I'm surprised there isn't a thread about this, I did some searches and found nothing. I want to share some of my views on this topic as well as see some of your opinions.
To start, I am 100% for the construction of this Mosque. I do not understand how a country who was built on religious freedoms can so blatantly disregard the most important amendment of our Constitution. What happens if we bar this mosque from being constructed....what's going to stop people from banning mosque's elsewhere? Our excuse of "It's too close to Ground Zero, and it's disrespectful to the victims." is ridiculous in my opinion. So all Muslims are terrorists? It's a mosque and a community center for god sakes, not a terrorist training ground. If this mosque is banned, it will show the world how hypocritical Americans are, and the repercussions of this will be far greater than just a few upset Muslims who can't worship in that area. It will be held up as an example of how America is a place of religious and racial intolerance and will negatively impact every future foreign relationships from here on.
An interesting quote I found by Dick Cavett, an old television talk show host.
A woman tells the news guy on the street, “I have absolutely no prejudice against the Muslim people. My cousin is married to one. I just don’t see why they have to be here.” A man complains that his opposition to the mosque is “painting me like I hate the whole Arab world.” (Perhaps he dislikes them all as individuals?) I remain amazed and really, sincerely, want to understand this. What can it be that is faulty in so many people’s thought processes, their ethics, their education, their experience of life, their understanding of their country, their what-have-you that blinds them to the fact that you can’t simultaneously maintain that you have nothing against members of any religion but are willing to penalize members of this one? Can you help me with this?
So what are your thoughts TL, I'm interested in seeing your opinions.
There are already a bunch of other churches of various faiths the same distance away, and another mosque one block further, so it seems like a 100% ginned-up non-controversy. Nobody cared about it until Pam Geller and Fox News told them to care. Besides, it's not like the fucking Taj Mahal in downtown New York, it's just some little community center thing.
If you want to complain about things desecrating Ground Zero, complain about the tourist traps, which are actually at the site, not two blocks away, and which are a fucking disgrace. I visited NYC in 2006 and I found it sort of absurdly hilarious seeing all these street vendors hawking maudlin crap.
It's not at Ground Zero, this whole controversy is ridiculous. The way New York City is, there's tons of stuff within a small block radius of any given point that would never even seem associated with each other and shouldn't be considered so. This is the same deal.
So, the constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It guarantees private property rights. Argument closed. Build it.
As far as the "arguments" against it, I see no reasoning besides associating all muslims with Al Qaeda radicals. And that's ridiculous and nothing but bigotry.
On August 23 2010 23:22 Ixas wrote: It serves as a painful reminder of the past for those who are affected, its not about discrimination but more of respect for the victims.
How can this not be about discrimination. A memorial to the victims is a painful reminder for those affected too, but no one would protest a memorial would they?
It was only yesterday I found out it was two blocks away whereas it was being sold by the media (not just Fox amazingly) as though it was slap bang on ground zero. If it was literally on ground zero then I could see why people might be a bit perturbed, though i still wouldn't agree with them. But with its actual site, it's an absurd non-issue.
It's a shame that something that was originally supposed to commemorate the victims of a tragedy is now becoming a sign of American ignorance, intolerance, and idiocy.
I blame the media. You can't erase ignorance, but you can keep yourself from stirring it up and letting it run rampant.
There's really still that many people who honestly believe 9/11 was a bunch of radical muslims in an airliner? Y'all got bigger problems than some people building a Mosque in downtown NYC.
On August 23 2010 23:22 Ixas wrote: It serves as a painful reminder of the past for those who are affected, its not about discrimination but more of respect for the victims.
How can this not be about discrimination. A memorial to the victims is a painful reminder for those affected too, but no one would protest a memorial would they?
It is inevitable that a mosque will bring back memories of, perhaps, hatred as it is perceived, by some and almost definitely by the victims, to be the cause of the disaster. I'm not saying Islam, or any other religions, cause bloodshed. They simply pave the path to it, the rest is up to the mind of the perpetrator.
A memorial have a higher tendency to bring back fond memories of the deceased. A mosque, on the other end, would probably fuel hate.
So, as a Pat Condell fan, I was initially against this project. Muslim's have a long history of constructing mosques at 'places of victory.' The name "Cordoba House" (recently changed to "Park51") really doesn't help their point in anyway.
After looking at the history of the project leader: Imam Rauf, he has been a very vocal moderate Muslim his entire life. Dating back to speaking at a Daniel Pearl memorial in which he said:
If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.
Hearing him say something like this, he is not someone we want to marginalize (like the right is currently doing). After seeing this I immediately changed my point of view. Islamification is something American's should definitely be conscious of, but this isn't one of the times to act.
- This mosque is part of a more conservatism branch of islam (sufism), polar opposite to the radical extremists - The leader of the mosque was a strategy advisor for the Bush administration, which supports him and his mosque
You wanna teach Iraq about democracy and equal rights, but you don't respect it in your own country? The hypocrisy is baffling. And yeah, Saudi Arabia doesn't have any churches. Congrats on being just as good as them.
On August 23 2010 23:22 Ixas wrote: It serves as a painful reminder of the past for those who are affected, its not about discrimination but more of respect for the victims.
How can this not be about discrimination. A memorial to the victims is a painful reminder for those affected too, but no one would protest a memorial would they?
It is inevitable that a mosque will bring back memories of, perhaps, hatred as it is perceived, by some and almost definitely by the victims, to be the cause of the disaster. I'm not saying Islam, or any other religions, cause bloodshed. They simply pave the path to it, the rest is up to the mind of the perpetrator.
A memorial have a higher tendency to bring back fond memories of the deceased. A mosque, on the other end, would probably fuel hate.
The way to eliminate fucked-up hateful bigotry is not to surrender to it; it's to call it what it is and fight until it dies. If someone's hate is personally fueled by a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, they aren't much better than a KKK member. If they got that way because they lost friends or relatives in 9/11, my sympathies go out to them, but NYC should pay for their therapy instead of accommodating their twisted shit by punishing others.
On August 23 2010 23:25 N.geNuity wrote: So, the constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It guarantees private property rights. Argument closed. Build it.
As far as the "arguments" against it, I see no reasoning besides associating all muslims with Al Qaeda radicals. And that's ridiculous and nothing but bigotry.
+ 1,
Absolutely racist to even link the two events. Radical Islam is so fractured from the rest of the religion, coming from a part of London surrounded by Mosques and full of Muslims I can honestly tell you that just like the Sikhs and Hindus here, they're the nicest people in the world.
Don't let the actions of a few spoil your view on an entire religion, in the same vein one could link the actions of many of Christians of that with the Christian church, but we don't.
I live here, and to deny the Mosque is pretty much equivalent to blaming 9/11 on the Muslim faith and not on the extremist group itself. Anyone who says "It brings up painful memories" might be missing the point that anyone who is suddenly hurt by the sight of a mosque is flat out ignorant. Maybe I should go protest some churches because "Christianity = Radical Protestantism = KKK".
On August 23 2010 23:37 dANiELcanuck wrote: There's really still that many people who honestly believe 9/11 was a bunch of radical muslims in an airliner? Y'all got bigger problems than some people building a Mosque in downtown NYC.
yeah totally man, these fools still believe we landed on the moon. They still believe the holocaust actually happened. Fuck these clueless suckers man, they don't know about the jews running the world or about the illuminati. You should be blessed you worked it all out man.
On August 23 2010 23:22 Ixas wrote: It serves as a painful reminder of the past for those who are affected, its not about discrimination but more of respect for the victims.
Actually, plenty of the victim's relatives has already publicly expressed support to the mosque. And some even said it was an honor to the victims to have the mosque built there:
"We support the building of the Islamic community center in lower Manhattan and want to explain why we feel that it would honor our son and other victims." - Parents of a victim for lohud.com
Honestly I think this is total racist bullshit. I know people that died in the towers, I was close enough to watch the smoke plumes rising from my front yard. My Grandfather was one of the iron workers that built the tower, and my uncle was part of the construction crew to remove the wreckage. I may not be a New Yorker, but I am still pretty personally involved with this.
People are claiming they don't want it "out of respect for the the victims." which is of course an utter lie, they don't want it because they are racist fucks that are afraid of brown people. Know what would be a lot more respectful of the victims, going to a mosque, getting to know some Muslims and convince them that we aren't the great satan and try to end the animosity between Islam and the west.
Why can't we be permissive and promote a sense of a co-existence between faiths... I mean come on.. I know its a big thing for the victim's families, but can't we bury the hatchet? We will not bury the memories of those lost, nor the action of exacting justice to those responsible, but should be this bitter as to deny a small piece to re-bridge the gap between 2 cultures/faiths?
Let 'em build it. If they bought the land, they should be able to do as they please on it, within reason insofar as it doesn't adversely effect anyone else. And this won't.
On August 23 2010 23:46 keV. wrote: So, as a Pat Condell fan, I was initially against this project. Muslim's have a long history of constructing mosques at 'places of victory.' The name "Cordoba House" (recently changed to "Park51") really doesn't help their point in anyway.
After looking at the history of the project leader: Imam Rauf, he has been a very vocal moderate Muslim his entire life. Dating back to speaking at a Daniel Pearl memorial in which he said:
If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.
Hearing him say something like this, he is not someone we want to marginalize (like the right is currently doing). After seeing this I immediately changed my point of view. Islamification is something American's should definitely be conscious of, but this isn't one of the times to act.
I'd say barbarification is something to worry about. The West already has plenty and we don't need an influx of more of it. I wish Condell and others who are genuinly concerned about religion wouldn't use selective labeling to try to beat the stupidity out of 'us'. Religion is only one of the ways in which people can be mobilized to hold retrograde beliefs and collectively support atrocities. It may sound kind of cheesy, but we're not going to insult and demonize our way to freedom from the crazies. A simple adherence to universal rights and some basic honest will go a long way.
I'm all for it, but many, many Americans will never see it that way. Islam is still very much a "heathen" religion to many, as they know almost nothing about it and associate it with things like the Taliban and 9/11.
New York is so heavily unionized that I expect workers to go on strike rather than build it, and if they are somehow forced to do the labor it'll end up being built with every single I-beam coated in pigs blood.
Only way it's getting built is if we import labor from Bangladesh or something to get it done.
On August 23 2010 23:37 dANiELcanuck wrote: There's really still that many people who honestly believe 9/11 was a bunch of radical muslims in an airliner? Y'all got bigger problems than some people building a Mosque in downtown NYC.
yeah totally man, these fools still believe we landed on the moon. They still believe the holocaust actually happened. Fuck these clueless suckers man, they don't know about the jews running the world or about the illuminati. You should be blessed you worked it all out man.
Now lets go smoke some weed and watch zeitgeist.
I hope you aren't serious. 9/11 Truthers crack me up. Anyways, back to the topic. From what I heard of the radio, the reason people were mad was because they want to allow the mosque to be built, but not a Greek Orthodox church. If this is true, I'm totally against it.
If what I stated above ends up happening, I'm going to try to build a megachurch in Mecca.
On August 23 2010 23:37 dANiELcanuck wrote: There's really still that many people who honestly believe 9/11 was a bunch of radical muslims in an airliner? Y'all got bigger problems than some people building a Mosque in downtown NYC.
yeah totally man, these fools still believe we landed on the moon. They still believe the holocaust actually happened. Fuck these clueless suckers man, they don't know about the jews running the world or about the illuminati. You should be blessed you worked it all out man.
Now lets go smoke some weed and watch zeitgeist.
I hope you aren't serious. 9/11 Truthers crack me up. Anyways, back to the topic. From what I heard of the radio, the reason people were mad was because they want to allow the mosque to be built, but not a Greek Orthodox church. If this is true, I'm totally against it.
If what I stated above ends up happening, I'm going to try to build a megachurch in Mecca.
No one should really care tbh. Afaik, NYC is pretty multicultural. I'm pretty sure there are Volkswagon dealerships in Israel. Not that it's exactly the same thing, you guys see the similarities.
Telling the Muslims that they cannot build their community center in proximity to Ground Zero is just treating them like lesser citizens.
The irony of all of this is that NYC is supposed the be the melting pot of the US, barring a mosque from being built just because it's near Ground Zero and because it's proposed by a Muslim person is verging on xenophobic. Most of the people protesting against it don't even know what they're talking about and believe all Muslims are terrorists. The only reason why I'd oppose this is because morons taking upon they're duty of protecting they're country are going to try trash it... repeatedly.
On August 23 2010 23:37 dANiELcanuck wrote: There's really still that many people who honestly believe 9/11 was a bunch of radical muslims in an airliner? Y'all got bigger problems than some people building a Mosque in downtown NYC.
yeah totally man, these fools still believe we landed on the moon. They still believe the holocaust actually happened. Fuck these clueless suckers man, they don't know about the jews running the world or about the illuminati. You should be blessed you worked it all out man.
Now lets go smoke some weed and watch zeitgeist.
I hope you aren't serious. 9/11 Truthers crack me up. Anyways, back to the topic. From what I heard of the radio, the reason people were mad was because they want to allow the mosque to be built, but not a Greek Orthodox church. If this is true, I'm totally against it.
If what I stated above ends up happening, I'm going to try to build a megachurch in Mecca.
Well, if that's true, I'm not against the mosque; I'm for the Orthodox church! Two wrongs hardly make a right.
And as for building a church in Mecca, I'm for that too, but Saudi Arabia doesn't claim to have freedom of religion. The U.S. does.
There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
I don't think anyones feelings or beliefs matter on this issue. If the area they want to build the mosque is an area that other religious buildings could be built there is nothing to argue.
On August 23 2010 23:22 Ixas wrote: It serves as a painful reminder of the past for those who are affected, its not about discrimination but more of respect for the victims.
Radicals that happened to be Muslim killed those people.
Do we prevent Churches from being made if a radical Christian kills people? Synagogues?
This all comes down to general ignorance of the masses. So many people don't know how to distinguish Terrorists, Middle-Eastern people, and Muslims. They think an affiliation with one automatically affiliates you with all of them. It's stupid, just as the people opposing this are.
On August 23 2010 23:37 dANiELcanuck wrote: There's really still that many people who honestly believe 9/11 was a bunch of radical muslims in an airliner? Y'all got bigger problems than some people building a Mosque in downtown NYC.
yeah totally man, these fools still believe we landed on the moon. They still believe the holocaust actually happened. Fuck these clueless suckers man, they don't know about the jews running the world or about the illuminati. You should be blessed you worked it all out man.
Now lets go smoke some weed and watch zeitgeist.
I hope you aren't serious. 9/11 Truthers crack me up. Anyways, back to the topic. From what I heard of the radio, the reason people were mad was because they want to allow the mosque to be built, but not a Greek Orthodox church. If this is true, I'm totally against it.
If what I stated above ends up happening, I'm going to try to build a megachurch in Mecca.
On August 23 2010 23:22 Ixas wrote: It serves as a painful reminder of the past for those who are affected, its not about discrimination but more of respect for the victims.
For this reason, I would completely agree that building a monument to Al'Qaeda, or an Al'Qaeda recruitment center in close proximity to where the Twin Towers used to be would be infinitely disrespectful. However, Islam and muslims =/= Al'Qaeda. By the same token, I will never oppose the construction of a Christian church on the grounds that it is disrespectful to the victims of the Inquisition.
I can understand if you oppose the construction of that Mosque. However, opposing it because of 9/11 is just not a valid reason; retaliating against a culture and religion just because a terrorist group falsely claims to represent them is stupid.
I'm glad that the liberality of people have progressed so far that it now takes precedence over convictions. There's something about the philosophy of individual conscience which makes the conscience very unindividual.
Anyway, we have to be careful lest we become like the American congress or the European commission, which freely opines over all matters under the heavens and above it too.
On August 24 2010 00:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote: they don't want it because they are racist fucks that are afraid of brown people.
We're the racist fucks? You can't even gather the respect to refer to them as "Arabs"? Not all Muslims are "brown people" jackass. I know several white Muslims.
Also, one of my issues is the funding for this. Last I knew, there was still a question mark about where something like $100M came from to fund this thing, and the Imam refuses to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization (this being my personal belief). I'm fine with an Islamic cultural center being there. I'm not ok with one that could have terrorist ties, which I refuse to disassociate with thos until something to prove that theory wrong comes along.
On August 24 2010 00:07 Scruffy wrote: I hope you aren't serious. 9/11 Truthers crack me up. Anyways, back to the topic. From what I heard of the radio, the reason people were mad was because they want to allow the mosque to be built, but not a Greek Orthodox church. If this is true, I'm totally against it.
If what I stated above ends up happening, I'm going to try to build a megachurch in Mecca.
Yeah...that would probably be a good reason to be against it...
But if that isn't true, I'm all for it. It's not like It's being built AT ground zero, which I think would be very offensive to a great deal of American people.
On August 24 2010 00:17 UnexcitedZealot wrote: The irony of all of this is that NYC is supposed the be the melting pot of the US, barring a mosque from being built just because it's near Ground Zero and because it's proposed by a Muslim person is verging on xenophobic. Most of the people protesting against it don't even know what they're talking about and believe all Muslims are terrorists. The only reason why I'd oppose this is because morons taking upon they're duty of protecting they're country are going to try trash it... repeatedly.
The whole idea of a "melting pot" being something desirable is part of the problem, to be honest. In other countries the attempt to assimilate distinct populations into a greater culture instead of preserving them and finding ways to cooperate is often thought of as an atrocity. More than once I've heard someone from the US complain that immigrants shouldn't speak their language in public, etc. Of course there are good people and bad people anywhere you go but the "melting pot" as a central tenet of US society isn't helpful.
On August 24 2010 00:07 Scruffy wrote: I hope you aren't serious. 9/11 Truthers crack me up. Anyways, back to the topic. From what I heard of the radio, the reason people were mad was because they want to allow the mosque to be built, but not a Greek Orthodox church. If this is true, I'm totally against it.
If what I stated above ends up happening, I'm going to try to build a megachurch in Mecca.
Yeah...that would probably be a good reason to be against it...
But if that isn't true, I'm all for it. It's not like It's being built AT ground zero, which I think would be very offensive to the American people.
Some of the American people are Muslim. I don't see how it'd be very offensive to them. Sweeping generalizations are no good...
On August 24 2010 00:17 UnexcitedZealot wrote: The irony of all of this is that NYC is supposed the be the melting pot of the US, barring a mosque from being built just because it's near Ground Zero and because it's proposed by a Muslim person is verging on xenophobic. Most of the people protesting against it don't even know what they're talking about and believe all Muslims are terrorists. The only reason why I'd oppose this is because morons taking upon they're duty of protecting they're country are going to try trash it... repeatedly.
The whole idea of a "melting pot" being something desirable is part of the problem, to be honest. In other countries the attempt to assimilate distinct populations into a greater culture instead of preserving them and finding ways to cooperate is often thought of as an atrocity. More than once I've heard someone from the US complain that immigrants shouldn't speak their language in public, etc. Of course there are good people and bad people anywhere you go but the "melting pot" as a central tenet of US society isn't helpful.
Uh wow... You aren't very familiar with U.S. history and society are you?
Build it. Freedom of religion is a constitutional right, and interpreting it as "as long as it's Christianity" or "so long as it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings" is ridiculous.
If people fail to make a distinction between Muslim terrorists and Muslim Baby Gap shoppers, that is their own failing. We don't label every Christian as if they're all members of Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK, or every Catholic as if they molest little boys; it would be ridiculous to do so, and it's equally ridiculous to do the same to the Muslim community.
Imo, it's just as bad as any other religious building. It will serve a purpose as a community center, which is admirable; but it will also spread a message of unquestioning following of a book written centuries ago.
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Location and timing? When will the wounds be sufficiently healed to stop making dumb links? If you really don't believe that islam is a terrorist religion, what makes you think that it's relevant to say that muslims should be more sensitive about where and when they build a church? Should we embrace stupidity? Should they? There'll always be those who will claim that the freedom of others is a threat to their "way of life", without having any valid argument to back up the claim. I think people should only be called moronic if they give in to moronic reasoning. So yeah, the people behind the construction of the mosque are arguably morons, but certainly not for the reason you stated.
At first, I thought they were building a Mosque RIGHT ON Ground Zero, so I was pretty against it. It'd be a slap in the face to the countless people affected by the tragedy. But then I got more into the subject, and apparently it's two blocks away. Seriously? It's two fucking blocks away. Who gives a shit.
On August 24 2010 01:02 uberMatt wrote: it's neither a mosque nor is it at ground zero
at first i was mad because i thought they were going to build it like right on the spot and that just seems a bit awkward, but its not even by it and its not like a fucking 70 stories tall statue of allah or something. so do not care not worth bothering over.
The group of people who want to make it will not reveal who they are. They claim that they are doing it to make the new yorkers happy, if the new yorkers are not happy then why build it? If mayor Bloomberg denied the mosque from being build he will be know as a racist so either way everyone loses. I personally don't want a mosque to be put up right near a major "victory" for the Islamic extremists.
When the towers were destroyed a Greek Orthodox church (Saint Nicholas) was destroyed and they are not allowed to get the permits to rebuild the church. The church was right next door to the WTC. But the mosque 1 block over was given all the variances and permits it needed to be built.
Quote from website:
If this is an issue of “rights,” then why was the Greek Orthodox Church denied its rights only to have those rights given to the mosque?
The ground zero mosque has got the go ahead to be built blocks away from Ground Zero, yet a Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks has not been allowed to be rebuilt. What is going on with that? So it’s OK for a mosque to be built there but not a church? I thought this was America.
Why is it, that we cannot say no to any religion except for Christianity?
There is absolutely no excuse for this. No members of the Greek Orthodox Church were involved in the 9/11 attacks, so why is it that they have not gotten the go ahead to re-build their church, yet it’s full speed ahead for the mosque?
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Location and timing? When will the wounds be sufficiently healed to stop making dumb links? If you really don't believe that islam is a terrorist religion, what makes you think that it's relevant to say that muslims should be more sensitive about where and when they build a church? Should we embrace stupidity? Should they? There'll always be those who will claim that the freedom of others is a threat to their "way of life", without having any valid argument to back up the claim. I think people should only be called moronic if they give in to moronic reasoning. So yeah, the people behind the construction of the mosque are arguably morons, but certainly not for the reason you stated.
Don't matter if the reason behind the opposition right or wrong, a majority of people don't want a mosque there. They absolutely have a right to build it there, but from a pr perspective it's a terrible decision.
On August 24 2010 01:09 Bob300 wrote: The group of people who want to make it will not reveal who they are. They claim that they are doing it to make the new yorkers happy, if the new yorkers are not happy then why build it? If mayor Bloomberg denied the mosque from being build he will be know as a racist so either way everyone loses. I personally don't want a mosque to be put up right near a major "victory" for the Islamic extremists.
When the towers were destroyed a Greek Orthodox church (Saint Nicholas) was destroyed and they are not allowed to get the permits to rebuild the church. The church was right next door to the WTC. But the mosque 1 block over was given all the variances and permits it needed to be built.
If this is an issue of “rights,” then why was the Greek Orthodox Church denied its rights only to have those rights given to the mosque?
The ground zero mosque has got the go ahead to be built blocks away from Ground Zero, yet a Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks has not been allowed to be rebuilt. What is going on with that? So it’s OK for a mosque to be built there but not a church? I thought this was America.
There is absolutely no excuse for this. No members of the Greek Orthodox Church were involved in the 9/11 attacks, so why is it that they have not gotten the go ahead to re-build their church, yet it’s full speed ahead for the mosque?
I understand your anger over this seeming hypocrisy, but would denying another religious center (an evil) because a previous one was denied (an evil) make things right? If anything this suggests the Greek Orthodox Church ought to be forced through now, alongside the mosque.
I am against spreading of any religion, especially islamic. Every religion was designed to control people and it's bunch of bs. Also be aware that in 20-30 years, all american and european major cities will have huge minority of muslims and they are pain in the ass. If we go to visit their countries, we have to respect their "ridiculous religious" laws and they come to our countries and build their mosques everywhere and people are like hey that's cool we respect that. What the hell...If they want to live or come somewhere, they should be the ones who should adapt, not the citizens. Also if the world is so scared of terrorism - bigger rate of muslims in a western country, bigger the chance of some being from the terrorists branch. If you let them build their mosques in your city, it's like saying hey come over here you are welcome, the more the better > which shouldn't be the truth. This might sound very offensive and racistic, but it is true and people will realize that. The question is if it will be soon enough or too late.
There's also a ton of things you might not know about the project. The greeks could be doing something dumb, like trying to shoehorn a much large church than previously existed there or some other thing that requires variances and many zoning meetingss.
Could just be that one was in compliance with all the laws and the other wasn't. It's kind of hard to take anything serious from that terrible wiseconservatism.com website, but if the thing about the landswap is true, there's another reason why it could be taking so long... you're adding several more layers of legal hoops there.
Ground Zero was because of extremists. Not Muslims. Muslims had nothing to do with it. People need to realize that Muslims are not the reason for what happened. The only reason this is an issue really is because various candidates (and lol Fox "news") were losing and realized they could use this to secure votes of all the ignorant people in the country. Let them build it, because they have the right to just like everyone else.
And all these things about another church being denied to rebuild. Yeah, makes sense. Let's deny someone else their rights because ours were taken away. That'll make more people happy. Sorry that church wasn't allowed to rebuild, it should have been, but denying other people the right to build theirs because of it is stupid.
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Location and timing? When will the wounds be sufficiently healed to stop making dumb links? If you really don't believe that islam is a terrorist religion, what makes you think that it's relevant to say that muslims should be more sensitive about where and when they build a church? Should we embrace stupidity? Should they? There'll always be those who will claim that the freedom of others is a threat to their "way of life", without having any valid argument to back up the claim. I think people should only be called moronic if they give in to moronic reasoning. So yeah, the people behind the construction of the mosque are arguably morons, but certainly not for the reason you stated.
Don't matter if the reason behind the opposition right or wrong, a majority of people don't want a mosque there. They absolutely have a right to build it there, but from a pr perspective it's a terrible decision.
I'm not so sure. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" may not be universally true, but I honestly believe that this sort of friction is inevitable in a country as diverse as the US, and may prove to be a giant plus in the long term. I'd imagine that most of the people who are opposed to it now, will grow to accept it. The others are a lost cause anyway.
I'm for banning this mosque on the soul condition that we also ban all mosques, churches, and synagogues from the whole country. People who hold the view that this one mosque should not be constructed, while also holding the view that it would be okay to be constructed elsewhere are hypocrites in my opinion.
However, as my idea of banning all places of worship will never come to fruition in America, I see no reason why this mosque should not be built. The constitution clearly protects the American people's freedom of religion, and I respect and admire that clause, and every other American should as well.
Edit: I also remember reading that there was already a mosque in this area, which was damaged during the attacks (why do I find humor in that?). Furthermore, I remember reading that this mosque suffered from overcrowding, which to me is bewildering. However, I think they have a right to a bigger place if they need it and can fund it.
America is a place of religious freedom - its right there in the Constitution in plain ol' American black and white - which leaves this debate up to the circumstance. Personally, I think its construction should be "tolerated". It has every right to be there, and its a great symbol of why Americans are the good guys and the Terrorists are the bad guys. What happened on 9/11, despite being religiously motivated, does not make all Muslims bad people (transitive property FTL). I think that it is a bold statement and in good taste (more than most can foresee) to provide a place of worship for Muslims near 9/11 so that they can pray for the ones lost in the tragedy and ask for forgiveness for those who have tarnished the Muslim faith - and plenty of good Muslims will, like any good Christian or any good [insert faith here].
I wonder if the construction of the first McDonald's in downtown Nagasaki had any awkward moments.
The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Location and timing? When will the wounds be sufficiently healed to stop making dumb links? If you really don't believe that islam is a terrorist religion, what makes you think that it's relevant to say that muslims should be more sensitive about where and when they build a church? Should we embrace stupidity? Should they? There'll always be those who will claim that the freedom of others is a threat to their "way of life", without having any valid argument to back up the claim. I think people should only be called moronic if they give in to moronic reasoning. So yeah, the people behind the construction of the mosque are arguably morons, but certainly not for the reason you stated.
Don't matter if the reason behind the opposition right or wrong, a majority of people don't want a mosque there. They absolutely have a right to build it there, but from a pr perspective it's a terrible decision.
I'm not so sure. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" may not be universally true, but I honestly believe that this sort of friction is inevitable in a country as diverse as the US, and may prove to be a giant plus in the long term. I'd imagine that most of the people who are opposed to it now, will grow to accept it. The others are a lost cause anyway.
Have you ever talked to a hardcore right winger from the states?
Seriously, I doubt that would ever be accepted by a number of people. Hell, I know a number of independents and left wingers who I consider intelligent people that are vehemently opposed to this thing.
I definitely agree that a majority of the country could stand to learn a bit about culture and whatnot, but I don't think that's the way to do it. Did the Palestinians and Isrealis grow to accept each other by living on top of one another? The good intentions of the people who wanna place the mosque there don't matter if the people don't believe it. Public relations is based on perception more than fact
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
The Mosque/Community Center is planned to be like 2 blocks from Ground Zero. This is purely News outlets being retarded and stirring up shit (though I haven't heard much about it in the UK I imagine its pretty big news in the states?). If anything these so called news channels should be focusing on the Pakisani floods because you know it being probably the biggest catastrophe in modern times.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
Exactly. So many people just skimmed right over that little fact.....
Shit can get denied for a TON of stuff. This could be why the Greeks are getting denied and the mosque is getting fast tracked. A city might have a law that caps houses of worship at 100 ppl occupancy and they're pushing for 200. They could be asking for a kitchen when the legal definition of house of worship in NYC says no kitchens.
Literally every damn report about these things has failed to mention this stuff, so no one has any clue. To get a variance, you go before a planning or zoning board. Variances are typically granted if the group determines that the rule bending required for approval is minor enough that it will not have a detrimental effect on the city and its residents.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
Then please explain to us how the laws mentioned in the following articles do not apply to the 'ground zero mosque'.
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Location and timing? When will the wounds be sufficiently healed to stop making dumb links? If you really don't believe that islam is a terrorist religion, what makes you think that it's relevant to say that muslims should be more sensitive about where and when they build a church? Should we embrace stupidity? Should they? There'll always be those who will claim that the freedom of others is a threat to their "way of life", without having any valid argument to back up the claim. I think people should only be called moronic if they give in to moronic reasoning. So yeah, the people behind the construction of the mosque are arguably morons, but certainly not for the reason you stated.
Don't matter if the reason behind the opposition right or wrong, a majority of people don't want a mosque there. They absolutely have a right to build it there, but from a pr perspective it's a terrible decision.
I'm not so sure. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" may not be universally true, but I honestly believe that this sort of friction is inevitable in a country as diverse as the US, and may prove to be a giant plus in the long term. I'd imagine that most of the people who are opposed to it now, will grow to accept it. The others are a lost cause anyway.
Have you ever talked to a hardcore right winger from the states?
Seriously, I doubt that would ever be accepted by a number of people. Hell, I know a number of independents and left wingers who I consider intelligent people that are vehemently opposed to this thing.
I definitely agree that a majority of the country could stand to learn a bit about culture and whatnot, but I don't think that's the way to do it. Did the Palestinians and Isrealis grow to accept each other by living on top of one another? The good intentions of the people who wanna place the mosque there don't matter if the people don't believe it. Public relations is based on perception more than fact
If americans to some large extent has the perception that one of the worlds greatest religious groups are somehow inherently linked to terrorism then that is a huge issue. Let's not enforce that by making restrictions based on such retarded views? By not allowing that mosque to be built you're basically saying that the above stated view of Islam is somehow a legitimate concern.
Also, this opens up for any number of ridiculous breaches of religious rights i.e. whenever a church, mosque or synagog may appear offensive to some group of people, are you going to react in the same manner?
I'm a little surprised by your position here as generally I consider you a pretty awesome poster.
I think it symbolizes that we know that not all muslims are terrorists obviously and that the majority of them, as a country, we have no problems with.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
Then please explain to us how the laws mentioned in the following articles do not apply to the 'ground zero mosque'.
The law states that the land cannot be stopped under discrimination. Then why is a mosque allowed to be built there but not a Christian church. O thats right Christianity is the majority so you can't be prejudice towards the majority, but if you broke the law to stop a mosque then its prejudice because they are a minority in this country. Is that fair or right?
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
Then please explain to us how the laws mentioned in the following articles do not apply to the 'ground zero mosque'.
The law states that the land cannot be stopped under discrimination. Then why is a mosque allowed to be built there but not a Christian church. O thats right Christianity is the majority so you can't be prejudice towards the majority, but if you broke the law to stop a mosque then its prejudice because they are a minority in this country. Is that fair or right?
Read the posts on the rest of this page, re: building restrictions.
Without knowing the nature of the restrictions and the nature of the variances given to the mosque and those not given to the Greek Orthodox church, any accusations of favoritism or discrimination are speculation based upon incomplete information.
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Location and timing? When will the wounds be sufficiently healed to stop making dumb links? If you really don't believe that islam is a terrorist religion, what makes you think that it's relevant to say that muslims should be more sensitive about where and when they build a church? Should we embrace stupidity? Should they? There'll always be those who will claim that the freedom of others is a threat to their "way of life", without having any valid argument to back up the claim. I think people should only be called moronic if they give in to moronic reasoning. So yeah, the people behind the construction of the mosque are arguably morons, but certainly not for the reason you stated.
Don't matter if the reason behind the opposition right or wrong, a majority of people don't want a mosque there. They absolutely have a right to build it there, but from a pr perspective it's a terrible decision.
I'm not so sure. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" may not be universally true, but I honestly believe that this sort of friction is inevitable in a country as diverse as the US, and may prove to be a giant plus in the long term. I'd imagine that most of the people who are opposed to it now, will grow to accept it. The others are a lost cause anyway.
Have you ever talked to a hardcore right winger from the states?
Seriously, I doubt that would ever be accepted by a number of people. Hell, I know a number of independents and left wingers who I consider intelligent people that are vehemently opposed to this thing.
I definitely agree that a majority of the country could stand to learn a bit about culture and whatnot, but I don't think that's the way to do it. Did the Palestinians and Isrealis grow to accept each other by living on top of one another? The good intentions of the people who wanna place the mosque there don't matter if the people don't believe it. Public relations is based on perception more than fact
If americans to some large extent has the perception that one of the worlds greatest religious groups are somehow inherently linked to terrorism then that is a huge issue. Let's not enforce that by making restrictions based on such retarded views? By not allowing that mosque to be built you're basically saying that the above stated view of Islam is somehow a legitimate concern.
Also, this opens up for any number of ridiculous breaches of religious rights i.e. whenever a church, mosque or synagog may appear offensive to some group of people, are you going to react in the same manner?
I'm a little surprised by your position here as generally I consider you a pretty awesome poster.
Read my posts again dude. Pretty much all I said was that they definitely have a legal right to build (at least from the perspective that you can't deny them because they're Arabs and 9/11 happened and what not) but I think it's definitely dumb for them to put it in an area that the leaders KNOW will piss off a lot of people. I never said I was one of those people. Definitely a bit tasteless, but whatever, I really don't care none too much. I'd like to think I'm intelligent enough to know that not every guy named Mohammad is trying to blow me up.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
Mr. Vallicella's personal argument against the mosque seems to be this:
The construction of a mosque on that hallowed ground is an outrage to the memories of those who died horrendous deaths on 9/11 because of the acts of Muslim terrorists, terrorists who didn't just happen to be Muslims, but whose terrorist deeds were a direct consequence of their Islamist beliefs.
I agree with him to the extent that he and I appear to be on different planets. Is all of New York City now "hallowed ground," or just Manhattan? What's so outrageous about it?
Christians have been bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors on and off for the past decade or two as a direct consequence of their Christian beliefs. Should we stop them from building churches in the area for a few years every time? Did they ban Ryder trucks in Oklahoma after McVeigh blew up the Federal Building with one? Should Colorado have banned the sale of Quake after Columbine since it would be disrespectful to let people play it?
Perhaps Vallicella should learn some statistics. Given that Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, and yet there isn't a 9/11 every day, I'm not convinced that being a terrorist is a "direct consequence" of holding any Islamic beliefs. I suggest that it's a more direct consequence of being a young, reckless nutcase brainwashed by Al-Qaeda.
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some insane mass murderers held a particular subset of Islamic religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on sane, normal people who hold similar religious beliefs? Maybe as an atheist I missed the big announcement where we decided to compare how sensible people's religions were and start judging them based on what kind of crazy things their holy texts say; I'm not sure that Christians or Jews would come out that well on that metric. I judge people on their actions.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
The construction of a mosque on that hallowed ground is an outrage to the memories of those who died horrendous deaths on 9/11 because of the acts of Muslim terrorists, terrorists who didn't just happen to be Muslims, but whose terrorist deeds were a direct consequence of their Islamist beliefs.
I agree with him to the extent that he and I appear to be on different planets. Is all of New York City now "hallowed ground," or just Manhattan? What's so outrageous about it? + Show Spoiler +
Christians have been bombing a
bortion clinics and killing doctors on and off for the past decade or two as a direct consequence of their Christian beliefs. Should we stop them from building churches in the area for a few years every time? Did they ban Ryder trucks in Oklahoma after McVeigh blew up the Federal Building with one? Should Colorado have banned the sale of Quake after Columbine since it would be disrespectful to let people play it?
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some mass murderers held insane, destructive religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on people who hold sane, normal religious beliefs?
[Edit] Actually, never mind, I'm not going to turn this into a religious debate.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
The construction of a mosque on that hallowed ground is an outrage to the memories of those who died horrendous deaths on 9/11 because of the acts of Muslim terrorists, terrorists who didn't just happen to be Muslims, but whose terrorist deeds were a direct consequence of their Islamist beliefs.
I agree with him to the extent that he and I appear to be on different planets. Is all of New York City now "hallowed ground," or just Manhattan? What's so outrageous about it?
Christians have been bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors on and off for the past decade or two as a direct consequence of their Christian beliefs. Should we stop them from building churches in the area for a few years every time? Did they ban Ryder trucks in Oklahoma after McVeigh blew up the Federal Building with one? Should Colorado have banned the sale of Quake after Columbine since it would be disrespectful to let people play it?
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some insane mass murderers held a particular subset of Islamic religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on sane, normal people who hold similar religious beliefs?
People like to draw simple conclusions because it makes the world seem like a more predictable place. Its alot like the quake example you put forth, People with a calm and considerate mind would tell you many factors lead to the terrible event at columbine. People who are personally effected or who are not open minded will most likely blame the simplest and most solvable problem (i.e. blame quake, or islam, or the crusades, mexicans, the irish, starcraft2, popular music, or whatever)
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
Then please explain to us how the laws mentioned in the following articles do not apply to the 'ground zero mosque'.
The law states that the land cannot be stopped under discrimination. Then why is a mosque allowed to be built there but not a Christian church. O thats right Christianity is the majority so you can't be prejudice towards the majority, but if you broke the law to stop a mosque then its prejudice because they are a minority in this country. Is that fair or right?
Have you even read about the dispute over the St. Nicholas Church? I doubt it, or you would know everything you posted about it is so god damned distorted.
First, it directly impacts the construction at Ground Zero, as opposed to the Cordoba House, which is 2 blocks away and within private property.
Second, the reason the members of St. Nicholas Church and the Port Authority are having trouble is because of a problem with their negotiations for the new church. The members of St. Nicholas Church want like an underground parking structure or something, which the Port Authority balks at because, guess what, they're building One World Trade Center there, which requires underground structural systems, including underground garages and this a bomb shelter.
Third, St. Nicholas Church sought increasingly expensive concessions that would slow down the construction of One World Trade Center. The Port Authority gave them $20 million to build their site, but the head of St. Nicholas Church wanted more.
There is absolutely no comparison that can be made between the St. Nicholas Church and the Cordoba House.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
Mr. Vallicella's personal argument against the mosque seems to be this:
The construction of a mosque on that hallowed ground is an outrage to the memories of those who died horrendous deaths on 9/11 because of the acts of Muslim terrorists, terrorists who didn't just happen to be Muslims, but whose terrorist deeds were a direct consequence of their Islamist beliefs.
I agree with him to the extent that he and I appear to be on different planets. Is all of New York City now "hallowed ground," or just Manhattan? What's so outrageous about it?
Christians have been bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors on and off for the past decade or two as a direct consequence of their Christian beliefs. Should we stop them from building churches in the area for a few years every time? Did they ban Ryder trucks in Oklahoma after McVeigh blew up the Federal Building with one? Should Colorado have banned the sale of Quake after Columbine since it would be disrespectful to let people play it?
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some mass murderers held insane, destructive religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on people who hold sane, normal religious beliefs?
'Christians' who bomb abortion clinics do so as a direct consequence of their errant personal beliefs regarding Christian teaching, but not as a direct consequence of Christian teaching, which would not sanction, approve of or direct such actions at any time. The same can't be said of Islam, and actions such as what we witnessed in 9/11 are held on a legitimate view of the teachings of the Qur'an. You make the mistake of assuming that all religions are the same, have the same basic teachings, view all people the same basic way.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
No, I don't. And yes, I know. Good people exist - in every religion. Crazy evil ones too.
Yes, you do, if you believe 'good Muslims' pray for their enemies.
You are the one who need to learn about Middle Eastern culture. The Qur'an does NOT support such violence. Only extremists would twist such things around, as any religion can be done. The majority of the the Middle Eastern people HATE violence, they would rather promote education of their poor people and live their lives peacefully...as ANY civilian populace would.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
Mr. Vallicella's personal argument against the mosque seems to be this:
The construction of a mosque on that hallowed ground is an outrage to the memories of those who died horrendous deaths on 9/11 because of the acts of Muslim terrorists, terrorists who didn't just happen to be Muslims, but whose terrorist deeds were a direct consequence of their Islamist beliefs.
I agree with him to the extent that he and I appear to be on different planets. Is all of New York City now "hallowed ground," or just Manhattan? What's so outrageous about it?
Christians have been bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors on and off for the past decade or two as a direct consequence of their Christian beliefs. Should we stop them from building churches in the area for a few years every time? Did they ban Ryder trucks in Oklahoma after McVeigh blew up the Federal Building with one? Should Colorado have banned the sale of Quake after Columbine since it would be disrespectful to let people play it?
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some mass murderers held insane, destructive religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on people who hold sane, normal religious beliefs?
'Christians' who bomb abortion clinics do so as a direct consequence of their errant personal beliefs regarding Christian teaching, but not as a direct consequence of Christian teaching, which would not sanction, approve of or direct such actions at any time. The same can't be said of Islam, and actions such as what we witnessed in 9/11 are held on a legitimate view of the teachings of the Qur'an. You make the mistake of assuming that all religions are the same, have the same basic teachings, view all people the same basic way.
I know that people who commit crimes and injustices in the name of the Christian God certainly believe very hard that their crimes are guided by Christian teachings. The majority of Christians are a lot more sensible, and don't believe that. Likewise, I have no doubt that all the Muslims on that plane believed that they were being guided by Muslim teachings, but the majority of Muslims don't believe that. I fail to see the distinction.
I don't think it makes any sense to literally interpret the Bible and Koran and try to say, well, one advocates crazier things than the other, because they both have so many odd, dated teachings that societies just pick and choose the interpretations they prefer. If there aren't a lot of American Muslims who are advocating Islamic violence (just as there aren't a lot of American Christians advocating Christian violence) then what's the problem? I think that at some point you ought to live and let live.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
Mr. Vallicella's personal argument against the mosque seems to be this:
The construction of a mosque on that hallowed ground is an outrage to the memories of those who died horrendous deaths on 9/11 because of the acts of Muslim terrorists, terrorists who didn't just happen to be Muslims, but whose terrorist deeds were a direct consequence of their Islamist beliefs.
I agree with him to the extent that he and I appear to be on different planets. Is all of New York City now "hallowed ground," or just Manhattan? What's so outrageous about it? + Show Spoiler +
Christians have been bombing a
bortion clinics and killing doctors on and off for the past decade or two as a direct consequence of their Christian beliefs. Should we stop them from building churches in the area for a few years every time? Did they ban Ryder trucks in Oklahoma after McVeigh blew up the Federal Building with one? Should Colorado have banned the sale of Quake after Columbine since it would be disrespectful to let people play it?
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some mass murderers held insane, destructive religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on people who hold sane, normal religious beliefs?
[Edit] Actually, never mind, I'm not going to turn this into a religious debate.
It's very easy for you to spout this kind of nonsense if you're just a typical white boy who has never mixed with anyone else of any race or creed in your entire life, let alone personally speak and befriend Muslims.
While I will always have my personal reservations against the concept of universal conscription, I'd think that there are many more people out there who'd really need it. Yes, people like you, who'd have to stick with other people you'd never have to meet in your typical civilian life and eventually trust all sorts of people to watch your back, and also for you to watch theirs' when shit hits the fan.
There's nothing like compulsory military service that teaches you that all people are honestly the same, no matter what they call their god.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
Then please explain to us how the laws mentioned in the following articles do not apply to the 'ground zero mosque'.
The first one the reporter obviously didn't do homework and plucked quotes without context. It's a crappy article. The second is a better article with real research and shit. However, RLUIPA is hardly some piece of paper that universally trumps all local zoning codes. People are just not understanding what it does at all.
All it does is prevent the Zoning Board and attourneys at the case from flat out denying an application because 'They are Muslims and responsible for 9/11' or something along those lines. It doesn't concern some retarded Republican Senator opening his mouth about something he has no clue about. The law only concerns the people actually involved with the case, and those people aren't dumb enough to deny based on someone's religious beliefs.
In theory, it's a good law since it prevents this shit. It sucks because it allows for basically never ending appeals. RLUIPA doesn't trump a local ordinance that says, for example, HOW buildings are capped at 100 capacity. But variances are a gray area and that's where you get fucked. If a synagogue gets a variance for 115 people but a mosque gets denied for 145, that's pretty much all the grounds that's needed for an appeal. RLUIPA doesn't mean they'll win in that instance, but they sure as shit will get an appeal.
The bottom line from those articles is this: Yes, the city would get sued to shit if a ZB member said, 'We don't approve for TERRORASTS' However, no one involved with the thing is saying that. RLUIPA does not in any way give a HOW free reign to just buy a land and start building. It just means an excuse like 'Well your mosque will piss off all the Christians, sorry' won't fly.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
Then please explain to us how the laws mentioned in the following articles do not apply to the 'ground zero mosque'.
The first one the reporter obviously didn't do homework and plucked quotes without context. It's a crappy article. The second is a better article with real research and shit. However, RLUIPA is hardly some piece of paper that universally trumps all local zoning codes. People are just not understanding what it does at all.
All it does is prevent the Zoning Board and attourneys at the case from flat out denying an application because 'They are Muslims and responsible for 9/11' or something along those lines. It doesn't concern some retarded Republican Senator opening his mouth about something he has no clue about. The law only concerns the people actually involved with the case, and those people aren't dumb enough to deny based on someone's religious beliefs.
In theory, it's a good law since it prevents this shit. It sucks because it allows for basically never ending appeals. RLUIPA doesn't trump a local ordinance that says, for example, HOW buildings are capped at 100 capacity. But variances are a gray area and that's where you get fucked. If a synagogue gets a variance for 115 people but a mosque gets denied for 145, that's pretty much all the grounds that's needed for an appeal. RLUIPA doesn't mean they'll win in that instance, but they sure as shit will get an appeal.
The bottom line from those articles is this: Yes, the city would get sued to shit if a ZB member said, 'We don't approve for TERRORASTS' However, no one involved with the thing is saying that. RLUIPA does not in any way give a HOW free reign to just buy a land and start building. It just means an excuse like 'Well your mosque will piss off all the Christians, sorry' won't fly.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
The construction of a mosque on that hallowed ground is an outrage to the memories of those who died horrendous deaths on 9/11 because of the acts of Muslim terrorists, terrorists who didn't just happen to be Muslims, but whose terrorist deeds were a direct consequence of their Islamist beliefs.
I agree with him to the extent that he and I appear to be on different planets. Is all of New York City now "hallowed ground," or just Manhattan? What's so outrageous about it?
The term "hallowed ground" was laughable, I agree with you there.
Christians have been bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors on and off for the past decade or two as a direct consequence of their Christian beliefs. Should we stop them from building churches in the area for a few years every time?
Yes! That's exactly the right idea.
Did they ban Ryder trucks in Oklahoma after McVeigh blew up the Federal Building with one? Should Colorado have banned the sale of Quake after Columbine since it would be disrespectful to let people play it?
Ryder trucks and video games have shown no evidence of leading directly to violence. So, I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Perhaps Vallicella should learn some statistics. Given that Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, and yet there isn't a 9/11 every day, I'm not convinced that being a terrorist is a "direct consequence" of holding any Islamic beliefs. I suggest that it's a more direct consequence of being a young, reckless nutcase brainwashed by Al-Qaeda.
And the members of Al-Qaeda were brainwashed by Islam. There is a direct correlation here. Just because there isn't "a 9/11 every day" doesn't speak anything about the link between religious beliefs and violent actions, it only speaks volumes about the inherent good nature of all human beings.
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some insane mass murderers held a particular subset of Islamic religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on sane, normal people who hold similar religious beliefs? Maybe as an atheist I missed the big announcement where we decided to compare how sensible people's religions were and start judging them based on what kind of crazy things their holy texts say; I'm not sure that Christians or Jews would come out that well on that metric. I judge people on their actions.
As an atheist I'm astounded that you can't understand that all religious people, especially devout ones, actually believe what they say they believe. Unfortunately every holy text has passages that can be and HAVE BEEN interpreted to promote violence towards outside groups. Even the bible has been used to justify slavery and the crusades, just as the Qur-an has been used to justify the horrific deeds of terrorists.
Even though most people are inherently good, and will never commit atrocities such as these, there's no reason why some people, who aren't inherently good for whatever reason, will use the passages from these books, which they believe to be the word of God, to justify horrible cruelty.
The issue isn't that Islam is a "bad religion" or any of that nonsense. It's that all religions are equally bad, and have no place in modern society. And it's not that all Muslims are being judged as bad, I'm absolutely positive that a large majority of them are good, ethical human beings, because most human beings are good and ethical.
That said, I still support the construction of this Mosque, because in America they have the freedom to do whatever they want with the land that they purchased. Arguing against their right to construct it leads nowhere.
On August 23 2010 23:52 Emon_ wrote: You wanna teach Iraq about democracy and equal rights, but you don't respect it in your own country? The hypocrisy is baffling. And yeah, Saudi Arabia doesn't have any churches. Congrats on being just as good as them.
lol, there are thousands of mosques in the United states
look out for those islamic point guards and chefs.
build an islamic center wherever you want, once this thing actually gets built the world will forget about it in a week, it's just an opportunity to bring out the ugliness of a very vocal minority.
in other news, life is much easier when you hold nothing sacred
Perhaps Vallicella should learn some statistics. Given that Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, and yet there isn't a 9/11 every day, I'm not convinced that being a terrorist is a "direct consequence" of holding any Islamic beliefs. I suggest that it's a more direct consequence of being a young, reckless nutcase brainwashed by Al-Qaeda.
And the members of Al-Qaeda were brainwashed by Islam. There is a direct correlation here. Just because there isn't "a 9/11 every day" doesn't speak anything about the link between religious beliefs and violent actions, it only speaks volumes about the inherent good nature of all human beings.
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some insane mass murderers held a particular subset of Islamic religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on sane, normal people who hold similar religious beliefs? Maybe as an atheist I missed the big announcement where we decided to compare how sensible people's religions were and start judging them based on what kind of crazy things their holy texts say; I'm not sure that Christians or Jews would come out that well on that metric. I judge people on their actions.
As an atheist I'm astounded that you can't understand that all religious people, especially devout ones, actually believe what they say they believe. Unfortunately every holy text has passages that can be and HAVE BEEN interpreted to promote violence towards outside groups. Even the bible has been used to justify slavery and the crusades, just as the Qur-an has been used to justify the horrific deeds of terrorists.
Even though most people are inherently good, and will never commit atrocities such as these, there's no reason why some people, who aren't inherently good for whatever reason, will use the passages from these books, which they believe to be the word of God, to justify horrible cruelty.
The issue isn't that Islam is a "bad religion" or any of that nonsense. It's that all religions are equally bad, and have no place in modern society. And it's not that all Muslims are being judged as bad, I'm absolutely positive that a large majority of them are good, ethical human beings, because most human beings are good and ethical.
That said, I still support the construction of this Mosque, because in America they have the freedom to do whatever they want with the land that they purchased. Arguing against their right to construct it leads nowhere.
Aaaannnnd here's the mandatory anti-religion post
For the 1 about video games, he was using an example of people scape-goating something as a "cause" when really the issue is far more complex. Your same analysis about "Islam brainwashing" falls under this kind of thinking, by claiming "direct correlation." Just because it CAN be interpreted a certain negative way doesn't mean it is causally responsible: in fact by acknowledging the importance of interpretation you're conceding that the crucial distinction is the interpretation which is based on the person's own perspective and individuality.
People have also interpreted the ideals of America to justify ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and slavery too. Does that mean America "is equally bad, and has no place in modern society."
Plus, there are millions of lurking variables. Poor economic background, lack of access to education, and more all influence both the individual's interpretation, as well as their susceptability to others' interpretations.
Also, you're assuming that "most human beings are inherently good." Because of that assumption you're prone to thinking that it therefore is some external corrupting factor that causes bad things to happen, but this crux of that thinking isn't really justified. I'm not necessarily argue the antithesis, but just noting that this is a far deeper philosophical question that can't be reduced to such simple claims.
