

VictorRomeo;1135557
[SIZE=3 said:


> We've pretty much eliminated members of the clergy from abusing children (yes, that's a very good thing)
> 
> And you've also closed down the Magdalene Asylums. Very Enlightened.BTW how is that Protestant -Catholic thing going on? We should consult with you on all our ethical issues.


----------



## ZachGranstrom

beherethen said:


> I'm saying that because members of of the Islamic faith have captured our embassy, declared war on us, pledged to push the Israelis to the sea and bombed our buildings, I'm unwilling to extend to them *our* constitutional rights. Let them go home and enjoy the rights under the governments they've created.


You do know that not all Muslims are terrorists, right?


----------



## camorristi

beherethen said:


> I'm saying that because members of of the Islamic faith have captured our embassy, declared war on us, pledged to push the Israelis to the sea and bombed our buildings, I'm unwilling to extend to them *our* constitutional rights. Let them go home and enjoy the rights under the governments they've created.


Did you just say *American *Muslims should go home and they have no constitutional rights?! WOW, just WOW! I'm through talking to this guy.


----------



## camorristi

Bernie Zack said:


> Really? Ever heard of ordinances that prohibit pornography from being sold within XX feet of a church? I doubt there's a city in America that doesn't have some ordinance that prohibits the "private property" rights of porn stores from peddling their wares next door to the "private property" of a church.


I had no clue Park 51 was a porn studio! How embarrassingly Irrelevant! Unless you're being funny (wink wink), how in the world could someone compare a religious institute to a pornographic studio?!


----------



## VictorRomeo

ZachGranstrom said:


> You do know that not all Muslims are terrorists, right?


Apparently when I eluded to that(albeit in a Jon Stewart-esque, tounge firmly in cheek fashion) it was the stupidist thing in stupid town.


----------



## VictorRomeo

beherethen said:


> BTW how is that Protestant -Catholic thing going on? We should consult with you on all our ethical issues.


Actually, it's going great.

As I mentioned earlier; the Irish are pretty good at spotting bigotry a mile away, given we've experienced an awful lot of it down through the years.

However, throught a lot of hard work and effort from two Governments and local communities living in Northern Ireland is infinitly better now than it ever was. The IRA has disbanded, along with most of the Loyalist paramilitaries and the RUC. There is a 'proper' police service there now. There's devolved power with a Government in Belfast. There's equal oppertunity for Catholics and it's all very positive. Is it perfect? Nope. Are there still morons who want to blow people up or break their knees? Yep. Will they ultimatly succeed? Nope.


----------



## VictorRomeo

beherethen said:


> Anyone know how I can get a liquor license in Saudi Arabia? I've got this get name for a bar in Mecca, *The Black Rock Cafe. *In deference to the Muslim community, I think I should put the image of Muhammad on the bar napkins. How could they possibly object?


I think we have a winner!!! Not only is this the most idiotic thing I've ever seen here (idiotic on sooo many levels), it's also the most offensive.....


----------



## Pentheos

beherethen said:


> Anyone know how I can get a liquor license in Saudi Arabia? I've got this get name for a bar in Mecca, *The Black Rock Cafe. *In deference to the Muslim community, I think I should put the image of Muhammad on the bar napkins. How could they possibly object?


I don't want to go to a bar in Saudi Arabia or any Muslim country for that matter. How dull. A sex on the beach would probably land you in jail.

This bar, however, sounds like a dandy.

What's good for the goose. You know the rest.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Pentheos said:


> This bar, however, sounds like a dandy.
> 
> What's good for the goose. You know the rest.


Y'know those involved with planning the Islamic Cultural Centre really had no idea there were being provocative and insensitive... This guy on the other hand is being intentionally provocative.... He's also probably going to really piss off the gay community there as I'm pretty sure they won't appreciate being patsies and pawns in this practical joke....

But with that all said, I have no issue with this..... He can build a gay bar wherever and however he wants and good luck to all who 'dance' there....


----------



## Phenom

VictorRomeo said:


> Y'know those involved with planning the Islamic Cultural Centre really had no idea there were being provocative and insensitive... This guy on the other hand is being intentionally provocative....
> 
> But with that all said, I have no issue with this..... He can build a gay bar wherever and however he wants and good luck to all who 'dance' there....


How do you know those who are planning the islamic cultural center have no idea they are being provocative and insensitive? Do you think they are that naive? Do you know who is one of the spiritual leaders of the project? Do you know the name of the project? Do you recognize and understand the significance and symbolism of the name?


----------



## VictorRomeo

Yes is the answer to most your questions. I've been following this story with great interest over the past number of weeks.

I belive them when they say that it never occured to them - that it was going to be such a huge problem for them that is. 

I believe them when they say the consulted with Joy Levitt - the head of the Jewish Community Center on the upper west side (incidentally they are using that model for their new center). 

I also believe them when they say the consulted with the United Jewish Federation of New York, the Trinity Church, and the September 11 Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow. Along with, of course Mayor Bloomberg's office and all the relevant community and regulatory bodies - who ALL were happy with it to proceed. I believe them when they say that the logisitcal concerns consumed their planning and cunsultation - what to do with all the strollers for example. 

Now, what I don't understand is the significance and the symbolism of the name. Enlighten me.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

JJR512 said:


> You know, I really do believe that openly honest bigots are a much better group of people than the ones that try to conceal their bigotry or claim they aren't. Sincerely. You get a round of applause from me.


You have a point.

Harry Reid and Howard Dean are just straight up bigots.

A duplicitous, conniving, backstabbing bigot like Obama, however, should be shunned.

Imagine, accepting accolades from a Muslim audience at a Ramadan dinner one night, then suggesting that the wisdom of their actions are questionable the next??

WOW!!


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

VictorRomeo said:


> A flawed comparison, but ok.... I'll bite....
> 
> I think it's pretty disgraceful that the Government of Ireland continues to keep its head in the sand with this problem. They are happy that this problem exports itself to the myriad abortion clinics in the UK. Now with that said, we did have a constitutional referendum wrt abortion here a number of years ago and the Government's motion was carried. There is no abortion in Ireland. There is no information about abortion in Ireland. The people spoke and it's crazy. That all happened before the internet though so at least it's easy for people to get the information they need from international sources.
> 
> But we're making good progress in other areas though&#8230;
> 
> We've pretty much eliminated members of the clergy from abusing children (yes, that's a very good thing) and a bill that allows same sex marriages to take place was recently approved and will pass into law next month.
> 
> Right&#8230;. back to the streets of New York. Now, if you think that 9/11 only affected Americans you're wrong. My fellow countrymen, women and children were killed that day too. There's also every chance I've spent more time in NYC than most people here, let alone those in the public eye criticising from say Alaska or Arizona. You see, I have an office there with 40 staff there and NYC is a place very close to my heart where I have many friends and family.
> 
> Who exactly has declared war on America? We all know AQ is a splinter cell terrorist group - albeit capable of the most heinous of crimes, but there's no point going further than that. Also and for the record, at its height there were 775 'enemy combatants' in Guantanamo. Today there are 176. There are 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet. You say "a little prejudice"?! Spare me!
> 
> If they all wanted us dead, we would be by now.
> 
> Finally, there's one thing the 'enlightened Irish' can smell a mile away&#8230;
> 
> Bigotry. Plain, old fashioned, mistrustful bigotry.
> 
> And there's an awful lot of it about here.


I have met bigots in Dublin in Limerick and in Tralee, you get them everywhere. In Dublin I had a neighbour of a relative calling people "midnights" and telling me the Mosque in Dublin was allowed to be built but they had banned the call to prayer.

I met good people too in Dublin in Limerick in Cork in Belfast in stroke city and in Tralee and many other places on the neighbour's island.


----------



## eagle2250

Realizing that I have been out of the loop for a few days and that this is perhaps offered well behind the conversation curve but, President Obama, by his statements and actions, is convincing me that the conspiracy theorists are perhaps right...our President is spiritually and philosophically aligned with the other side! How sad, indeed.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

beherethen said:


> VictorRomeo;1135557
> [SIZE=3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've pretty much eliminated members of the clergy from abusing children (yes, that's a very good thing)
> 
> And you've also closed down the Magdalene Asylums. Very Enlightened.BTW how is that Protestant -Catholic thing going on? We should consult with you on all our ethical issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was really Northern Ireland not Ireland, different country.
Click to expand...


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

VictorRomeo said:


> Actually, it's going great.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier; the Irish are pretty good at spotting bigotry a mile away, given we've experienced an awful lot of it down through the years.
> 
> However, throught a lot of hard work and effort from two Governments and local communities living in Northern Ireland is infinitly better now than it ever was. The IRA has disbanded, along with most of the Loyalist paramilitaries and the RUC. There is a 'proper' police service there now. There's devolved power with a Government in Belfast. There's equal oppertunity for Catholics and it's all very positive. Is it perfect? Nope. Are there still morons who want to blow people up or break their knees? Yep. Will they ultimatly succeed? Nope.


I being an ex squaddie drank with ex IRA men in a bar in a Sinn Fein town and no one even said a cuss word to me a couple of years ago, and they knew who and what I was and had been. Progress indeed.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Well Douglas, I too have met my fair share of racists and bigots here - especially towards the Travelling community. Nice to see you were treated well in said town (love to know where!) - 20 years back that could never happen.

As you bring it up, I should say that the Mosque in Dublin is a lovely place. As an Islamic cultural center, it's open to the public and they welcome all.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

That was Tralee and it was in a pub called the Four Green Fields while a bothy band was playing. 
All over Trallee after that I was given the nod and neighbours kept asking my better half's mum why she hadn't said her son in law was a big fella from the north. (Kerry people get Scots and North Accents mixed up for some reason).

20 years back I wasn't allowed over the border.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Well then as you know doubt know that in the Republic, Kerry had the deepest levels of IRA and Reppublican 'sympathies'.....

From a political perspective today, Sinn Fein is strongest there....


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

My In Laws retired there, he was a Dub and she was from Kilmeaden/Blenneville county Waterford. I think the fact that when queried by the bhoys (they were sussing out if I was a guardian of the peace, there are a couple of Scots and a few northmen amongst their ranks) I denied nothing of my past and kept drinking saved me (if I was having my last ever pint I was finishing it).


----------



## VictorRomeo

My missus is from up there (the North). Funny old spot. I like it. Never had a problem - other than being a Dub outside the Pale!


----------



## ZachGranstrom

eagle2250 said:


> Realizing that I have been out of the loop for a few days and that this is perhaps offered well behind the conversation curve but, President Obama, by his statements and actions, is convincing me that the conspiracy theorists are perhaps right...our President is spiritually and philosophically aligned with the other side! How sad, indeed.


What is this...Star Wars!?!?! (You make Muslims sound like the dark side)


----------



## JDC

eagle2250 said:


> Realizing that I have been out of the loop for a few days and that this is perhaps offered well behind the conversation curve but, President Obama, by his statements and actions, is convincing me that the conspiracy theorists are perhaps right...our President is spiritually and philosophically aligned with the other side! How sad, indeed.


 Eagle, what statements and actions are you referring to? Did you look at the poll results? On this forum getting a majority to agree with Obama on anything is pretty rare.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Well, one in five Americans believe President Obama to be a Muslim.....

Maybe that should be a poll here....?


----------



## Bernie Zack

camorristi said:


> I had no clue Park 51 was a porn studio! How embarrassingly Irrelevant! Unless you're being funny (wink wink), how in the world could someone compare a religious institute to a pornographic studio?!


Really? How can anyone be so dense as to not see the relevance? (wink wink)

Your response is sophomoric and infantile. Let me make the point very clear to you since you can't understand the larger perspective. It isn't just about private property rights, as the post stated, where one can do anything they want because, hey, its private property. There are policy, ethical, morality issues involved in what might appear to be simple zoning issues, as evidenced by the analogy of a porn store and a church. Those same issues are present in the discussion surrounding the mosque in "Manhaten." Throw in legitimate concerns about the memory of dead American victims who perished at the hands of a sadistic enemy who believed that such a massacre was compelled by Allah, and you have a situation that involves much more than mere private property rights of a religious institute.


----------



## Bernie Zack

WouldaShoulda said:


> You have a point.
> 
> Harry Reid and Howard Dean are just straight up bigots.
> 
> A duplicitous, conniving, backstabbing bigot like Obama, however, should be shunned.
> 
> Imagine, accepting accolades from a Muslim audience at a Ramadan dinner one night, then suggesting that the wisdom of their actions are questionable the next??
> 
> WOW!!


Well said! And it isn't the first time the shameful bigot Obama has talked out of both sides of his mouth. How about that whopper he told in 2008 to jewish voters with regard to an "undivided Jerusalem?" The next day he did an about face, and blamed the "interpretation." Don't remember that one? Here's some info for you about it:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/obamas_about_face_on_undivided.html


----------



## mrkleen

eagle2250 said:


> our President is spiritually and philosophically aligned with the other side! How sad, indeed.


"The Other Side"??? Yeah, he sides with the boogie man and Freddie Kruger as well. Talk about paranoia.


----------



## JJR512

Bernie Zack said:


> "Manhaten." Is that any where near Manhattan?


First of all, pointing out someone's spelling error is rude. Did you honestly not know what he meant? Were you really so stupid as to say to yourself, "Gee, I knew Muslims wanted to build one in Manhattan, now they want to build one in this Manhaten place, too? I better Google that place to see where it is so I know whether or not I'm supposed to be pissed off about it!" Unless you really are so stupidly incapable of not seeing through a misspelling to what was meant, then just be a gentleman (or lady, as the case may be) and let it go. Secondly, you should read up on Muphry's Law (yes, Muphry's, not Murphy's). Muphry's Law states, in essence, that when you criticize someone else's spelling, grammar, or other writing error, you yourself will commit some kind of writing error. Yours, Bernie Zack, was the superfluous space between _any_ and _where_. _Anywhere_ is one word. (Now, since I'm pointing out a writing error, I'm sure that in due accordance with Muphry's Law, I'll make some kind of error somewhere in this post, so I'll be watching with great interest to see who will be the first to fine one.) Finally, Camorristi acknowledged his error in the very first post, so bringing it up again serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, and was a completely useless contribution to this thread.


----------



## JJR512

beherethen said:


> How about putting it in Iraq? I think that's far enough away.


If this is what you believe, then you must also believe in at least one of the following statements:

A. American Muslims have no right to practice their religion in America, contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.
B. All American Muslims-or at least the ones who want to actively practice their religion-need to leave their homes and go live in a foreign country to practice their religion.

Which one is it?

For the record, between American Muslims and bigots, it's the bigots that I'd rather tell to get the **** out.


----------



## JJR512

Bernie Zack said:


> Really? Ever heard of ordinances that prohibit pornography from being sold within XX feet of a church? I doubt there's a city in America that doesn't have some ordinance that prohibits the "private property" rights of porn stores from peddling their wares next door to the "private property" of a church.


Do you actually have any idea what you're talking about? Do you have any idea what President Obama actually said? I've already posted this once, but I'll post it again just for your _special_ benefit, and I will add lots of emphasis to make sure you're seeing the part that's relevant to what you said in the quote above:


> And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, _*in accordance with local laws and ordinances.*_


(Transcript source: )

Nobody is saying that anyone can just blindly put whatever they want on their own private property. What the President said was that if the owner of this particular piece of private property wants to build a mosque, then as long as it complies with the local ordinances, they have the legal right to build it. This is a matter of indisputable fact. I don't believe anyone in this thread has actually argued against this. Most people are debating the cultural or ethical aspects of the argument, not the legal aspects, simply because there really isn't any legal aspect to debate.


----------



## JJR512

WouldaShoulda said:


> You have a point.
> 
> Harry Reid and Howard Dean are just straight up bigots.
> 
> A duplicitous, conniving, backstabbing bigot like Obama, however, should be shunned.
> 
> Imagine, accepting accolades from a Muslim audience at a Ramadan dinner one night, then suggesting that the wisdom of their actions are questionable the next??
> 
> WOW!!


The behavior you are describing in President Obama is not bigotry, it's hypocrisy.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Wow. Just wow.

Muslims = Hate America. All of them.

Obama = Bigot. 

Cordoba Project = Islamification of America. (the funniest conspiracy yet, btw)

Camorristi = Sophomoric and infantile.

Jeez. Talk about bitter, hate fuelled and nasty.


----------



## JJR512

Bernie Zack said:


> Those same issues are present in the discussion surrounding the mosque in "Manhaten."


This is the second time that you've called attention to this misspelling. Now who's being "sophomoric and infantile"? I respectfully suggest (again) that if one wants to participate in a debate, one should debate the facts, issues, and opinions, and not the spelling or other writing errors.


----------



## camorristi

eagle2250 said:


> Realizing that I have been out of the loop for a few days and that this is perhaps offered well behind the conversation curve but, President Obama, by his statements and actions, is convincing me that the conspiracy theorists are perhaps right...our President is spiritually and philosophically aligned with the other side! How sad, indeed.


Based on what evidence did the President align with the "other" side? And, what do you exactly mean by the "other side"?


----------



## Quay

VictorRomeo said:


> ...Jeez. Talk about bitter, hate fuelled and nasty.


Welcome to The Interchange. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Bernie Zack

JJR512 said:


> First of all, pointing out someone's spelling error is rude. Did you honestly not know what he meant? Were you really so stupid as to say to yourself, "Gee, I knew Muslims wanted to build one in Manhattan, now they want to build one in this Manhaten place, too? I better Google that place to see where it is so I know whether or not I'm supposed to be pissed off about it!" Unless you really are so stupidly incapable of not seeing through a misspelling to what was meant, then just be a gentleman (or lady, as the case may be) and let it go. Secondly, you should read up on Muphry's Law (yes, Muphry's, not Murphy's). Muphry's Law states, in essence, that when you criticize someone else's spelling, grammar, or other writing error, you yourself will commit some kind of writing error. Yours, Bernie Zack, was the superfluous space between _any_ and _where_. _Anywhere_ is one word. (Now, since I'm pointing out a writing error, I'm sure that in due accordance with Muphry's Law, I'll make some kind of error somewhere in this post, so I'll be watching with great interest to see who will be the first to fine one.) Finally, Camorristi acknowledged his error in the very first post, so bringing it up again serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, and was a completely useless contribution to this thread.


I don theenk its' rude. I think its helpfool to point out misstakes. And that post was in jest, fool.


----------



## JJR512

Bernie Zack said:


> I don theenk its' rude. I think its helpfool to point out misstakes. And that post was in jest, fool.


No, Camorristi had already caught his own mistake, so pointing it out it's helpful. Pointing out an already-caught mistake in such a sarcastic manner isn't helpful, it's rude. But what about the second time you called attention to the mistake? It's not like he made the same mistake again. Calling attention to the same instance of an already-pointed-out mistake is just heaping it on. Or was that in jest, too? In any event, you don't need to deny being rude any further; the fact that that's true became quite clear in the last remark you made to me.


----------



## Bernie Zack

JJR512 said:


> No, Camorristi had already caught his own mistake, so pointing it out it's helpful. Pointing out an already-caught mistake in such a sarcastic manner isn't helpful, it's rude. But what about the second time you called attention to the mistake? It's not like he made the same mistake again. Calling attention to the same instance of an already-pointed-out mistake is just heaping it on. Or was that in jest, too? In any event, you don't need to deny being rude any further; the fact that that's true became quite clear in the last remark you made to me.


Yes, that was in jest as well, fool.


----------



## JJR512

Bernie Zack said:


> Yes, that was in jest as well, fool.


Resorting to childish name-calling shows who the true fool really is. I hope you feel better now.

Moving on away from stupidity and hopefully towards some intelligence, I'd like to try to get away from the irrelevant childish name-calling for a bit and get back on the actual topic of discussion...

I think most of us are agreed on the legal aspect of this debate. What the President said was technically correct. I understand the real debate here is more about the moral and ethical aspects of building a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero. But it's this side of the argument that I do not understand, and I have yet to see any intelligent commentary on it.

Why is it disrespectful to anyone for Muslims to build a mosque there? How does it hurt anyone's feelings? How is it inappropriate?


----------



## Bernie Zack

JJR512 said:


> It's a good thing that we're communicating here via the written word, and not face-to-face. I don't think I'd be able to understand you if you were talking to me. I never learned how to interpret donkey farts, and I'm pretty sure that's the only sound that comes out of your mouth.


Donkey farts?
Wow!
That's just plain pitiful.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JJR512

Bernie Zack said:


> Donkey farts?
> Wow!
> That's just plain pitiful.:icon_smile_wink:


And I deleted that comment right after posting it because I had the good sense to realize it wasn't intelligent or productive, but I will not apologize for it. At least I had the good sense to realize how stupid my comment was. I'm still waiting for some sign of good sense in you, but since I don't want to die today, I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz

To all:
If you can't take the heat get out of the Interchange. Nobody is forcing you to read or to post. Don't report Interchange posts unless racist, discriminatory, SPAM or porn.


----------



## Bernie Zack

JJR512 said:


> And I deleted that comment right after posting it because I had the good sense to realize it wasn't intelligent or productive, but I will not apologize for it. At least I had the good sense to realize how stupid my comment was. I'm still waiting for some sign of good sense in you, but since I don't want to die today, I'm not holding my breath.


I mean this with all the respect in the world, since you are posting on a great forum. Here's some good-sense advice: There are alot of decaffeinated brands on the market that taste just as good as the real thing. You should try one of them.

In other words, LIGHTEN UP!:aportnoy:


----------



## JJR512

Bernie Zack said:


> I mean this with all the respect in the world, since you are posting on a great forum. Here's some good-sense advice: There are alot of decaffeinated brands on the market that taste just as good as the real thing. You should try one of them.
> 
> In other words, LIGHTEN UP!:aportnoy:


I don't drink coffee at all, but I am still wondering if you have anything intelligent to say related to the actual discussion at hand.


----------



## Bernie Zack

JJR512 said:


> I don't drink coffee at all, but I am still wondering if you have anything intelligent to say related to the actual discussion at hand.


No, nothing intelligent to add right now. I'm still trying to regain my composure from the the "donkey farts" comment.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> Obama = Bigot.


I was corrected on that.

Obama is only a hypocrit it seems.

Reid, Dean and me are Bigots!!

Anyone who thinks something can be Constitional but still "wrong" are Bigots too!!


----------



## Mike Petrik

WouldaShoulda said:


> I was corrected on that.
> 
> Obama is only a hypocrit it seems.
> 
> Reid, Dean and me are Bigots!!
> 
> Anyone who thinks something can be Constitional but still "wrong" are Bigots too!!


Yeah, the whole constitutional argument is a straw man. No one is suggesting that these particular Muslims have no right to build this particular mosque in this particular place. The argument is simply that it is insensitive and a bad idea. One cannot safely assume that this initiative is not intended to be a thumb in the eye of America, given FAR's rather unsavory statements regarding 9/11 (it is the US's fault) and his less than reassuring statements about funding sources.

Moreover, our POTUS either fell for or presented the straw man in his initial statements. To say he had no other option is silly. He could have said nothing. Or he could have said that he thought it was a constitutionally protected bad idea. By simply stating the obvious -- which is that the constitution protects the right of FAR and his crowd to build the mosque -- adds nothing whatsoever aside from the rather insulting implication that we're all supposed to like it.

The comparisons to the Crusades are infantile and betray a rather complete lack of understanding of history. https://www.amazon.com/Concise-Hist...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282252382&sr=1-1

You have the consititutional right to tell a fellow that his wife is ugly, but don't expect him to take it well.


----------



## camorristi

Bernie Zack said:


> Yes, that was in jest as well, fool.


So, after you couldn't have a reasonable argument anymore, you resorted to trolling?! The thought of a grown man (or woman) like you throwing a fit is just disturbing :devil:. Here's something to cheer you up, no matter how hard you stomp the ground with your little feet, Park 51 is going to be built anyway & Mr. Obama will still be President. And by the way, you can still use your colorful keyboard to cyber vent :icon_smile_big:, but *after *you've had your little veggies!


----------



## Bernie Zack

camorristi said:


> So, after you couldn't have a reasonable argument anymore, you resorted to trolling?! The thought of a grown man (or woman) like you throwing a fit is just disturbing :devil:. Here's something to cheer you up, no matter how hard you stomp the ground with your little feet, Park 51 is going to be built anyway & Mr. Obama will still be President. And by the way, you can still use your colorful keyboard to cyber vent :icon_smile_big:, but *after *you've had your little veggies!


Thank you, your very predictable response DID cheer me up. :biggrin2: Glad to see that JJR has enlisted the help of his fellow back-bencher!


----------



## beherethen

camorristi said:


> , Park 51 is going to be built anyway & Mr. Obama will still be President.


I'm not so sure the building will go up. Reason and the insurance premiums may apply. The president's honeymoon seems to be over and a second term is no lock.


----------



## JJR512

Bernie Zack said:


> Thank you, your very predictable response DID cheer me up. :biggrin2: Glad to see that JJR has enlisted the help of his fellow back-bencher!


I didn't ask anyone for anything, and don't ever accuse me of anything again.



JJR512 said:


> Moving on away from stupidity and hopefully towards some intelligence, I'd like to try to get away from the irrelevant childish name-calling for a bit and get back on the actual topic of discussion...
> 
> I think most of us are agreed on the legal aspect of this debate. What the President said was technically correct. I understand the real debate here is more about the moral and ethical aspects of building a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero. But it's this side of the argument that I do not understand, and I have yet to see any intelligent commentary on it.
> 
> Why is it disrespectful to anyone for Muslims to build a mosque there? How does it hurt anyone's feelings? How is it inappropriate?


----------



## camorristi

Bernie Zack said:


> Thank you, your very predictable response DID cheer me up. :biggrin2: Glad to see that JJR has enlisted the help of his fellow back-bencher!


That's exactly what I expected from someone with your limited mental capacity and narrow thinking, amusement :icon_smile_big:. Anyway, I think I have made my point and this thread has steered away from the topic, so I'm calling it a night gentleman. Thanks to everyone who voiced their opinion. God bless the President and god bless America (and Ireland :icon_smile_big.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Mike Petrik said:


> given FAR's rather unsavory statements regarding 9/11 (it is the US's fault) and his less than reassuring statements about funding sources.


Don't be so utterly stupid. He did not say - or even imply - that, though I get your paraphasing. To be precise he said when then asked if the U.S. deserved the attacks (9/11), he answered: "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened". When the interviewer asked Rauf how he considered the U.S. an accessory, he replied, "Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."

Now, out of all that where do you see the evil? The man is 100% correct! Of course America did not deserve 9/11 but because of it's atrocious record on foreign policy (and funding of terrorist groups need I remind you), it was and still is the prime target in the eyes of extremist terrorist organisations the world over.

