On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote: Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself.
Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology.
I agree. Can we take all the Catholic churches out of Oklahoma City too?
I assume you're being sarcastic, and that you are referring to some historical event that I can't pinpoint. Regardless of past events I stand by what I am saying. It is how I would like things to be, even if it isn't realistic, and even if the average bigot protesting the mosque does not understand the consequences of applying his own standards to himself.
He's talking about the Oklahoma city bombings, so no, he's not being sarcastic. He is however wrong because Timothy McVeigh did not commit those bombings in the name of God.
However, excluding 9/11, almost all of the domestic terrorism in this country has been from people considering themselves devout "Christians" - most notoriously KKK members / white supremacists, but also people who blow up abortion clinics and such. However, just because they do terrible things in the name of God doesn't mean that normal members of that religion can't have religious centers near the place where some terrorist act happened.
Read up on some of the groups - some you'll already know but there are plenty more out there. There have actually been way more attacks than I knew of myself.
I am not particularly fond of christianity either, and I don't believe in religion myself. I do think todays Islam is worse for a variety of reasons, but not by much.
Actually the fact that he was talking about the Oklahoma city bombings does make him sarcastic. He is rolling his eyes and saying calling me a bigot for speaking up about the mosque and not saying anything about churches in Oklahoma. What he doesn't realize is that, if the situation was similar(you are saying it isn't, I am not familiar enough with it to know), I would say the same thing about building a church right where the bombs went off.
I am perfectly okay with them having religious centers near ground zero. I started my second post in this thread by saying that. My argument is based on the theoretical situation where it was placed right on top of ground zero, to make a point to the first guy quoting me. Then you jumped in without having read it from the start. It is understandable, that's how message boards work.
On September 13 2010 06:08 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Well as i said im not in tip top form today. I mightve not understood everything exactly the way you meant it. My point was that i dont think anyone should reduce a religion with 1.6 billion members to a few thousand extremists.
I have done no such thing, even if I do believe the number of extremists(depending on what you define as extremist) is significantly higher than a few thousand. Suppose you have a pet, and I am a member of some animal protection group. I kill you and free your pet. Are every member of animal protection groups like me? Certainly not. I am the extremist, they are just regular people who like animals. Would it now be appropriate that they sang animal freedom songs on your tomb? If your parents told them to stop singing on your tomb, would they be calling them murderers too?
You mean 2 block away from my tomb? Lets make it 10 is that far enough? Or 20? Its not only that its disrespectful of THEIR religion but also of THEIR losses. Like i said, im quite sure there were a lot of (innocent) muslims that lost their lives on 9/11. How exactly would you think they would react if a christian church was allowed to be built near ground zero but not a muslim mosque (or rather community center because thats what it is if im not mistaken). Thats not exactly what i call religious freedom.
No, I am talking about right on top of your tomb. I feared this might happen. In my first post in this thread, I emphasised that I was arguing from the assumption that it was ON ground zero. I started by saying that since it is two blocks away, it is alright to build the mosque.
As for the other things you wrote, I feel like you are straying too far away from my argument and trying to turn me into something I am not by giving me opinions I have never had, so I am done arguing with you.
So you're hypothetically arguing about "if the mosque was on Ground Zero then this would be my opinion?" What?
----------
All I'm suggesting is that we let the 1.57 million people who are Muslims and aren't extremists have the same rights the rest of us do.
On September 13 2010 06:08 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Well as i said im not in tip top form today. I mightve not understood everything exactly the way you meant it. My point was that i dont think anyone should reduce a religion with 1.6 billion members to a few thousand extremists.
I have done no such thing, even if I do believe the number of extremists(depending on what you define as extremist) is significantly higher than a few thousand. Suppose you have a pet, and I am a member of some animal protection group. I kill you and free your pet. Are every member of animal protection groups like me? Certainly not. I am the extremist, they are just regular people who like animals. Would it now be appropriate that they sang animal freedom songs on your tomb? If your parents told them to stop singing on your tomb, would they be calling them murderers too?
You mean 2 block away from my tomb? Lets make it 10 is that far enough? Or 20? Its not only that its disrespectful of THEIR religion but also of THEIR losses. Like i said, im quite sure there were a lot of (innocent) muslims that lost their lives on 9/11. How exactly would you think they would react if a christian church was allowed to be built near ground zero but not a muslim mosque (or rather community center because thats what it is if im not mistaken). Thats not exactly what i call religious freedom.