The idea just seems like a bad PR move. I have nothing against Muslims or the idea of building a mosque, but it seems like they're invite a huge shit storm. : l
1) It's not a mosque. Mosques call for prayer 5 times a day, this is more of a YMIA (Young Men's Islamic Association). 2) It's not at ground zero. Its a few blocks away. 3) It's not hallowed ground. There are "Gentlemen's Clubs" which are closer to the WTC site. 4) Not all Muslims are the same. Even if it were a mosque, why would it matter? The guy behind the thing is a moderate and has spent a lot of time trying to bridge a connection between the Middle East and the West. It would not going be a terrorist training camp or something. 5) The best way to stop terrorists is to show that the people they so hate are actually rather normal and accepting people that they could get along with. By protesting the building of this facility, Americans are showing that they are bigoted and close minded (which they arguably are). This just provides fuel to fire beliefs that Americans hate brown people and are waging a holy war/crusade on Islam. 6) If it were about being sensitive to 9/11, what about all the Muslims that died on 9/11? And I'm not talking about the highjackers. Muslim Americans worked at the WTC and were passengers aboard the flights that hit the twin towers. At least 50 Muslims died as a result of the terrorist actions on 9/11; would it not be insensitive towards their families to deny them a place to honor their fallen?
hmmm.... i think that the "mosque" can be built. but i think we dont want this to get any worse - arson, hate on the mosque, graffiti, - and to make 100% sure it doesnt get worse is to just not build it , as that might just heat thinks up.
Ryder trucks and video games have shown no evidence of leading directly to violence. So, I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Perhaps Vallicella should learn some statistics. Given that Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, and yet there isn't a 9/11 every day, I'm not convinced that being a terrorist is a "direct consequence" of holding any Islamic beliefs. I suggest that it's a more direct consequence of being a young, reckless nutcase brainwashed by Al-Qaeda.
And the members of Al-Qaeda were brainwashed by Islam. There is a direct correlation here. Just because there isn't "a 9/11 every day" doesn't speak anything about the link between religious beliefs and violent actions, it only speaks volumes about the inherent good nature of all human beings.
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some insane mass murderers held a particular subset of Islamic religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on sane, normal people who hold similar religious beliefs? Maybe as an atheist I missed the big announcement where we decided to compare how sensible people's religions were and start judging them based on what kind of crazy things their holy texts say; I'm not sure that Christians or Jews would come out that well on that metric. I judge people on their actions.
As an atheist I'm astounded that you can't understand that all religious people, especially devout ones, actually believe what they say they believe. Unfortunately every holy text has passages that can be and HAVE BEEN interpreted to promote violence towards outside groups. Even the bible has been used to justify slavery and the crusades, just as the Qur-an has been used to justify the horrific deeds of terrorists.
Even though most people are inherently good, and will never commit atrocities such as these, there's no reason why some people, who aren't inherently good for whatever reason, will use the passages from these books, which they believe to be the word of God, to justify horrible cruelty.
The issue isn't that Islam is a "bad religion" or any of that nonsense. It's that all religions are equally bad, and have no place in modern society. And it's not that all Muslims are being judged as bad, I'm absolutely positive that a large majority of them are good, ethical human beings, because most human beings are good and ethical.
That said, I still support the construction of this Mosque, because in America they have the freedom to do whatever they want with the land that they purchased. Arguing against their right to construct it leads nowhere.
Aaaannnnd here's the mandatory anti-religion post
For the 1 about video games, he was using an example of people scape-goating something as a "cause" when really the issue is far more complex. Your same analysis about "Islam brainwashing" falls under this kind of thinking, by claiming "direct correlation." Just because it CAN be interpreted a certain negative way doesn't mean it is causally responsible: in fact by acknowledging the importance of interpretation you're conceding that the crucial distinction is the interpretation which is based on the person's own perspective and individuality.
People have also interpreted the ideals of America to justify ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and slavery too. Does that mean America "is equally bad, and has no place in modern society."
Plus, there are millions of lurking variables. Poor economic background, lack of access to education, and more all influence both the individual's interpretation, as well as their susceptability to others' interpretations.
Also, you're assuming that "most human beings are inherently good." Because of that assumption you're prone to thinking that it therefore is some external corrupting factor that causes bad things to happen, but this crux of that thinking isn't really justified. I'm not necessarily argue the antithesis, but just noting that this is a far deeper philosophical question that can't be reduced to such simple claims.
I agree with everything you said, except maybe the interpretation of what happened to Native Americans.
The cause of religiously motivated violence, whatever it may be, would simply not exist without religion. It probably is extremely complex, the leaders and decision makers within terrorist organizations may, for all we know, have been subjected to harsh physical or emotional abuse as children. They may just be sociopaths.
But the main thing I want to get across with my previous post is that pure faith in any single text that has passages demeaning towards outside people will, by necessity, lead to violence towards those outsiders propagated by only the most brainwashed individuals.
It's a really tough problem to pin down because of it's complexity, like you said there are a million lurking variables. I just don't see the problem with eliminating one of them (religion) and seeing where we end up as a species.
edit: This is my last post about it (maybe only partially in fear of moderator action). Like I said I agree with almost everything you said, clearly you're of higher intelligence.
Also I like this topic because it raises an issue rarely talked about on TL these days. I wish I could watch that Kieth Olbermann video from work just based on the responses on the last page
i remember when i read the book 1984 and that famous slogan of "war is peace, ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery"
well... i can't believe that i m witnessing this in my life time. the US invaded iraq and abused prisoners in the name of peace and freedom. and now, their ignorance has led them to justify the ban on mosque to be consistent with freedom of religion.
On August 23 2010 23:22 Ixas wrote: It serves as a painful reminder of the past for those who are affected, its not about discrimination but more of respect for the victims.
This is a good argument, but should we also disallow the construction of Christian churches in areas that have had abortion clinics bombed?
One way or the other, intentional or otherwise, this is just discrimination and blaming an entire people/religion for the actions of very few.
She claims this so called cultural center will "contain recreation facilities for youth, a restaurant and culinary school, education programs, a library and child care services in addition to a prayer room (mosque)". I wonder what will be taught in education center (IED-making 101?).
Statements like this from the US press makes me sad to be living here. Such hatred and intolerance from coming from the nation who fights for freedom? Where is the freedom of choice for the patriotic American Muslims?
There wouldn't be so much as a peep if it were a synagogue or a church.
Such hypocrisy makes me sick to my core.
I am a Christian. let them build their Mosque. There's already 200 in the area including 2 within 2 miles of the site. What's one more? There clearly is a large Muslim community there.
I have nothing against the mosque, in fact, I am fairly supportive of the idea of building one there. However, the arguments that people are using to silence those who do not want one there is disgusting to me.
How do people to intend to remove the connection that Islamic Fundamentalism, and consequently, Islam, have to the 9/11 attacks? Regardless of how the blame should be mete out, to some people who has suffered from 9/11, a mosque only serves as a painful reminder. They are silenced by others invoking the freedom of religion, the idea of tolerance, the ideals that the nation is built on. In the name of a greater good and what is 'proper', these people's opinions are casted aside and even twisted against them.
Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them.
She claims this so called cultural center will "contain recreation facilities for youth, a restaurant and culinary school, education programs, a library and child care services in addition to a prayer room (mosque)". I wonder what will be taught in education center (IED-making 101?).
Statements like this from the US press makes me sad to be living here. Such hatred and intolerance from coming from the nation who fights for freedom? Where is the freedom of choice for the patriotic American Muslims?
There wouldn't be so much as a peep if it were a synagogue or a church.
Such hypocrisy makes me sick to my core.
I am a Christian. let them build their Mosque. There's already 200 in the area including 2 within 2 miles of the site. What's one more? There clearly is a large Muslim community there.
This really ins't about religion, same issue when a shinto shrine was built (not recently) SEVERAL miles away from Pearl Harbor.
Point is, association with "attacks" on the US is not want people want.
Shinto Shrine=Pearl Harbor Muslim=9/11
Connection? Yes because it is a Identity issue, that probably doesn't actually mean it's apart of said source. If a so-called Christian "group" did something like those two, you bet they would not want to a church to be built so close to it.
She claims this so called cultural center will "contain recreation facilities for youth, a restaurant and culinary school, education programs, a library and child care services in addition to a prayer room (mosque)". I wonder what will be taught in education center (IED-making 101?).
Statements like this from the US press makes me sad to be living here. Such hatred and intolerance from coming from the nation who fights for freedom? Where is the freedom of choice for the patriotic American Muslims?
There wouldn't be so much as a peep if it were a synagogue or a church.
Such hypocrisy makes me sick to my core.
I am a Christian. let them build their Mosque. There's already 200 in the area including 2 within 2 miles of the site. What's one more? There clearly is a large Muslim community there.
This really ins't about religion, same issue when a shinto shrine was built (not recently) SEVERAL miles away from Pearl Harbor.
Point is, association with "attacks" on the US is not want people want.
Shinto Shrine=9/11 Muslim=9/11
Connection? Yes because it is a Identity issue, that probably doesn't actually mean it's apart of said source. If a so-called Christian "group" did something like those two, you bet they would not want to a church to be built so close to it.
And no, this is completely wrong. If some psychotic fundamentalist group had bombed the WTC, i'm very sure we would have constructed a church near it. I bet you there's even at least one Chapel inside the "Freedom Tower" Christianity is the default religion of America and the West. It's what you're expected to follow and it has generally caused much more pain for our country than any other. When a Muslim commits a crime, the judgmental few out there (hola Fox news extremists) will connect it with his religion. These same few people would refuse to do so with a Christian.
On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote: Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them.
They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.)
Its taken the place of a Burlington coat factory. And there are other mosque in the area as well, I believe one that has been around for 50years or more. I swear Fox News brain washes most Americans. This is ridiculous we have freedom of religion for a reason.
She claims this so called cultural center will "contain recreation facilities for youth, a restaurant and culinary school, education programs, a library and child care services in addition to a prayer room (mosque)". I wonder what will be taught in education center (IED-making 101?).
Statements like this from the US press makes me sad to be living here. Such hatred and intolerance from coming from the nation who fights for freedom? Where is the freedom of choice for the patriotic American Muslims?
There wouldn't be so much as a peep if it were a synagogue or a church.
Such hypocrisy makes me sick to my core.
I am a Christian. let them build their Mosque. There's already 200 in the area including 2 within 2 miles of the site. What's one more? There clearly is a large Muslim community there.
This really ins't about religion, same issue when a shinto shrine was built (not recently) SEVERAL miles away from Pearl Harbor.
Point is, association with "attacks" on the US is not want people want.
Shinto Shrine=9/11 Muslim=9/11
Connection? Yes because it is a Identity issue, that probably doesn't actually mean it's apart of said source. If a so-called Christian "group" did something like those two, you bet they would not want to a church to be built so close to it.
I think this right here highlights the exact cause of this whole debate. It's the fact that people cannot open their eyes and see that associations and stereotyping is the reason for every hate crime that has ever occurred. This is what has to STOP. If we can't get past our prejudices that every Muslim is somehow connected to terrorism, then we're no better than the terrorists themselves.
On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote: Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them.
They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.)
What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself?
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some insane mass murderers held a particular subset of Islamic religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on sane, normal people who hold similar religious beliefs? Maybe as an atheist I missed the big announcement where we decided to compare how sensible people's religions were and start judging them based on what kind of crazy things their holy texts say; I'm not sure that Christians or Jews would come out that well on that metric. I judge people on their actions.
As an atheist I'm astounded that you can't understand that all religious people, especially devout ones, actually believe what they say they believe. Unfortunately every holy text has passages that can be and HAVE BEEN interpreted to promote violence towards outside groups. Even the bible has been used to justify slavery and the crusades, just as the Qur-an has been used to justify the horrific deeds of terrorists.
Even though most people are inherently good, and will never commit atrocities such as these, there's no reason why some people, who aren't inherently good for whatever reason, will use the passages from these books, which they believe to be the word of God, to justify horrible cruelty.
The issue isn't that Islam is a "bad religion" or any of that nonsense. It's that all religions are equally bad, and have no place in modern society. And it's not that all Muslims are being judged as bad, I'm absolutely positive that a large majority of them are good, ethical human beings, because most human beings are good and ethical.
That said, I still support the construction of this Mosque, because in America they have the freedom to do whatever they want with the land that they purchased. Arguing against their right to construct it leads nowhere.
You might be shocked to learn that there are many religious groups (yes, even those Christians) who promote the development of personal character as one of their primary goals. Not everyone is the gun-toting muslim-hating rabble that you seem to stereotype them all as, and I think religions like that do a lot to enhance the state of the modern world.
Just because people sometimes (mistakenly) use holy scriptures to justify violence and discrimination doesn't mean that religion is bad. Try to be a little more open minded.
She claims this so called cultural center will "contain recreation facilities for youth, a restaurant and culinary school, education programs, a library and child care services in addition to a prayer room (mosque)". I wonder what will be taught in education center (IED-making 101?).
Statements like this from the US press makes me sad to be living here. Such hatred and intolerance from coming from the nation who fights for freedom? Where is the freedom of choice for the patriotic American Muslims?
There wouldn't be so much as a peep if it were a synagogue or a church.
Such hypocrisy makes me sick to my core.
I am a Christian. let them build their Mosque. There's already 200 in the area including 2 within 2 miles of the site. What's one more? There clearly is a large Muslim community there.
This really ins't about religion, same issue when a shinto shrine was built (not recently) SEVERAL miles away from Pearl Harbor.
Point is, association with "attacks" on the US is not want people want.
Shinto Shrine=9/11 Muslim=9/11
Connection? Yes because it is a Identity issue, that probably doesn't actually mean it's apart of said source. If a so-called Christian "group" did something like those two, you bet they would not want to a church to be built so close to it.
And no, this is completely wrong. If some psychotic fundamentalist group had bombed the WTC, i'm very sure we would have constructed a church near it. I bet you there's even at least one Chapel inside the "Freedom Tower" Christianity is the default religion of America and the West. It's what you're expected to follow and it has generally caused much more pain for our country than any other. When a Muslim commits a crime, the judgmental few out there (hola Fox news extremists) will connect it with his religion. These same few people would refuse to do so with a Christian.
It's wrong because you ASSUME that a Christian church would be built? Hmm, did I NOT say this is a identity issue, regardless of wither it's true or not?
I'm not even going to deal with the rest of that....
She claims this so called cultural center will "contain recreation facilities for youth, a restaurant and culinary school, education programs, a library and child care services in addition to a prayer room (mosque)". I wonder what will be taught in education center (IED-making 101?).
Statements like this from the US press makes me sad to be living here. Such hatred and intolerance from coming from the nation who fights for freedom? Where is the freedom of choice for the patriotic American Muslims?
There wouldn't be so much as a peep if it were a synagogue or a church.
Such hypocrisy makes me sick to my core.
I am a Christian. let them build their Mosque. There's already 200 in the area including 2 within 2 miles of the site. What's one more? There clearly is a large Muslim community there.
This really ins't about religion, same issue when a shinto shrine was built (not recently) SEVERAL miles away from Pearl Harbor.
Point is, association with "attacks" on the US is not want people want.
Shinto Shrine=9/11 Muslim=9/11
Connection? Yes because it is a Identity issue, that probably doesn't actually mean it's apart of said source. If a so-called Christian "group" did something like those two, you bet they would not want to a church to be built so close to it.
I think this right here highlights the exact cause of this whole debate. It's the fact that people cannot open their eyes and see that associations and stereotyping is the reason for every hate crime that has ever occurred. This is what has to STOP. If we can't get past our prejudices that every Muslim is somehow connected to terrorism, then we're no better than the terrorists themselves.
Partly, I would say it also the association the Terrorists have identified themselves with.Sadly when joe average (i'm really not going to debate intelligence or whatever on this, it is an EXAMPLE) will need time to put the two separate. Meaning things built before and sometime (I wouldn't know how long, but this isn't about exact dates) after will be fine.
Give it time. One for people to really separate the issue (Japan was not forgiven and vice versa just after ww2). Being selfish in this situation is only making things worse (being tactless). Know when to invoke your rights, makes a smother journey for all.
I never thought i'd read a good political story on cracked. Nice and simple read—even the all-the-arabs-are-terrorists crowd might be able to handle it.
But yeah, a majority of the posts in this thread echo the 'Us vs Them' sentiments being pandered by the wonderful conservative right. You people are the reasons laws like RLUIPA exists—without it, the makeup of any community would be determined by it's hateful, bigoted majority.
On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote: Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them.
They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.)
What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself?
Perhaps they ought to take a page from the Bible and "Do unto others..." If they want respect, they should start respecting their neighbors. Protesting someone else's place of worship for no reason other than "it makes me angry because 9/11" is the epitome of disrespect.
On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote: Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them.
They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.)
What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself?
Perhaps they ought to take a page from the Bible and "Do unto others..." If they want respect, they should start respecting their neighbors. Protesting someone else's place of worship for no reason other than "it makes me angry because 9/11" is the epitome of disrespect.
Do unto othes....
Would also mean if a so-called Christian did something similar they would have to follow the same "thing" that is happening here.
The opponents of the Islamic community center who call it a "victory mosque" have it all backwards. At the core of the American way of life is religious freedom and tolerance. When they single out a mosque (not that it's even a mosque), but would be fine with a church or synagogue, they are proclaiming to the world that the terrorists have succeeded in turning them into bigots and changing the American way of life. The small terrorist minority WANT this to turn into an America vs Islam struggle, because it strengthens their position all around the world.
What we have is an irrational, emotionally-driven call for inequality. Fortunately, we are a nation with laws to protect equality from the whims of mob-rule. And unfortunately, it looks like the Muslims are backing down and are reconsidering the location.
I also like what somebody said earlier in the thread. Should we try to block all Christian churches from being built near the sites of bombed abortion clinics just because a tiny minority committed terrorism? Or to steal from the Daily Show--is it inappropriate to build Catholic churches near childrens' playgrounds? Ridiculous.
Ryder trucks and video games have shown no evidence of leading directly to violence. So, I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Perhaps Vallicella should learn some statistics. Given that Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, and yet there isn't a 9/11 every day, I'm not convinced that being a terrorist is a "direct consequence" of holding any Islamic beliefs. I suggest that it's a more direct consequence of being a young, reckless nutcase brainwashed by Al-Qaeda.
And the members of Al-Qaeda were brainwashed by Islam. There is a direct correlation here. Just because there isn't "a 9/11 every day" doesn't speak anything about the link between religious beliefs and violent actions, it only speaks volumes about the inherent good nature of all human beings.
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some insane mass murderers held a particular subset of Islamic religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on sane, normal people who hold similar religious beliefs? Maybe as an atheist I missed the big announcement where we decided to compare how sensible people's religions were and start judging them based on what kind of crazy things their holy texts say; I'm not sure that Christians or Jews would come out that well on that metric. I judge people on their actions.
As an atheist I'm astounded that you can't understand that all religious people, especially devout ones, actually believe what they say they believe. Unfortunately every holy text has passages that can be and HAVE BEEN interpreted to promote violence towards outside groups. Even the bible has been used to justify slavery and the crusades, just as the Qur-an has been used to justify the horrific deeds of terrorists.
Even though most people are inherently good, and will never commit atrocities such as these, there's no reason why some people, who aren't inherently good for whatever reason, will use the passages from these books, which they believe to be the word of God, to justify horrible cruelty.
The issue isn't that Islam is a "bad religion" or any of that nonsense. It's that all religions are equally bad, and have no place in modern society. And it's not that all Muslims are being judged as bad, I'm absolutely positive that a large majority of them are good, ethical human beings, because most human beings are good and ethical.
That said, I still support the construction of this Mosque, because in America they have the freedom to do whatever they want with the land that they purchased. Arguing against their right to construct it leads nowhere.
Aaaannnnd here's the mandatory anti-religion post
For the 1 about video games, he was using an example of people scape-goating something as a "cause" when really the issue is far more complex. Your same analysis about "Islam brainwashing" falls under this kind of thinking, by claiming "direct correlation." Just because it CAN be interpreted a certain negative way doesn't mean it is causally responsible: in fact by acknowledging the importance of interpretation you're conceding that the crucial distinction is the interpretation which is based on the person's own perspective and individuality.
People have also interpreted the ideals of America to justify ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and slavery too. Does that mean America "is equally bad, and has no place in modern society."
Plus, there are millions of lurking variables. Poor economic background, lack of access to education, and more all influence both the individual's interpretation, as well as their susceptability to others' interpretations.
Also, you're assuming that "most human beings are inherently good." Because of that assumption you're prone to thinking that it therefore is some external corrupting factor that causes bad things to happen, but this crux of that thinking isn't really justified. I'm not necessarily argue the antithesis, but just noting that this is a far deeper philosophical question that can't be reduced to such simple claims.
I agree with everything you said, except maybe the interpretation of what happened to Native Americans.
The cause of religiously motivated violence, whatever it may be, would simply not exist without religion. It probably is extremely complex, the leaders and decision makers within terrorist organizations may, for all we know, have been subjected to harsh physical or emotional abuse as children. They may just be sociopaths.
But the main thing I want to get across with my previous post is that pure faith in any single text that has passages demeaning towards outside people will, by necessity, lead to violence towards those outsiders propagated by only the most brainwashed individuals.
It's a really tough problem to pin down because of it's complexity, like you said there are a million lurking variables. I just don't see the problem with eliminating one of them (religion) and seeing where we end up as a species.
edit: This is my last post about it (maybe only partially in fear of moderator action). Like I said I agree with almost everything you said, clearly you're of higher intelligence.
Also I like this topic because it raises an issue rarely talked about on TL these days. I wish I could watch that Kieth Olbermann video from work just based on the responses on the last page
Well, I still think that the fault lies with the individual distorting religion rather than religion itself; if they aren't given religious scriptures, they use other justifications like nationalism, racism, and so on. Much of Osama's motivations, after all, were less Islamic and more general hatred towards the culture of the West, which is part of why the World Trade Center was the particular target, as a symbol of materialism and wealth. I think we can generally agree that religion is simply used as a tool of those evil intentions, and is not itself "evil" - if this is true, it would be equivalent to the 2x4 block of wood: the fact that a madman hacks someone down with that block of wood doesn't make that piece of wood "evil," it is the man wielding it.
While you may view it as wanting to eliminate one of the millions of variables to try to stop violence, you can't simply forget the immense amount of good that religion has also brought - the millions of charities, NGOs, institutions of education, and so on; people too easily narrow their focus to only the bad and forget the good, but (and this is a favorite phrase of one of my friends, lol) you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
On August 23 2010 23:25 N.geNuity wrote: So, the constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It guarantees private property rights. Argument closed. Build it.
As far as the "arguments" against it, I see no reasoning besides associating all muslims with Al Qaeda radicals. And that's ridiculous and nothing but bigotry.
^This
I agree completely. These are Americans seeking to practice their religion in a country founded for one of the main purposes of religious freedom.
This is like killing Iraqis in the name of freedom and building a McDonald's on their graves. OH WAIT.
Realistically, there will never be complete peace between the Middle East and America. Building this mosque would be a step in the right direction in a PERFECT world. However, we live in a fucked up, retard-filled, chaotic world. Political leaders are corrupt and good intentions will never get us anywhere. Allowing the mosque to be built will most likely incite unneeded violence.
Everyone keeps throwing around words like "religious tolerance" and "religious freedom." America is turning into a cluster fuck of legal battles over stupid shit, lawsuits for stupid shit, and debates over stupid shit. The same people who helped minorities gain civil rights and religious freedom are FIGHTING AGAINST having the word GOD on American currency? These are also the same people who claim that prayer in school is religious INTOLERANCE? Lolwut? Kids pray to themselves and with each other WILLINGLY but they still get in trouble in school? Dig deeper and you will find a lot of INTOLERANCE for Christianity, Mormonism, and other denominations who claim to worship God. Religious tolerance in a perfect world also means religious equality. Unfortunately for America, this is not the case.
I would love to see true religious tolerance and freedom in America, however that will never happen and people will always be dogmatic and stubborn. In the end, we'll all end up pointing fingers and debating heatedly, keeping our right and left wing blinders firmly fastened, in back and forth political battles. There seems to be a lot of hatred/CONTEMPT (lol) for conservative thinking in this thread, but I would like to see at least a few people think about this situation objectively and forget about partisan stances. This isn't about FOX news, this is about having an opinion. Otherwise, we can all sit here and disagree with each other and throw intelligent debate out the window.
On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote: Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them.
They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.)
What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself?
Perhaps they ought to take a page from the Bible and "Do unto others..." If they want respect, they should start respecting their neighbors. Protesting someone else's place of worship for no reason other than "it makes me angry because 9/11" is the epitome of disrespect.
and you can't back down first and respect them for what reason?
When people can cite the First Amendment without needing to attach stupid conditionals, they have quite a powerful position. What are you trying to do, browbeat these people into thinking that they are wrong? Like Hawk said, you are turning this into a 'Us against Them' scenario. If anything, that attitude has only given them more reason to rally against this cause.
Hell, I'm okay with them building an islamic community center near ground zero, after all we've been building plenty of ground zeros near islamic community centers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a New Yorker, I've yet to see any widespread opposition among actual people from the city to this plan. Any New Yorker can tell you the "Ground Zero Mosque" is (a)A community center, not a mosque, and (b) Two and a half blocks from the actual WTC site. For a comparison, the Manhattan Mosque is just 11 blocks away. The Burlington Coat factory building is already used as a prayer space. It basically feels like a whole host of people from flyover country are intervening for no apparent reason. This is a local non-issue, that's become a political beachball.
Does this Muslim group have the right to own the building? - Of course.
Does this Muslim group have the right to build whatever they see fit on their property? - Yes, as long as it complies with zoning.
Does this Muslim group have connections to radical extremists? - No, they're part of the Sufi branch of Islam, which is the most moderate branch, and our natural allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their leader is considered a legitimate target for assassination by Al Qaeda.
If this Muslim group had passing connections to radical extremists, could they build the community center anyway? - Probably, as long as they themselves were lawful.
Is Islam responsible for the 9/11 attacks? - Only as much as Catholicism is responsible for the IRA. The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists who happened to be Muslim, not Muslims who happened to be terrorists. There is nothing inherently violent about Islam, and there is nothing in any way disrespectful about an islamic community center near Ground Zero.Innocent muslims died on 9/11 as well.
Basically, there is no justification for opposition behind this mosque other than an erroneous understanding of NYC building codes, or a woeful misunderstanding of Islam, and the people who practice it. Opposing this mosque is like opposing a church near the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. It's dumb.
On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote: Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them.
They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.)
What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself?
Perhaps they ought to take a page from the Bible and "Do unto others..." If they want respect, they should start respecting their neighbors. Protesting someone else's place of worship for no reason other than "it makes me angry because 9/11" is the epitome of disrespect.
and you can't back down first and respect them for what reason?
When people can cite the First Amendment without needing to attach stupid conditionals, they have quite a powerful position. What are you trying to do, browbeat these people into thinking that they are wrong? Like Hawk said, you are turning this into a 'Us against Them' scenario. If anything, that attitude has only given them more reason to rally against this cause.
I don't really understand what backing down has to do with it, and I'm not browbeating anyone; I honestly have no idea how to change anyone's mind on the topic, because I don't even understand the opposing perspective. It's based on emotion and fear that seems incomprehensible to me.
The word "respect" is totally meaningless if I respect everyone and everything. I don't like people who beat their wives, I don't like people who toss cigarette butts out the window of their car, and I don't like people who insist on trying to control where other people hang out and pray. I feel no need to meditate on the respectful brotherhood of all mankind before I say that those are all lousy things to do, and I see no reason to feel guilty about saying so. Nobody should feel respected for freely choosing to hurt other people.
@tree hugger: The only poll I've seen of New Yorkers indicates that the majority oppose the building. I'd be interested in seeing something more recent if anyone can find some data.
Its not like Muslims are outraged or something, but there are muslim citizens in US its growing and there were Muslim victims at ground zero. If it really hurts the peoples feelings, like the project holders did they wont build it there not a big problem. A simple apartment can be a mosque if people wanted to use it that way. But considering it a victory and stuff like that is riddiculous, the real victory here is showing the world that the "Free World" cannot even stand a mosque or cultural center close to ground zero. I know most US citizens might think they are at the center of the world or consider New York as Mecca of christianity (from some comments I really think some people belaives that :D) Building a church or synagoge in Mecca or Medina is not against Islam tough throughout history in Ottoman rule and before there were places like that since ALL the religions coming from that area. Saudi regimes desicions are politic using the religion. Anyways its not a big deal for Muslims again I am saying from a Muslim country no one even cared what happened there since no one thought it as a victory or something. Its NY managements decision to decide where to or what to build.
One more thing, good people of US, dont worry most of Muslims (not the uneducated ones or the ones who didint suffer from US bombs in their country) can separate between US people. Most of the people in Turkey for example realizes the media there have a huge impact on these kinda things and we dont blame directly te people most of the time. When you open your TV and it talks about "Islamic Terrorism" at least a few times a day people will ofcourse think badly. Anyways since Chrisitianity is the most humanitarian religion throught the history that caused no one to lose their life or to be tortured we can understand some motives they have in the media
I say it's insulting to consider it insulting to construct this mosque; you are associating these people with radical extremists that killed thousands of people
what's more of an insult? praying to a god or putting the burden of a massacre on innocent people because they happen to come from a certain part of the world?
edit: I should add that I hate religion so my bias would be on the side of not building a mosque, if anything. but forbidding this mosque on these grounds I say would be prejudiced and borderline criminal
Bottom line is, if the planners are forced to move elsewhere, it'd be a huge propaganda victory for Al Qaeda. What better way to show the Muslim youth that Americans are waging a war against Islam than showing cherry-picked videos of these demonstrations?
At this point in time, any move would have to be done EXTREMELY carefully.
I also think lumping all Muslims into the same group with Al Qaeda is ridiculous. Americans did the same thing with the Japanese and we all know what happened to those law-abiding citizens.
On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote: Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them.
They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.)
What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself?
Perhaps they ought to take a page from the Bible and "Do unto others..." If they want respect, they should start respecting their neighbors. Protesting someone else's place of worship for no reason other than "it makes me angry because 9/11" is the epitome of disrespect.
and you can't back down first and respect them for what reason?
When people can cite the First Amendment without needing to attach stupid conditionals, they have quite a powerful position. What are you trying to do, browbeat these people into thinking that they are wrong? Like Hawk said, you are turning this into a 'Us against Them' scenario. If anything, that attitude has only given them more reason to rally against this cause.
I don't really understand what backing down has to do with it, and I'm not browbeating anyone; I honestly have no idea how to change anyone's mind on the topic, because I don't even understand the opposing perspective. It's based on emotion and fear that seems incomprehensible to me.
The word "respect" is totally meaningless if I respect everyone and everything. I don't like people who beat their wives, I don't like people who toss cigarette butts out the window of their car, and I don't like people who insist on trying to control where other people hang out and pray. I feel no need to meditate on the respectful brotherhood of all mankind before I say that those are all lousy things to do, and I see no reason to feel guilty about saying so. Nobody should feel respected for freely choosing to hurt other people.
@tree hugger: The only poll I've seen of New Yorkers indicates that the majority oppose the building. I'd be interested in seeing something more recent if anyone can find some data.
Depends on where in NYC you ask lol.
You can not like people who beat their wives, you can not like those who toss out cigarette butts out their car, etc, but imo, you should in fact meditate on that before saying that they are lousy things to do. This issue, even on this forum, has lost the flavor of an individual stating their opinion. The more people try to assert that their own side is right, no matter which side, the worse the divide becomes. If you think that those people are wrong, would that stop you from coolly greeting them instead of going up to them, cursing them out and telling them to stop their wrongful behavior?
If you don't think you are browbeating people, you might want to think again. You have just likened people voicing their opinions to people beating their wives, stated that the the opposing perspective is incomprehensible, and has shown no sign of wanting to understand them. Are some, if not the majority of these opinions in fact hurtful? Yes, probably, but how does that give you a right to summarily dismiss all of these people? What I am seeing here is that people are taking a side that has the greater good and all these ideals attached to it, debasing it by following the standard of a side that they believe to be wrong and making conversation between the two sides impossible as a result. Then they have the gall to remind us that they, in fact, are right morally. I don't know about others, but should I be one of those who are against the mosque. Regardless of my reasons. I'd only harden up my opposition.
On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote: Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them.
They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.)
What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself?
Perhaps they ought to take a page from the Bible and "Do unto others..." If they want respect, they should start respecting their neighbors. Protesting someone else's place of worship for no reason other than "it makes me angry because 9/11" is the epitome of disrespect.
and you can't back down first and respect them for what reason?
When people can cite the First Amendment without needing to attach stupid conditionals, they have quite a powerful position. What are you trying to do, browbeat these people into thinking that they are wrong? Like Hawk said, you are turning this into a 'Us against Them' scenario. If anything, that attitude has only given them more reason to rally against this cause.
I don't really understand what backing down has to do with it, and I'm not browbeating anyone; I honestly have no idea how to change anyone's mind on the topic, because I don't even understand the opposing perspective. It's based on emotion and fear that seems incomprehensible to me.
The word "respect" is totally meaningless if I respect everyone and everything. I don't like people who beat their wives, I don't like people who toss cigarette butts out the window of their car, and I don't like people who insist on trying to control where other people hang out and pray. I feel no need to meditate on the respectful brotherhood of all mankind before I say that those are all lousy things to do, and I see no reason to feel guilty about saying so. Nobody should feel respected for freely choosing to hurt other people.
@tree hugger: The only poll I've seen of New Yorkers indicates that the majority oppose the building. I'd be interested in seeing something more recent if anyone can find some data.
I'm really skeptical of most of these types of polls. Not only is it a phone-survey, which introduces volunteer-bias into the sample, the fact that it's titled with "mosque" makes me inclined to believe that the question given in the poll may have been inaccurate, also further tainting the results.
On August 24 2010 06:22 Jameser wrote: I say it's insulting to consider it insulting to construct this mosque; you are associating these people with radical extremists that killed thousands of people
what's more of an insult? praying to a god or putting the burden of a massacre on innocent people because they happen to come from a certain part of the world?
edit: I should add that I hate religion so my bias would be on the side of not building a mosque, if anything. but forbidding this mosque on these grounds I say would be prejudiced and borderline criminal
rofl, so if it were up to you you would forbid the building of the mosque on the grounds that you hate religion?
Most national surveys and statistics are specially geared to be biased. They ask certain questions in a certain way in which people are certain to lean in a certain direction, just to avoid seeming like a fool.
For instance, here's a question: "do you like pizza?" And if there is a yes or no answer, fine, that's okay. But if it directly asks you "do you hate, or do you not hate pizza?", orrrrr say "do you hate your pizza with cheese, or do you like it without cheese?" See? I just twisted your opinion into something that I wanted to hear, or the poll makers did anyways.
Honestly im really quite against it and it is more out of respect for the victims than anything else.
Yet i think it should be built in view of religious freedom (as long as it is genuine and not a "terrorist" training centre" which i doubt it would be)
Note, by that last comment i ment jihad extremism being taught.
On August 24 2010 06:33 Ecael wrote: If you think that those people are wrong, would that stop you from coolly greeting them instead of going up to them, cursing them out and telling them to stop their wrongful behavior?
Excuse me?
If you don't think you are browbeating people, you might want to think again. You have just likened people voicing their opinions to people beating their wives, stated that the the opposing perspective is incomprehensible, and has shown no sign of wanting to understand them. Are some, if not the majority of these opinions in fact hurtful? Yes, probably, but how does that give you a right to summarily dismiss all of these people? What I am seeing here is that people are taking a side that has the greater good and all these ideals attached to it, debasing it by following the standard of a side that they believe to be wrong and making conversation between the two sides impossible as a result. Then they have the gall to remind us that they, in fact, are right morally.
I don't think this is a reasonable characterization of what I've said. I am very interested in understanding the opposing viewpoint here; why else would I come post in a thread about it? I don't understand it, however. The only factual argument I've heard is that the mosque is disrespectful or offensive, and that it's offensive because of connections between Islam and the 9/11 hijackers; there's been plenty of discussion so far about mine and others' opinions on that earlier in this thread, and I just don't see how it is a substantial argument.
It's incomprehensible to me, probably because I have a very different set of values and world view than folks who are making this argument; I don't experience any of the same concerns about terrorism or Islam that seem to be driving this connection, and I can't see how those concerns could be more important than religious freedom and tolerance, which I value very highly.
I don't know about others, but should I be one of those who are against the mosque. Regardless of my reasons. I'd only harden up my opposition.
When someone convincingly points out to me that something I'm doing is harmful, disrespectful, or immoral, I stop doing it. I don't try to argue with people who take emotional positions and sit on them "regardless of their reasons." Your posts seem to keep hammering on: This is not the right way to reach out to people who are angry about this mosque. OK, then what is the right way? I don't know the right way. What would you say to the people protesting this? I think a lot of people would be interested in hearing your answer to that.
On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote: Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them.
They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.)
What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself?
Perhaps they ought to take a page from the Bible and "Do unto others..." If they want respect, they should start respecting their neighbors. Protesting someone else's place of worship for no reason other than "it makes me angry because 9/11" is the epitome of disrespect.
and you can't back down first and respect them for what reason?
When people can cite the First Amendment without needing to attach stupid conditionals, they have quite a powerful position. What are you trying to do, browbeat these people into thinking that they are wrong? Like Hawk said, you are turning this into a 'Us against Them' scenario. If anything, that attitude has only given them more reason to rally against this cause.
I don't really understand what backing down has to do with it, and I'm not browbeating anyone; I honestly have no idea how to change anyone's mind on the topic, because I don't even understand the opposing perspective. It's based on emotion and fear that seems incomprehensible to me.
The word "respect" is totally meaningless if I respect everyone and everything. I don't like people who beat their wives, I don't like people who toss cigarette butts out the window of their car, and I don't like people who insist on trying to control where other people hang out and pray. I feel no need to meditate on the respectful brotherhood of all mankind before I say that those are all lousy things to do, and I see no reason to feel guilty about saying so. Nobody should feel respected for freely choosing to hurt other people.
@tree hugger: The only poll I've seen of New Yorkers indicates that the majority oppose the building. I'd be interested in seeing something more recent if anyone can find some data.
I'm really skeptical of most of these types of polls. Not only is it a phone-survey, which introduces volunteer-bias into the sample, the fact that it's titled with "mosque" makes me inclined to believe that the question given in the poll may have been inaccurate, also further tainting the results.
I agree, I don't really trust this one too far. I'm unfortunately not aware of any other polls.
On August 24 2010 07:04 Froadac wrote: I don't mind in principle but a couple things.
1) THe mosque is obviously pushing a point. There is not a great reason for it to be there other than make a pont.
If they were building a 15-story statue of Mohammed humping the air, I would agree with you. But a community center with a mosque inside has plenty of fucking use.
On August 23 2010 23:25 N.geNuity wrote: So, the constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It guarantees private property rights. Argument closed. Build it.
As far as the "arguments" against it, I see no reasoning besides associating all muslims with Al Qaeda radicals. And that's ridiculous and nothing but bigotry.
+ 1,
Absolutely racist to even link the two events. Radical Islam is so fractured from the rest of the religion, coming from a part of London surrounded by Mosques and full of Muslims I can honestly tell you that just like the Sikhs and Hindus here, they're the nicest people in the world.
Don't let the actions of a few spoil your view on an entire religion, in the same vein one could link the actions of many of Christians of that with the Christian church, but we don't.
pretty much somes up my opinion, i don't see why they cant build it there, or even the issue with it. There shouldnt even be a connection between the Mosque and ground zero.
3 Things: 1) It is not a mosque. 2) It is not at ground zero. 3) You are a dumbass if you believe points 1 and 2 to be false.
I could write further about this, but instead I feel that Charlie Brooker has the same opinion of me and puts down his thoughts in a far better way than I could. So go and read, please.
On August 24 2010 07:20 LaustinSpayce wrote: Guys guys guys.
3 Things: 1) It is not a mosque. 2) It is not at ground zero. 3) You are a dumbass if you believe points 1 and 2 to be false.
I could write further about this, but instead I feel that Charlie Brooker has the same opinion of me and puts down his thoughts in a far better way than I could. So go and read, please.
Exactly
1. It is not a mosque. It is a "center," with shopping stores and areas for sports. Only top two levels are for prayer. 2. Technically it is 2 blocks away from ground zero, however, it is more like 3-4 because it's like corner to corner. Also, there is already an underground (literal) prayer center closer to ground zero, in fact, built BEFORE the WTC than this planned building.
On August 24 2010 06:22 Jameser wrote: I say it's insulting to consider it insulting to construct this mosque; you are associating these people with radical extremists that killed thousands of people
what's more of an insult? praying to a god or putting the burden of a massacre on innocent people because they happen to come from a certain part of the world?
edit: I should add that I hate religion so my bias would be on the side of not building a mosque, if anything. but forbidding this mosque on these grounds I say would be prejudiced and borderline criminal
rofl, so if it were up to you you would forbid the building of the mosque on the grounds that you hate religion?
absolutely not, I would allow the mosque be built same as I would allow any other house of prayer to be built, what I was saying was that to forbid this mosque from being built on the grounds that it is an insult to the victims of 9/11 is saying 1. the people that attend the mosque have something to do with 9/11 in the publics mind 2. none of the people that attend the mosque suffered during 9/11 (islam has existed in NY for a long long time, many muslims died on 9/11) 3. their religion is violent and not accepted by society
none of these 3 are true, being insulted by a mosque in NY is a bit like a black man being insulted by seeing a white man, in both instances you are placing guilt by association
On August 24 2010 06:33 Ecael wrote: If you think that those people are wrong, would that stop you from coolly greeting them instead of going up to them, cursing them out and telling them to stop their wrongful behavior?
If you don't think you are browbeating people, you might want to think again. You have just likened people voicing their opinions to people beating their wives, stated that the the opposing perspective is incomprehensible, and has shown no sign of wanting to understand them. Are some, if not the majority of these opinions in fact hurtful? Yes, probably, but how does that give you a right to summarily dismiss all of these people? What I am seeing here is that people are taking a side that has the greater good and all these ideals attached to it, debasing it by following the standard of a side that they believe to be wrong and making conversation between the two sides impossible as a result. Then they have the gall to remind us that they, in fact, are right morally.
I don't think this is a reasonable characterization of what I've said. I am very interested in understanding the opposing viewpoint here; why else would I come post in a thread about it? I don't understand it, however. The only factual argument I've heard is that the mosque is disrespectful or offensive, and that it's offensive because of connections between Islam and the 9/11 hijackers; there's been plenty of discussion so far about mine and others' opinions on that earlier in this thread, and I just don't see how it is a substantial argument.
It's incomprehensible to me, probably because I have a very different set of values and world view than folks who are making this argument; I don't experience any of the same concerns about terrorism or Islam that seem to be driving this connection, and I can't see how those concerns could be more important than religious freedom and tolerance, which I value very highly.
I don't know about others, but should I be one of those who are against the mosque. Regardless of my reasons. I'd only harden up my opposition.
When someone convincingly points out to me that something I'm doing is harmful, disrespectful, or immoral, I stop doing it. I don't try to argue with people who take emotional positions and sit on them "regardless of their reasons." Your posts seem to keep hammering on: This is not the right way to reach out to people who are angry about this mosque. OK, then what is the right way? I don't know the right way. What would you say to the people protesting this? I think a lot of people would be interested in hearing your answer to that.
Perhaps I am just reading your statements wrong, but I rather felt like most of the comments in this thread (yours and others) amounted to taking a moral pedestal, start a lecture, and ignoring the other side. You might as well as curse them out, the effects will probably be similar. For example, you elaborated just now about wanting to understand the opposite viewpoint, but you stopped earlier at how alien their thoughts are to you. I hope you aren't expecting me to take the fact that you are posting on a thread to mean that you want to understand the opposing viewpoint, too many arguments happen on the internet because someone is wrong on the internet, not attempts to understand why.
Honestly, I don't know what drives these people myself. What you have said is really the only reason I can see myself. Can these concerns of a vague connection between Islam and those who are behind 9/11 be worthy more than religious freedom and tolerance? Clearly it can to them. If it comes down to that, then it is just a differences in values. Indeed, should we boil down racism, we can simply call that different values placed upon races and other values, but it doesn't really help to point that out and expect people to change.
I wonder what the right way to approach matter is myself, but there seems to be woefully little dialogue between the two sides. Those who are for the construction are quickly to call upon the first amendment, of religious freedom and tolerance, and what can you say against that? Just hypothetically, if I say that what you are saying is in fact against religious freedom and tolerance, are there really anything you can say back? You said that you would change if someone pointed out what you are doing is wrong. These people clearly aren't, as you are more or less just rehashing what others have said about the matter. In Chinese, there is this proverb that says when one gets embarrassed, one gets mad [as a result/to hide the embarrassment]. Putting value on religious freedom and tolerance is certainly not a bad thing, in fact, it is so justified that one can't help but be shamed to have to argue against that. In my opinion, at the very point when we are using these words to counter what they are saying, we have closed the door to future conversation. It creates a situation where some agrees with you and change their ways, the rest harden, and you wondering why this has happened.
What I am saying is that we should step back from using these grand moral points and try to address the individual issues. This can't be something impossible to reconcile, but by making it a larger deal that it is, it makes it that much harder to reach an agreement. I might be able to discuss the relationship of Islam to 9/11 and convince them that in fact, it is not a strong connection. Like many have said, the two are no more related on a macro scale than Christianity is related to killing abortion doctors and bombing clinics. Constant reminding them that such a connection is discriminatory though, imo, is by far more counterproductive to the purpose than it is helpful.
On August 24 2010 07:20 LaustinSpayce wrote: I could write further about this, but instead I feel that Charlie Brooker has the same opinion of me and puts down his thoughts in a far better way than I could. So go and read, please.
yeah, i dont know how you can read that article and still be opposed to it. When i first heard of it, i was opposed, but reading this thread, and getting some more of the facts, like, its not at all what they told me it was, no idea how this can even be a news event.
On August 24 2010 07:20 LaustinSpayce wrote: I could write further about this, but instead I feel that Charlie Brooker has the same opinion of me and puts down his thoughts in a far better way than I could. So go and read, please.
yeah, i dont know how you can read that article and still be opposed to it. When i first heard of it, i was opposed, but reading this thread, and getting some more of the facts, like, its not at all what they told me it was, no idea how this can even be a news event.
Brit humor!
The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is.
Sadly, not far off from what people would have you believe. Good article though.
To OP, the reason why there wasn't a thread about this yet was some certain person told me I should practically never post news thread on this forum while anyone else can. If I had the chance, I would have posted this like last Tuesday when I first heard about it...
As for the opinion here, I really don't understand what's with all the big big conflict and talks about this. First off, there has to be a middle point where both parties can agree. Although that seems impossible at most cases, I believe it can be found here. Yet both sides are a little bit extreme and won't give in to the other side. So what do we do now? Honestly, I can't do anything since I have no power or ability to determine direction so I do not have an opinion of this at all. A neutral carefree mind of this matter that has nothing to do with me.
That being said, I do hope the result can be agreed upon both sides that everyone becomes happy in the end (which is nearly impossible).
Read the thread, we have already discussed that at length.
1) I mean they need a mosque in the region, but two blocks from ground zero seems like they knew they were making a point. Even if it wasn't hteir primary purpose, they knew something stupid like this would happen.
2) I'm thinking of another thread on a different forum, I read through and saw the mention, because I"m obviously blind >.>
3) I'm for it going in, but the greek orthodox thing doesn't seem particularly fair, and it doesn't make sense for it to be put there and not a little further out of the way where they are safe from neo nazis bombing the thing out of rage. (A real possibility in my opinion, although I don't think anyone wants to talk about it)
On August 24 2010 07:20 LaustinSpayce wrote: I could write further about this, but instead I feel that Charlie Brooker has the same opinion of me and puts down his thoughts in a far better way than I could. So go and read, please.
yeah, i dont know how you can read that article and still be opposed to it. When i first heard of it, i was opposed, but reading this thread, and getting some more of the facts, like, its not at all what they told me it was, no idea how this can even be a news event.
The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is.
Sadly, not far off from what people would have you believe. Good article though.
Haha, great article. My favorite part: "I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain."
Read the thread, we have already discussed that at length.
1) I mean they need a mosque in the region, but two blocks from ground zero seems like they knew they were making a point. Even if it wasn't their primary purpose, they knew something stupid like this would happen.
Not everyone assumes people are bigoted sacks of shit.
For that matter, they were already using the building for prayer meetings. "Sorry, guys, you can't renovate your home. Somebody who looks like you decided to be a dick two blocks away from here."
On topic: some1 alrdy mentions it above but ya muslims build mosque in the place of victory when they conquer a place, it has been shown through history. america may be tolerance on the religions but there is a limit.
Off topic: to most i will sound racist and all but muslim are suppost to be radical and too the dot with their intentions, if ur not a radical muslim ur not a muslim according to the koran just look at this video b4 replying to me:
On August 24 2010 10:34 GiantEnemyCrab wrote: On topic: some1 alrdy mentions it above but ya muslims build mosque in the place of victory when they conquer a place, it has been shown through history. america may be tolerance on the religions but there is a limit.
Off topic: to most i will sound racist and all but muslim are suppost to be radical and too the dot with their intentions, if ur not a radical muslim ur not a muslim according to the koran just look at this video b4 replying to me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w
Oh please, many Christians don't follow the Old Testament either, does that mean they're not Christian?
Religions change as society and technology advances, and the peaceful Muslims have recognized that fact. Even the Catholic Church, having denounced many theories in their history, realize they need to change their stance on things that have been scientifically proven.
Radical Islamists take the words of the Koran and twists them to suit their own agenda, a Jihad against all non-Muslims.
On August 24 2010 08:12 DannyJ wrote: Hooray for gigantic arguments over NY zoning laws!
The trippy part is it's not an argument over NY zoning laws. The zoning laws are clear. It's an argument over NY zoning morality.
Ahh yes, the timeless and controversial study of zoning morality. In Sim City 3000 i had an advisor for it. Then the volcano popped up downtown and he died.
am I the only one that hears them yelling, "ROBOT DICK!" ?
lol I hear it too
also I like the fat guy in the blue helmet coming up with the attitude and when they touch him to push him back their hands sink in like he's made of jello
On August 24 2010 10:34 GiantEnemyCrab wrote: On topic: some1 alrdy mentions it above but ya muslims build mosque in the place of victory when they conquer a place, it has been shown through history. america may be tolerance on the religions but there is a limit.
Off topic: to most i will sound racist and all but muslim are suppost to be radical and too the dot with their intentions, if ur not a radical muslim ur not a muslim according to the koran just look at this video b4 replying to me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w
hah that was like that episode of south park with the mormans when the guy said. "if there are two passages that contradict eachother than simply take the newer passage and that is the correct one." lolz.
On August 24 2010 10:34 GiantEnemyCrab wrote: On topic: some1 alrdy mentions it above but ya muslims build mosque in the place of victory when they conquer a place, it has been shown through history. america may be tolerance on the religions but there is a limit.
Off topic: to most i will sound racist and all but muslim are suppost to be radical and too the dot with their intentions, if ur not a radical muslim ur not a muslim according to the koran just look at this video b4 replying to me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w
everything about that video screams propaganda and lies wrapped in fancy nonsense typography
the qur'an isn't even organized chronologically so it would make no sense for 'the later' verse to take presidence over an 'earlier' verse; the qur'an is a recitation and the chronology has not been preserved so how do you tell which verse is 'later' <.<
On August 23 2010 23:23 catamorphist wrote: There are already a bunch of other churches of various faiths the same distance away, and another mosque one block further, so it seems like a 100% ginned-up non-controversy. Nobody cared about it until Pam Geller and Fox News told them to care. Besides, it's not like the fucking Taj Mahal in downtown New York, it's just some little community center thing.
If you want to complain about things desecrating Ground Zero, complain about the tourist traps, which are actually at the site, not two blocks away, and which are a fucking disgrace. I visited NYC in 2006 and I found it sort of absurdly hilarious seeing all these street vendors hawking maudlin crap.
I totally agree with you about the disgusting vendors trying to make a quick buck at Ground Zero. I got to visit Ground Zero when I was in the Marine Corps and was trying to pay my respects when some piece of shit vendor tries to sell me some 9/11 memorabilia. Normally, I am a very calm person but something made me snap and I freaked the fuck out on this guy. Needless to say I got into a bit of trouble for my little tirade (my CO happened to be there >< and had to spend the rest of my trip at the hotel. But it was worth it!
I now find that Jon Stewart has become one of my main supplements in terms of new sources.
All in all, I almost feel apathetic toward the whole situation. I think that whoever opposes the idea is being a little bit too Islamaphobic, and I think that the bickering is done for no really good reason.
At this point, the building of a Muslim community center at ground zero really doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
On August 25 2010 09:16 biarecare wrote: Remove the mosque, and arrest all these racist pro-mosque protesters
Emotionally-charged protesters are certainly the best examples of any cause, right? If so, I point you to the anti-community center protesters who harassed a man of color who was wearing a hat that apparently looked Islamic (never mind that it had the UnderArmor logo on the front of it) who turned out to not even be Muslim-- he was a man working construction over at Ground Zero.
Opposing this because it's a mosque is... I wish there were an easy term for religious discrimination, like we have for race or sex. Oppose it because the Imam has shitty ideas, or because you don't think the architecture will fit in with Manhattan's rustic visage. Don't oppose it because you think there's some ridiculous subversive Islamic jihad going down on the West, or that these Muslims are connected to terrorists-- that is idiocy.
If anyone's offended by the construction of this community center because it's being constructed by Muslims and will have a/some Muslim prayer room/s in it, then I'd be willing to bet that you're either a) racist, b) unable to distinguish between extremists and average believers (all Christians bomb abortion clinics and all Buddhists light themselves on fire to make a point, after all), c) a Fox News drone (who apparently doesn't realize that a major stockholder in News Corp is a primary funder of this center... and yes, Arab; don't worry, they forgot, too), d) fcking retarded, or e) more than one choice is correct.
I find it funny when a non-Muslim says something about how Muslims have to be fanatical and fundamentalist and warlike, for two reasons. First, there are plenty of peaceful Muslims, and that should be proof enough. Secondly, this can be said about Judaism and Christianity, because similar language can be found in their holy texts, as well. Yet Christians and Jews often go against a literal or fundamentalist interpretation of their scriptures because it's contrary to peace or living in a mixed society.
Unless you're a Muslim, former Muslim, a religious scholar who's spent time studying Islam in particular, or a sociologist who's studied Muslim populations and their interpretations of Islam, making pronouncements about how Muslims must or actually do conduct themselves or think is far beyond your place.