If he is such a problem and threat why does the US State Department continue to employ him as a cultural ambassador to the Muslim world?!

Here's what State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley says about him...

"We have a long-term relationship with him," when discussing that Rauf had visited Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in 2007 and went to Egypt this January as part of an exchange program run by the State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs. "His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well known, and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States."

But oh no! Not here! Here it's - and I'll paraphrase - _he's a Muslim cleric therefore he's obviously sinister in all he does_. _Like the rest of them.... _


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Mike Petrik said:


> Moreover, our POTUS either fell for or presented the straw man in his initial statements. To say he had no other option is silly. He could have said nothing. Or he could have said that he thought it was a constitutionally protected bad idea. By simply stating the obvious -- which is that the constitution protects the right of FAR and his crowd to build the mosque -- adds nothing whatsoever aside from the rather insulting implication that we're all supposed to like it.


...and that the ONLY reason you don't like it is because you are an uneducated, backward, hater!!

But at least the POTUS cleared that up the following morning.

He gets a pass.

The rest of us don't.

Nancy P will get to the bottom of this. YES SHE WILL!!


----------



## Howard

:biggrin2: I like that picture of Hitler Baby.


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> Don't be so utterly stupid. He did not say - or even imply - that, though I get your paraphasing. To be precise he said when then asked if the U.S. deserved the attacks (9/11), he answered: "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened". When the interviewer asked Rauf how he considered the U.S. an accessory, he replied, "Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."
> 
> Now, out of all that where do you see the evil? The man is 100% correct! Of course America did not deserve 9/11 but because of it's atrocious record on foreign policy (and funding of terrorist groups need I remind you), it was and still is the prime target in the eyes of extremist terrorist organisations the world over.
> 
> If he is such a problem and threat why does the US State Department continue to employ him as a cultural ambassador to the Muslim world?!
> 
> Here's what State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley says about him...
> 
> "We have a long-term relationship with him," when discussing that Rauf had visited Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in 2007 and went to Egypt this January as part of an exchange program run by the State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs. "His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well known, and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States."
> 
> But oh no! Not here! Here it's - and I'll paraphrase - _he's a Muslim cleric therefore he's obviously sinister in all he does_. _Like the rest of them.... _


LOL. I rest my case.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Mike Petrik said:


> LOL. I rest my case.


LMAO! Well now Matlock, what case exactly is that?! Dazzle me with an argument.


----------



## Wildblue

Well, I've always regretted participating here in the Interchange, but here goes--

Do the mosque planners have the right to build a mosque at the proposed site? Yes. Absolutely, and that right is guaranteed by the American political system. I believe in that right, have fought long, arduous years for that right, and will still protect that right for these mosque organizers.

But more than a right, Muslim leaders here have a very distinct opportunity to reciprocate just a bit of the tolerance, respect, and "sensitivity" that they have demanded for so long from all of American culture, from top to bottom. If these Muslim leaders have any respect for the rest of the American people and culture, they will listen to the brutalized feelings, and scarred pains of a country so devastated by the attacks of 9/11, and choose to build the mega-mosque elsewhere. What would these same Muslim leaders express for an opinion, if an American group chose to put a 13 story Catholic church a block and a half away from the Abu Ghraib prison? Or if America built a massive war memorial at the site of the Mei Lei massacre in Vietnam? Or if the U.S. built a nuclear weapon research facility in Hiroshima?

Just because you CAN do something doesn't EVER mean it's the right, smart, tactful, morale, or sensitive thing to do. Again, the mosque planners have full 1st Amendment guaranteed rights, and the US Government could not prohibit them from buliding a mosque ON TOP of Ground Zero if they were legally able to do so. But don't forget, every one of millions and millions of Americans has full rights under the REST of the 1st Amendment to hold and express an opinion that building a mosque near the WTC site is tasteless, mocking, insulting, and shows Muslim contempt for non-Muslim American culture.

So I have an interesting dual stance on this one, that might even appear contradictory. First, I do hope the Muslim leaders recognize the valuable and quite rare opportunity offered to them here, to reciprocate a bit of the sensitivity and respect that they have so long demanded from the rest of the world, and choose to build the mosque elsewhere. But if they don't, they are still within their legal rights. if I were in New York, I would be one of the first to peacefully protest across the street in that case, expressing my disappointment with their lack of respect and sensitivity, and contempt for the non-Islamic portion of America. Yet if anyone were to cross the lines and use violence, or move to stop the planners from legally building the mosque, I would be the first to walk across the street and intervene so the planners could complete their legal choice, even if it's a bad decision.


----------



## VictorRomeo

But the point is, they're not looking to build a nuclear research facility, or a triumphalist monument of some kind - I firmly believe that. They're looking to redevelop a building long derelict - that nobody else seemed interested in developing for that matter (not even Duane Reade...) - as a cultural/community centre (that also happens so contain a place of worship - a Mosque) for the many, many thousands of New Yorkers that need it. Calling it a mosque let alone a mega mosque is plain and simply wrong. 

They passed every local building code, every local community group and all the regulatory processes that needed to be adhered to. NYC, by and large does not have a problem with this proceeding.

So bottom line is, America either has a first amendment or it doesn't.


----------



## phyrpowr

VictorRomeo said:


> Gosh.... You really do seem to hate Muslims, don't you.......?


Didn't say I wanted anyone to be in it, sport, to the contrary actually. Don't hate Muslims, just have no respect for what seems to pass as their culture. Not real crazy about any organized religion's "best & brightest" ideas


----------



## JJR512

Wildblue said:


> Well, I've always regretted participating here in the Interchange, but here goes--


Before I say anything else, I just wanted to first isolate the above comment and say I completely sympathize. That being said...



Wildblue said:


> But more than a right, Muslim leaders here have a very distinct opportunity to reciprocate just a bit of the tolerance, respect, and "sensitivity" that they have demanded for so long from all of American culture, from top to bottom. If these Muslim leaders have any respect for the rest of the American people and culture, they will listen to the brutalized feelings, and scarred pains of a country so devastated by the attacks of 9/11, and choose to build the mega-mosque elsewhere. What would these same Muslim leaders express for an opinion, if an American group chose to put a 13 story Catholic church a block and a half away from the Abu Ghraib prison? Or if America built a massive war memorial at the site of the Mei Lei massacre in Vietnam? Or if the U.S. built a nuclear weapon research facility in Hiroshima?
> 
> Just because you CAN do something doesn't EVER mean it's the right, smart, tactful, morale, or sensitive thing to do. Again, the mosque planners have full 1st Amendment guaranteed rights, and the US Government could not prohibit them from buliding a mosque ON TOP of Ground Zero if they were legally able to do so. But don't forget, every one of millions and millions of Americans has full rights under the REST of the 1st Amendment to hold and express an opinion that building a mosque near the WTC site is tasteless, mocking, insulting, and shows Muslim contempt for non-Muslim American culture.


Fortunately for me, I can be quite lazy in replying to this by simply repeating something I've already said:


JJR512 said:


> I think most of us are agreed on the legal aspect of this debate. What the President said was technically correct. I understand the real debate here is more about the moral and ethical aspects of building a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero. But it's this side of the argument that I do not understand, and I have yet to see any intelligent commentary on it.
> 
> *Why is it disrespectful to anyone for Muslims to build a mosque there? How does it hurt anyone's feelings? How is it inappropriate?*


----------



## lovemeparis

*Interesting history about Hitler*



camorristi said:


> And by the way, you can still use your colorful keyboard to cyber vent :icon_smile_big:, but *after *you've had your little veggies!


Adolf Hitler was born on 20th April, 1889, in the small Austrian town of Braunau near the German border. Both Hitler's parents had come from poor peasant families. His father Alois Hitler, the illegitimate son of a housemaid, was an intelligent and ambitious man and later became a senior customs official.

Click on link to read more: https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm

I don't understand why he did not like Austria?:icon_study:


----------



## JJR512

lovemeparis said:


> Adolf Hitler was born on 20th April, 1889, in the small Austrian town of Braunau near the German border. Both Hitler's parents had come from poor peasant families. His father Alois Hitler, the illegitimate son of a housemaid, was an intelligent and ambitious man and later became a senior customs official.
> 
> Click on link to read more: https://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm
> 
> I don't understand why he did not like Austria?:icon_study:


I don't know, but he should have kept his original mustache (the man at far left, with the white 'X' over his head):


----------



## Wildblue

VictorRomeo said:


> But the point is, they're not looking to build a nuclear research facility, or a triumphalist monument of some kind - I firmly believe that. They're looking to redevelop a building long derelict - that nobody else seemed interested in developing for that matter (not even Duane Reade...) - as a cultural/community centre (that also happens so contain a place of worship - a Mosque) for the many, many thousands of New Yorkers that need it. Calling it a mosque let alone a mega mosque is plain and simply wrong.


Well, we can call it whatever we want--the name is not important, whether it's a big mosque, mega-mosque, Islamic headquarters, or Islamic cultural center. The important thing is whatever it actually really IS, and whatever it is, it's a Muslim center, that is planned to be built a block and a half from the site of the largest terror attack ever upon America, that was done in the name of Islam. That's the facts, and each person can choose how they feel about it.

You draw a difference in two of the comparative examples I used, but don't quite address the overall point I was making by them. How about the third hypothetical example? What if the USA, still present in Iraq, decided to build a 13 story Catholic center complete with Catholic school and cathedral a block and half away from the Abu Ghraib prison? Would there be any issues there of sensitivity, respect, tolerance, tact, or wise decision-making? Or would it only come down to whether it was legal to do so?



VictorRomeo said:


> They passed every local building code, every local community group and all the regulatory processes that needed to be adhered to. NYC, by and large does not have a problem with this proceeding.


As for the building codes and legal issues, again, I have no beef there, and if they are in legal good standing to build, they have the right to build there.

As for your reference to "every local community group" and the second sentence there, you may not have seen the multitude of news coverage of the community meetings and NYC residents that are NOT okay with this proceeding. I have not seen a poll taken of just NYC itself, but the polls I have seen of the rest of America are opposed to the Muslim center at that location.



> So bottom line is, America either has a first amendment or it doesn't.


Absolutely, and as I said, if the Muslim planners ignore everything and still decide to build there, they are within their 1st amendment rights and nobody can stop them. As there always is, with RIGHTS, there is at least one other side, or multiple ramifications. One of which here, is that the REST of the 1st Amendment protects the rest of America, the VAST majority of non-Muslims in America, and their opinions. If they support the mosque/Muslim center/whatever-you-want-it-to-be-called, then they have the right to that opinion, and to freely express it. If they do NOT agree with this building plan, they have EVERY right to that opinion, and to freely express it, even in public and in the face of the tenants of this new Muslim center.



JJR512 said:


> *Why is it disrespectful to anyone for Muslims to build a mosque there? How does it hurt anyone's feelings? How is it inappropriate?*


To be quite blunt, I am appalled that I would have to explain to anyone, much less a fellow American, only 9 years after 9/11 how deeply that wounded American culture. (I presume, Justin, that you're an American since your location is Baltimore) Whether anyone likes it or not, even if they had no connections or support for it or not, the World Trade Center was attacked and *thousands* of innocent people were murdered in the name of Islam. Even if Muslims (quietly) do not support the attacks that happened, that does not change the fact that those who DID perform the slaughter did it in the name of Islam. Even if mainstream Islam was not involved, no amount of political correctness can remove the name of Islam from 9/11. I don't blame Islam for the attacks, but Muslims should understand the pain the name of Islam has caused at the WTC site.

Again, I'll turn it around for comparisons--take Abu Ghraib again. 99.99999999% of America was not involved with Abu Ghraib. 99.99999999999% of the US military was not involved with Abu Ghraib. I was not at Abu Ghraib. No American I know agrees with the actions that happened at Abu Ghraib. But, whether I like it or not, America will now forever be associated with Abu Ghraib. America as a WHOLE will always have a black mark on its face because of what a few people did at Abu Ghraib.

I'm currently in Iraq, and get a wince of pain in my gut whenever I even hear the name of Abu Ghraib, and I can see the same thing, only worse, in the faces of the Iraqis I work with when those words are spoken. I have no choice but acknowledge that America was involved. (can you really not understand, then, the INTENSE pain that Americans feel for an even bigger memory of September 11th?)

Out of sensitivity, I would never go to visit Abu Ghraib, unless I was invited, and even then would be most humble, wearing the plainest and most humble of clothing, behaving in the most contrite manner on behalf of my entire country--_even though I was not myself involved at all_. Out of respect and understanding, I certainly would not wear anything American, much less bring an American flag with me. I wouldn't even think of planting that American flag anywhere near Abu Ghraib. Would I even consider building ANY sort of American building nearby? Would I go through the legal processes to build a 13 story "American megacenter" a block and a half away from Abu Ghraib prison? Ummm... I would hope it's obvious just how ridiculous any of this would be. No amount of political correctness or me making demands of the Iraqis will ever be able to remove that a very, very tiny part of America was involved with the tragedy/horrors of Abu Ghraib. It is my _responsibility_ to be sensitive of how that affects Iraqis and all of Muslim culture around the world.

Do we have to go through even more hypothetical comparisons to try to get those who "just don't get it", to understand the human emotions connected to September 11th? Would you build a 13 story Nazi Center a block and a half away from Auschwitz or Dachau? Would you build a 13 story Japanese Center next to Pearl Harbor? Would you build a 13 story Kim Jong Il Center in downtown Seoul? Would you build a 13 story Catholic center in Mecca?

You know what? If you really have no idea "how anyone's feelings could possibly be hurt" by building an Islamic Center a block and a half away from the World Trade Center slaughter, now that I think about it, I really can't help you. If it's that's hard to grasp that it might possibly be classy to show respect and sensitivity on American soil near the site of one of our largest mass murders in history, no amount of discussion or sharing is ever going to change that person's mind.


----------



## Wildblue

On the issue of whether New Yorkers themselves care about the Islamic Center being built at the proposed location, this news article just popped up on CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/22/new.york.mosque.protests/index.html?hpt=P1&iref=NS1

I hope to God this stays peaceful, and not provoked into continuing the violence that prompted this whole issue.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Sure, you can call it what you want - it is your 'protected' right of course.

Furthermore, to use religious intollerance in Saudi Arabia or NAZI Germany as analogy for this issue only further erodes core American values of which many around the world - including me - perscribe to. I should note that I abhor all levels of intollerance and bigotry - religious, state or otherwise. (And, as you know, I work to do something about it.)

Let's not forget that the holocaust was borne from the demonisation of a minority over many hundreds of years. It started with the ghetto and culminated with the gas chamber. A melodramatic point? Perhaps. But the demonisation of 1.5 billion people around the world and millions of your fellow countrymen that I'm witnessing because of their religion is nothing short of astonishing.

Force people to live and work (broadly speaking), commune and pray (more specifically) where you choose at your peril. If you do it to one religion or section of society you must apply it to all, otherwise it will not end well.

Finally, as we all know, religion and the name of God to be specific was and is used all the time to excuse some of the most horrific acts of destruction humanity has ever seen.

It's not unique to Islam.

_"We thank God that it (_The Bomb_) has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes."_

President Harry Truman August 9, 1945.


----------



## lovemeparis

*Forgive and Forget For the Next Generation*



Wildblue said:


> *America as a WHOLE will always have a black mark on its face because of what a few people did at Abu Ghraib.*
> 
> Do we have to go through even more hypothetical comparisons to try to get those who "just don't get it", to understand the human emotions connected to September 11th? Would you build a 13 story Nazi Center a block and a half away from Auschwitz or Dachau? Would you build a 13 story Japanese Center next to Pearl Harbor? Would you build a 13 story Kim Jong Il Center in downtown Seoul? Would you build a 13 story Catholic center in Mecca?


I agree, but just like me, if I don't forgive and forget, I would never go back to this website again, and/or to be more specific, I would never live in America... so does the Japanese, etc. :icon_headagainstwal

So, if no one in this world of any race, religion, country could never forgive and forget... then the world could never be in Peace.

Therefore, Everyone should just stay and live wherever they were born... then imagine how boring the world would be.


----------



## JJR512

Wildblue said:


> To be quite blunt, I am appalled that I would have to explain to anyone, much less a fellow American, only 9 years after 9/11 how deeply that wounded American culture. (I presume, Justin, that you're an American since your location is Baltimore) Whether anyone likes it or not, even if they had no connections or support for it or not, the World Trade Center was attacked and *thousands* of innocent people were murdered in the name of Islam. Even if Muslims (quietly) do not support the attacks that happened, that does not change the fact that those who DID perform the slaughter did it in the name of Islam. Even if mainstream Islam was not involved, no amount of political correctness can remove the name of Islam from 9/11. I don't blame Islam for the attacks, but Muslims should understand the pain the name of Islam has caused at the WTC site.
> 
> Again, I'll turn it around for comparisons--take Abu Ghraib again. 99.99999999% of America was not involved with Abu Ghraib. 99.99999999999% of the US military was not involved with Abu Ghraib. I was not at Abu Ghraib. No American I know agrees with the actions that happened at Abu Ghraib. But, whether I like it or not, America will now forever be associated with Abu Ghraib. America as a WHOLE will always have a black mark on its face because of what a few people did at Abu Ghraib.


You are quite correct when you say that the World Trade Center (as well as the Pentagon, and some other unknown target) were attacked, with thousands of innocent people dying as a result, by a group of people who committed these atrocities in the name of Islam. But they were not doing it at the behest or approval of Islam.

This is exactly the same as saying that the Abu Ghraib prison tortures were carried out by American military personnel, who may have even thought it was what they were supposed to be doing or that what they were doing was in America's (or the coalition's) best interests, but it was not the American military or American that committed those atrocities.

Associating America as a whole with Abu Ghraib is just as wrong as associating Islam as a whole with 9/11. We want other countries and cultures to stop hating us, but hate begets hate. *Maybe it's time for America to step up, show some maturity, and stop hating other countries and cultures if we want the same respect shown us.*


----------



## Wildblue

VictorRomeo said:


> Furthermore, to use religious intollerance in Saudi Arabia or NAZI Germany as analogy for this issue only further erodes core American values of which many around the world - including me - perscribe to.


V, the point I'm trying to make with these hypothetical analogies is NOT that religious intolerance is okay. Quite the contrary. I'm saying that "tolerance", or more to the point, respect and sensitivity, is needed on ALL sides. One group can not continually demand respect and tolerance for their way of life, their sectarian laws, their clothing, their buildings, etc, if they are not willing to reciprocate with respect and sensitivity. Muslims worldwide would show a great willingness to offer respect if they would listen to the intense pain their plans are causing non-Muslim portions of America.

I would hope that nobody would really ever consider building ANY of the structures I hypothetically mentioned, at ANY of the locations. To do so would be completely inappropriate and contemptful of the people that had horrible things done to them at those locations. Why is the World Trade Center any different?

Or, to ask everyone bluntly, is the issue just that political correctness demands that America has to have tolerance, sensitivity, and respect for all cultural groups and other nations, but nobody needs to have any respect for mainstream America?


----------



## Wildblue

JJR512 said:


> You are quite correct when you say that the World Trade Center (as well as the Pentagon, and some other unknown target) were attacked, with thousands of innocent people dying as a result, by a group of people who committed these atrocities in the name of Islam. But they were not doing it at the behest or approval of Islam.
> 
> This is exactly the same as saying that the Abu Ghraib prison tortures were carried out by American military personnel, who may have even thought it was what they were supposed to be doing or that what they were doing was in America's (or the coalition's) best interests, but it was not the American military or American that committed those atrocities.
> 
> Associating America as a whole with Abu Ghraib is just as wrong as associating Islam as a whole with 9/11. We want other countries and cultures to stop hating us, but hate begets hate. *Maybe it's time for America to step up, show some maturity, and stop hating other countries and cultures if we want the same respect shown us.*


You prove my exact point. Let me ask you this--I'm an American, but was not personally involved with Abu Ghraib at all. So since I'm here in Iraq, if I get the chance to interact at all with the site of Abu Ghraib, how should I act? Should I put on my American clothes, grab a big American flag, and march around the prison and surrounding area? I have the right to do so. Would that be tolerant, or intolerant, though, of the Iraqi people and Muslim culture that was shamed there? Would I be showing respect, or disrespect? Would I be sensitive, or insensitive? I wasn't part of the Abu Ghraib atrocity, so according to you, what does it matter, right? Wasn't me. According to you, the Iraqis should respect ME, right? I don't need to have extra sensitivity, because I didn't personally commit the original crime.

No--the RIGHT thing for me to do is understand that Abu Ghraib is a location with deep, painful scars in the Muslim world based on events that happened there. I respect the Muslims, and will not interact with Abu Ghraib with any extent to which I am not invited, and then I would make every effort to accommodate the delicate emotions which were caused by my countrymen there, even though I had no personal part in it. The pain at Abu Ghraib is not mine to decide, and act upon. It belongs to the Muslims, and I will respect them to tell me how they want to deal with it. I will not demand that they forgive and forget, I will not demand that they accommodate me and my wishes. Out of repect and sensitivity, it is up to ME to accommodate THEM.


----------



## JJR512

Wildblue said:


> Or, to ask everyone bluntly, is the issue just that political correctness demands that America has to have tolerance, sensitivity, and respect for all cultural groups and other nations, but nobody needs to have any respect for mainstream America?


I don't know what "political correctness" has to do with it, but in my opinion, the ideal behavior is that a person, or a group or country made up of persons, should have respect for all cultural groups and other nations regardless of how the other cultural groups or nations are actually behaving toward us, or how we want them to behave toward us. Kind of a "love all, and hope you get love back, but if not, oh well" kind of attitude. Of course, I realize that this is a very lofty goal, and isn't even one that I personally live up to most of the time. But despite frequent failings, I at least try.

I should note that this attitude, at least my version of it, does not preclude the possibility of using violence in self-defense or in defense of our true allies. It may seem like it does, but that's an exception I'm willing to make.


----------



## Wildblue

VictorRomeo said:


> Sure, you can call it what you want - it is your 'protected' right of course.


 (oh, and my bad, V--I just now understood based on your reply, how you took my original statement to mean... when I said, "We can call it whatever we want", I meant that the actual term we agree to use in this discussion for the big mosque/Islamic center/whatever isn't as important; that it doesn't change what the center itself is planned to be. [we could call it a "golf course", but that doesn't mean it is one] I did NOT mean to suggest that any of us can just label it whatever we feel like, because that's some right we possess and we can show whatever contempt we choose. Sorry about that)


----------



## JJR512

Wildblue said:


> You prove my exact point. Let me ask you this--I'm an American, but was not personally involved with Abu Ghraib at all. So since I'm here in Iraq, if I get the chance to interact at all with the site of Abu Ghraib, how should I act? Should I put on my American clothes, grab a big American flag, and march around the prison and surrounding area? I have the right to do so. Would that be tolerant, or intolerant, though, of the Iraqi people and Muslim culture that was shamed there? Would I be showing respect, or disrespect? Would I be sensitive, or insensitive? I wasn't part of the Abu Ghraib atrocity, so according to you, what does it matter, right? Wasn't me. According to you, the Iraqis should respect ME, right? I don't need to have extra sensitivity, because I didn't personally commit the original crime.


Your analogy does not seem accurate to me. You sound like you'd be _at_ Abu Ghraib, traipsing around, flaunting being an American, waving the American flag in their faces, saying "La la la, look at me, I'm an American! Whoopedeedoo!" I don't think this sounds very much like what Muslims want to do in New York. If Muslims are saying they want to actually go stand _on_ "Ground Zero", lay out their prayer mats and pray, and prance around chanting, "Look at us Muslims, we're Muslim just like the dudes that killed a bunch of innocent Americans here, only it wasn't actually us," then yes, I'd say that's pretty damned insensitive of them. But I don't think that's what they want to do. They want to build a mosque and community center two blocks away, and what I understand their intent to be is they want to peacefully present the opportunity for non-Muslims to learn about Islam and see that they're not all bad. They're trying to take a part in building a community and neighborhood in which they live.



> No--the RIGHT thing for me to do is understand that Abu Ghraib is a location with deep, painful scars in the Muslim world based on events that happened there. I respect the Muslims, and will not interact with Abu Ghraib with any extent to which I am not invited, and then I would make every effort to accommodate the delicate emotions which were caused by my countrymen there, even though I had no personal part in it. The pain at Abu Ghraib is not mine to decide, and act upon. It belongs to the Muslims, and I will respect them to tell me how they want to deal with it. I will not demand that they forgive and forget, I will not demand that they accommodate me and my wishes. Out of repect and sensitivity, it is up to ME to accommodate THEM.


And just as you feel I proved your exact point with my last post, I feel that your last statement here proves my exact point. This hypothetical situation of yours, Abu Ghraib, is the reverse of the situation in New York. I understand your point, I understand you reversed it to force looking at the situation from another point of view. But since it _is_ a reverse scenario, then when you said, "Out of repect and sensitivity, it is up to ME to accommodate THEM," this, too, must also be the reverse of what's true in New York. This means that what should be happening in New York, in Manhattan, right now is that WE should be accommodating THEM. You say the pain at Abu Ghraib is not yours to decide and act upon, and again, since this is the reverse of the situation in Manhattan, that means here, it _is_ OUR pain to decide. Maybe we, America as a whole, needs to decide that we have no logical or beneficial reason to feel pain at the actions of an entire religion when it was just a handful of rogue members that actually caused our pain. Maybe we, as Americans, need to realize that this fight, this debate, is doing more harm than good. *Maybe it's time for America to step up, show some maturity, and stop hating other countries and cultures if we want the same respect shown us.*


----------



## Wildblue

JJR512 said:


> I don't know what "political correctness" has to do with it, but in my opinion, the ideal behavior is that a person, or a group or country made up of persons, should have respect for all cultural groups and other nations regardless of how the other cultural groups or nations are actually behaving toward us, or how we want them to behave toward us. Kind of a "love all, and hope you get love back, but if not, oh well" kind of attitude. Of course, I realize that this is a very lofty goal, and isn't even one that I personally live up to most of the time. But despite frequent failings, I at least try.


I think political correctness has EVERYTHING to do with it--like I said, that so many nations and cultural groups demand that America accommodate them, and tolerate their every facet, but when sticky issues come up between the two, these groups say, "nope, we're going to do what we want to do--YOU respect US. WE have no need to respect YOU."

NOBODY is saying here that we can't build mosques in America. NOBODY is saying we can't build mosques in New York City. NOBODY is saying we can't build mosques in Manhatten. Is it really so hard to understand the contempt it shows for American culture, to demand that this Islamic center must be built a block and half from the site of our most recent mass murder?