No, I am talking about right on top of your tomb. I feared this might happen. In my first post in this thread, I emphasised that I was arguing from the assumption that it was ON ground zero. I started by saying that since it is two blocks away, it is alright to build the mosque.
As for the other things you wrote, I feel like you are straying too far away from my argument and trying to turn me into something I am not by giving me opinions I have never had, so I am done arguing with you.
So you're hypothetically arguing about "if the mosque was on Ground Zero then this would be my opinion?" What?
As for your picture, it just strengthens my belief that you don't understand what I am saying. It is not a rights issue at all. It is obviously clear that they would be within their rights to do it, the question is whether it is reasonable to not like it. If you haven't understood that by now I doubt another wall of text will make it happen. Re-read my argument and try to understand it.
Look at him walking along acting like a badass. Exactly what's wrong with people against the Ground Zero community center. Cycles of hatred and ignorance have to end eventually, let's start working towards ending the hate towards Muslims now.
Usually cycles of hate end when one side completely obliterates, conquers, and assimilates another, OR when a common enemy arises. Radical Islam will never have a common enemy to us (discounting space aliens coming and attacking us or something ridiculously outlandish like that). You realize we're in an ideological war right now? This is a war that the other side will not give up, EVER.
The real world doesn't work in your idealogical fairy tale way. There are crazy fuckers out there who want to kill every man woman and child in this country. We can't turn the other cheek to that.
Now as I've said before, I just think this mosque is in bad taste. Trying to push it forward is in bad taste. Just move the location of the damn thing and respect the lives of over 3000 people who died to an ideology which, while it might not be the same as those building the mosque, is certainly related. People overreact with ignorance and hatred from both sides, but really, these guys could see this coming a mile away - they just like the attention.
Now please, don't get me wrong here. I don't hate muslims. I don't really know many, but I have one friend who is a muslim from Egypt. He's a regular guy and honestly I could care less about what his religious beliefs are. It doesn't matter.
I DO hate radical Islam (which, I might point out, is actually the "true" form of Islam, and non-radicals just don't follow half of the Quran.) Yes, radical Christianity is full of crazy wackos who are just as violent and dangerous. But, radical Islam exists in entire countries, and is a much greater organized threat to our free society. Any ideology that demands we are destroyed in a holy crusade - well that's worth hating isn't it?
So all you hippies out there who believe in tolerance and kindness and all that stuff - how will you feel when Ahmed Muhammad detonates himself in your mall, ripping your family into pieces in a second, leaving you maimed and disfigured forever? This is what they want to do to us. How can you not hate that and be a sensible human being?
I can tell your expertise in religious studies is exactly none. You and Huntington make a nice couple.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if people needed credentials to make their opinions public? Wikipedia University does not count.
On September 13 2010 06:08 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Well as i said im not in tip top form today. I mightve not understood everything exactly the way you meant it. My point was that i dont think anyone should reduce a religion with 1.6 billion members to a few thousand extremists.
I have done no such thing, even if I do believe the number of extremists(depending on what you define as extremist) is significantly higher than a few thousand. Suppose you have a pet, and I am a member of some animal protection group. I kill you and free your pet. Are every member of animal protection groups like me? Certainly not. I am the extremist, they are just regular people who like animals. Would it now be appropriate that they sang animal freedom songs on your tomb? If your parents told them to stop singing on your tomb, would they be calling them murderers too?
You mean 2 block away from my tomb? Lets make it 10 is that far enough? Or 20? Its not only that its disrespectful of THEIR religion but also of THEIR losses. Like i said, im quite sure there were a lot of (innocent) muslims that lost their lives on 9/11. How exactly would you think they would react if a christian church was allowed to be built near ground zero but not a muslim mosque (or rather community center because thats what it is if im not mistaken). Thats not exactly what i call religious freedom.
No, I am talking about right on top of your tomb. I feared this might happen. In my first post in this thread, I emphasised that I was arguing from the assumption that it was ON ground zero. I started by saying that since it is two blocks away, it is alright to build the mosque.
As for the other things you wrote, I feel like you are straying too far away from my argument and trying to turn me into something I am not by giving me opinions I have never had, so I am done arguing with you.
So you're hypothetically arguing about "if the mosque was on Ground Zero then this would be my opinion?" What?