You have 300 sq mi in NYC and you want to place a mosque exactly next to the place where one of the biggest tragedies in recent American history has happened. Really!? Religious freedom is well and good, but a mosque around ground zero is nothing but a slap in the face to many people. The sole connection of Islam with 9/11 is like pouring endless amounts of salt into an open wound.
On August 25 2010 09:16 biarecare wrote: Remove the mosque, and arrest all these racist pro-mosque protesters
Emotionally-charged protesters are certainly the best examples of any cause, right? If so, I point you to the anti-community center protesters who harassed a man of color who was wearing a hat that apparently looked Islamic (never mind that it had the UnderArmor logo on the front of it) who turned out to not even be Muslim-- he was a man working construction over at Ground Zero.
Opposing this because it's a mosque is... I wish there were an easy term for religious discrimination, like we have for race or sex. Oppose it because the Imam has shitty ideas, or because you don't think the architecture will fit in with Manhattan's rustic visage. Don't oppose it because you think there's some ridiculous subversive Islamic jihad going down on the West, or that these Muslims are connected to terrorists-- that is idiocy.
If anyone's offended by the construction of this community center because it's being constructed by Muslims and will have a/some Muslim prayer room/s in it, then I'd be willing to bet that you're either a) racist, b) unable to distinguish between extremists and average believers (all Christians bomb abortion clinics and all Buddhists light themselves on fire to make a point, after all), c) a Fox News drone (who apparently doesn't realize that a major stockholder in News Corp is a primary funder of this center... and yes, Arab; don't worry, they forgot, too), d) fcking retarded, or e) more than one choice is correct.
I find it funny when a non-Muslim says something about how Muslims have to be fanatical and fundamentalist and warlike, for two reasons. First, there are plenty of peaceful Muslims, and that should be proof enough. Secondly, this can be said about Judaism and Christianity, because similar language can be found in their holy texts, as well. Yet Christians and Jews often go against a literal or fundamentalist interpretation of their scriptures because it's contrary to peace or living in a mixed society.
Unless you're a Muslim, former Muslim, a religious scholar who's spent time studying Islam in particular, or a sociologist who's studied Muslim populations and their interpretations of Islam, making pronouncements about how Muslims must or actually do conduct themselves or think is far beyond your place.
Your post is emotionally charged and defensive. It's not going to convince anyone. According to numerous polls, most Americans oppose the mosque. I don't think most of these people fit one of your categorizations either.
On August 25 2010 10:23 ggrrg wrote: a mosque around ground zero is nothing but a slap in the face to many people who fail to distinguish between members of a religious group.
Fixed.
And it's not a mosque. It's a community center. Think YMCA, but instead of a Christian pastor it will have Muslim religious officials.
Your post is emotionally charged and defensive. It's not going to convince anyone. According to numerous polls, most Americans oppose the mosque. I don't think most of these people fit one of your categorizations either.
You're probably right about it being emotionally charged-- biarecare has a great way of embodying the very things I hate in his posts, and it sets me off.
I fail to see how it's defensive. Offensive, perhaps; I did insult a lot of people. That's probably because I'm sick and tired of people trying to justify arbitrary intolerance based on fear mongering.
Most Americans opposing the construction of a building in a city most Americans don't live in is irrelevant. This is not an issue up to popular vote; it is a building, which we have a system of bureaucracy in place to take care of. While popular opinion can direct building practices, it must be based on something relevant (economic impact, ethical prohibitions-- no building an adult bookstore next to the elementary school, etc).
About the popular opposition, I'd be willing to bet that the opposing responses are based on fear of the 'other' (Islam, common phenomenon in society), sensitivity to the families of the victims of 9/11 (understandable, but as I've said before, they fail to distinguish between extremist fundamentalist Muslims and average Ishmaels; there is no justification for restricting the actions of those not connected to a crime as if they were), basic religious intolerance (either anti-Islam or anti-religion altogether), or some other equally irrelevant perception.
If it can be proven that the Imam is a rabble-rouser, that the center will be used for nefarious purposes, that the presence of this large center will somehow destroy business revenue of competing businesses in its immediate area, or something else that is relevant and certainly more sinister than converting a small number of people to Islam, then opposition to this community center would have ground to stand on.
Right now, it's all emotions, and those are rarely the best guidance for policy.
I support them on building the mosque. If it's going cause this much controversy and hate then they should just drop it. It's not worth it. Even if it gets built, people are still going to vandalize and discriminate against those who attend it. We have a mosque that was built here in the suburbs of Canada, and it took almost 5 years to build it because of the amount of vandalism it suffered from. I feel bad for muslims who have to deal with this bullshit but at the same time they should know that they are pissing off a lot of people and just let it be.
On August 25 2010 10:23 ggrrg wrote: You have 300 sq mi in NYC and you want to place a mosque exactly next to the place where one of the biggest tragedies in recent American history has happened. Really!? Religious freedom is well and good, but a mosque around ground zero is nothing but a slap in the face to many people. The sole connection of Islam with 9/11 is like pouring endless amounts of salt into an open wound.
It's people thinking exactly like you that are causing this problem. It should not even be an issue.
"exactly next to" Ground Zero: Really? Do you really know where it is? I doubt it. It is two blocks away from Ground Zero, but this is counting corner to corner, so it's more like 4-5 blocks. It has perhaps 5% the same amount of pedestrian traffic as Ground Zero gets. No one will see this "mosque" from Ground Zero, and no one will wander to it unless 1. They don't know where they're going 2. They're going to it purposefully.
It is not a mosque. It is a community center, with shops and areas for sports. Only the top two floors are dedicated to prayer.
Now there IS a place of Islamic prayer CLOSER to Ground Zero than this "mosque." It was built BEFORE the WTC, and no one gives a crap about it. Why? Because there's nothing to argue about!
It's people like you, who don't know shit, but still create an uproar that are causing the problem.
Now, If anyone has concrete arguments and would like to debate this civilly, I would gladly listen and consider.
On August 25 2010 10:31 VonLego wrote: One of the old ways of showing dominance of a conquered location was to build a mosque on it.
It doesn't take much to see how the bad guys (who use Islam to fuel their fire) would get a kick out of a mosque at ground zero.
Perhaps, but are we really going to consider the "bad guys'" feelings over the Islamic, good guys', community in NYC?
Let's use another controversial thing as an example: abortion. Let's say radical Muslims think abortion is wrong (I actually have no idea). For someone supporting abortion in the United States, do you think the argument of "Well, if we ban abortion, then the bad guys would get a kick out of it; therefore, we shouldn't ban it!"
Do you think that makes sense whatsoever? You are totally ignoring the normal Islamic population in NYC here, and only considering terrorists.
On August 24 2010 10:34 GiantEnemyCrab wrote: On topic: some1 alrdy mentions it above but ya muslims build mosque in the place of victory when they conquer a place, it has been shown through history. america may be tolerance on the religions but there is a limit.
Off topic: to most i will sound racist and all but muslim are suppost to be radical and too the dot with their intentions, if ur not a radical muslim ur not a muslim according to the koran...
You said: You are not Muslim unless you are radical, because what is in the Koran constitutes as radical today.
I rebut with: All the Christians who 1. Do not kill girls who have sex before marriage 2. allow women to be teachers are NOT Christian, because that's what the Bible says.
Search it up. The world has moved on. These points can't be taken as they were made before. Unless, of course, you accept women cannot teach and girls who lose their virginity before marriage should die.
On August 25 2010 10:23 ggrrg wrote: You have 300 sq mi in NYC and you want to place a mosque exactly next to the place where one of the biggest tragedies in recent American history has happened. Really!? Religious freedom is well and good, but a mosque around ground zero is nothing but a slap in the face to many people. The sole connection of Islam with 9/11 is like pouring endless amounts of salt into an open wound.
It's people thinking exactly like you that are causing this problem. It should not even be an issue.
"exactly next to" Ground Zero: Really? Do you really know where it is? I doubt it. It is two blocks away from Ground Zero, but this is counting corner to corner, so it's more like 4-5 blocks. It has perhaps 5% the same amount of pedestrian traffic as Ground Zero gets. No one will see this "mosque" from Ground Zero, and no one will wander to it unless 1. They don't know where they're going 2. They're going to it purposefully.
It is not a mosque. It is a community center, with shops and areas for sports. Only the top two floors are dedicated to prayer.
Now there IS a place of Islamic prayer CLOSER to Ground Zero than this "mosque." It was built BEFORE the WTC, and no one gives a crap about it. Why? Because there's nothing to argue about!
It's people like you, who don't know shit, but still create an uproar that are causing the problem.
Now, If anyone has concrete arguments and would like to debate this civilly, I would gladly listen and consider.
What is the name of the mosque closest to Ground Zero currently? I am aware of the Masjid Manhattan, it is 4 blocks away.
EDIT: come on karliath, answer the question. or were you exaggerating? and yes, people will wander to it. it's one block from a subway stop.
I think that those people have every right to build their infrastructure based on our constitution. The only thing that bothers me is whether is it a good idea to do so because the majority of Americans don't support it. Last time I check over 60% do not. This is one of those "you could but should you" cases.
Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Religion had nothing to do with those planes flying into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant My 2 cents =)
On August 25 2010 11:53 IntoTheBush wrote: Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Muslims weren't the ones to flew those planes into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant My 2 cents =)
You're ignorant. thereligionofpeace.com - list of attacks done in the name of Islam over the past 10 years
Hi here's my problem with Islam in general, if it makes me religious intolerant, well, I guess I can live with that.
To tolerate those who in turn tolerate no one is a big mistake. When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)). -----As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States — Muslim 1.0% Australia — Muslim 1.5% Canada — Muslim 1.9% China — Muslim 1%-2% Italy — Muslim 1.5% Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2% Germany — Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7% Spain — Muslim 4% Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).
France — Muslim 8% Philippines — Muslim 5% Sweden — Muslim 5% Switzerland — Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana — Muslim 10% India — Muslim 13.4% Israel — Muslim 16% Kenya — Muslim 10% Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40% Chad — Muslim 53.1% Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 70% Malaysia — Muslim 60.4% Qatar — Muslim 77.5% Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83% Egypt — Muslim 90% Gaza — Muslim 98.7% Indonesia — Muslim 86.1% Iran — Muslim 98% Iraq — Muslim 97% Jordan — Muslim 92% Morocco — Muslim 98.7% Pakistan — Muslim 97% Palestine — Muslim 99% Syria — Muslim 90% Tajikistan — Muslim 90% Turkey — Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s (supposed) to be peace because everybody is a Muslim: we know however that this isnt true is it...?
Afghanistan — Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100% Somalia — Muslim 100% Yemen — Muslim 99.9% Of course, that’s not the case.
On August 25 2010 11:53 IntoTheBush wrote: Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Muslims weren't the ones to flew those planes into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant My 2 cents =)
You're ignorant. thereligionofpeace.com - list of attacks done in the name of Islam over the past 10 years
On August 25 2010 11:53 IntoTheBush wrote: Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Muslims weren't the ones to flew those planes into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant My 2 cents =)
You're ignorant. thereligionofpeace.com - list of attacks done in the name of Islam over the past 10 years
yeah and there is no such thing as evolution.
15,903 terror attacks done in the name of Islam since September 11, 2001. All across the world. The numbers speak for themselves.
On August 25 2010 11:53 IntoTheBush wrote: Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Muslims weren't the ones to flew those planes into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant My 2 cents =)
You're ignorant. thereligionofpeace.com - list of attacks done in the name of Islam over the past 10 years
He's ignorant? Look at yourself first.
On August 25 2010 12:10 thesighter wrote: 15,903 terror attacks done in the name of Islam since September 11, 2001. All across the world. The numbers speak for themselves.
I know what they say, they say that some Islamic Extremists can't live in peace.
On August 25 2010 11:53 IntoTheBush wrote: Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Muslims weren't the ones to flew those planes into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant My 2 cents =)
You're ignorant. thereligionofpeace.com - list of attacks done in the name of Islam over the past 10 years
On August 25 2010 12:14 snorlax wrote: Newt Gingrich said it best, (Paraphrase) Its like building a Hindu temple at pearl harbor.
Hahaha that's even less controversial. Hinduism is less related to the actions of pearl harbor than Islam is to the actions of 9/11. Still doesn't mean they derive from Islam, merely means it was distorted and used for terrorist's own purposes.
Good article to read here. Keep in mind Islamic Extremist acts get ALOT more attention than other acts. Look at this FBI study(reported in CNN), more acts by Extreme left wing groups and Jewish Extremists than islamic ones. Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database Here it is
Does this mean We should be careful of jews, or that Latinos are evil and should be forbidden from speaking spanish(extreme...but example remains true). No!
plus it was because he thought Hinduism was the primary religion in Japan (comparing pearl harbor to 9/11)
(I believe it was Hinduism may have been another religion that is obviously not japans primary relgion, saw some clip of him saying it a while ago will try to find it)
On August 25 2010 11:53 IntoTheBush wrote: Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Muslims weren't the ones to flew those planes into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant My 2 cents =)
You're ignorant. thereligionofpeace.com - list of attacks done in the name of Islam over the past 10 years
yeah and there is no such thing as evolution.
15,903 terror attacks done in the name of Islam since September 11, 2001. All across the world. The numbers speak for themselves.
Think about this for one minute my friend. Lets say I'm in the Bloods and you're in the Crips. Ok, now some random shooting happens and a Crip gangmember dies. Of course the Bloods will take the glory if everyone is saying they did it. I think the Muslim extremists did the samething on 9/11. Why the hell not, especially when the United States CORRUPT media is saying they were the pilots. Use common sense bud
To deny a group from practicing their beliefs somewhere in our country is more damaging than having a mosque at ground zero IMO. I saw a great analogy on the Daily Show comparing this incident to what was presented in Michael Moore's movie, Bowling for Columbine. In the movie, Moore bashes the NRA for holding a convention near Columbine shortly after the school shooting. Basically the way I see it is, the mosque at ground zero is the right's version of Bowling for Columbine. It appeals to peoples' emotions instead of constitutional logic.
Would you rather your country do what the majority wants, or uphold a written constitution that guarantees the rights of both the majority and minorities?
On August 25 2010 12:14 snorlax wrote: Newt Gingrich said it best, (Paraphrase) Its like building a Hindu temple at pearl harbor.
Hahaha that's even less controversial. Hinduism is less related to the actions of pearl harbor than Islam is to the actions of 9/11. Still doesn't mean they derive from Islam, merely means it was distorted and used for terrorist's own purposes.
Good article to read here. Keep in mind Islamic Extremist acts get ALOT more attention than other acts. Look at this FBI study(reported in CNN), more acts by Extreme left wing groups and Jewish Extremists than islamic ones.
Does this mean We should be careful of jews, or that Latinos are evil and should be forbidden from speaking spanish(extreme...but example remains true). No!
Most terrorist attacks in the world are done in the name of Islam. These attacks don't occur regularly in the US. There are daily attacks in nearly all countries with a sizable Muslim minority. Thailand is a good example.
On August 25 2010 12:22 Teogamer wrote: To deny a group from practicing their beliefs somewhere in our country is more damaging than having a mosque at ground zero IMO. I saw a great analogy on the Daily Show comparing this incident to what was presented in Michael Moore's movie, Bowling for Columbine. In the movie, Moore bashes the NRA for holding a convention near Columbine shortly after the school shooting. Basically the way I see it is, the mosque at ground zero is the right's version of Bowling for Columbine. It appeals to peoples' emotions instead of constitutional logic.
Would you rather your country do what the majority wants, or uphold a written constitution that guarantees the rights of both the majority and minorities?
On August 25 2010 12:14 snorlax wrote: Newt Gingrich said it best, (Paraphrase) Its like building a Hindu temple at pearl harbor.
Hahaha that's even less controversial. Hinduism is less related to the actions of pearl harbor than Islam is to the actions of 9/11. Still doesn't mean they derive from Islam, merely means it was distorted and used for terrorist's own purposes.
Good article to read here. Keep in mind Islamic Extremist acts get ALOT more attention than other acts. Look at this FBI study(reported in CNN), more acts by Extreme left wing groups and Jewish Extremists than islamic ones.
Does this mean We should be careful of jews, or that Latinos are evil and should be forbidden from speaking spanish(extreme...but example remains true). No!
Most terrorist attacks in the world are done in the name of Islam. These attacks don't occur regularly in the US. There are daily attacks in nearly all countries with a sizable Muslim minority. Thailand is a good example.
You're just stating facts here, what is your opinion/point?
On August 25 2010 11:53 IntoTheBush wrote: Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Muslims weren't the ones to flew those planes into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant My 2 cents =)
You're ignorant. thereligionofpeace.com - list of attacks done in the name of Islam over the past 10 years
yeah and there is no such thing as evolution.
15,903 terror attacks done in the name of Islam since September 11, 2001. All across the world. The numbers speak for themselves.
Think about this for one minute my friend. Lets say I'm in the Bloods and you're in the Crips. Ok, now some random shooting happens and a Crip gangmember dies. Of course the Bloods will take the glory if everyone is saying they did it. I think the Muslim extremists did the samething on 9/11. Why the hell not, especially when the United States CORRUPT media is saying they were the pilots. Use common sense bud
I don't know what to say to this ... do you think the CIA funded 9/11 ?
On August 25 2010 12:22 Teogamer wrote: To deny a group from practicing their beliefs somewhere in our country is more damaging than having a mosque at ground zero IMO. I saw a great analogy on the Daily Show comparing this incident to what was presented in Michael Moore's movie, Bowling for Columbine. In the movie, Moore bashes the NRA for holding a convention near Columbine shortly after the school shooting. Basically the way I see it is, the mosque at ground zero is the right's version of Bowling for Columbine. It appeals to peoples' emotions instead of constitutional logic.
Would you rather your country do what the majority wants, or uphold a written constitution that guarantees the rights of both the majority and minorities?
Most people in NYC and the US don't want it built. Most people agree that the developers have the right to build it. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea to build it. All that the developers have done so far is increase the average American's negative view of Islam and provide Republicans ammunition for the coming election.
On August 25 2010 12:14 snorlax wrote: Newt Gingrich said it best, (Paraphrase) Its like building a Hindu temple at pearl harbor.
Hahaha that's even less controversial. Hinduism is less related to the actions of pearl harbor than Islam is to the actions of 9/11. Still doesn't mean they derive from Islam, merely means it was distorted and used for terrorist's own purposes.
Good article to read here. Keep in mind Islamic Extremist acts get ALOT more attention than other acts. Look at this FBI study(reported in CNN), more acts by Extreme left wing groups and Jewish Extremists than islamic ones.
Does this mean We should be careful of jews, or that Latinos are evil and should be forbidden from speaking spanish(extreme...but example remains true). No!
Most terrorist attacks in the world are done in the name of Islam. These attacks don't occur regularly in the US. There are daily attacks in nearly all countries with a sizable Muslim minority. Thailand is a good example.
I'm not really a fan of olbermann's at all, but I loved this
Sorry to go back so far in the posts, but I think he covered the major difference here guys between the fact that they are able too build this. Lots of things in America happen by private entities that people don't like take a look around I'm sure you can find something. I can see both sides of the argument here especially to some of the folks whom have been impacted by this. But, I don't think blocking this thing from happening is a great idea.
On August 23 2010 23:22 Ixas wrote: It serves as a painful reminder of the past for those who are affected, its not about discrimination but more of respect for the victims.
Yeah because Mosque = terrorists? Seriously, anyone who uses this 'respect' angle is making that connection, and it's fucking disgusting. It's like Jon Stewart said, Islam is to terrorists, as KKK is to Christian Protestantism.
Complete and utter racism, generalisation, and FOX News propaganda following bullshit. I would be absolutely embarrassed to be an American in the midst of all of this. Besides, it's a pure distraction for the GOP to cover up the blockage of the early responders bill.
On August 25 2010 12:14 snorlax wrote: Newt Gingrich said it best, (Paraphrase) Its like building a Hindu temple at pearl harbor.
Hahaha that's even less controversial. Hinduism is less related to the actions of pearl harbor than Islam is to the actions of 9/11. Still doesn't mean they derive from Islam, merely means it was distorted and used for terrorist's own purposes.
Good article to read here. Keep in mind Islamic Extremist acts get ALOT more attention than other acts. Look at this FBI study(reported in CNN), more acts by Extreme left wing groups and Jewish Extremists than islamic ones.
Does this mean We should be careful of jews, or that Latinos are evil and should be forbidden from speaking spanish(extreme...but example remains true). No!
Most terrorist attacks in the world are done in the name of Islam. These attacks don't occur regularly in the US. There are daily attacks in nearly all countries with a sizable Muslim minority. Thailand is a good example.
I mean... that would be pretty obvious, given that everyone is muslim eh?
Most terrorists in the world are Muslim. Terror attacks in Europe and the US are rare. Most terror attacks occur in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. I can't believe you're debating this.
On August 25 2010 11:58 Malmatik wrote: Hi here's my problem with Islam in general, if it makes me religious intolerant, well, I guess I can live with that.
To tolerate those who in turn tolerate no one is a big mistake. When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. ...
I wouldn't say it makes you religiously intolerant, at least not arbitrarily. I think you see a pattern and that it concerns you.
There are other factors that can come into play, tho. The constitution of a nation and its overall ethnic/religious distribution in particular can play a large part.
A nation doesn't become dominantly made up of one group unless it is either already dominated by that group, it is conquered in a war, or it is on the receiving end of a massive migration. This rules out the latter part of your list for most Western nations.
The US Constitution protects against legislation along religious lines (tho we are still in the process of shucking off our Christian yoke), so I don't see allowing Muslims to legislate their own communities along Sharia law happening here. This negates the 10% mark of your progression.
I don't think food-service or food-availability will be a big issue. We already have plenty of 'kosher' foods and restaurants around the US, and yet the Jews haven't managed to dominate the culinary marketplace.
Hasn't there been significant legislation against Sharia law in the West already? The French law banning the full burqa or veil comes to mind.
Also, of the nations which suffer the largest 'backlash' from high Muslim populations, ruling out the areas which have been Muslim for the last thousand years or so, how many of them were previously suppressing the practice of Islam, either officially or socially?
On August 25 2010 12:14 snorlax wrote: Newt Gingrich said it best, (Paraphrase) Its like building a Hindu temple at pearl harbor.
Hahaha that's even less controversial. Hinduism is less related to the actions of pearl harbor than Islam is to the actions of 9/11. Still doesn't mean they derive from Islam, merely means it was distorted and used for terrorist's own purposes.
Good article to read here. Keep in mind Islamic Extremist acts get ALOT more attention than other acts. Look at this FBI study(reported in CNN), more acts by Extreme left wing groups and Jewish Extremists than islamic ones.
Does this mean We should be careful of jews, or that Latinos are evil and should be forbidden from speaking spanish(extreme...but example remains true). No!
Most terrorist attacks in the world are done in the name of Islam. These attacks don't occur regularly in the US. There are daily attacks in nearly all countries with a sizable Muslim minority. Thailand is a good example.
I mean... that would be pretty obvious, given that everyone is muslim eh?
Most terrorists in the world are Muslim. Terror attacks in Europe and the US are rare. Most terror attacks occur in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. I can't believe you're debating this.
So again.... you're saying that in a muslim dominated country, the fact that MUSLIMS(who make up the majority of the country) are part of the terrorists means that Islam=Terrorism? Correlation does not mean Causality. That's like saying 100% of terrorist acts are commited by humans. Its true, but that's because everyone here is a human.
I'm not really a fan of olbermann's at all, but I loved this
Sorry to go back so far in the posts, but I think he covered the major difference here guys between the fact that they are able too build this. Lots of things in America happen by private entities that people don't like take a look around I'm sure you can find something. I can see both sides of the argument here especially to some of the folks whom have been impacted by this. But, I don't think blocking this thing from happening is a great idea.
Indeed, "some of the folks...have been impacted by this." Some of the folks who died on 9/11 happen to be Muslims. They were hurt that day, and they are hurt now.
This, again, can be related to Christian bombings. I am not arguing that the two attacks are on the same scale, but I don't think anyone would argue against putting a church in the area where a Christian bombing occurred. Instead, they'd probably talk about using the church to educate the people and spread peace and love for God.
On August 25 2010 11:53 IntoTheBush wrote: Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Muslims weren't the ones to flew those planes into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant My 2 cents =)
You're ignorant. thereligionofpeace.com - list of attacks done in the name of Islam over the past 10 years
He's ignorant? Look at yourself first.
Why am I ignorant? He thinks 9/11 is a setup.
Oh, 9/11 wasn't a set up. Can you tell me why Tower 7 had to be "pulled" after the other Towers fell? Don't tell me because of the fires, because there was an even more intense fire in Tower 7 during the 80s yet it didn't collapse on itself. I'd like to see the proof you have that 9/11 was 100% funded, and carried out by Al Queda. Also wheres the remains of the planes at the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania? Osama's family was flown out of the United States immediately after the attacks when ALL flights were grounded. Nothing suspicious about any of that I guess.
You can PM me ur proof since this isn't a topic about 9/11. If you provide evidence I have no problem saying you're right. Until then you should be a little less naive.
On August 25 2010 12:14 snorlax wrote: Newt Gingrich said it best, (Paraphrase) Its like building a Hindu temple at pearl harbor.
Hahaha that's even less controversial. Hinduism is less related to the actions of pearl harbor than Islam is to the actions of 9/11. Still doesn't mean they derive from Islam, merely means it was distorted and used for terrorist's own purposes.
Good article to read here. Keep in mind Islamic Extremist acts get ALOT more attention than other acts. Look at this FBI study(reported in CNN), more acts by Extreme left wing groups and Jewish Extremists than islamic ones.
Does this mean We should be careful of jews, or that Latinos are evil and should be forbidden from speaking spanish(extreme...but example remains true). No!
Most terrorist attacks in the world are done in the name of Islam. These attacks don't occur regularly in the US. There are daily attacks in nearly all countries with a sizable Muslim minority. Thailand is a good example.
I mean... that would be pretty obvious, given that everyone is muslim eh?
Most terrorists in the world are Muslim. Terror attacks in Europe and the US are rare. Most terror attacks occur in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. I can't believe you're debating this.
So again.... you're saying that in a muslim dominated country, the fact that MUSLIMS(who make up the majority of the country) are part of the terrorists means that Islam=Terrorism? Correlation does not mean Causality. That's like saying 100% of terrorist acts are commited by humans. Its true, but that's because everyone here is a human.
No. Islamic terror occurs primarily in third world nations where Muslims are a non-negligible minority or majority. In those countries, Muslim extremists commit a disproportionate number of the terror attacks, and cause harm toward the rest of the population.
Muslim minority countries plagued by Islamic terror: India, Russia, Philippines, Thailand. Muslim majority countries plagued by Islamic terror: too many to list
On August 25 2010 11:53 IntoTheBush wrote: Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Muslims weren't the ones to flew those planes into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant My 2 cents =)
You're ignorant. thereligionofpeace.com - list of attacks done in the name of Islam over the past 10 years
He's ignorant? Look at yourself first.
Why am I ignorant? He thinks 9/11 is a setup.
Oh, 9/11 wasn't a set up. Can you tell me why Tower 7 had to be "pulled" after the other Towers fell? Don't tell me because of the fires, because there was an even more intense fire in Tower 7 during the 80s yet it didn't collapse on itself. I'd like to see the proof you have that 9/11 was 100% funded, and carried out by Al Queda. Also wheres the remains of the planes at the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania? Osama's family was flown out of the United States immediately after the attacks when ALL flights were grounded. Nothing suspicious about any of that I guess.
You can PM me ur proof since this isn't a topic about 9/11. If you provide evidence I have no problem saying you're right. Until then you should be a little less naive.
On August 25 2010 11:58 Malmatik wrote: Hi here's my problem with Islam in general, if it makes me religious intolerant, well, I guess I can live with that.
To tolerate those who in turn tolerate no one is a big mistake. When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)). -----As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States — Muslim 1.0% Australia — Muslim 1.5% Canada — Muslim 1.9% China — Muslim 1%-2% Italy — Muslim 1.5% Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2% Germany — Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7% Spain — Muslim 4% Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).
France — Muslim 8% Philippines — Muslim 5% Sweden — Muslim 5% Switzerland — Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana — Muslim 10% India — Muslim 13.4% Israel — Muslim 16% Kenya — Muslim 10% Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40% Chad — Muslim 53.1% Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 70% Malaysia — Muslim 60.4% Qatar — Muslim 77.5% Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83% Egypt — Muslim 90% Gaza — Muslim 98.7% Indonesia — Muslim 86.1% Iran — Muslim 98% Iraq — Muslim 97% Jordan — Muslim 92% Morocco — Muslim 98.7% Pakistan — Muslim 97% Palestine — Muslim 99% Syria — Muslim 90% Tajikistan — Muslim 90% Turkey — Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s (supposed) to be peace because everybody is a Muslim: we know however that this isnt true is it...?
Afghanistan — Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100% Somalia — Muslim 100% Yemen — Muslim 99.9% Of course, that’s not the case.
fear mongering maybe but, there it is.
The same can be said for any immigrant population. I'd also recommend reading up on french history if you think rioting is a muslim thing and not a french thing.
On August 25 2010 12:14 snorlax wrote: Newt Gingrich said it best, (Paraphrase) Its like building a Hindu temple at pearl harbor.
Hahaha that's even less controversial. Hinduism is less related to the actions of pearl harbor than Islam is to the actions of 9/11. Still doesn't mean they derive from Islam, merely means it was distorted and used for terrorist's own purposes.
Good article to read here. Keep in mind Islamic Extremist acts get ALOT more attention than other acts. Look at this FBI study(reported in CNN), more acts by Extreme left wing groups and Jewish Extremists than islamic ones.
Does this mean We should be careful of jews, or that Latinos are evil and should be forbidden from speaking spanish(extreme...but example remains true). No!
Most terrorist attacks in the world are done in the name of Islam. These attacks don't occur regularly in the US. There are daily attacks in nearly all countries with a sizable Muslim minority. Thailand is a good example.
I mean... that would be pretty obvious, given that everyone is muslim eh?
Most terrorists in the world are Muslim. Terror attacks in Europe and the US are rare. Most terror attacks occur in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. I can't believe you're debating this.
So again.... you're saying that in a muslim dominated country, the fact that MUSLIMS(who make up the majority of the country) are part of the terrorists means that Islam=Terrorism? Correlation does not mean Causality. That's like saying 100% of terrorist acts are commited by humans. Its true, but that's because everyone here is a human.
No. Islamic terror occurs primarily in third world nations where Muslims are a non-negligible minority or majority. In those countries, Muslim extremists commit a disproportionate number of the terror attacks, and cause harm toward the rest of the population.
Muslim minority countries plagued by Islamic terror: India, Russia, Philippines, Thailand. Muslim majority countries plagued by Islamic terror: too many to list
Indias an exeception as the forming of that was directly correlated with Pakistan(as they split off). They are basically at war with each other and I would say are more government related terrorist groups than Religious "Holy War" ones.
For Muslim Majority countries I would assume your bringing up Afghanistan and Iraq right? I think that's more inner-Islamic civil fighting (aka Shiite-Sunni conflicts) that have only been dramaticized ever since the US's invasion of each respective country. Instability+invasion=Not good. That doesn't count as an example.
Phillipenes... don't know if they are actually that big of a Islamic threat lol. Really? In the middle of an Ocean? Sources please. Not saying your wrong, just like to see some sources.
Sources also for Thailand And Russia. I can see thailand, Russia I plainly don't know enough. PM me just some links and I'll be very grateful.
Wow. There is some weapons-grade crazy in here. Anybody who is against Islam and the mosque because some of its adherents are fanatical should also be against building churches and christians because abortion doctors and clinics have been attacked. It's a sickening display of normative privilege to pretend that xenophobia isn't shameful.
On August 25 2010 12:14 snorlax wrote: Newt Gingrich said it best, (Paraphrase) Its like building a Hindu temple at pearl harbor.
Hahaha that's even less controversial. Hinduism is less related to the actions of pearl harbor than Islam is to the actions of 9/11. Still doesn't mean they derive from Islam, merely means it was distorted and used for terrorist's own purposes.
Good article to read here. Keep in mind Islamic Extremist acts get ALOT more attention than other acts. Look at this FBI study(reported in CNN), more acts by Extreme left wing groups and Jewish Extremists than islamic ones.
Does this mean We should be careful of jews, or that Latinos are evil and should be forbidden from speaking spanish(extreme...but example remains true). No!
Most terrorist attacks in the world are done in the name of Islam. These attacks don't occur regularly in the US. There are daily attacks in nearly all countries with a sizable Muslim minority. Thailand is a good example.
I mean... that would be pretty obvious, given that everyone is muslim eh?
Most terrorists in the world are Muslim. Terror attacks in Europe and the US are rare. Most terror attacks occur in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. I can't believe you're debating this.
So again.... you're saying that in a muslim dominated country, the fact that MUSLIMS(who make up the majority of the country) are part of the terrorists means that Islam=Terrorism? Correlation does not mean Causality. That's like saying 100% of terrorist acts are commited by humans. Its true, but that's because everyone here is a human.
No. Islamic terror occurs primarily in third world nations where Muslims are a non-negligible minority or majority. In those countries, Muslim extremists commit a disproportionate number of the terror attacks, and cause harm toward the rest of the population.
Muslim minority countries plagued by Islamic terror: India, Russia, Philippines, Thailand. Muslim majority countries plagued by Islamic terror: too many to list
Indias an exeception as the forming of that was directly correlated with Pakistan(as they split off). They are basically at war with each other and I would say are more government related terrorist groups than Religious "Holy War" ones.
For Muslim Majority countries I would assume your bringing up Afghanistan and Iraq right? I think that's more inner-Islamic civil fighting (aka Shiite-Sunni conflicts) that have only been dramaticized ever since the US's invasion of each respective country. Instability+invasion=Not good. That doesn't count as an example.
Phillipenes... don't know if they are actually that big of a Islamic threat lol. Really? In the middle of an Ocean? Sources please. Not saying your wrong, just like to see some sources.
Sources also for Thailand And Russia. I can see thailand, Russia I plainly don't know enough. PM me just some links and I'll be very grateful.
India: I won't get into this, but let's just say that Indian Muslims and Hindus do not get along at all. Communal violence in India is horrific, because of the large population.
Big conflicts in Muslim-majority countries currently: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Nigeria. Many smaller conflicts in other Muslim countries, I can list 20+ more.
Indeed, "some of the folks...have been impacted by this." Some of the folks who died on 9/11 happen to be Muslims. They were hurt that they, and they are hurt now.
This, again, can be related to Christian bombings. I am not arguing that the two attacks are on the same scale, but I don't think anyone would argue against putting a church in the area where a Christian bombing occurred. Instead, they'd probably talk about using the church to educate the people and spread peace and love for God.
Agreed, our constitution allows religious freedom. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians are terrorists, there is no reason to shut this project down.
Stop building churches too!!! Christianity is responsible for many more deaths than Islam. What about holocaust, slavery, crusades or inqusition? So many deaths should mean that all christians are evil.
On August 25 2010 12:14 snorlax wrote: Newt Gingrich said it best, (Paraphrase) Its like building a Hindu temple at pearl harbor.
Hahaha that's even less controversial. Hinduism is less related to the actions of pearl harbor than Islam is to the actions of 9/11. Still doesn't mean they derive from Islam, merely means it was distorted and used for terrorist's own purposes.
Good article to read here. Keep in mind Islamic Extremist acts get ALOT more attention than other acts. Look at this FBI study(reported in CNN), more acts by Extreme left wing groups and Jewish Extremists than islamic ones.
Does this mean We should be careful of jews, or that Latinos are evil and should be forbidden from speaking spanish(extreme...but example remains true). No!
Most terrorist attacks in the world are done in the name of Islam. These attacks don't occur regularly in the US. There are daily attacks in nearly all countries with a sizable Muslim minority. Thailand is a good example.
I mean... that would be pretty obvious, given that everyone is muslim eh?
Most terrorists in the world are Muslim. Terror attacks in Europe and the US are rare. Most terror attacks occur in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. I can't believe you're debating this.
So again.... you're saying that in a muslim dominated country, the fact that MUSLIMS(who make up the majority of the country) are part of the terrorists means that Islam=Terrorism? Correlation does not mean Causality. That's like saying 100% of terrorist acts are commited by humans. Its true, but that's because everyone here is a human.
No. Islamic terror occurs primarily in third world nations where Muslims are a non-negligible minority or majority. In those countries, Muslim extremists commit a disproportionate number of the terror attacks, and cause harm toward the rest of the population.
Muslim minority countries plagued by Islamic terror: India, Russia, Philippines, Thailand. Muslim majority countries plagued by Islamic terror: too many to list
Indias an exeception as the forming of that was directly correlated with Pakistan(as they split off). They are basically at war with each other and I would say are more government related terrorist groups than Religious "Holy War" ones.
For Muslim Majority countries I would assume your bringing up Afghanistan and Iraq right? I think that's more inner-Islamic civil fighting (aka Shiite-Sunni conflicts) that have only been dramaticized ever since the US's invasion of each respective country. Instability+invasion=Not good. That doesn't count as an example.
Phillipenes... don't know if they are actually that big of a Islamic threat lol. Really? In the middle of an Ocean? Sources please. Not saying your wrong, just like to see some sources.
Sources also for Thailand And Russia. I can see thailand, Russia I plainly don't know enough. PM me just some links and I'll be very grateful.
India: I won't get into this, but let's just say that Indian Muslims and Hindus do not get along at all. Communal violence in India is horrific, because of the large population.
Big conflicts in Muslim-majority countries currently: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Nigeria. Many smaller conflicts in other Muslim countries, I can list 20+ more.
Russia: Again theres a difference between Islamic Militants and Islamic Extremist terrorist groups. Islamic Militants can merely mean they're an Islamic seperatist group. THey're islamic beliefs have very little to do with what they're fighting for. For example, Russia with the Chechen wars. That's specifically a Seperatist movement and unrelated to Islam as a whole.
Philipenes: Again seems like its a seperatist movement rather than an extremist movement. If you can show that its more Jihad than political, correct me.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, all have their own political/economic troubles and of course insurgency groups are going to spring from there. Again, alot of the "terrorist groups" your mentioning are more politically formed than just religious. Al quaeda would be an example of a religious group, Abu Sayyaf would not(it seems to me, correct me of course).
For thailand, the link seems to be broken. I'm awfully sorry for asking you again but could you fix it lol n.n. It's been fun and informative arguing and I'm having awful fun. I'm sorry if it's too troublesome. I'm just tired and might just go to bed right now n.n. Heh....
On August 25 2010 13:34 Uriel_SVK wrote: Stop building churches too!!! Christianity is responsible for many more deaths than Islam. What about holocaust, slavery, crusades or inqusition? So many deaths should mean that all christians are evil.
On August 25 2010 12:14 snorlax wrote: Newt Gingrich said it best, (Paraphrase) Its like building a Hindu temple at pearl harbor.
Hahaha that's even less controversial. Hinduism is less related to the actions of pearl harbor than Islam is to the actions of 9/11. Still doesn't mean they derive from Islam, merely means it was distorted and used for terrorist's own purposes.
Good article to read here. Keep in mind Islamic Extremist acts get ALOT more attention than other acts. Look at this FBI study(reported in CNN), more acts by Extreme left wing groups and Jewish Extremists than islamic ones.
Does this mean We should be careful of jews, or that Latinos are evil and should be forbidden from speaking spanish(extreme...but example remains true). No!
Most terrorist attacks in the world are done in the name of Islam. These attacks don't occur regularly in the US. There are daily attacks in nearly all countries with a sizable Muslim minority. Thailand is a good example.
I mean... that would be pretty obvious, given that everyone is muslim eh?
Most terrorists in the world are Muslim. Terror attacks in Europe and the US are rare. Most terror attacks occur in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. I can't believe you're debating this.
So again.... you're saying that in a muslim dominated country, the fact that MUSLIMS(who make up the majority of the country) are part of the terrorists means that Islam=Terrorism? Correlation does not mean Causality. That's like saying 100% of terrorist acts are commited by humans. Its true, but that's because everyone here is a human.
No. Islamic terror occurs primarily in third world nations where Muslims are a non-negligible minority or majority. In those countries, Muslim extremists commit a disproportionate number of the terror attacks, and cause harm toward the rest of the population.
Muslim minority countries plagued by Islamic terror: India, Russia, Philippines, Thailand. Muslim majority countries plagued by Islamic terror: too many to list
Indias an exeception as the forming of that was directly correlated with Pakistan(as they split off). They are basically at war with each other and I would say are more government related terrorist groups than Religious "Holy War" ones.
For Muslim Majority countries I would assume your bringing up Afghanistan and Iraq right? I think that's more inner-Islamic civil fighting (aka Shiite-Sunni conflicts) that have only been dramaticized ever since the US's invasion of each respective country. Instability+invasion=Not good. That doesn't count as an example.
Phillipenes... don't know if they are actually that big of a Islamic threat lol. Really? In the middle of an Ocean? Sources please. Not saying your wrong, just like to see some sources.
Sources also for Thailand And Russia. I can see thailand, Russia I plainly don't know enough. PM me just some links and I'll be very grateful.
India: I won't get into this, but let's just say that Indian Muslims and Hindus do not get along at all. Communal violence in India is horrific, because of the large population.
Big conflicts in Muslim-majority countries currently: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Nigeria. Many smaller conflicts in other Muslim countries, I can list 20+ more.
Russia: Again theres a difference between Islamic Militants and Islamic Extremist terrorist groups. Islamic Militants can merely mean they're an Islamic seperatist group. THey're islamic beliefs have very little to do with what they're fighting for. For example, Russia with the Chechen wars. That's specifically a Seperatist movement and unrelated to Islam as a whole.
Philipenes: Again seems like its a seperatist movement rather than an extremist movement. If you can show that its more Jihad than political, correct me.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, all have their own political/economic troubles and of course insurgency groups are going to spring from there. Again, alot of the "terrorist groups" your mentioning are more politically formed than just religious. Al quaeda would be an example of a religious group, Abu Sayyaf would not(it seems to me, correct me of course).
For thailand, the link seems to be broken. I'm awfully sorry for asking you again but could you fix it lol n.n. It's been fun and informative arguing and I'm having awful fun. I'm sorry if it's too troublesome. I'm just tired and might just go to bed right now n.n. Heh....
"islamic beliefs have very little to do with what they're fighting for. For example, Russia with the Chechen wars. That's specifically a Seperatist movement and unrelated to Islam as a whole." - not true anymore. The current Russian separatist groups seek to establish "Emirates" ruled under Sharia law. It is about establishing an Islamic state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Emirate
"Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, all have their own political/economic troubles and of course insurgency groups are going to spring from there." - most of the separatists insurgency groups in those countries are fighting for Islamic states. I'm too tired to link to all of these, use google/wikipedia.
On August 25 2010 13:34 Uriel_SVK wrote: Stop building churches too!!! Christianity is responsible for many more deaths than Islam. What about holocaust, slavery, crusades or inqusition? So many deaths should mean that all christians are evil.
Argh! Darn those Christians causing the Holocaust!
Those nazis were just the scapegoat! n.n
Not even looking at the link, I am almost sure that it either cites the Catholic church's cooperation with Nazi Germany, the suspicion that Hitler himself was a Christian of some stripe, or the WWII-era death camps set up in Croatia that were run by officials who were Catholic.
On August 25 2010 13:34 Uriel_SVK wrote: Stop building churches too!!! Christianity is responsible for many more deaths than Islam. What about holocaust, slavery, crusades or inqusition? So many deaths should mean that all christians are evil.
Argh! Darn those Christians causing the Holocaust!
Those nazis were just the scapegoat! n.n
"Anyone who looks through Nazi propaganda of the time will quickly notice that religious - which is to say Christian - imagery appears very often. It's not uncommon to see Jews draining blood from Christians and reports of plans to kill off the German race."
On August 25 2010 13:34 Uriel_SVK wrote: Stop building churches too!!! Christianity is responsible for many more deaths than Islam. What about holocaust, slavery, crusades or inqusition? So many deaths should mean that all christians are evil.
On August 25 2010 13:34 Uriel_SVK wrote: Stop building churches too!!! Christianity is responsible for many more deaths than Islam. What about holocaust, slavery, crusades or inqusition? So many deaths should mean that all christians are evil.
Argh! Darn those Christians causing the Holocaust!
Those nazis were just the scapegoat! n.n
"Anyone who looks through Nazi propaganda of the time will quickly notice that religious - which is to say Christian - imagery appears very often. It's not uncommon to see Jews draining blood from Christians and reports of plans to kill off the German race."
Nazis were actually christians
Nazi's(in theory) actually were against Christinaity and actually Hitler and Goebbels tried to start their own "Sun" Based religion. We can continue this in PM land, to stay out of thread, so you can do that if you want.
On August 25 2010 13:34 Uriel_SVK wrote: Stop building churches too!!! Christianity is responsible for many more deaths than Islam. What about holocaust, slavery, crusades or inqusition? So many deaths should mean that all christians are evil.
Is religion the problem or the people who hold power within a religion? If it weren't for religious leaders who promote prejudice than I believe religion would be as peaceful as anything. However, there would then exist another means by which those in power could promote prejudice to the masses. As long as we remain human I believe prejudice will always be with us and will lead to more crusades/holocausts/9-11s. No one who becomes Muslim does so with the intent to suicide bomb and kill hundreds of people. They do so because they are convinced by propaganda and those who have power over them to do it. Also, how much better are we Americans than the terrorists if we allow our leaders to convince us to discriminate against Muslims, Christians, or other groups?
I hope this isn't one of those taboo avatar topics we can't talk about, but 1. Did his post get "nuked" by an admin, and his avatar changed? 2. Did he write "nuked" knowing that he would get the avatar? 3. Something else?
Oddly enough, It always seems to happen to people with less than 5 posts. It was the first post with someone else. Also, there's the "locked" avatar too.
I know no one reads these after they post what they say, but...
This is not a matter of discrimination because legally no one is trying to stop the mosque in a court room or via congress or executive order. If people talk about not liking it because of what it means to them, or the questions of the people building it specifically being questionable that is their right.
You all love to blab on TL, but you're blabbing against other people blabbing, good work.
On August 25 2010 14:05 Williowa wrote: I know no one reads these after they post what they say, but...
This is not a matter of discrimination because legally no one is trying to stop the mosque in a court room or via congress or executive order. If people talk about not liking it because of what it means to them, or the questions of the people building it specifically being questionable that is their right.
You all love to blab on TL, but you're blabbing against other people blabbing, good work.
If you look at Sudan or any Muslim controlled governments, no other religions are allowed to be preached or taught on grounds of death. Yet here in America, they must have their democratic rights? A group of extremist Muslims brought down the two Twin towers and killed thousands. So let's celebrate them by building a religious temple right on top of that soiled dirt. In world war 2. Did they put a statue of a Kamikaze fighter at pearl harbor, or a what about at Hiroshima? This idea of a mosque on ground zero is repulsive.
On August 25 2010 14:34 chip789 wrote: If you look at Sudan or any Muslim controlled governments, no other religions are allowed to be preached or taught on grounds of death. Yet here in America, they must have their democratic rights? A group of extremist Muslims brought down the two Twin towers and killed thousands. So let's celebrate them by building a religious temple right on top of that soiled dirt. In world war 2. Did they put a statue of a Kamikaze fighter at pearl harbor, or a what about at Hiroshima? This idea of a mosque on ground zero is repulsive.
No one is celebrating anything. You make it sound like they are building a Mosque directly on top of where the twin towers used to stand O_o
On August 25 2010 14:34 chip789 wrote: If you look at Sudan or any Muslim controlled governments, no other religions are allowed to be preached or taught on grounds of death.
I hope this isn't one of those taboo avatar topics we can't talk about, but 1. Did his post get "nuked" by an admin, and his avatar changed? 2. Did he write "nuked" knowing that he would get the avatar? 3. Something else?
Oddly enough, It always seems to happen to people with less than 5 posts. It was the first post with someone else. Also, there's the "locked" avatar too.
Anyways. I missed the link
It was an ad bot. -_- He got nuked to erase his advertisement.
On August 25 2010 14:34 chip789 wrote: If you look at Sudan or any Muslim controlled governments, no other religions are allowed to be preached or taught on grounds of death.
On August 25 2010 14:34 chip789 wrote: If you look at Sudan or any Muslim controlled governments, no other religions are allowed to be preached or taught on grounds of death. Yet here in America, they must have their democratic rights? A group of extremist Muslims brought down the two Twin towers and killed thousands. So let's celebrate them by building a religious temple right on top of that soiled dirt. In world war 2. Did they put a statue of a Kamikaze fighter at pearl harbor, or a what about at Hiroshima? This idea of a mosque on ground zero is repulsive.
Might want to read about what led to the formation of your great country before you throw the foundation of your entire civilization under a bus. Unless of course you like the idea that America and Sudan are on a level playing field. If so, grab the machete!
And they aren't building it " right on top of that soiled dirt." (no idea wtf you are even talking about, soiled dirt?) It is blocks away. There is another mosque a block away. Stop chewing on sound bites please.
"This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop. Because so much more connects us than that which divides us. And because tragedy has been and will always be with us.
Somewhere right now evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it. But each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very bill of rights that binds us. America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction, when an isolated terrible event occurs, our phones ring demanding that the Muslims explain the inexplicable. Why us?
Because their story needs a villain.
They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief. To provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food. The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all too often bloom on fresh graves. I remember a better day when no one dared politicize or profiteer on drama.
We kept a respectful distance then, as the Muslims have tried to do now. Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do. But today carnage comes with a catchy title, splashy graphics, regular promos, and a reactionary passage of legislation. Reporters perch like vultures on the balconies of hotels for a hundred miles around. Cameras jockey for shocking angles, as news anchors race to drench their microphones with the tears of victims. Injury, shock, grief and despair shouldn't be brought to you by sponsors.
That's pornography. It trivializes the tragedy it abuses. It abuses vulnerable people, and maybe worst of all, it makes the unspeakable seem commonplace. We are often cast as the villain. That is not our role in American society, and we will not be forced to play it." + Show Spoiler +
-Charlton Heston, when he brought the NRA to Denver several weeks after the Columbine massacre... except with Muslim instead of NRA and the 1st amendment instead of the second.
On August 25 2010 14:34 chip789 wrote: If you look at Sudan or any Muslim controlled governments, no other religions are allowed to be preached or taught on grounds of death. Yet here in America, they must have their democratic rights? A group of extremist Muslims brought down the two Twin towers and killed thousands. So let's celebrate them by building a religious temple right on top of that soiled dirt. In world war 2. Did they put a statue of a Kamikaze fighter at pearl harbor, or a what about at Hiroshima? This idea of a mosque on ground zero is repulsive.
the difference those countries call themselves theocracies or are ruled by autocratic rulers and government systems. is america the same? dont people leave those countries for a reason? doesn't america promise freedom of religion?
yes here in america, they must have full democratic rights.
a group of muslim extremists thats right...a small group of extremists, one who muslims are also fighting alongside americans in many cases. and one who many muslims were fighting even when the United States was unofficially funding them (the taliban).
the mosque is being built 2 blocks away...not where the world trade centres stood
what does extreme nationalism/fascism/racism of imperial japan have to do with modern muslims living in the united states and abroad. if muslims were anywhere near as bad as you claim they are, you'd have a world population of a billion people who would be hostile and actively fighting america...you'd have a much bigger problem than 19 people hijacking airplanes. but its not that way because the extremely vast majority of those people are sensible enough and intelligent enough to not side with them.
I wish the initial topic was updated a bit with more info so people aren't so clueless about what's going on. Especially because there still seems to be this view that 1) It's being built on the actual site and 2) Don't seem to realize there's been a mosque on Warren Street (easily viewable from Ground Zero) for many years. Obviously if you just skim the headlines the media makes it sound as if there's a mosque being built at ground zero but that's simply just their attention grabber.
there was an article from the economist on this issue which i felt nailed it well. basically it said that...
so far all of the arguments against the mosque/cultural centre was based on the false assumption that all followers of islam should bear responsibility for the 9/11 attack.
which i strongly agree. part of the issue here is really self imposed by the American public which succumbed to racism and associated all muslims with extremists and terrorism.
Let me clear two things up first: 1. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, they terrorize everyone including the Muslims (Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sharm_el-Sheikh_attacks and http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3928441,00.html ). They attack Muslims and Islamic countries, we suffer the acts of those terrorists as much as others do, if not more considered how the west feels towards us. Those terrorist groups use Islam as a tool for recruitment. Their acts are not Islamic, killing innocents it not what Islam is about. They just exploit those who can't distinguish right from wrong at whatever costs.
2.Most Islamic countries people mentioned are already unstable like a lot of other countries that are not Islamic. Sudan have had wars since forever plus Al-Qaeda, Yemen is infiltrated by Al-Qaeda, Iraq was stable before the US invasion, Afghanistan has always been a mess since the War against Soviets if not even before, Somalia is unstable country just like any other random African country....etc. It's not Islam that causes the instability, it's that people seek power, and to get the manpower for forming their forces, they need to recruit, and they use Islam as a way to recruit people into their troops cause for them it's the cheapest way.
Either way, what bother me is that it's always okay for any religion to build religious buildings or wear religious figures, but it's always the things related to Islam that cause a fuss in the media. I as a Muslim somehow feel this is some sort of religious discrimination, why is building a mosque such a big issue? Why is wearing Hijab (not burqaa, there's huge difference) is an issue?
I just can't see the point against this mosque. If you can say: "Hey all the Islams are terrorist because of 9/11", than what about any non-catholic saying: "All catholics are pedophiles because some priests do it"?
If you think your religion is supreme in some way over some other religion than i pity you.
On August 25 2010 14:34 chip789 wrote: If you look at Sudan or any Muslim controlled governments, no other religions are allowed to be preached or taught on grounds of death. Yet here in America, they must have their democratic rights? A group of extremist Muslims brought down the two Twin towers and killed thousands. So let's celebrate them by building a religious temple right on top of that soiled dirt. In world war 2. Did they put a statue of a Kamikaze fighter at pearl harbor, or a what about at Hiroshima? This idea of a mosque on ground zero is repulsive.
Wow. You want to hold the USA to the same standards as those countries?
Where's your "American Exceptionalism"? If the USA wants to spread it's ideals around the world, it has to uphold them first and show leadership.