Again, Islamic leaders have such a enormous opportunity here to show sensitivity and respect for American culture that they have at times claimed they wish to live in harmony with. If they so blatantly disregard this opportunity, I think that sends a very clear message as to what they really think of non-Muslim Americans.


----------



## Wildblue

JJR512 said:


> This means that what should be happening in New York, in Manhattan, right now is that WE should be accommodating THEM.


Why? Why must we do this, _with no limits_? As it is, we bend over backwards to accommodate all religions and cultural groups in America, more than any other country in the world. Is nothing sacred in America? Will you sacrifice every portion of your own country, to accommodate every desire of other groups and nations? Will you change every law to what other tell us to have? Would you give up our national social or economic structures, if others demanded it?

When does it become ridiculous? If some group bought Mount Rushmore, and tore it down to build condos, would you glady rush to make it happen so that group can get what they want? Is there anything in this politically correct world, that would actually make us stop and say, "I'm very sorry, but that is an important part of American culture. To accommodate your wishes, let's see if there's an alternative we can provide so you can still get what you want." ???


----------



## JJR512

Wildblue said:


> I think political correctness has EVERYTHING to do with it--


Sorry, it would have been more accurate for me to say that political correctness has nothing to do with my _own_ opinion on this matter. Simple respect for others is the only thing that has anything to do with my opinion on this issue. *I don't believe in doing what's "right" because of some political reason, I believe in doing what's truly right because it's the right thing to do.*



Wildblue said:


> Why? Why must we do this, _with no limits_? As it is, we bend over backwards to accommodate all religions and cultural groups in America, more than any other country in the world. Is nothing sacred in America? Will you sacrifice every portion of your own country, to accommodate every desire of other groups and nations? Will you change every law to what other tell us to have? Would you give up our national social or economic structures, if others demanded it?
> 
> When does it become ridiculous? If some group bought Mount Rushmore, and tore it down to build condos, would you glady rush to make it happen so that group can get what they want? Is there anything in this politically correct world, that would actually make us stop and say, "I'm very sorry, but that is an important part of American culture. To accommodate your wishes, let's see if there's an alternative we can provide so you can still get what you want." ???


Please disregard what you quoted me as saying. That is, the second half of Post #190. I got what you said completely backwards in my mind somehow, so my response to it really doesn't make any sense. Sorry about that.

That being said, you do have some interesting questions here. What's sacred in America is that we _do_ accommodate other religions and cultures. It's part of what this country was founded on. But no, we do not have to change any laws because of this situation. The laws that we have already have already allow for this mosque; from other things you've said, I know you know this to be true. In fact, it would probably take a new law, or changing an existing law, to stop it. Your tone in your first paragraph makes it seem like you'd be against this. And how is this mosque going to change our national social or economic structures? Is the imam that wants to build this mosque demanding it? If not, then it's really not relevant to this discussion. I'm not going to address hypotheticals, this issue is already complex enough. In fact, that's my answer to the first question of your second paragraph: "When does it become ridiculous?" It becomes ridiculous right after that question, in fact. And again, everything there is hypothetical and has nothing to do with this issue. But just to be clear, no, I am not saying, nor have ever said, and hopefully never will say, that America should blindly bend to whatever any external entity wants.


----------



## beherethen

Just when should we stop accommodating
















I can't believe NYC can't find enough code violations to stop this.


----------



## Pentheos

beherethen said:


> Just when should we stop accommodating
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe NYC can't find enough code violations to stop this.


What a bunch of hatred! It's almost like a Jeremiah Wright sermon.


----------



## camorristi

beherethen said:


> Just when should we stop accommodating
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe NYC can't find enough code violations to stop this.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

The views of some Americans on this thread are as scary and distasteful as the views of many Islamic extremists in the Middle East and further afield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The USA and the Middle East and beyond are now two parts of the world that seem to be so entangled in hatred and xenophobia that it endangers the rest of the world.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Pentheos said:


> What a bunch of hatred! It's almost like a Jeremiah Wright sermon.


Nope, it's MUCH more like a Fred Phelps sermon.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The views of some Americans on this thread are as scary and distasteful as the views of many Islamic extremists in the Middle East and further afield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Minus the stoning and head-chopping, of course!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

WouldaShoulda said:


> Minus the stoning and head-chopping, of course!!


The US still has the death penalty in all its barbaric forms. No European country has it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The US still has the death penalty in all its barbaric forms. No European country has it.


Actually, I can't recall any US State ever employing a guillotine.

We just ain't as sophisticated as those Frenchies!!

I also don't recall anyone having been put to death for Adultery or being Gay recently...

But besides these trifles, we are just like them!!


----------



## VictorRomeo

WouldaShoulda said:


> Actually, I can't recall any US State ever employing a guillotine.


Indeed. The Electric Chair is way more humane.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> Indeed. The Electric Chair is way more humane.


"Is it true what they say about Rocky, Father, that he died like a yella rat??"


----------



## Pentheos

VictorRomeo said:


> Nope, it's MUCH more like a Fred Phelps sermon.


You miss my point again, but that's ok, I don't expect foreigners to know that much about America.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Pentheos said:


> You miss my point again, but that's ok, I don't expect foreigners to know that much about America.


Is that xenophobia talking?! I know _exactly_ who you mean and I know _exactly_ why you chose to reference him.

I, on the otherhand wanted to show you Phelps and his 'Church' was a far better representation of Christian hate speech in America - _ok I'm going through the motions here_ - to show you that such dreadful hate speech is not unique to Muslims.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Pentheos said:


> You miss my point again, but that's ok, I don't expect foreigners to know that much about America.


Blimey, talk about glasshouses, 'cos yeah Americans are so clued up on the rest of the world aren't they!?! God, you gave me a good laugh with that one!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

WouldaShoulda said:


> Actually, I can't recall any US State ever employing a guillotine.
> 
> We just ain't as sophisticated as those Frenchies!!
> 
> I also don't recall anyone having been put to death for Adultery or being Gay recently...
> 
> But besides these trifles, we are just like them!!


The recent fatal injection case that told how the condemned man was left lying on the table in agony for almost 10 minutes before dying. Barbaric!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The recent fatal injection case that told how the condemned man was left lying on the table in agony for almost 10 minutes before dying. Barbaric!


Can you remind us if he were condemned for being Gay, Adultery, or blaspheming the Prophet??

I don't recall which it was!!


----------



## VictorRomeo

Wildblue said:


> (oh, and my bad, V--I just now understood based on your reply, how you took my original statement to mean... when I said, "We can call it whatever we want", I meant that the actual term we agree to use in this discussion for the big mosque/Islamic center/whatever isn't as important; that it doesn't change what the center itself is planned to be. [we could call it a "golf course", but that doesn't mean it is one] I did NOT mean to suggest that any of us can just label it whatever we feel like, because that's some right we possess and we can show whatever contempt we choose. Sorry about that)


Understood WB. In essense though, the point I'm trying to make is this; people in the media are calling this place a Mosque because it suits a particular agenda..... Suffice it to say it's the usual suspects rolling out the same old hackneyed rhetoric by spreading misinformation about Park51 place and it's supporters.

...and now it's my turn for an analogy.... 

Calling St.Vincent's Hospital here in Dublin a church because it has a chapel insideis not very clever for obvious reasons. Because it's a hospital. Calling Park51 a mosque when it's not is just as daft. Because it's not a mosque.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> Calling St.Vincent's Hospital here in Dublin a church because it has a chapel insideis not very clever for obvious reasons. Because it's a hospital. Calling Park51 a mosque when it's not is just as daft. Because it's not a mosque.


THAT'S IT!!

NOW you are onto something...

Instead of slapping a trendy affectation on it like "Park 51" why not open a hospital there??

One that serves the ENTIRE community??

I like it!!


----------



## Wildblue

I hear ya, V. To be honest, though, whatever it is--mosque or not, it doesn't change my feelings about it. Whatever it is, it's a 13 story Islamic center of some sort that planners want to put a block and a half away from the WTC site. I find that in very poor taste, and contemptful of non-Muslim Americans. Others are free to draw there own conclusions. Now that I think about it, I think there are only two things that this Islamic Center could be differently at its current location that would change how I feel about it--either not be Muslim at all anymore, in which I wouldn't care how close it is to the WTC, or if it were to be intended as a "victory war monument" of sorts, which would make me even more opposed to it.

To be perfectly clear here, so I'm not misunderstood, I have no problem with Muslim ANYTHING in America. But to choose to put such a large Islamic Center specifically so close to the WTC sites, which can not be entirely disassociated with Islam.... that is one of the few places (of which I could probably count on one hand) that I have a problem with something so big and Islamic being built.

(yet another comparison... I have no problem with anything Japanese being built anywhere in America, either. But if Japanese planners were to build a 13-story Japanese Center a block and a half away from Pearl Harbor, yes... that's one of the very, very few things I'd have a problem with)



JJR512 said:


> *I don't believe in doing what's "right" because of some political reason, I believe in doing what's truly right because it's the right thing to do.*


Perhaps we agree on more than we think. I strongly believe in this as well. I think we differ, then, on some of what is the "right thing is to do".



> That being said, you do have some interesting questions here. What's sacred in America is that we _do_ accommodate other religions and cultures.


I agree that's a strength of America, and that our laws that protect it (i.e. 1st Amendment) are indeed sacred. However, I again argue that just because somebody CAN do something legally, does not make it RIGHT. (or tolerant, or respectful, etc...) Of course, we could get into all sorts of examples...

The Islamic Center planners are legal to build the building. That legality is sacred, and I will staunchly protect that legality. That does not make it right. Only legal.



> But no, we do not have to change any laws because of this situation. The laws that we have already have already allow for this mosque; from other things you've said, I know you know this to be true. In fact, it would probably take a new law, or changing an existing law, to stop it. Your tone in your first paragraph makes it seem like you'd be against this.


Absolutely! I again agree with you there. This Islamic center is legal to be built. I think our laws (i.e. 1st Amendment) are properly set up, and I would STRONGLY oppose changing the laws to block this or any or building. (Side note here, but I do not believe in "legislating morality" with laws) To be clear, I do not wish to block the construction of this center with any means--legal, physical force, bullying, etc. Matter of fact, I even think that the political maneuvering to get the building blocked by declaring it a historical site was a cheap shot. Don't try to get your way by finding legal loopholes. Confront the actual issue head-on.

So again, to be clear, I do not argue that the Islamic center is not legal. I argue that building it as planned is contemptful of non-Muslim Americans, disrespectful of the country in which it is built, and intolerant, spiteful, and distasteful of non-Muslim America. Very, very poor choice.



> And how is this mosque going to change our national social or economic structures? Is the imam that wants to build this mosque demanding it? If not, then it's really not relevant to this discussion. I'm not going to address hypotheticals, this issue is already complex enough. In fact, that's my answer to the first question of your second paragraph: "When does it become ridiculous?" It becomes ridiculous right after that question, in fact. And again, everything there is hypothetical and has nothing to do with this issue. But just to be clear, no, I am not saying, nor have ever said, and hopefully never will say, that America should blindly bend to whatever any external entity wants.


Well, my point there was just asking if there's a line, where we can stop having to accommodate every wish of every other nation and group, and declare a piece of American culture sacred, that we are not willing to sacrifice. If there's a line, where is it? Those that support this issue clearly believe that, (if they have a line) a 13 story Islamic center a block and half away from the WTC site of mass murder performed in the name of Islam, does not cross the line. I, on the other hand, do personally believe it crosses the line. We all can continue to debate the details.


----------



## Pentheos

VictorRomeo said:


> I, on the otherhand wanted to show you Phelps and his 'Church' was a far better representation of Christian hate speech in America - _ok I'm going through the motions here_ - to show you that such dreadful hate speech is not unique to Muslims.


You're wrong again.

Jeremiah Wright presided over an enormous church with almost 10,000 members. He has won all sorts of national awards, has been granted honorary doctorates, and has been named one of America's foremost preachers. His version of BLT is popular across America. I'd call him very popular and very mainstream and very representative.

On the other hand, Fred Phelps' only exposure comes through his disgusting picketing events. And while I can't find any actual numbers, it is widely known that WBC's congregation is made up of mostly his extended family. This makes him representative of what?

You didn't have to bring up Fred Phelps to illustrate Christian hate speech...I had already done that by bringing up Jeremiah Wright.

And you didn't have to call me xenophobic. I never stoop to name-calling in arguments. Without knowing me personally, you risk looking stupid---and now that's just how you look. Do American xenophobes marry Europeans? Do American xenophobes travel and study abroad for years at a time?

This is tedious.


----------



## JJR512

Wildblue said:


> Well, my point there was just asking if there's a line, where we can stop having to accommodate every wish of every other nation and group, and declare a piece of American culture sacred, that we are not willing to sacrifice. If there's a line, where is it? Those that support this issue clearly believe that, (if they have a line) a 13 story Islamic center a block and half away from the WTC site of mass murder performed in the name of Islam, does not cross the line. I, on the other hand, do personally believe it crosses the line. We all can continue to debate the details.


I asked earlier, I think before you came in, how far away is far enough away. Two blocks? Ten blocks? One mile? Five miles? New Jersey, is that far enough away? Maybe Texas is far enough away? When I asked this earlier, the only response I got was "Iraq". Real intelligent, that one. But I do think it shows that for an emotional issue, you can't apply quantifiable measurements. I don't think anyone can say, "My emotions tell me it's wrong to put this mosque within a 6.2 block radius, but 6.3 blocks or more, sure, no problem." I don't think the people who are truly emotionally opposed to the building of this mosque care so much that it's two blocks away; I think they just plain don't want _any_ reminder of Islam at all, regardless of what form or location it takes. I think this whole mosque-two-blocks-from-ground-zero issue is a political issue, one that the current political minority have seized upon as a convenient controversy that can be used to stir up **** with the current political majority. I think it's the politics that are complicating this issue and it's the politicians that are trying to keep the hate alive.

The Japanese once launched a surprise attack on us not so very different from 9/11. Britain tried to keep the USA from being a free independent nation more than once. At those times, Americans had plenty of reason to hate those countries. But we're friends and allies with them now. We can get over hate. I hope that they do build this mosque, or community center, or whatever it is. I hope it really is for the peaceful purposes that they claim it's for. I hope that at some point in the future, Islam will be analogously similar to Japan or Britain in relation to America.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Pentheos said:


> And you didn't have to call me xenophobic


I didn't.

I asked if this statement _"I don't expect foreigners to know that much about America"_ was.


----------



## beherethen

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The US still has the death penalty in all its barbaric forms. No European country has it.


I thought we were discussing Muslim countries where death as punishment for *anything *seems to be the course


----------



## ZachGranstrom

beherethen said:


> I thought we were discussing Muslim countries where death as punishment for *anything *seems to be the course


Ok, we get it...you hate Muslims.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Pentheos said:


> On the other hand, Fred Phelps' only exposure comes through his disgusting picketing events. And while I can't find any actual numbers, it is widely known that WBC's congregation is made up of mostly his extended family. This makes him representative of what?


It makes him representitive of a very, very small group of whom I believe to be nasty and evil people whose actions is - the name of God & Jesus Christ - have proven very powerful. As you know, their perverse actions instigated the introduction of the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" in Congress.

So you see, a very small group of very nasty people with a very nasty agenda whose actions are very destructive, divisive or both can have a profound effect on a society.

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this....


----------



## VictorRomeo

beherethen said:


> I thought we were discussing Muslim countries where death as punishment for *anything *seems to be the course


No. We're discussing America where any religion bar Islam seems to be the course.


----------



## ZachGranstrom

JJR512 said:


> I asked earlier,* I think before you came in, how far away is far enough away. Two blocks? Ten blocks? One mile? Five miles? New Jersey, is that far enough away? Maybe Texas is far enough away?* When I asked this earlier, the only response I got was "Iraq". Real intelligent, that one. But I do think it shows that for an emotional issue, you can't apply quantifiable measurements. I don't think anyone can say, "My emotions tell me it's wrong to put this mosque within a 6.2 block radius, but 6.3 blocks or more, sure, no problem." I don't think the people who are truly emotionally opposed to the building of this mosque care so much that it's two blocks away; I think they just plain don't want _any_ reminder of Islam at all, regardless of what form or location it takes. I think this whole mosque-two-blocks-from-ground-zero issue is a political issue, one that the current political minority have seized upon as a convenient controversy that can be used to stir up **** with the current political majority. I think it's the politics that are complicating this issue and it's the politicians that are trying to keep the hate alive.


You raise an interesting point because what does Staten Island,Murfreesboro,TN, Wilson,WI and Temecula,CA have in common? They're all being protested because mosques are going to be build in there area. So I guess it doesn't matter that a Mosque is going to be build near Ground Zero, because no matter where they go, someone will find the right to protest it.


----------



## beherethen

ZachGranstrom said:


> Ok, we get it...you hate Muslims.


If pointing out the hateful things they say and do makes me hateful, then so be it. BTW anyone remember the school fire in which 15 girls died because the religious police wouldn't let them leave the building uncovered?

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm


----------



## Pentheos

VictorRomeo said:


> It makes him representitive of a very, very small group of whom I believe to be nasty and evil people whose actions is - the name of God & Jesus Christ - have proven very powerful. As you know, their perverse actions instigated the introduction of the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" in Congress.
> 
> So you see, a very small group of very nasty people with a very nasty agenda whose actions are very destructive, devicie or both can have a profound effect on a society.
> 
> I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this....


You're mistaken that they're powerful. WBC's hatred makes it high profile which you shouldn't confuse with powerful. They're neither "destructive" or "devicie". All they can do is hurt feelings.

Get back to me when they're flying planes into buildings or strapping on bombs on a daily basis or executing people for homosexuality or cutting off women's noses and ears for not wearing a headscarf. Then we'll talk.

But I thought we were talking about whether Wright or Phelps was more representative of Christian American hate speech? You didn't address my post. Instead, you've now equated Phelps with Islam.


----------



## camorristi

beherethen said:


> If pointing out the hateful things they say and do makes me hateful, then so be it. BTW anyone remember the school fire in which 15 girls died because the religious police wouldn't let them leave the building uncovered?
> 
> https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm


The general director of the religious _police _was relived of his duties and replaced with someone more competent immediately after that incidence. It was a form of police brutality and had nothing to do with Islam as a religion. Where does it say in the Quran not to let girls leave any building whether on fire or not?!


----------



## VictorRomeo

Pentheos said:


> Instead, you've now equated Phelps with Islam.


Actually, you've just done that. Not me. I was equating the actions of a small group of nutcases being in no way truly representitive of their respective communities/religions/cultures etc. Of couse this is fundamental to this entire discussion thread.

Wrt to power vs. profile.... so, hurting peoples feelings expedites the introduction of new law?! C'mon. But I do appreciate we're dealing with different levels of causality here.


----------



## Pentheos

camorristi said:


> Where does it say in the Quran not to let girls leave any building whether on fire or not?!


Relevant to the necessity of wearing a veil at all times is Qur'an 24:31, 33:59; see also Bukhari 6:321, 52:251, 60:282; Abu Dawud 2:641, 32:4092.

Good thing the police chief lost his job. Hopefully he lost his pension as well. I guess he got off lightly, because the Saudis sometimes chop off your head and crucify your headless body if you really misbehave.


----------



## Pentheos

Ok, kids, I'm done for the day. This xenophobe has to pick up the house because his foreign wife has been in the old country for the last month. I know her suitcase is full of disgusting foreign liquor I'll be forced to drink tonight.


----------



## Wildblue

Again, it does seem that there are things we can agree on.



JJR512 said:


> I asked earlier, I think before you came in, how far away is far enough away. Two blocks? Ten blocks? One mile? Five miles? New Jersey, is that far enough away? Maybe Texas is far enough away? When I asked this earlier, the only response I got was "Iraq". Real intelligent, that one. But I do think it shows that for an emotional issue, you can't apply quantifiable measurements. I don't think anyone can say, "My emotions tell me it's wrong to put this mosque within a 6.2 block radius, but 6.3 blocks or more, sure, no problem."


Good point, and I probably couldn't quantify that either. I'm a-ok with mosques in Manhatten. (or anywhere else) But this particular building only a block and a half away is not only not okay, but the fact that so far, the planners have stubbornly refused to even discuss what effects their actions are having upon NYC and America, much less listen to any offers (and some quite generous) to relocate the proposed build site, only proves to me the contempt that these Muslim leaders have for non-Muslim America.



> I think this whole mosque-two-blocks-from-ground-zero issue is a political issue, one that the current political minority have seized upon as a convenient controversy that can be used to stir up **** with the current political majority. I think it's the politics that are complicating this issue and it's the politicians that are trying to keep the hate alive.


Welllllllll.... I'll submit that the "political majority" today (and even a good portion of any "minorities" refuse to listen to what the people of America actually are saying. Polls are saying that the PEOPLE of America are, as a strong majority, opposed to the construction of this particular Islamic center as planned. That's not political manuevering, that's just a public poll of the people.

(now of course, that doesn't by itself make anything right or wrong, nor can we read the minds of the people, whether they're opposed out of respect for the 9/11 attacks, or whether it's just xenophobia. That's only an opinion poll)



> I hope it really is for the peaceful purposes that they claim it's for. I hope that at some point in the future, Islam will be analogously similar to Japan or Britain in relation to America.


And again, we agree. I ALSO really hope that if this building is built, there is peace there, in every way--that there is no violence against the building or its occupants, and that the occupants do not use any violence, nor seek to impose their culture on others that do not participate, nor push their position there into the World Trade Center site or make demands upon American culture in regards to 9/11. I also hope that there will be a time where Islam integrates well with America, just like any other country or cultural group. That would truly be nice.


----------



## beherethen

camorristi said:


> The general director of the religious _police _was relived of his duties and replaced with someone more competent immediately after that incidence. It was a form of police brutality and had nothing to do with Islam as a religion. Where does it say in the Quran not to let girls leave any building whether on fire or not?!


I'm sure this was a great comfort to the mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers of the 15 slain girls. I don't know the section of the Quran that authorizes it, nor do I know the section that authorizes 9/11 or honor killing or any of the murders members of the faithful engage in. The Quran is not on my reading list. I simply note that they engage in such things.


----------



## VictorRomeo

beherethen said:


> I'm sure this was a great comfort to the mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers of the 15 slain girls. I don't know the section of the Quran that authorizes it, nor do I know the section that authorizes 9/11 or honor killing or any of the murders members of the faithful engage in. The Quran is not on my reading list. I simply note that they engage in such things.


With the greatest of respect to the dead and the appaling manner in how they met their end, but what on earth has this got to do with American citizens trying to build a community centre in their city? That horrific act took place on the other side of the planet ffs.

If America has such a problem with Saudi Arabia - kick them out of the bed. But of course, America can't. None of us can.


----------



## beherethen

VictorRomeo said:


> With the greatest of respect to the dead and the appaling manner in how they met their end, but what on earth has this got to do with American citizens trying to build a community centre in their city? That horrific act took place on the other side of the planet ffs.
> .


Just because they are here, is no indication that they are citizens. There being here is no indication of good behavior.


----------



## camorristi

beherethen said:


> Just because they are here, is no indication that they are citizens. There being here is no indication of good behavior.


Do you have ADHD? You just can't stay on topic, can you?! How is that video related to Park 51?! Get your act together and focus, some wine might help with those shaky hands :icon_smile_big:.


----------



## beherethen

Sorry if your having trouble following the thread.


----------



## beherethen

Apparently the funding for this project comes from a man named Mr. Abdul Rauf.
I don't know where he is a citizen of. After 9/11 he did make this interesting statement

_"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

To me these sounds like the words of a terrorist sympathizer.
_


----------



## VictorRomeo

beherethen said:


> Just because they are here, is no indication that they are citizens. There being here is no indication of good behavior.


Well sweet baby Jesus! this and the last post you just made says it all.....

Bit like this chap here - if it was not for the quick actions of the police, God only knows what this rabid crowd would have done to this fellow.... His crime?

The baying crowd thought he was a Muslim because of the hat on his head....

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/antiislamic-center-protes_n_691103.html

Imagine if he was a Muslim! They'd have ripped him apart!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

The xenophobic tone of this thread disgusts me, so I will not take part it in anymore.


----------



## Wildblue

I do take great offense to the often implied assumption/accusation that those that are opposed to this Islamic center as currently planned must be racists/xenophobes. You know, it is possible to be a patriot, proud of your own country and culture, and respect other cultures without sacrificing your own, without being a racist/xenophobe.

Just because you love your country doesn't make you a racist.


----------



## VictorRomeo

WB, I don't believe EoO is suggesting anything like that. What I believe he is suggesting - and I agree with him - that some of the postings on this thread have pushed boundaries and leaves a bad taste certainly in my mouth. There is an huge elephant in this room. Of course, far be it for me to say what EoO means - it's just my intrepretation of it.

But here's the rub - is it not possible to be a proud American patriot and be a Muslim? Yet there has been no recognition of this in any way - in fact it's been the opposite. Just look a few posts up this page to see. It's insane!

I've said it before - America and American culture is not solely based on the culture of her mostly white Anglo Saxon protestant founding fathers - your first amendment spells that out for all to see. That's what makes America and cities like New York great. 

But I will state this - what I witness on the news every night and read in my papers every day is that this has moved far beyond patriotism.

There's a part in the clip with the guy in the white hat being rounded on and some lady starts screaming "Mohammed is a pig" at him.

That says it all.....


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> There's a part in the clip with the guy in the white hat being rounded on and some lady starts screaming "Mohammed is a pig" at him.
> 
> That says it all.....


That we don't defend our knucklehead extremists says it all, actually. You may not have noticed as OTHERS are busy defending their own knucklehead extremists!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Wildblue said:


> I do take great offense to the often implied assumption/accusation that those that are opposed to this Islamic center as currently planned must be racists/xenophobes. You know, it is possible to be a patriot, proud of your own country and culture, and respect other cultures without sacrificing your own, without being a racist/xenophobe.
> 
> Just because you love your country doesn't make you a racist.


Besides, to be a "phobia" doesn't it have to be an irrational fear as opposed to a real and substantive one??


----------



## Pentheos

WouldaShoulda said:


> That we don't defend our knucklehead extremists says it all, actually. You may not have noticed as OTHERS are busy defending their own knucklehead extremists!!


This is actually a much wiser comment than it may at first seem. To argue that the US and Americans are complicit in 9/11 is to shift blame away from the actual terrorists.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Pentheos said:


> To argue that the US and Americans are complicit in 9/11 is to shift blame away from the actual terrorists.


No argument from me there, but for the sake of clarity, who actually said "that the US & Americans are complicit in 9/11."


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> No argument from me there, but for the sake of clarity, who actually said "that the US & Americans are complicit in 9/11."