If I hypothetically had the time to read your posts again, I'd argue that the fact that they are hypothetical makes them irrelevant. I prefer to keep it real.
On September 13 2010 06:08 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Well as i said im not in tip top form today. I mightve not understood everything exactly the way you meant it. My point was that i dont think anyone should reduce a religion with 1.6 billion members to a few thousand extremists.
I have done no such thing, even if I do believe the number of extremists(depending on what you define as extremist) is significantly higher than a few thousand. Suppose you have a pet, and I am a member of some animal protection group. I kill you and free your pet. Are every member of animal protection groups like me? Certainly not. I am the extremist, they are just regular people who like animals. Would it now be appropriate that they sang animal freedom songs on your tomb? If your parents told them to stop singing on your tomb, would they be calling them murderers too?
You mean 2 block away from my tomb? Lets make it 10 is that far enough? Or 20? Its not only that its disrespectful of THEIR religion but also of THEIR losses. Like i said, im quite sure there were a lot of (innocent) muslims that lost their lives on 9/11. How exactly would you think they would react if a christian church was allowed to be built near ground zero but not a muslim mosque (or rather community center because thats what it is if im not mistaken). Thats not exactly what i call religious freedom.
No, I am talking about right on top of your tomb. I feared this might happen. In my first post in this thread, I emphasised that I was arguing from the assumption that it was ON ground zero. I started by saying that since it is two blocks away, it is alright to build the mosque.
As for the other things you wrote, I feel like you are straying too far away from my argument and trying to turn me into something I am not by giving me opinions I have never had, so I am done arguing with you.
So you're hypothetically arguing about "if the mosque was on Ground Zero then this would be my opinion?" What?
If I hypothetically had the time to read your posts again, I'd argue that the fact that they are hypothetical makes them irrelevant. I prefer to keep it real.
And I prefer to talk to people who read my argument before lashing out against it. The hypothetical situation made sense in the context of my original post, and you are the one who responded to me.
Well I still wouldn't have a problem if the Mosque was directly on Ground Zero. Provided everything happens legally, they have every right to pretty much build wherever they want. (I seriously doubt anyone would ever let anyone build a religious place there, but lets go with this non-real thing). They have every right. It doesn't matter if it pisses off everyone else. Their right is greater everyone else's anger. They can build it wherever and it wouldn't bother me. It would probably bother some people, but they need to realize the first amendment means that people can do things you disagree with, and you can't do anything about it.
On September 13 2010 06:59 Alou wrote: Well I still wouldn't have a problem if the Mosque was directly on Ground Zero. Provided everything happens legally, they have every right to pretty much build wherever they want. (I seriously doubt anyone would ever let anyone build a religious place there, but lets go with this non-real thing). They have every right. It doesn't matter if it pisses off everyone else. Their right is greater everyone else's anger. They can build it wherever and it wouldn't bother me. It would probably bother some people, but they need to realize the first amendment means that people can do things you disagree with, and you can't do anything about it.
The only problem I see with that is the space of Ground Zero would be reserved for a memorial But you're right, for religious tolerance to truly exist in this country there should be no problem if a mosque were to be built AT Ground Zero.
Extremists (involved in 9/11) = Muslims, Muslims != extremists. Why do people have such a hard time making that distinction?
On September 13 2010 06:59 Alou wrote: Well I still wouldn't have a problem if the Mosque was directly on Ground Zero. Provided everything happens legally, they have every right to pretty much build wherever they want. (I seriously doubt anyone would ever let anyone build a religious place there, but lets go with this non-real thing). They have every right. It doesn't matter if it pisses off everyone else. Their right is greater everyone else's anger. They can build it wherever and it wouldn't bother me. It would probably bother some people, but they need to realize the first amendment means that people can do things you disagree with, and you can't do anything about it.
You are absolutely right. It is within their rights. This has never been a debate about rights though, it's about whether or not it is reasonable to be offended by it. The first amendment means you have to suck it up if you are offended, but it doesn't mean you should not BE offended. It does not mean you can't do your best to stop something from happening if it offends you, it just means the state can't. As a matter of fact, being offended and talking about it is an important part of freedom of expression. I believe it is reasonable to be offended by a monument to Islam on the gravesite of people who were killed in the name of islam.