I have to say as a Danish person and an atheist, that I'm not a huge fan of Islam. The muslims in our country often seem to condescend upon our culture and religion. There is a huge group of these people that we have helped and accepted with open arms and given all kinds of welfare benefits. Their crime rate as a group is through the roof, they're a burden on the welfare system, due to their inability/unwillingness to take jobs. The employment rate for immigrants from China, Japan and Korea is around 85% where as for immigrants from most muslim countries it's well below 50%. I don't believe Danish people are more inclined to discriminate against people from the Middle-East compared to countries from Asia and I don't see not wholeheartedly accepting their religion into your country as a bad thing, especially at the site of a massacre commited by people following said religion. I'm not a biggot, I just call it how I see it.
On August 25 2010 21:50 GreEny K wrote: I dont have a problem with it... All I know is that if there is another mosque close to the site than there is no reason to make another one...
This is a Google Maps picture of down the street from where I used to live.
On August 24 2010 01:35 Alou wrote: Ground Zero was because of extremists. Not Muslims. Muslims had nothing to do with it. People need to realize that Muslims are not the reason for what happened. The only reason this is an issue really is because various candidates (and lol Fox "news") were losing and realized they could use this to secure votes of all the ignorant people in the country. Let them build it, because they have the right to just like everyone else.
And all these things about another church being denied to rebuild. Yeah, makes sense. Let's deny someone else their rights because ours were taken away. That'll make more people happy. Sorry that church wasn't allowed to rebuild, it should have been, but denying other people the right to build theirs because of it is stupid.
Man, this is appeasement at its best. Chamberlain would've made you secretary of state. As for this mosque, I couldn't care less. Let them build whatever and wherever they want, as long as it's applicable to the constitution. But I'm honestly scared about the future, because this seems the way most people in our generation tend to think. What if it would really come to the infamous clash? I guess you'd be still sitting there, cheering for every new mosque built and every new muslim entering the country. I wouldn't, because there are times you can't just do what pleases everybody the most.
And if I look at the list of military confrontations, within the last 20 years it were almost exclusively Islamic countries involved, either attacking or being attacked. Whereas after WW2, there were also many conflicts, while there were almost no Islamic countries involved, or no countries with a siginificant Islamic population. Now you may think, I'd like the idea of just erasing middle east, but I don't. I'd rather have it the way everbody could live in peace and in their own respective world. Stop trying to force democracy on people who can't and won't do shit with it, because they work differently. But also stop trying to implement Islam in working democracies and treat it like it'd be equivalent to the Christian church, whether protestantic or catholic. All of them made adjustments and they accepted their place in society, where they don't have big influence anymore. Now go tell all those muslims who live in Europe or the US, and most of them live a pretty regular life there, 9-5 job, kids, no trouble. Tell them to stop practicing Islam because it's a backward way of life, and this is fact, I hope nobody tries arguing that lol. At least here in Europe practicing Christians get strange looks and they're the vast minority of all people. I guess you in the US will also get there sooner or later. And they keep it to theirselves, they mostly don't even try to indoctrinate their children. One could say, Christianity is a choice in Europe, as it should be.
Could you really say that about Islam, whether it be in the US, Europe or even in the widely Islamic populated countries of the world?
On August 24 2010 01:35 Alou wrote: Ground Zero was because of extremists. Not Muslims. Muslims had nothing to do with it. People need to realize that Muslims are not the reason for what happened. The only reason this is an issue really is because various candidates (and lol Fox "news") were losing and realized they could use this to secure votes of all the ignorant people in the country. Let them build it, because they have the right to just like everyone else.
And all these things about another church being denied to rebuild. Yeah, makes sense. Let's deny someone else their rights because ours were taken away. That'll make more people happy. Sorry that church wasn't allowed to rebuild, it should have been, but denying other people the right to build theirs because of it is stupid.
Man, this is appeasement at its best. Chamberlain would've made you secretary of state. As for this mosque, I couldn't care less. Let them build whatever and wherever they want, as long as it's applicable to the constitution. But I'm honestly scared about the future, because this seems the way most people in our generation tend to think. What if it would really come to the infamous clash? I guess you'd be still sitting there, cheering for every new mosque built and every new muslim entering the country. I wouldn't, because there are times you can't just do what pleases everybody the most.
And if I look at the list of military confrontations, within the last 20 years it were almost exclusively Islamic countries involved, either attacking or being attacked. Whereas after WW2, there were also many conflicts, while there were almost no Islamic countries involved, or no countries with a siginificant Islamic population. Now you may think, I'd like the idea of just erasing middle east, but I don't. I'd rather have it the way everbody could live in peace and in their own respective world. Stop trying to force democracy on people who can't and won't do shit with it, because they work differently. But also stop trying to implement Islam in working democracies and treat it like it'd be equivalent to the Christian church, whether protestantic or catholic. All of them made adjustments and they accepted their place in society, where they don't have big influence anymore. Now go tell all those muslims who live in Europe or the US, and most of them live a pretty regular life there, 9-5 job, kids, no trouble. Tell them to stop practicing Islam because it's a backward way of life, and this is fact, I hope nobody tries arguing that lol. At least here in Europe practicing Christians get strange looks and they're the vast minority of all people. I guess you in the US will also get there sooner or later. And they keep it to theirselves, they mostly don't even try to indoctrinate their children. One could say, Christianity is a choice in Europe, as it should be.
Could you really say that about Islam, whether it be in the US, Europe or even in the widely Islamic populated countries of the world?
Ok. What do you suggest?
War? I'm not signing up for it nor am I willing to pay for it. Are you?
On August 24 2010 01:35 Alou wrote: Ground Zero was because of extremists. Not Muslims. Muslims had nothing to do with it. People need to realize that Muslims are not the reason for what happened. The only reason this is an issue really is because various candidates (and lol Fox "news") were losing and realized they could use this to secure votes of all the ignorant people in the country. Let them build it, because they have the right to just like everyone else.
And all these things about another church being denied to rebuild. Yeah, makes sense. Let's deny someone else their rights because ours were taken away. That'll make more people happy. Sorry that church wasn't allowed to rebuild, it should have been, but denying other people the right to build theirs because of it is stupid.
Man, this is appeasement at its best. Chamberlain would've made you secretary of state. As for this mosque, I couldn't care less. Let them build whatever and wherever they want, as long as it's applicable to the constitution. But I'm honestly scared about the future, because this seems the way most people in our generation tend to think.
Yes yes, those crazy people, writing rules and ADHERING TO THEM?!? LAWDY!
And what the hell are you talking about, only Muslims have been involved in military conflicts over the past 20 years.
Looks like my first post got nuked, but Blackjack quoted it on Page 11.
Anywho,
My problem isn't necessarily with Islam the religion it's with 2 principles that seem to run in islamic mosques and communities.
1. Suppression (violently) by factions within the religion/community is fairly common place (ex.saudi Arabia religious police) which takes someone with a different view even within the community and subjugates them and their views.
2. related to 1. The acceptance by the religious moderates, to be suppressed by a violent minority is seen as "part of the religion'.
If Islamics can't bring to heel the religious extremism within their own religion, then the only way to bring it to heel is all out, no holds barred war, which we the USA will not engage in, we have lost that collective will as a people. Therefore we are destined to lose the fight ..eventually.
I would personally feel much, much less paranoid about islam if their community moderates would bring to heel the extremists and establish a religion based on peace. Unfortunately either the extremes are so terribly violent or the moderates so cowed they have not yet done this.
So until they do, you will always be dealing with some extreme splinter faction that doesn't think Islam is being practiced correctly and is willing to torture, kill and subjugate their own people to prove their point. You can't negotiate with Islamic countries because of these factors.
As for the mosque at ground zero and how this relates. I could care less about the mosque as a building,but, we are talking about a 13 story monument to Islam. This WILL be interpreted by the extremists as acknowledgment of their dominance and only encourage more attacks by those factions within the religion. give a monster a cookie, and he'll want a glass of milk, so to speak.
To me make it a multi-denomination church to encourage everyone to come together as Americans. As it is right now; i'm against it's construction.
If we want to live with Islam, then we want to "support" its growth in the right direction. I can't say from what I know of the issue (extremely minimal.) If the project is by someone with moderated outlooks, then it's a positive development. If the project is by someone with extreme views, then it will be destructive and should be opposed. By doing this, the culture surrounding the religion will be nudged towards something we can deal with.
The general feeling I get from a lot of people is that we shouldn't try to live with Islam, and thus we give up our influence on the nature of Islam and its worship. Also by pushing its practitioners to the margins, it actually shifts the balance towards the extreme variety.
On August 25 2010 23:24 [DUF]MethodMan wrote: Man, this is appeasement at its best. Chamberlain would've made you secretary of state. As for this mosque, I couldn't care less. Let them build whatever and wherever they want, as long as it's applicable to the constitution. But I'm honestly scared about the future, because this seems the way most people in our generation tend to think. What if it would really come to the infamous clash? I guess you'd be still sitting there, cheering for every new mosque built and every new muslim entering the country. I wouldn't, because there are times you can't just do what pleases everybody the most.
I personally don't mind our generation understanding what the Bill of Rights entails. I support the building of mosques the same way as churches, temples, and other religious structures.
And if I look at the list of military confrontations, within the last 20 years it were almost exclusively Islamic countries involved, either attacking or being attacked. Whereas after WW2, there were also many conflicts, while there were almost no Islamic countries involved, or no countries with a siginificant Islamic population.
We are not on good terms with many Middle East countries, but that doesn't mean we have to be at conflict with Islam as a whole. Our conflicts in the Middle East don't justify hatred against an entire religion,
Now you may think, I'd like the idea of just erasing middle east, but I don't. I'd rather have it the way everbody could live in peace and in their own respective world. Stop trying to force democracy on people who can't and won't do shit with it, because they work differently.
I'd agree, but what does this have to do with the conversation?
But also stop trying to implement Islam in working democracies and treat it like it'd be equivalent to the Christian church, whether protestantic or catholic. All of them made adjustments and they accepted their place in society, where they don't have big influence anymore. Now go tell all those muslims who live in Europe or the US, and most of them live a pretty regular life there, 9-5 job, kids, no trouble. Tell them to stop practicing Islam because it's a backward way of life, and this is fact, I hope nobody tries arguing that lol.
How exactly is Islam more important than other religions in a working democracy? Allowing the Mosque to be built is a symbol of religious equality and not a religious takeover of the US.
At least here in Europe practicing Christians get strange looks and they're the vast minority of all people. I guess you in the US will also get there sooner or later. And they keep it to theirselves, they mostly don't even try to indoctrinate their children. One could say, Christianity is a choice in Europe, as it should be.
Could you really say that about Islam, whether it be in the US, Europe or even in the widely Islamic populated countries of the world?
So because Islam isn't a "choice" in the Middle East, therefore it should not be tolerated elsewhere?
On August 25 2010 23:50 Malmatik wrote: Looks like my first post got nuked, but Blackjack quoted it on Page 11.
Anywho,
My problem isn't necessarily with Islam the religion it's with 2 principles that seem to run in islamic mosques and communities.
1. Suppression (violently) by factions within the religion/community is fairly common place (ex.saudi Arabia religious police) which takes someone with a different view even within the community and subjugates them and their views.
2. related to 1. The acceptance by the religious moderates, to be suppressed by a violent minority is seen as "part of the religion'.
If Islamics can't bring to heel the religious extremism within their own religion, then the only way to bring it to heel is all out, no holds barred war, which we the USA will not engage in, we have lost that collective will as a people. Therefore we are destined to lose the fight ..eventually.
I would personally feel much, much less paranoid about islam if their community moderates would bring to heel the extremists and establish a religion based on peace. Unfortunately either the extremes are so terribly violent or the moderates so cowed they have not yet done this.
So until they do, you will always be dealing with some extreme splinter faction that doesn't think Islam is being practiced correctly and is willing to torture, kill and subjugate their own people to prove their point. You can't negotiate with Islamic countries because of these factors.
As for the mosque at ground zero and how this relates. I could care less about the mosque as a building,but, we are talking about a 13 story monument to Islam. This WILL be interpreted by the extremists as acknowledgment of their dominance and only encourage more attacks by those factions within the religion. give a monster a cookie, and he'll want a glass of milk, so to speak.
To me make it a multi-denomination church to encourage everyone to come together as Americans. As it is right now; i'm against it's construction.
Religious moderates can't convince religious extremist that easily. You think I can convince the westboro church that signs that say "US soldiers should die because they protect fags/gays" are wrong. Do you think they would listen to me just because I am also a Christian? Denying ground-zero mosque is much more dangerous for US then allowing it. Remember the majority of muslims are peaceful and want to practice their religion and by forcing them to move it makes them feel like they are less than regular Americans. It gives terrorist more points to say how Americans hate Muslims. What do you think an average Muslim from another country would think when they see these protest? Would you think that they think "yea good job, prevent those few extremist think that they won!" or do you think they would feel their religion was looked down upon and feel that the Talibans and Al Queda was right that US as a whole is against Islam in general. Do you think protesting against the mosque will bring more Muslim to the side of Islamic extremist or to the side of US? The answer is obvious. Also the main religious sect of the Muslim that wants to build this "mosque" is actually the moderate Muslims that were persecuted often by the extremist. Also this isn't much of a mosque in the first space. It is a cultural center with basketball courts and swimming pools. Only two floors is used for prayer.
On August 25 2010 23:50 Malmatik wrote: 2. related to 1. The acceptance by the religious moderates, to be suppressed by a violent minority is seen as "part of the religion'.
Accepting suppression? That's an entirely new concept to me, would you please expand on this idea? I'm sincerely interested.
On August 25 2010 23:50 Malmatik wrote: If Islamics can't bring to heel the religious extremism within their own religion, then the only way to bring it to heel is all out, no holds barred war, which we the USA will not engage in, we have lost that collective will as a people. Therefore we are destined to lose the fight ..eventually.
How is it the responsibility of moderate muslims to bring down those few terrorists who falsely claim to do what they do in the name of a religion? Beyond condemning and taking distance from these groups, I don't think realistically Islam as a religion is in any position to bring "extremism to its heels." Furthermore the middle east only accounts for approximately 20% of the muslim demography.
What really amazes me about all of this is how americans always take great pride in their constitution and the freedom that it represents. If such a basic principle of democracy such as religious freedom is compromised by the ignorant cries of the masses then it seems fairly pointless. Is freedom only meant for the large majority or something? Some people argue that the mosque shouldn't be built in order to prevent vandalism or outcries but think about what message that would send, essentially saying as long as you're loud and/or violent enough you'll have your way despite any human rights that might happen to stand in the way.
If this mosque isn't allowed to be built on the basis that one of the worlds largest religions is falsely associated with the acts of a few individuals then that sets an example that religious freedom can be compromised in any number of ways as long as enough people get adequately pissed off for whatever reason.
If the mosque, which is in fact a community center is built it's probably going to help informing people of the actual nature of Islam and what it is for the overwhelmingly large majority of its moderate practicians. If you've never paid a mosque a visit and you're feeling paranoid or uncertain then that's something to consider. They'll be happy to answer any questions from my experience.
I think a lot of you are missing the whole point of the argument, and it's pretty clear what it is. This is not religious persecution, this is not hate against all Muslims everywhere. This is respect to the victims of 9/11. THOUSANDS of people died that day in the name of the Allah. To have him praised in the same area...it is 100% disrespectful, regardless of the intentions of the mosque.
So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
On August 26 2010 01:58 Demarini wrote: I think a lot of you are missing the whole point of the argument, and it's pretty clear what it is. This is not religious persecution, this is not hate against all Muslims everywhere. This is respect to the victims of 9/11. THOUSANDS of people died that day in the name of the Allah. To have him praised in the same area...it is 100% disrespectful, regardless of the intentions of the mosque.
What about the Muslim victims of 9/11? And indeed, what about the Christian and Jewish victims, who also worship Allah (which is simply the Arabic word for the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God)?
Edit: To clarify, there were even Arabic-speaking Christians who worshipped "Allah" by that name before the advent of Islam. It would be racist to claim that Maronites are not Christians because they speak Arabic (besides, it's not like Jesus spoke English!).
On August 26 2010 01:58 Demarini wrote: I think a lot of you are missing the whole point of the argument, and it's pretty clear what it is. This is not religious persecution, this is not hate against all Muslims everywhere. This is respect to the victims of 9/11. THOUSANDS of people died that day in the name of the Allah. To have him praised in the same area...it is 100% disrespectful, regardless of the intentions of the mosque.
Just because they believe in one version of Islam still doesn't mean you can group them together. As we all know, a religion that existed for so long can have many interpretation to them and terrorists/extremist use that to their advantage. Some extremist Christians interpret the bible to allow them to bomb Jewish synagogues and bomb abortion clinics, should we stop building Church as well?
What you are doing is blaming Islam for the actions of a few. Remember the majority of Muslims condemned the action despite the fact that they believe in the same thing.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
And seriously, MUSLIMS died in the 9/11 terrorist attack too. And we want to bar them from giving their own tribute to their victims? That'd be like a psychotic Christian Cult, who for some reason hates curry, bombing India, a bunch of Buddhist and Hindu people along with some Christians lose their lives, we want to build a fucking YMCA there, but they say no, because its disrespectful to the Indian people. Do you see how this makes zero sense?
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
Don't equate the building with a YMCA. It is an Islamic cultural center with a mosque. Your analogy does not make any sense, you're grasping for straws.
If the mosque is built, the terrorists will view this as a victory. This should be plain as day.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans were supporting segregating. Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans had slaves. For that matter wasn't that long ago that 90% of the world thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around Earth.
Facts aren't changed because the majority believes something different. Bigotry is still bigotry even if 99% of the people think it is justified. Infact bigotry is still bigotry even if it actually is justified.
Don't equate the building with a YMCA. It is an Islamic cultural center with a mosque. Your analogy does not make any sense.
Lol, do you know what "YMCA" stands for?
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
The constitution/bill of rights protects what we don't support. As much as about 95% of the country doesn't like what the Westboro Church is doing but it is their right and it is protected by the First Amend. Same as this just because 60% of America believe that this mosque shouldn't be built doesn't mean anything the Muslims got the rights to. People got the rights to protest as long as they don't slander or hurt others.
I really don't buy into the whole sensitivity bull. Go youtube what happened when a black guy walked through the crowd wearing one of the head gear that Muslims wear. He was called a coward. People confronted him. People called Allah a pig to provoke him and you know whats funny? He wasn't even Muslim. This isn't about Sensitivity, this is just pure hatred for Muslims that stemmed from misunderstanding of the religion and grouping the majority with the few. If people say they don't like Muslims then its fine. In our country, you are allowed to do that but don't bull about sensitivity.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans were supporting segregating. Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans had slaves. For that matter wasn't that long ago that 90% of the world thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around Earth.
Facts aren't changed because the majority believes something different. Bigotry is still bigotry even if 99% of the people think it is justified. Infact bigotry is still bigotry even if it actually is justified.
Why is opposition to the mosque bigotry? People are opposed to the mosque because of its location. Building it anywhere else is fine. The developers have made it a point to build it as close to ground zero as they can.
This project is not offensive in any way. What is offensive are the haters arguing against the project due to the religious affiliation.
The people who say this mosque/community center is offensive are idiots.
Seriously, fucking dumb as rocks.
It's a god damn miracle you morons manage to tie your shoes.
The people building the mosque/community center are not terrorists. They do not support terrorists. In fucking fact, look at what the project leader, Mr. Abdul Rauf, wrote in his book What's Right With Islam Is What's Right With America
The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
The constitution/bill of rights protects what we don't support. As much as about 95% of the country doesn't like what the Westboro Church is doing but it is their right and it is protected by the First Amend. Same as this just because 60% of America believe that this mosque shouldn't be built doesn't mean anything the Muslims got the rights to. People got the rights to protest as long as they don't slander or hurt others.
I really don't buy into the whole sensitivity bull. Go youtube what happened when a black guy walked through the crowd wearing one of the head gear that Muslims wear. He was called a coward. People confronted him. People called Allah a pig to provoke him and you know whats funny? He wasn't even Muslim. This isn't about Sensitivity, this is just pure hatred for Muslims that stemmed from misunderstanding of the religion and grouping the majority with the few. If people say they don't like Muslims then its fine. In our country, you are allowed to do that but don't bull about sensitivity.
Polls show that most Americans are against the mosque, and understand that the developers have the right to build it. That doesn't mean that the mosque should be built. The mosque's proclaimed aim is to "bridge cultures" and create interfaith dialogue. It's only brought controversy and misery to New York. And yes it is about sensitivity.
On August 26 2010 03:07 Zealotdriver wrote: This project is not offensive in any way. What is offensive are the haters arguing against the project due to the religious affiliation.
The people who say this mosque/community center is offensive are idiots.
Seriously, fucking dumb as rocks.
It's a god damn miracle you morons manage to tie your shoes.
The people building the mosque/community center are not terrorists. They do not support terrorists. In fucking fact, look at what the project leader, Mr. Abdul Rauf, wrote in his book What's Right With Islam Is What's Right With America
The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’
^^This. They aren't choosing the site near Ground Zero as a "symbol of victory." It's a tribute to those that died in the terrorist attack. I don't see how you can find this offensive.
Polls show that most Americans are against the mosque, and understand that the developers have the right to build it. That doesn't mean that the mosque should be built. The mosque's proclaimed aim is to "bridge cultures" and create interfaith dialogue. It's only brought controversy and misery to New York. And yes it is about sensitivity.
Ok, this is the EXACT reason why you need something to bridge culture's holy shit. Guess what happened when they tore down the Berlin Wall. They bridged East and West Germany's cultures. It brought about controversy and misery in Germany. Wait what, my mind is blown.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans were supporting segregating. Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans had slaves. For that matter wasn't that long ago that 90% of the world thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around Earth.
Facts aren't changed because the majority believes something different. Bigotry is still bigotry even if 99% of the people think it is justified. Infact bigotry is still bigotry even if it actually is justified.
Why is opposition to the mosque bigotry? People are opposed to the mosque because of its location. Building it anywhere else is fine. The developers have made it a point to build it as close to ground zero as they can.
You think that is as close as a person can get to ground zero? Buy a shop closer then change it to a prayer floor. It is not hard to do in this economy. "he developers have made it a point to build it as close to ground zero as they can." Guess what it is their right. Don't like it don't live in US and go to countries like Saudi Arabia.
On August 26 2010 03:07 Zealotdriver wrote: This project is not offensive in any way. What is offensive are the haters arguing against the project due to the religious affiliation.
The people who say this mosque/community center is offensive are idiots.
Seriously, fucking dumb as rocks.
It's a god damn miracle you morons manage to tie your shoes.
The people building the mosque/community center are not terrorists. They do not support terrorists. In fucking fact, look at what the project leader, Mr. Abdul Rauf, wrote in his book What's Right With Islam Is What's Right With America
The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’
On August 26 2010 03:07 Zealotdriver wrote: This project is not offensive in any way. What is offensive are the haters arguing against the project due to the religious affiliation.
The people who say this mosque/community center is offensive are idiots.
Seriously, fucking dumb as rocks.
It's a god damn miracle you morons manage to tie your shoes.
The people building the mosque/community center are not terrorists. They do not support terrorists. In fucking fact, look at what the project leader, Mr. Abdul Rauf, wrote in his book What's Right With Islam Is What's Right With America
The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’
You just linked Wikipedia as your source. Your argument has very little scholastic clout. I can go onto that website and change it so that he loves Kim Jong Il therefore he's a North Korean Communist.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans were supporting segregating. Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans had slaves. For that matter wasn't that long ago that 90% of the world thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around Earth.
Facts aren't changed because the majority believes something different. Bigotry is still bigotry even if 99% of the people think it is justified. Infact bigotry is still bigotry even if it actually is justified.
Why is opposition to the mosque bigotry? People are opposed to the mosque because of its location. Building it anywhere else is fine. The developers have made it a point to build it as close to ground zero as they can.
You think that is as close as a person can get to ground zero? Buy a shop closer then change it to a prayer floor. It is not hard to do in this economy. "he developers have made it a point to build it as close to ground zero as they can." Guess what it is their right. Don't like it don't live in US and go to countries like Saudi Arabia.
I know they have the right to do so, that doesn't take away from the fact that the developers are only inflaming tensions and offending the majority of Americans. Most Americans are against the mosque, why do you think that is?
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
You are a bigot.
And 60% of Americans are bigots, if that number is to be believed.
Let me definte bigot for you:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.
Get it? Why the fuck do people oppose the mosque? They think its offensive or some shit because the people building the facility are the same religion as the people who committed 9/11 right? Inherent in that statement is the assumption is that all Muslims are the same, brown terrorists who beat their women and stone people for having sex. And somehow the guys building the facility are making a victory memorial or some shit because they're the same as the guys who did 9/11. Guess what bigot? If all Muslims were the same, and all Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead by now or at least fighting for our lives because we'd have 1.82 billion motherfuckers bombing the crap out of everything. Even if there are a total of 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world that is only .5% of the world's Muslim population. Why the fuck does 99.5% of the Muslim population have to be held accountable for the <.5% that does messed up shit?
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans were supporting segregating. Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans had slaves. For that matter wasn't that long ago that 90% of the world thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around Earth.
Facts aren't changed because the majority believes something different. Bigotry is still bigotry even if 99% of the people think it is justified. Infact bigotry is still bigotry even if it actually is justified.
Why is opposition to the mosque bigotry? People are opposed to the mosque because of its location. Building it anywhere else is fine. The developers have made it a point to build it as close to ground zero as they can.
Jesus man. People aren't opposed to it because of its location. Its just the media stirring people up. There's already a mosque just 4 blocks away from ground zero, and its an ACTUAL mosque not a YMIA. Anyways, how far would be a distance that's "OKAY" with people who oppose this? 5 blocks? 10 blocks? 100 blocks? Where does ground zero stop being ground zero? Did all of Manhattan become ground zero overnight?
On August 26 2010 03:07 Zealotdriver wrote: This project is not offensive in any way. What is offensive are the haters arguing against the project due to the religious affiliation.
The people who say this mosque/community center is offensive are idiots.
Seriously, fucking dumb as rocks.
It's a god damn miracle you morons manage to tie your shoes.
The people building the mosque/community center are not terrorists. They do not support terrorists. In fucking fact, look at what the project leader, Mr. Abdul Rauf, wrote in his book What's Right With Islam Is What's Right With America
The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’
You just linked Wikipedia as your source. Your argument has very little scholastic clout. I can go onto that website and change it so that he loves Kim Jong Il therefore he's a North Korean Communist.
On August 26 2010 03:07 Zealotdriver wrote: This project is not offensive in any way. What is offensive are the haters arguing against the project due to the religious affiliation.
The people who say this mosque/community center is offensive are idiots.
Seriously, fucking dumb as rocks.
It's a god damn miracle you morons manage to tie your shoes.
The people building the mosque/community center are not terrorists. They do not support terrorists. In fucking fact, look at what the project leader, Mr. Abdul Rauf, wrote in his book What's Right With Islam Is What's Right With America
The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’
Wow, worst example ever. Here is what Mr. Abdul Rauf said when responding to the question of whether or not he agreed with the US State Dept.'s designation of Hamas:
Look, I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.
"...Feisal Abdul Rauf, a self-styled champion of moderate Islam, was recently asked whether he thinks Hamas is a terrorist organization. “The issue of terrorism is a very complex question,” he replied. When pressed, he insisted that “I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy...”
You take that as your proof? Seriously? That's like living in North Korea and not wanting to say whether Kim Jong Il is a raving dictatorial lunatic and then people call you a Communist. Seriously?
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans were supporting segregating. Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans had slaves. For that matter wasn't that long ago that 90% of the world thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around Earth.
Facts aren't changed because the majority believes something different. Bigotry is still bigotry even if 99% of the people think it is justified. Infact bigotry is still bigotry even if it actually is justified.
Why is opposition to the mosque bigotry? People are opposed to the mosque because of its location. Building it anywhere else is fine. The developers have made it a point to build it as close to ground zero as they can.
Because it is discrimination based on religion. Even if it was a mosque and even if it was ground zero and even if 90% of muslims the world over were somehow responsible for 9/11, it would still be bigotry to oppose it just based on religious discrimination. Just because it is justified doesn't change the fact that is it bigoted. And this time it isn't even justified.
Some Christian priests have raped children. Will the bigot brigade also oppose the construction of Christian churches within a few miles of anyone with children? I doubt it.
On August 26 2010 03:07 Zealotdriver wrote: This project is not offensive in any way. What is offensive are the haters arguing against the project due to the religious affiliation.
The people who say this mosque/community center is offensive are idiots.
Seriously, fucking dumb as rocks.
It's a god damn miracle you morons manage to tie your shoes.
The people building the mosque/community center are not terrorists. They do not support terrorists. In fucking fact, look at what the project leader, Mr. Abdul Rauf, wrote in his book What's Right With Islam Is What's Right With America
The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’
You just linked Wikipedia as your source. Your argument has very little scholastic clout. I can go onto that website and change it so that he loves Kim Jong Il therefore he's a North Korean Communist.
Uhh... I don't think you have the slightest clue of how wikipedia works. Much less of what an academic reference is. Neither do I think you bothered spending 10 seconds to check that this wikipedia article is merely quoting a NY radio interview.
I'm not defending Rauf and I'm completely in favor of the mosque's building. But attacking wikipedia as a source is immature at least.
On August 26 2010 01:58 Demarini wrote: I think a lot of you are missing the whole point of the argument, and it's pretty clear what it is. This is not religious persecution, this is not hate against all Muslims everywhere. This is respect to the victims of 9/11. THOUSANDS of people died that day in the name of the Allah. To have him praised in the same area...it is 100% disrespectful, regardless of the intentions of the mosque.
What about the Muslim victims of 9/11? And indeed, what about the Christian and Jewish victims, who also worship Allah (which is simply the Arabic word for the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God)?
Edit: To clarify, there were even Arabic-speaking Christians who worshipped "Allah" by that name before the advent of Islam. It would be racist to claim that Maronites are not Christians because they speak Arabic (besides, it's not like Jesus spoke English!).
What about them? They were tragically lost as was all the others. We have honored their deaths, and we have mourned them. Putting this mosque their will do what to them. What will it do for their deaths, compared to the disrespect it will show others. Someone explain to me how it isn't disrespectful to the people that died by the way, I'd love to know.
And the first thing you said, while true, is being very picky. Yes, Allah is an Arabic word for God, it is best know by it's use of the Muslims. Not too many Christians or Jew walking around referring to their God as Allah. Regardless, I never said anything about Arabs, I said Muslims. You're acting like not putting a Mosque at Ground Zero is super disrespectful to the Muslims who died on 9/11.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
You are a bigot.
And 60% of Americans are bigots, if that number is to be believed.
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.
Get it? Why the fuck do people oppose the mosque? They think its offensive or some shit because the people building the facility are the same religion as the people who committed 9/11 right? Inherent in that statement is the assumption is that all Muslims are the same, brown terrorists who beat their women and stone people for having sex. And somehow the guys building the facility are making a victory memorial or some shit. Guess what bigot? If all Muslims were the same, and all Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead by now or at least fighting for our lives because we'd have 1.82 billion motherfuckers bombing the crap out of everything. Even if there are a total of 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world that is only .5% of the world's Muslim population. Why the fuck does 99.5% of the Muslim population have to be held accountable for the <.5% that does messed up shit?
You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
On August 26 2010 03:22 Zealotdriver wrote: Some Christian priests have raped children. Will the bigot brigade also oppose the construction of Christian churches within a few miles of anyone with children? I doubt it.
What kind of an argument is this. You have to be either 15 years old or younger to say something this stupid. I'm not trying to flame, but a statement like this should just not be allowed with people trying to have an intelligent debate. I recognize that the priests raped children, but come on...Ground Zero...one very small spot in comparison to the city, state, country, world, whatever. Children...they're kind of you know, everywhere.
Lmao, ok so first off, Wikipedia does not count as an academic source, as much as everyone who's in middle/high school wants to believe. I am right now looking at the "Editing Feisal Abdul Rauf" page and I can change it so that he browses Teamliquid.net every day.
Secondly, we can say the same thing for every monument that people build for any victim. Why are they not allowed to build a tribute to their fallen victims, even though "they already mourned for them." Wtf, so now we're never going to build a memorial again because...."what's it going to do for them?"
Thirdly, Zeal said it perfectly. If we ban the mosque from Ground Zero, what's going to stop us from banning the next Islamic mosque, what if it's on the Island of Manhattan? How does distance do anything to change the fact that it's an Islamic Mosque. Saying that you can "build it anywhere, just not there." is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. What counts as far enough? 4 blocks? 5 blocks? 10 miles? One country away?
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
You are a bigot.
And 60% of Americans are bigots, if that number is to be believed.
Let me definte bigot for you:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.
Get it? Why the fuck do people oppose the mosque? They think its offensive or some shit because the people building the facility are the same religion as the people who committed 9/11 right? Inherent in that statement is the assumption is that all Muslims are the same, brown terrorists who beat their women and stone people for having sex. And somehow the guys building the facility are making a victory memorial or some shit. Guess what bigot? If all Muslims were the same, and all Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead by now or at least fighting for our lives because we'd have 1.82 billion motherfuckers bombing the crap out of everything. Even if there are a total of 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world that is only .5% of the world's Muslim population. Why the fuck does 99.5% of the Muslim population have to be held accountable for the <.5% that does messed up shit?
You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
How about this for a flame? You are a bigot, and also ignorant. Most Americans harbor deep-seated racism, ideas of sexist gender roles, and homophobia.
The mosque and the people building it have NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda or other terrorists. It has nothing to do with 9/11. Therefore, it's proximity to the WTC site is irrelevant.
You say "the terrorists" as if they are a monolithic group, which they are not. Also, you claim that they will view this construction as a victory. How do you know this? Have you been in regular contact with terrorist groups? Even if they were deluded into thinking of it as a victory, why would that matter?
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the ground zero mosque community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
Also, no one cares that the majority of Americans are bigots. You can't make a defense based on tyranny of the majority.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
You are a bigot.
And 60% of Americans are bigots, if that number is to be believed.
Let me definte bigot for you:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.
Get it? Why the fuck do people oppose the mosque? They think its offensive or some shit because the people building the facility are the same religion as the people who committed 9/11 right? Inherent in that statement is the assumption is that all Muslims are the same, brown terrorists who beat their women and stone people for having sex. And somehow the guys building the facility are making a victory memorial or some shit. Guess what bigot? If all Muslims were the same, and all Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead by now or at least fighting for our lives because we'd have 1.82 billion motherfuckers bombing the crap out of everything. Even if there are a total of 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world that is only .5% of the world's Muslim population. Why the fuck does 99.5% of the Muslim population have to be held accountable for the <.5% that does messed up shit?
You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
1.Terrorists will view building the mosque as a victory. 2. Denying building the mosque will be a victory for the terrorists.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
You are a bigot.
And 60% of Americans are bigots, if that number is to be believed.
Let me definte bigot for you:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.
Get it? Why the fuck do people oppose the mosque? They think its offensive or some shit because the people building the facility are the same religion as the people who committed 9/11 right? Inherent in that statement is the assumption is that all Muslims are the same, brown terrorists who beat their women and stone people for having sex. And somehow the guys building the facility are making a victory memorial or some shit. Guess what bigot? If all Muslims were the same, and all Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead by now or at least fighting for our lives because we'd have 1.82 billion motherfuckers bombing the crap out of everything. Even if there are a total of 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world that is only .5% of the world's Muslim population. Why the fuck does 99.5% of the Muslim population have to be held accountable for the <.5% that does messed up shit?
You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
1.Terrorists will view building the mosque as a victory. 2. Denying building the mosque will be a victory for the terrorists.
You can choose.
1. The rest of the Muslim community likes us 2. The rest of the Muslim community hates us
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
You are a bigot.
And 60% of Americans are bigots, if that number is to be believed.
Let me definte bigot for you:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.
Get it? Why the fuck do people oppose the mosque? They think its offensive or some shit because the people building the facility are the same religion as the people who committed 9/11 right? Inherent in that statement is the assumption is that all Muslims are the same, brown terrorists who beat their women and stone people for having sex. And somehow the guys building the facility are making a victory memorial or some shit. Guess what bigot? If all Muslims were the same, and all Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead by now or at least fighting for our lives because we'd have 1.82 billion motherfuckers bombing the crap out of everything. Even if there are a total of 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world that is only .5% of the world's Muslim population. Why the fuck does 99.5% of the Muslim population have to be held accountable for the <.5% that does messed up shit?
You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
I don't give a shit if most Americans are against the mosque, that doesn't justify anything. And I revise my statement, you might not be a bigot but if you aren't you're just plain ignorant. Explain to me how building this "mosque next to ground zero" is a victory for terrorists? If anything the opposition to the mosque is a victory for terrorists by showing Americans to be the close minded, racist bigots that many of them are.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
You are a bigot.
And 60% of Americans are bigots, if that number is to be believed.
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.
Get it? Why the fuck do people oppose the mosque? They think its offensive or some shit because the people building the facility are the same religion as the people who committed 9/11 right? Inherent in that statement is the assumption is that all Muslims are the same, brown terrorists who beat their women and stone people for having sex. And somehow the guys building the facility are making a victory memorial or some shit because they're the same as the guys who did 9/11. Guess what bigot? If all Muslims were the same, and all Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead by now or at least fighting for our lives because we'd have 1.82 billion motherfuckers bombing the crap out of everything. Even if there are a total of 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world that is only .5% of the world's Muslim population. Why the fuck does 99.5% of the Muslim population have to be held accountable for the <.5% that does messed up shit?
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans were supporting segregating. Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans had slaves. For that matter wasn't that long ago that 90% of the world thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around Earth.
Facts aren't changed because the majority believes something different. Bigotry is still bigotry even if 99% of the people think it is justified. Infact bigotry is still bigotry even if it actually is justified.
Why is opposition to the mosque bigotry? People are opposed to the mosque because of its location. Building it anywhere else is fine. The developers have made it a point to build it as close to ground zero as they can.
Jesus man. People aren't opposed to it because of its location. Its just the media stirring people up. There's already a mosque just 4 blocks away from ground zero, and its an ACTUAL mosque not a YMIA. Anyways, how far would be a distance that's "OKAY" with people who oppose this? 5 blocks? 10 blocks? 100 blocks? Where does ground zero stop being ground zero? Did all of Manhattan become ground zero overnight?
The problem with your claims of bigotry are as follows: 1) If we believe that statistic that 60% of Americans are against the construction of the mosque, we must also believe that more than 60% believe in the right of the people behind it to construct it (which was a statistic given in the same article as the previous one). Most Americans aren't dumb, and they know what rights other people have. Just because 60% don't like it doesn't mean that they don't think they have the right to build it.
2) If I'm against the construction of all mosques, churches and synagogues, am I a bigot? The definition you gave does not directly relate the opposition to the building of certain structures to the intolerance of the people that will use those structures. It is directly related to the intolerance of the beliefs of those people. Those are two very different things.
3) The people who legitimately think that they have no right to build at that location, on property that they purchased, are flat out wrong and there's no reason to argue with them. Nobody's going to try to take them to court over it and try to find legal ways to stop the construction. It's up to the builders to consider whether or not they want to proceed. They have every right to, they just have to realize that because everybody's so swayed by the media in this country, lots of people are going to get really pissed off. Of course, it shouldn't really matter to them because they're under the assumption that the infidels are wrong about Islam anyway.
I would only use the term "bigot" to describe someone who meets all of the following criteria: Vehemently against the rights of certain people to build what they want on their own land. Intolerant of people with opposing beliefs, in that they want nothing to do with them and think the world would be better without them.
Lots of people probably walk on the edge of bigotry because they think that the world would be better without certain belief systems while still realizing the importance and necessity of some of the people who hold those beliefs. Those people I would not call bigots, because their problems aren't with people, they are with philosophy.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
You are a bigot.
And 60% of Americans are bigots, if that number is to be believed.
Let me definte bigot for you:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.
Get it? Why the fuck do people oppose the mosque? They think its offensive or some shit because the people building the facility are the same religion as the people who committed 9/11 right? Inherent in that statement is the assumption is that all Muslims are the same, brown terrorists who beat their women and stone people for having sex. And somehow the guys building the facility are making a victory memorial or some shit. Guess what bigot? If all Muslims were the same, and all Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead by now or at least fighting for our lives because we'd have 1.82 billion motherfuckers bombing the crap out of everything. Even if there are a total of 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world that is only .5% of the world's Muslim population. Why the fuck does 99.5% of the Muslim population have to be held accountable for the <.5% that does messed up shit?
You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
I don't give a shit if most Americans are against the mosque, that doesn't justify anything. And I revise my statement, you might not be a bigot but if you aren't you're just plain ignorant. Explain to me how building this "mosque next to ground zero" is a victory for terrorists? If anything the opposition to the mosque is a victory for terrorists by showing Americans to be the close minded, racist bigots that many of them are.
Islamic extremists will view this as a victory, like I said, this is plain as day. I'll ignore the rest of your ranting.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me.
And Meta, I think Zeal and I are just frustrated at thesighter, and thus have to resort to match his sweeping generalizations with generalizations of our own. Obviously we don't think that all 60% of these people are racist against Muslims, but there are quite a few who are.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
So how far away is sufficient? Is there any metric that could satisfy the people who are making irrational protests against the construction? Another poster has already mentioned there's an older mosque 4 blocks away from ground zero, is 4 blocks sufficient whereas 2 is not?
What's your proposed building location for the community center? Keep in mind real estate in the heart of NY isn't exactly easily available.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
i don't understand this point. "a man's legal right to do what he will with his property is upheld, religious tolerance prevails, this is a great victory for us terrorists!!". You know what'd really show those terrorists they can't bring down America? Continuing business as usual, not pointlessly delaying commerce and the return of economic progress in a previously-bustling area because of how you "feel" about a "mosque". What does it even matter if the terrorists view it as a victory? It's a tremendous shame that what I just said is merely a fantasy, because it ought to be common sense.
the entire area around the former site of the WTC is basically a ghost town, drastically lowering property value. if the people in charge think terrorists are watching what is built nearby and counting everything they can as a victory or defeat, they should have rebuilt the same damn towers.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me.
I am not condemning a whole religion. I just don't want the mosque built next to ground zero in this case. It's offensive to the 9/11 families, is not supported by most americans or new yorkers, and will be viewed as a victory symbol for the Islamic terrorists. Any other mosque, any other situation, any other location, I'm fine with the developers building it.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
that guilt by association is not fair whatsoever & should be immediately discarded
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
You are a bigot.
And 60% of Americans are bigots, if that number is to be believed.
Let me definte bigot for you:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.
Get it? Why the fuck do people oppose the mosque? They think its offensive or some shit because the people building the facility are the same religion as the people who committed 9/11 right? Inherent in that statement is the assumption is that all Muslims are the same, brown terrorists who beat their women and stone people for having sex. And somehow the guys building the facility are making a victory memorial or some shit. Guess what bigot? If all Muslims were the same, and all Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead by now or at least fighting for our lives because we'd have 1.82 billion motherfuckers bombing the crap out of everything. Even if there are a total of 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world that is only .5% of the world's Muslim population. Why the fuck does 99.5% of the Muslim population have to be held accountable for the <.5% that does messed up shit?
You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
I don't give a shit if most Americans are against the mosque, that doesn't justify anything. And I revise my statement, you might not be a bigot but if you aren't you're just plain ignorant. Explain to me how building this "mosque next to ground zero" is a victory for terrorists? If anything the opposition to the mosque is a victory for terrorists by showing Americans to be the close minded, racist bigots that many of them are.
Islamic extremists will view this as a victory, like I said, this is plain as day. I'll ignore the rest of your ranting.
thesighter has neither cited any sources for this absurd idea nor explained how it could be a reason to cancel the project. He failed to answer my earlier critiques of his argument and simply reiterated something that he made up in his head. Obviously he has lost the argument.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me.
I am not condemning a whole religion. I just don't want the mosque built next to ground zero in this case. It's offensive to the 9/11 families, is not supported by most americans or new yorkers, and will be viewed as a victory symbol for the Islamic terrorists. Any other mosque, any other situation, any other location, I'm fine with the developers building it.
it's only offensive if you're ignorant, that's the driving point here. I don't mean to call you personally ignorant, you obviously have some sort of point but I don't think you're getting it across.
Can you give some reason as to why it would be offensive other than 'because the attacks were carried out by Muslims'?
thesighter, if you can tell me why you think that building the community center there is offensive to 9/11 families without saying that it's built by Muslims and Muslims were responsible (which is racist btw), then I will accept your argument.
Damn, FakeSteve beats me to it...
ok seriously.....stop using Wikipedia as your source. And how does a building damaged from wreckage from the WTC have anything to do with this?
Damnit I'm hoping you notice these edits because I'm trying to keep down the posts.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
So how far away is sufficient? Is there any metric that could satisfy the people who are making irrational protests against the construction? Another poster has already mentioned there's an older mosque 4 blocks away from ground zero, is 4 blocks sufficient whereas 2 is not?
What's your proposed building location for the community center? Keep in mind real estate in the heart of NY isn't exactly easily available.
4 or more is fine. I am the poster that brought up these numbers, I don't think most of the people in this thread have done their research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Interpretations_of_the_debate One of the reasons why they purchased that location was because a piece of the 911 wreckage damaged the building. There is significance in its location.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
You are a bigot.
And 60% of Americans are bigots, if that number is to be believed.
Let me definte bigot for you:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.
Get it? Why the fuck do people oppose the mosque? They think its offensive or some shit because the people building the facility are the same religion as the people who committed 9/11 right? Inherent in that statement is the assumption is that all Muslims are the same, brown terrorists who beat their women and stone people for having sex. And somehow the guys building the facility are making a victory memorial or some shit. Guess what bigot? If all Muslims were the same, and all Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead by now or at least fighting for our lives because we'd have 1.82 billion motherfuckers bombing the crap out of everything. Even if there are a total of 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world that is only .5% of the world's Muslim population. Why the fuck does 99.5% of the Muslim population have to be held accountable for the <.5% that does messed up shit?
You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
I don't give a shit if most Americans are against the mosque, that doesn't justify anything. And I revise my statement, you might not be a bigot but if you aren't you're just plain ignorant. Explain to me how building this "mosque next to ground zero" is a victory for terrorists? If anything the opposition to the mosque is a victory for terrorists by showing Americans to be the close minded, racist bigots that many of them are.
Islamic extremists will view this as a victory, like I said, this is plain as day. I'll ignore the rest of your ranting.
Why. You still haven't explained why. I really cannot wrap my head around this, explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old kid. You can't just make a statement and then state that its true because its true.
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
You are a bigot.
And 60% of Americans are bigots, if that number is to be believed.
Let me definte bigot for you:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion.
Get it? Why the fuck do people oppose the mosque? They think its offensive or some shit because the people building the facility are the same religion as the people who committed 9/11 right? Inherent in that statement is the assumption is that all Muslims are the same, brown terrorists who beat their women and stone people for having sex. And somehow the guys building the facility are making a victory memorial or some shit because they're the same as the guys who did 9/11. Guess what bigot? If all Muslims were the same, and all Muslims were terrorists, we'd all be dead by now or at least fighting for our lives because we'd have 1.82 billion motherfuckers bombing the crap out of everything. Even if there are a total of 100,000 Muslim terrorists in the world that is only .5% of the world's Muslim population. Why the fuck does 99.5% of the Muslim population have to be held accountable for the <.5% that does messed up shit?
Edit:
On August 26 2010 03:06 thesighter wrote:
On August 26 2010 03:00 redviper wrote:
On August 26 2010 02:56 thesighter wrote:
On August 26 2010 02:51 JinNJuice wrote:
On August 26 2010 02:34 thesighter wrote:
On August 26 2010 02:06 funnybananaman wrote: So stupid lol.. there are so many bigger problems in america, why are people are wasting so much time and energy on this -_-
Comparing the people building the mosque who's whole purpose is to bridge faiths and stuff to foreign terrorists who just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda is totally retarded. There's nothing bad about what they're doing. Plus they've been in the neighborhood for years.
Terrorists want to isolate muslims from christians so they can make it black and white (christians vs muslims, us and THEM) because then more muslims will identify with them and they'll get more support. We should embrace regular islam in america so that way muslims aren't alienated and aren't given incentives to join the radical side. Bridging the gap between muslims and other americans is a blow to terrorism and thats what the mosque is trying to do.
Ron Paul put it well:
First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia." If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
I wish people would stop making excuses for the fact that they're just bigots against Muslims. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with people opposing this if they just say "Hey, we don't want this mosque here because we don't like Muslims." I'm sure theres a group of people who wouldn't want to build a Korean restaraunt near Ground Zero, because Kimchi smells like shit (if you're not korean) and it's a disrespect to the 9/11 victims. Stop pretending that you don't care that its a mosque and the reason you're offended is because it's disrespectful to victims. Just accept the fact that the reason you don't want it built there is because you're bigots.
And ffs, if we BAN the mosque, THAT will be held up as a victory for terrorists. I can read the headlines now...."America Bans Muslim Mosque. Anti-American Sentiment Grows"
I am not a bigot. If 60% of Americans are against the mosque, do you think that most Americans are bigots? Use some common sense, building a mosque next to ground zero is offensive. I don't understand how people don't see this.
Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans were supporting segregating. Wasn't that long ago that 60% of Americans had slaves. For that matter wasn't that long ago that 90% of the world thought earth was flat and the sun revolved around Earth.
Facts aren't changed because the majority believes something different. Bigotry is still bigotry even if 99% of the people think it is justified. Infact bigotry is still bigotry even if it actually is justified.
Why is opposition to the mosque bigotry? People are opposed to the mosque because of its location. Building it anywhere else is fine. The developers have made it a point to build it as close to ground zero as they can.
Jesus man. People aren't opposed to it because of its location. Its just the media stirring people up. There's already a mosque just 4 blocks away from ground zero, and its an ACTUAL mosque not a YMIA. Anyways, how far would be a distance that's "OKAY" with people who oppose this? 5 blocks? 10 blocks? 100 blocks? Where does ground zero stop being ground zero? Did all of Manhattan become ground zero overnight?
The problem with your claims of bigotry are as follows: 1) If we believe that statistic that 60% of Americans are against the construction of the mosque, we must also believe that more than 60% believe in the right of the people behind it to construct it (which was a statistic given in the same article as the previous one). Most Americans aren't dumb, and they know what rights other people have. Just because 60% don't like it doesn't mean that they don't think they have the right to build it.
2) If I'm against the construction of all mosques, churches and synagogues, am I a bigot? The definition you gave does not directly relate the opposition to the building of certain structures to the intolerance of the people that will use those structures. It is directly related to the intolerance of the beliefs of those people. Those are two very different things.
3) The people who legitimately think that they have no right to build at that location, on property that they purchased, are flat out wrong and there's no reason to argue with them. Nobody's going to try to take them to court over it and try to find legal ways to stop the construction. It's up to the builders to consider whether or not they want to proceed. They have every right to, they just have to realize that because everybody's so swayed by the media in this country, lots of people are going to get really pissed off. Of course, it shouldn't really matter to them because they're under the assumption that the infidels are wrong about Islam anyway.
I would only use the term "bigot" to describe someone who meets all of the following criteria: Vehemently against the rights of certain people to build what they want on their own land. Intolerant of people with opposing beliefs, in that they want nothing to do with them and think the world would be better without them.
Lots of people probably walk on the edge of bigotry because they think that the world would be better without certain belief systems while still realizing the importance and necessity of some of the people who hold those beliefs. Those people I would not call bigots, because their problems aren't with people, they are with philosophy.
Yeah, I'm guilty of using opposition to the building of the mosque as a proxy for opposition to Islam. Its a simplification but I think its close enough. 1) Being a bigot doesn't have anything to do with recognizing they have a right to build wherever they want. You can think black people are all lazy, KFC eating slobs but still recognize that they have a right to sit at the front of the bus. The two are not mutually exclusive. 2) It depends on why people oppose the building. I can almost assure you that the majority of the opposition stems from the fact that most Americans don't like Muslims. 3) This gets to the heart of the matter, this would not be an issue if not for the media.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
So how far away is sufficient? Is there any metric that could satisfy the people who are making irrational protests against the construction? Another poster has already mentioned there's an older mosque 4 blocks away from ground zero, is 4 blocks sufficient whereas 2 is not?
What's your proposed building location for the community center? Keep in mind real estate in the heart of NY isn't exactly easily available.
4 or more is fine. I am the poster that brought up these numbers, I don't think most of the people in this thread have done their research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Interpretations_of_the_debate One of the reasons why they purchased that location was because a piece of the 911 wreckage damaged the building. There is significance in its location.
You're stretching, hard I might add, to find any logically consistent reason as to why there can't be a mosque 2 blocks away from ground zero. We're into "Well, part of the WTC hit the old building there so it's also memorial ground" type logic at this point. You readily admit that a community center shouldn't be built there because the ignorant association between Islam and terrorism will be made, yet you insist that this is in no way bigoted.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me.
I am not condemning a whole religion. I just don't want the mosque built next to ground zero in this case. It's offensive to the 9/11 families, is not supported by most americans or new yorkers, and will be viewed as a victory symbol for the Islamic terrorists. Any other mosque, any other situation, any other location, I'm fine with the developers building it.
it's only offensive if you're ignorant, that's the driving point here. I don't mean to call you personally ignorant, you obviously have some sort of point but I don't think you're getting it across.
Can you give some reason as to why it would be offensive other than 'because the attacks were carried out by Muslims'?
The point is that people don't want Islamic extremists to have any sort of victory dance next to ground zero. Historically, Muslims built mosques as symbols of conquests over new territories. It is quite obvious Al-Qaeda and co will interpret the building as a victory. The opposition is fine with the construction of the mosque at another location. This will serve the intended Muslim population ( at a slight inconvenience), while not giving th extremists the victory they are looking for.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
So how far away is sufficient? Is there any metric that could satisfy the people who are making irrational protests against the construction? Another poster has already mentioned there's an older mosque 4 blocks away from ground zero, is 4 blocks sufficient whereas 2 is not?
What's your proposed building location for the community center? Keep in mind real estate in the heart of NY isn't exactly easily available.