Cordoba Initiative founder Imam Rauf: "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." (quote from September 2001)


----------



## Wildblue

Excellent point there. That is the man who is proposed to be the Imam (and being touted as a "moderate" Imam at that, whatever is supposed to define a "moderate" Muslim/Christian/Jew/American/whatever, who knows) of this new Muslim center.



VictorRomeo said:


> But here's the rub - is it not possible to be a proud American patriot and be a Muslim? Yet there has been no recognition of this in any way - in fact it's been the opposite.


Absolutely! You can be an American patriot and be of ANY subculture. I don't question the patriotism of those Muslims and supporters involved that are actually Americans. But even if the Muslim Americans choose not to aggressively rise up against the events of 9/11 and the sub-sub-culture that committed that acts, (certainly their choice whether they do or not) in situations like these, to just keep blazing ahead with their plans and not pay any attention to those around them that are trying to explain how their actions are so hurtful, just shows contempt for the non-Muslim portion of America. (not necessarily America itself, but the large, or even majority, portion of it that is not Muslim)

An American fundamental premise is that whatever culture you bring to the table, you are part of America too. But you can't trample on the rest of America just to promote your particular sub-culture. Someone's actions might be legal, but again, that doesn't make it right.



WouldaShoulda said:


> That we don't defend our knucklehead extremists says it all, actually. You may not have noticed as OTHERS are busy defending their own knucklehead extremists!!


Well said, in many ways. Part of it goes back to my basic question, is the point that Americans are supposed to tolerate and respect every culture and nation in the world, bending over backwards to excuse everyone else's actions, but nobody needs to respect or show sensitivity towards mainstream America?


----------



## Wildblue

Perhaps a "fair is fair" statement is appropriate at this point: Just because some Muslims are terrorists, doesn't mean in any way that all Muslims are terrorists or support them in any way. Just because some Americans oppose the Islamic center as planned because they are "racists" against Muslims, doesn't mean all opposed Americans do it for that reason.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Mike Petrik said:


> Cordoba Initiative founder Imam Rauf: "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." (quote from September 2001)


So you see he never said the US was complicit. Now this is the second time I've posted this, but it was a much longer interview.

He actually said; "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. When the interviewer asked Rauf how he considered the U.S. to be an accessory, he replied, "because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."

So I ask you - where is the fallacy in that statement? Where is the hate and support for terrorists?

The world and his dog knows the damage and mayhem that some of America's foreign policy has caused around the world. Perhaps though those sentiments make me out to be a terrorist sympathiser. I don't know.

But then that's just perhaps the way it is since 9/11 - If you're not with us you're against us.

This is the message being delivered to Muslim Americans - "you'll never be one of us".

Final thoughts on this and it goes back to the nub of all this; where then should they seek to build their community centre?


----------



## VictorRomeo

Wildblue said:


> Perhaps a "fair is fair" statement is appropriate at this point: Just because some Muslims are terrorists, doesn't mean in any way that all Muslims are terrorists or support them in any way. Just because some Americans oppose the Islamic center as planned because they are "racists" against Muslims, doesn't mean all opposed Americans do it for that reason.


I don't mind stating publicly, WB, that your opinions on this matter are the most reasoned and balanced of them all on this thread - from the opposing side of the argument that is. If they all were this reasoned and balanced, this thread would not be 10 pages and growing.


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> So you see he never said the US was complicit. Now this is the second time I've posted this, but it was a much longer interview.
> 
> He actually said; "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. When the interviewer asked Rauf how he considered the U.S. to be an accessory, he replied, "because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."
> 
> So I ask you - where is the fallacy in that statement? Where is the hate and support for terrorists?
> 
> The world and his dog knows the damage and mayhem that some of America's foreign policy has caused around the world. Perhaps though those sentiments make me out to be a terrorist sympathiser. I don't know.
> 
> But then that's just perhaps the way it is since 9/11 - If you're not with us you're against us.
> 
> This is the message being delivered to Muslim Americans - "you'll never be one of us".
> 
> Final thoughts on this and it goes back to the nub of all this; where then should they seek to build their community centre?


Well, of course he just said that the US was complicit. All you are doing is agreeing with him.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Without wading too deep into this mess, the stated aim of the builders is "to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and globally." If that's their goal, why are they so insistent on sticking it 500 feet from the WTC when the great majority of Americans, rightly or wrongly, consider that an insult?


----------



## beherethen

VictorRomeo said:


> Bit like this chap here - if it was not for the quick actions of the police, God only knows what this rabid crowd would have done to this fellow.... His crime?
> The baying crowd thought he was a Muslim because of the hat on his head....
> !


As this is a clothing forum, we should view this as an example of the importance of wearing the correct attire for the event. :biggrin:


----------



## Quay

To build or not to build, is that the question?

Well, first things first. To build _anything_ in Manhattan you need an enormous amount of money. To build a mosque in the proposed location, you're going to need at least $100,000,000.00, and that's just for permits.

Who's paying for this thing?

Zump-dum-dah! Irony alert!

None other than a Saudi business man, great friend of the Bush family, largest share holder in Newscorp (the people that bring us Fox News) and best-friend-forever of Rupert Murdoch (who just gave the Republicans a cool million), a guy named Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal.

So it's royalty, free market capitalists, and political conservatives who are funding this thing. :icon_smile:

What to do if you don't want it built? As it was pointed out on _The Daily Show_, the only way we can stop the mosque is to stop the funding, which means "as a nation, we all have to stop watching Fox News" and driving their ratings and ad revenues up.

Democracy in action: just change the channel.


----------



## lovemeparis

*What Fair is Fair*



Wildblue said:


> Perhaps a "fair is fair" statement is appropriate at this point: Just because some Muslims are terrorists, doesn't mean in any way that all Muslims are terrorists or support them in any way. Just because some Americans oppose the Islamic center as planned because they are "racists" against Muslims, doesn't mean all opposed Americans do it for that reason.


Here are some interesting reports about the 911 attackers, most came from Saudi Arabia--were they real Muslims? And Bin Laden/Al Qaeda are real Muslims?

"Eight other alleged 9/11 conspirators applied for visas, and three of them succeeded, the reports said. Alleged plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed secured a visa in *Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in July 2001* under an alias, according to the reports. The other two visas obtained were for Mushabib al-Hamlan, who ultimately did not participate, and Mohamed al-Kahtani, who was refused entry into the United States by an alert customs officer, the reports said."

Please clik on link to read more: https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/22/911.commission/index.html

I think we should build something like a Cross, so that Muslims, Christians, Buddism and/or Judaism can all be together in one place. Everyone wins! :icon_cheers:


----------



## JJR512

Wildblue said:


> I do take great offense to the often implied assumption/accusation that those that are opposed to this Islamic center as currently planned must be racists/xenophobes. You know, it is possible to be a patriot, proud of your own country and culture, and respect other cultures without sacrificing your own, without being a racist/xenophobe.
> 
> Just because you love your country doesn't make you a racist.





VictorRomeo said:


> I don't mind stating publicly, WB, that your opinions on this matter are the most reasoned and balanced of them all on this thread - from the opposing side of the argument that is. If they all were this reasoned and balanced, this thread would not be 10 pages and growing.


When I first read this, Wildblue, I was about to say something similar to VictorRomeo's response, but he beat me to it. And you have said in this thread that you and I probably agree on a lot, and I think you're right. I think we both want what our experience and education tells us is best for our country, but because we're not the same person, we each have different opinions on what's best. And there's nothing wrong with that. What sets you apart from many of the "other side" (from my point of view) is that you argue your viewpoint intelligently, calmly, and rationally. It's the haters that I detest, as does, it seems, Earl of Ormonde, for example. The haters don't want what's best for America, they want whatever will soothe their own hate and fear, and that's selfish.


----------



## camorristi

lovemeparis said:


> Here are some interesting reports about the 911 attackers, most came from Saudi Arabia--were they real Muslims? And Bin Laden/Al Qaeda are real Muslims?
> 
> "Eight other alleged 9/11 conspirators applied for visas, and three of them succeeded, the reports said. Alleged plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed secured a visa in *Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in July 2001* under an alias, according to the reports. The other two visas obtained were for Mushabib al-Hamlan, who ultimately did not participate, and Mohamed al-Kahtani, who was refused entry into the United States by an alert customs officer, the reports said."
> 
> Please clik on link to read more: https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/22/911.commission/index.html
> 
> I think we should build something like a Cross, so that Muslims, Christians, Buddism and/or Judaism can all be together in one place. Everyone wins! :icon_cheers:


Although building a cross would not make any sense (or I didn't get the joke), I think only god can really judge if someone is really Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or anything else, we should go by the facts at hand. Without the slightest shadow of doubt I will say that Islam and the Saudi Arabian government condemn the actions committed by the 9/11 terrorists. Unfortunately, ignorant people tend to jump to misguided conclusions without thoroughly reviewing what is happening. After the 9/11 attacks, the whole world was thinking that Saudi Arabia (Biggest US & UK ally in Asia) or Islam were behind those attacks, that assumption was proven wrong. I understand EoO's decision to opt out of this discussion. I, too, was very surprised to find out that such well educated and well dressed people could be so misguided by xenophobia and racial beliefs which they had confused with patriotism. I also admire the excellent reasoning, and tolerance of fellow mankind from certain members, one Irishman in particular . Now, to those who are posting random links and videos showing extremists of differnt kinds and partisan propaganda I say, everyone can see through you.


----------



## Pentheos

camorristi said:


> ... misguided by xenophobia and racial beliefs...


I was wondering when opponents of the mosque were going to be called racists. I'm surprised it took this long.

Tell me, camorristi, to which race do Muslims belong? I'd really like to know so that I can hate the right people. Thanks.


----------



## beherethen

For those who've forgotten


----------



## JJR512

beherethen said:


> For those who've forgotten


Yes, thank you for posting that. I think a lot of us have forgotten just how dirty and ugly that part of town got on 9/11. Isn't it nice that a peaceful group wants to add some beauty back to the neighborhood?


----------



## beherethen

Yes, I'm sure the neighborhood has been pining for such nice people.


----------



## JJR512

beherethen said:


> Yes, I'm sure the neighborhood has been pining for such nice people.


See? We _can_ agree on something, after all!


----------



## VictorRomeo

This will be my last post on this thread and I'll leave it with this question (don't worry, answer not required).

What's next for American Muslims? The back of the bus?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> This will be my last post on this thread and I'll leave it with this question (don't worry, answer not required).
> 
> What's next for American Muslims? The back of the bus?


Rhetorical questions are best.

You would never get a straight answer out of Harry Reid, Howard Dean or Pres. Obama anyway!!


----------



## Howard

beherethen said:


> For those who've forgotten


9 years later.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
...and we remember, as properly, we should! Do not ever forget..."those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."


----------



## Cruiser

I haven't read this thread so I don't know what has been said previously. We have freedom of religion in this country so to me there is no question about whether Muslims have the "right" to build the mosque at that site. What I find troubling is their insistence upon doing so in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the citizens. There appears to me to be a total disregard on their part to the sensitivity that they should be displaying in this matter. This tells me that there is more to this from their perspective than simply building a house of worship.

Cruiser


----------



## Wildblue

Ah, VictorRomeo, you big softie.  I appreciate the fair kudos, and right back atcha.



PedanticTurkey said:


> Without wading too deep into this mess, the stated aim of the builders is "to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and globally." If that's their goal, why are they so insistent on sticking it 500 feet from the WTC when the great majority of Americans, rightly or wrongly, consider that an insult?


Well said. I think these statements by the Imam of this proposed Islamic Center is very telling:



> "The fact we are getting this kind of attention is a sign of success," he said.
> 
> "It is my hope that people will understand more. ... This is something we are doing for your generation"


First, I can appreciate, that, at least in name, this Imam says he is trying to build this center for "more understanding". However, he really believes that "the fact we are getting this kind of attention is a sign of success?" This is not just building a center where people can come and understand Islam. He is DELIBERATELY provoking the non-Islamic portion of America by pushing it to the closest site available to the World Trade Center! And he sees the expected reaction and intense pain that he is causing as a "sign of success"???  You've got to be kidding me.

Again, I'll go to the comparison with American abuses at Abu Ghraib. Does America want to mend the ties with Iraq and its Muslim culture after that tragedy? Absolutely. How should America go about doing that? Should America build a 13 story American mega-center in Iraq, where the Iraqis can come and "understand" how fantastic America is? I know... let's built that 13 story mega-center a block and a half from the Abu Ghraib prison itself! THAT will make Iraqis understand just how wonderful America is. What? You're actually pissed off and offended that we plan to build that at that location? How dare you!!! You just have to get over it, because whether you like it or not, we're building that thing there. Don't understand yet? We'll just stick our finger in your eye harder until you "understand" and accommodate us! Not fair! I don't care how you feel about Abu Ghraib, you need to tolerate us! Furthermore, the fact that our plan is pissing you off and getting massive worldwide attention is just "a sign of success"!

Now... would that REALLY make any sense? Would anybody label the Iraqis as "racists" for having problems with America planning to do that? Would people around the world RUSH to the defense of America, saying how the "peace-loving people of America are just misunderstood, and the xenophobic people of Iraq just need to get over their culture that is offended by this plan"? Does that seem ridiculous to anyone?

Is this topic really SO hard for the Islamic planners to comprehend?


----------



## Wildblue

You know what? I keep saying that building this Islamic center as planned is deliberate contempt and disrespectful of "the non-Muslim portion of America". I've been assuming that any Muslim will be supportive of this proposed center, in any form, at any location. However, I remembered that at least the most recent Miss USA, who also happens to be Muslim, says that this center should not be built there, so I guess there are Muslims opposed to it as well. In the absence of any better phrase to use, then, I'll just say that building this center is insensitive and disrespectful of "America", without qualifications.


----------



## Wildblue

(sorry, I'm suddenly posting all this like wildfire) I just read a fascinating opinion piece about this topic, with some very interesting facts used to support the author's argument. Portions:



> Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and ultra-lib Howard Dean both are calling on developers to consider the feelings of opponents, especially 9/11 family members.
> 
> Predictably, Dean's support earned him brickbats from the far left. But the former head of the Democratic Party and 2004 presidential candidate bravely told an interviewer that "we have to stop the polarization in this country" and that "some of the folks on my end of the spectrum are demonizing some fairly decent people who are opposing this."
> 
> Citing polls against the mosque, Dean added, "65 percent of the people in this country are not right-wing bigots."
> 
> Stop the presses. At least for one liberal, the majority is not automatically wrong or full of hate.


Wow... Howard Dean? How DARE he ask Muslims to be sensitive of opposing American feelings!



> And now comes fresh support from an international Muslim organization. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has theological differences with the dominant Sunni and Shia branches and is subject to violent attacks. Two of its mosques in Pakistan were bombed in May, killing 94 people and an American citizen active in the movement was murdered in Pakistan last week.
> 
> Yet this persecution has not dimmed its views, with its American leader condemning terrorism and telling Muslims to leave the United States if they cannot be loyal and law-abiding citizens.
> 
> I asked the group about the mosque. Calling it a civic issue, not a religious one, spokesman Waseem Sayed said that if the "sentiments of non-Muslims are unduly hurt," then his group "does not see why that particular location has been chosen. There are surely other places where mosques can be built."


Wow... so is this Islamic leader a "racist and xenophobe" against Muslims also?



> He went on to offer another perspective, one that reflects a true spirit of brotherhood. It stands in stark contrast to the mosque developers, who talk of healing but in fact are causing a fresh wound between Islam and America.
> 
> "If a mosque is built at the proposed site, then the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community would like see churches, synagogues, Hindu places of worship and places of worship of all other religions also built near Ground Zero," Sayed told me. "That would be a good example of how from an act of evil and terror has emerged unity and peace."


Ummm... I suppose that's an option. Does anybody really want to see downtown Manhatten turned into an "all-inclusive build whatever religious place anywhere you feel like it" place, though? (if you do, my first question is... do YOU live in downtown Manhatten?)


----------



## Wildblue

Huh... perhaps I've scared everyone away from this thread.

More interesting news and opinion articles. In this one, about the "Islamic Center", the author notes that supporters are all up in arms that "it should not be called a mosque! Whatever it is, it's not a MOSQUE!" Well... the planners themselves are publicly proclaiming it as a "mosque". Is there some politically correct reason then we need to keep pretending a mosque isn't part of this project?

(next question... as I asked before... does it really matter if it's partially a mosque, entirely a mosque, or not a mosque?)



> Supporters of the "Ground Zero mosque" have been oddly obsessed with the idea that the proposed Islamic center shouldn't be called a "mosque." As Frank Rich wrote last Sunday in the _New York Times_: "It's not a mosque but an Islamic cultural center containing a prayer room."
> But the website for the project, once called the "Cordoba House" and now known as "Park51," explicitly refers to "the mosque," although it tries to minimize the mosque's importance for some reason:
> *
> 
> 
> 
> The Mosque
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *While a mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51, it will be a distinct non-profit. Neither Park51 nor the mosque, which hasn't been named yet, will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity or rhetoric. The final size and location of the mosque have yet to be determined, but it will only represent a small portion of the final structure.*
Click to expand...


----------



## camorristi

Wildblue said:


> Huh... perhaps I've scared everyone away from this thread.
> 
> More interesting news and opinion articles. In this one, about the "Islamic Center", the author notes that supporters are all up in arms that "it should not be called a mosque! Whatever it is, it's not a MOSQUE!" Well... the planners themselves are publicly proclaiming it as a "mosque". Is there some politically correct reason then we need to keep pretending a mosque isn't part of this project?
> 
> (next question... as I asked before... does it really matter if it's partially a mosque, entirely a mosque, or not a mosque?)


It seems everyone has run out of steam :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Pentheos

camorristi said:


> It seems everyone has run out of steam :icon_smile_big:


Hey, camorristi, check out post #253. I'm waiting.


----------



## eagle2250

...and why is it that the opinions of the significant majority of Americans (Muslims, Protestants, Catholics and otherwise!) who are in opposition to the siting of the mosque, are so easily brushed aside and ignored? Contrary to the Constitution of this great Republic, the voice(s) of the electorate are being quashed in a most egregious fashion...we are being accused of being "bigots" and "un-American" by all those beloved() left wingers!


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> ...and why is it that the opinions of the significant majority of Americans (Muslims, Protestants, Catholics and otherwise!) who are in opposition to the siting of the mosque, are so easily brushed aside and ignored? Contrary to the Constitution of this great Republic, the voice(s) of the electorate are being quashed in a most egregious fashion...we are being accused of being "bigots" and "un-American" by all those beloved() left wingers!


Charles Krauthammer agrees.


----------



## JDC

eagle2250 said:


> ...and why is it that the opinions of the significant majority of Americans (Muslims, Protestants, Catholics and otherwise!) who are in opposition to the siting of the mosque, are so easily brushed aside and ignored? Contrary to the Constitution of this great Republic, the voice(s) of the electorate are being quashed in a most egregious fashion...we are being accused of being "bigots" and "un-American" by all those beloved() left wingers!


 You've got it backwards. Our Constitution is what demands freedom of religion, regardless of what people (a majority or otherwise) think about it.

One underreported fact is this the planning for this mosque was funded by Al-Waleed bin Talal, who is the #2 shareholder in News Corp (parent company of Fox News). If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own.


----------



## Pentheos

People shouldn't take their talking points from Jon Stewart.


----------



## JDC

If any info in the referenced article is incorrect, please do tell.


----------



## Cruiser

FrankDC said:


> You've got it backwards. Our Constitution is what demands freedom of religion, regardless of what people (a majority or otherwise) think about it.


Actually Frank I think you got this one backwards. What is contrary to the Constitution isn't the Muslims freedom to practice their religion; it's the characterization of those in opposition to the location of the Mosque as "un-American" for simply having an oppositional view. And that's ignoring the fact that it represents the majority viewpoint.

This isn't about freedom of religion for Muslims. It's about the Muslim population exercising a tiny bit of sensitivity to the feelings of many people and simply locating their Mosque in a less sensitive location. It's almost as if they are going out of their way to rub salt in a wound.

There are many things in this society that folks have a "right" to do, but it doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do. Consider that wacko "religious" group that goes around protesting at the funerals of fallen U.S. servicemen and women. The Constitution gives them the "right" to do that; however, I personally find the exercise of that right to be nothing less than despicable. I won't say that I put that in the same category as what the Muslims want to do in New York, but I'm sure to those most directly affected by 9-11 feel more strongly about this than I do.

I suppose the situation in New York more closely parallels the Catholic Nuns who wanted to put a convent at the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Even though at the end of the day the Catholic Church had every "right" to do that, they eventually exercised a degree of sensitivity that we simply aren't seeing from the Muslims and relocated the convent to a less controversial location. This is what people and groups do when they are sensitive to the feelings of others.

Personally I think we need to spend less time arguing over Constitional rights and simply discuss how people should react to their fellow man. Like I said, in this New York situation the Muslims seem to be going out of their way to rub salt in a wound which continues to make me think that this is about more than a simple place to worship to them.

Cruiser


----------



## JDC

Cruiser said:


> Actually Frank I think you got this one backwards. What is contrary to the Constitution isn't the Muslims freedom to practice their religion; it's the characterization of those in opposition to the location of the Mosque as "un-American" for simply having an oppositional view. And that's ignoring the fact that it represents the majority viewpoint.
> 
> This isn't about freedom of religion for Muslims. It's about the Muslim population exercising a tiny bit of sensitivity to the feelings of many people and simply locating their Mosque in a less sensitive location. It's almost as if they are going out of their way to rub salt in a wound.


If you read my first response in this thread, I agree with your major point. But this mosque isn't being pushed by "the Muslim population", it's being pushed by a tiny handful of people who are benefitting financially from it, and from the publicity.

That said, to pressure anyone against the free expression of their religion is inherently anti-American. It's not a numbers game, and what many people, a majority or nearly everyone thinks isn't relevant. Whether the mosque is appropriate is a different question, we all know the answer to that one.


----------



## Pentheos

FrankDC said:


> If any info in the referenced article is incorrect, please do tell.


It's probably correct, but so what? The point is that if you follow the money trail, you're bound to turn up something you don't like. You didn't know that?

I suppose that further implied criticism is that opponents of the mosque-cum-cultural center watch FoxNews. I'm sure some do. I don't, however, own a television so that really can't apply to me.

On the whole, I'd prefer if Wahhabist princelings didn't spend our petrol dollars on such things.

My point was that taking your cue from Jon Stewart shows a lack of independence of thought. That's all.


----------



## Mike Petrik

FrankDC said:


> If you read my first response in this thread, I agree with your major point. But this mosque isn't being pushed by "the Muslim population", it's being pushed by a tiny handful of people who are benefitting financially from it, and from the publicity.
> 
> That said, to pressure anyone against the free expression of their religion is inherently anti-American. It's not a numbers game, and what many people, a majority or nearly everyone thinks isn't relevant. Whether the mosque is appropriate is a different question, we all know the answer to that one.


So Frank, it is "inherently anti-American" to pressure Reverend Phelps to stop expressing his religion at military funerals? Nonsense.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

FrankDC said:


> Whether the mosque is appropriate is a different question, we all know the answer to that one.


That is now and has always been the ONLY question.

Obama The Great is working the back-handed non-answer a question corner.

So BACK OFF!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Pentheos said:


> I suppose that further implied criticism is that opponents of the mosque-cum-cultural center watch FoxNews. I'm sure some do. I don't, however, own a television so that really can't apply to me.


Fox News can channel money to a Mosque yet report fairly regarding legitimate opposition to it.

How did MSNBC handle opposition to Obama's policies while GE owned them and supported Obama??

Looks as if Fox wins again!!


----------



## Quay

Pentheos said:


> ...I suppose that further implied criticism is that opponents of the mosque-cum-cultural center watch FoxNews. I'm sure some do. I don't, however, own a television so that really can't apply to me....


Sure it can. Apparently you own a computer. They have this thing now called streaming video. All the rage with news channels.


----------



## JDC

Mike Petrik said:


> So Frank, it is "inherently anti-American" to pressure Reverend Phelps to stop expressing his religion at military funerals? Nonsense.


 Precisely. Our kids are serving and dying to protect Mr. Phelps' right to make an idiot out of himself.

And what is the alternative? Religious freedom as long as it's in good taste, or as long as enough people agree with it?


----------



## Pentheos

Quay said:


> Sure it can. Apparently you own a computer. They have this thing now called streaming video. All the rage with news channels.


Fair enough. But no thanks.


----------



## Pentheos

WouldaShoulda said:


> Fox News can channel money to a Mosque yet report fairly regarding legitimate opposition to it.


Does anyone actually think that FoxNews-Murdoch is funding the 9/11 mosque-imam via the Saudi prince to fan the flames of hate against Islam? If you do, you're sick in the head.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Pentheos said:


> Does anyone actually think that FoxNews-Murdoch is funding the 9/11 mosque-imam via the Saudi prince to fan the flames of hate against Islam? If you do, you're sick in the head.


Actually I was accepting the fallacy to prove a larger point!!

But there is no accounting for just how sick in the head one's head can get!!


----------



## Cruiser

FrankDC said:


> Precisely. Our kids are serving and dying to protect Mr. Phthe elps' right to make an idiot out of himself.


Of course, but you seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't whether Phelps has the right to do what he is doing; it's whether it is appropriate for him to do so. Phelps is an insensitive jerk or, as you put it, an idiot. I feel much the same way about the folks who want to put the Mosque at the World Trade Center site in NY. As I said before, just because you have the "right" to do something doesn't mean that you should do it.

As for this being a small group of Muslims who want to do this and not Muslims as a whole, as has happened so many times with other issues involving Muslims, perhaps if Muslims as a whole would stand up and speak out against their insensitive clod brethren things would be different. Unfortunately recent history has seen the majority of the Muslim world stand silent at the actions of a few. That isn't how you convince the non-Muslim world that Islam is actually a peaceful religion that wants to co-exist with those of other faiths.

Cruiser


----------



## JDC

Pentheos said:


> Does anyone actually think that FoxNews-Murdoch is funding the 9/11 mosque-imam via the Saudi prince to fan the flames of hate against Islam? If you do, you're sick in the head.


 It sells car insurance, and it's a way to infer our president is something other than a loyal American. It's got nothing to do with religion.


----------



## Mike Petrik

FrankDC said:


> Precisely. Our kids are serving and dying to protect Mr. Phelps' right to make an idiot out of himself.
> 
> And what is the alternative? Religious freedom as long as it's in good taste, or as long as enough people agree with it?