You see, I value the right to offend without persecution over the desire not to be offended, but that doesn't mean I can never take offense. I could say that I believe 9/11 is a minor thing compared to US crimes across the world and that I really don't have much sympathy for the native victims who ultimately share responsibility for the nations actions, and that's definately going to offend a lot of people reading this. But, I take comfort in knowing that any American who goes beyond being offended and actually try to silence me from expressing myself while simultaneously living in USA and enjoying the benefits of the first amendment is a hypocrite.
On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote: Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself.
Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology.
No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name.
In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way.
On September 12 2010 22:45 Keyser wrote: If the mosque/community center was actually at Ground Zero they may have had a legit case, if only because it's inapproriate to raise a building to worship the very same god whose name thousands of people got killed in right where they died. It would be like turning Auschwitz into a neo-nazi clubhouse. But it isn't. As others have already said, it is just in the vicinity of Ground Zero.
Now, I am the first to stray away from political correctness and say that islam is garbage we'd be better off without(other religions as well, but todays Islam is actually particularly bad for a variety of reasons), but there is freedom of religion for a reason, and in this particular case the good arguments have been tossed aside in favor of thinly veiled racism. Essentially what is going on here is that a lot of people don't see the difference between extremist muslims and regular muslims.
Of course, while much of this is ignorance and western propaganda, much of the fault here lies with prominent extremist muslims who are doing an even better job than Bush ever did at portraying every muslim as part of his extremist movement, as well as regular muslim groupings who so often fail to distance themselves from extreme acts.
God fucking dammit, another trash poster came in without reading the thread and spouted this ignorant fucking bullshit again. Your analogy: Nazis : Neo-Nazis :: Al Queda : Imam Rauf. Like I said before, it's a god damn miracle that morons like you can tie your own shoes.
I tie my shoes just fine. As a matter of fact, I was able to tie them so well that I am studying international relations at one of the best universities in the world. This is a field I probably have a much more thought out opinion on than you, so you should try to understand what it is that I write before you lash out in anger.
I am not sure how to get something like this across here. While you have read the text you bolded, you have not understood it. Sometimes I forget that I am on a message board. I have never compared neo nazis to nazis or Al Qaida to Imam Rauf. I'll try to explain it to you.
Al Qaida and Imam Rauf are not the same, but they do have something in common, which is the religion of Islam. Similarly, neo-nazis and nazis have a hatred for jews inherent in the nazi ideology in common. It is fair to say that 9/11 was carried out in the name of Allah, and that the executions at Auschwitz were carried out in the name of the nazi ideology. Now, the problem with Imam Rauf raising a mosque at the 9/11 site(which is not the case as I said earlier, but if we pretend that it was for the sake of argument), he is raising a monument to Allah, the very same figure whose name the killings were carried out in. Not liking that has nothing to do with ignorance or racism, because I am not talking about people or groups, I am talking about the religion itself.
This can reasonably be compared to neo nazis building a clubhouse in Auschwitz, because the killings at the concentration camp were carried out in the name of the nazi ideology, while neo-nazi's turning it into their clubhouse would celebrate the very same ideology right where they died. Again I am not talking about people, I am talking about the ideology itself.
Of course, I think you would pressed hard to find anyone who thinks about this like I do in this thread, and the people fighting against the mosque certainly don't. They are just racist bigots, even if the end result of their actions(should they succeed) is not bad(although the means by which they might reach that goal is uncomfortable and will have long-term consequences).
Well, I completely agree with your reasoning and honestly I don't know why people don't view it as such. People just need to learn the difference between muslims as a people and Islam as an ideology.
Seriously people, I'm sure you all know a guy who's Muslim but acts "normal" and westernized. See what they have to say about Islam. I guarantee they don't practice Islam literally, but more as a moral guideline and a faith rather than a way of life. It's no different than any other religion, but fundamentalism is SO prominent and SO dangerous in the muslim world that people fear all muslims from it.
If anything, moderate, westernized muslims should be outraged more than anyone about extremism and terrorism. They are the ones who get depicted as crazy terrorists and fundamentalist wackjobs because of the actions of a handful of people half a world away. I just don't understand why more muslims aren't so vehement about condemning the actions of Hamas, Al Qaeda and other similar groups. I think if more muslims stood up to the radicals in their religion it would help strengthen relations between muslims and the western world more than anything westerners could ever do.
On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote: Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself.
Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology.
No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name.
In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way.