4 or more is fine. I am the poster that brought up these numbers, I don't think most of the people in this thread have done their research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Interpretations_of_the_debate One of the reasons why they purchased that location was because a piece of the 911 wreckage damaged the building. There is significance in its location.
You're stretching, hard I might add, to find any logically consistent reason as to why there can't be a mosque 2 blocks away from ground zero. We're into "Well, part of the WTC hit the old building there so it's also memorial ground" type logic at this point. You readily admit that a community center shouldn't be built there because the ignorant association between Islam and terrorism will be made, yet you insist that this is in no way bigoted.
No, see my latest post. Build the mosque at another location. Islamic extremists don't get their victory, Muslim population is still served.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me.
I am not condemning a whole religion. I just don't want the mosque built next to ground zero in this case. It's offensive to the 9/11 families, is not supported by most americans or new yorkers, and will be viewed as a victory symbol for the Islamic terrorists. Any other mosque, any other situation, any other location, I'm fine with the developers building it.
it's only offensive if you're ignorant, that's the driving point here. I don't mean to call you personally ignorant, you obviously have some sort of point but I don't think you're getting it across.
Can you give some reason as to why it would be offensive other than 'because the attacks were carried out by Muslims'?
The point is that people don't want Islamic extremists to have any sort of victory dance next to ground zero. Historically, Muslims built mosques as symbols of conquests over new territories. It is quite obvious Al-Qaeda and co will interpret the building as a victory. The opposition is fine with the construction of the mosque at another location. This will serve the intended Muslim population ( at a slight inconvenience), while not giving th extremists the victory they are looking for.
What the heck does it matter if they view it as a victory? They can think whatever they want so long as we adhere to our core values we built this country on. They can think it a victory we dont torture them. Or that we try them in a court of law. Or dont hunt down muslims in the street and murder them. Or any of a thousand other ways that we are better than them.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me.
I am not condemning a whole religion. I just don't want the mosque built next to ground zero in this case. It's offensive to the 9/11 families, is not supported by most americans or new yorkers, and will be viewed as a victory symbol for the Islamic terrorists. Any other mosque, any other situation, any other location, I'm fine with the developers building it.
it's only offensive if you're ignorant, that's the driving point here. I don't mean to call you personally ignorant, you obviously have some sort of point but I don't think you're getting it across.
Can you give some reason as to why it would be offensive other than 'because the attacks were carried out by Muslims'?
The point is that people don't want Islamic extremists to have any sort of victory dance next to ground zero. Historically, Muslims built mosques as symbols of conquests over new territories. It is quite obvious Al-Qaeda and co will interpret the building as a victory. The opposition is fine with the construction of the mosque at another location. This will serve the intended Muslim population ( at a slight inconvenience), while not giving th extremists the victory they are looking for.
Ok, honestly. People are not going to look at that COMMUNITY CENTER and say..."Well shit, those terrorists sure showed America, look at that fucking mosque man." They're going to say, "Man America can show that even if they got attacked by a radical group of extremists, they can still show that they are accepting and understanding of other people's races and religions. Those terrorists were wrong, America is not the evil one, the terrorists are."
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me.
I am not condemning a whole religion. I just don't want the mosque built next to ground zero in this case. It's offensive to the 9/11 families, is not supported by most americans or new yorkers, and will be viewed as a victory symbol for the Islamic terrorists. Any other mosque, any other situation, any other location, I'm fine with the developers building it.
it's only offensive if you're ignorant, that's the driving point here. I don't mean to call you personally ignorant, you obviously have some sort of point but I don't think you're getting it across.
Can you give some reason as to why it would be offensive other than 'because the attacks were carried out by Muslims'?
The point is that people don't want Islamic extremists to have any sort of victory dance next to ground zero. Historically, Muslims built mosques as symbols of conquests over new territories. It is quite obvious Al-Qaeda and co will interpret the building as a victory. The opposition is fine with the construction of the mosque at another location. This will serve the intended Muslim population ( at a slight inconvenience), while not giving th extremists the victory they are looking for.
but this structure is not at all comparable to the structures they used to build as symbols of conquest, which were grand expansive mosques built on the backs of the conquered people. this is a community center with shopping space and a cooking school that happens to have two floors dedicated to prayer space. the two things are only comparable through an incorrect assumption, and 'not giving the extremists the victory they are looking for' is still not a valid reason.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me.
I am not condemning a whole religion. I just don't want the mosque built next to ground zero in this case. It's offensive to the 9/11 families, is not supported by most americans or new yorkers, and will be viewed as a victory symbol for the Islamic terrorists. Any other mosque, any other situation, any other location, I'm fine with the developers building it.
it's only offensive if you're ignorant, that's the driving point here. I don't mean to call you personally ignorant, you obviously have some sort of point but I don't think you're getting it across.
Can you give some reason as to why it would be offensive other than 'because the attacks were carried out by Muslims'?
The point is that people don't want Islamic extremists to have any sort of victory dance next to ground zero. Historically, Muslims built mosques as symbols of conquests over new territories. It is quite obvious Al-Qaeda and co will interpret the building as a victory. The opposition is fine with the construction of the mosque at another location. This will serve the intended Muslim population ( at a slight inconvenience), while not giving th extremists the victory they are looking for.
Ok, honestly. People are not going to look at that COMMUNITY CENTER and say..."Well shit, those terrorists sure showed America, look at that fucking mosque man." They're going to say, "Man America can show that even if they got attacked by a radical group of extremists, they can still show that they are accepting and understanding of other people's races and religions. Those terrorists were wrong, America is not the evil one, the terrorists are."
Doubt the average person will say that, given that 60% are already against it. Current reaction to the mosque is more along the lines of "r u serious?"
I cant believe I spent so much time in grade school histroy thinking "Why are they teaching us this stupid stuff. Ill never use this in my life." Only to years later I realize they should have taught far more.
On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote: You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there.
You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so.
By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect.
The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this.
At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me.
I am not condemning a whole religion. I just don't want the mosque built next to ground zero in this case. It's offensive to the 9/11 families, is not supported by most americans or new yorkers, and will be viewed as a victory symbol for the Islamic terrorists. Any other mosque, any other situation, any other location, I'm fine with the developers building it.
it's only offensive if you're ignorant, that's the driving point here. I don't mean to call you personally ignorant, you obviously have some sort of point but I don't think you're getting it across.
Can you give some reason as to why it would be offensive other than 'because the attacks were carried out by Muslims'?
The point is that people don't want Islamic extremists to have any sort of victory dance next to ground zero. Historically, Muslims built mosques as symbols of conquests over new territories. It is quite obvious Al-Qaeda and co will interpret the building as a victory. The opposition is fine with the construction of the mosque at another location. This will serve the intended Muslim population ( at a slight inconvenience), while not giving th extremists the victory they are looking for.
but this structure is not at all comparable to the structures they used to build as symbols of conquest, which were grand expansive mosques built on the backs of the conquered people. this is a community center with shopping space and a cooking school that happens to have two floors dedicated to prayer space. the two things are only comparable through an incorrect assumption, and 'not giving the extremists the victory they are looking for' is still not a valid reason.
It's a $100 million, 13 story building funded by unspecified sources (rumor is foreign). It's not a $1B grand victory mosque, but it's not a typical mosque either.
On August 26 2010 04:18 Archerofaiur wrote: If we release the japanese from the internment camps the enemy will think its a victory.
False analogy. Keep up the juvenile WW2 references.
I know. Its a completly different situation. Totally unrelated and with no similarities at all. I should probably have used one of a hundred other examples from America's long struggle with racial, sexual and religous equality...
So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
Also, anonymous donations are made to pretty much every community funded church, school, museum, and park ever. Assuming anonymous donations toward the community center are from terrorists is pretty much as blatantly racist as you can get.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
On August 25 2010 11:53 IntoTheBush wrote: Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Muslims weren't the ones to flew those planes into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant My 2 cents =)
You're ignorant. thereligionofpeace.com - list of attacks done in the name of Islam over the past 10 years
He's ignorant? Look at yourself first.
Why am I ignorant? He thinks 9/11 is a setup.
Oh, 9/11 wasn't a set up. Can you tell me why Tower 7 had to be "pulled" after the other Towers fell? Don't tell me because of the fires, because there was an even more intense fire in Tower 7 during the 80s yet it didn't collapse on itself. I'd like to see the proof you have that 9/11 was 100% funded, and carried out by Al Queda. Also wheres the remains of the planes at the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania? Osama's family was flown out of the United States immediately after the attacks when ALL flights were grounded. Nothing suspicious about any of that I guess.
You can PM me ur proof since this isn't a topic about 9/11. If you provide evidence I have no problem saying you're right. Until then you should be a little less naive.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
logic has nothing to do with it, it's just a word people say to make arguments sound smart -- like the identification AND usage of ad hominems: Personal attacks used to cover the issue.
thesighter specifically SAID (posted August 26 2010 04:31): "I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded." So, no, he doesn't think that all "big players" are terrorists. He...he SAID that he doesn't. It's...right...there.
My pathetic human brain tells me that less time spent insulting means more time spent debating maturely.
Something 2 blocks from Ground Zero means nothing; I thought originally they were parachuting a building smack onto the old Twin Towers for all I knew, but now that I know it's 2 blocks away I can't possibly see the harm. Perhaps it will be a victory to whomever, but NOT building it allows them 2 say, "hey, look at those oppressive Americans."
Edit: Zeal, I could be completely wrong, but it seems to me he is saying that even though the terrorists didn't build it, they'll call it a victory. However, I personally think that they would achieve a victory much more useful as propaganda if we DIDN'T build it . . . .
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
On August 26 2010 02:34 thesighter wrote: 1. First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
2. All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
3. At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia."
4. If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
5. The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
6. If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so.
7. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
Alright i'm going to break that up and respond to each of the points individually:
1. You can think that if you want but if you watched the video the stuff he said in it made a lot of sense and doesn't seem at all crazy to me.
2. Totally irrelevant that the majority of people are against it. Civil rights are not the subject of majority vote. The developers want to construct it because having it there would be an important symbol of america and all its religions uniting together and showing that islam can be about peace and love and cooperation (and all the other dumb stuff that goes on in churches and mosques) as opposed to violence or terrorism.
3. At this point the mosque isn't doing anything because it doesn't exist yet. Its purpose is to unite different religions and you can judge whether or not it does a good job of that once it's built. And It isn't contributing to islamophobia, i would say it's revealing islamophobia. The fact that it's pissing people off is a reflection on those people rather than the mosque, since there is nothing sinister or objectionable about their purpose.
4. Well since this mosque/cultural center has nothing to do with jihadists and is about connecting different religions through peace i don't see why jihadists would see its construction as a victory.
jihadists just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda, all the stuff they do goes against the basic ideas of islam so they really have no connection to this mosque. Some normal muslims in the middle east may be happy about its construction because it would show that america is embracing peaceful regular islam as an alternative to violent extremism. Since the ideas of this mosque go against everything jihadists stand for it wouldn't make sense for them them to be happy about.
5. I wasn't talking about other mosques i meant this particular one. Their old mosque was in the neighborhood and they had been there for many years (i don't know exactly how long or exactly where it was, but thats not really important. even if their old mosque was in north dakota i wouldn't have a problem with it).
6. I don't see how this is relevant to anything we're talking about. And nobody knows for sure what they "would do", they may have very well been able to purchase some property 1 block from ground zero but chose not to. Or maybe they couldn't find a space there. It doesn't matter. Neither of us have any idea whether thats true or not so its pointless to argue about.
7. It is a legitimate cultural center so i don't know why you put it in "quotes". The construction of the cultural center is probably offensive to some 9/11 families, but definitely not all of them. And the fact that people are offended by something doesn't really mean a whole lot. There are plenty of muslim families and people that lost loved ones on 9/11, i saw an interview on cnn of some muslim lady who lost her brother or something on 9/11 and she was really upset that all of islam was being held accountable for the actions of foreign terrorists and couldn't have a mosque there. And there's no good reason anybody (9/11 family or otherwise) should be offended by this mosque (for reasons i already stated), and it would be against one of the major basic principles america was founded on to prevent it from being built.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Do you have any sources for these? Interviews with Al Qaeda or something saying "ya bro I'll be super happy here in Pakistan if they build a mosque in NYC for some reason" or is this just pointless speculation? And even if you did have some sort of source that indicates this, who really cares? Onoes we should stop the construction because someone somewhere might obtain an intangible "victory".
On August 26 2010 02:34 thesighter wrote: 1. First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
2. All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
3. At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia."
4. If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
5. The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
6. If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so.
7. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
Alright i'm going to break that up and respond to each of the points individually:
1. You can think that if you want but if you watched the video the stuff he said in it made a lot of sense and doesn't seem at all crazy to me.
2. Totally irrelevant that the majority of people are against it. Civil rights are not the subject of majority vote. The developers want to construct it because having it there would be an important symbol of america and all its religions uniting together and showing that islam can be about peace and love and cooperation (and all the other dumb stuff that goes on in churches and mosques) as opposed to violence or terrorism.
3. At this point the mosque isn't doing anything because it doesn't exist yet. Its purpose is to unite different religions and you can judge whether or not it does a good job of that once it's built. And It isn't contributing to islamophobia, i would say it's revealing islamophobia. The fact that it's pissing people off is a reflection on those people rather than the mosque, since there is nothing sinister or objectionable about their purpose.
4. Well since this mosque/cultural center has nothing to do with jihadists and is about connecting different religions through peace i don't see why jihadists would see its construction as a victory.
jihadists just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda, all the stuff they do goes against the basic ideas of islam so they really have no connection to this mosque. Some normal muslims in the middle east may be happy about its construction because it would show that america is embracing peaceful regular islam as an alternative to violent extremism. Since the ideas of this mosque go against everything jihadists stand for it wouldn't make sense for them them to be happy about.
5. I wasn't talking about other mosques i meant this particular one. Their old mosque was in the neighborhood and they had been there for many years (i don't know exactly how long or exactly where it was, but thats not really important. even if their old mosque was in north dakota i wouldn't have a problem with it).
6. I don't see how this is relevant to anything we're talking about. And nobody knows for sure what they "would do", they may have very well been able to purchase some property 1 block from ground zero but chose not to. Or maybe they couldn't find a space there. It doesn't matter. Neither of us have any idea whether thats true or not so its pointless to argue about.
7. It is a legitimate cultural center so i don't know why you put it in "quotes". The construction of the cultural center is probably offensive to some 9/11 families, but definitely not all of them. And the fact that people are offended by something doesn't really mean a whole lot. There are plenty of muslim families and people that lost loved ones on 9/11, i saw an interview on cnn of some muslim lady who lost her brother or something on 9/11 and she was really upset that all of islam was being held accountable for the actions of foreign terrorists and couldn't have a mosque there. And there's no good reason anybody (9/11 family or otherwise) should be offended by this mosque (for reasons i already stated), and it would be against one of the major basic principles america was founded on to prevent it from being built.
Build it elsewhere, that's the point. Most Americans are offended by the location, move it a couple blocks away and the opposition will cease. It's not Islamaphobia, it's a lack of sensitivity by the developer.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
Expecting a lot of hate for this which is silly because I am older, and have plenty of muslim friends. But the minority can ruin it for the majority. Sorry, but when a radical islamic did the 9/11 attacks, they basically ruined chances of getting a mosque up in the near vacinity especially with the history of victory Mosques (13 story 100 million estimate not big enough for you to consider it a victory mosque??). Yes we are the United States, and yes we have religious tolerance, yes move your mosque a few more blocks away.
To me, even though radical islamist are a very VERY small percentage of Muslim, they still used their religion to channel the hate into the attacks. The religion is part of it (UNFAIRLY) ,and the families and people of that location shouldn't have to worry about the mosque. It's very immature to use a statement like the few ruined it for the majority... but as far as a mosque at ground zero I have to say they did. Move it a few blocks away.
My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Do you have any sources for these? Interviews with Al Qaeda or something saying "ya bro I'll be super happy here in Pakistan if they build a mosque in NYC for some reason" or is this just pointless speculation? And even if you did have some sort of source that indicates this, who really cares? Onoes we should stop the construction because someone somewhere might obtain an intangible "victory".
No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Do you have any sources for these? Interviews with Al Qaeda or something saying "ya bro I'll be super happy here in Pakistan if they build a mosque in NYC for some reason" or is this just pointless speculation? And even if you did have some sort of source that indicates this, who really cares? Onoes we should stop the construction because someone somewhere might obtain an intangible "victory".
No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Do you have any sources for these? Interviews with Al Qaeda or something saying "ya bro I'll be super happy here in Pakistan if they build a mosque in NYC for some reason" or is this just pointless speculation? And even if you did have some sort of source that indicates this, who really cares? Onoes we should stop the construction because someone somewhere might obtain an intangible "victory".
No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
My guess is its funded by the Saudi's. If you look at history you will see that the Saudi's have been apart of a financial jihad. Not actually attacking the United States finanicial structure, but investing so much that they have influence over officials.
For example in Ptech, based in Massachusetts, was private technology company that was funded by a Multi-Millionaire Saudi named Yasin al Qadi, who was actually considered a Global Terrorist. He invested 22 Million, which led to him and other Saudi's gained access to valuable information about some major U.S. corporations. Companies like ENRON, SYSCO, and the Department of Defense, Department of Treasury, and even the White House.
So I wouldn't put it past any foreign Gov't or Organizations to be a primary investor in the Mosque, but it still doesn't mean they are intruding on American's right with the construction of the Mosque.
The United States is the land of religious tolerance, we can't compare other countries directly in every sense. For example, the fact Saudi Arabia doesn't have Catholic Churches doesn't mean that we in turn should disallow mosques.
But try to use this relation. If another "free" religion country, whether it be Europe or Asia or SA or wherever.... was declared war on by Al Queda and had several of their key monuments attacked and destroyed. And then less then 10 years later then want to build a Gargantuan mosque at the location (with their history of victory mosques?), would they allow it without controversy??? Doubtful
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Do you have any sources for these? Interviews with Al Qaeda or something saying "ya bro I'll be super happy here in Pakistan if they build a mosque in NYC for some reason" or is this just pointless speculation? And even if you did have some sort of source that indicates this, who really cares? Onoes we should stop the construction because someone somewhere might obtain an intangible "victory".
No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
There is no one involved in the construction of the community center that's been linked to any kind of terrorist organization. Extremists view both moderates and non-Muslims as heathens and have had no issues attacking the mosques of moderates in the past. I fail to see how a moderate mosque is a symbol of victory.
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me.
Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote: My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
US is not an entity of Christianity. The separation of church and state is so huge during the founding of our country.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me.
Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I see no ulterior motive.
Osservatore, i don't think you should associate the US with christianity - the one and only thing the US has been associated with is democracy (whether that means the US should promote democracy in other countries is another story).
the main thing about your argument is that its an over-generalization. like you, i won't pretend i know every facet of the argument (i'm an engineer, and i focus the bulk of my energies as such), but as far as i know the Quran does not preach violence. its the extremists who use religion as an excuse to carry out terrorist acts that we are fighting against.
therefore those trying to build the community center ARE NOT remotely the same as those who took down the WTC.
in the end, the US is supposed to be a land of tolerance, a land of many peoples - the community center would be there to say "we feel the hurt just as much as you did, and our posterity will know that something like this is a wrong thing to do". its a community center, not a terrorist training ground, and the center is an attempt to mend bridges that have been burned.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Do you have any sources for these? Interviews with Al Qaeda or something saying "ya bro I'll be super happy here in Pakistan if they build a mosque in NYC for some reason" or is this just pointless speculation? And even if you did have some sort of source that indicates this, who really cares? Onoes we should stop the construction because someone somewhere might obtain an intangible "victory".
No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
Oh, we get to use "common sense?" It is common sense that the folks building the mosque/community center are working to heal and build peace and understanding between the Western and Muslim cultures. It is common sense that assholes like thesighter have the same goal as Al-Qaeda: provoking conflict between the Western countries and Muslim countries.
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote: My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Do you have any sources for these? Interviews with Al Qaeda or something saying "ya bro I'll be super happy here in Pakistan if they build a mosque in NYC for some reason" or is this just pointless speculation? And even if you did have some sort of source that indicates this, who really cares? Onoes we should stop the construction because someone somewhere might obtain an intangible "victory".
No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
Again you're making a statement and then stating that its true. Why would Al-Qaeda love it? Contrary to what you may believe Muslims do not belong to one super entity that behaves like a hive mind. Muslims of one group hate Muslims of another group just as much if not more than they hate the US. The Imam that is behind this is not a Wahabbist and they would probably consider the Imam a heathen just as much as they consider most Americans to be heathens.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me.
Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
Again, when you have no evidence you just state that its true because you think its true. This is not how debates work.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Do you have any sources for these? Interviews with Al Qaeda or something saying "ya bro I'll be super happy here in Pakistan if they build a mosque in NYC for some reason" or is this just pointless speculation? And even if you did have some sort of source that indicates this, who really cares? Onoes we should stop the construction because someone somewhere might obtain an intangible "victory".
No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
Oh, we get to use "common sense?" It is common sense that the folks building the mosque/community center are working to heal and build peace and understanding between the Western and Muslim cultures. It is common sense that assholes like thesighter have the same goal as Al-Qaeda: provoking conflict between the Western countries and Muslim countries.
Can somebody report this guy for ad hominem? I'm not provoking conflict, I'm the sole person talking to the lot of you in this thread. The quesiton is why are they building the center at the location to "promote peace", when it is clear that most people want them to move away a little bit ? If they promote peace with a mosque 4 blocks away, there will be no opposition for the 911 families.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Do you have any sources for these? Interviews with Al Qaeda or something saying "ya bro I'll be super happy here in Pakistan if they build a mosque in NYC for some reason" or is this just pointless speculation? And even if you did have some sort of source that indicates this, who really cares? Onoes we should stop the construction because someone somewhere might obtain an intangible "victory".
No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
of course al-qaeda would love that, but how many Muslims in the United States SUPPORT Al-Qaeda? Let me see that national poll :D
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me.
Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
Then you're aware of how such extremist movements got started, yes? After the failure of Nasser's Pan-Arabism the politically motivated youths of the day had few causes to rally behind following the Six Day War. Islam experienced a kind of revival in which religious institutions opened their doors for the more secular minded youths. The result, religious based group that held many of the same political beliefs (Arab unity and non-interference by western powers).
You also understand that unity under an extremist doctrine means everyone follows the exact same practices as the extremist sect. This puts most Muslims at odds with radical groups, making the ground zero mosque an affront to extremism.
I'm glad your knowledge of history and current events helps you understand this!
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Best post of the thread. Articulated very well the situation.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me.
Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
Then you're aware of how such extremist movements got started, yes? After the failure of Nasser's Pan-Arabism the politically motivated youths of the day had few causes to rally behind following the Six Day War. Islam experienced a kind of revival in which religious institutions opened their doors for the more secular minded youths. The result, religious based group that held many of the same political beliefs (Arab unity and non-interference by western powers).
You also understand that such unity under extremist doctrine means everyone follows the exact same practices as the extremist sect. This puts most Muslims at odds with radical groups, making the ground zero mosque an affront to extremism.
The situation is not that simple. The ground zero mosque is likely funded by the Saudi government. Although governments in the Middle East are secular, they often are funding the very same extremists that plague other countries.
On August 26 2010 05:19 n3mo wrote: Osservatore, i don't think you should associate the US with christianity - the one and only thing the US has been associated with is democracy (whether that means the US should promote democracy in other countries is another story).
the main thing about your argument is that its an over-generalization. like you, i won't pretend i know every facet of the argument (i'm an engineer, and i focus the bulk of my energies as such), but as far as i know the Quran does not preach violence. its the extremists who use religion as an excuse to carry out terrorist acts that we are fighting against.
therefore those trying to build the community center ARE NOT remotely the same as those who took down the WTC.
in the end, the US is supposed to be a land of tolerance, a land of many peoples - the community center would be there to say "we feel the hurt just as much as you did, and our posterity will know that something like this is a wrong thing to do". its a community center, not a terrorist training ground, and the center is an attempt to mend bridges that have been burned.
Of course. Thats why I labeled it myself as a false analogy for that exact reason. My purpose in that post was to attempt to say that "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should."
You're saying that it's a community center and not a terrorist training ground. Of course it isn't a terrorist training ground! But if it was only a community center, then why would it be getting so much bad press?
Lets see if I can't coin a new phrase - "Guilt by association." 99 percent of muslims in the US probably do not want to kill their neighbor for reasons other than that they play their stereo too loud. But when you hear about a muslim, you don't think of a constructive, deliberative human being. Instead you think of a population rapidly taking over Europe, and people that strap bombs to children - and those are people just as real, even if not as many as the moderate.
So should they be allowed to build a mosque? Of course! Should they? Of course not! It isn't the government's job to decide where you can practice your amendments just yet. Currently muslims suffer from a serious dilemma where they are associated with terrorists. Even if it takes a long time, this will eventually come to pass. People simply are not responsible enough for a hybrid "mosque community center" to be placed next to ground zero until the heat cools down.
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote: So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Do you have any sources for these? Interviews with Al Qaeda or something saying "ya bro I'll be super happy here in Pakistan if they build a mosque in NYC for some reason" or is this just pointless speculation? And even if you did have some sort of source that indicates this, who really cares? Onoes we should stop the construction because someone somewhere might obtain an intangible "victory".
No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
Oh, we get to use "common sense?" It is common sense that the folks building the mosque/community center are working to heal and build peace and understanding between the Western and Muslim cultures. It is common sense that assholes like thesighter have the same goal as Al-Qaeda: provoking conflict between the Western countries and Muslim countries.
Can somebody report this guy for ad hominem? I'm not provoking conflict, I'm the sole person talking to the lot of you in this thread. The quesiton is why are they building the center at the location to "promote peace", when it is clear that most people want them to move away a little bit ? If they promote peace with a mosque 4 blocks away, there will be no opposition for the 911 families.
It is still going against what this Nation was founded upon, which is FREEDOM. Just because there was a "Terrorist" attack on U.S. soil doesn't mean we abolish this nations Constitution. If the Mosque is not built it will just show that our Gov't is above its own Laws. Honestly if the families of 9/11 victims still beleive that the attacks were solely work of Muslim Extremists I feel really bad for them.
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote: My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me.
Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
Then you're aware of how such extremist movements got started, yes? After the failure of Nasser's Pan-Arabism the politically motivated youths of the day had few causes to rally behind following the Six Day War. Islam experienced a kind of revival in which religious institutions opened their doors for the more secular minded youths. The result, religious based group that held many of the same political beliefs (Arab unity and non-interference by western powers).
You also understand that such unity under extremist doctrine means everyone follows the exact same practices as the extremist sect. This puts most Muslims at odds with radical groups, making the ground zero mosque an affront to extremism.
The situation is not that simple. The ground zero mosque is likely funded by the Saudi government. Although governments in the Middle East are secular, they often are funding the very same extremists that plague other countries.
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Best post of the thread. Articulated very well the situation.
Unless we see Jewish extremists flying a plane into the Empire State Building, and wanting to build a synagogue on its ruins, there won't be a precedent of blocking places of worship irrationally.
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me.
Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
Then you're aware of how such extremist movements got started, yes? After the failure of Nasser's Pan-Arabism the politically motivated youths of the day had few causes to rally behind following the Six Day War. Islam experienced a kind of revival in which religious institutions opened their doors for the more secular minded youths. The result, religious based group that held many of the same political beliefs (Arab unity and non-interference by western powers).
You also understand that such unity under extremist doctrine means everyone follows the exact same practices as the extremist sect. This puts most Muslims at odds with radical groups, making the ground zero mosque an affront to extremism.
The situation is not that simple. The ground zero mosque is likely funded by the Saudi government. Although governments in the Middle East are secular, they often are funding the very same extremists that plague other countries.
On August 26 2010 05:19 n3mo wrote: Osservatore, i don't think you should associate the US with christianity - the one and only thing the US has been associated with is democracy (whether that means the US should promote democracy in other countries is another story).
the main thing about your argument is that its an over-generalization. like you, i won't pretend i know every facet of the argument (i'm an engineer, and i focus the bulk of my energies as such), but as far as i know the Quran does not preach violence. its the extremists who use religion as an excuse to carry out terrorist acts that we are fighting against.
therefore those trying to build the community center ARE NOT remotely the same as those who took down the WTC.
in the end, the US is supposed to be a land of tolerance, a land of many peoples - the community center would be there to say "we feel the hurt just as much as you did, and our posterity will know that something like this is a wrong thing to do". its a community center, not a terrorist training ground, and the center is an attempt to mend bridges that have been burned.
You're saying that it's a community center and not a terrorist training ground. Of course it isn't a terrorist training ground! But if it was only a community center, then why would it be getting so much bad press?
Because the media is making it out to be more than it is.
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote: My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me.
Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
Then you're aware of how such extremist movements got started, yes? After the failure of Nasser's Pan-Arabism the politically motivated youths of the day had few causes to rally behind following the Six Day War. Islam experienced a kind of revival in which religious institutions opened their doors for the more secular minded youths. The result, religious based group that held many of the same political beliefs (Arab unity and non-interference by western powers).
You also understand that such unity under extremist doctrine means everyone follows the exact same practices as the extremist sect. This puts most Muslims at odds with radical groups, making the ground zero mosque an affront to extremism.
The situation is not that simple. The ground zero mosque is likely funded by the Saudi government. Although governments in the Middle East are secular, they often are funding the very same extremists that plague other countries.
Wahhabism is one of the most conservative sects of Islam. It would do you well to read your own articles though.
Noah Feldman, draws a distinction between what he calls the "deeply conservative" Wahhabis and what he calls the "followers of political Islam in the 1980s and 1990s," such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad and later Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. While Saudi Wahhabis were "the largest funders of local Muslim Brotherhood chapters and other hard-line Islamists" during this time, they opposed jihadi resistance of Muslim governments and assassination of Muslim leaders because of their belief that "the decision to wage jihad lay with the ruler, not the individual believer".[40]
Karen Armstrong believes that Osama bin Laden, like most extremists, follows the ideology of Sayyid Qutb, not "Wahhabism".
Still, you refuse to admit that moderate Islam is at odds with radical Islam and that a moderate mosque is in no way a victory symbol... Given the chance, Al Qaeda would just as soon blow up a moderate mosque in the US as they would anywhere else in the world.
On August 26 2010 05:19 n3mo wrote: Osservatore, i don't think you should associate the US with christianity - the one and only thing the US has been associated with is democracy (whether that means the US should promote democracy in other countries is another story).
the main thing about your argument is that its an over-generalization. like you, i won't pretend i know every facet of the argument (i'm an engineer, and i focus the bulk of my energies as such), but as far as i know the Quran does not preach violence. its the extremists who use religion as an excuse to carry out terrorist acts that we are fighting against.
therefore those trying to build the community center ARE NOT remotely the same as those who took down the WTC.
in the end, the US is supposed to be a land of tolerance, a land of many peoples - the community center would be there to say "we feel the hurt just as much as you did, and our posterity will know that something like this is a wrong thing to do". its a community center, not a terrorist training ground, and the center is an attempt to mend bridges that have been burned.
You're saying that it's a community center and not a terrorist training ground. Of course it isn't a terrorist training ground! But if it was only a community center, then why would it be getting so much bad press?
Because the media is making it out to be more than it is.
I'm sorry that that is as much thought as I could provoke out of you from a 500 word post.
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote: My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one. (See I knew id find another example )
On August 26 2010 05:19 n3mo wrote: Osservatore, i don't think you should associate the US with christianity - the one and only thing the US has been associated with is democracy (whether that means the US should promote democracy in other countries is another story).
the main thing about your argument is that its an over-generalization. like you, i won't pretend i know every facet of the argument (i'm an engineer, and i focus the bulk of my energies as such), but as far as i know the Quran does not preach violence. its the extremists who use religion as an excuse to carry out terrorist acts that we are fighting against.
therefore those trying to build the community center ARE NOT remotely the same as those who took down the WTC.
in the end, the US is supposed to be a land of tolerance, a land of many peoples - the community center would be there to say "we feel the hurt just as much as you did, and our posterity will know that something like this is a wrong thing to do". its a community center, not a terrorist training ground, and the center is an attempt to mend bridges that have been burned.
You're saying that it's a community center and not a terrorist training ground. Of course it isn't a terrorist training ground! But if it was only a community center, then why would it be getting so much bad press?
Because the media is making it out to be more than it is.
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote: My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
On August 26 2010 05:19 n3mo wrote: Osservatore, i don't think you should associate the US with christianity - the one and only thing the US has been associated with is democracy (whether that means the US should promote democracy in other countries is another story).
the main thing about your argument is that its an over-generalization. like you, i won't pretend i know every facet of the argument (i'm an engineer, and i focus the bulk of my energies as such), but as far as i know the Quran does not preach violence. its the extremists who use religion as an excuse to carry out terrorist acts that we are fighting against.
therefore those trying to build the community center ARE NOT remotely the same as those who took down the WTC.
in the end, the US is supposed to be a land of tolerance, a land of many peoples - the community center would be there to say "we feel the hurt just as much as you did, and our posterity will know that something like this is a wrong thing to do". its a community center, not a terrorist training ground, and the center is an attempt to mend bridges that have been burned.
You're saying that it's a community center and not a terrorist training ground. Of course it isn't a terrorist training ground! But if it was only a community center, then why would it be getting so much bad press?
Because the media is making it out to be more than it is.
I'm sorry that that is as much thought as I could provoke out of you from a 500 word post.
I just wanted to point out that the bad press is more a function of latent anti-Muslim sentiment in the US than anything the people building the facility are doing. As for the rest of your post, moving it because a bunch of easily scared people aren't ready for it is no reason to not do it. Most southern whites were not ready for black people to attend university but it happened whether they liked it or not. Treating a group differently because the majority views them unfavorably is not an American value.
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote: My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
Its already two blocks away. Its in new york city man. To get another place would be so expensive . What IS tasteless and insensitive is that Americans think that they have the power to say that a group of religious people are not allowed to worship where they please.
I don't see how this is negative. It might be a landmark for Muslims, showing off their assimilation into America and their full citizenship of New York by contributing to the New York skyline.
Deny this and it's potentially more damaging in alienating Muslims that would have otherwise considered themselves full-fledged Americans.
Unless there is more dirt on the sponsors of this "mosque" and community center, I'd be incline to say that there are many more benefits to approving its construction than censuring it.
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote: My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
Thesighter, I'm sorry to say I've given up on trying to help you. Instead, I've decided that we should, as Americans, work together to prevent this ground zero mosque from happening.
Would a citizen of New York please start a petition so we can get this on a ballot. Most Americans and New Yorkers are against the mosque so I assume this law should pass easily. Otherwise, this terrible structure will be erected.
The Ground Zero Anti-Mosque Law:
In observance of the tragedy of 9/11/2001 it is now illegal to build any Islamic place of worship within 4 blocks of the area designated "ground zero". Other places of worship may be placed within this vicinity, but understand that this law is in no way prejudiced against any one relgion or nationality.
Addendum: The guy who sells halal out of a cart next to ground zero needs to get out too.
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me.
Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
Then you're aware of how such extremist movements got started, yes? After the failure of Nasser's Pan-Arabism the politically motivated youths of the day had few causes to rally behind following the Six Day War. Islam experienced a kind of revival in which religious institutions opened their doors for the more secular minded youths. The result, religious based group that held many of the same political beliefs (Arab unity and non-interference by western powers).
You also understand that such unity under extremist doctrine means everyone follows the exact same practices as the extremist sect. This puts most Muslims at odds with radical groups, making the ground zero mosque an affront to extremism.
The situation is not that simple. The ground zero mosque is likely funded by the Saudi government. Although governments in the Middle East are secular, they often are funding the very same extremists that plague other countries.
Noah Feldman, draws a distinction between what he calls the "deeply conservative" Wahhabis and what he calls the "followers of political Islam in the 1980s and 1990s," such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad and later Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. While Saudi Wahhabis were "the largest funders of local Muslim Brotherhood chapters and other hard-line Islamists" during this time, they opposed jihadi resistance of Muslim governments and assassination of Muslim leaders because of their belief that "the decision to wage jihad lay with the ruler, not the individual believer".[40]
Karen Armstrong believes that Osama bin Laden, like most extremists, follows the ideology of Sayyid Qutb, not "Wahhabism".
Still, you refuse to admit that moderate Islam is at odds with radical Islam and that a moderate mosque is in no way a victory symbol... Given the chance, Al Qaeda would just as soon blow up a moderate mosque in the US as they would anywhere else in the world.
Everybody knows that moderate and radical Islam are different... don't put words in my mouth
Osama started as a Wahhabi. Taliban are a Wahhabi movement.
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote: My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
Thesighter, I'm sorry to say I've given up on trying to help you. Instead, I've decided that we should, as Americans, work together to prevent this ground zero mosque from happening.
Would a citizen of New York please start a petition so we can get this on a ballot. Most Americans and New Yorkers are against the mosque so I assume this law should pass easily. Otherwise, this terrible structure will be erected.
The Ground Zero Anti-Mosque Law:
In observance of the tragedy of 9/11/2001 it is now illegal to build any Islamic place of worship within 4 blocks of the area designated "ground zero". Other places of worship may be placed within this vicinity, but understand that this law is in no way prejudiced against any one relgion or nationality.
Addendum: The guy who sells halal out of a cart next to ground zero needs to get out too.
Signed, Offhand
There's a already a Facebook group with 200,000 against the mosque
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote: My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
Thesighter, I'm sorry to say I've given up on trying to help you. Instead, I've decided that we should, as Americans, work together to prevent this ground zero mosque from happening.
Would a citizen of New York please start a petition so we can get this on a ballot. Most Americans and New Yorkers are against the mosque so I assume this law should pass easily. Otherwise, this terrible structure will be erected.
The Ground Zero Anti-Mosque Law:
In observance of the tragedy of 9/11/2001 it is now illegal to build any Islamic place of worship within 4 blocks of the area designated "ground zero". Other places of worship may be placed within this vicinity, but understand that this law is in no way prejudiced against any one relgion or nationality.
Addendum: The guy who sells halal out of a cart next to ground zero needs to get out too.
Signed, Offhand
There's a already a Facebook group with 200,000 against the mosque
As much as modern media would tell you otherwise, facebook groups cannot become state or national law.
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote: My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran 2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
Thesighter, I'm sorry to say I've given up on trying to help you. Instead, I've decided that we should, as Americans, work together to prevent this ground zero mosque from happening.
Would a citizen of New York please start a petition so we can get this on a ballot. Most Americans and New Yorkers are against the mosque so I assume this law should pass easily. Otherwise, this terrible structure will be erected.
The Ground Zero Anti-Mosque Law:
In observance of the tragedy of 9/11/2001 it is now illegal to build any Islamic place of worship within 4 blocks of the area designated "ground zero". Other places of worship may be placed within this vicinity, but understand that this law is in no way prejudiced against any one relgion or nationality.
Addendum: The guy who sells halal out of a cart next to ground zero needs to get out too.
Signed, Offhand
There's a already a Facebook group with 200,000 against the mosque
As much as modern media would tell you otherwise, facebook groups cannot become state or national law.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
Thesighter, I'm sorry to say I've given up on trying to help you. Instead, I've decided that we should, as Americans, work together to prevent this ground zero mosque from happening.
Would a citizen of New York please start a petition so we can get this on a ballot. Most Americans and New Yorkers are against the mosque so I assume this law should pass easily. Otherwise, this terrible structure will be erected.
The Ground Zero Anti-Mosque Law:
In observance of the tragedy of 9/11/2001 it is now illegal to build any Islamic place of worship within 4 blocks of the area designated "ground zero". Other places of worship may be placed within this vicinity, but understand that this law is in no way prejudiced against any one relgion or nationality.
Addendum: The guy who sells halal out of a cart next to ground zero needs to get out too.
Signed, Offhand
There's a already a Facebook group with 200,000 against the mosque
As much as modern media would tell you otherwise, facebook groups cannot become state or national law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
Thesighter, I'm sorry to say I've given up on trying to help you. Instead, I've decided that we should, as Americans, work together to prevent this ground zero mosque from happening.
Would a citizen of New York please start a petition so we can get this on a ballot. Most Americans and New Yorkers are against the mosque so I assume this law should pass easily. Otherwise, this terrible structure will be erected.
The Ground Zero Anti-Mosque Law:
In observance of the tragedy of 9/11/2001 it is now illegal to build any Islamic place of worship within 4 blocks of the area designated "ground zero". Other places of worship may be placed within this vicinity, but understand that this law is in no way prejudiced against any one relgion or nationality.
Addendum: The guy who sells halal out of a cart next to ground zero needs to get out too.
Signed, Offhand
There's a already a Facebook group with 200,000 against the mosque
As much as modern media would tell you otherwise, facebook groups cannot become state or national law.
You are for my law though, yes?
Just an example of a petition. You understand?
Your avoiding the question.
I'm against the law. This has been said 100x already, it's legal for them to build it, but it's in awful bad taste.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
Thesighter, I'm sorry to say I've given up on trying to help you. Instead, I've decided that we should, as Americans, work together to prevent this ground zero mosque from happening.
Would a citizen of New York please start a petition so we can get this on a ballot. Most Americans and New Yorkers are against the mosque so I assume this law should pass easily. Otherwise, this terrible structure will be erected.
The Ground Zero Anti-Mosque Law:
In observance of the tragedy of 9/11/2001 it is now illegal to build any Islamic place of worship within 4 blocks of the area designated "ground zero". Other places of worship may be placed within this vicinity, but understand that this law is in no way prejudiced against any one relgion or nationality.
Addendum: The guy who sells halal out of a cart next to ground zero needs to get out too.
Signed, Offhand
There's a already a Facebook group with 200,000 against the mosque
As much as modern media would tell you otherwise, facebook groups cannot become state or national law.
You are for my law though, yes?
Just an example of a petition. You understand?
Your avoiding the question.
I'm against the law. This has been said 100x already, it's legal for them to build it, but it's in awful bad taste.
Almost as bad taste as hating/fearing someone for their religion.
On August 26 2010 05:46 Archerofaiur wrote: You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one. (See I knew id find another example ) ...
This example would be more appropriate if your water fountain was a jar of water and you wanted to drink it while sitting on a huge complicated electronic device and by spilling your drink a short-circuit would occur that would cause a big ass fire. You are still allowed to have your drink just don't drink it where the consequences might be huge.
On August 26 2010 05:55 Pandain wrote: Its already two blocks away. Its in new york city man. To get another place would be so expensive . What IS tasteless and insensitive is that Americans think that they have the power to say that a group of religious people are not allowed to worship where they please.
Do you really think that there are many places that are more expensive than lower Manhattan? And maybe the people that care to worship could be considerate enough to erect their building at another place. Maybe they would have to drive a station further with the subway, but at least they won't be emotionally harming a shitload of people.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
Thesighter, I'm sorry to say I've given up on trying to help you. Instead, I've decided that we should, as Americans, work together to prevent this ground zero mosque from happening.
Would a citizen of New York please start a petition so we can get this on a ballot. Most Americans and New Yorkers are against the mosque so I assume this law should pass easily. Otherwise, this terrible structure will be erected.
The Ground Zero Anti-Mosque Law:
In observance of the tragedy of 9/11/2001 it is now illegal to build any Islamic place of worship within 4 blocks of the area designated "ground zero". Other places of worship may be placed within this vicinity, but understand that this law is in no way prejudiced against any one relgion or nationality.
Addendum: The guy who sells halal out of a cart next to ground zero needs to get out too.
Signed, Offhand
There's a already a Facebook group with 200,000 against the mosque
As much as modern media would tell you otherwise, facebook groups cannot become state or national law.
You are for my law though, yes?
Just an example of a petition. You understand?
Your avoiding the question.
I'm against the law. This has been said 100x already, it's legal for them to build it, but it's in awful bad taste.
Then you agree that you have no say in what a law abiding religious group does. Any effort to stop such a building process would require a law that is inherently bigoted in it's premise. And that there's a difference between moderate New York Muslims and radical Afgani/Pakistani muslims. Thank you for playing.
Also, I wasn't kidding about the guy who sold halal next to ground zero. He exists, and he's about as much of a victory for extremist Muslims as the mosque would be.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
Thesighter, I'm sorry to say I've given up on trying to help you. Instead, I've decided that we should, as Americans, work together to prevent this ground zero mosque from happening.
Would a citizen of New York please start a petition so we can get this on a ballot. Most Americans and New Yorkers are against the mosque so I assume this law should pass easily. Otherwise, this terrible structure will be erected.
The Ground Zero Anti-Mosque Law:
In observance of the tragedy of 9/11/2001 it is now illegal to build any Islamic place of worship within 4 blocks of the area designated "ground zero". Other places of worship may be placed within this vicinity, but understand that this law is in no way prejudiced against any one relgion or nationality.
Addendum: The guy who sells halal out of a cart next to ground zero needs to get out too.
Signed, Offhand
There's a already a Facebook group with 200,000 against the mosque
As much as modern media would tell you otherwise, facebook groups cannot become state or national law.
You are for my law though, yes?
Just an example of a petition. You understand?
Your avoiding the question.
I'm against the law. This has been said 100x already, it's legal for them to build it, but it's in awful bad taste.
Then you agree that you have no say in what a law abiding religious group does. Any effort to stop such a building process would require a law that is inherently bigoted in it's premise. And that there's a difference between moderate New York Muslims and radical Afgani/Pakistani muslims. Thank you for playing.
Also, I wasn't kidding about the guy who sold halal next to ground zero. He exists, and he's about as much of a victory for extremist Muslims as the mosque would be.
Sorry, but that isn't true. Of course you can't force them to leave, but petitions and boycotts are very real. Especially for 100 million dollar mosques next to ground zero.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
Thesighter, I'm sorry to say I've given up on trying to help you. Instead, I've decided that we should, as Americans, work together to prevent this ground zero mosque from happening.
Would a citizen of New York please start a petition so we can get this on a ballot. Most Americans and New Yorkers are against the mosque so I assume this law should pass easily. Otherwise, this terrible structure will be erected.
The Ground Zero Anti-Mosque Law:
In observance of the tragedy of 9/11/2001 it is now illegal to build any Islamic place of worship within 4 blocks of the area designated "ground zero". Other places of worship may be placed within this vicinity, but understand that this law is in no way prejudiced against any one relgion or nationality.
Addendum: The guy who sells halal out of a cart next to ground zero needs to get out too.
Signed, Offhand
There's a already a Facebook group with 200,000 against the mosque
As much as modern media would tell you otherwise, facebook groups cannot become state or national law.
You are for my law though, yes?
Just an example of a petition. You understand?
Your avoiding the question.
I'm against the law. This has been said 100x already, it's legal for them to build it, but it's in awful bad taste.
Almost as bad taste as hating/fearing/disturbed someone for their religion.
From reading posts, this is much more political than the bigotry you make it out to be.
On August 26 2010 06:47 Osservatore wrote: Sorry, but that isn't true. Of course you can't force them to leave, but petitions and boycotts are very real. Especially for 100 million dollar mosques next to ground zero.
Too bad it's not an 100 million dollar mosque. It's an 100 million dollar cultural center that just so happens to have some prayer rooms.
On August 26 2010 06:31 Offhand wrote: Also, I wasn't kidding about the guy who sold halal next to ground zero. He exists, and he's about as much of a victory for extremist Muslims as the mosque would be.
Hey! Don't fuck with the halal vendor. Nobody fucks with food.
Soooooo much ignorant hatred in this thread. Honestly, why do you even care what religion someone practices? KKK members used a twisted version of Christian beliefs to kill hundreds of blacks. The Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, The Crusades? These all happened because of religious intolerance and xenophobia. The people who are against this mosque are making it appear as though they dislike Islam because it's different from their established Western beliefs.
On August 23 2010 23:18 JinNJuice wrote: I'm surprised there isn't a thread about this, I did some searches and found nothing. I want to share some of my views on this topic as well as see some of your opinions.
We had another thread about how people thought Obama was Muslim and most of this discussion was contained within there.
Personally I'd rather TL never made a thread about this. It's simple sensationalism backed up by interviewing people on the street, nitpicking the ones with the angriest replies, and then showing it to the folks at home to rile them up and increase TV ratings. I thought TL was smarter than to have to discuss this.
This is mainly for the republican TV stations and newspapers.
I am actually embarrassed to be living in the States because of how the rest of the world must view us and our intelligence as a whole. However I am not embarrassed to be living with so many bright minds who do make this country a leader in industry.
Whether or not Obama should have said anything about the Mosque personally is another question. His ratings are plummeting and just saying this could cause a shift in seats in Congress or his prematurely leaving the White House. I don't think it will, and I hope people will forget.
As a muslim that used to live in the US, I find it very sad that these kinds of events are still occuring. After 9/11 there was a lot of anti-muslim prejudice going around. I was stabbed coming home from school, and called a f***ing terrorist and such. Soon after I moved to the UK.
People say it's insensitive that they're building a mosque near to ground zero, so if that's the case it means that the victims of 9/11 pin the whole thing on the entire muslim community, and will find it to be a bad thing when they see regular ordinary muslims going for their daily prayers at the mosque.
In addition to that, it's not even just a mosque, it's a cultural centre, that happens to also have prayer rooms inside.
Now, i'm pretty sure that the main reason people are so against this, is that they subconciously link Islam with terrorism, which is really sad. I hope this cultural centre DOES get built, and that the families of the 9/11 victims see it whenever they go to ground zero, so that they can see the muslims that go to the mosque, how ordinary and peaceful they are, and how much like every other American citizen they are. Maybe then they (and everybody else) will finally open their eyes and stop associating terrorism and 9/11 with Islam. It could have just as easily been a bunch of christians responsible for the twin towers, but because of other events occuring in the world at the time it just happened to be a bunch of radical extremist "muslims" who have now put unneccesary hate and shame on our peaceful community.
Also notice how I say "muslims." The reason for this is that the majority of real muslims who are integrated into society as normal friends, collegues, etc. view these extremists as non-muslims, since they kill innocent people and cause undue harm in the name of our religion, whereas islam specifically forbids murder and such. I know there have been quotes about how jihad promotes killing non-muslims and such, but one must understand that firstly, they have been read and taken out of context, and then only snippets of the quotes have been thrown around the media to stir up hatred and prejudice in ordinary Americans.
Accepting suppression? That's an entirely new concept to me, would you please expand on this idea? I'm sincerely interested.
Simply enough, you know something is wrong, and choose to do nothing. Example, I know that my nation's continued spending is wrong. If I allow it to continue I'm accepting or enabling that spending, I may not be able to confront it directly but I can work to remove those individuals from power. So what I'm saying is that the middle allows the extremes to dictate their view of their religion. They are enabling their own suppression, and so it follows they accept this as 'normal".
What really amazes me about all of this is how americans always take great pride in their constitution and the freedom that it represents. If such a basic principle of democracy such as religious freedom is compromised by the ignorant cries of the masses then it seems fairly pointless. Is freedom only meant for the large majority or something? Some people argue that the mosque shouldn't be built in order to prevent vandalism or outcries but think about what message that would send, essentially saying as long as you're loud and/or violent enough you'll have your way despite any human rights that might happen to stand in the way.
If this mosque isn't allowed to be built on the basis that one of the worlds largest religions is falsely associated with the acts of a few individuals then that sets an example that religious freedom can be compromised in any number of ways as long as enough people get adequately pissed off for whatever reason.
If the mosque, which is in fact a community center is built it's probably going to help informing people of the actual nature of Islam and what it is for the overwhelmingly large majority of its moderate practicians. If you've never paid a mosque a visit and you're feeling paranoid or uncertain then that's something to consider. They'll be happy to answer any questions from my experience.
America is not a fair country, we never have been, never will be. Ask anyone who migrated here before 1970. By your rational you would have us build a Shinto shrine over the USS Arizona. The fact of the matter is it's not wanted and shouldn't be built. At least not at ground zero.
Islam doesn't in and of itself condone what the terrorists did.
The Qur'an says of Muslims defending themselves -this
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression"
The problem is extremists and alot of Muslim gov'ts see America as a transgressor. And therefore our existance is to be ended. We can only cease our transgression by becoming Muslim. This mosque is a direct way of saying "we are becoming Muslim". Ergo building this mosque in this place is telling extemists that they are winning.
To me anyone who supports building this mosque at GZ is appeasing terrorists. You are beggers to your own demise.
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
So you want to move the US embassy out of Iraq and Afghanistan? (Or as it is lovingly called Fortress America).
ps. Seriously they are calling it fortress america? Talk about being a douche. And it didn't cost 100million, it cost 1.3 bil.
Also I assume that you would want to have all american military bases be removed from Japan (since you know you guys did actually nuke them). And I think no american company should be allowed to operate in Japan either. Or germany for that matter.
Actually I am now thinking that this list would be really huge. But you see why your argument is the r-word.
On August 26 2010 05:46 Archerofaiur wrote: [quote]
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one.
See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
Thesighter, I'm sorry to say I've given up on trying to help you. Instead, I've decided that we should, as Americans, work together to prevent this ground zero mosque from happening.
Would a citizen of New York please start a petition so we can get this on a ballot. Most Americans and New Yorkers are against the mosque so I assume this law should pass easily. Otherwise, this terrible structure will be erected.
The Ground Zero Anti-Mosque Law:
In observance of the tragedy of 9/11/2001 it is now illegal to build any Islamic place of worship within 4 blocks of the area designated "ground zero". Other places of worship may be placed within this vicinity, but understand that this law is in no way prejudiced against any one relgion or nationality.
Addendum: The guy who sells halal out of a cart next to ground zero needs to get out too.
Signed, Offhand
There's a already a Facebook group with 200,000 against the mosque
As much as modern media would tell you otherwise, facebook groups cannot become state or national law.
You are for my law though, yes?
Just an example of a petition. You understand?
Your avoiding the question.
I'm against the law. This has been said 100x already, it's legal for them to build it, but it's in awful bad taste.
Almost as bad taste as hating/fearing/disturbed someone for their religion.
From reading posts, this is much more political than the bigotry you make it out to be.
It's bigotry because you're associating an entire religion with terrorism.