Frank,
Religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment, as is the freedom if speech. Nothing should prevent the imam from building the mosque, just as nothing should prevent Americans from saying they think he shouldn't. Same goes for Reverend Phelps. The same First Amendment that secures his right to vomit his nonsense, protects the rights of sane Americans to encourage him to shut up. Such encouragment does not impair anyone's First Amendment rights, properly understood. Of course, just because a constitutional right protects an activity, does not make such an activity right or prudent. Just as some people think building the mosque is wrong or imprudent, others think that criticizing the building of the mosque is wrong or imprudent. But which one happens to be anti-American turns of considerations other than religious freedom or freedom of expression. In the end, there is nothing remotely un-American for Americans to admonish Phelps and his gang that they are idiots and should shut up. To suggest otherwise, on the other hand, is quite un-American.


----------



## JDC

Cruiser said:


> As for this being a small group of Muslims who want to do this and not Muslims as a whole, as has happened so many times with other issues involving Muslims, perhaps if Muslims as a whole would stand up and speak out against their insensitive clod brethren things would be different. Unfortunately recent history has seen the majority of the Muslim world stand silent at the actions of a few. That isn't how you convince the non-Muslim world that Islam is actually a peaceful religion that wants to co-exist with those of other faiths.
> 
> Cruiser


We agree on that much. Legalities aside, morally I'll start giving a hoot about their right to build a mosque when Mr. Al-Waleed's government stops throwing people in jail for reading Bibles in public.


----------



## Quay

Since the peculiar dichotomy of Muslims building a mosque vs. the preaching of Reverend Phelps has been brought up, I wonder what the reaction would be if a billionaire Korean of unpopular religious practices with connections to the _Washington Times_ was funding Mr. Phelp's plans to build a church on the same site?


----------



## JDC

Mike Petrik said:


> Frank,
> Religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment, as is the freedom if speech. Nothing should prevent the imam from building the mosque, just as nothing should prevent Americans from saying they think he shouldn't. Same goes for Reverend Phelps. The same First Amendment that secures his right to vomit his nonsense, protects the rights of sane Americans to encourage him to shut up. Such encouragment does not impair anyone's First Amendment rights, properly understood. Of course, just because a constitutional right protects an activity, does not make such an activity right or prudent. Just as some people think building the mosque is wrong or imprudent, others think that criticizing the building of the mosque is wrong or imprudent. But which one happens to be anti-American turns of considerations other than religious freedom or freedom of expression. In the end, there is nothing remotely un-American for Americans to admonish Phelps and his gang that they are idiots and should shut up. To suggest otherwise, on the other hand, is quite un-American.


 Mike, the Phelps family are the best friends the gay community ever had. Every time they make an appearance, countless thousands of people are repulsed and forced to see the hatred and bigotry that motivates their actions. I'd be the first to call Phelps a moron to his face and the last to tell him to shut up.


----------



## Pentheos

FrankDC said:


> It sells car insurance, and it's a way to infer our president is something other than a loyal American. It's got nothing to do with religion.


I don't understand your response. Please explain yourself.


----------



## Mike Petrik

FrankDC said:


> Mike, the Phelps family are the best friends the gay community ever had. Every time they make an appearance, countless thousands of people are repulsed and forced to see the hatred and bigotry that motivates their actions. I'd be the first to call Phelps a moron to his face and the last to tell him to shut up.


Fair enough, Frank, but that is a prudential decision on your part. The notion that it is un-American for Americans to admonish Phelps to shut up or to protest elsewhere is not tenable. And the same is true regarding Americans who wish to express disagreement with Iman Rauf's effort to place a mosque at a site that was damaged on 9/11.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Pentheos said:


> I don't understand your response. Please explain yourself.


Please be careful what you wish for!!


----------



## JDC

Pentheos said:


> I don't understand your response. Please explain yourself.


 Look at the view count for this discussion. What's there to explain? Geico is making a killing on this story.


----------



## JDC

Mike Petrik said:


> Fair enough, Frank, but that is a prudential decision on your part. The notion that it is un-American for Americans to admonish Phelps to shut up or to protest elsewhere is not tenable. And the same is true regarding Americans who wish to express disagreement with Iman Rauf's effort to place a mosque at a site that was damaged on 9/11.


Again it's not a numbers game. If anyone is protesting legally and peacefully it's nobody's right to tell them to shut up. At least not in our country.


----------



## Mike Petrik

FrankDC said:


> Again it's not a numbers game. If anyone is protesting legally and peacefully it's nobody's right to tell them to shut up. At least not in our country.


Frank,
Wrong again, Frank. This has nothing to do with numbers. In our country the government generally cannot make people shut up. The First Amendment prohibits such government action. But people have the right to tell other people to shut up. The same First Amendment secures that right.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Quay said:


> Since the peculiar dichotomy of Muslims building a mosque vs. the preaching of Reverend Phelps has been brought up, I wonder what the reaction would be if a billionaire Korean of unpopular religious practices with connections to the _Washington Times_ was funding Mr. Phelp's plans to build a church on the same site?


I suspect not much, given that said site was never damaged by suicidal terrorists attempting to advance those particular said unpopular religious practices. But if it had been so damaged, then I would imagine the reaction would be similar, assuming tepid, qualified, and nuanced disavowals by said billionaire similar to a those of a certain imam.


----------



## JDC

Mike Petrik said:


> Frank,
> Wrong again, Frank. This has nothing to do with numbers. In our country the government generally cannot make people shut up. The First Amendment prohibits such government action. But people have the right to tell other people to shut up. The same First Amendment secures that right.


Ok. My point is, the basic right to protest is sacrosanct. You have the right to scream at them to shut up, they have the right to ignore you. Nor can legal protestors be forcibly moved to a different location.

Look, I hate coming off as some kind of defender of these bigots, but there's a difference between political expression and repression. The latter should always be discouraged IMO no matter how tempting it might be.


----------



## Quay

Mike Petrik said:


> I suspect not much, given that said site was never damaged by suicidal terrorists attempting to advance said unpopular religious practices. But if it had been so damaged, then I would imagine the reaction would be similar assuming tepid, qualified, and nuanced disavowals by said billionaire similar to a those of a certain imam.


:icon_smile: That'd be about right. Context really is important, and so is timing and the people involved. I think it would have been quite a powerful thing if, say, a hundred Imams from all over the world got together to build a mosque on the site, as a statement of peace and a repudiation of extremism. Heck, they could have been joined by religious leaders from all sorts of faiths to build some sort of monument to peace for everyone as well as to honor the many who died on that horrible day. Would be quite a thing to have a multi-faith temple/chapel/mosque/synagogue/place-of-quiet-contemplation on the site.

But when it's largely one man funded by Saudi money it all sort of seems...odd.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Quay said:


> :icon_smile: That'd be about right. Context really is important, and so is timing and the people involved. I think it would have been quite a powerful thing if, say, a hundred Imams from all over the world got together to build a mosque on the site, as a statement of peace and a repudiation of extremism. Heck, they could have been joined by religious leaders from all sorts of faiths to build some sort of monument to peace for everyone as well as to honor the many who died on that horrible day. Would be quite a thing to have a multi-faith temple/chapel/mosque/synagogue/place-of-quiet-contemplation on the site.
> 
> But when it's largely one man funded by Saudi money it all sort of seems...odd.


Exactly. I actually don't have strong views on the substantive issue. My interest is more in questioning the vilification of those who do. While I don't doubt that some opponents of this mosque are bigots, I seriously doubt that describes the vast majority. If Imam Rauf had promptly and passionately criticized the perpetrators of 9/11 without qualification or equivocation, I suspect his credibility would serve to have repressed much of the criticism. But his contemporaneous suggestion that 9/11 was America's fault is disturbing to many Americans, and understandably so.


----------



## Wildblue

FrankDC said:


> If any info in the referenced article is incorrect, please do tell.


 If any info in the referenced article makes the slightest bit of difference, please do tell.



FrankDC said:


> Whether the mosque is appropriate is a different question, we all know the answer to that one.


 Apparently not... the supporters of this mosque are crying everything and anything to make it happen... "get over 9/11"... "it's not a mosque"... "Islam had nothing to do with 9/11"... "it doesn't matter how close anything Islamic is built to the World Trade Center"... "the feelings of the Muslims are more important than any other American culture"... etc.


----------



## JJR512

Wildblue said:


> Apparently not... the supporters of this mosque are crying everything and anything to make it happen... "get over 9/11"... "it's not a mosque"... "Islam had nothing to do with 9/11"... "it doesn't matter how close anything Islamic is built to the World Trade Center"... "the feelings of the Muslims are more important than any other American culture"... etc.


"Islam had nothing to do with 9/11" is probably the only one of those statements I agree with, other than recognizing the coincidental fact that the attackers were Muslims who wrongfully claimed that it was their religious duty. But then again, I wouldn't consider myself to be a "supporter of this mosque". Neither am I against this mosque. I personally don't care one way or the other if it gets built. What I do support is their right to build it if they so choose and if it is acceptable within local regulations and ordinances and if it is for peaceful purposes. _That's_ what I support.


----------



## Epaminondas

Jovan said:


> To all who so vehemently oppose this:
> 
> They have a right to build wherever they want. Get over your religious intolerance and stop using "it will cause problems!!!" as a rationalisation for it. The point is _not_ to piss off Americans. The fact that unsophisticated minds want to blame Islam as a whole for the attacks doesn't, and shouldn't, mean squat.
> 
> Also, no more of this "Islam is a violent religion" argument. Has anyone who makes that argument ever read about the Crusades?


This is exactly why public K-12 and public universities are such an abhorrent failure: they simply fail to educate people. Nothing like a self-designated "sophisticate" to ingore the facts. I'll bet your ignorance of the quran and the hadiths is excelled only by your ignorance of the crusades.

About 60% of the territory that is predominantly muslim was once formerly predominantly Christian and that didn't exactly occurr because islam was offering warm, fuzzy feelings. Go look up the St. Augustine and tell me about how non-violent islam just happened to hold sway in his birthplace. The religion envisions the slaughter (by muslims) or conversion of all Christians or Jews in the "last days." The very heart of the religion is violence. It is true, is it not - that by its own terms muhammad instructs his followers to kill and behead people?


----------



## Pentheos

JJR512 said:


> ... attackers were Muslims who wrongfully claimed that it was their religious duty...


Who are you to say that they were wrong? Have you attended a madrasa? Have you memorized the Qur'an? The fact is, there are many different sects within Islam and _they don't agree with each other_. But somehow _you_ know what is "correct" Islam...how ignorant and arrogant.


----------



## Epaminondas

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Blimey, talk about glasshouses, 'cos yeah Americans are so clued up on the rest of the world aren't they!?!


The English, when they had any relevancy, were renowned for the very same quality of being ethnocentric and narrow. The weak do tend to have to pay attention to others to curry their favor and build coalitions.


----------



## Epaminondas

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The views of some Americans on this thread are as scary and distasteful as the views of many Islamic extremists in the Middle East and further afield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
> 
> The USA and the Middle East and beyond are now two parts of the world that seem to be so entangled in hatred and xenophobia that it endangers the rest of the world.


Well, golly sir, I guess that's just what happens when you have hostages taken, naval vessels attacked, planes hijacked, embassies bombed, fatwas declared, asssination plots advanced, reporters and citizens beheaded, civlians butchered in the thousands, etc. etc. over a 30 year period.

We can't all wear silk panties and look on with supreme indifference.


----------



## JJR512

Epaminondas said:


> This is exactly why public K-12 and public universities are such an abhorrent failure: they simply fail to educate people. Nothing like a self-designated "sophisticate" to ingore the facts. I'll bet you ignoreance of he quran and the hadiths is excelled only by your ignorance of the crusades.
> 
> About 60% of the territory that is predominantly muslim was once formerly predominantly Christian and that didn't exactly occurr because islam was offering warm, fuzzy feelings. Go look up the St. Augustine and tell me about how non-violent islam just happened to hold sway in his birthplace. The religion envisions the slaughter (by muslims) or conversion of all Christians or Jews in the "last days." The very heart of the religion is violence. It is true, is it not - that by its own terms muhammad instructs his followers to kill and behead people?


Blah blah blah not relevant. St. Augustine? Come on man, that was 16 centuries ago. Do you think Islam hasn't changed at all since then? Do you think Christianity or Catholicism hasn't changed since then? The Crusades, much more recent in history, were officially sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church-in fact, it was St. Augustine himself who, centuries earlier, was the first to propose within Christianity that a religious war can be a viable option.

So Islam has a history of violence in the past. So does Christianity. _In the past._ Now we are in the present. All evidence seems to suggest that Islam, as a religion, did not condone, and in fact condemned, the acts of the terrorists on 9/11, even though the terrorists themselves claimed to be acting on behalf of their religion.

"Blah blah blah" on me, too...i know I just wasted the two minutes it took me to type that out, I know some people are going to choose to see evil wherever it's convenient to see it, wherever they want to see it for it to support their own one-sided closed-minded point of views.


----------



## Epaminondas

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The recent fatal injection case that told how the condemned man was left lying on the table in agony for almost 10 minutes before dying. Barbaric!


What? Are you kidding? Where are you from? Seems like a snivelling, cowardly, cheap shot to attack the US wihtout having the spine to make it clear where you're from. Do you really want to compare the U.S. death penalty to certain, for instance, European health care systems that routinely enage in eugenics or deny medical treatments TO INNOCENT PEOPLE to keep health care costs down?


----------



## JJR512

Pentheos said:


> Who are you to say that they were wrong? Have you attended a madrasa? Have you memorized the Qur'an? The fact is, there are many different sects within Islam and _they don't agree with each other_. But somehow _you_ know what is "correct" Islam...how ignorant and arrogant.


Who am I? I'm Justin J. Rebbert, a Citizen of the United States of America, with a constitutionally-protected right to say whatever the **** I want, so shove your question up your ******* ass, asshole. Islam isn't the only religion with many different sects that don't agree with each other, so there's no need to emphasize that point like it's some novel concept I've never heard of. Lutherans? Protestants? Catholics? Seventh-day Adventists? All Christian, and they don't agree with each other, either. D'oh!

Oh, and did you fail to notice that I never said I _know_ they're wrong? Take a minute and go back and read what I wrote. Now quote me the part where I said I know they're wrong. ...Ah, can't find it, can you! You can't because I didn't say it! So don't go ******* putting words in my mouth! I _believe_ they were wrong when they claimed to be acting on behalf of Islam because that's what Islamic leaders claimed, and I _choose_ to believe them. For all I know, maybe they really were acting on behalf of some stupid little sect that interprets the Koran that way, how the **** should I know? I don't really give a ****.

So don't tell me that I _"know"_ something, and if you _do_ choose to make **** up anyway, _don't_ ******* accuse _me_ of being ignorant and arrogant. Next time, before you go shoving your insults around, try asking a question or two first before deciding if the insults are really warranted. I mean, that seems to me like it'd be the smart thing to do...maybe that's why I have to explain it to you.


----------



## Epaminondas

JJR512 said:


> Blah blah blah not relevant. St. Augustine? Come on man, that was 16 centuries ago. Do you think Islam hasn't changed at all since then? Do you think Christianity or Catholicism hasn't changed since then? The Crusades, much more recent in history, were officially sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church-in fact, it was St. Augustine himself who, centuries earlier, was the first to propose within Christianity that a religious war can be a viable option.
> 
> So Islam has a history of violence in the past. So does Christianity. _In the past._ Now we are in the present. All evidence seems to suggest that Islam, as a religion, did not condone, and in fact condemned, the acts of the terrorists on 9/11, even though the terrorists themselves claimed to be acting on behalf of their religion.
> 
> "Blah blah blah" on me, too...i know I just wasted the two minutes it took me to type that out, I know some people are going to choose to see evil wherever it's convenient to see it, wherever they want to see it for it to support their own one-sided closed-minded point of views.


You didn't even read - or at least, you certainly didn't comprehend (probably went to public schools, too) - what I said regarding Augustine. The point was - he was from North Africa (Hippo). All of North Africa was predominantly Christian until the religion of peace forced conversions by sword, terror, death, and oppression - no missionaries, no monks, no universities, no teaching the religion in the vernacular and establishing schools, hospitals, etc. just slavery or death. A muslim power has basically been at war with the west from appox. 600 AD until about 1918. We had a brief respite from 1920 or so until 1980. The current enagagments are only the re-kindling of an engagement that precedes us for a millenia.

Your ignorance of the crusades is beyong remediation. You do understand that the Emperor of the Eastern empire (in Constantinople) - having fought muslim armies for over four centuries - BEGGED the Pope and Christendom to sen armies to help it fight off the islamic invasion? Look, I don't have time to teach you basic history and you won't beleive me anyway -so WHY DON'T YOU GO READ SOME BOOKS intead of blathering "crusades", "crusades", "crusades" as if that were an answer to itself. It was a defensive war or g_d's sakes - once which sought to protect existing Christian territory and regain that whih had been seized from them by force of arms.


----------



## Pentheos

JJR512 said:


> For all I know, maybe they really were acting on behalf of some stupid little sect that interprets the Koran that way, how the **** should I know? I don't really give a ****.


They were, and you could read a book.

Nice language.


----------



## JJR512

Epaminondas said:


> You didn't even read - or at least, you certainly didn't comprehend (probably went to public schools, too) - what I said regarding Augustine. The point was - he was from North Africa (Hippo). All of North Africa was predominantly Christian until the religion of peace forced conversions by sword, terror, death, and oppression - no missionaries, no monks, no universities, no teaching the religion in the vernacular and establishing schools, hospitals, etc. just slavery or death. An muslim power has basically been at war with the west from appox. 600 AD until about 1918. The current enagagments are only the re-kindling of an engagement that precedes us or a millenia.
> 
> Your ignorance of the crusades is beyong remediation. You do understand that the Emperor of the Eastern empire (in Constantinople) - having fought muslim armies for over four centuries - BEGGED the Pope and Christendom to sen armies to help it fight off the islamic invasion? Look, I don't have time to teach you basic history and you won't beleive me anyway -so WHY DON'T YOU GO READ SOME BOOKS intead of blathering "crusades", "crusades", "crusades" as if that were an answer to itself. It was a defensive war or g_d's sakes - once which sought to protect existing Christian territory and regain that whih had been seized from them by force of arms.


Take your "public schools are ****" attitude and shove it deep up inside your ass. **** you. I went to public school for all but two out of twelve years (3rd and 4th were spent at a Catholic school). At the beginning of the sixth grade, my reading comprehension was tested and found to be at the twelfth-grade level. At the end of the sixth grade, it was retested for comparison, and found to be at a college sophomore level. So if you think I'm not comprehending you, don't blame it on public education, you arrogant *****. For me to comprehend something, there has to be some sense in it to comprehend.

Read your own writing-hyphens where em dashes belong? "An muslim power" instead of "And Muslim power? Repeated failure to capitalize a proper noun like "Muslim"? "...to sen armies..." instead of "to send armies..."? "...intead of blathering..." instead of "...instead of blathering..."? I don't know where _you_ went to school, but it looks like they taught you to write about as well as you believe I can comprehend.

Taking _back_ what used to belong to you is _not_ being defensive. Being defensive is drawing a line and doing your damnedest to make sure it doesn't get crossed. It's doing all you can do to make sure whatever you have left doesn't get taken, too. Taking something back, even if it once belonged to you, isn't defensive, it's offensive. Parts of the Crusades were defensive, but parts of them were also offensive, too. And the Muslims of those times weren't the only ones trying to convert. So do not try to make it seem like Islam was, is, and always will be all bad, while Christianity was, is, and always will be pure love, because that's a load of horse ****.

One final note: It wasn't me who was blathering "crusades, crusades, crusades." I didn't bring them up. I only mentioned them once, and that's hardly what I'd call "blathering" on about them. In fact, I only said "Crusades" once, hardly the three times you quoted. You really ought to make sure you know to whom you are replying and what that person has, and has _not_ said. Or maybe should I say...Whose comprehension is falling a bit short now, hmm? D'oh!


----------



## Epaminondas

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The US still has the death penalty in all its barbaric forms. No European country has it.


 In most US states that have a death penalty is has specifcally been approved by the people in a ballot initiative - that's the price one pays for elections and the US constitution. I don't believe whether to maintain a death penalty has ever been decided upon by a popular election in a European country (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is probably related to the fact that Europeans are far more used to being dictated to by their "betters" and arenfar more tolerant of national/federal dictates - largely being a sheep-like people. I also suspect that the European ambivalence regarding the death penalty is related their collective guilt in doing little or nothing about the herding and butchery of millions of thei own kind during WWII - it certainly doesn't come from any moral rationale. There is, in fact, a very strong activist body in the US which fights against the death penalty - just as there is against abortion. Europeans like to hang their hat on the death penalty and pose as morally superior to Americans while not giving a hoot about human babies. I wonder how many European countries might have the death penalty if the their respective countries deigned to allow them to actually vote on the issue?


----------



## JJR512

Pentheos said:


> They were, and you could read a book.
> 
> Nice language.


Not only _could_ I, but I frequently _do_. My favorite books are science fiction books. Yours?

Thank you for the compliment on my language. It's English, the same the one you were using when you complimented me on it. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to characterize it as a "nice" language, though. But that's just my opinion, and you've already brought enough irrelevancies to this thread, so I'll stop there on that subject.


----------



## ZachGranstrom

Why the **** are you guys still talking about this mother******* subject. Shut the **** up before I shove my Brogue up your mother******* a**. ( I couldn't resist):biggrin2:


----------



## Epaminondas

JJR512 said:


> Take your "public schools are ****" attitude and shove it deep up inside your ass. **** you. I went to public school for all but two out of twelve years (3rd and 4th were spent at a Catholic school). At the beginning of the sixth grade, my reading comprehension was tested and found to be at the twelfth-grade level. At the end of the sixth grade, it was retested for comparison, and found to be at a college sophomore level. So if you think I'm not comprehending you, don't blame it on public education, you arrogant *****. For me to comprehend something, there has to be some sense in it to comprehend.
> 
> Read your own writing-hyphens where em dashes belong? "An muslim power" instead of "And Muslim power? Repeated failure to capitalize a proper noun like "Muslim"? "...to sen armies..." instead of "to send armies..."? "...intead of blathering..." instead of "...instead of blathering..."? I don't know where _you_ went to school, but it looks like they taught you to write about as well as you believe I can comprehend.
> 
> Taking _back_ what used to belong to you is _not_ being defensive. Being defensive is drawing a line and doing your damnedest to make sure it doesn't get crossed. It's doing all you can do to make sure whatever you have left doesn't get taken, too. Taking something back, even if it once belonged to you, isn't defensive, it's offensive. Parts of the Crusades were defensive, but parts of them were also offensive, too. And the Muslims of those times weren't the only ones trying to convert. So do not try to make it seem like Islam was, is, and always will be all bad, while Christianity was, is, and always will be pure love, because that's a load of horse ****.
> 
> One final note: It wasn't me who was blathering "crusades, crusades, crusades." I didn't bring them up. I only mentioned them once, and that's hardly what I'd call "blathering" on about them. In fact, I only said "Crusades" once, hardly the three times you quoted. You really ought to make sure you know to whom you are replying and what that person has, and has _not_ said. Or maybe should I say...Whose comprehension is falling a bit short now, hmm? D'oh!


OK, so I didn't put my post through a spell check. I know dropping a letter here or there can really throw you for a loop, but try and concentrate on the gravamen of the posting. Well, I guess the 5 or 6 bourbons I've had tonight haven't helped the idiosyncrasies of my style. But, I'll bet I've edited more galleys than you ever have - and I'll bet you don't even know what a galley is.

WOW! a 12th grade reading level at age 11 - no wonder you're so proud of that! Golly, I'll bet that's, like, better than half the test takers! Really, it's pretty pathetic to cite tests like that from elementary school and it says so much about your insecurities. 

I'm still not convinced you're very bright - the failure to capitalize muslim wasn't a mistake - get it?

So what is it? Are you anti-Semitic, misogynist, homophobe? What is it that compels you to defend a religion founded by a blood thirsty, child molesting, slave owning, delusional fiend? Do you feel *enhance*d by defending a religion that oppresses women - that doesn't allow them to drive, or enshrouds them, or allows their stoning when they become old or burdensome? Are you in favor of the modern slave trade engaged in by muslim countries?

You'll know them by their fruits. What good has islam produced - it's produced death, conquest, oppression, etc. As I said, even its equivalent of "Revelation" basically just states that all Jews or Christians will convert or be killed by muslims. There may be decent/moderate muslims - but let's be clear, they are bad muslims based on their own scriptures - Jihad is a duty. A Christian who kills can find NO justification in his religion other than self-defense. A muslim who kills can find affirmative commands to do just that provided the victim is not muslim.

Christianity spent the first 300 year of existence being persecuted. Followers were crucified, torched, fed to animals, torched, etc. Christianity was a religion of the oppressed. Yes there were abuses - but, have you ever wondered why, unique to the world, slavery died out in Europe? Think it might have something to do with Christianity? Ever wondered why women are treated so much better in the west than anywhere else in the world? Think it might have something to do with Christianity? The founder of Christianity never told a follower to kill someone, nor did he own slaves, nor did he "wed" a 9 year old girl, nor did he instruct his follower to kill Jews.

I do think that taking back what is yours is defensive. So yes, the crusades were defensive (except for the little Venice/Constantinople fiasco). Only a moron would think otherwise. A man breaks into your house, rapes your wife, kills you children and when you take it back - you're the aggressor? Really?

You talk about the present - but Bin Laden and most Islamic antagonist talk about the past. They talk about the crusades. They talk about Cordoba. They talk about colonialism. Only an idiot ignores the past - it's far more real to them than it is to modern Westerners. They still hold a grudge about the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the re-conquest of Spain. The current situation is no ground for comfort - violence and antagonisms have been escalating over the last 30 years - I've referred to it in an earlier post on this thread.

You state "All evidence seems to suggest that Islam, as a religion, did not condone, and in fact condemned, the acts of the terrorists on 9/11, even though the terrorists themselves claimed to be acting on behalf of their religion." I say , this is BS - where do you get this from?

P.S., you've made two different references to a$$holes in to two different post; you seem to have an obsession with the orifices. Don't you think it's time you came out of the closet? Maybe you could get this anger out of you by coming to terms with who you really are.

P.P.S., anytime a person cites the crusade as a self-evident example of Christian wrong doing, it IS blather.


----------



## Pentheos

JJR512 said:


> My favorite books are science fiction books.


It shows.


----------



## Pentheos

I don't like to be mean. But I don't like being called names.


----------



## JJR512

Epaminondas said:


> OK, so I didn't put my post through a spell check. I know dropping a letter here or there can really throw you for a loop, but try and concentrate on the gravamen of the posting. Well, I guess the 5 or 6 bourbons I've had tonight haven't helped the idiosyncrasies of my style. But, I'll bet I've edited more galleys than you ever have - and I'll bet you don't even know what a galley is.