You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians. Sure, the religions are similar, they all have a root in Judaism and so it is essentially the same guy we're talking about, but for all practical purposes the religion of Islam represents something completely different than Judaism and Christianity today. And no, your analogy is not accurate at all. If I had said that both extremists and non-extremists are terrorists because they are both muslims and muslims carried out the plane crash, it would be accurate, but I said no such thing.
On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote: Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself.
Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology.
No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name.
In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way.
You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians. Sure, the religions are similar, they all have a root in Judaism and so it is essentially the same guy we're talking about, but for all practical purposes the religion of Islam represents something completely different than Judaism and Christianity today. And no, your analogy is not accurate at all. If I had said that both extremists and non-extremists are terrorists because they are both muslims and muslims carried out the plane crash, it would be accurate, but I said no such thing.
On September 13 2010 07:29 Jibba wrote: Alright, so you've just disproven your own theory that it's an unsolvable ideological war.
Is this directed at me?
Yes, you began with the Huntington idea that Islam and the West are ideologically incompatible, and then you immediately moved to how moderate Muslims should help bridge relations between the two sides. Obviously it's on a moving scale and not separate poles like you seemed to be claiming earlier.
On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote: Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself.
Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology.
No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name.
In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way.
You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians. Sure, the religions are similar, they all have a root in Judaism and so it is essentially the same guy we're talking about, but for all practical purposes the religion of Islam represents something completely different than Judaism and Christianity today. And no, your analogy is not accurate at all. If I had said that both extremists and non-extremists are terrorists because they are both muslims and muslims carried out the plane crash, it would be accurate, but I said no such thing.
Do you know what this is?
What does the serbian cross have to do with what Islam represents today?
On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote: Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself.
Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology.
No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name.
In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way.
You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians.
This is false. "Allah" is the Arabic word for the monotheistic god worshipped by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Bahá'ís. Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís who speak Arabic refer to their god as "Allah" as do most Muslims regardless of their native language. To say that "God" and "Allah" are different deities is akin to say that "Dios" and "Dieu" are different entities. Do you really think that French Christians and Spanish Christians worship different gods because they have different words for "God"?
On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote: Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself.
Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology.
No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name.
In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way.
You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians. Sure, the religions are similar, they all have a root in Judaism and so it is essentially the same guy we're talking about, but for all practical purposes the religion of Islam represents something completely different than Judaism and Christianity today. And no, your analogy is not accurate at all. If I had said that both extremists and non-extremists are terrorists because they are both muslims and muslims carried out the plane crash, it would be accurate, but I said no such thing.
Do you know what this is?
What does the serbian cross have to do with what Islam represents today?
Because 15 years ago a sect of Christianity "represented" something far worse than even what we see from Islam in Saudi Arabia today.
Attributing intrinsic value to religion is about the worst possible thing you could do in this debate.
This is what IR experts at Brookings have to say about it: "most grievances expressed by extremists such as bin Laden are secular and political in nature." I can give you repeat sentiments from CSIS, CFR, Carnegie Center and just about anyone else that studies this stuff seriously. It is not an ideological struggle. It's painted that way in order to recruit simple minded people, and somehow the public in the West has managed to fall for it too.
On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote: Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself.
Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology.
No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name.
In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way.
You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians.
This is false. "Allah" is the Arabic word for the monotheistic god worshipped by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Bahá'ís. Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís who speak Arabic refer to their god as "Allah" as do most Muslims regardless of their native language. To say that "God" and "Allah" are different deities is akin to say that "Dios" and "Dieu" are different entities. Do you really think that French Christians and Spanish Christians worship different gods because they have different words for "God"?
Let us actually include the entirety of what I said rather than take one sentence out of context and attack that.
You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians. Sure, the religions are similar, they all have a root in Judaism and so it is essentially the same guy we're talking about, but for all practical purposes the religion of Islam represents something completely different than Judaism and Christianity today. And no, your analogy is not accurate at all. If I had said that both extremists and non-extremists are terrorists because they are both muslims and muslims carried out the plane crash, it would be accurate, but I said no such thing.
I should think that pretty much makes your last post pointless? It's a detail that is completely irrelevant to the discussion because Islam still represents an ideology, a belief and a culture that is very different from the that of Christianity or Judaism. This is not a theological debate.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PT4KI.png)
But you're right, for religious tolerance to truly exist in this country there should be no problem if a mosque were to be built AT Ground Zero.![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Serbian_Cross1.svg/150px-Serbian_Cross1.svg.png)