I don't think this should be considered as a race or religious problem, it should be more about respecting the victims. I know many Muslims will talk about how these weren't real Muslims and that they're a disgrace and stuff, and I agree with everything they say, but some Americans will not look at it this way. There are many ignorant people that won't like this and cause much problems
in my opinion there shouldn't be anything at all like this. no churches, no mosques or whatever else there is to pray to some imaginary god figure. wouldn't have been any 9/11 or "ground zero" anyways, without this crap we better get rid of all the religious bullshit rather sooner than later.
i guess it will be built anyways, so ok. but they should really think about it. cause there will definitely be some pricks who are going to harrass people there, maybe even attack them. might not be the best choice of place
I personally think it would be funny if the Repugs would put their money is where their mouths are and buy out the land from the park51 project (whats 100 million to preserve the sanctity of hallowed ground!!) and they should just build an even larger center somewhere else.
But if they give in to this harassment (what is essentially terrorism) just out of fear it will be an ugly slippery slope. I know people would like you to think that the only problem with the mosque is that it is near gz, but other mosques in other parts of the country are getting the same treatment (without as much press exposure though). As TDS said, in staten island, in Tennessee, in Wisconsin, in California even people are protesting against mosques. And its always the same thing: "Oh we don't hate muslims but we don't want the mosque here".
If Rauf gives in because of fear and in an act of appeasement it will get ugly for muslims in the US fast.
Accepting suppression? That's an entirely new concept to me, would you please expand on this idea? I'm sincerely interested.
Simply enough, you know something is wrong, and choose to do nothing. Example, I know that my nation's continued spending is wrong. If I allow it to continue I'm accepting or enabling that spending, I may not be able to confront it directly but I can work to remove those individuals from power. So what I'm saying is that the middle allows the extremes to dictate their view of their religion. They are enabling their own suppression, and so it follows they accept this as 'normal".
What really amazes me about all of this is how americans always take great pride in their constitution and the freedom that it represents. If such a basic principle of democracy such as religious freedom is compromised by the ignorant cries of the masses then it seems fairly pointless. Is freedom only meant for the large majority or something? Some people argue that the mosque shouldn't be built in order to prevent vandalism or outcries but think about what message that would send, essentially saying as long as you're loud and/or violent enough you'll have your way despite any human rights that might happen to stand in the way.
If this mosque isn't allowed to be built on the basis that one of the worlds largest religions is falsely associated with the acts of a few individuals then that sets an example that religious freedom can be compromised in any number of ways as long as enough people get adequately pissed off for whatever reason.
If the mosque, which is in fact a community center is built it's probably going to help informing people of the actual nature of Islam and what it is for the overwhelmingly large majority of its moderate practicians. If you've never paid a mosque a visit and you're feeling paranoid or uncertain then that's something to consider. They'll be happy to answer any questions from my experience.
America is not a fair country, we never have been, never will be. Ask anyone who migrated here before 1970. By your rational you would have us build a Shinto shrine over the USS Arizona. The fact of the matter is it's not wanted and shouldn't be built. At least not at ground zero.
Islam doesn't in and of itself condone what the terrorists did.
The Qur'an says of Muslims defending themselves -this
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression"
The problem is extremists and alot of Muslim gov'ts see America as a transgressor. And therefore our existance is to be ended. We can only cease our transgression by becoming Muslim. This mosque is a direct way of saying "we are becoming Muslim". Ergo building this mosque in this place is telling extemists that they are winning.
To me anyone who supports building this mosque at GZ is appeasing terrorists. You are beggers to your own demise.
I rather meet my demise by the hands of terrorist then give up the ideals that this great country was build upon. Knowing that it is not a perfect country means we should continue to improve not say "meh what can we do. It happened in the past!"
Islam may not condone what these terrorist did but Muslim did and what matters more? A book written a thousands of years ago or people who are Americans like us.
I live in NYC and I don't see why this should even be an issue. Barring some zoning restriction that would not allow a mosque to be there, they should be allowed to build it. It amazes me how fired up people get about this.
Yes, thousands of people died in a horrible incident 9-years ago and that should not be overlooked, but it was an isolated group of radicals that were responsible, not the religion of Islam.
For all of the Christians I've seen get fired up about this, I would remind them that there's an important reason Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek and forgive. If we respond to ignorance and religious intolerance with the same, what makes us any different from them? Before we go off and start complaining about radical fundamentalists or Islam in general, there is a need to look at ourselves and examine what we've become. Otherwise, we risk being brought down as a nation and as a people by our own willingness to stoop down to the same level of ignorance and intolerance as the very people we so readily condemn.
It saddens me how many people even in my own church I need to remind of some of the most basic principles we learned in Sunday School.
For those talking about religion being responsible for this conflict, I would similarly like to remind them that religion by itself does nothing. It's human beings that create conflict. The fact that they attempt to excuse their actions in the name of religion is no more a reflection of that religion than Hitler's atrocities a reflection of Nietzche's ideologies or Guantanamo Bay a reflection of the American ideal. Responsibility always lies in the hands of individuals regardless of whatever ideology may be out there. Human beings control the influence of ideas through their actions, not the other way around.
What is appeasement? Groveling to the aggressors and the sponsors of this building are the aggressors who took down the Twin Towers?
By all the literature I have read, they are ideologically different from the terrorists. Their only commonality is their professed religion and even then they might not agree. There are so many different sects of Islam.
Are we to lump all Muslims into the terrorist camp? Are we suppose expect Americas to be so stupid as to not differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists? These actions have consequences.
It teaches Americans to be dumb and learn that all Muslims are similar to those those terrorists and it teaches Muslims that they aren't particularly welcome in their own country.
The tragedy is that many Muslims in the world hold the same uneducated view of Americans and Westerners.
We might be doomed to a fate of religious strife led by two diametric factions, mirrored in their intolerance of each other, both convinced the other is incapable of tolerance and peace. Meanwhile two other groups with mutual understanding will look at the misunderstanding between the two camps and shake their head at the inevitable tragedy. But they will be forced by their more intolerant peers to give up all civil dialogue with members of the opposing religion.
I guess the difference is a matter of outlook and attitude. It's not to take away from the fact that there are truly unscrupulous and destructive people out there, but it's the difference between looking to develop friendship and looking for the best virtues in strangers or manufacturing enemies and focusing on the worst characteristics of strangers.
On August 26 2010 07:22 Malmatik wrote: Islam doesn't in and of itself condone what the terrorists did.
The Qur'an says of Muslims defending themselves -this
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression"
The problem is extremists and alot of Muslim gov'ts see America as a transgressor. And therefore our existance is to be ended. We can only cease our transgression by becoming Muslim. This mosque is a direct way of saying "we are becoming Muslim". Ergo building this mosque in this place is telling extemists that they are winning.
To me anyone who supports building this mosque at GZ is appeasing terrorists. You are beggers to your own demise.
I absolutely loved this part of your comment It's amazing that I love it, because I usually hate this sort of nonsense. I salute you, sir, for your devotion to honesty and logic. I obviously do disagree with your conclusion. This idea that really "winning" requires making your enemy think that he's losing is a little too simple. The ramifications of what you're saying are also fairly disturbing. I mean, how far are you willing to take this logic? Should the US abandon it's dedication to freedom of religion? Should there be ads on tv, warning people not to fall prey to the religion of the enemy? Do you see the problem? You're drawing an arbitrary line imo. Another thing is that (religious) fundamentalists hate moderates as well as other kinds of fundamentalists with a passion. Maybe some will nevertheless be delighted by the US allowing the building of the "mosque". Maybe. They shouldn't care, but one never knows. Islamic terrorism against the West is as much political as it is religious. You may disagree but there's real oppresion at the hands of the Americans. Even if this weren't true, the perception still lingers. Perhaps adressing the legitimate grievances would be an option? Isn't there another way to secure the flow of oil without all of the murder and puppeteering. Sure, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'd say it's at least a little broke (costly + the terrorism and sjit) and it's more than a little "evil" too.
This thread got off topic a little but anyways...A lot of people from country's other than the U.S. have posted here and I think that's great however just remember you don't understand how Americans felt on 9/11. I'm not Insulting you intelligence or insinuating you (or you country) haven't experienced bad times, just remember its different.
That being said I am an American and I love my country. I understand as a country were not perfect.
We are all bound to the Constitution and it is well within their right as Americans to practice religion and build a mosque where they please. So If I held a position in the government I would be for building the mosque.
My only complaint is that when they decided to build a mosque near ground zero, the must have known it would cause a lot of controversy. It seems to me that should have considered a different location. I could wear a KKK mask and go sit outside a Jewish synagogue(I would never do that), but It would cause a lot of unnecessary controversy and I'm better off doing that somewhere else.
On August 26 2010 10:31 RyanSki wrote: This thread got off topic a little but anyways...A lot of people from country's other than the U.S. have posted here and I think that's great however just remember you don't understand how Americans felt on 9/11. I'm not Insulting you intelligence or insinuating you (or you country) haven't experienced bad times, just remember its different.
That being said I am an American and I love my country. I understand as a country were not perfect.
We are all bound to the Constitution and it is well within their right as Americans to practice religion and build a mosque where they please. So If I held a position in the government I would be for building the mosque.
My only complaint is that when they decided to build a mosque near ground zero, the must have known it would cause a lot of controversy. It seems to me that should have considered a different location. I could wear a KKK mask and go sit outside a Jewish synagogue(I would never do that), but It would cause a lot of unnecessary controversy and I'm better off doing that somewhere else.
Again Constitution allows it so let it be built.
Seriously! They're not building a Mosque! They're building a community center open to everyone, and there is a Mosque on one floor of it. Why do people not understand that?
It irks me when people call it a 'Mosque'. It's a Mosque the same way a Christian Private School is a Church. It may have ties to the founding religion but it exists to educate people about Islam, not rub it in their faces.
For that matter it's not even at Ground Zero, let alone two blocks away, it's something like five blocks away.
They're building it to educate people about Islam, to distance themselves away from radicals, they're not trying to incite anyone. People, especially those protesting, are just using it as an excuse to get angry and point fingers at something. After all they can't blame Obama for everything all the time.
On that note, Muslims died on 9/11 when the towers fell too.
It's quite clear that Islam and Muslims in general are the new 'Communist Red Menace' of the McCarthy era. I find it funny there's such hatred against Muslims in the United States amongst many Conservatives, but if you ask them why we're in Iraq they'll say "To free the people there from oppression"
It's not like people in Iraq are Muslims or anything, no sir. I hate to quote Ron Paul but he pretty much put it that this brash hatred is the only reason the western world is fighting wars in the Middle East.
On August 23 2010 23:18 JinNJuice wrote: I'm surprised there isn't a thread about this, I did some searches and found nothing. I want to share some of my views on this topic as well as see some of your opinions.
We had another thread about how people thought Obama was Muslim and most of this discussion was contained within there.
Personally I'd rather TL never made a thread about this. It's simple sensationalism backed up by interviewing people on the street, nitpicking the ones with the angriest replies, and then showing it to the folks at home to rile them up and increase TV ratings. I thought TL was smarter than to have to discuss this.
This is mainly for the republican TV stations and newspapers.
I am actually embarrassed to be living in the States because of how the rest of the world must view us and our intelligence as a whole. However I am not embarrassed to be living with so many bright minds who do make this country a leader in industry.
Whether or not Obama should have said anything about the Mosque personally is another question. His ratings are plummeting and just saying this could cause a shift in seats in Congress or his prematurely leaving the White House. I don't think it will, and I hope people will forget.
Don't be embarassed. This is not just a Republican issue at this point. Most NYCers are against the mosque. Most NYers are against the mosque. Most NYers are democrats.
On August 26 2010 11:32 Shrewmy wrote: It irks me when people call it a 'Mosque'. It's a Mosque the same way a Christian Private School is a Church. It may have ties to the founding religion but it exists to educate people about Islam, not rub it in their faces.
For that matter it's not even at Ground Zero, let alone two blocks away, it's something like five blocks away.
They're building it to educate people about Islam, to distance themselves away from radicals, they're not trying to incite anyone. People, especially those protesting, are just using it as an excuse to get angry and point fingers at something. After all they can't blame Obama for everything all the time.
On that note, Muslims died on 9/11 when the towers fell too.
It's quite clear that Islam and Muslims in general are the new 'Communist Red Menace' of the McCarthy era. I find it funny there's such hatred against Muslims in the United States amongst many Conservatives, but if you ask them why we're in Iraq they'll say "To free the people there from oppression"
It's not like people in Iraq are Muslims or anything, no sir. I hate to quote Ron Paul but he pretty much put it that this brash hatred is the only reason the western world is fighting wars in the Middle East.
It a building has a prayer hall large enough to fit 2000 people, it's a mosque. Pretty darn big one at that.
On August 26 2010 08:38 TanGeng wrote: What is appeasement? Groveling to the aggressors and the sponsors of this building are the aggressors who took down the Twin Towers?
By all the literature I have read, they are ideologically different from the terrorists. Their only commonality is their professed religion and even then they might not agree. There are so many different sects of Islam.
Are we to lump all Muslims into the terrorist camp? Are we suppose expect Americas to be so stupid as to not differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists? These actions have consequences.
It teaches Americans to be dumb and learn that all Muslims are similar to those those terrorists and it teaches Muslims that they aren't particularly welcome in their own country.
They want to promote "interfaith dialogue", should be clear to the developers by now that most locals are against their initiative. If they were concerned about building bridges with the community, they would heed this by now and look to build it further away. Location of the mosque at a site hit by WTC wreckage is insensitive.
On August 26 2010 08:09 Rev0lution wrote: The issue has been made huge here in New York, everybody and their mother has an opinion on the matter.
Most people think it will be built right next to Ground Zero. It's two fucking blocks away.
Blocks in manhattan are as long as a football field.
Two blocks away is as close as they could get it. The location was also chosen for its significance in that it was one of the neighboring buildings hit by WTC wreckage. So yeah, the building symbolizes ground zero. It was chosen by the developers for that very reason.
On August 26 2010 08:09 Rev0lution wrote: The issue has been made huge here in New York, everybody and their mother has an opinion on the matter.
Most people think it will be built right next to Ground Zero. It's two fucking blocks away.
Blocks in manhattan are as long as a football field.
Two blocks away is as close as they could get it. The location was also chosen for its significance in that it was one of the neighboring buildings hit by WTC wreckage. So yeah, the building symbolizes ground zero. It was chosen by the developers for that very reason.
A way to spite the Islamic Extremists. You 100% fail to see that point.
On August 26 2010 08:09 Rev0lution wrote: The issue has been made huge here in New York, everybody and their mother has an opinion on the matter.
Most people think it will be built right next to Ground Zero. It's two fucking blocks away.
Blocks in manhattan are as long as a football field.
Two blocks away is as close as they could get it. The location was also chosen for its significance in that it was one of the neighboring buildings hit by WTC wreckage. So yeah, the building symbolizes ground zero. It was chosen by the developers for that very reason.
A way to spite the Islamic Extremists. You 100% fail to see that point.
There are a lot of things Muslims can do to spite Islamic Extremists, building a mosque at ground zero wouldn't be on a short list. When this mosque is completed, it will be cheered by extremists.
On August 26 2010 08:09 Rev0lution wrote: The issue has been made huge here in New York, everybody and their mother has an opinion on the matter.
Most people think it will be built right next to Ground Zero. It's two fucking blocks away.
Blocks in manhattan are as long as a football field.
Two blocks away is as close as they could get it. The location was also chosen for its significance in that it was one of the neighboring buildings hit by WTC wreckage. So yeah, the building symbolizes ground zero. It was chosen by the developers for that very reason.
A way to spite the Islamic Extremists. You 100% fail to see that point.
There are a lot of things Muslims can do to spite Islamic Extremists, building a mosque at ground zero wouldn't be on a short list. When this mosque is completed, it will be cheered by extremists.
Until they find out it's a 13 floor community center.
On August 26 2010 08:09 Rev0lution wrote: The issue has been made huge here in New York, everybody and their mother has an opinion on the matter.
Most people think it will be built right next to Ground Zero. It's two fucking blocks away.
Blocks in manhattan are as long as a football field.
Two blocks away is as close as they could get it. The location was also chosen for its significance in that it was one of the neighboring buildings hit by WTC wreckage. So yeah, the building symbolizes ground zero. It was chosen by the developers for that very reason.
A way to spite the Islamic Extremists. You 100% fail to see that point.
There are a lot of things Muslims can do to spite Islamic Extremists, building a mosque at ground zero wouldn't be on a short list. When this mosque is completed, it will be cheered by extremists.
Until they find out it's a 13 floor community center.
With a prayer hall that can fit 2000 people. So yeah, it's a mosque.
On August 26 2010 08:09 Rev0lution wrote: The issue has been made huge here in New York, everybody and their mother has an opinion on the matter.
Most people think it will be built right next to Ground Zero. It's two fucking blocks away.
Blocks in manhattan are as long as a football field.
Two blocks away is as close as they could get it. The location was also chosen for its significance in that it was one of the neighboring buildings hit by WTC wreckage. So yeah, the building symbolizes ground zero. It was chosen by the developers for that very reason.
A way to spite the Islamic Extremists. You 100% fail to see that point.
There are a lot of things Muslims can do to spite Islamic Extremists, building a mosque at ground zero wouldn't be on a short list. When this mosque is completed, it will be cheered by extremists.
Until they find out it's a 13 floor community center.
With a prayer hall that can fit 2000 people. So yeah, it's a mosque.
On August 26 2010 13:03 IntoTheBush wrote: thesighter, I'm just curious.. On 7-7-05 there were 2 trains and a bus bombed in London. Do you beleive that Al-Qaeda was behind that as well?
Sorry for being off topic guys, but I just need him to clearify this for me before I can continue debating about construction of the Mosque.
No, homegrown terrorists inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki.
The NY'ers that are saying no to the Mosque are acting like children. They think the terrorists will feel like they've "won".
They have it backwards.
This argument is letting the terrorists win.
This argument is driving a wedge between local Muslims and their community, a community that should be supporting them in a time when a small group is nearly succeeding in irreperably tainting their reputation as a people.
Let them build their Mosque, the fact that humanity in the western world would be showing acceptance and compassion to one another would be the biggest spit in the face of all.
On August 26 2010 13:09 FaZe wrote: The NY'ers that are saying no to the Mosque are acting like children. They think the terrorists will feel like they've "won".
They have it backwards.
This arguement is letting the terrorists win.
This arguement is driving a wedge between local Muslims and their community, a community that should be supporting them in a time when a small group is nearly succeeding in irreperably tainting their reputation as a people.
Let them build their Mosque, the fact that humanity in the western world would be showing acceptance and compassion to one another would be the biggest spit in the face of all.
This view is incorrect. Islamic teachings are not 100% compatible with the western world. There has been a strong backlash against Muslims in France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. Muslim integration is not proceeding smoothly in many European countries.
On August 26 2010 13:03 IntoTheBush wrote: thesighter, I'm just curious.. On 7-7-05 there were 2 trains and a bus bombed in London. Do you beleive that Al-Qaeda was behind that as well?
Sorry for being off topic guys, but I just need him to clearify this for me before I can continue debating about construction of the Mosque.
No, homegrown terrorists inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki.
You're also saying that the British Govt had nothing to do with those bombings right? The U.S. was running an exercise on 9/11 that involved WTC 1, 2, the Pentagon, and the White House being attacked by commercial jets. I think it's kinda funny that in London they were doing an exercise that involved the same trains, and bus at the EXACT same time it happened just like 9/11. I'm guessing your response will be something like "They were doing exercises because they had knowledge of a possible attack."
On August 26 2010 13:03 IntoTheBush wrote: thesighter, I'm just curious.. On 7-7-05 there were 2 trains and a bus bombed in London. Do you beleive that Al-Qaeda was behind that as well?
Sorry for being off topic guys, but I just need him to clearify this for me before I can continue debating about construction of the Mosque.
No, homegrown terrorists inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki.
You're also saying that the British Govt had nothing to do with those bombings right? The U.S. was running an exercise on 9/11 that involved WTC 1, 2, the Pentagon, and the White House being attacked by commercial jets. I think it's kinda funny that in London they were doing an exercise that involved the same trains, and bus at the EXACT same time it happened just like 9/11. I'm guessing your response will be something like "They were doing exercises because they had knowledge of a possible attack."
I bet you watch FOX News a lot.
I have no clue how you pulled that out of your ass. I didn't say anything. Aren't you the 911 conspiracy theorist?
On August 26 2010 13:03 IntoTheBush wrote: thesighter, I'm just curious.. On 7-7-05 there were 2 trains and a bus bombed in London. Do you beleive that Al-Qaeda was behind that as well?
Sorry for being off topic guys, but I just need him to clearify this for me before I can continue debating about construction of the Mosque.
No, homegrown terrorists inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki.
You're also saying that the British Govt had nothing to do with those bombings right? The U.S. was running an exercise on 9/11 that involved WTC 1, 2, the Pentagon, and the White House being attacked by commercial jets. I think it's kinda funny that in London they were doing an exercise that involved the same trains, and bus at the EXACT same time it happened just like 9/11. I'm guessing your response will be something like "They were doing exercises because they had knowledge of a possible attack."
I bet you watch FOX News a lot.
I have no clue how you pulled that out of your ass. I didn't say anything. Aren't you the 911 conspiracy theorist?
I'm just trying to find out how informed you are. I didn't pull anything out of anywhere. I'm just stating facts and asking questions. I enjoy hearing other peoples views. Especially those who have been washed by our media, and false statements.
As far as me being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist you're once again wrong. It's not a theory, it has been proven more ways than 1. If you look at most polls when people are asked if they beleive there was a cover-up on 9/11 people who answered "yes" were around the 90% and that leaves the other 10% with "no." 9/11 isn't the first time the U.S. has used False Flagging as a technique to goto war. Look at the USS Liberty for example, or perheps the Gulf of Tonkin where a US Naval ship was "attacked" by Vietnamese troops. Reports that were released later stated that the accusations were false. In fact the U.S. fired on the Vietnamese, but they did not return fire. Over 50,000 U.S. Soldiers, and 1.2 million Vietnamese died over a lie. What makes you think our Govt. wouldn't do it again.. geez /rant =D
On August 26 2010 13:03 IntoTheBush wrote: thesighter, I'm just curious.. On 7-7-05 there were 2 trains and a bus bombed in London. Do you beleive that Al-Qaeda was behind that as well?
Sorry for being off topic guys, but I just need him to clearify this for me before I can continue debating about construction of the Mosque.
No, homegrown terrorists inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki.
You're also saying that the British Govt had nothing to do with those bombings right? The U.S. was running an exercise on 9/11 that involved WTC 1, 2, the Pentagon, and the White House being attacked by commercial jets. I think it's kinda funny that in London they were doing an exercise that involved the same trains, and bus at the EXACT same time it happened just like 9/11. I'm guessing your response will be something like "They were doing exercises because they had knowledge of a possible attack."
I bet you watch FOX News a lot.
I have no clue how you pulled that out of your ass. I didn't say anything. Aren't you the 911 conspiracy theorist?
I'm just trying to find out how informed you are. I didn't pull anything out of anywhere. I'm just stating facts and asking questions. I enjoy hearing other peoples views. Especially those who have been washed by our media, and false statements.
As far as me being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist you're once again wrong. It's not a theory, it has been proven more ways than 1. If you look at most polls when people are asked if they beleive there was a cover-up on 9/11 people who answered "yes" were around the 90% and that leaves the other 10% with "no." 9/11 isn't the first time the U.S. has used False Flagging as a technique to goto war. Look at the USS Liberty for example, or perheps the Gulf of Tonkin where a US Naval ship was "attacked" by Vietnamese troops. Reports that were released later stated that the accusations were false. In fact the U.S. fired on the Vietnamese, but they did not return fire. Over 50,000 U.S. Soldiers, and 1.2 million Vietnamese died over a lie. What makes you think our Govt. wouldn't do it again.. geez /rant =D
Yeah, most people believe in America believe in some type of God too, doesn't make em right does it?
If there was proof of it being an inside job, intelligent people would be all over it, instead, you find only nutjobs and people that simply keep saying "ask questions" when they've become so diluted with that saying that they become close minded them selves.
I'll look at evidence, don't tell me about it, show me it. Prove to me in PM that it was an inside job, and I'll preach it to everyone I know.
On August 26 2010 13:03 IntoTheBush wrote: thesighter, I'm just curious.. On 7-7-05 there were 2 trains and a bus bombed in London. Do you beleive that Al-Qaeda was behind that as well?
Sorry for being off topic guys, but I just need him to clearify this for me before I can continue debating about construction of the Mosque.
No, homegrown terrorists inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki.
You're also saying that the British Govt had nothing to do with those bombings right? The U.S. was running an exercise on 9/11 that involved WTC 1, 2, the Pentagon, and the White House being attacked by commercial jets. I think it's kinda funny that in London they were doing an exercise that involved the same trains, and bus at the EXACT same time it happened just like 9/11. I'm guessing your response will be something like "They were doing exercises because they had knowledge of a possible attack."
I bet you watch FOX News a lot.
I have no clue how you pulled that out of your ass. I didn't say anything. Aren't you the 911 conspiracy theorist?
I'm just trying to find out how informed you are. I didn't pull anything out of anywhere. I'm just stating facts and asking questions. I enjoy hearing other peoples views. Especially those who have been washed by our media, and false statements.
As far as me being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist you're once again wrong. It's not a theory, it has been proven more ways than 1. If you look at most polls when people are asked if they beleive there was a cover-up on 9/11 people who answered "yes" were around the 90% and that leaves the other 10% with "no." 9/11 isn't the first time the U.S. has used False Flagging as a technique to goto war. Look at the USS Liberty for example, or perheps the Gulf of Tonkin where a US Naval ship was "attacked" by Vietnamese troops. Reports that were released later stated that the accusations were false. In fact the U.S. fired on the Vietnamese, but they did not return fire. Over 50,000 U.S. Soldiers, and 1.2 million Vietnamese died over a lie. What makes you think our Govt. wouldn't do it again.. geez /rant =D
Trust me, this forum has been through a lot of 9/11 conspiracy threads. You're not going to enlighten anyone by regurgitating the same arguments that you learned through google or watching a video.
On August 26 2010 13:09 FaZe wrote: The NY'ers that are saying no to the Mosque are acting like children. They think the terrorists will feel like they've "won".
They have it backwards.
This arguement is letting the terrorists win.
This arguement is driving a wedge between local Muslims and their community, a community that should be supporting them in a time when a small group is nearly succeeding in irreperably tainting their reputation as a people.
Let them build their Mosque, the fact that humanity in the western world would be showing acceptance and compassion to one another would be the biggest spit in the face of all.
This view is incorrect. Islamic teachings are not 100% compatible with the western world. There has been a strong backlash against Muslims in France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. Muslim integration is not proceeding smoothly in many European countries.
that source is questionable at best. Just look at the latest opinion poll. "Do moderate Muslims exist?" It's true in france there have been debates over the limits of Islamic traditions but even so to say that Muslim intergration is "not proceeding smoothly" is misleading at best.
On August 26 2010 13:09 FaZe wrote: The NY'ers that are saying no to the Mosque are acting like children. They think the terrorists will feel like they've "won".
They have it backwards.
This arguement is letting the terrorists win.
This arguement is driving a wedge between local Muslims and their community, a community that should be supporting them in a time when a small group is nearly succeeding in irreperably tainting their reputation as a people.
Let them build their Mosque, the fact that humanity in the western world would be showing acceptance and compassion to one another would be the biggest spit in the face of all.
Agreed 100%.
(Except for the misspelling of 'argument'.)
Also, for every youtube video showing how backwards Islam is, I can make my own video showing how backwards the Bible is when taken literally (which allows selling your daughters into slavery, for instance).
It's not about what is legal or not, it's just about not being total idiots. Same with the Muhammad drawings. Yes it is legal and technically there is nothing wrong with it, but that doesnt mean that you should just do whatever you want.
It's pretty simple. Radical Muslims killed thousands of people and started 2 wars, building a mosque close to the attack probably isnt the best idea.
It would be like if the German embassy was next to a Polish concentration camp. Yes the german people of today dont have anything to do with it, and it's probably legal, but that doesnt mean you have to be a dick about it.
On August 26 2010 16:15 Deadlyfish wrote: It's not about what is legal or not, it's just about not being total idiots. Same with the Muhammad drawings. Yes it is legal and technically there is nothing wrong with it, but that doesnt mean that you should just do whatever you want.
It's pretty simple. Radical Muslims killed thousands of people and started 2 wars, building a mosque close to the attack probably isnt the best idea.
It would be like if the German embassy was next to a Polish concentration camp. Yes the german people of today dont have anything to do with it, and it's probably legal, but that doesnt mean you have to be a dick about it.
WIll people please stop with the horrendous WW2 analogies. Seriously, it's getting old and mildly painful.
On August 26 2010 16:15 Deadlyfish wrote: It's pretty simple. Radical Muslims killed thousands of people and started 2 wars
How do people still believe this? Even if you accept the tenuous logic that the Taliban in Afghanistan were sheltering Al Qaeda and therefore an attack from them is an attack by the Taliban and therefore invading Afghanistan is really self defence against the Taliban who knew some of the guys who actually started it then that still doesn't explain how Islamic extremism started the war in Iraq.
I thought everyone knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, I thought everyone knew that in 2003. Jesus!
America was fucking around in the middle east for 50 plus years. We asked for this major instability / violence. Not that it's a bad thing. Killing off muslims is christianity's passtime.
On August 26 2010 16:15 Deadlyfish wrote: It's pretty simple. Radical Muslims killed thousands of people and started 2 wars
How do people still believe this? Even if you accept the tenuous logic that the Taliban in Afghanistan were sheltering Al Qaeda and therefore an attack from them is an attack by the Taliban and therefore invading Afghanistan is really self defence against the Taliban who knew some of the guys who actually started it then that still doesn't explain how Islamic extremism started the war in Iraq.
I thought everyone knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, I thought everyone knew that in 2003. Jesus!
For a long while, Bin Laden actually wanted to lead his fighters against Sadam and was actively recruiting for that purpose.
On August 26 2010 13:09 FaZe wrote: The NY'ers that are saying no to the Mosque are acting like children. They think the terrorists will feel like they've "won".
They have it backwards.
This arguement is letting the terrorists win.
This arguement is driving a wedge between local Muslims and their community, a community that should be supporting them in a time when a small group is nearly succeeding in irreperably tainting their reputation as a people.
Let them build their Mosque, the fact that humanity in the western world would be showing acceptance and compassion to one another would be the biggest spit in the face of all.
This view is incorrect. Islamic teachings are not 100% compatible with the western world. There has been a strong backlash against Muslims in France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. Muslim integration is not proceeding smoothly in many European countries.
that source is questionable at best. Just look at the latest opinion poll. "Do moderate Muslims exist?" It's true in france there have been debates over the limits of Islamic traditions but even so to say that Muslim intergration is "not proceeding smoothly" is misleading at best.
That source might be bad, but as someone living in Germany for over 10 years I can assure you that muslims are by far the least integrated group. Now, there are probably countless reasons for this and nobody can be sure how much of a role their religion played. However, "Muslim intergration is not proceeding smoothly" is rather an understatement. By the way, this does not apply only to Germany, but also to many other European countries (somewhere in this thread, a person from Denmark said something similar). This all is quite off-topic, but I just wanted to let you know that many Muslims in Europe struggle with integration a lot (but once I again, I don't know if this is due to "Islamic teachings being not 100% compatible with the western world" as thesighter said)
I didnt read the whole topic because people are so ignorant, filled with wrong fact and most of all with off topic so i just didnt have the time... so just 1 question. Since when is a muslim run recreational centre with things such as culinary school and basketball court with only 1 floor dedicated to praying considered a mosque? Or are you all just parroting fox news in their usual fear mongering?
On August 26 2010 16:15 Deadlyfish wrote: It's pretty simple. Radical Muslims killed thousands of people and started 2 wars
How do people still believe this? Even if you accept the tenuous logic that the Taliban in Afghanistan were sheltering Al Qaeda and therefore an attack from them is an attack by the Taliban and therefore invading Afghanistan is really self defence against the Taliban who knew some of the guys who actually started it then that still doesn't explain how Islamic extremism started the war in Iraq.
I thought everyone knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, I thought everyone knew that in 2003. Jesus!
I meant that the attack started 2 wars, you saying it didnt? Saddam had nothing to do with the attack obviously. But the attack was still where it all started.
Or was it just coincidence that the war in iraq started so soon after the attack?
What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
It's funny that if you disagree with building a moscue near ground zero, you hate all muslims all of a sudden. Whoever thinks muslims are all terrorists is obviously a racist, and probably not the smartest person in the world.
I think they should be allowed to build there, they can build wherever they want. But why cant they just move it when people ask them to? Is that location so important that they cant just build it elsewhere? It's the exact same with the muhammad drawings, why do something just to piss people off? Just stop what you're doing cause it's obviously more important to other people than to yourself.
On August 26 2010 13:09 FaZe wrote: The NY'ers that are saying no to the Mosque are acting like children. They think the terrorists will feel like they've "won".
They have it backwards.
This arguement is letting the terrorists win.
This arguement is driving a wedge between local Muslims and their community, a community that should be supporting them in a time when a small group is nearly succeeding in irreperably tainting their reputation as a people.
Let them build their Mosque, the fact that humanity in the western world would be showing acceptance and compassion to one another would be the biggest spit in the face of all.
This view is incorrect. Islamic teachings are not 100% compatible with the western world. There has been a strong backlash against Muslims in France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. Muslim integration is not proceeding smoothly in many European countries.
that source is questionable at best. Just look at the latest opinion poll. "Do moderate Muslims exist?" It's true in france there have been debates over the limits of Islamic traditions but even so to say that Muslim intergration is "not proceeding smoothly" is misleading at best.
That source might be bad, but as someone living in Germany for over 10 years I can assure you that muslims are by far the least integrated group. Now, there are probably countless reasons for this and nobody can be sure how much of a role their religion played. However, "Muslim intergration is not proceeding smoothly" is rather an understatement. By the way, this does not apply only to Germany, but also to many other European countries (somewhere in this thread, a person from Denmark said something similar). This all is quite off-topic, but I just wanted to let you know that many Muslims in Europe struggle with integration a lot (but once I again, I don't know if this is due to "Islamic teachings being not 100% compatible with the western world" as thesighter said)
I think many religious views aren't compatible with a modern society.
I can't say for all european countries considering how different they are but atleast in Sweden if you're really devoted to any faith most people are gonna think you're a bit of a weirdo.
On August 26 2010 16:15 Deadlyfish wrote: It's pretty simple. Radical Muslims killed thousands of people and started 2 wars
How do people still believe this? Even if you accept the tenuous logic that the Taliban in Afghanistan were sheltering Al Qaeda and therefore an attack from them is an attack by the Taliban and therefore invading Afghanistan is really self defence against the Taliban who knew some of the guys who actually started it then that still doesn't explain how Islamic extremism started the war in Iraq.
I thought everyone knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, I thought everyone knew that in 2003. Jesus!
I meant that the attack started 2 wars, you saying it didnt? Saddam had nothing to do with the attack obviously. But the attack was still where it all started.
Or was it just coincidence that the war in iraq started so soon after the attack?
If we're defining started as simply "event that came before" then yes, 911 started two wars. But why stop there, the collapse of the Soviet Union started two wars. After all it happened previously and it is unlikely that the US would be getting involved in other wars with their old adversary still around. The British colonisation of the Americas also started those two wars.
Started usually means a direct cause which is why I originally contradicted your post because obviously 911 was not a direct cause of the invasion of Iraq, the two being unrelated. What 911 did do is create a situation in which other things could start a second war which is not the same thing and is why the same thing can be said of the American war of independence. This is not what the word means.
On August 26 2010 16:15 Deadlyfish wrote: It's pretty simple. Radical Muslims killed thousands of people and started 2 wars
How do people still believe this? Even if you accept the tenuous logic that the Taliban in Afghanistan were sheltering Al Qaeda and therefore an attack from them is an attack by the Taliban and therefore invading Afghanistan is really self defence against the Taliban who knew some of the guys who actually started it then that still doesn't explain how Islamic extremism started the war in Iraq.
I thought everyone knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, I thought everyone knew that in 2003. Jesus!
I meant that the attack started 2 wars, you saying it didnt? Saddam had nothing to do with the attack obviously. But the attack was still where it all started.
Or was it just coincidence that the war in iraq started so soon after the attack?
If we're defining started as simply "event that came before" then yes, 911 started two wars. But why stop there, the collapse of the Soviet Union started two wars. After all it happened previously and it is unlikely that the US would be getting involved in other wars with their old adversary still around. The British colonisation of the Americas also started those two wars.
Started usually means a direct cause which is why I originally contradicted your post because obviously 911 was not a direct cause of the invasion of Iraq, the two being unrelated. What 911 did do is create a situation in which other things could start a second war which is not the same thing and is why the same thing can be said of the American war of independence. This is not what the word means.
Getting horribly offtopic but whatever
9/11 pretty much made it acceptable to invade iraq and afghanistan, without 9/11 i almost doubt that either war would've started. I'd say it was almost a direct cause. Right after 9/11 was where the planning for the invasion of Iraq started atleast, doesnt seem like a coincidence.
On August 26 2010 16:15 Deadlyfish wrote: It's pretty simple. Radical Muslims killed thousands of people and started 2 wars
How do people still believe this? Even if you accept the tenuous logic that the Taliban in Afghanistan were sheltering Al Qaeda and therefore an attack from them is an attack by the Taliban and therefore invading Afghanistan is really self defence against the Taliban who knew some of the guys who actually started it then that still doesn't explain how Islamic extremism started the war in Iraq.
I thought everyone knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, I thought everyone knew that in 2003. Jesus!
I meant that the attack started 2 wars, you saying it didnt? Saddam had nothing to do with the attack obviously. But the attack was still where it all started.
Or was it just coincidence that the war in iraq started so soon after the attack?
If we're defining started as simply "event that came before" then yes, 911 started two wars. But why stop there, the collapse of the Soviet Union started two wars. After all it happened previously and it is unlikely that the US would be getting involved in other wars with their old adversary still around. The British colonisation of the Americas also started those two wars.
Started usually means a direct cause which is why I originally contradicted your post because obviously 911 was not a direct cause of the invasion of Iraq, the two being unrelated. What 911 did do is create a situation in which other things could start a second war which is not the same thing and is why the same thing can be said of the American war of independence. This is not what the word means.
Getting horribly offtopic but whatever
9/11 pretty much made it acceptable to invade iraq and afghanistan, without 9/11 i almost doubt that either war would've started. I'd say it was almost a direct cause. Right after 9/11 was where the planning for the invasion of Iraq started atleast, doesnt seem like a coincidence.
And Hitler killing Jews made it acceptable to invade German annexed territories.
And Serbia killing the archduke of Austria made way for the first world war to occur.
And Palestinians killing Israelis and Israelis killing Palestinians created that conflict.
And genocide in serbia made it acceptable for NATO to protect Kosovo
And you're starting to see how this is going?
On topic: I'd be content if no religious structures were built anywhere, but that's just my opinion.
On August 26 2010 13:09 FaZe wrote: The NY'ers that are saying no to the Mosque are acting like children. They think the terrorists will feel like they've "won".
They have it backwards.
This arguement is letting the terrorists win.
This arguement is driving a wedge between local Muslims and their community, a community that should be supporting them in a time when a small group is nearly succeeding in irreperably tainting their reputation as a people.
Let them build their Mosque, the fact that humanity in the western world would be showing acceptance and compassion to one another would be the biggest spit in the face of all.
Agreed 100%.
(Except for the misspelling of 'argument'.)
Also, for every youtube video showing how backwards Islam is, I can make my own video showing how backwards the Bible is when taken literally (which allows selling your daughters into slavery, for instance).
Holy shit, I've been misspelling "argument" for my entire life. Thank you sir. Thank you.
On August 26 2010 13:09 FaZe wrote: The NY'ers that are saying no to the Mosque are acting like children. They think the terrorists will feel like they've "won".
They have it backwards.
This arguement is letting the terrorists win.
This arguement is driving a wedge between local Muslims and their community, a community that should be supporting them in a time when a small group is nearly succeeding in irreperably tainting their reputation as a people.
Let them build their Mosque, the fact that humanity in the western world would be showing acceptance and compassion to one another would be the biggest spit in the face of all.
This view is incorrect. Islamic teachings are not 100% compatible with the western world. There has been a strong backlash against Muslims in France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. Muslim integration is not proceeding smoothly in many European countries.
that source is questionable at best. Just look at the latest opinion poll. "Do moderate Muslims exist?" It's true in france there have been debates over the limits of Islamic traditions but even so to say that Muslim intergration is "not proceeding smoothly" is misleading at best.
That source might be bad, but as someone living in Germany for over 10 years I can assure you that muslims are by far the least integrated group. Now, there are probably countless reasons for this and nobody can be sure how much of a role their religion played. However, "Muslim intergration is not proceeding smoothly" is rather an understatement. By the way, this does not apply only to Germany, but also to many other European countries (somewhere in this thread, a person from Denmark said something similar). This all is quite off-topic, but I just wanted to let you know that many Muslims in Europe struggle with integration a lot (but once I again, I don't know if this is due to "Islamic teachings being not 100% compatible with the western world" as thesighter said)
I think many religious views aren't compatible with a modern society.
I can't say for all european countries considering how different they are but atleast in Sweden if you're really devoted to any faith most people are gonna think you're a bit of a weirdo.
Except buddhism which is cool for some reason =)
Muslim assimiliation is not proceeding well throughout Europe. A disproportionate number of the criminals in European prisons are Muslim. There is a view that Islamic values are not readily adaptable to the West. For example, there are now Sharia courts set up in the UK, whose rulings have been criticized for going against UK norms.
On August 26 2010 13:09 FaZe wrote: The NY'ers that are saying no to the Mosque are acting like children. They think the terrorists will feel like they've "won".
They have it backwards.
This arguement is letting the terrorists win.
This arguement is driving a wedge between local Muslims and their community, a community that should be supporting them in a time when a small group is nearly succeeding in irreperably tainting their reputation as a people.
Let them build their Mosque, the fact that humanity in the western world would be showing acceptance and compassion to one another would be the biggest spit in the face of all.
This view is incorrect. Islamic teachings are not 100% compatible with the western world. There has been a strong backlash against Muslims in France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. Muslim integration is not proceeding smoothly in many European countries.
that source is questionable at best. Just look at the latest opinion poll. "Do moderate Muslims exist?" It's true in france there have been debates over the limits of Islamic traditions but even so to say that Muslim intergration is "not proceeding smoothly" is misleading at best.
That source might be bad, but as someone living in Germany for over 10 years I can assure you that muslims are by far the least integrated group. Now, there are probably countless reasons for this and nobody can be sure how much of a role their religion played. However, "Muslim intergration is not proceeding smoothly" is rather an understatement. By the way, this does not apply only to Germany, but also to many other European countries (somewhere in this thread, a person from Denmark said something similar). This all is quite off-topic, but I just wanted to let you know that many Muslims in Europe struggle with integration a lot (but once I again, I don't know if this is due to "Islamic teachings being not 100% compatible with the western world" as thesighter said)
I think many religious views aren't compatible with a modern society.
I can't say for all european countries considering how different they are but atleast in Sweden if you're really devoted to any faith most people are gonna think you're a bit of a weirdo.
Except buddhism which is cool for some reason =)
Muslim assimiliation is not proceeding well throughout Europe. A disproportionate number of the criminals in European prisons are Muslim. There is a view that Islamic values are less adaptable to the West. For example, there are now Sharia courts set up in the UK, whose rulings have been criticized for going against UK norms.
Sharia courts in the UK have only been criticised by people that don't understand them. Their purpose is similar to Jewish courts and courts of faith, its horrible double standard if we tell the Jews they can have their courts, but you Muslims, you cannot set up courts to settle disputes between yourselves.
Anecdotes like yours are dangerous, I could make any claim, like their are a disproportionate number of communists in UK prisons, and the stupid and the scare could well easily believe me, luckily, most people see that your claims are without evidence, and disregard them.
Also, as an aside, anecdotal evidence is one thing, but anecdotal evidence from across the pond is another.
On August 26 2010 08:38 TanGeng wrote: What is appeasement? Groveling to the aggressors and the sponsors of this building are the aggressors who took down the Twin Towers?
By all the literature I have read, they are ideologically different from the terrorists. Their only commonality is their professed religion and even then they might not agree. There are so many different sects of Islam.
Are we to lump all Muslims into the terrorist camp? Are we suppose expect Americas to be so stupid as to not differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists? These actions have consequences.
It teaches Americans to be dumb and learn that all Muslims are similar to those those terrorists and it teaches Muslims that they aren't particularly welcome in their own country.
They want to promote "interfaith dialogue", should be clear to the developers by now that most locals are against their initiative. If they were concerned about building bridges with the community, they would heed this by now and look to build it further away. Location of the mosque at a site hit by WTC wreckage is insensitive.
Looking at American civil rights historically; it's not something that can be done peacefully. The US has been dragged, kicking and screaming, through most civil rights advancements. Equal rights for blacks was ugly, true equality for women was ugly. Gays are going through the same process as well but not without significant backlash from the conservative pricks.
So excuse me if a building that forces cultural issues to a head isn't met with a whole city joining hands and singing "kumbaya" around park 51. Tolerance isn't something you can make people accept, it needs to be forced on them. If the city of NY wants to shut down the building process, they can try, but any appeal would stop the ban immediately.
Bigotry has a new form in the 21st century. Most people are aware that hating someone for their religion, race, orientation, etc is deplorable, so you can't pass laws that purposefully discriminate one group. Instead we have a law that makes people in Arizona that "look like illegals" carry papers with them at all times. We get a law that clearly defines marriage... so we can deny rights and benefits to those with different sexual orientations. Now we have a country where 60% of the population associates an entire religion (of 1.5 billion people) with terrorism. And you know what? The bigoted jerks who make this association can only whine and fling poo as equality and tolerance gets built on their front lawn.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
On August 26 2010 13:09 FaZe wrote: The NY'ers that are saying no to the Mosque are acting like children. They think the terrorists will feel like they've "won".
They have it backwards.
This arguement is letting the terrorists win.
This arguement is driving a wedge between local Muslims and their community, a community that should be supporting them in a time when a small group is nearly succeeding in irreperably tainting their reputation as a people.
Let them build their Mosque, the fact that humanity in the western world would be showing acceptance and compassion to one another would be the biggest spit in the face of all.
This view is incorrect. Islamic teachings are not 100% compatible with the western world. There has been a strong backlash against Muslims in France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. Muslim integration is not proceeding smoothly in many European countries.
that source is questionable at best. Just look at the latest opinion poll. "Do moderate Muslims exist?" It's true in france there have been debates over the limits of Islamic traditions but even so to say that Muslim intergration is "not proceeding smoothly" is misleading at best.
That source might be bad, but as someone living in Germany for over 10 years I can assure you that muslims are by far the least integrated group. Now, there are probably countless reasons for this and nobody can be sure how much of a role their religion played. However, "Muslim intergration is not proceeding smoothly" is rather an understatement. By the way, this does not apply only to Germany, but also to many other European countries (somewhere in this thread, a person from Denmark said something similar). This all is quite off-topic, but I just wanted to let you know that many Muslims in Europe struggle with integration a lot (but once I again, I don't know if this is due to "Islamic teachings being not 100% compatible with the western world" as thesighter said)
I think many religious views aren't compatible with a modern society.
I can't say for all european countries considering how different they are but atleast in Sweden if you're really devoted to any faith most people are gonna think you're a bit of a weirdo.
Except buddhism which is cool for some reason =)
Muslim assimiliation is not proceeding well throughout Europe. A disproportionate number of the criminals in European prisons are Muslim. There is a view that Islamic values are less adaptable to the West. For example, there are now Sharia courts set up in the UK, whose rulings have been criticized for going against UK norms.
Sharia courts in the UK have only been criticised by people that don't understand them. Their purpose is similar to Jewish courts and courts of faith, its horrible double standard if we tell the Jews they can have their courts, but you Muslims, you cannot set up courts to settle disputes between yourselves.
Anecdotes like yours are dangerous, I could make any claim, like their are a disproportionate number of communists in UK prisons, and the stupid and the scare could well easily believe me, luckily, most people see that your claims are without evidence, and disregard them.
Also, as an aside, anecdotal evidence is one thing, but anecdotal evidence from across the pond is another.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
The same way we relate blacks with crime. For instance, blacks comprise 13% of the US population and 14% of regular drug users. But, in prison, blacks account for 37% of drug related jailings. Therefore, whenever you see a expo on a prison, people just make the assumption that black commit a significant higher number of crimes then any other ethnic group.
But seeing as thesighter is just pulling shit from random blogs that agree with him, I'll go ahead and suggest you read "How to Lie with Statistics"by Darrell Huff.
Carefully read thesighter's opinion blog. You'll see a number of the "cold hard facts" might have something to do with the Middle Easts constant political goal of no western interference. Also check out the great comment section there if you need proof that the same people who believe this shit are biased.
"We take no significant credit for what's been achieved, because foreigners were the ones who did everything from the simplest to the biggest thing. Even to install a loudspeaker here, for instance, we used to bring a Korean or a Chinese to do it"
"These days there are a lot of a dubious speeches and propaganda … which some naive people believe in … but we can counter them with the Holy Koran and with science. "These speeches will soon be prominent in Ramadan … When I switch on the TV and see a bearded man, and naive people calling him to ask for religious advice, I feel pity for him … Now this is like Europe in the Middle Ages, selling indulgences."
On August 26 2010 18:10 Deadlyfish wrote: It's funny that if you disagree with building a moscue near ground zero, you hate all muslims all of a sudden. Whoever thinks muslims are all terrorists is obviously a racist, and probably not the smartest person in the world.
I think they should be allowed to build there, they can build wherever they want. But why cant they just move it when people ask them to? Is that location so important that they cant just build it elsewhere? It's the exact same with the muhammad drawings, why do something just to piss people off? Just stop what you're doing cause it's obviously more important to other people than to yourself.
Because they bought the goddamn property. They own it.
Why don't you just move your house/business to a new place? I know you own the building and the property inside but people don't like your skin color so can't you just chalk it up as a loss and leave?
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
HEY YOU KNOW WHO PUT THESE OPPRESSIVE DICTATORSHIPS AND THEOCRACIES?
yea the west did. France and Britain to be exact. The world was a lot more peaceful before the hypocrites of the millennium from the west came in to EVERY SINGLE corner of the world to corrupt it. You invaded The Americas simply to annihilate its native people and claim it as your own leaving them with no son, wife, or mother. You send criminals you didn't want to Australia and without fail also completely erased the aborigines. Africa is one big mayhem. Surprisingly it was a lot more peaceful and advanced before the west apparently wanted to "save" them by "teaching" them the "Superior" culture according to what people used to say in that age. They saved them by selling them guns for gems and slaves and forcing upon the people of Africa and a vicious cycle of violence which to this day has its effects. China, oh China. China simply wanted to be left alone and thats all it ever asked. That was no excuse for the west though, lets drug the Chinese by shoving opium into their country in mass quantities till they finally gave in before their country became a population of a billion druggies. The Middle east, you invaded, you killed, and then left leaving dictatorships and theocracies then you turn around and the Middle easterners out on these "dictatorships".
On August 27 2010 01:44 Achilles wrote: rofl @ that last post. Last time I checked our buildings weren't made of sand and glue.
Yep. A good description of the Middle East is Matt Damon's quote from the movie Syriana:
"You know what the business community thinks of you? They think that a hundred years ago you were living in tents out here in the desert chopping each other's heads off and that's where you'll be in another hundred years, so on behalf of my firm I accept your offer."
On August 27 2010 01:44 Achilles wrote: rofl @ that last post. Last time I checked our buildings weren't made of sand and glue.
Yep. A good description of the Middle East is Matt Damon's quote from the movie Syriana:
"You know what the business community thinks of you? They think that a hundred years ago you were living in tents out here in the desert chopping each other's heads off and that's where you'll be in another hundred years, so on behalf of my firm I accept your offer."
I think that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I haven't heard it in context. Seriously though, many of the countries supposed to be the first inhabited areas of the world so far behind the "new world"...
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
On August 27 2010 02:49 thesighter wrote: Anti-Semitism is practically institutionalized in Muslim countries.
Antisemitism is pretty prevalent in countries constantly bombed by Israel, yes.
There is a difference between Jews and Zionists. Jews in Muslim countries have been heavily persecuted prior to the creation of the state of Israel.
Not to mention WW2, when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem recruited Muslims for a Nazi SS division, which later participated in the holocaust in Yugosolavia.
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
hahaha oh brother...its more along the lines of stop so we can continue to dominate every point of your lives while we kick you out of your homes to move our own extremist citizens in and regulate every little thing that goes in and out of your land while we divide your community and territories with more settlements and put giant walls around your communities with snipers who open fire on people who look even a little suspicious....stop or we will bend the world's greatest superpower to our will and fuck you up. we are afterall above all laws. we will kill 3000 people for every 10 that you manage to kill with your pop bottle rockets
in addition, israel has broken ceasefires on numerous occasions
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
You should NEVER discredit the accomplishments that have been brought to this world from other regions of the world. It makes me sick to think there is really people that believe they could have gotten where they are today without the benefits coming from other parts of the world. I can GUARANTEE without the cooperation of people from around the globe at one point in time, no country would be able to accomplish all that we've done in short amount of time that we've had.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
I guess it's time for another history lesson then.
Israeli Independence: The day the British Mandate of the area was to expire in 1948, Israeli Jews declared independence and took over the areas of Jordan, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Egypt, Syria, and others attempted a counter-attack, but failed. Over 700 thousand Arabs were displaced as a result of the initial declaration and war. Jewish population in the area more then double in the next decade.
In the 50's Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, but was forced to return the land due to pressure from the UN. This is the last time you will hear "pressure from the UN" in an effective way.
Six Day War: Following the annex of most of Palestine, surrounding nations refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Egypt attempted a blockade the Red Sea and put economic pressure on Israel. Israel responded by bombing most of the Egyptian air force. The US backed this decision and supplied arms. From this point forward, Israel has access to significantly better US technology and is immune from UN sanctions due to US influence in the UN. Israel acquired the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula as a result. The first instances of "terrorism" appear around this time.