First, let's make clear that missing a letter here or there does not bother me. Misspelling a word, writing "there" instead of "their", improper capitalization, punctuation, grammar, etc., do not bother me. As long as I can understand the meaning that the writer is attempting to convey, I don't mind writing errors committed by people on the internet. When I say that I don't mind them, I mean that I don't criticize it, nor do I use that by itself to form an opinion about the person, specifically in regard to his or her intelligence, or lack thereof. I have known some very intelligent people that couldn't be bothered with obeying all the rules of writing.

However, when one criticizes either my writing skills or my comprehension skills while committing several writing errors in his or her criticism of mine, then you bet your ass I'm going to call that person on it. If you're going to criticize me, then you'd better make damned sure there's nothing similar about you for me to criticize in return, because I _will_ point it out for all the ironic humor it's possible to get out of the situation.

I never spell-check (other than with my own brain) when writing for internet forums.

Since I've _never_ edited a single galley proof in all my life, you'd win that bet, but we'd get even on your next bet. In just this one thread, you may feel that I haven't correctly understood something you meant, but do not make the mistake of thinking that a single error (in your estimation) means the person committing it is a stupid idiotic moron. Yes, I know what a galley is, and yes, I know you're not talking about an oar-rowed boat, or about a kitchen.



> WOW! a 12th grade reading level at age 11 - no wonder you're so proud of that! Golly, I'll bet that's, like, better than half the test takers! Really, it's pretty pathetic to cite tests like that from elementary school and it says so much about your insecurities.


It's not very important, but I was actually 10 at that time. I actually don't know the statistics of the test, but I wouldn't bet against your estimation being wrong, or even an understatement. I cited those two tests because they're the earliest ones I know of, but there have been many more like it since. It's worth noting, just as I did about writing errors, that I'm not ordinarily in the habit of randomly mentioning my test scores. But when my reading & comprehension ability is questioned, oh yes, I will put a stop to that nonsense. If you say something about me that is wrong, I _will_ correct you, and if that means I'm insecure, then fine, I'm secure enough about myself to admit to having insecurities.



> I'm still not convinced you're very bright - the failure to capitalize muslim wasn't a mistake - get it?


First, remember what I said earlier. Do not take something you see in one situation and assume that someone isn't very bright at all. I'm sure there are a lot of things you know that I don't know anything about, but there are also a lot of things that I know that you know nothing about. What does that say? Nothing, other than we're not the same person. The fact that I don't know something you know doesn't mean I'm stupid. I bet if we were to take the same intelligence test, we'd both get pretty high results, but if you get a higher score than me, it doesn't mean that I'm stupid, and vice-versa.

I didn't suspect that you were making mistakes when you failed to capitalize the word _Muslim_. I was fairly certain that was a deliberate choice. But choosing to be wrong doesn't mean you're not wrong, get it? What it _does_ mean, though, is that you're a disrespectful and inconsiderate person, and as such, I hope you have no pretense of being gentleman.



> So what is it? Are you anti-Semitic, misogynist, homophobe? What is it that compels you to defend a religion founded by a blood thirsty, child molesting, slave owning, delusional fiend? Do you feel *enhance*d by defending a religion that oppresses women - that doesn't allow them to drive, or enshrouds them, or allows their stoning when they become old or burdensome? Are you in favor of the modern slave trade engaged in by muslim countries?


First of all, many of the acts you mentioned used to be part of Christian churches, too. Some of them still are, in fact *cough*childmolesting*cough*. Excuse me, I had something in my throat just now. Anyway&#8230;If you seriously need to ask _me_ if I hate Jews, women, or gays, then you really haven't read much of what I've written earlier in this thread. I thought it would have been clear by now that pretty much the only group of people I don't like are bigots.

I should also make it clear here and now that I am not, and have not been, supporting or defending Islam, or any other religion. I do not support or endorse _any_ religion, period. (If, at this point, you should happen to begin assuming that I'm an atheist, go ahead and stop, because you'd be wrong about that, too.) What I _am_ defending and supporting is the right of this group of people, acting as a legally-recognized religion in the United States of America, to build a building in accordance with all applicable zoning and other related laws, ordinances, regulations, etc., in a location of their choosing on land that they own, for the purpose of practicing their religion or engaging in any other peaceful and legal activities as they see fit. As long as whatever they do inside that building isn't illegal, then it doesn't matter if I approve of it or not. It does't matter if I like or agree with it or not. As an American, I do have the right to tell them whether I like it or not, just as you do, but what neither of us have the right to do is impose our will on them. That is America.

Most of the rest of what you wrote can be safely discarded, as some of it is based on a book that I feel belongs in the fiction section of book stores, and most of the rest of it is just irrelevant rhetoric that has nothing to do with this issue. You hate Islam, we all get it. I don't care. I don't hate or love Muslims any more than I hate or love Christians, Buddhists, Pastafarians, or followers of any other organized religion. And even if I did have particular opinions about any one group, it still wouldn't matter, because regardless of what I think, they'd still have constitutionally-protected rights.



> P.S., you've made two different references to a$$holes in to two different post; you seem to have an obsession with the orifices. Don't you think it's time you came out of the closet? Maybe you could get this anger out of you by coming to terms with who you really are.


OK&#8230; So earlier, you accuse me of being a homophobe, and now you're accusing me of being gay. LOL&#8230;which is it? Or wait, let me guess, I'm a homophobic gay, so I'm scared of myself, right? And your _sole_ evidence for determining I'm gay is that I said "asshole" twice. If I thought I had been addressing a woman, I would have used the word "b-i-t-c-h" instead [since "*****" is censored, I deliberately wrote the word with hyphens to make it clear to which word I was referring]. If that had been the case, what would you have accused me of then-beastiality? LOL. The bigotry evident in much of what else you wrote was sad, but the stupidity of this one comment was amusing.


----------



## JJR512

Pentheos said:


> I don't like to be mean. But I don't like being called names.


On both points, neither do I. You called me ignorant and arrogant. It was given to me to understand that name-calling and personal insults were not moderated in this forum, so I chose to respond to your name-calling and insults in like manner. I'll consider us even if you will.


----------



## eagle2250

ZachGranstrom said:


> Why the **** are you guys still talking about this mother******* subject. Shut the **** up before I shove my Brogue up your mother******* a**. ( I couldn't resist):biggrin2:


LOL. ZG, you try that **** again and we are going to have to have you suck on a bar of ******* bath soap, to insure there is not a *** ****** third occurrence of such concentrated profanity in these here parts. It makes us all look like a bunch of flaming ********!


----------



## Cruiser

Cruiser


----------



## shandy

Having faith and believing in God is to me a completly seperate thing from religion which, no matter what form it takes is more like organised bullying. 

Personally I am for a ban of churches and religion of any kind as all they seem to do is introduce bigotry of one form or another.

There has been more suffering created by ALL religions in the world than anything else I know of, the God I know and love would steer well clear of it all and does!


----------



## lovemeparis

*Where do we stand now?*



JJR512 said:


> On both points, neither do I. You called me ignorant and arrogant. It was given to me to understand that name-calling and personal insults were not moderated in this forum, so I chose to respond to your name-calling and insults in like manner. I'll consider us even if you will.


Hummm.... I thought we were discussing about "Do you support the Mr. Obama's Stance on the Lower Mahaten Mosque?"

Why yes? 

Why no?

:icon_peaceplease:


----------



## Wildblue

... and I too thought we were actually having an informed debate on the Islamic center planned near Ground Zero.


----------



## beherethen

*Change of Opinion*

For many years, the FBI managed to get information on the KKK, Communist Party, Martin Luther King and various organized crime figures. They did this with primitive equipment and sometimes dubious legal authority.

With today's sophisticated equipment like facial recognition software and tiny bugging devices, this place could be a goldmine for Homeland Security. Anyone entering the site, could be entered into a file and tracked. If they have any outstanding warrants or have expired green cards, the appropriate police could be on hand to pick them up when leaving the building.

There may some residual benefits to this thing.:icon_smile:


----------



## JJR512

Wildblue said:


> ... and I too thought we were actually having an informed debate on the Islamic center planned near Ground Zero.


We were, but in a moment of weakness, I decided to reply to the immaturity directed at me in kind. To you, and Camorristi, and anyone else who was just here for the informed debate-which, of course, excludes Epaminondas and Pentheos-I apologize for fighting immaturity and stupidity with immaturity and stupidity.



beherethen said:


> For many years, the FBI managed to get information on the KKK, Communist Party, Martin Luther King and various organized crime figures. They did this with primitive equipment and sometimes dubious legal authority.
> 
> With today's sophisticated equipment like facial recognition software and tiny bugging devices, this place could be a goldmine for Homeland Security. Anyone entering the site, could be entered into a file and tracked. If they have any outstanding warrants or have expired green cards, the appropriate police could be on hand to pick them up when leaving the building.
> 
> There may some residual benefits to this thing.:icon_smile:


Beherethen, I agree in principle with your idea (more-so the facial recognition aspect than the bugging aspect). My agreement isn't related specifically to this site or this building, but to public space/places in general. But there are those who would argue against this, using phrases such as "big brother" and "1984".


----------



## Pentheos

JJR512 said:


> To you, and Camorristi, and anyone else who was just here for the informed debate-which, of course, excludes Epaminondas and Pentheos-I apologize for fighting immaturity and stupidity with immaturity and stupidity.


Apology accepted.


----------



## JJR512

Pentheos said:


> Apology accepted.


You can accept it all you want, but you're accepting nothing, since nothing is what I specifically offered to you. I'm not sorry for anything I said to you or anyone else; I'd say it again. All I'm sorry for is that the people who wanted to actually have an intelligent debate on the issue at hand-which again, excludes you, among others-had to wade through the crap that you provoked out of me.


----------



## camorristi

I think the conclusion of this debate would be the poll results.


----------



## Enron

Apparently, Murfreesboro TN is too close to Ground Zero.

https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-08-29-arson28_ST_N.htm



> _MURFREESBORO, TENN - *Federal agents have been called in after someone poured flammable liquid on four pieces of construction equipment early today at the site of a planned new Islamic center and mosque just outside Murfreesboro.
> *
> A CBS television affiliate is reporting that it is being investigated as arson.
> 
> Carmie Ayash, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, said the Rutherford *County Sheriff's Department was contacted around 1:30 a.m. by someone who had seen the fire.
> *
> Ayash said the vandalism at the site "takes it to a whole new level." A sign on the property, off Bradyville Pike just southeast of Murfreesboro, *has been damaged twice by vandals.*
> 
> "Everyone in our community no longer feels safe," she said. "To set a fire that could have blown up equipment and, God forbid, spread and caused damage to the neighbors there ... we really feel like this is something that we and the neighbors don't deserve.
> 
> The center is planned offer a new place of prayer to replace the office suite that 250 local Muslim families have been using in a nearby office building.
> 
> Hundreds of opponents to the new center packed a Rutherford County Commission meeting in mid-June to protest the Murfreesboro mosque. And when supporters of the Murfreesboro mosque held a vigil June 24 at the Rutherford County Courthouse, mosque opponents showed up.
> 
> _


_
_


----------



## camorristi

Enron said:


> Apparently, Murfreesboro TN is too close to Ground Zero.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-08-29-arson28_ST_N.htm
> 
> [/I]


 Pentheos & Beherethen must be feeling so gay (happy) :icon_smile_big::devil:! Are your feelings still hurt gentleman?


----------



## Pentheos

Enron said:


> Apparently, Murfreesboro TN is too close to Ground Zero.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-08-29-arson28_ST_N.htm
> 
> [/I]


Busting up a sign and pouring a flammable liquid on some tractors? Amateurs.

Personally, I prefer to .

(Just joshing...religiously motivated hate crimes are for the birds...)


----------



## beherethen

I suggested Iraq as a good place to build such a place, but if they don't want my advice.........oh well-gotta be the will of Allah:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


----------



## Enron

beherethen said:


> I suggested Iraq as a good place to build such a place, but if they don't want my advice.........oh well-gotta be the will of Allah:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


sigh.


----------



## Peachey Carnehan

Rather than offer my opinion, allow me to ask a question, one whose answer would be as debated as everything else in this thread, but which are intended to provide some food for thought.

Rather than simply: is Islam categorically dangerous...
instead: On what basis do we judge whether Islam is _intrinsically_ a threat to our society?
Should we determine whether a majority of Muslims harbor ill will to what we hold dear? Perhaps not a majority, but the most powerful leaders? Or should we base it on the actions of their prophet himself? Should we examine Sunnis and Shi'ites equally? Or based on their current respective numbers? Do Sufis count? Is Islam itself anti-Jewish? Or just certain Muslims? Is the tension between the Muslim world and Israel at all justified? Does America have a good reason for supporting Israel, not merely instead of Palestine, but at all?
Instead of offering a simple conclusion, I would like to see people on both sides consider the complexity of the relations between Secular Humanist American, and the Islamic world. Its not as simple as "Muslims are bad, mkay" or "Muslims are decent people, freedom of religion YAY!"


----------



## camorristi

Peachey Carnehan said:


> Rather than offer my opinion, allow me to ask a question, one whose answer would be as debated as everything else in this thread, but which are intended to provide some food for thought.
> 
> Rather than simply: is Islam categorically dangerous...
> instead: On what basis do we judge whether Islam is _intrinsically_ a threat to our society?
> Should we determine whether a majority of Muslims harbor ill will to what we hold dear? Perhaps not a majority, but the most powerful leaders? Or should we base it on the actions of their prophet himself? Should we examine Sunnis and Shi'ites equally? Or based on their current respective numbers? Do Sufis count? Is Islam itself anti-Jewish? Or just certain Muslims? Is the tension between the Muslim world and Israel at all justified? Does America have a good reason for supporting Israel, not merely instead of Palestine, but at all?
> Instead of offering a simple conclusion, I would like to see people on both sides consider the complexity of the relations between Secular Humanist American, and the Islamic world. Its not as simple as "Muslims are bad, mkay" or "Muslims are decent people, freedom of religion YAY!"


Very interesting questions indeed. Just some quick thoughts here, it has been documented that the Jews tried to kill Prophet Mohamed 6 times, but that did not stop him from being nice to them and forgiving them. I don't think there's anything anti-Semitic in Islam's teachings. I don't think Sunnis and Shiites should be viewed as equal, because their views differ drastically e.g Shiite Iran (US enemy), and Sunni Saudi Arabia (US ally), and I don't think Sufis count, because they're a very similar to Sunnis. Arabs in general (not only Muslims) dislike Israel, because they believe their land has been taken from them by force. Islam isn't dangerous at all, if you understand it very clearly, it's a religion which promotes peace. Now, some people do not understand the teachings of Islam correctly, and that makes them commit acts of violence and hate. I will never understand the concept of punishing an entire religion for the actions of some misguided individuals.


----------



## beherethen

camorristi;1139301Islam isn't dangerous at all said:


> Um er why do I have a problem with this? Oh Yeah


----------



## JJR512

beherethen said:


> Um er why do I have a problem with this? Oh Yeah


You have a problem with that because you are still under the stupid and ignorant mistaken delusion that Islam, the organized religion to which Camorristi was referring, had anything to do with what's happening in that photo. You're a bigot, plain and simple.

Frankly, if racism is one of the very few things that's actually moderated in The Interchange, I don't understand why bigotry shouldn't be, too.


----------



## beherethen

These "peaceful people " have had problems with the Indians(1947), the Jews(1948). the West(pick a date) and the Kurd and even each other and I'm not even mentioning gays and women. Basically anyone they have had contact with. The AK47 is part of the basic wardrobe.


----------



## camorristi

beherethen said:


> These "peaceful people " have had problems with the Indians(1947), the Jews(1948). the West(pick a date) and the Kurd and even each other and I'm not even mentioning gays and women. Basically anyone they have had contact with. The AK47 is part of the basic wardrobe.


Alright, let's cut to the chase. _Do you hate Muslims?_ (Yes, or NO) On a side a note, don't be afraid to answer honestly, no one will hit your hand if you answer wrong. It's time you made your views public :devil:.


----------



## ZachGranstrom

camorristi said:


> Alright, let's cut to the chase. _Do you hate Muslims?_ (Yes, or NO) On a side a note, don't be afraid to answer honestly, no one will hit your hand if you answer wrong. It's time you made your views public :devil:.


I said the same thing on page 9....here is his response:



beherethen said:


> If pointing out the hateful things they say and do makes me hateful, then so be it.


----------



## camorristi

beherethen said:


> Um er why do I have a problem with this? Oh Yeah


Apparently, you have a freaky mental disability which prevents the reasoning in your head to take over your hateful emotions, I wonder if you're some sort of a sociopath. Also, you quote a communist, which could imply a couple of things. If there was one man who could condemn Islam for the 9/11 attacks, it would've been President Bush. Well, guess what, he did not.

I suggest you see a psychiatrist. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## camorristi

ZachGranstrom said:


> I said the same thing on page 9....here is his response:


Missed that. Thanks Zach!


----------



## Pentheos

A wise man once told me that it is a folly to argue about religion. It is a double folly that we're arguing about a religion to which (it seems) none of us belongs.

JJR512, camorristi and others choose to believe that Islam is peaceful because that's what they've been told. Epaminondas, beherethen, and I (among others) choose to believe that Islam condones and even encourages violence because practitioners of the faith in the name of the faith murder non- or contrary-believers and blow things up on a daily basis. 

Since the conversation has devolved to the point where pictures are taking the place of words, I choose to withdraw myself from it. I tried repeatedly to raise substantive questions about Islam (e.g., why is Qutbitism "wrong"?)---but these have gone unanswered. Instead, I get called names (n.b. "arrogant" and "ignorant" are not names).

That's all.


----------



## Enron

beherethen said:


> Basically anyone they have had contact with. The AK47 is part of the basic wardrobe.


holy....wow.


----------



## beherethen

I suppose I feel a bit unfriendly any group that declares Jihad on America. I suppose that when I see peaceful ambassadors of a group like Sirhan Sirhan, I question their commitment to peace. I suppose when I see Mickey Mouse being used to call for the killing of Jews, I feel a little skeptical about their peaceful intentions. If that makes me a bigot, then so be it. It is the will of Allah.:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


----------



## JJR512

Pentheos said:


> JJR512, camorristi and others choose to believe that Islam is peaceful because that's what they've been told. Epaminondas, beherethen, and I (among others) choose to believe that Islam condones and even encourages violence because practitioners of the faith in the name of the faith murder non- or contrary-believers and blow things up on a daily basis.


It's not so much that I choose to believe Islam is peaceful. I don't think it's particularly more or less peaceful than, say, Christianity. When I am talking about _peaceful_, I'm saying that it is my belief that this mosque, or whatever it's being called this week, the building that is the topic of discussion in this thread, is intended for peaceful purposes, and they have a legal right to build it. That's all.

If you feel it shouldn't be there, do something about it. Whining about it here isn't going to do anything. Go find some real reason with real proof and give it to the government. So far, I haven't seen any real reasons in this thread for it not to be there. A lot of rhetoric about what Islam has done in the past, rhetoric that conveniently ignores similar activities in the past by another major religion. A lot of whining. Nothing real, nothing that incontrovertibly shows that all mosques in America are used for evil purposes, therefore this new one shouldn't be allowed, etc.

I mean, if there is some _real_ reason worth considering, present it for consideration. The fact that you hate Islam isn't enough to get me on the anti-mosque bandwagon.



> Since the conversation has devolved to the point where pictures are taking the place of words, I choose to withdraw myself from it. I tried repeatedly to raise substantive questions about Islam (e.g., why is Qutbitism "wrong"?)---but these have gone unanswered. Instead, I get called names (n.b. "arrogant" and "ignorant" are not names).


Calling someone "arrogant" or "ignorant", or referring to something they said as such, is being pejorative. That is, "having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force". If you come from a place where using pejorative terms against someone isn't colloquially referred to as "name calling", then (please go back there) sorry for the confusion. I shall endeavor to be more precise about my categorizations of your pejorative comments in the future. Or just don't talk to people like that unless you're prepared to take it, too, without whining.


----------



## JJR512

beherethen said:


> I suppose I feel a bit unfriendly any group that declares Jihad on America.


I agree completely. I feel _very_ unfriendly towards the terrorists. The _terrorists_, not everybody else who happens to share the same religion.


----------



## Enron

JJR512 said:


> I agree completely. I feel _very_ unfriendly towards the terrorists. The _terrorists_, not everybody else who happens to share the same religion.


Well, they are all the same according to beherethen.


----------



## beherethen

It would be interesting to see a poll of how Americans viewed Muslims before this Mosque-center was announced and now. My guess is that this center has not helped their image. But this and all things happen with the will of Allah.:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


----------



## camorristi

beherethen said:


> It would be interesting to see a poll of how Americans viewed Muslims before this Mosque-center was announced and now. My guess is that this center has not helped their image. But this and all things happen with the will of Allah.:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


Posting such picture only enforces the idea that you're embarrassingly sick in the head :icon_scratch:. I would not be surprised if you were molested ic12337: while growing up. But hey, explore your inner demons with a psychiatrist, I couldn't care less about someone like you. I can post a picture of a Christian or an Atheist girl holding the same rifle, but how would that be relevant?! As JJR512 has put it, hating Islam, is not good enough for anyone to stop building the lower Manhattan mosque. Try to come up with some real reasons, which is something I seriously doubt someone with your incurable psychosis could do.

"Research in social cognition has demonstrated that self-serving bias tends to characterize people's explanations for their actions. The prejudiced offenders may believe that their offenses or hate are caused by the victims, but their perceptions cannot be used to suggest that the victims' groups cause hate crime. Offenders' reasoning about their offenses tends to misrepresent the reality by blaming their victims, or other factors, rather than seeing themselves as responsible." (Psychology Today)


----------



## beherethen

Placing the Mosque at ground zero is about as offensive as placing a Tim McVeigh statue across the street from the Oklahoma City Federal Building or maybe a statue of Hitler across from the Wailing Wall. In a way I suppose it makes sense because it allows for every point of view. Former Gestapo agents, visiting Israel wouldn't feel left out as they could salute der Fuhrer while others prayed. I find it offensive but if it goes up, it is as all things, the will of Allah. :icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


----------



## JJR512

beherethen said:


> Placing the Mosque at ground zero is about as offensive as placing a Tim McVeigh statue across the street from the Oklahoma City Federal Building or maybe a statue of Hitler across from the Wailing Wall.


Well isn't it a good thing, then, that nobody's talking about putting a mosque at Ground Zero!


----------



## VictorRomeo

beherethen said:


> Placing the Mosque at ground zero is about as offensive as placing a Tim McVeigh statue across the street from the Oklahoma City Federal Building or maybe a statue of Hitler across from the Wailing Wall. In a way I suppose it makes sense because it allows for every point of view. Former Gestapo agents, visiting Israel wouldn't feel left out as they could salute der Fuhrer while others prayed.


This is a fallacy.

(I've tried really hard to stay away, but no. I'm back in.)


----------



## VictorRomeo

camorristi said:


> I can post a picture of a Christian or an Atheist girl holding the same rifle


For some sport, I thought I'd do it for you. But with more kids and bigger guns - and the ability to actually hold them up. But then we all know that the right to bear arms in America is constitutionally protected and of course with such a responsible populace, no one ever gets shot. In God _you_ Trust.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

camorristi said:


> Islam isn't dangerous at all, if you understand it very clearly, it's a religion which promotes peace. Now, some people do not understand the teachings of Islam correctly, and that makes them commit acts of violence and hate.


I am increasingly disturbed by the number of Muslims that don't understand that Islam is a religion which promotes peace.

Stand up and be counted I say!!


----------



## VictorRomeo

Let me help you out there with that one WS as it's missing something...

"I am increasingly disturbed by the number of (insert religious adherence) that don't understand that (insert religion) is a religion which promotes peace."

Now, that's more like it. There's any number of them that fits that particular bill.


----------



## Chouan

VictorRomeo said:


> For some sport, I thought I'd do it for you. But with more kids and bigger guns - and the ability to actually hold them up. But then we all know that the right to bear arms in America is constitutionally protected and of course with such a responsible populace, no one ever gets shot. In God _you_ Trust.


That photo makes me feel really uncomfortable. I mean, those things are so dangerous. They have any number of sharp edges, and I'm sure that if they dropped one on their foot it could cause some serious damage......
On a more serious note, I'm glad that allowing people pretty much unrestricted access to military hardware, like the weapons shown, means that Americans can sleep safer in their beds than British people can. I'm sure that the American gun crime rate MUST be lower than that in Britain.


----------



## beherethen

Chouan said:


> On a more serious note, I'm glad that allowing people pretty much unrestricted access to military hardware, like the weapons shown, means that Americans can sleep safer in their beds than British people can. I'm sure that the American gun crime rate MUST be lower than that in Britain.


Well the crime rate is. You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. I got that from the BBC
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm
Interestingly most gun crime seems to be committed by people with illegal guns who are barred by Federal law from even touching guns (convicted felons-drug addicts ETC)
This is as all things at the will of Allah. :icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


----------



## Pentheos

Chouan said:


> That photo makes me feel really uncomfortable. I mean, those things are so dangerous. They have any number of sharp edges, and I'm sure that if they dropped one on their foot it could cause some serious damage......
> On a more serious note, I'm glad that allowing people pretty much unrestricted access to military hardware, like the weapons shown, means that Americans can sleep safer in their beds than British people can. I'm sure that the American gun crime rate MUST be lower than that in Britain.


I think it's funny when Englishmen opine on the American right to bear arms because they're the reason we have it in the first place.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> Let me help you out there with that one WS as it's missing something...
> 
> "I am increasingly disturbed by the number of (insert religious adherence) that don't understand that (insert religion) is a religion which promotes peace."
> 
> Now, that's more like it. There's any number of them that fits that particular bill.


Honestly VR, you can't even be clever??


----------



## Chouan

Pentheos said:


> I think it's funny when Englishmen opine on the American right to bear arms because they're the reason we have it in the first place.


 Are they? I thought that it was the French with their Indian allies?


----------



## Chouan

beherethen said:


> Well the crime rate is. You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. I got that from the BBC
> https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm
> Interestingly most gun crime seems to be committed by people with illegal guns who are barred by Federal law from even touching guns (convicted felons-drug addicts ETC)
> This is as all things at the will of Allah. :icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


Read the article again, and work out what it is about.


----------



## Pentheos

Chouan said:


> Are they? I thought that it was the French with their Indian allies?


Wrong.


----------



## beherethen

Chouan said:


> Read the article again, and work out what it is about.


Perhaps this, with the will of Allah will enlighten you.:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:

https://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html


----------



## JJR512

beherethen said:


> Well the crime rate is. You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. I got that from the BBC
> https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm
> Interestingly most gun crime seems to be committed by people with illegal guns who are barred by Federal law from even touching guns (convicted felons-drug addicts ETC)


An interesting rebuttal, but unfortunately, a bit flawed due to the fact that most New York mugging victims aren't legally allowed to carry handguns. New York is one of the strictest states about handguns, and in practicality, New York City is a "non-issue" jurisdiction. So you can't really compare crime rates in New York vs. London and claim that New York being better is due to American gun rights, because those rights are effectively abrogated in New York, therefore they have very little effect on the crime rate.

Your point would be valid if it compared a city such as Phoenix, Arizona to London. In Arizona, it's legal to openly carry handguns, and you can carry them concealed with a simple easily-obtained permit (unless they did away with the permit requirement, which actually showed a good chance of happening earlier this year).



Pentheos said:


> I think it's funny when Englishmen opine on the American right to bear arms because they're the reason we have it in the first place.


ROFL...And Pentheos, it's nice to finally find something we agree on.


----------



## Chouan

Pentheos said:


> Wrong.


When was the militia system that was used against Britain set up? Why was it set up? Admittedly, the militia system in the northern colonies, popularly called the "minute-man" system was used against Britain's forces, at Lexington, for example, it already existed long before the discontent that led to the serious desire for independence, being set up in 1645 as a rapid response force for Indian raids. Universal conscription for the Militia, demanding that all men over the age of 16 bear arms, and be ready to use them, was also established by that time.
If the concept of the right to bear arms existed before the development of the War of Independence, I would suggest that the principle of the right to bear arms is based on the necessity of defence against Indians, and subsequently the French.
If you think I'm wrong, and I'm of course open to argument, please support your assertion that I'm wrong with evidence.


----------



## Chouan

beherethen said:


> Perhaps this, with the will of Allah will enlighten you.:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:
> 
> https://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html


You've quoted me an article about an American who is seeking to prove that private ownership of firearms isn't a problem, and an article from a website that supports the Second Amendment. Do you have any sources of evidence that aren't grossly biased like these?


----------



## JJR512

Chouan said:


> When was the militia system that was used against Britain set up? Why was it set up? Admittedly, the militia system in the northern colonies, popularly called the "minute-man" system was used against Britain's forces, at Lexington, for example, it already existed long before the discontent that led to the serious desire for independence, being set up in 1645 as a rapid response force for Indian raids. Universal conscription for the Militia, demanding that all men over the age of 16 bear arms, and be ready to use them, was also established by that time.
> If the concept of the right to bear arms existed before the development of the War of Independence, I would suggest that the principle of the right to bear arms is based on the necessity of defence against Indians, and subsequently the French.
> If you think I'm wrong, and I'm of course open to argument, please support your assertion that I'm wrong with evidence.


Well, you are partially right, and partially wrong.

The concept of the right to bear arms does indeed pre-date the American Revolution. It's a concept that came from old English law, actually. But the Second Amendment itself, formally representing American's right to bear arms, did come about as a result of that war.

During the 1760s, some colonists (Loyalists) were loyal to British rule, while others (Patriots) favored independence from British rule. Distrust of Loyalists in the militias of the time led to Patriots essentially creating their own militias, and naturally, they wanted to arm. In an attempt to quell this arming of an anti-British group, the British put in effect an embargo on the colonies against firearms are related materials.

Naturally, the Patriots didn't like that, and for that and a variety of other reasons, there was war. The American Revolutionary War was won by armed forces that included the Continental Army, which was created by the Continental Congress (the national governing body), and state and regional militias. After the war was won, the US was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which greatly limited centralized federal power in exchange for strong states. One side-effect of this was that the national army was greatly weakened. After federal forces were unable to respond to an armed uprising in Massachusetts (Shays' Rebellion), the Philadelphia Convention proposed in 1787 to allow Congress to create an army and navy of unlimited size. Anti-federalists objected to this. The Second Amendment was framed to assure the anti-federalists that militias would not be disarmed.

So yes, early colonists had the right to bear arms and form militias long before the Revolution. These rights were laws at the state and local level. But it was the British attempts to prevent the arming of those who opposed British rule that ultimately led to the Second Amendment, the national formal right for Americans to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Chouan

JJR512 said:


> Well, you are partially right, and partially wrong.
> 
> The concept of the right to bear arms does indeed pre-date the American Revolution. It's a concept that came from old English law, actually. But the Second Amendment itself, formally representing American's right to bear arms, did come about as a result of that war.
> 
> During the 1760s, some colonists (Loyalists) were loyal to British rule, while others (Patriots) favored independence from British rule. Distrust of Loyalists in the militias of the time led to Patriots essentially creating their own militias, and naturally, they wanted to arm. In an attempt to quell this arming of an anti-British group, the British put in effect an embargo on the colonies against firearms are related materials.
> 
> Naturally, the Patriots didn't like that, and for that and a variety of other reasons, there was war. The American Revolutionary War was won by armed forces that included the Continental Army, which was created by the Continental Congress (the national governing body), and state and regional militias. After the war was won, the US was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which greatly limited centralized federal power in exchange for strong states. One side-effect of this was that the national army was greatly weakened. After federal forces were unable to respond to an armed uprising in Massachusetts (Shays' Rebellion), the Philadelphia Convention proposed in 1787 to allow Congress to create an army and navy of unlimited size. Anti-federalists objected to this. The Second Amendment was framed to assure the anti-federalists that militias would not be disarmed.
> 
> So yes, early colonists had the right to bear arms and form militias long before the Revolution. These rights were laws at the state and local level. But it was the British attempts to prevent the arming of those who opposed British rule that ultimately led to the Second Amendment, the national formal right for Americans to keep and bear arms.


A good response. So the attitude of the American's towards the British had something to do with the concept, but wasn't "the reason", which is pretty much what I thought. So, essentially, the 2nd Amendment confirms the attitude that existed prior to the War, indeed, prior to the movement for independence?
However, I would argue that the right to bear arms was, by the 2nd Amendment, more of an intention to allow the formation of State Militias that were independent of the federal Govt. rather than a perceived need to keep individuals armed in case of an invasion by Britain, especially as by 1791 Britain was reconciled to the loss of the Colonies.


----------



## Centaur

This is the thread about Manhattan, isn't it? 

A propos the plan to build a large mosque near the site of the WTC, the following report in the Telegraph [ sheds some light on American sensitivities to another building project near a scene of mass death.


----------



## VictorRomeo

WouldaShoulda said:


> Honestly VR, you can't even be clever??


Ooooh... Such handbags.... From the King of Glib to boot....


----------



## JJR512

Chouan said:


> A good response. So the attitude of the American's towards the British had something to do with the concept, but wasn't "the reason", which is pretty much what I thought. So, essentially, the 2nd Amendment confirms the attitude that existed prior to the War, indeed, prior to the movement for independence?
> However, I would argue that the right to bear arms was, by the 2nd Amendment, more of an intention to allow the formation of State Militias that were independent of the federal Govt. rather than a perceived need to keep individuals armed in case of an invasion by Britain, especially as by 1791 Britain was reconciled to the loss of the Colonies.


First, I just want to toss of a quip in reply to the very last comment you made: At least until 1812. 

But to the main point, it's kind of a complicated web of reasons, causes, and purposes. It seems the Second Amendment may have been meant to appease the anti-federalists (those who opposed a strong central government) who were afraid that by allowing Congress the power to build a large army and navy, the local and regional militias would be disarmed. Anti-federalists were in favor of having strong local and regional militias controlled at the state level. So you are correct when you say the Second Amendment was "more of an intention to allow the formation of State Militias that were independent of the federal Govt. rather than a perceived need to keep individuals armed in case of an invasion by Britain". In other words, the _direct_ cause of the Second Amendment was not fear of the British, but fear of a strong central government. However, the British certainly played a part in getting the situation to that point where such things needed to be considered in the first place.


----------



## DCLawyer68

What is the President's stand? They have a legal right. Ok... I don't know very many people who don't acknowledge that. He explicitly LATER said he was taking no position on the one issue people ARE disagreeing on (whether they should).

I real profile in courage.

Here's my question: how many people would support the erection of a cross and christian center in the same location? I'm guessing VERY few (including myself). 

The same people screeching about "tolerance" would be calling it another crusade and an attempt to politicize an area that should be kept non-denominational. We'd see articles in Newsweek about how the Christain Center was undermining us in the Moslem world, etc., etc.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

DCLawyer68 said:


> I real profile in courage.
> 
> We'd see articles in Newsweek about how the Christain Center was undermining us in the Moslem world, etc., etc.


1) Too funny.

2) A reqular AQ recruiting tool also I wager!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> Ooooh... Such handbags.... From the King of Glib to boot....


That teletubby would be hanged in a "Tehran minute!!"


----------



## KenR

DCLawyer68 said:


> Here's my question: how many people would support the erection of a cross and christian center in the same location? I'm guessing VERY few (including myself).
> 
> The same people screeching about "tolerance" would be calling it another crusade and an attempt to politicize an area that should be kept non-denominational. We'd see articles in Newsweek about how the Christain Center was undermining us in the Moslem world, etc., etc.


Actually, there has been a cross at ground zero since 9/11. It consists of 2 i-beams that were discovered shortly after the attacks. I believe it is still standing near the corner of Church and Liberty Streets.

And I'm not sure how many fellow New Yorkers at AAAC have opined on the subject, but this one says move the mosque further uptown. The pain is still there for most of us.


----------



## VictorRomeo

WouldaShoulda said:


> That teletubby would be hanged in a "Tehran minute!!"


It's not entirely surprising that you'd think that, but wait..... maybe if they co-ordinated a little.... maybe match the handbag with a dainty little AK47.... or two.

But crikey... look at this! Iranian broadcasters actually get that Tinky Winky is not a gay symbol?! Remind me, I know of somewhere where many do... Poland for sure, but where else did they have a huge 'kerfuffle'...? Hmmm....

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article53947.ece


----------



## camorristi

Wow, how oxymoronic!


----------



## VictorRomeo

camorristi said:


> Wow, how oxymoronic!


It's this fellow here.... (if you're unaware)

https://www.dailyfinance.com/story/...i-prince-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/19593554/

See if you can figure out who's who in these pictures....


















But I wouldn't worry - he's laughing all the way to the bank(probably his own one) I'm sure. The fearmongers aren't the only ones to make a quick buck from this issue.... Their bosses are too...


----------



## camorristi

VictorRomeo said:


> It's this fellow here.... (if you're unaware)
> 
> https://www.dailyfinance.com/story/...i-prince-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/19593554/
> 
> See if you can figure out who's who in these pictures....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I wouldn't worry - he's laughing all the way to the bank(probably his own one) I'm sure. The fearmongers aren't the only ones to make a quick buck from this issue.... Their bosses are too...


HRH Prince Al-Waleed Al-Saud


----------



## lovemeparis

*Something very interesting...*



KenR said:


> Actually, *there has been a cross at ground zero* since 9/11. It consists of 2 i-beams that were discovered shortly after the attacks. I believe it is still standing near the corner of Church and Liberty Streets.


It happened at Hiroshima too!


----------



## VictorRomeo

Hmmm, I suppose it's a case of "He who is without sin drop the first bomb"

Anyhow, here what the Mayor of NYC makes of it all... (more Daily Show fun)...

https://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/08/26/bloomberg-predicts-end-of-mosque-furor-after-elections/


----------



## WouldaShoulda

I think what you are trying to say is that the ginned up allegations of Muslim-hate among the right and the right's media outlets is false.

That the right supports the Constitutionality of the Mosque and Islam in general, but dispite that overt support, still finds in itself an honest questioning as to the wisdom of the 9/11 mosque specifically.

Just like Pres. Obama hinted but hasn't the courage to expand upon.


----------



## Chouan

JJR512 said:


> First, I just want to toss of a quip in reply to the very last comment you made: At least until 1812.
> 
> Second Amendment was not fear of the British, but fear of a strong central government. However, the British certainly played a part in getting the situation to that point where such things needed to be considered in the first place.


Can you explain your last point a bit further please. I don't see what the British or fear of the British had to do with the universal right to bear arms, in the way that the 2nd amendment, to me, seems to be intended. It, again to me, seems more to do with American ideas of what American government power should be, rather than any concern about what the British might or might not do.

As far as your quip is concerned, I don't get it. America declared war on Britain and invaded Canada. I don't see that an American invasion of Canada as evidence for Britain being unreconciled to US independence?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> It's this fellow here....
> See if you can figure out who's who in these pictures....


Just what I suspected.

No Islamaphobia whatsoever.

Just a ginned up lie from the pages of Time.


----------



## KenR

VictorRomeo said:


> Hmmm, I suppose it's a case of "He who is without sin drop the first bomb"
> 
> Anyhow, here what the Mayor of NYC makes of it all... (more Daily Show fun)...
> 
> https://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/08/26/bloomberg-predicts-end-of-mosque-furor-after-elections/


President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, et al, can all posture and preach freedom of religion as long as they want. As a matter of fact, the Mayor sounds absolutely clueless from a political standpoint. Yes, there is a right to build the mosque but that does not mean that it is a smart idea. In fact, it would be big time dumb. That hole in the ground downtown is a daily reminder to most New Yorkers of what happened. I don't think the local trade unions will sign on to constucting the mosque and there could be some _huge_ protests if things tried to move forward. Nope, I believe a compromise will have to be reached.


----------



## Enron

The very fact that New Yorkers and the majority of Americans don't want it there just illustrates how Muslims really are second-class citizens in this country. Islam did not fly planes into the WTC, crazy asshat radicals did. It would be the equivalent of a wacko Christian religious nut gunning down doctors that work at abortion clinics. However, New Yorkers and Americans in general still seem to blame the whole of Islam. Attitudes in this thread are a great illustration. Too many Americans treat Islam like it is a guest, like it exists here only because WE let it, rather than as being part of the fabric that makes up this country. "We acknowledge you have the RIGHT to do so, but we are telling you we don't want it/you here."

I am half Indonesian (the Dutch Catholic kind) but have several friends of the family that are Muslim. They've received verbal abuse in public, have had threatening letters anonymously placed in their mailboxes, etc. since 9/11. It's absolutely disgusting.

Almost as disgusting is, as a registered Republican, watching folks from my party line up to take shots at Islam. It's all very disappointing. I had hoped America was better than this.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Enron said:


> Almost as disgusting is, as a registered Republican, watching folks from my party line up to take shots at Islam. It's all very disappointing. I had hoped America was better than this.


I empathise with your personal situation and condemn Republicans or any American that act out against Muslims or Islam in general.

Pres. Bush REPEATEDLY stated and affirmed that Islam was a religion of peace and had no issues with men of faith from any religion.

America is much better than the hype you are allowing yourself to get caught up in.

Review posts 387 and 389.

SOMEBODY wants you to get angry. Don't let them.


----------



## KenR

If we all hated Muslims then we would be attacking them more often. We don't. We would like to live in harmony too.
Just build the Center further uptown. And a few Christian religious nuts doesn't quite compare to Al Qaida.


----------



## KenR

lovemeparis said:


> It happened at Hiroshima too!
> 
> Here is the cross. First, as it was found and second, as it has stood during the years since:


----------



## VictorRomeo

KenR said:


> If we all hated Muslims then we would be attacking them more often.


America(and their special friend) did invade two Muslim countries in recent years.... Does that not count? War of Terror indeed.

But with that said, and as has been asked already - with no answer offered btw - how far up town? Beside the Mosque 4 blocks from Ground Zero? Or does that need to move further away too?


----------



## KenR

VictorRomeo said:


> America(and their special friend) did invade two Muslim countries in recent years.... Does that not count? War of Terror indeed.
> 
> But with that said, and as has been asked already - with no answer offered btw - how far up town? Beside the Mosque 4 blocks from Ground Zero? Or does that need to move further away too?


No. I was talking about attacks on persons of the Moslem faith in the US. And yes, there is a war on terror. Denial doesn't make it go away. Al Qaida dropped the gauntlet and we (and our good friends in London) picked it up. Any country that sponsors terrorism unfortunately has to be dealt with.

No. No one is looking to move existing mosques. Just have the Center built further uptown and things should resolve themselves.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

KenR said:


> And a few Christian religious nuts doesn't quite compare to Al Qaida.


Now, if New Hampshire were a proxy state of Christian nutters that celebrated in the street every time an abortion practitioner were gunned down, THAT would be a valid analogy.

Or, say a plane load of abortion practitioners were on it's way to a convention, and some New Hampshirite got training in the Christian nutter sponsoring State to blow the plane up with his underpants, THAT would be a valid analogy!!


----------



## KenR

VictorRomeo said:


> America(and their special friend) did invade two Muslim countries in recent years.... Does that not count? War of Terror indeed.
> 
> *But with that said, and as has been asked already - with no answer offered btw - how far up town?* Beside the Mosque 4 blocks from Ground Zero? Or does that need to move further away too?


That is a good question. I don't have an exact answer. It would depend, in part, on the collective opinion in NYC. A bit of compromise is in order for all.


----------



## JJR512

Chouan said:


> Can you explain your last point a bit further please. I don't see what the British or fear of the British had to do with the universal right to bear arms, in the way that the 2nd amendment, to me, seems to be intended. It, again to me, seems more to do with American ideas of what American government power should be, rather than any concern about what the British might or might not do.


It was not about any concern regarding what the British might or might not do. I never said that. What I said was that the Second Amendment was created _for_ something (which had little to do with the British) but it was created _because of_ something which did have a lot to do with the British.

If you still don't understand what I'm saying, then I guess I'm just not capable of articulating it in such a way for it to make sense to you, and it'll just have to be left at that.



> As far as your quip is concerned, I don't get it. America declared war on Britain and invaded Canada. I don't see that an American invasion of Canada as evidence for Britain being unreconciled to US independence?


America may have declared war but it wasn't just for the fun of it. That's like some comments I made earlier in this thread, I didn't do it for the fun of it; I was provoked into it, just as America was provoked into going to war with Britain.

1. Britain was at war with France. America traded with France. Britain imposed trade restrictions to impede this trade. As a neutral nation, America felt it had the right under international law to trade with whomever it wanted.

2. The British Royal Navy could not man all its warships during its war with France. The Royal Navy decided to make up the shortage by intercepting American ships and impressing any former British sailors (veterans or deserters) found on them, of which there were quite a lot, into British service. This infringed upon America's sovereignty, including America's right to grant citizenship to foreigners.

3. Britain provided military support to Native Americans to help them attack American settlers.

Essentially, Britain was a big bully, and America decided it wasn't going to take it anymore. If that meant going on the offensive to put an end to it, so be it. If you've seen the movie _A Christmas Story_ then think of Britain as Farkus and America as Ralphie, and recall how tensions between them were brought to a conclusion. Anyway, Britain sure wasn't treating America like a sovereign nation, which was the basis for my quip.


----------



## camorristi

Post #400 :devil:


----------



## Peak and Pine

KenR said:


> Al Qaida dropped the gauntlet and we (and our good friends in London) picked it up. Any country that sponsors terrorism unfortunately has to be dealt with.


This is such a load. Nobody dropped any gauntlet. Nineteen crazy Muslims in a make-shift Air Force of four pirated airliners created unbelievable havoc on a beautiful September morning. So what do _we_ do? Maybe we should have checked with the patent holders on this sort of thing: five other crazy Muslims who, with far less destruction but far greater consequence, committed an act of terror 87 years prior in Sarajevo. Those that then picked up your gauntlet created another thoroughly needless war, but of such horror and death that it's never yet been equaled. We didn't learn very much from that apparently. The crap that we created in the Middle East, including doubling the amount of American dead of 9.11, maiming tens of thousands of Americans for life plus killing over 100,000 Middle Easterners, lives on and continues to fan the flames of a vile hatred, both within and without, of the worst government this country has ever had.


----------



## lovemeparis

*The photos tell a thousand words*



lovemeparis said:


> It happened at Hiroshima too!
> 
> 
> 
> KenR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the cross. First, as it was found and second, as it has stood during the years since:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, New York City is still very lucky compare to Hiroshima.
Click to expand...


----------



## WouldaShoulda

lovemeparis said:


> Well, New York City is still very lucky compare to Hiroshima.


Why don't you just go back to selling burqas in lovely tollerant Paris??

https://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-13/world/france.burqa.ban_1_burqa-ban-veil?_s=PM:WORLD

Oh, that's why.


----------



## Peak and Pine

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why don't you just go back to selling burqas in lovely tollerant Paris??


Ah, a sharp, completely off-topic retort. Reminiscent of Governor Brewer's answer yesterday when asked (over and over) about the "beheadings" in the Arizona desert.


----------



## eagle2250

Peak and Pine said:


> This is such a load. Nobody dropped any gauntlet. Nineteen crazy Muslims in a make-shift Air Force of four pirated airliners created unbelievable havoc on a beautiful September morning. So what do _we_ do? Maybe we should have checked with the patent holders on this sort of thing: five other crazy Muslims who, with far less destruction but far greater consequence, committed an act of terror 87 years prior in Sarajevo. Those that then picked up your gauntlet created another thoroughly needless war, but of such horror and death that it's never yet been equaled. We didn't learn very much from that apparently. The crap that we created in the Middle East, including doubling the amount of American dead of 9.11, maiming tens of thousands of Americans for life plus killing over 100,000 Middle Easterners, lives on and continues to fan the flames of a vile hatred, both within and without, of the worst government this country has ever had.


Well, fancy that...the most extreme examples of an understatement and overstatement I've yet to become aware of...and both included in the same post. I can but stare in wonder and yet, am not surprised!


----------



## Peak and Pine

^Be more specific please.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

If Frenchie keeps pissing off Muslim sensibilites, she could be next. 

They'll deserve it though, just like we did. 



Hey, watch it there Frenchie, you'll ruin your tie!!


----------



## KenR

lovemeparis said:


> Well, New York City is still very lucky compared to Hiroshima.


So am I. I might not be here to type this if a nuclear device was set off in NYC. But WWII is different scenario than today.


----------



## Wildblue

VictorRomeo said:


> America(and their special friend) did invade two Muslim countries in recent years.... Does that not count? War of Terror indeed.


 Uh... now wait a minute... of all the reasons I've heard to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, you're now saying that the reason America did so is because they are _Muslim_?

Wow.


----------



## Wildblue

I still don't get the rhetoric from the Center supporters, both here and around the world.

The complaint has been lodged, "You can't call it a mosque! Not fair! It's not a mosque!" ... but the developers themselves call it a mosque. Perhaps you need to enlighten them, that you believe they don't even know their own building plan?

The claim has been made, "Most New Yorkers support this mosque", right before the dual protests occurred, showing opposition significantly stronger than support.

And now Bloomberg comes back, again making claims that New York is in support of this mosque. Then he goes on to say, not only that this is only being highlighted because it's an election year, (uh... so Mayor, you believe Americans only feel pain from the slaughter of 9/11 in election years?) but then goes so far to insult his people and the rest of America, claiming that people "don't really care" about this issue, but are only speaking out about it for political gain? Screw you, Bloomberg! Maybe you don't give a rats behind about the mass murder that occurred in your own city on 9/11, but it sure as heck means a lot to me! Oh, and as far as your claims that New Yorkers still overhwelmingly want this mosque built as planned? Let's see what your own liberal media research the New York Times discovered about that:
https://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/poll-most-new-yorkers-want-islamic-center-moved/19620035

That's actually a quite interesting article with information beyond just whether New Yorkers want it there or not, but also goes into acknowledged biases and emotions, too, the good, bad, and ugly.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Wildblue said:


> That's actually a quite interesting article with information beyond just whether New Yorkers want it there or not, but also goes into acknowledged biases and emotions, too, the good, bad, and ugly.


Hey WB nice of you to chime in again, meant to say "nice hat" on the other thread.

What are you doing back in Iraq??

Haven't you heard??

War's over!! 

Next thing you know, you'll say you are going to Korea, Germany, Japan or the Philippines!!


----------



## camorristi

Wildblue said:


> I still don't get the rhetoric from the Center supporters, both here and around the world.
> 
> The complaint has been lodged, "You can't call it a mosque! Not fair! It's not a mosque!" ... but the developers themselves call it a mosque. Perhaps you need to enlighten them, that you believe they don't even know their own building plan?
> 
> The claim has been made, "Most New Yorkers support this mosque", right before the dual protests occurred, showing opposition significantly stronger than support.
> 
> And now Bloomberg comes back, again making claims that New York is in support of this mosque. Then he goes on to say, not only that this is only being highlighted because it's an election year, (uh... so Mayor, you believe Americans only feel pain from the slaughter of 9/11 in election years?) but then goes so far to insult his people and the rest of America, claiming that people "don't really care" about this issue, but are only speaking out about it for political gain? Screw you, Bloomberg! Maybe you don't give a rats behind about the mass murder that occurred in your own city on 9/11, but it sure as heck means a lot to me! Oh, and as far as your claims that New Yorkers still overhwelmingly want this mosque built as planned? Let's see what your own liberal media research the New York Times discovered about that:
> https://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/poll-most-new-yorkers-want-islamic-center-moved/19620035
> 
> That's actually a quite interesting article with information beyond just whether New Yorkers want it there or not, but also goes into acknowledged biases and emotions, too, the good, bad, and ugly.


Your shallow mentality is a disastrous consequence of President Palin's ideologies :devil:. The mayor of NYC, and the majority of New Yorkers approve of the mosque, where do you get off thinking that your opinion matters?! :icon_scratch: Now, If you hate Islam :devil:, that's another issue. I would at least respect the office that Bloomberg holds, but vomiting biased lies won't even serve your cause:devil:. I don't know how stupid you have to be for not understanding the political motives behind the mosque opposition:devil:.

*Pelosi supports probe of mosque opponents*


----------



## Enron

Usually when a poster starts spouting "liberal media" in any political discussion, I know to just stop reading right there and shake my head. In another life before I dedicated myself to the Dark Lord of 401ks, I was a member of that supposed "liberal" media for 7 years. Let me tell you right here and now, the "liberal media" isn't nearly as liberal as you'd like to believe. 

It's hilarious; right-wingers have been railing on and on about a liberal media conspiracy for years and years, and bleeding heart liberals accuse the media of being bought and paid for by conservative and corporate interests.


----------



## Jovan

__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## Peak and Pine

eagle2250 said:


> Well, fancy that...the most extreme examples of an understatement and overstatement I've yet to become aware of...and both included in the same post. I can but stare in wonder and yet, am not surprised!





Peak and Pine said:


> ^Be more specific please.