Yom Kippur War: The first act of organized military aggression against Israel, the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. Attacks were somewhat successful, but were eventually repelled by late October. This is 25 years since Arab-Israeli tensions have been brought to a head.
1977: Israeli government begins heavily encouraging the settling of the West Bank, expelling any remaining Palestinians from the area by force.
1980: Israel annexes Jerusalem, despite being declared an international city by the UN. UN is powerless to due anything as the US will not vote against Israel.
1982: Israel intervenes in the First Lebanese Civil War, using it as an excuse to bomb PLO strongholds. Israeli troops remain stationed in Lebanon as a buffer as late as 2000.
1987: First Intifada, a people's revolution of Palestinians. This is where you get images of people throwing rocks at Israeli troops.
1993: Oslo Accords signed by the PLO and Israel. The first time Israel recognizes Palestinian rights to land. Israeli settlements continue after the accord regardless. The PLO officially denounces terrorism.
2000: Camp David, fuck all gets accomplished. Second Intifada starts. Construction of walls begin.
2006: Second Lebanese War starts when Hezbollah begins rocket attacks.
2008: Hamas and Israel's ceasefire collapses. The Gaza War lasts three weeks and Israeli attacks last long after another ceasefire is announced.
So, um, yeah. "Asking for it" isn't the best term. Unless you mean asking for their houses and land back.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
I guess it's time for another history lesson then.
Israeli Independence: The day the British Mandate of the area was to expire in 1948, Israeli Jews declared independence and took over the areas of Jordan, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Egypt, Syria, and others attempted a counter-attack, but failed. Over 700 thousand Arabs were displaced as a result of the initial declaration and war. Jewish population in the area more then double in the next decade.
In the 50's Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, but was forced to return the land due to pressure from the UN. This is the last time you will hear "pressure from the UN" in an effective way.
Six Day War: Following the annex of most of Palestine, surrounding nations refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Egypt attempted a blockade the Red Sea and put economic pressure on Israel. Israel responded by bombing most of the Egyptian air force. The US backed this decision and supplied arms. From this point forward, Israel has access to significantly better US technology and is immune from UN sanctions due to US influence in the UN. Israel acquired the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula as a result. The first instances of "terrorism" appear around this time.
Yom Kippur War: The first act of organized military aggression against Israel, the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. Attacks were somewhat successful, but were eventually repelled by late October. This is 25 years since Arab-Israeli tensions have been brought to a head.
1977: Israeli government begins heavily encouraging the settling of the West Bank, expelling any remaining Palestinians from the area by force.
1980: Israel annexes Jerusalem, despite being declared an international cit by the UN. UN is powerless to due anything as the US will not vote against Israel.
1982: Israel intervenes in the First Lebanese Civil War, using it as an excuse to bomb PLO strongholds. Israeli troops remain stationed in Lebanon as a buffer as late as 2000.
1987: First Intifada, a people's revolution of Palestinians. This is where you get images of people throwing rocks at Israeli troops.
1993: Oslo Accords signed by the PLO and Israel. The first time Israel recognizes Palestinian rights to land. Israeli settlements continue after the accord regardless. The PLO officially denounces terrorism.
2000: Camp David, fuck all gets accomplished. Second Intifada starts. Construction of walls begin.
2006: Second Lebanese War starts when Hezbollah begins rocket attacks.
2008: Hamas and Israel's ceasefire collapses. The Gaza War lasts three weeks and Israeli attacks last long after another ceasefire is announced.
So, um, yeah. "Asking for it" isn't the best term. Unless you mean asking for their houses and land back.
Biased Muslim viewpoint. Post sources. Are you sure you want to go in this direction?
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
I guess it's time for another history lesson then.
Israeli Independence: The day the British Mandate of the area was to expire in 1948, Israeli Jews declared independence and took over the areas of Jordan, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Egypt, Syria, and others attempted a counter-attack, but failed. Over 700 thousand Arabs were displaced as a result of the initial declaration and war. Jewish population in the area more then double in the next decade.
In the 50's Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, but was forced to return the land due to pressure from the UN. This is the last time you will hear "pressure from the UN" in an effective way.
Six Day War: Following the annex of most of Palestine, surrounding nations refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Egypt attempted a blockade the Red Sea and put economic pressure on Israel. Israel responded by bombing most of the Egyptian air force. The US backed this decision and supplied arms. From this point forward, Israel has access to significantly better US technology and is immune from UN sanctions due to US influence in the UN. Israel acquired the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula as a result. The first instances of "terrorism" appear around this time.
Yom Kippur War: The first act of organized military aggression against Israel, the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. Attacks were somewhat successful, but were eventually repelled by late October. This is 25 years since Arab-Israeli tensions have been brought to a head.
1977: Israeli government begins heavily encouraging the settling of the West Bank, expelling any remaining Palestinians from the area by force.
1980: Israel annexes Jerusalem, despite being declared an international cit by the UN. UN is powerless to due anything as the US will not vote against Israel.
1982: Israel intervenes in the First Lebanese Civil War, using it as an excuse to bomb PLO strongholds. Israeli troops remain stationed in Lebanon as a buffer as late as 2000.
1987: First Intifada, a people's revolution of Palestinians. This is where you get images of people throwing rocks at Israeli troops.
1993: Oslo Accords signed by the PLO and Israel. The first time Israel recognizes Palestinian rights to land. Israeli settlements continue after the accord regardless. The PLO officially denounces terrorism.
2000: Camp David, fuck all gets accomplished. Second Intifada starts. Construction of walls begin.
2006: Second Lebanese War starts when Hezbollah begins rocket attacks.
2008: Hamas and Israel's ceasefire collapses. The Gaza War lasts three weeks and Israeli attacks last long after another ceasefire is announced.
So, um, yeah. "Asking for it" isn't the best term. Unless you mean asking for their houses and land back.
Biased Muslim viewpoint. Post sources. Are you sure you want to go in this direction?
Where's the bias? Funny you should say that because I referenced a number of Israeli government sites.
Here are the sources:
"Anti-Israeli Terrorism, 2006: Data, Analysis and Trends." terrorism-info.org.il. Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage, March 2007. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/terrorism_2006e.pdf>.
Chehata, Hanan, and Samira Quraishy. "Isn't It Time for America to Re-evaluate it's "Special Relationship" with Israel?." Middle East Monitor. Al-Jezera, 2010. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/reports/isnt-it-time-for-america-to-re-evaluate-its-special-relationship-with-israel.pdf>.
Elwart, Steve. "The Middle East in the Crosshairs." Koinonia House. N.p., 2010. Web. 5 May 2010. <http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/894>.
"ISRAEL 1991 TO PRESENT US-ISRAEL SUPPORT." Palestine Facts. PalestineFacts.org, 2010. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm>.
Isseroff, Ami. "Israel and Palestine: A Brief History - Part I." Mid East Web. Mid East Web, June 10, 2009. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm>.
Isseroff, Ami. "Six Day War." Zionism-Israel. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/6daywar.htm>.
Koutsoukis, Jason. "Israel fears US will withdraw support in UN." The Age. Fairfax Digital, March 30, 2010. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.theage.com.au/world/israel-fears-us-will-withdraw-support-in-un-20100329-r87u.html>.
Pagewise, . "The modern state of Israel." essortment. Demand Media Network, 2002. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.essortment.com/all/israelmodern_riaz.htm>.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
It makes me sick to believe I live in the same country as you. I hope and pray you someday see how disgusting your thoughts are.
I will no longer post in this thread because it's clear there is no point if this is the mindset of some posters.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
It makes me sick to believe I live in the same country as you. I hope and pray you someday see how disgusting your thoughts are.
I will no longer post in this thread because it's clear there is no point if this is the mindset of some posters.
Where have I said anything wrong? It's the truth. The Arab world is being held back by the fundamental tenets of Islam. If the Arabs did not have oil, the Middle East wouldn't be too much better than sub saharan africa.
On August 27 2010 04:16 thesighter wrote: The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
Are you shitting me? While Christians were hacking off limbs to get rid of cysts in Europe, the Muslims contributed these:
- Common currency - Cash crops - Widespread sugar production - Water turbines - Ethanol - Water purification - Carboxylic acids - Coffee - Restaurants - Petrol - Petroleum industry - Kerosene - Surveying instruments - Waste management - Toothpaste - Soap bars - Deodorant - Colleges and universities - Observatories - Medical school - Public hospitals - Fountain pen - Gas masks - Cough medicine - Seizure medicine - Topical ointments - Band-aids - Cataract surgery - Anaesthesia - Fireproofing on clothing - Potassium nitrate - Magnifying glass - Alarm clocks - Algebra - Graph paper - Guitars - Scientific/medical peer reviews - Market economy
But you know, I'm sure you use none of this stuff and it is all unimportant.
On August 27 2010 04:21 Robstickle wrote: Mosque at Ground Zero, Islamic Community Center several blocks away from Ground Zero? Basically the same thing right?
Pretty much, it's 2 blocks away. It's close as they could get it. Location was chosen because a piece of WTC wreckage hit that specific building.
On August 27 2010 04:21 Robstickle wrote: Mosque at Ground Zero, Islamic Community Center several blocks away from Ground Zero? Basically the same thing right?
Pretty much, it's 2 blocks away. It's close as they could get it. Location was chosen because a piece of WTC wreckage hit that specific building.
I take it you're just going to ignore the fact that my "biased Muslim sources" were largely comprised of Israeli and American authors then?
On August 27 2010 04:16 thesighter wrote: The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
Are you shitting me? While Christians were hacking off limbs to get rid of cysts in Europe, the Muslims contributed these:
- Common currency - Cash crops - Widespread sugar production - Water turbines - Ethanol - Water purification - Carboxylic acids - Coffee - Restaurants - Petrol - Petroleum industry - Kerosene - Surveying instruments - Waste management - Toothpaste - Soap bars - Deodorant - Colleges and universities - Observatories - Medical school - Public hospitals - Fountain pen - Gas masks - Cough medicine - Seizure medicine - Topical ointments - Band-aids - Cataract surgery - Anaesthesia - Fireproofing on clothing - Potassium nitrate - Magnifying glass - Alarm clocks - Algebra - Graph paper - Guitars - Scientific/medical peer reviews - Market economy
But you know, I'm sure you use none of this stuff and it is all unimportant.
And what has Islam contributed in the last 500 years?
On August 27 2010 04:21 Robstickle wrote: Mosque at Ground Zero, Islamic Community Center several blocks away from Ground Zero? Basically the same thing right?
Pretty much, it's 2 blocks away. It's close as they could get it. Location was chosen because a piece of WTC wreckage hit that specific building.
I take it you're just going to ignore the fact that my "biased Muslim sources" were largely comprised of Israeli and American authors then?
Your sources don't fit the biased text which you type. Muslim bias is laughable, it's funny how defensive you get. Post some web links, or did you type that juvenile text yourself.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
On August 27 2010 04:21 Robstickle wrote: Mosque at Ground Zero, Islamic Community Center several blocks away from Ground Zero? Basically the same thing right?
Pretty much, it's 2 blocks away. It's close as they could get it. Location was chosen because a piece of WTC wreckage hit that specific building.
I take it you're just going to ignore the fact that my "biased Muslim sources" were largely comprised of Israeli and American authors then?
Your sources don't fit the biased text which you type. Muslim bias is laughable, it's funny how defensive you get. Post some web links, or did you type that juvenile text yourself.
Yes, they do. Historical sites sure are a lot more credible then wikipedia and youtube.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
They laid the foundation for it, it wasn't just rediscovering lost science. In fact, the Rennasaince was started almost entirely by the rediscovering of Roman/greek science and stuff. Hence Rennaisance meaning 'rebirth"
On August 27 2010 04:16 thesighter wrote: The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
Are you shitting me? While Christians were hacking off limbs to get rid of cysts in Europe, the Muslims contributed these:
- Common currency - Cash crops - Widespread sugar production - Water turbines - Ethanol - Water purification - Carboxylic acids - Coffee - Restaurants - Petrol - Petroleum industry - Kerosene - Surveying instruments - Waste management - Toothpaste - Soap bars - Deodorant - Colleges and universities - Observatories - Medical school - Public hospitals - Fountain pen - Gas masks - Cough medicine - Seizure medicine - Topical ointments - Band-aids - Cataract surgery - Anaesthesia - Fireproofing on clothing - Potassium nitrate - Magnifying glass - Alarm clocks - Algebra - Graph paper - Guitars - Scientific/medical peer reviews - Market economy
But you know, I'm sure you use none of this stuff and it is all unimportant.
And what has Islam contributed in the last 500 years?
To the arts, probably. To the sciences, probably not. The Golden Age of Islam contributed more to the medical field than probably any other time period, and most Renaissance technology was based off earlier research from the Islamic Golden Age (Galileo used many of the principles of physics and optics that were researched by Arab scholars). Also, to socio-economic principles DEFINITELY not. The Renaissance was a really shitty time in Europe in terms of social issues. The Islamic Golden Age actually probably could have kept on going if it weren't for constant invasion (Turks, Christians, Mongols)
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
I guess it's time for another history lesson then.
Israeli Independence: The day the British Mandate of the area was to expire in 1948, Israeli Jews declared independence and took over the areas of Jordan, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Egypt, Syria, and others attempted a counter-attack, but failed. Over 700 thousand Arabs were displaced as a result of the initial declaration and war. Jewish population in the area more then double in the next decade.
In the 50's Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, but was forced to return the land due to pressure from the UN. This is the last time you will hear "pressure from the UN" in an effective way.
Six Day War: Following the annex of most of Palestine, surrounding nations refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Egypt attempted a blockade the Red Sea and put economic pressure on Israel. Israel responded by bombing most of the Egyptian air force. The US backed this decision and supplied arms. From this point forward, Israel has access to significantly better US technology and is immune from UN sanctions due to US influence in the UN. Israel acquired the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula as a result. The first instances of "terrorism" appear around this time.
Yom Kippur War: The first act of organized military aggression against Israel, the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. Attacks were somewhat successful, but were eventually repelled by late October. This is 25 years since Arab-Israeli tensions have been brought to a head.
1977: Israeli government begins heavily encouraging the settling of the West Bank, expelling any remaining Palestinians from the area by force.
1980: Israel annexes Jerusalem, despite being declared an international cit by the UN. UN is powerless to due anything as the US will not vote against Israel.
1982: Israel intervenes in the First Lebanese Civil War, using it as an excuse to bomb PLO strongholds. Israeli troops remain stationed in Lebanon as a buffer as late as 2000.
1987: First Intifada, a people's revolution of Palestinians. This is where you get images of people throwing rocks at Israeli troops.
1993: Oslo Accords signed by the PLO and Israel. The first time Israel recognizes Palestinian rights to land. Israeli settlements continue after the accord regardless. The PLO officially denounces terrorism.
2000: Camp David, fuck all gets accomplished. Second Intifada starts. Construction of walls begin.
2006: Second Lebanese War starts when Hezbollah begins rocket attacks.
2008: Hamas and Israel's ceasefire collapses. The Gaza War lasts three weeks and Israeli attacks last long after another ceasefire is announced.
So, um, yeah. "Asking for it" isn't the best term. Unless you mean asking for their houses and land back.
Biased Muslim viewpoint. Post sources. Are you sure you want to go in this direction?
yeah because you're totally not biased.
"What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years?" "Geert Wilders is a hero." "This was a pathetic attempt at faking an Islamaphobic attack intended to generate sympathy for Park51" (regarding the stabbing of that poor cab driver lol.)
Either you're a militant jew or you're just one of those people forming opinions based on blogs portraying regular muslims as the biggest threat the world has ever seen. Either way I think you're a fucking idiot and I'm glad your kind has very little say in your country. I'm probably getting banned for this and rightly so so what ever gl hf guy.
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
hahaha oh brother...its more along the lines of stop so we can continue to dominate every point of your lives while we kick you out of your homes to move our own extremist citizens in and regulate every little thing that goes in and out of your land while we divide your community and territories with more settlements and put giant walls around your communities with snipers who open fire on people who look even a little suspicious....stop or we will bend the world's greatest superpower to our will and fuck you up. we are afterall above all laws. we will kill 3000 people for every 10 that you manage to kill with your pop bottle rockets
in addition, israel has broken ceasefires on numerous occasions
Well next time your life is being dominated at every point you shouldn't be surprised when you get reprimanded for your actions. I'm not saying "oh don't rebel against the man" I'm saying these these have repercussions and if you disagree you're an idiot.
And maybe, you shouldn't attack a military super power with bottle rockets if they warn you they'll kill 3000 for every 10. and once again, if you do, don't act all surprised.
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
I guess it's time for another history lesson then.
Israeli Independence: The day the British Mandate of the area was to expire in 1948, Israeli Jews declared independence and took over the areas of Jordan, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Egypt, Syria, and others attempted a counter-attack, but failed. Over 700 thousand Arabs were displaced as a result of the initial declaration and war. Jewish population in the area more then double in the next decade.
In the 50's Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, but was forced to return the land due to pressure from the UN. This is the last time you will hear "pressure from the UN" in an effective way.
Six Day War: Following the annex of most of Palestine, surrounding nations refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Egypt attempted a blockade the Red Sea and put economic pressure on Israel. Israel responded by bombing most of the Egyptian air force. The US backed this decision and supplied arms. From this point forward, Israel has access to significantly better US technology and is immune from UN sanctions due to US influence in the UN. Israel acquired the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula as a result. The first instances of "terrorism" appear around this time.
Yom Kippur War: The first act of organized military aggression against Israel, the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. Attacks were somewhat successful, but were eventually repelled by late October. This is 25 years since Arab-Israeli tensions have been brought to a head.
1977: Israeli government begins heavily encouraging the settling of the West Bank, expelling any remaining Palestinians from the area by force.
1980: Israel annexes Jerusalem, despite being declared an international cit by the UN. UN is powerless to due anything as the US will not vote against Israel.
1982: Israel intervenes in the First Lebanese Civil War, using it as an excuse to bomb PLO strongholds. Israeli troops remain stationed in Lebanon as a buffer as late as 2000.
1987: First Intifada, a people's revolution of Palestinians. This is where you get images of people throwing rocks at Israeli troops.
1993: Oslo Accords signed by the PLO and Israel. The first time Israel recognizes Palestinian rights to land. Israeli settlements continue after the accord regardless. The PLO officially denounces terrorism.
2000: Camp David, fuck all gets accomplished. Second Intifada starts. Construction of walls begin.
2006: Second Lebanese War starts when Hezbollah begins rocket attacks.
2008: Hamas and Israel's ceasefire collapses. The Gaza War lasts three weeks and Israeli attacks last long after another ceasefire is announced.
So, um, yeah. "Asking for it" isn't the best term. Unless you mean asking for their houses and land back.
Biased Muslim viewpoint. Post sources. Are you sure you want to go in this direction?
yeah because you're totally not biased.
"What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years?" "Geert Wilders is a hero." "This was a pathetic attempt at faking an Islamaphobic attack intended to generate sympathy for Park51" (regarding the stabbing on that poor cab driver lol.)
Either you're a militant jew or you're just one of those people forming opinions based on blogs portraying regular muslims as the biggest threat the world has ever seen. Either way I think you're a fucking idiot and I'm glad your kind has very little say in your country. I'm probably getting banned for this and rightly so so what ever gl hf guy.
yep, im a zionist agent working to sow discord against muslims in the west. Blame it on the jews. mazel tov!
and really, what has islam contributed to the world in the last 500 years? the jews have contributed so much more
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
I guess it's time for another history lesson then.
Israeli Independence: The day the British Mandate of the area was to expire in 1948, Israeli Jews declared independence and took over the areas of Jordan, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Egypt, Syria, and others attempted a counter-attack, but failed. Over 700 thousand Arabs were displaced as a result of the initial declaration and war. Jewish population in the area more then double in the next decade.
In the 50's Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, but was forced to return the land due to pressure from the UN. This is the last time you will hear "pressure from the UN" in an effective way.
Six Day War: Following the annex of most of Palestine, surrounding nations refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Egypt attempted a blockade the Red Sea and put economic pressure on Israel. Israel responded by bombing most of the Egyptian air force. The US backed this decision and supplied arms. From this point forward, Israel has access to significantly better US technology and is immune from UN sanctions due to US influence in the UN. Israel acquired the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula as a result. The first instances of "terrorism" appear around this time.
Yom Kippur War: The first act of organized military aggression against Israel, the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. Attacks were somewhat successful, but were eventually repelled by late October. This is 25 years since Arab-Israeli tensions have been brought to a head.
1977: Israeli government begins heavily encouraging the settling of the West Bank, expelling any remaining Palestinians from the area by force.
1980: Israel annexes Jerusalem, despite being declared an international cit by the UN. UN is powerless to due anything as the US will not vote against Israel.
1982: Israel intervenes in the First Lebanese Civil War, using it as an excuse to bomb PLO strongholds. Israeli troops remain stationed in Lebanon as a buffer as late as 2000.
1987: First Intifada, a people's revolution of Palestinians. This is where you get images of people throwing rocks at Israeli troops.
1993: Oslo Accords signed by the PLO and Israel. The first time Israel recognizes Palestinian rights to land. Israeli settlements continue after the accord regardless. The PLO officially denounces terrorism.
2000: Camp David, fuck all gets accomplished. Second Intifada starts. Construction of walls begin.
2006: Second Lebanese War starts when Hezbollah begins rocket attacks.
2008: Hamas and Israel's ceasefire collapses. The Gaza War lasts three weeks and Israeli attacks last long after another ceasefire is announced.
So, um, yeah. "Asking for it" isn't the best term. Unless you mean asking for their houses and land back.
Biased Muslim viewpoint. Post sources. Are you sure you want to go in this direction?
yeah because you're totally not biased.
"What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years?" "Geert Wilders is a hero." "This was a pathetic attempt at faking an Islamaphobic attack intended to generate sympathy for Park51" (regarding the stabbing on that poor cab driver lol.)
Either you're a militant jew or you're just one of those people forming opinions based on blogs portraying regular muslims as the biggest threat the world has ever seen. Either way I think you're a fucking idiot and I'm glad your kind has very little say in your country. I'm probably getting banned for this and rightly so so what ever gl hf guy.
yep, im a zionist agent working to sow discord against muslims in the west. Blame it on the jews. mazel tov!
and really, what has islam contributed to the world in the last 500 years? the jews have contributed so much more
it's silly to think pro-israel people aren't lobbying hard for their cause and you are the most persistent retard I've ever come across on this forum.. who knows!
edit: I usually don't get pissed off over silly debates but nothing gets to me like people having learnt absolutely nothing from (recent) history who goes on demonizing groups literally consisting of billions of people. ugh im out.
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
I guess it's time for another history lesson then.
Israeli Independence: The day the British Mandate of the area was to expire in 1948, Israeli Jews declared independence and took over the areas of Jordan, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Egypt, Syria, and others attempted a counter-attack, but failed. Over 700 thousand Arabs were displaced as a result of the initial declaration and war. Jewish population in the area more then double in the next decade.
In the 50's Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, but was forced to return the land due to pressure from the UN. This is the last time you will hear "pressure from the UN" in an effective way.
Six Day War: Following the annex of most of Palestine, surrounding nations refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Egypt attempted a blockade the Red Sea and put economic pressure on Israel. Israel responded by bombing most of the Egyptian air force. The US backed this decision and supplied arms. From this point forward, Israel has access to significantly better US technology and is immune from UN sanctions due to US influence in the UN. Israel acquired the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula as a result. The first instances of "terrorism" appear around this time.
Yom Kippur War: The first act of organized military aggression against Israel, the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. Attacks were somewhat successful, but were eventually repelled by late October. This is 25 years since Arab-Israeli tensions have been brought to a head.
1977: Israeli government begins heavily encouraging the settling of the West Bank, expelling any remaining Palestinians from the area by force.
1980: Israel annexes Jerusalem, despite being declared an international cit by the UN. UN is powerless to due anything as the US will not vote against Israel.
1982: Israel intervenes in the First Lebanese Civil War, using it as an excuse to bomb PLO strongholds. Israeli troops remain stationed in Lebanon as a buffer as late as 2000.
1987: First Intifada, a people's revolution of Palestinians. This is where you get images of people throwing rocks at Israeli troops.
1993: Oslo Accords signed by the PLO and Israel. The first time Israel recognizes Palestinian rights to land. Israeli settlements continue after the accord regardless. The PLO officially denounces terrorism.
2000: Camp David, fuck all gets accomplished. Second Intifada starts. Construction of walls begin.
2006: Second Lebanese War starts when Hezbollah begins rocket attacks.
2008: Hamas and Israel's ceasefire collapses. The Gaza War lasts three weeks and Israeli attacks last long after another ceasefire is announced.
So, um, yeah. "Asking for it" isn't the best term. Unless you mean asking for their houses and land back.
Biased Muslim viewpoint. Post sources. Are you sure you want to go in this direction?
yeah because you're totally not biased.
"What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years?" "Geert Wilders is a hero." "This was a pathetic attempt at faking an Islamaphobic attack intended to generate sympathy for Park51" (regarding the stabbing on that poor cab driver lol.)
Either you're a militant jew or you're just one of those people forming opinions based on blogs portraying regular muslims as the biggest threat the world has ever seen. Either way I think you're a fucking idiot and I'm glad your kind has very little say in your country. I'm probably getting banned for this and rightly so so what ever gl hf guy.
yep, im a zionist agent working to sow discord against muslims in the west. Blame it on the jews. mazel tov!
and really, what has islam contributed to the world in the last 500 years? the jews have contributed so much more
it's silly to think pro-israel people aren't lobbying hard for their cause and you are the most persistent retard I've ever come across on this forum.. who knows!
okay, whatever. dont forget to read your quran during ramadan
This whole thing is rediculous, A. this thread should be changed because it is not a Mosque thats like calling a JCC or a YMCA a temple or church. The fact that this is so hard for Americans to do is insane. Currently in Lebanon a country with that has been bombed to shit by Israel they are tollerent enough to build a temple in downtown beirut, arguably the "ground zero" of their country (but reialistically the whole country is a ground Zero because a lot of it has been destroyed by Israel) but us Americans can't build an Islamic community center two blocks away (more realistically five or so by foot). This is extremely insulting to me as an American.
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
I guess it's time for another history lesson then.
Israeli Independence: The day the British Mandate of the area was to expire in 1948, Israeli Jews declared independence and took over the areas of Jordan, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Egypt, Syria, and others attempted a counter-attack, but failed. Over 700 thousand Arabs were displaced as a result of the initial declaration and war. Jewish population in the area more then double in the next decade.
In the 50's Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, but was forced to return the land due to pressure from the UN. This is the last time you will hear "pressure from the UN" in an effective way.
Six Day War: Following the annex of most of Palestine, surrounding nations refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Egypt attempted a blockade the Red Sea and put economic pressure on Israel. Israel responded by bombing most of the Egyptian air force. The US backed this decision and supplied arms. From this point forward, Israel has access to significantly better US technology and is immune from UN sanctions due to US influence in the UN. Israel acquired the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula as a result. The first instances of "terrorism" appear around this time.
Yom Kippur War: The first act of organized military aggression against Israel, the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. Attacks were somewhat successful, but were eventually repelled by late October. This is 25 years since Arab-Israeli tensions have been brought to a head.
1977: Israeli government begins heavily encouraging the settling of the West Bank, expelling any remaining Palestinians from the area by force.
1980: Israel annexes Jerusalem, despite being declared an international cit by the UN. UN is powerless to due anything as the US will not vote against Israel.
1982: Israel intervenes in the First Lebanese Civil War, using it as an excuse to bomb PLO strongholds. Israeli troops remain stationed in Lebanon as a buffer as late as 2000.
1987: First Intifada, a people's revolution of Palestinians. This is where you get images of people throwing rocks at Israeli troops.
1993: Oslo Accords signed by the PLO and Israel. The first time Israel recognizes Palestinian rights to land. Israeli settlements continue after the accord regardless. The PLO officially denounces terrorism.
2000: Camp David, fuck all gets accomplished. Second Intifada starts. Construction of walls begin.
2006: Second Lebanese War starts when Hezbollah begins rocket attacks.
2008: Hamas and Israel's ceasefire collapses. The Gaza War lasts three weeks and Israeli attacks last long after another ceasefire is announced.
So, um, yeah. "Asking for it" isn't the best term. Unless you mean asking for their houses and land back.
Biased Muslim viewpoint. Post sources. Are you sure you want to go in this direction?
yeah because you're totally not biased.
"What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years?" "Geert Wilders is a hero." "This was a pathetic attempt at faking an Islamaphobic attack intended to generate sympathy for Park51" (regarding the stabbing on that poor cab driver lol.)
Either you're a militant jew or you're just one of those people forming opinions based on blogs portraying regular muslims as the biggest threat the world has ever seen. Either way I think you're a fucking idiot and I'm glad your kind has very little say in your country. I'm probably getting banned for this and rightly so so what ever gl hf guy.
yep, im a zionist agent working to sow discord against muslims in the west. Blame it on the jews. mazel tov!
and really, what has islam contributed to the world in the last 500 years? the jews have contributed so much more
it's silly to think pro-israel people aren't lobbying hard for their cause and you are the most persistent retard I've ever come across on this forum.. who knows!
It's good to understand where the "ground zero mosque" noncontroversy comes from though. This thread has backpedaled from "move it further away from ground zero" to "Islam is an evil and worthless religion".
Proving that the whole issue is, in fact, fueled by bigotry.
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
hahaha oh brother...its more along the lines of stop so we can continue to dominate every point of your lives while we kick you out of your homes to move our own extremist citizens in and regulate every little thing that goes in and out of your land while we divide your community and territories with more settlements and put giant walls around your communities with snipers who open fire on people who look even a little suspicious....stop or we will bend the world's greatest superpower to our will and fuck you up. we are afterall above all laws. we will kill 3000 people for every 10 that you manage to kill with your pop bottle rockets
in addition, israel has broken ceasefires on numerous occasions
Well next time your life is being dominated at every point you shouldn't be surprised when you get reprimanded for your actions. I'm not saying "oh don't rebel against the man" I'm saying these these have repercussions and if you disagree you're an idiot.
And maybe, you shouldn't attack a military super power with bottle rockets if they warn you they'll kill 3000 for every 10. and once again, if you do, don't act all surprised.
i don't think anyone is really surprised at what the israelis do..its more shock and discontent that they continually get away with it and have so much influence and power over the world's only superpower who paints THEM as the victims.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
I guess it's time for another history lesson then.
Israeli Independence: The day the British Mandate of the area was to expire in 1948, Israeli Jews declared independence and took over the areas of Jordan, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Egypt, Syria, and others attempted a counter-attack, but failed. Over 700 thousand Arabs were displaced as a result of the initial declaration and war. Jewish population in the area more then double in the next decade.
In the 50's Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, but was forced to return the land due to pressure from the UN. This is the last time you will hear "pressure from the UN" in an effective way.
Six Day War: Following the annex of most of Palestine, surrounding nations refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. Egypt attempted a blockade the Red Sea and put economic pressure on Israel. Israel responded by bombing most of the Egyptian air force. The US backed this decision and supplied arms. From this point forward, Israel has access to significantly better US technology and is immune from UN sanctions due to US influence in the UN. Israel acquired the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula as a result. The first instances of "terrorism" appear around this time.
Yom Kippur War: The first act of organized military aggression against Israel, the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. Attacks were somewhat successful, but were eventually repelled by late October. This is 25 years since Arab-Israeli tensions have been brought to a head.
1977: Israeli government begins heavily encouraging the settling of the West Bank, expelling any remaining Palestinians from the area by force.
1980: Israel annexes Jerusalem, despite being declared an international cit by the UN. UN is powerless to due anything as the US will not vote against Israel.
1982: Israel intervenes in the First Lebanese Civil War, using it as an excuse to bomb PLO strongholds. Israeli troops remain stationed in Lebanon as a buffer as late as 2000.
1987: First Intifada, a people's revolution of Palestinians. This is where you get images of people throwing rocks at Israeli troops.
1993: Oslo Accords signed by the PLO and Israel. The first time Israel recognizes Palestinian rights to land. Israeli settlements continue after the accord regardless. The PLO officially denounces terrorism.
2000: Camp David, fuck all gets accomplished. Second Intifada starts. Construction of walls begin.
2006: Second Lebanese War starts when Hezbollah begins rocket attacks.
2008: Hamas and Israel's ceasefire collapses. The Gaza War lasts three weeks and Israeli attacks last long after another ceasefire is announced.
So, um, yeah. "Asking for it" isn't the best term. Unless you mean asking for their houses and land back.
Biased Muslim viewpoint. Post sources. Are you sure you want to go in this direction?
yeah because you're totally not biased.
"What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years?" "Geert Wilders is a hero." "This was a pathetic attempt at faking an Islamaphobic attack intended to generate sympathy for Park51" (regarding the stabbing on that poor cab driver lol.)
Either you're a militant jew or you're just one of those people forming opinions based on blogs portraying regular muslims as the biggest threat the world has ever seen. Either way I think you're a fucking idiot and I'm glad your kind has very little say in your country. I'm probably getting banned for this and rightly so so what ever gl hf guy.
yep, im a zionist agent working to sow discord against muslims in the west. Blame it on the jews. mazel tov!
and really, what has islam contributed to the world in the last 500 years? the jews have contributed so much more
it's silly to think pro-israel people aren't lobbying hard for their cause and you are the most persistent retard I've ever come across on this forum.. who knows!
It's good to understand where the "ground zero mosque" noncontroversy comes from though. This thread has backpedaled from "move it further away from ground zero" to "Islam is an evil and worthless religion".
Proving that the whole issue is, in fact, fueled by bigotry.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years
edit: dont say suicide bombs
Sorry I lied, I'm back because I couldn't help myself.
I give you the first suicide bombing:
The Bible Book of Judges recounts the story of the Jewish hero Samson and how he killed himself by bringing down the temple of the Philistines in order to kill three thousand Philistines.
and the second:
In the late 17th century, Qing official Yu Yonghe recorded that injured Dutch soldiers fighting against Koxinga's forces for control of Taiwan in 1661 would use gunpowder to blow up both themselves and their opponents rather than be taken prisoner.[1] However, the Chinese observer may have well confused such suicidal tactics with the standard Dutch military practice of undermining and blowing up positions recently overrun by the enemy which almost cost Koxinga his life during the siege.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years
edit: dont say suicide bombs
What kind of reasoning is that? It's like asking what Christianity contributed from 400-900 AD.
"Stop" "No" "stop or we'll level your entire city with our clearly better military" "No" *Israel attacks* "zomg UN please help, these terrorists are razing our cities to the ground"
There's even a news story published prior their boat fiasco where they warned lebanon.
IMPORTANT EDIT: I'm not saying I condone the violence, but next time you're warned don't act all shocked when the bombs drop.
hahaha oh brother...its more along the lines of stop so we can continue to dominate every point of your lives while we kick you out of your homes to move our own extremist citizens in and regulate every little thing that goes in and out of your land while we divide your community and territories with more settlements and put giant walls around your communities with snipers who open fire on people who look even a little suspicious....stop or we will bend the world's greatest superpower to our will and fuck you up. we are afterall above all laws. we will kill 3000 people for every 10 that you manage to kill with your pop bottle rockets
in addition, israel has broken ceasefires on numerous occasions
Well next time your life is being dominated at every point you shouldn't be surprised when you get reprimanded for your actions. I'm not saying "oh don't rebel against the man" I'm saying these these have repercussions and if you disagree you're an idiot.
And maybe, you shouldn't attack a military super power with bottle rockets if they warn you they'll kill 3000 for every 10. and once again, if you do, don't act all surprised.
i don't think anyone is really surprised at what the israelis do..its more shock and discontent that they continually get away with it and have so much influence and power over the world's only superpower who paints THEM as the victims.
On August 27 2010 05:05 thesighter wrote: Lack of criticism is what is holding back the Muslim countries. Many are still stuck in the medieval mindset.
ARGHHHHHH, SO WHAT!?
A ISLAMIC FOREIGN COUNTRY is different from YOUR OWN COUNTRY THOSE MUSLIMS OVER THERE are different from THE MUSLIMS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH is distinct from HIS FREEDOM OF RELIGION. DEFENDING YOUR OWN RIGHTS is separate from SUPPRESSING OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.
Your utter inability to make any distinctions, broad generalizations over the entire religion, and justification of oppression as defending your own rights is what separates your arguments from the arguments against your position.
Fuck. If you are going to be all bigoted and discriminatory, at least be more discriminating when you are at it.
On August 27 2010 05:05 thesighter wrote: Lack of criticism is what is holding back the Muslim countries. Many are still stuck in the medieval mindset.
ARGHHHHHH, SO WHAT!?
A ISLAMIC FOREIGN COUNTRY is different from YOUR OWN COUNTRY THOSE MUSLIMS OVER THERE are different from THE MUSLIMS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH is distinct from HIS FREEDOM OF RELIGION. DEFENDING YOUR OWN RIGHTS is separate from SUPPRESSING OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.
Your utter inability to make any distinctions, broad generalizations over the entire religion, and justification of oppression as defending your own rights is what separates your arguments from the arguments against your position.
Fuck. If you are going to be all bigoted and discriminatory, at least be more discriminating when you are at it.
excuse the all caps.
Let it go, theinsighter is obviously an islamaphobe.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years
edit: dont say suicide bombs
We could start with the accomplishments of the Ottoman Empire. I assume you'll selectively ignore those parts about them welcoming Jews fleeing from western Europe though.
But just from the Ottomans alone we can attribute: - Modern religious freedoms - Sassanid architecture - Modern Welfare (soups kitchens, bath houses, hospitals) - The earliest world maps (the most accurate in the 16th century) - optics (including basic understanding of the speed of light as a constant) - the earliest steam engine - mechanical clocks
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years
edit: dont say suicide bombs
Sorry I lied, I'm back because I couldn't help myself.
I give you the first suicide bombing:
The Bible Book of Judges recounts the story of the Jewish hero Samson and how he killed himself by bringing down the temple of the Philistines in order to kill three thousand Philistines.
and the second:
In the late 17th century, Qing official Yu Yonghe recorded that injured Dutch soldiers fighting against Koxinga's forces for control of Taiwan in 1661 would use gunpowder to blow up both themselves and their opponents rather than be taken prisoner.[1] However, the Chinese observer may have well confused such suicidal tactics with the standard Dutch military practice of undermining and blowing up positions recently overrun by the enemy which almost cost Koxinga his life during the siege.
the jews always gotta one up the muslims. well , at least the muslims learned from the best!
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years
edit: dont say suicide bombs
We could start with the accomplishments of the Ottoman Empire. I assume you'll selectively ignore those parts about them welcoming Jews fleeing from western Europe though.
But just from the Ottomans alone we can attribute: - Modern religious freedoms - Sassanid architecture - Modern Welfare (soups kitchens, bath houses, hospitals) - The earliest world maps (the most accurate in the 16th century) - optics (including basic understanding of the speed of light as a constant) - the earliest steam engine - mechanical clocks
lol, pathetic list. you left out the armenian genocide!! oh wait, that never happened.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years
edit: dont say suicide bombs
We could start with the accomplishments of the Ottoman Empire. I assume you'll selectively ignore those parts about them welcoming Jews fleeing from western Europe though.
But just from the Ottomans alone we can attribute: - Modern religious freedoms - Sassanid architecture - Modern Welfare (soups kitchens, bath houses, hospitals) - The earliest world maps (the most accurate in the 16th century) - optics (including basic understanding of the speed of light as a constant) - the earliest steam engine - mechanical clocks
lol, pathetic list. you left out the armenian genocide!! oh wait, that never happened.
Can you teach me how to change the subject whenever someone answers your questions like that?
On August 27 2010 01:24 [DUF]MethodMan wrote: [quote]
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years
edit: dont say suicide bombs
We could start with the accomplishments of the Ottoman Empire. I assume you'll selectively ignore those parts about them welcoming Jews fleeing from western Europe though.
But just from the Ottomans alone we can attribute: - Modern religious freedoms - Sassanid architecture - Modern Welfare (soups kitchens, bath houses, hospitals) - The earliest world maps (the most accurate in the 16th century) - optics (including basic understanding of the speed of light as a constant) - the earliest steam engine - mechanical clocks
lol, pathetic list. you left out the armenian genocide!! oh wait, that never happened.
Can you teach me how to change the subject whenever someone answers your questions like that?
I think I have learned how to do it (even though his is more of a statement than an answer), here is my example:
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years
edit: dont say suicide bombs
We could start with the accomplishments of the Ottoman Empire. I assume you'll selectively ignore those parts about them welcoming Jews fleeing from western Europe though.
But just from the Ottomans alone we can attribute: - Modern religious freedoms - Sassanid architecture - Modern Welfare (soups kitchens, bath houses, hospitals) - The earliest world maps (the most accurate in the 16th century) - optics (including basic understanding of the speed of light as a constant) - the earliest steam engine - mechanical clocks
lol, pathetic list. you left out the armenian genocide!! oh wait, that never happened.
2) I say a completely irrational comment that overlooks the overall question of the thread, or the overall understatement of how people relate to their culture/religon:
lol, too bad christians are much better than muslims when they commited the holocaust! Oh wait that was in Europe so it doesn't effect me.
----- end sarcastic comment that pained me to even type -----
In reality, No religion, person, country, culture, sex, or region deserves more hate/sympathy/empathy/arrogance/hypocracy.
We are all just mammals trying to do what we think is best at that time. Yes there is radicals in all aspects of life, but it is insanely cruel and arrogant to comment on the Islamic religion/region as a whole.
All people have helped each other over the centuries and we have grown to be able to live in such a wonderful place, but yet we still have people that will try to disallow "AN ISLAMIC COMMUNITY" for no reason besides pure hate and bigotry. What are people so afraid of in this world? Do you think if that community center is there they will plan their next attack?? REALLY?
The comments you make are just as irrational as the people who actually refuse to let two people marry just because they are the same sex. This world should be free, and it disgusts me that people still wish to limit what others can do when it causes no harm to anyone (and if anything gives a chance to bring a community together).
I told him to remove himself from the topic because he was ruining any discussion. He refused to do so. I have now removed him. Please could we move away from his failures to construct a coherent argument, we're all agreed he sucked but he's gone now and we can make real posts again.
On August 26 2010 18:00 Electric.Jesus wrote: What I always ask myself is why some fucked up nutshots can actively discredit a whole religion?
About 99% of Muslims are peaceful average types. Dunno what the appropriate equivalent to a "joe sixpack" is since they usually do not drink alcohol. Fact is, most of the are law abiding citizens but somehow, the 1% of bad apples has the power to outweigh all that.
The problem is not restrcited to Islam, though. Consider the right wing Israeli setllers whose credo is that all non-jews must be driven from the "holy land" because it says so in the bible.
Consider also evangelical christians who hand out bibles in Iaq and Afghanistan because they think their holy mission is saving the heathen Muslims from eternal suffering by converting them to the true faith.
I recommend to everyone to read How to win a cosmic war by Reza Azlan. It provides intersting background information on today's religious zealots from all three major monoptheistic religions and how they actively work against reigious conflict.
My 2 cents: do not let religious extremists hijack a complete faith (whichever one it may be).
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years?
i thought i already addressed this...but i can tell your question is a loaded one that is aimed to attack islam.
your attacking a civilization right after it has fallen and is trying to rearrange itself (it takes hundreds and hundreds of years), i could ask what has the west done from the year 400-1300 in comparison to the east?
the islamic world became weaker when the west discovered the new world through sheer luck and gained access to a tremendous amount of free land and resources. the west then dominated the whole world including the islamic world. after building upon the ideas and discoveries of the islamic world, the west overtook them in development backed by its massive trade and resource advantage because of its strategic position geographically. the creation of america also marked a historic time when a great power could literally not be invaded...even more so than the british who although could not really be invaded could still be attacked and cut off by naval means. the new muslim countries are also not natural countries. they are territories created by the british where borders were carved so that rival groups and enemies could be in the same territory to keep it weak and easily controlled.
the middle-east flourished at a time when they had access to major markets and trade routes (the silk road). now the west is in this position by dominating the world's oceans.
On August 27 2010 05:49 SPYTE wrote: In reality, No religion, person, country, culture, sex, or region deserves more hate/sympathy/empathy/arrogance/hypocracy.
Do you actually believe this? I'll disagree with your statement until the day I die. I think that extreme sociocultural relativism like this is the ultimate form of harmful complacency. Not all things are equal.
The issue with this view is that the extremists in Islam are much more vocal and more readily accepted than the extremists in the other religions. Looking at all the countries of the Middle East, nearly every one is a theocracy or secular dictatorship pretending to be a republic/democracy.
A recent UN development report on the region makes for sobering and very depressing reading:
- If one takes out the export of oil, over 20 Arab countries with over 360 million people between then export less products to the world than tiny Belgium with only 10 million people.
- Spain’s GDP is larger than the entire Arab world combined.
- 360 million Arabs have a smaller manufactoring capacity than 5-million-people Finland.
- Greece with just 11 million people translates more books than the entire Arab world. The Arabs have fallen behind in the attainment of knowlegde. More books are translated into Spanish in one year than have been translated into Arabic over the past few centuries.
- No a single Arab nation is a established democracy.
- Arabs have the highest rate of government revenue as percentage of GDP and highest rates of youth unemployment.
- Not a single Arab university ranks in the top 500 compared to several in tiny Israel.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years
edit: dont say suicide bombs
We could start with the accomplishments of the Ottoman Empire. I assume you'll selectively ignore those parts about them welcoming Jews fleeing from western Europe though.
But just from the Ottomans alone we can attribute: - Modern religious freedoms - Sassanid architecture - Modern Welfare (soups kitchens, bath houses, hospitals) - The earliest world maps (the most accurate in the 16th century) - optics (including basic understanding of the speed of light as a constant) - the earliest steam engine - mechanical clocks
Also, janissaries. No military model like it at the time. Though it did get too powerful and bloated in the end.
On August 27 2010 05:49 SPYTE wrote: In reality, No religion, person, country, culture, sex, or region deserves more hate/sympathy/empathy/arrogance/hypocracy.
Do you actually believe this? I'll disagree with your statement until the day I die. I think that extreme sociocultural relativism like this is the ultimate form of harmful complacency. Not all things are equal.
Well I got caught up into things and I guess I can't say that I believe it is exactly how i put it. Obviously one will have more sympathy/empathy towards the people they know and interact with compared to strangers. Also, it is understandable that you want to hate someone for killing your family.
I am just trying to say that I don't judge people at first glance just because of their "religion, person, country, culture, sex, or region." I simply believe every individual deserves their chance to prove who they are. I just got caught up into things earlier
---
Back to the OP.
Does anyone know if this Muslim community center is allowing anyone in to use their facilities as long as they don't bother people while in prayer? I know that is how most community centers work (yes even muslim ones, even though I believe people are primarily muslim).
Wow...can't believe half my thread was taken over by that idiot. Thanks Kwark for the cleanup. SPYTE, I'm fairly certain that the community center will be open to the public. I really doubt they will be like, "nope, no infidels allowed in our community center." All the facilities will be open to the public I'm sure.
I don't actually have a problem with the Mosque, but to me it's just sort of one of those "...really?" moments. Is having a Mosque there so important? Did they *not* think that every bigot in the US would be up in arms over it? Was it worth the trouble/potential violence?
On August 28 2010 00:47 comis wrote: I don't actually have a problem with the Mosque, but to me it's just sort of one of those "...really?" moments. Is having a Mosque there so important? Did they *not* think that every bigot in the US would be up in arms over it? Was it worth the trouble/potential violence?
...really?
Seemed to be going smoothly until Fox caught wind of it.
On August 28 2010 00:47 comis wrote: I don't actually have a problem with the Mosque, but to me it's just sort of one of those "...really?" moments. Is having a Mosque there so important? Did they *not* think that every bigot in the US would be up in arms over it? Was it worth the trouble/potential violence?
...really?
Seemed to be going smoothly until Fox caught wind of it.
Fox actually did an interview about it on December 2009 and the general take on it seemed to be that, because if the values of reform that this group promotes, it was probably a good thing.
In May, they changed their tune and started all this **omfgterroristmosque** crap. This is as much an election-driven wedge issue as anything, although the ~34% of the country that has said they'd oppose a mosque constructed anywhere in the US do seem to earnestly believe we need to "defend" ourselves from this particular religion (or all religions they don't personally like).
On August 28 2010 00:47 comis wrote: I don't actually have a problem with the Mosque, but to me it's just sort of one of those "...really?" moments. Is having a Mosque there so important? Did they *not* think that every bigot in the US would be up in arms over it? Was it worth the trouble/potential violence?
...really?
Seemed to be going smoothly until Fox caught wind of it.
They were on Fox News actually in December about it, and Fox was cool with the idea. Then a right-wing blogger with Stop Islamization of America started blogging about it, and Fox did an about face.
On August 28 2010 00:47 comis wrote: I don't actually have a problem with the Mosque, but to me it's just sort of one of those "...really?" moments. Is having a Mosque there so important? Did they *not* think that every bigot in the US would be up in arms over it? Was it worth the trouble/potential violence?
...really?
You know, that's probably the best point anyone can make. It's just bad taste is all.
I'll be the first to say that I disagree. thesighter has been correct and active in his posts, playing against several liberals. Don't even pretend that this thread includes any rational or coherent discussion, because there is no more credibility here than what goes down on the view.
Please continue to bash fox news and promote whatever outlet you subscribe to.
Actually most news shows are abysmal in their coverage. However, Fox has time and again demonstrated a much stronger bias and willingness to fabricate information - for example, their pushing the two Breitbart "scandals" into the spotlight and frequently labeling Republicans who were caught up in scandals as (D) for two examples. How anybody still takes them as a serious news source is beyond me -- as far as political commentary goes on the other hand, their talk shows are really no more partisan than somebody like Maddow. It's just the news content that is worse on that channel.
On August 28 2010 00:47 comis wrote: I don't actually have a problem with the Mosque, but to me it's just sort of one of those "...really?" moments. Is having a Mosque there so important? Did they *not* think that every bigot in the US would be up in arms over it? Was it worth the trouble/potential violence?
...really?
Should they really not build the community center in fear of a terrorist attack? Ironically, 2 blocks away from another tragic terrorist attack which occurred because of a group of people so violently intolerant of another culture?
Edit: Swapped out mosque for community center, even though it really doesn't matter.
What bothers is me is that the conservative constituency is using this as an excuse to bash Obama personally. All he is doing is not stopping construction of the mosque since doing so would be unconstitutional. It's time like these that I get pretty disappointed in my country.
I've no protest against the mosque construction, but I imagine something else would be better. The main question that needs to be answered is "who should the building benefit?" From what i've heard, most muslims dont really care that the mosque is going up there, so it doesnt really benefit muslims that much because theres already a few mosques in the area. If the building is for the benefit of the victims of 9/11 tragedy, then maybe a memorial would have served that purpose better. If the building is for the benefit of the city's image, then the mosque does make USA look more "turn the other cheek" and moral high ground +1, but then there needs to be a more active PR campaign to broadcast that message, rather than be swarmed by the negative bigots.
Personally, i think it should have been a memorial instead, something permanent to mourn the loss of life and to celebrate the cooperative spirit that filled the empty wake of 9/11. And something to tie it back to the founding principles of the country to give the message that "they bombed us but it didnt change what made us great" kind of thing. Sadly none of that is true.
On August 28 2010 08:33 Railxp wrote: I've no protest against the mosque construction, but I imagine something else would be better. The main question that needs to be answered is "who should the building benefit?" From what i've heard, most muslims dont really care that the mosque is going up there, so it doesnt really benefit muslims that much because theres already a few mosques in the area. If the building is for the benefit of the victims of 9/11 tragedy, then maybe a memorial would have served that purpose better. If the building is for the benefit of the city's image, then the mosque does make USA look more "turn the other cheek" and moral high ground +1, but then there needs to be a more active PR campaign to broadcast that message, rather than be swarmed by the negative bigots.
Personally, i think it should have been a memorial instead, something permanent to mourn the loss of life and to celebrate the cooperative spirit that filled the empty wake of 9/11. And something to tie it back to the founding principles of the country to give the message that "they bombed us but it didnt change what made us great" kind of thing. Sadly none of that is true.
Umm.. do you know whats actually going on?
1.) It is not a mosque. 2.) The building should benefit the community, it is a community center. 3.) Why in the heck should a community center far away (2 NEWYORK city blocks) from the 9/11 site, and having nothing to do with 9/11, be a MEMORIAL. It is a COMMUNITY CENTER.
On August 28 2010 08:33 Railxp wrote: I've no protest against the mosque construction, but I imagine something else would be better. The main question that needs to be answered is "who should the building benefit?" From what i've heard, most muslims dont really care that the mosque is going up there, so it doesnt really benefit muslims that much because theres already a few mosques in the area. If the building is for the benefit of the victims of 9/11 tragedy, then maybe a memorial would have served that purpose better. If the building is for the benefit of the city's image, then the mosque does make USA look more "turn the other cheek" and moral high ground +1, but then there needs to be a more active PR campaign to broadcast that message, rather than be swarmed by the negative bigots.
Personally, i think it should have been a memorial instead, something permanent to mourn the loss of life and to celebrate the cooperative spirit that filled the empty wake of 9/11. And something to tie it back to the founding principles of the country to give the message that "they bombed us but it didnt change what made us great" kind of thing. Sadly none of that is true.
Yeah I have to agree with the sentiment that you haven't been following along with this news.
Do you think the community center is being built right over the site of ground zero? because it's a few blocks away. There's no way any building can span that many blocks, and we already have a memorial site for 9/11 built over the location of the original towers.
If you think that every building in a two block radius around ground zero should be demolished and converted into a memorial, then I have no reply.
On August 28 2010 08:33 Railxp wrote: I've no protest against the mosque construction, but I imagine something else would be better. The main question that needs to be answered is "who should the building benefit?" From what i've heard, most muslims dont really care that the mosque is going up there, so it doesnt really benefit muslims that much because theres already a few mosques in the area. If the building is for the benefit of the victims of 9/11 tragedy, then maybe a memorial would have served that purpose better. If the building is for the benefit of the city's image, then the mosque does make USA look more "turn the other cheek" and moral high ground +1, but then there needs to be a more active PR campaign to broadcast that message, rather than be swarmed by the negative bigots.