Still waiting.


----------



## Wildblue

WouldaShoulda said:


> Hey WB nice of you to chime in again, meant to say "nice hat" on the other thread.
> 
> What are you doing back in Iraq??
> 
> Haven't you heard??
> 
> War's over!!
> 
> Next thing you know, you'll say you are going to Korea, Germany, Japan or the Philippines!!


Hey, dude! Thanks... I'm one of the 50,000 remaining that is working in the field with the Iraqi people, training and advising. Nothing has changed here for me in the last couple of months. The job just rolls on. I would hope no accusations get thrown out here of "waging a war on Islam".  (I know the alluded poster in question, and I'm pretty positive that's not what he meant to imply)

Since the question might come up in regards to this discussion here, yes, we bend over BACKWARDS here, to respect and adapt to the cultures here that are not our own. I'll just say that we're looking forward to the end of Ramadan this week, if only for the reason of the cultural restrictions that it places on everyone here and how daily routines need to change.


----------



## lovemeparis

*It's all about wars*



KenR said:


> So am I. I might not be here to type this if a nuclear device was set off in NYC. *But WWII is different scenario than today*.


Of course, because it's two different wars!

p.s. thanks for correcting my grammar.


----------



## camorristi

Something to lighten up this debate:


----------



## ZachGranstrom

^^^^





:icon_cheers::icon_cheers::icon_cheers:


----------



## JJR512

ZachGranstrom FTW.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Meh. Sappy, even for the 70s.	

"Imagine no possessions 
I wonder if you can 
No need for greed or hunger 
A brotherhood of man"

Cringe.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Wildblue said:


> Uh... now wait a minute... of all the reasons I've heard to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, you're now saying that the reason America did so is because they are _Muslim_?
> 
> Wow.


Now, c'mon WB...... You know me better than that.... I can do glib too....


----------



## Pentheos

Hey Mods—aren't all these pictures and videos a waste of Andy's bandwidth?


----------



## beherethen

camorristi said:


> the majority of New Yorkers approve of the mosque,


Um er didn't Wildblue just post a NY Times article entitled

*Poll: Most New Yorkers Want Islamic Center Moved*

If the facts make you unhappy, such is the will of Allah:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


----------



## camorristi

beherethen said:


> Um er didn't Wildblue just post a NY Times article entitled
> 
> *Poll: Most New Yorkers Want Islamic Center Moved*
> 
> If the facts make you unhappy, such is the will of Allah:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


Well, too bad their politically motivated opinions do not matter at this point. It's someone's private property, and they can build whatever they want on it. But hey, you quote your favorite communist.


----------



## lovemeparis

*The Will of Allah*



beherethen said:


> If the facts make you unhappy, such is *the will of Allah*:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


Well, I guess you are right.

https://www.middletownjournal.com/n...ngofkingsstatue2_709905c.jpg&superSizeImage=y

MONROE - Charred remnants remained this morning, June 15, of the large Jesus statue iconic to Interstate 75 that was destroyed following an apparent lightning strike during a thunderstorm late Monday night.


----------



## Wildblue

camorristi said:


> Well, too bad their politically motivated opinions do not matter at this point.


Huh? Why are opinions and rights SO important whenever it's the Muslims, but yet if the rest of America has any opinions or feelings, you and Mayor Bloomberg portray it as "obviously bigotry, and/or politically motivated"?

How DARE we be hurt by Muslim actions! In today's politically correct world, we're not allowed to have thoughts, feelings, or opinions of our own! If we have an opinion, it's got to be to because some politician is telling us to feel that way!  Whatever. You guys make these grand claims that "New York is all in favor of this mosque center!" Or "The vast majority of America wants this mosque!" But when that turns out not to be true at all, you say, "oh, well, then their opinions are just politically motivated, and they don't matter".  I'll also point out that Republicans have come out in favor of this Islamic center. Some Democrats are opposed. I supposed each of those are also politically motivated for some twisted reason?



> It's someone's private property, and they can build whatever they want on it. But hey, you quote your favorite communist


... and still you guys don't get the point. OF COURSE they can do whatever is legal to do. If they are legal to build the property, then they have the legal right. But just because ANYTHING is legal, doesn't make it respectful, right, or sensitive.


----------



## Jovan

Pentheos said:


> Hey Mods-aren't all these pictures and videos a waste of Andy's bandwidth?


Nope.


----------



## JJR512

Jovan said:


> Nope.


And to elaborate, the pictures (were there videos? I must have missed them) posted in a message don't use Andy's bandwidth because they're not actually on this website. Unless the image is actually attached to a post-in which case you'd see a thumbnail of it, or an attachment link-the image that you see is still stored on some other website's server, and this website (AAAC) merely asks that website to send it to your computer to display on your screen.

For example, if you look at the address for this image, you see it's coming from: https://www.lostrepublic.us/Graphics/DoubleFacePalm.jpg


----------



## beherethen

lovemeparis said:


> Well, I guess you are right.
> 
> https://www.middletownjournal.com/n...ngofkingsstatue2_709905c.jpg&superSizeImage=y
> 
> MONROE - Charred remnants remained this morning, June 15, of the large Jesus statue iconic to Interstate 75 that was destroyed following an apparent lightning strike during a thunderstorm late Monday night.


God just probably thought it was time for the Christians to have a new and bigger/better "Big Butter Jesus". The money was probably raised this morning before I got up. Such is the will of Allah:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


----------



## Chouan

This is thought provoking on this topic.....
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...ild-library-next-to-sarah-palin-201008193017/


----------



## beherethen

Chouan said:


> This is thought provoking on this topic.....
> https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...ild-library-next-to-sarah-palin-201008193017/


Why people in other countries are concerned about what goes on American soil is beyond me. As this thought provoking article came from the UK, I'd like to offer another UK article. This is offered as all things with the will of Allah:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11182225


----------



## Pentheos

Chouan said:


> This is thought provoking on this topic.....
> https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...ild-library-next-to-sarah-palin-201008193017/


That's like an Onion article...for those who didn't graduate high school.


----------



## Wildblue

Chouan said:


> This is thought provoking on this topic.....
> https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...ild-library-next-to-sarah-palin-201008193017/


... and once again you as a Brit give a big middle finger to anything American. Yay for you. Great contribution to this thread.


----------



## Enron

Well, Sarah Palin_* IS*_ retarded, but that article reads like it was written by a 6th grader.


----------



## VictorRomeo

beherethen said:


> Why people in other countries are concerned about what goes on American soil is beyond me. As this thought provoking article came from the UK, I'd like to offer another UK article. This is offered as all things with the will of Allah:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11182225


Y'know Blair is not exactly held in the highest of esteem in these parts.... In fact the term pariah comes to mind.

Now, perhaps you chaps might change your opinion of the Daily Mash when you see their latest reader offer....


----------



## Chouan

Wildblue said:


> ... and once again you as a Brit give a big middle finger to anything American. Yay for you. Great contribution to this thread.


 Do you not get irony?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> Do you not get irony?


Don't you mean parody??

https://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/07/afghanistan-general-petraeus-quaran-burning.html

Shouldn't any one opposing burn a Qur'an day be lectured about the right the church has to sponsor such an event?? 

The top U.S. general and NATO commander in Afghanistan on Tuesday condemned plans by an American church to burn copies of the Qur'an on Sept. 11.
Gen. David Petraeus said burning the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops and Americans worldwide.
The small evangelical church - the Dove World Outreach Center based in Gainesville, Fla. - plans to burn copies of the Muslim holy book on Sept. 11, the ninth anniversary of the attacks on the U.S. The church has been denied a permit to hold a bonfire but has said it will go ahead with the burning.
"Images of the burning of a Qur'an would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan - and around the world - to inflame public opinion and incite violence," Petraeus said in an email to The Associated Press.
"I am very concerned by the potential repercussions of the possible (Qur'an) burning. Even the rumour that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul yesterday. Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."
The U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan has also condemned the church's plans.

No one seems to have an issue with questioning the lack of wisdom to do so!!


----------



## Chouan

WouldaShoulda said:


> Don't you mean parody??


Indeed.


----------



## Chouan

Just for some balance.....
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...athe-each-other-in-the-open-air-201009073068/


----------



## Jovan

I can't believe the Qu'ran burning is happening right in my town.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> I can't believe the Qu'ran burning is happening right in my town.


I recommend you petition them to move the burning further away so as not to offend you!!


----------



## beherethen

Jovan said:


> I can't believe the Qu'ran burning is happening right in my town.


Jovan-you've got to go-it's likely to be to most interesting thing to happen in Gainesville in decades. The only question is what to wear.


----------



## VictorRomeo

beherethen said:


> The only question is what to wear.


I suggest a crisp white Thobe with a matching white Ghutra, Igal and Tagiyah. Very smart. Saudi smart.

Of course you do run the risk that the Jesus freaks there will throw you on the bonfire.


----------



## JJR512

I wonder if I'm the only person who, upon seeing a post that merely contains a link to a news article or video, skips right on to the next post.

Consider a debate. Person A says, "Consider when Mr. So-and-so said, 'blah blah blah.' Clearly he meant whatever whatever whatever. I think that means we should do some other third thing. The statements made by Political Party X's leadership, made random number of days ago in the Local Unbiased Newspaper, back this up. And so on and so forth." Then Person B says, "Read the article in the Other Local Unbiased Newspaper." That's all Person B says. Who is going to win that debate? Person A will win.

My point? If there's something in some newspaper or some video you want me to think about it, then tell me what it is and why I should think about it. _You_ need to make the argument to me, not tell me where to go get it for myself. By all means, include a link to the article, but that link should function solely as a reference to back up what you're saying. If you're just going to be lazy and post _only_ a link (and "Read this" doesn't count as adding something more), then sorry, but I'm going to be lazy too and just skip right over your post.


----------



## Wildblue

So, let me ask this of those here that support the Manhatten Islamic Center/Mosque:

As referenced above, there is a church in Florida that, for some reason, plans on burning the Quran this weekend on the anniversary of 9/11. Already there is a MASSIVE outcry about this from Muslims around the world. Following the arguments that you all make in this thread, they have every First Amendment constitutional legal right to burn the Quran, right? Would you then encourage them to do this? Do you think it's right? Is there ANY need for respect or sensitivity here?

Following the arguments that the supporters here make, Muslims need to be sensitive to the Florida church and support their right to burn the Quran. There's no need for the Florida church to consider the feelings of Muslims, and how their actions affect the Muslim culture. Taking the direct comparative statements that have been made here in this thread, "Any negative Muslim reaction to the Florida church burning Qurans must be politically motivated, and their opinions do not matter. The church has a legal right to burn the Quran. End of story."

Just because they CAN legally burn the Quran, do you think they SHOULD?


----------



## Wildblue

Chouan said:


> Do you not get irony?


Oh, I get it alright, and some of the stuff you post is even amusing. I can laugh at the expense of my own country sometimes. But you continue to post things that do nothing but ridicule America, and I fail to see how it has any substantive contribution to the actual debate on this topic.

Perhaps you would care if others posted continual articles displaying complete contempt of England.


----------



## JJR512

Wildblue said:


> So, let me ask this of those here that support the Manhatten Islamic Center/Mosque:
> 
> As referenced above, there is a church in Florida that, for some reason, plans on burning the Quran this weekend on the anniversary of 9/11. Already there is a MASSIVE outcry about this from Muslims around the world. Following the arguments that you all make in this thread, they have every First Amendment constitutional legal right to burn the Quran, right? Would you then encourage them to do this? Do you think it's right? Is there ANY need for respect or sensitivity here?
> 
> Following the arguments that the supporters here make, Muslims need to be sensitive to the Florida church and support their right to burn the Quran. There's no need for the Florida church to consider the feelings of Muslims, and how their actions affect the Muslim culture. Taking the direct comparative statements that have been made here in this thread, "Any negative Muslim reaction to the Florida church burning Qurans must be politically motivated, and their opinions do not matter. The church has a legal right to burn the Quran. End of story."
> 
> Just because they CAN legally burn the Quran, do you think they SHOULD?


First, let me reiterate my distinction between supporting the mosque and supporting the right to build the mosque. There is a difference. Like our President, I have never stated whether I personally "support the [mosque]". So technically, I may not even be in the group of people to which you are explicitly referring. However, what I _do_ support is their right to build it.

I support the right of Muslims to build that mosque (or whatever it's being called this week) in that location. I support the right of people to say they don't like it.

And yes, I support the right of this church to burn books. That's their right, and in legal terms, that's is indeed "end of story".

As for your question of should they: If they feel it makes a statement, and that's the statement they want to make, and they can think of no better way to make that statement, and they can afford the cost of making it, then sure they should do it. So what if it hurts somebody's feelings? There are over 300 million people in this country and over six billion in the world. It's kind of hard to do anything without hurting somebody's feelings. Posting messages on a clothing forum is probably hurting somebody's feelings. Talking about feelings getting hurt is probably hurting somebody's feelings. The way you're sitting in your chair is probably hurting somebody's feelings. I'd tell the Muslims who don't like this "hey that's too bad" just the same as I'd tell the Muslim-hating bigots in this thread that don't like this mosque "hey that's too bad".

This topic (book burning) has its own thread, and I've already stated my opinion there. I won't talk about this book burning again in this thread.


----------



## Wildblue

JJR512 said:


> First, let me reiterate my distinction between supporting the mosque and supporting the right to build the mosque. There is a difference. Like our President, I have never stated whether I personally "support the [mosque]". So technically, I may not even be in the group of people to which you are explicitly referring. However, what I _do_ support is their right to build it.
> 
> I support the right of Muslims to build that mosque (or whatever it's being called this week) in that location. I support the right of people to say they don't like it.
> 
> And yes, I support the right of this church to burn books. That's their right, and in legal terms, that's is indeed "end of story".
> 
> As for your question of should they: If they feel it makes a statement, and that's the statement they want to make, and they can think of no better way to make that statement, and they can afford the cost of making it, then sure they should do it. So what if it hurts somebody's feelings? There are over 300 million people in this country and over six billion in the world. It's kind of hard to do anything without hurting somebody's feelings. Posting messages on a clothing forum is probably hurting somebody's feelings. Talking about feelings getting hurt is probably hurting somebody's feelings. The way you're sitting in your chair is probably hurting somebody's feelings. I'd tell the Muslims who don't like this "hey that's too bad" just the same as I'd tell the Muslim-hating bigots in this thread that don't like this mosque "hey that's too bad".
> 
> This topic (book burning) has its own thread, and I've already stated my opinion there. I won't talk about this book burning again in this thread.


Justin, I'm not understanding your arguments. (really--I'm not just being provocative) And I understand if you'd rather not talk about the Quran burning here as a comparison, so no worries if no reply. But you (and others here) have talked about how we need to have more compassion and understanding among dissimilar cultures,, and envision a future where these various cultures (i.e. mainstream America and Islam) can co-exist easily without conflict. I hope I get that part right, because I generally agree with that, and also hope for future peace.

If that's the case, though, then I don't understand how you can argue that the Florida church SHOULD burn the Quran in defiance of Muslim culture, any more than the Muslim planners SHOULD build the Center/Mosque a block and a half away from the WTC in defiance of the rest of American culture.

You and I both are agree that the Muslim planners have just as much 1st Amendment legal right to build the Center/Mosque where they want, as the Florida church has to burn the Quran. And as you say, I ALSO support and defend the rights of both groups to do so. But if you hope for a future of co-existence, how can you argue that beyond the legal basis, there is no need to consider the culture of others and the impact your actions have? All of us acting only based on "what is legal" is no way to build a community at all, even inside our own cultures, much less those of others! We are interlinked, and I think these topics show an excellent example of that!

The Muslim planners building this 11 story Islamic megacenter a block and a half away from the WTC shows a blatant contempt for the rest of American culture. This Florida church sees this, and says, "screw them! They don't respect us, we won't repect them! Let's burn the Quran." To which, Muslims around the world are already reacting, even BEFORE this mosque is built, or the Qurans are burned, and are rising up against Westerners. I myself, right here in Iraq, am seeing the effects of this, with increased Mulsim anger towards Westerners. This is about to break out into some nasty violence.

Holy crap, people! We need to have respect on BOTH sides! This is not just a, "America has to have respect for Islam" one-way street. Muslims needs to respect other cultures too--American, French, British, Chinese, Argentinian, etc!!!


----------



## Jovan

beherethen said:


> Jovan-you've got to go-it's likely to be to most interesting thing to happen in Gainesville in decades. The only question is what to wear.


 Has everyone forgotten about, "Don't tase me, bro!" so quickly?


----------



## Wildblue

Oh, dear--now Mayor Bloomberg has come out supporting the Florida church's rights to burn the Quran. (huh... what authority does the NYC Mayor have to talk about legal rights in Florida?) Since he did the same thing with the WTC center/mosque, at least he's consistent, there. Why is it though, that in THIS case, he's actually worried about the Muslims, the impact it's going to have on them, and the consequences it'll have, but for the mosque in his own city, he has no regard for the impact it has on his own constituents? He says their opposition is only "politically motivated", discounts it outright. Yet when the tables are turned, he gives great credit to the opinions of the Muslims.

Great leader.

https://news.oneindia.in/2010/09/08/burn-quran-day-ny-mayor-defends-pastors-right.html

Maybe, just maybe, instead of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg focusing so much on what things are LEGAL, they should consider what the RIGHT thing is to do?


----------



## lovemeparis

*Ask Andy About What to Wear*



beherethen said:


> The only question is *what to wear?*.


Easy question!


----------



## JJR512

The main point of what I wrote was the part that you said we both agree on, which is that the First Amendment protects the rights of both groups to do what they're planning on doing.



Wildblue said:


> If that's the case, though, then I don't understand how you can argue that the Florida church SHOULD burn the Quran in defiance of Muslim culture, any more than the Muslim planners SHOULD build the Center/Mosque a block and a half away from the WTC in defiance of the rest of American culture.


I am not arguing that the Florida church should burn the Koran. Not in any kind of supportive way. When I wrote, "If they feel it makes a statement, and that's the statement they want to make, and they can think of no better way to make that statement, and they can afford the cost of making it, then sure they should do it," I meant that more from their point of view. In other words, if they feel they've satisfied all those qualifiers to get to the point where they feel burning the Koran is the best option left available to them, then from their point of view, that's what they should do. I did not mean to indicate that it's what I, personally, feel they should do.

As for the whole "you disrespected us, so now we'll disrespect you" concept...Since when can an eight-year-old become a church pastor/minister (or whatever this church's leader is)?


----------



## Enron

Anyone comparing people who simply want a place of worship/community center to the actions of a church deliberately burning books in order to do nothing more but insult and piss off others is off their rocker.


----------



## Wildblue

JJR512 said:


> As for the whole "you disrespected us, so now we'll disrespect you" concept...Since when can an eight-year-old become a church pastor/minister (or whatever this church's leader is)?


Exactly. But that's just what this is turning into! The Muslim leaders are showing great contempt for the rest of America by blazing ahead with their plans, regardless of what it's doing to America. So this church says, "now we're going to disrespect you", and burn the Quran. So next some Muslim here in the Middle East, Afghanistan, or elsewhere is going to say, "you disrespected us, so I'm now obligated to kill an American!!!" Shouldn't we be looking to STOP this process, rather than inflame it?



Enron said:


> Anyone comparing people who simply want a place of worship/community center to the actions of a church deliberately burning books in order to do nothing more but insult and piss off others is off their rocker.


And why is that? Clearly these Islamic leaders don't "simply want a place of worship/commuinty". They've already got worship centers, with unlimited places around to build more. They've even received offers to FUND moving this center elsewhere to build. But no, regardless of the feelings of New Yorkers, IN SPITE of the feelings and input of the rest of America, they stubbornly INSIST they are going to build right there, the closest they can get to the WTC. Neither the center/mosque construction, nor the Quran burning is going to directly harm any person. But they BOTH are directly contemptful and insulting to other cultures.

The difference that I see is that burning the Quran has no redeeming worldly purpose that I can see. In contrast, the Islamic megacenter/mosque will provide Muslim services. Does that, however, make it any less disrespectful to the rest of American culture? Just because there are good things about it, doesn't mean it's not a BAD decision, building in the WRONG place.


----------



## Wildblue

I do want to make one thing clear--between the Muslim planner insistence to press ahead with the center/mosque as planned, and the planned burning of the Qurans, NEITHER ONE JUSTIFIES CARRYING OUT THE OTHER, NOR ANY FORCEFUL RETALIATION AGAINST ANY PARTY.

I'm not getting a good feeling at all about how this is proceeding. If at least one party doesn't change course, (I personally hope that both will, as the right thing) I sadly think we will not make it through this weekend without not only physical violence, but somewhere in the world, people will be killed over this. This is not right. We're headed down the wrong path. None of this is worth violence, but I fear that is exactly what is about to erupt. I pray to God for peace.


----------



## Enron

Wildblue said:


> And why is that? Clearly these Islamic leaders don't "simply want a place of worship/commuinty". They've already got worship centers, with unlimited places around to build more. They've even received offers to FUND moving this center elsewhere to build. But no, regardless of the feelings of New Yorkers, IN SPITE of the feelings and input of the rest of America, they stubbornly INSIST they are going to build right there, the closest they can get to the WTC. Neither the center/mosque construction, nor the Quran burning is going to directly harm any person. But they BOTH are directly contemptful and insulting to other cultures.


Amazing. You continue to equate the desecration of one religion's holy book as THE SAME THING as wanting to build a house of worship.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Enron: Your's is a bit of an over simplification of the proposed construction, wouldn't ya say?


----------



## Peak and Pine

No it is not. I've just finished a very wordy breakfast: reading the exchanges between Wildblue and JJR512 and it struck me akin to a talk show where they have to fill out the time and so they s-t-r-e-t-c-h when the whole thing could be parsed in a moment or two, as Enron's just done.


----------



## Wildblue

Enron said:


> Amazing. You continue to equate the desecration of one religion's holy book as THE SAME THING as wanting to build a house of worship.


No, they're not the same thing. If anything, I think the Quran burning is more inflammatory. (pun not at all intended) I'm saying, though, that although they both are legally protected by the 1st Amendement, they both show great contempt for other cultures.


----------



## Wildblue

More news today. The planned Imam has come out, STILL insisting that he has got to go ahead with his plans, and HAS to build the center/mosque right there, as planned, despite the majority of NYC and America trying to tell him the pain he's causing with his plans. This is the part that I find insulting:



> "I am very sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11, as are my fellow leaders of many faiths. We will accordingly seek the support of those families, and the support of our vibrant neighborhood, as we consider the ultimate plans for the community center. Our objective has always been to make this a center for unification and healing."


How can he claim he's "sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11", when he is specifically IGNORING the pain he's causing, that the public is CLAMORING about? Notice very carefully, too, that he says he will "seek the support of those families, and the support of our vibrant neighborhood", first, conceeding that he does NOT currently have this support, and second, again saying that he is going to go ahead with this regardless, and he wants 9/11 victim families and the neighborhood to support HIM. Not that he will LISTEN to the families and neighborhood, and consider moving the center/mosque if that is what's needed. No, he seeks their support for him.

That's not respect. That's saying, "I'm going to do what I'm going to do, and then I'm going to make a great effort to make you respect ME." Muslims HAVE to learn that tolerance and respect is a 2-way street. It can not just be, "you must tolerate me. You must change your culture for me. You must change your laws to include mine." (not specific to this event, but a topic happening in Europe) We must ALL listen to each other and show respect, then decide to do the right thing, not just the thing we have the legal right to do.

The news article goes on,



> "Freedom of religion is a hallmark of this country," said Ingrid Mattson, head of the Islamic Society of North America. It is time to decide "whether we are going to live up to our values."


Very good. And if the Florida Church burns the Quran this weekend, will Muslims abide by the same freedom of religion?


----------



## beherethen

The Faithful would never do anything as offensive as burning an artifact of someone else's culture.


----------



## Pentheos

I want to know, did they have a permit for this burning?



beherethen said:


> The Faithful would never do anything as offensive as burning an artifact of someone else's culture.


----------



## Wildblue

Anybody else noticing that when something like radical Quran burning is even considered, Americans and Christians around the world immediately come out in strong public condemnation--Hillary Clinton, Glenn Beck, the Pope, politicians, religious leaders, public, etc. But when extremists murder people through bombings, beheadings, etc in the name of Islam, what reaction do you hear from Muslims?


----------



## Wildblue

After all this time, I am STILL waiting for a reply from the supporters of this mosque center. You proclaimed that most Americans support this mosque center. You proclaimed that most New Yorkers support this mosque center. Then, when both of those were shown to be not true, you proclaimed that public opinion doesn't matter, and that the public only thinks the way they do to promote a politcal agenda.

So which is it?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Wildblue said:


> So which is it?


HA!!

Too easy.

They think that public opinion doesn't matter, and they only think the way they do to promote a politcal agenda!!


----------



## Chouan

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the Islamic centre will contain a Mosque, a Church, and a Synagogue, in that rooms will be put aside for Christian, Muslim, and Judaic worship, within the centre. 
How provocative is that!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the Islamic centre will contain a Mosque, a Church, and a Synagogue, in that rooms will be put aside for Christian, Muslim, and Judaic worship, within the centre.
> How provocative is that!


I would be interested in a link that describes such a plan prior to the brouhaha.


----------



## Chouan

Channel 4 news in Britain ran a feature on it about 10 days ago, which included that information.


----------



## Wildblue

So let's see... the "intellectual elite" claimed that this was only a political issue, and after the elections, nobody would care anymore. Let's see... let me check... it's now a week after the elections... do I still care? <poking myself> You bet your a$$, I do.

Like anybody else, I can't control what gets put in the news. But I certainly know what I care about and what I don't.


----------



## Pentheos

Title of thread: "the Mr. Obama's stance"

Can't believe I didn't notice that until now.


----------



## JJR512

Wildblue said:


> So let's see... the "intellectual elite" claimed that this was only a political issue, and after the elections, nobody would care anymore. Let's see... let me check... it's now a week after the elections... do I still care? <poking myself> You bet your a$$, I do.
> 
> Like anybody else, I can't control what gets put in the news. But I certainly know what I care about and what I don't.


I've never been accused of being part of the "intellectual elite" so I'm fairly certain you weren't referring to, or thinking of, me. I also do not believe I ever said that once the elections were over, everybody would instantly cease to care, so again, I'm pretty sure you're weren't thinking of me when you wrote this.

However, I do recall saying something to the effect that I suspected that due to this being an election year, this issue was made much larger than it otherwise might have been. Whether that's true or not, we'll probably never know. Whether it had any effect on anything or not, such as if any election results went a certain way because of politicians making a big deal about this, we'll certainly never know.


----------