Personally, i think it should have been a memorial instead, something permanent to mourn the loss of life and to celebrate the cooperative spirit that filled the empty wake of 9/11. And something to tie it back to the founding principles of the country to give the message that "they bombed us but it didnt change what made us great" kind of thing. Sadly none of that is true.
I believe there is a memorial inside the community center dedicated to the 9/11 victims(let me double check on this)
On August 28 2010 08:33 Railxp wrote: I've no protest against the mosque construction, but I imagine something else would be better. The main question that needs to be answered is "who should the building benefit?" From what i've heard, most muslims dont really care that the mosque is going up there, so it doesnt really benefit muslims that much because theres already a few mosques in the area. If the building is for the benefit of the victims of 9/11 tragedy, then maybe a memorial would have served that purpose better. If the building is for the benefit of the city's image, then the mosque does make USA look more "turn the other cheek" and moral high ground +1, but then there needs to be a more active PR campaign to broadcast that message, rather than be swarmed by the negative bigots.
Personally, i think it should have been a memorial instead, something permanent to mourn the loss of life and to celebrate the cooperative spirit that filled the empty wake of 9/11. And something to tie it back to the founding principles of the country to give the message that "they bombed us but it didnt change what made us great" kind of thing. Sadly none of that is true.
Umm.. do you know whats actually going on?
1.) It is not a mosque. 2.) The building should benefit the community, it is a community center. 3.) Why in the heck should a community center far away (2 NEWYORK city blocks) from the 9/11 site, and having nothing to do with 9/11, be a MEMORIAL. It is a COMMUNITY CENTER.
I haven't read the whole thread, and I don't know every detail of this situation, but where do you get that it is a community center? Every source I've heard has called it a mosque???
Also I'm not buying the argument that it is 2 blocks away thus it has nothing to do with ground zero. 2 blocks away was close enough to be basically destroyed by the effects of the plane hitting the tower. The terroist activity certainly affected this area even if it isn't the tower itself.
Also I'd like to say I don't personally know anybody from NY who supports this (outside of the mayor). But I guess that doesn't mean much small sample size etc.
On August 28 2010 08:33 Railxp wrote: I've no protest against the mosque construction, but I imagine something else would be better. The main question that needs to be answered is "who should the building benefit?" From what i've heard, most muslims dont really care that the mosque is going up there, so it doesnt really benefit muslims that much because theres already a few mosques in the area. If the building is for the benefit of the victims of 9/11 tragedy, then maybe a memorial would have served that purpose better. If the building is for the benefit of the city's image, then the mosque does make USA look more "turn the other cheek" and moral high ground +1, but then there needs to be a more active PR campaign to broadcast that message, rather than be swarmed by the negative bigots.
Personally, i think it should have been a memorial instead, something permanent to mourn the loss of life and to celebrate the cooperative spirit that filled the empty wake of 9/11. And something to tie it back to the founding principles of the country to give the message that "they bombed us but it didnt change what made us great" kind of thing. Sadly none of that is true.
I think you think this building is going up right where the towers once stood. The actual spot where the building is going up is the location of a Burlington Coat Factory. So you're basically saying we should tear down a Burlington Coat Factory and build a 9/11 memorial 2 blocks away from the actual 9/11 memorial.
So the republicans voted down the first responders bill and received negative media attention. Then media focus abruptly switched to this "Ground Zero Mosque". The only reason this isn't a non-issue is because it is a distraction. The tragedy is the precedent it might set.
Obviously they have a right to build there. But why there? I mean, really? This is obviously not going to increase tolerance or "build bridges." Anyone that says it will is completely clueless and has no sense of reality.
It is obviously a slap in the face move but this is America so what do you expect?
And for all those about to flame me: If I had it my way there would be no Churches or Mosques period.
I totally agree with the OP. I can't see any reason not to build it.
Maybe - maybe if it was on top of the old grounds I might have an issue with that (though more likely confusion than anything else really). But as it stands now this is blatant racism.
On August 29 2010 10:59 SweetNJoshSauce wrote: Obviously they have a right to build there. But why there? I mean, really? This is obviously not going to increase tolerance or "build bridges." Anyone that says it will is completely clueless and has no sense of reality.
It is obviously a slap in the face move but this is America so what do you expect?
And for all those about to flame me: If I had it my way there would be no Churches or Mosques period.
It never really started off as offensive though. As several posts earlier pointed out, people on the right were initially fine with the mosque until just recently when it suddenly became insensitive and provocative for no real reason.
And to be honest, a lot of the issue is heavily blown out of proportion. Even though I say mosque, in reality it's just a community center that contains a mosque that's built several blocks away from the towers. It's really no different from many other public buildings that contain rooms dedicated to prayer for people from other cultures. The only reason it became an issue now is because people on the far right needed something to complain about. And let's be honest, the only people who are really pissed off are those that already hate muslims anyway. They'll hate muslims no matter what, so there's really no point in worrying about appeasing them because they'll never be satisfied.
The whole issue isn't really improving the image America has in the world. There are a lot of smart Americans in this thread which is why it's so unfortunate that your own media portrays the country as a bunch of raving racist lunatics.
All we see, straight from the American news reports, is a bunch of retards shouting "USA, USA, USA" as a "protest". Dick Morris spouting his "command center for terrorism" nonsense (lol) and of course comparing Islam to the Nazi party (more lol).
To me it just seems the media is bored of the oil spill and has found something else to go on about, it's pretty much a non issue.
On August 29 2010 10:59 SweetNJoshSauce wrote: Obviously they have a right to build there. But why there? I mean, really? This is obviously not going to increase tolerance or "build bridges." Anyone that says it will is completely clueless and has no sense of reality.
It is obviously a slap in the face move but this is America so what do you expect?
And for all those about to flame me: If I had it my way there would be no Churches or Mosques period.
It never really started off as offensive though. As several posts earlier pointed out, people on the right were initially fine with the mosque until just recently when it suddenly became insensitive and provocative for no real reason.
And to be honest, a lot of the issue is heavily blown out of proportion. Even though I say mosque, in reality it's just a community center that contains a mosque that's built several blocks away from the towers. It's really no different from many other public buildings that contain rooms dedicated to prayer for people from other cultures. The only reason it became an issue now is because people on the far right needed something to complain about. And let's be honest, the only people who are really pissed off are those that already hate muslims anyway. They'll hate muslims no matter what, so there's really no point in worrying about appeasing them because they'll never be satisfied.
You're right that the media didn't portray it as offensive to begin, but I found it offensive to begin with. And yes, its a "community center", but it has a mosque in it, so to me its just a mosque. Same goes for Christian community centers and their "youth groups": Just another name for a Church.
I stand by my point though: Why there? How would you not see this hatred coming? I have no sympathy for the Muslims leading this project because all of this hatred and protest would be avoided if they used even the slightest bit of common sense and built it further from ground zero. Not everyone in America has forgotten about 9/11(although most have...) so this rage is justified.
For the people that reply:You cant just group all of of Islam into the radical Islam category, your right. Just like you cant group every gun owner into a serial killing maniac. But it would still be incredibly distasteful and rude to build a 13 story Gun community center right next to Columbine would it not?
On August 29 2010 10:59 SweetNJoshSauce wrote: Obviously they have a right to build there. But why there? I mean, really? This is obviously not going to increase tolerance or "build bridges." Anyone that says it will is completely clueless and has no sense of reality.
It is obviously a slap in the face move but this is America so what do you expect?
And for all those about to flame me: If I had it my way there would be no Churches or Mosques period.
It never really started off as offensive though. As several posts earlier pointed out, people on the right were initially fine with the mosque until just recently when it suddenly became insensitive and provocative for no real reason.
And to be honest, a lot of the issue is heavily blown out of proportion. Even though I say mosque, in reality it's just a community center that contains a mosque that's built several blocks away from the towers. It's really no different from many other public buildings that contain rooms dedicated to prayer for people from other cultures. The only reason it became an issue now is because people on the far right needed something to complain about. And let's be honest, the only people who are really pissed off are those that already hate muslims anyway. They'll hate muslims no matter what, so there's really no point in worrying about appeasing them because they'll never be satisfied.
You're right that the media didn't portray it as offensive to begin, but I found it offensive to begin with. And yes, its a "community center", but it has a mosque in it, so to me its just a mosque. Same goes for Christian community centers and their "youth groups": Just another name for a Church.
I stand by my point though: Why there? How would you not see this hatred coming? I have no sympathy for the Muslims leading this project because all of this hatred and protest would be avoided if they used even the slightest bit of common sense and built it further from ground zero. Not everyone in America has forgotten about 9/11(although most have...) so this rage is justified.
For the people that reply:You cant just group all of of Islam into the radical Islam category, your right. Just like you cant group every gun owner into a serial killing maniac. But it would still be incredibly distasteful and rude to build a 13 story Gun community center right next to Columbine would it not?
If the gunshop is according to the zoning law of the local community then its fine. I mean didn't the NRA hold a meeting in Columbine the year after the shooting in the same town. This is America a place of law and order where law comes before all else. Mosque may be distasteful to some people but they got rights and you can't take them away.
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. — Authorities are investigating a fire that damaged at least one construction vehicle at a Tennessee site where a new mosque is being built.
Federal investigators won't say whether they believe the fire early Saturday was intentionally set at the suburban Nashville project, which has faced vehement opposition.
Still, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro said the fire has frightened the area's Muslim community.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesman Eric Kehn said Sunday the investigation was still in an early phase. The FBI and local sheriff are also investigating.
The center has been in the community for decades, and the new facility represents an expansion. Opponents, while citing traffic and parking issues, have also implied the center would be a haven for terrorists.
To the idiots claiming that "the terrorists" would view this mosque project as a victory: the Taliban have spoken out against this mosque project.
“By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. (Like many Afghans, he uses a single name.) “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.”
On August 31 2010 01:22 Zealotdriver wrote: To the idiots claiming that "the terrorists" would view this mosque project as a victory: the Taliban have spoken out against this mosque project.
“By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. (Like many Afghans, he uses a single name.) “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.”
Makes sense. When you have wingnuts equating Islam with terrorists and the fact that the USA is fighting a "War on Terror", it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots.
On August 29 2010 10:59 SweetNJoshSauce wrote: Obviously they have a right to build there. But why there? I mean, really? This is obviously not going to increase tolerance or "build bridges." Anyone that says it will is completely clueless and has no sense of reality.
It is obviously a slap in the face move but this is America so what do you expect?
And for all those about to flame me: If I had it my way there would be no Churches or Mosques period.
It never really started off as offensive though. As several posts earlier pointed out, people on the right were initially fine with the mosque until just recently when it suddenly became insensitive and provocative for no real reason.
And to be honest, a lot of the issue is heavily blown out of proportion. Even though I say mosque, in reality it's just a community center that contains a mosque that's built several blocks away from the towers. It's really no different from many other public buildings that contain rooms dedicated to prayer for people from other cultures. The only reason it became an issue now is because people on the far right needed something to complain about. And let's be honest, the only people who are really pissed off are those that already hate muslims anyway. They'll hate muslims no matter what, so there's really no point in worrying about appeasing them because they'll never be satisfied.
You're right that the media didn't portray it as offensive to begin, but I found it offensive to begin with. And yes, its a "community center", but it has a mosque in it, so to me its just a mosque. Same goes for Christian community centers and their "youth groups": Just another name for a Church.
I stand by my point though: Why there? How would you not see this hatred coming? I have no sympathy for the Muslims leading this project because all of this hatred and protest would be avoided if they used even the slightest bit of common sense and built it further from ground zero. Not everyone in America has forgotten about 9/11(although most have...) so this rage is justified.
For the people that reply:You cant just group all of of Islam into the radical Islam category, your right. Just like you cant group every gun owner into a serial killing maniac. But it would still be incredibly distasteful and rude to build a 13 story Gun community center right next to Columbine would it not?
Why not there?
It's their right to do so. A mosque doesnt symbolize Terrorism unless you believe islam = terrorism. Nevermind the fact that it isn't being built by Ground Zero...more along the lines of A couple blocks away. What's "far enough" for you exactly? Hell it won't even look like a mosque. Just a regular building in the swarm of other buildings in New York
This sort of ridiculous intolerance just gives the Taliban more support. If you're offended, that's frankly your problem. Luckily most of our laws in the US aren't built around what offends people.
Well at least for those not wanting it to be built it near ground zero is a better reason that the one going to built at Murfreesburo, Tennessee. Although lets just go with 1st amendment solves everything and get on with more important things.
On August 29 2010 10:59 SweetNJoshSauce wrote: Obviously they have a right to build there. But why there? I mean, really? This is obviously not going to increase tolerance or "build bridges." Anyone that says it will is completely clueless and has no sense of reality.
It is obviously a slap in the face move but this is America so what do you expect?
And for all those about to flame me: If I had it my way there would be no Churches or Mosques period.
It never really started off as offensive though. As several posts earlier pointed out, people on the right were initially fine with the mosque until just recently when it suddenly became insensitive and provocative for no real reason.
And to be honest, a lot of the issue is heavily blown out of proportion. Even though I say mosque, in reality it's just a community center that contains a mosque that's built several blocks away from the towers. It's really no different from many other public buildings that contain rooms dedicated to prayer for people from other cultures. The only reason it became an issue now is because people on the far right needed something to complain about. And let's be honest, the only people who are really pissed off are those that already hate muslims anyway. They'll hate muslims no matter what, so there's really no point in worrying about appeasing them because they'll never be satisfied.
You're right that the media didn't portray it as offensive to begin, but I found it offensive to begin with. And yes, its a "community center", but it has a mosque in it, so to me its just a mosque. Same goes for Christian community centers and their "youth groups": Just another name for a Church.
I stand by my point though: Why there? How would you not see this hatred coming? I have no sympathy for the Muslims leading this project because all of this hatred and protest would be avoided if they used even the slightest bit of common sense and built it further from ground zero. Not everyone in America has forgotten about 9/11(although most have...) so this rage is justified.
For the people that reply:You cant just group all of of Islam into the radical Islam category, your right. Just like you cant group every gun owner into a serial killing maniac. But it would still be incredibly distasteful and rude to build a 13 story Gun community center right next to Columbine would it not?
While you raise a good point, I feel that the message that America must send to the Islamic world, a message of acceptance and tolerance and understanding that not all of Islam is radical and terrorist, is much much more important than protecting the sensitivities of people still affected by an event that happened almost a decade ago.
I'm not saying that 9/11 shouldn't be remembered for all its horror. It should be and that should be respected. I lived through and experienced all of 9/11 and I fully understand how big of an issue it is.
Even so, by denying the construction of a mosque, we are essentially telling the rest of the world that we do not tolerate Islam, that we are close-minded and grudge-holding. That's not right. We already have a lot of public relations issues with the rest of the world, not to mention the Islamic world. It would be wise not to compound those issues.
“By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.”
On August 31 2010 01:22 Zealotdriver wrote: To the idiots claiming that "the terrorists" would view this mosque project as a victory: the Taliban have spoken out against this mosque project.
“By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. (Like many Afghans, he uses a single name.) “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.”
I don't know how you can state an absolute like that. Whether you like it or not some Muslims will view it as a victory (some extremists rather) and some wont. Hopefully much more the latter, but that doesn't change the fact that the extremists do have opinions and I can't imagine they'd go liberal all of the sudden over this.
Also not sure why you posted that Taliban quote because its not even relevant on whether they view the mosque as a victory or not. But rather why the prevention of the mosque is helping their cause. Not the same thing.
On August 29 2010 05:55 Rickson wrote: I just read a couple of the pages not all so I dont know if this has been posted but I stand by Mayor Bloomberg.
Arguments like this are what you get when you combine poorly scripted entertainment with poorly researched news being watched by poorly educated people. Thank you Fox News and Sarah Palin.
For a bunch of retards so obsessed with the constitution you'd think all these folks who are against it would be the first ones to say that is their RIGHT to build it there. But hey, hypocrisy isn't really anything new to them, so why start caring about it now.
On August 31 2010 03:53 DamnCats wrote:For a bunch of retards so obsessed with the constitution you'd think all these folks who are against it would be the first ones to say that is their RIGHT to build it there. But hey, hypocrisy isn't really anything new to them, so why start caring about it now.
Out of all the people against this mosque, I haven't seen a single one saying they don't have the RIGHT to build it there. They're merely saying it's in extremely poor taste and that they shouldn't do it.
Just like the Phelps people have the RIGHT to picket soldiers' funerals with signs saying "thank god for dead soldiers". And I have the right to think they're assholes for it and wish they wouldn't do it.
On August 31 2010 03:53 DamnCats wrote:For a bunch of retards so obsessed with the constitution you'd think all these folks who are against it would be the first ones to say that is their RIGHT to build it there. But hey, hypocrisy isn't really anything new to them, so why start caring about it now.
Out of all the people against this mosque, I haven't seen a single one saying they don't have the RIGHT to build it there. They're merely saying it's in extremely poor taste and that they shouldn't do it.
Just like the Phelps people have the RIGHT to picket soldiers' funerals with signs saying "thank god for dead soldiers". And I have the right to think they're assholes for it and wish they wouldn't do it.
That's all people are saying.
That's reasonable. However, when you ask these same people how far away is good enough, the vast majority have no idea.
You can't compare all Muslims to the members of Fred Phelps' church though.
Building an Al Qaeda center would be offensive. Building a mosque is only offensive of you equate all of Islam with the actions of 19 Islamic extremists.
All 19 hijackers were also men. Is it offensive to allow men to build something within 2 blocks of ground zero?
Thinking they are assholes and discriminating against them because of enormous generalizations are completely different things, though.
I mean I wish Islam and Christianity would just go away forever, but while they are here and they're protected by our sweet freedom we have in America, you cannot argue against building this mosque without looking like a total hypocritical asshole too.
From a CNN interview by Don Lemon with Eboo Patel, Executive Director of the Interfaith Youth Corps.
Lemon: Don't you think it's a bit different considering what happened on 9/11? And the people have said there's a need for it in Lower Manhattan, so that's why it's being built there. What about 10, 20 blocks . . . Midtown Manhattan, considering the circumstances behind this? That's not understandable?
Patel: In America, we don't tell people based on their race or religion or ethnicity that they are free in this place, but not in that place --
Lemon: [interrupting] I understand that, but there's always context, Mr. Patel . . . this is an extraordinary circumstance. You understand that this is very heated. Many people lost their loved ones on 9/11 --
Patel: Including Muslim Americans who lost their loved ones. . . .
Lemon: Consider the context here. That's what I'm talking about.
Patel: I have to tell you that this seems a little like telling black people 50 years ago: you can sit anywhere on the bus you like - just not in the front.
Lemon: I think that's apples and oranges - I don't think that black people were behind a Terrorist plot to kill people and drive planes into a building. That's a completely different circumstance.
Patel: And American Muslims were not behind the terrorist plot either.
So explain why it's assholish to build a mosque 2 blocks from ground zero, but not assholish to build a men's center/club 2 blocks from ground zero, or to build a restaurant that serves Saudi food 2 blocks from GZ. (hypothetically)
Or for that matter, why is it not assholish to build a church in towns where the KKK was active?
On August 31 2010 06:26 Signet wrote: So explain why it's assholish to build a mosque 2 blocks from ground zero, but not assholish to build a men's center/club 2 blocks from ground zero, or to build a restaurant that serves Saudi food 2 blocks from GZ. (hypothetically)
Or for that matter, why is it not assholish to build a church in towns where the KKK was active?
Anyone who thinks its offensive, for lack of a better term is an idiot,It's private property there is nothing you can do about it, also that means you blame every muslim for the acts of a small group. So your saying you hate very muslim? What if they built a YMCA there would that be offensive. Probablly not, even though it was all men that did it. Does that mean we should hate all men.
Lemon: Don't you think it's a bit different considering what happened on 9/11? And the people have said there's a need for it in Lower Manhattan, so that's why it's being built there. What about 10, 20 blocks . . . Midtown Manhattan, considering the circumstances behind this? That's not understandable?
Patel: In America, we don't tell people based on their race or religion or ethnicity that they are free in this place, but not in that place --
Lemon: [interrupting] I understand that, but there's always context, Mr. Patel . . . this is an extraordinary circumstance. You understand that this is very heated. Many people lost their loved ones on 9/11 --
Patel: Including Muslim Americans who lost their loved ones. . . .
Lemon: Consider the context here. That's what I'm talking about.
Patel: I have to tell you that this seems a little like telling black people 50 years ago: you can sit anywhere on the bus you like - just not in the front.
Lemon: I think that's apples and oranges - I don't think that black people were behind a Terrorist plot to kill people and drive planes into a building. That's a completely different circumstance.
Patel: And American Muslims were not behind the terrorist plot either.
On August 31 2010 03:53 DamnCats wrote:For a bunch of retards so obsessed with the constitution you'd think all these folks who are against it would be the first ones to say that is their RIGHT to build it there. But hey, hypocrisy isn't really anything new to them, so why start caring about it now.
Out of all the people against this mosque, I haven't seen a single one saying they don't have the RIGHT to build it there. They're merely saying it's in extremely poor taste and that they shouldn't do it.
Just like the Phelps people have the RIGHT to picket soldiers' funerals with signs saying "thank god for dead soldiers". And I have the right to think they're assholes for it and wish they wouldn't do it.
That's all people are saying.
Fred Phelps is an entirely different situation - it's really just a scam to bait attacks and make profits off lawsuits.
Also, it's especially different because they aren't acting in accordance to the spirit of the law along with the literal text of it. The goals of freedom of religion are pretty apparent in that of the islamic community center. Freedom of speech is meant to facilitate the autonomy of political perspectives and discourse in a democratic society. Signs with "God hates fags" is not at all meeting this vision of the spirit of the law.
Also, @ the post saying the Taliban quotation doesn't mean that terrorists view prevention of construction as a victory - um, it's a basic connection of dots. They're gaining recruits, funding, and further legitimizing their radicalism. Sounds like a victory for them to me.
On August 29 2010 10:59 SweetNJoshSauce wrote: Obviously they have a right to build there. But why there? I mean, really? This is obviously not going to increase tolerance or "build bridges." Anyone that says it will is completely clueless and has no sense of reality.
It is obviously a slap in the face move but this is America so what do you expect?
And for all those about to flame me: If I had it my way there would be no Churches or Mosques period.
It never really started off as offensive though. As several posts earlier pointed out, people on the right were initially fine with the mosque until just recently when it suddenly became insensitive and provocative for no real reason.
And to be honest, a lot of the issue is heavily blown out of proportion. Even though I say mosque, in reality it's just a community center that contains a mosque that's built several blocks away from the towers. It's really no different from many other public buildings that contain rooms dedicated to prayer for people from other cultures. The only reason it became an issue now is because people on the far right needed something to complain about. And let's be honest, the only people who are really pissed off are those that already hate muslims anyway. They'll hate muslims no matter what, so there's really no point in worrying about appeasing them because they'll never be satisfied.
You're right that the media didn't portray it as offensive to begin, but I found it offensive to begin with. And yes, its a "community center", but it has a mosque in it, so to me its just a mosque. Same goes for Christian community centers and their "youth groups": Just another name for a Church.
I stand by my point though: Why there? How would you not see this hatred coming? I have no sympathy for the Muslims leading this project because all of this hatred and protest would be avoided if they used even the slightest bit of common sense and built it further from ground zero. Not everyone in America has forgotten about 9/11(although most have...) so this rage is justified.
For the people that reply:You cant just group all of of Islam into the radical Islam category, your right. Just like you cant group every gun owner into a serial killing maniac. But it would still be incredibly distasteful and rude to build a 13 story Gun community center right next to Columbine would it not?
Why not there?
It's their right to do so. A mosque doesnt symbolize Terrorism unless you believe islam = terrorism. Nevermind the fact that it isn't being built by Ground Zero...more along the lines of A couple blocks away. What's "far enough" for you exactly? Hell it won't even look like a mosque. Just a regular building in the swarm of other buildings in New York
This sort of ridiculous intolerance just gives the Taliban more support. If you're offended, that's frankly your problem. Luckily most of our laws in the US aren't built around what offends people.
Why not there? Are you kidding me? You're literally proving my point about most Americans already forgetting about 9/11 if I have to remind you that two blocks away 2000 Americans died because some Muslims killed in the name of Islam.
I know what your argument to this is: But those Muslims were radical Al Queada members!(I would agree btw). The problem is, who are we to call Al Queada radical? Have you read the verses they cite from the Koran to justify their actions? Those versus exist believe it or not.
You and I would consider most of the Muslims that live in America to be moderate: They live by our laws, are contributing members of our society, and are generally good people. They cite their own verses to justify their way of life, and those verse are also in the Koran. Guess what? Al Queada considers these Muslims to be radical, and wrong.
My point: Islam is a religion that, like Christianity, is very broad and open to massive amounts of interpretation. I don't think Islam=terrorism. But I do think Islam=threat. And yes, i believe Christianity=threat as well. The only reason I take a more militant stance towards Islam is because whats the worst group of Christians going to do to me in this modern age? Annoy me with their stupidity probably. When it comes to Islam its obviously a whole lot worse(See: NICHOLAS BERG).
I'll be the first to admit it: I am intolerant of religion. But you, and so many other Americans are ignorant to reality.
Instead of using the smallest amount of common sense to realize that building a Muslim community center as close as possible to ground zero is a dick move you throw around the word "right"(as in right to build it there) like its the only thing that matters. It reminds me of George Carlin's greatest piece: .
I am raging so hard right now all these fucking idiots (sorry mods temp ban me if you want but I can't handle it) have no idea about anything there blaming all muslims for the acts of a few, are you fucking kidding me, really? you blame all muslims for 9/11 give your fucking head a shake. Ever realize muslims were killed in 9/11 aswell have you no concept of reality to be so ignorant to blame an entire religion for the acts of a few. Is everyone that fucking ignorant or just stupid? It makes me so sad that humanity stil puts up dividers on people based on race and religion, you can deny it all you want but if youre against the mosque essentially you blame all muslims for 9/11. an entire culture based on a few extremist, tell me do you think all catholics are pedofiles? no. Do you blame all catholics for the acts of a corrupted catholics that raped little boys? no you don't. So do not ever blame a religion for the acts of PEOPLE thats what they are people not just "MUSLIMS" you go up to any muslim you know and ask them what they thought of 9/11 I gaurantee you that absolutely none will say "fuck yeah, death to america" do you people have any idea the absolute ignorance you put out.
Sorry mods for the language but please understand that this is a very passionate issue for me and I can't deal with the absolute ignorance people display.
My point: Islam is a religion that, like Christianity, is very broad and open to massive amounts of interpretation. I don't think Islam=terrorism. But I do think Islam=threat. And yes, i believe Christianity=threat as well.
In other words you view people with differences then your own as a threat.
lool.
It always amuses me to no end when Atheists (talking as an Atheist) basically become a mirror of those they hate, parroting demagogues and using their viewpoints to justify marginalizing another human being.
The exact statement can be said, and has been said, about Atheism itself when Atheism has been a distabalizing force in the world. Ministers in the US parroted your exact same argument through the Bolshevik Revolution, Throughout the ensuing Red Scare, and well up into the 80s.
The violence and conflict in the Middle East is not about Islam. It is about Power and Money, and the beliefs cherished by the people are just another tool used to achieve that mean. "Atheism" isn't intrinsically less susceptible to intolerance or stupidity, as you are currently demonstrating, or less susceptible to manipulation by those whom have an agenda, as has been demonstrated -repeatedly- throughout history.
On August 29 2010 10:59 SweetNJoshSauce wrote: Obviously they have a right to build there. But why there? I mean, really? This is obviously not going to increase tolerance or "build bridges." Anyone that says it will is completely clueless and has no sense of reality.
It is obviously a slap in the face move but this is America so what do you expect?
And for all those about to flame me: If I had it my way there would be no Churches or Mosques period.
It never really started off as offensive though. As several posts earlier pointed out, people on the right were initially fine with the mosque until just recently when it suddenly became insensitive and provocative for no real reason.
And to be honest, a lot of the issue is heavily blown out of proportion. Even though I say mosque, in reality it's just a community center that contains a mosque that's built several blocks away from the towers. It's really no different from many other public buildings that contain rooms dedicated to prayer for people from other cultures. The only reason it became an issue now is because people on the far right needed something to complain about. And let's be honest, the only people who are really pissed off are those that already hate muslims anyway. They'll hate muslims no matter what, so there's really no point in worrying about appeasing them because they'll never be satisfied.
You're right that the media didn't portray it as offensive to begin, but I found it offensive to begin with. And yes, its a "community center", but it has a mosque in it, so to me its just a mosque. Same goes for Christian community centers and their "youth groups": Just another name for a Church.
I stand by my point though: Why there? How would you not see this hatred coming? I have no sympathy for the Muslims leading this project because all of this hatred and protest would be avoided if they used even the slightest bit of common sense and built it further from ground zero. Not everyone in America has forgotten about 9/11(although most have...) so this rage is justified.
For the people that reply:You cant just group all of of Islam into the radical Islam category, your right. Just like you cant group every gun owner into a serial killing maniac. But it would still be incredibly distasteful and rude to build a 13 story Gun community center right next to Columbine would it not?
Why not there?
It's their right to do so. A mosque doesnt symbolize Terrorism unless you believe islam = terrorism. Nevermind the fact that it isn't being built by Ground Zero...more along the lines of A couple blocks away. What's "far enough" for you exactly? Hell it won't even look like a mosque. Just a regular building in the swarm of other buildings in New York
This sort of ridiculous intolerance just gives the Taliban more support. If you're offended, that's frankly your problem. Luckily most of our laws in the US aren't built around what offends people.
Why not there? Are you kidding me? You're literally proving my point about most Americans already forgetting about 9/11 if I have to remind you that two blocks away 2000 Americans died because some Muslims killed in the name of Islam.
I know what your argument to this is: But those Muslims were radical Al Queada members!(I would agree btw). The problem is, who are we to call Al Queada radical? Have you read the verses they cite from the Koran to justify their actions? Those versus exist believe it or not.
You and I would consider most of the Muslims that live in America to be moderate: They live by our laws, are contributing members of our society, and are generally good people. They cite their own verses to justify their way of life, and those verse are also in the Koran. Guess what? Al Queada considers these Muslims to be radical, and wrong.
My point: Islam is a religion that, like Christianity, is very broad and open to massive amounts of interpretation. I don't think Islam=terrorism. But I do think Islam=threat. And yes, i believe Christianity=threat as well. The only reason I take a more militant stance towards Islam is because whats the worst group of Christians going to do to me in this modern age? Annoy me with their stupidity probably. When it comes to Islam its obviously a whole lot worse(See: NICHOLAS BERG).
I'll be the first to admit it: I am intolerant of religion. But you, and so many other Americans are ignorant to reality.
Instead of using the smallest amount of common sense to realize that building a Muslim community center as close as possible to ground zero is a dick move you throw around the word "right"(as in right to build it there) like its the only thing that matters. It reminds me of George Carlin's greatest piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1uFcAE .
Umm, we call Al Queada radical because they fucking BLOW THINGS UP. Normal people do not do this.
By the way, do you know how huge two city blocks is in new york? Apparently you don't, or you'd realize all these complaints are completely silly.
Also, to you saying everyone forgot about 9/11 because they disagree with you, be quiet, thats a ridiculous statement and you know it. We didn't forget about it, we remember it very well. We also know we as americans shouldn't punish a religion because there are some idiots that exist that happen to follow it as well.
On August 31 2010 15:57 Half wrote: It always amuses me to no end when Atheists (talking as an Atheist) basically become a mirror of those they hate, parroting demagogues and using their viewpoints to justify marginalizing another human being.
Atheistic intolerance is still intolerance. International communism is dogmatically atheistic and look those countries turned out. Atheism doesn't necessary make the world better place. Often they just find a secular dogma to take the place of religion, and those secular dogmas justify mass murder just as well if not more effectively than religion.
My point: Islam is a religion that, like Christianity, is very broad and open to massive amounts of interpretation. I don't think Islam=terrorism. But I do think Islam=threat. And yes, i believe Christianity=threat as well.
In other words you view people with differences then your own as a threat.
lool.
It always amuses me to no end when Atheists (talking as an Atheist) basically become a mirror of those they hate, parroting demagogues and using their viewpoints to justify marginalizing another human being.
The exact statement can be said, and has been said, about Atheism itself when Atheism has been a distabalizing force in the world. Ministers in the US parroted your exact same argument through the Bolshevik Revolution, Throughout the ensuing Red Scare, and well up into the 80s.
The violence and conflict in the Middle East is not about Islam. It is about Power and Money, and the beliefs cherished by the people are just another tool used to achieve that mean. "Atheism" isn't intrinsically less susceptible to intolerance or stupidity, as you are currently demonstrating, or less susceptible to manipulation by those whom have an agenda, as has been demonstrated -repeatedly- throughout history.
Of course Atheists can be as much of a threat as anyone else, I never denied that. But right now, how many violent atheist movements are there? I'm not saying we take away the Muslims right to build there, I'm just saying its an asshole move to build there, and the fact that they say its to "build bridges and promote tolerance" is bullshit because that's obviously not going to happen.
Slago: Is there scripture in the Bible that endorses pedophiles? I haven't checked to be honest but I don't remember the priests backing up their actions with any scripture. You obviously did not read my post because I state that there are perfectly fine Muslims in this country. I'm not calling every Muslim a terrorist I'm calling Islam a threat. I could give the nicest man in the world a nuclear bomb, but he would still be a threat. Does the Koran not endorse the killing of infidels? Obviously its open to interpretation which is why we have radical groups but the fact remains that its still in their holy scripture. And obviously most Muslims in this country do not interpret the Koran literally and kill every non believer.
Pann: You and I consider them radical because they blow things up, but that's just one way of eliminating the infidel, which their holy scripture entitles them to do. In other words, its not radical for them.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just saying that its rude of them to build that close(yes I know the distance between blocks in New York) because that's as close as they COULD build it. Their trying to get a reaction and its working. And if their goal is to really build bridges then they are going to totally fail. If they want to build it there, fine.
My point: Islam is a religion that, like Christianity, is very broad and open to massive amounts of interpretation. I don't think Islam=terrorism. But I do think Islam=threat. And yes, i believe Christianity=threat as well.
In other words you view people with differences then your own as a threat.
lool.
It always amuses me to no end when Atheists (talking as an Atheist) basically become a mirror of those they hate, parroting demagogues and using their viewpoints to justify marginalizing another human being.
The exact statement can be said, and has been said, about Atheism itself when Atheism has been a distabalizing force in the world. Ministers in the US parroted your exact same argument through the Bolshevik Revolution, Throughout the ensuing Red Scare, and well up into the 80s.
The violence and conflict in the Middle East is not about Islam. It is about Power and Money, and the beliefs cherished by the people are just another tool used to achieve that mean. "Atheism" isn't intrinsically less susceptible to intolerance or stupidity, as you are currently demonstrating, or less susceptible to manipulation by those whom have an agenda, as has been demonstrated -repeatedly- throughout history.
Pann: You and I consider them radical because they blow things up, but that's just one way of eliminating the infidel, which their holy scripture entitles them to do. In other words, its not radical for them.
Yes, it is radical for them. The average Muslim I know does not blow things up. Muslims who blow things up are still radical for other Muslims.
My point: Islam is a religion that, like Christianity, is very broad and open to massive amounts of interpretation. I don't think Islam=terrorism. But I do think Islam=threat. And yes, i believe Christianity=threat as well.
In other words you view people with differences then your own as a threat.
lool.
It always amuses me to no end when Atheists (talking as an Atheist) basically become a mirror of those they hate, parroting demagogues and using their viewpoints to justify marginalizing another human being.
The exact statement can be said, and has been said, about Atheism itself when Atheism has been a distabalizing force in the world. Ministers in the US parroted your exact same argument through the Bolshevik Revolution, Throughout the ensuing Red Scare, and well up into the 80s.
The violence and conflict in the Middle East is not about Islam. It is about Power and Money, and the beliefs cherished by the people are just another tool used to achieve that mean. "Atheism" isn't intrinsically less susceptible to intolerance or stupidity, as you are currently demonstrating, or less susceptible to manipulation by those whom have an agenda, as has been demonstrated -repeatedly- throughout history.
Pann: You and I consider them radical because they blow things up, but that's just one way of eliminating the infidel, which their holy scripture entitles them to do. In other words, its not radical for them.
Yes, it is radical for them. The average Muslim I know does not blow things up. Muslims who blow things up are still radical for other Muslims.
I completely agree, I think your missing my point though: Its still in the scripture. All I'm saying is that since it's in the scripture, for them(aka, their point of view) its not radical. I'm assuming you read of Mohammad's conquests? Although some of his conquered lands were able to practice their religion in peace(for a tax of course), many pagan religions in the middle east were slaughtered outright for their beliefs. Are you calling Muhammad a radical? Because he is the Islamic prophet after all.
if you want to criticize Islam on the basis of Mohammad's conquest, what about the bible? does the bible not give reference to what happens to the non-believers? or what about the Crusades? those were in fact authorized by the pope!
if you want to criticize Islam on the basis of Mohammad's conquest, what about the bible? does the bible not give reference to what happens to the non-believers? or what about the Crusades? those were in fact authorized by the pope!
Your 100% right dybydx.
I'm a little confused as to why you brought this up though. If I came off as someone trying to endorse Christianity at the expense of Islam then I'm sorry, because that was not my point at all. Maybe you only read my last post?
My point: Islam is a religion that, like Christianity, is very broad and open to massive amounts of interpretation. I don't think Islam=terrorism. But I do think Islam=threat. And yes, i believe Christianity=threat as well.
In other words you view people with differences then your own as a threat.
lool.
It always amuses me to no end when Atheists (talking as an Atheist) basically become a mirror of those they hate, parroting demagogues and using their viewpoints to justify marginalizing another human being.
The exact statement can be said, and has been said, about Atheism itself when Atheism has been a distabalizing force in the world. Ministers in the US parroted your exact same argument through the Bolshevik Revolution, Throughout the ensuing Red Scare, and well up into the 80s.
The violence and conflict in the Middle East is not about Islam. It is about Power and Money, and the beliefs cherished by the people are just another tool used to achieve that mean. "Atheism" isn't intrinsically less susceptible to intolerance or stupidity, as you are currently demonstrating, or less susceptible to manipulation by those whom have an agenda, as has been demonstrated -repeatedly- throughout history.
Of course Atheists can be as much of a threat as anyone else, I never denied that. But right now, how many violent atheist movements are there? I'm not saying we take away the Muslims right to build there, I'm just saying its an asshole move to build there, and the fact that they say its to "build bridges and promote tolerance" is bullshit because that's obviously not going to happen.
Slago: Is there scripture in the Bible that endorses pedophiles? I haven't checked to be honest but I don't remember the priests backing up their actions with any scripture. You obviously did not read my post because I state that there are perfectly fine Muslims in this country. I'm not calling every Muslim a terrorist I'm calling Islam a threat. I could give the nicest man in the world a nuclear bomb, but he would still be a threat. Does the Koran not endorse the killing of infidels? Obviously its open to interpretation which is why we have radical groups but the fact remains that its still in their holy scripture. And obviously most Muslims in this country do not interpret the Koran literally and kill every non believer.
Pann: You and I consider them radical because they blow things up, but that's just one way of eliminating the infidel, which their holy scripture entitles them to do. In other words, its not radical for them.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just saying that its rude of them to build that close(yes I know the distance between blocks in New York) because that's as close as they COULD build it. Their trying to get a reaction and its working. And if their goal is to really build bridges then they are going to totally fail. If they want to build it there, fine.
If building a mosque close to ground zero educates people on islam and makes them change their view on muslimic people, I'm all for it. For example the notion that islam in itself is bad, because there are passages in the Qur'an that propagate violence. Similar quotes can be found in the bible aswell, but does that makes christians violent people? No. Do all so called christians actually really live how the bible tells them to? No. Do all muslims follow the Qur'an word for word? No. You can't use the inability of a few uneducated people to interpret the Qur'an correctly as an excuse to deny many more peaceful muslims a mosque that is clearly meant to improve the relationship between the US and muslims.
Also, think about how this event could be used by US citizens to improve their reputation in the muslim world aswell. Those suicide attackers were just misguided tools of well educated and intelligent people. Whatever the reason they attacked the US, the US should take this chance to show muslims outside of america, that there was no reason for this hatred.
I'm shocked at how biased Fox News is reporting on this matter. That's really the lowest level of journalism I've ever seen.
On August 31 2010 15:15 Slago wrote: I am raging so hard right now all these fucking idiots (sorry mods temp ban me if you want but I can't handle it) have no idea about anything there blaming all muslims for the acts of a few, are you fucking kidding me, really? you blame all muslims for 9/11 give your fucking head a shake. Ever realize muslims were killed in 9/11 aswell have you no concept of reality to be so ignorant to blame an entire religion for the acts of a few. Is everyone that fucking ignorant or just stupid? It makes me so sad that humanity stil puts up dividers on people based on race and religion, you can deny it all you want but if youre against the mosque essentially you blame all muslims for 9/11. an entire culture based on a few extremist, tell me do you think all catholics are pedofiles? no. Do you blame all catholics for the acts of a corrupted catholics that raped little boys? no you don't. So do not ever blame a religion for the acts of PEOPLE thats what they are people not just "MUSLIMS" you go up to any muslim you know and ask them what they thought of 9/11 I gaurantee you that absolutely none will say "fuck yeah, death to america" do you people have any idea the absolute ignorance you put out.
Sorry mods for the language but please understand that this is a very passionate issue for me and I can't deal with the absolute ignorance people display.
Believe it or not, the Muslims involved with 9/11 aren't the only muslims that wish death upon America.
To determine if the ground zero mosque is offensive the only thing you have to look at is the intentions of the developers. If they intend for it to be a slap in the face with the mosque overlooking their successful mission then it is offensive. Really simple, isn't it? It's incredibly naive to assume that every muslim with ill sentinment towards the US were on the hijacked 9/11 flights so every other muslim left in the world loves America so it's impossible for the ground zero mosque developers intentions be anything but pure.
My point: Islam is a religion that, like Christianity, is very broad and open to massive amounts of interpretation. I don't think Islam=terrorism. But I do think Islam=threat. And yes, i believe Christianity=threat as well.
In other words you view people with differences then your own as a threat.
lool.
It always amuses me to no end when Atheists (talking as an Atheist) basically become a mirror of those they hate, parroting demagogues and using their viewpoints to justify marginalizing another human being.
The exact statement can be said, and has been said, about Atheism itself when Atheism has been a distabalizing force in the world. Ministers in the US parroted your exact same argument through the Bolshevik Revolution, Throughout the ensuing Red Scare, and well up into the 80s.
The violence and conflict in the Middle East is not about Islam. It is about Power and Money, and the beliefs cherished by the people are just another tool used to achieve that mean. "Atheism" isn't intrinsically less susceptible to intolerance or stupidity, as you are currently demonstrating, or less susceptible to manipulation by those whom have an agenda, as has been demonstrated -repeatedly- throughout history.
Of course Atheists can be as much of a threat as anyone else, I never denied that. But right now, how many violent atheist movements are there? I'm not saying we take away the Muslims right to build there, I'm just saying its an asshole move to build there, and the fact that they say its to "build bridges and promote tolerance" is bullshit because that's obviously not going to happen.
Slago: Is there scripture in the Bible that endorses pedophiles? I haven't checked to be honest but I don't remember the priests backing up their actions with any scripture. You obviously did not read my post because I state that there are perfectly fine Muslims in this country. I'm not calling every Muslim a terrorist I'm calling Islam a threat. I could give the nicest man in the world a nuclear bomb, but he would still be a threat. Does the Koran not endorse the killing of infidels? Obviously its open to interpretation which is why we have radical groups but the fact remains that its still in their holy scripture. And obviously most Muslims in this country do not interpret the Koran literally and kill every non believer.
Pann: You and I consider them radical because they blow things up, but that's just one way of eliminating the infidel, which their holy scripture entitles them to do. In other words, its not radical for them.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just saying that its rude of them to build that close(yes I know the distance between blocks in New York) because that's as close as they COULD build it. Their trying to get a reaction and its working. And if their goal is to really build bridges then they are going to totally fail. If they want to build it there, fine.
If building a mosque close to ground zero educates people on islam and makes them change their view on muslimic people, I'm all for it. For example the notion that islam in itself is bad, because there are passages in the Qur'an that propagate violence. Similar quotes can be found in the bible aswell, but does that makes christians violent people? No. Do all so called christians actually really live how the bible tells them to? No. Do all muslims follow the Qur'an word for word? No. You can't use the inability of a few uneducated people to interpret the Qur'an correctly as an excuse to deny many more peaceful muslims a mosque that is clearly meant to improve the relationship between the US and muslims.
Also, think about how this event could be used by US citizens to improve their reputation in the muslim world aswell. Those suicide attackers were just misguided tools of well educated and intelligent people. Whatever the reason they attacked the US, the US should take this chance to show muslims outside of america, that there was no reason for this hatred.
I'm shocked at how biased Fox News is reporting on this matter. That's really the lowest level of journalism I've ever seen.
Well what do you really expect from Fox lol?
Anyways, I'll be honest: I don't give a flying fuck what the Muslim world thinks about America. And by "Muslim world" I'm talking about countries living under the Sharia, not Muslims living in "Western countries". I've spent a little bit of time in some of these countries and their the most ass backwards crude places I've been to(although I'm sure there's worse in the world). The US caring about how we look to them is like a grown man worrying how an infant will perceive him. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think we should nuke them or anything, I just don't think we should bend over backwards to try and appease them.
As for your original point, I don't think you have really digested what I posted earlier. I already agreed that not all Muslims are bad, and that these Muslims ignore the violent passages in the Koran. My argument is how could this improve relations? How is this going to "educate" us naysayers of this mosque? I don't need to be told by a religious person how great and peaceful that their religion is. Its no doubt going to be biased and I don't want to hear it. I own a Koran and have read enough of it to know about how dangerous it is. Listening to a Muslim trying to convince me that Islam is a beautiful way of life is probably as much fun as having Mormons on my doorstep at 7AM Saturday morning telling me about how great Joseph Smith was.
By building this "community center" as close as they possibly could to ground zero they are displaying an obvious act of insensitivity and belligerence. Hell even when the Church started to establish places of Christian worship around Auschwitz the Pope shut it down because he knew religious establishments have no place around hollowed ground.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On August 31 2010 15:15 Slago wrote: I am raging so hard right now all these fucking idiots (sorry mods temp ban me if you want but I can't handle it) have no idea about anything there blaming all muslims for the acts of a few, are you fucking kidding me, really? you blame all muslims for 9/11 give your fucking head a shake. Ever realize muslims were killed in 9/11 aswell have you no concept of reality to be so ignorant to blame an entire religion for the acts of a few. Is everyone that fucking ignorant or just stupid? It makes me so sad that humanity stil puts up dividers on people based on race and religion, you can deny it all you want but if youre against the mosque essentially you blame all muslims for 9/11. an entire culture based on a few extremist, tell me do you think all catholics are pedofiles? no. Do you blame all catholics for the acts of a corrupted catholics that raped little boys? no you don't. So do not ever blame a religion for the acts of PEOPLE thats what they are people not just "MUSLIMS" you go up to any muslim you know and ask them what they thought of 9/11 I gaurantee you that absolutely none will say "fuck yeah, death to america" do you people have any idea the absolute ignorance you put out.
Sorry mods for the language but please understand that this is a very passionate issue for me and I can't deal with the absolute ignorance people display. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe it or not, the Muslims involved with 9/11 aren't the only muslims that wish death upon America.
To determine if the ground zero mosque is offensive the only thing you have to look at is the intentions of the developers. If they intend for it to be a slap in the face with the mosque overlooking their successful mission then it is offensive. Really simple, isn't it? It's incredibly naive to assume that every muslim with ill sentinment towards the US were on the hijacked 9/11 flights so every other muslim left in the world loves America so it's impossible for the ground zero mosque developers intentions be anything but pure.
uuugh this is excactly the ignorance I'm talking about you are again blaming every muslim for 9/11, you do realize that hating america isn't part of their religion you ignorant fuck, you are a complete idiot to believe that the mosque is being built to spite the 9/11 victims. You really beleive there are a ton of terrorists living in america? No you dumbass stop watching 24 and come back to reality please, and there you go AGAIN with the MUSLIMS, they were also men does that mean that building a YMCA near ground zero is offensive. you are obviously too idiotic to read my whole post or you would've read the part about the catholic priests but I guess your too dumb and ignrant and caught up in your fanatasy white supremist world to realize. but just so you hopefully read it no one blames all catholics for raping little boys, WHY THE FUCK BLAME ALL MUSLIMS FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS. Muslim religion does not support the attacks you dumb fuck
On August 31 2010 23:18 Slago wrote: You really beleive there are a ton of terrorists living in america? No you dumbass stop watching 24 and come back to reality please
Funnily enough, most of the time it was some pasty white dudes that are the masterminds!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On August 31 2010 15:15 Slago wrote: I am raging so hard right now all these fucking idiots (sorry mods temp ban me if you want but I can't handle it) have no idea about anything there blaming all muslims for the acts of a few, are you fucking kidding me, really? you blame all muslims for 9/11 give your fucking head a shake. Ever realize muslims were killed in 9/11 aswell have you no concept of reality to be so ignorant to blame an entire religion for the acts of a few. Is everyone that fucking ignorant or just stupid? It makes me so sad that humanity stil puts up dividers on people based on race and religion, you can deny it all you want but if youre against the mosque essentially you blame all muslims for 9/11. an entire culture based on a few extremist, tell me do you think all catholics are pedofiles? no. Do you blame all catholics for the acts of a corrupted catholics that raped little boys? no you don't. So do not ever blame a religion for the acts of PEOPLE thats what they are people not just "MUSLIMS" you go up to any muslim you know and ask them what they thought of 9/11 I gaurantee you that absolutely none will say "fuck yeah, death to america" do you people have any idea the absolute ignorance you put out.
Sorry mods for the language but please understand that this is a very passionate issue for me and I can't deal with the absolute ignorance people display. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe it or not, the Muslims involved with 9/11 aren't the only muslims that wish death upon America.
To determine if the ground zero mosque is offensive the only thing you have to look at is the intentions of the developers. If they intend for it to be a slap in the face with the mosque overlooking their successful mission then it is offensive. Really simple, isn't it? It's incredibly naive to assume that every muslim with ill sentinment towards the US were on the hijacked 9/11 flights so every other muslim left in the world loves America so it's impossible for the ground zero mosque developers intentions be anything but pure.
uuugh this is excactly the ignorance I'm talking about you are again blaming every muslim for 9/11, you do realize that hating america isn't part of their religion you ignorant fuck, you are a complete idiot to believe that the mosque is being built to spite the 9/11 victims. You really beleive there are a ton of terrorists living in america? No you dumbass stop watching 24 and come back to reality please, and there you go AGAIN with the MUSLIMS, they were also men does that mean that building a YMCA near ground zero is offensive. you are obviously too idiotic to read my whole post or you would've read the part about the catholic priests but I guess your too dumb and ignrant and caught up in your fanatasy white supremist world to realize. but just so you hopefully read it no one blames all catholics for raping little boys, WHY THE FUCK BLAME ALL MUSLIMS FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS. Muslim religion does not support the attacks you dumb fuck
The Qu'ran an the Hadith recommand several time to "fight" for your belief, and as the Qu'ran is so poorly written and doesn't contextualize its revelations, it's kind of hard to really understand what that means. It might sound strange for a common atheist or christian who did read the Bible, to understand how a Holy Book can exist "without context", but there simply isn't any ! The Qu'ran is nothing more than a random compilation of un-dated and vague revelations.
The first sourats of the Qu'ran tell you to 'respect the christians/jews blablabla', then 'be charitable' and suddently 'Kill every single infidels you meet', 'Take people who do not embrace the religion of Allah as slaves' and finally the book concludes 'respect blablabla, they've their religion you have yours'... Contrary to a popular belief, they're very very few full of hatred verses (probably around 5 - 10), but people can't know for sure in what circumstances they should apply these horrible verses. Good people will tell you that it was in the case of a holy war dictated by God, or that is was self-defense after muslims got persecuted for a long time, "bad" people will tell you that it is God's eternal way of propagating the religion of truth. A lot of muslims tend to use the Hadith (compilations of the so called friends of the prophet Muhammed sws, who wrote down what they saw and heard of him) to determine in what circumstances things were said, but they're so obviously full of shit that even the specialists agree that a lot of them were invented, so even for a believer it is risky to use them. The other big issue with the Hadith is that all the crazy shit about the muslim faith (lapidation, all rituals, slavery...) comes from them. Recently, a group of people (called the Qu'ranist) has emerged and is rejecting everything about the Sunna (Hadiths), it has been declared as a sect by the muslim authorities... Why ? Because they use the thousands of Hadiths that nobody read as a way to control people, they're the one who tells you which Hadith is false, right, or how to interpret them. Without the Hadith, they would lose control, that's why I believe that the only way for Islam to evolve would be to forget everything about the Hadiths like jews forgot everything about the Talmud, or the Christians about the Old Testament.
By the way, I'm for the building of the Mosque as it is quite far from ground Zero (if I understood things correctly).
Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
The Hadiths seem very politicized. Seeing as both Sunni and Shia denominations have separate collections for what's considered canon or not. It would not surprise me if most were written as an affirmation of ones religious beliefs, rather then anything be considered divinely inspired.
Religious traditions are still followed by most Western religions as well. Many of them just aren't noticed as they've become commonplace in Western society. Many Jews still follow the Talmud, although Judaism is a more liberal religion then most in places like the US. Christians do not follow any of the Old Testament rules, as there are lines in the New Testament which specifically absolve them from doing so. Still, things like not eating meat on Friday are just now starting to go away (being raised Catholic, this used to be a big deal, until we discovered my brother was allergic to fish and convenience trumps religion every time).
Anyways, I'll be honest: I don't give a flying fuck what the Muslim world thinks about America. And by "Muslim world" I'm talking about countries living under the Sharia, not Muslims living in "Western countries". I've spent a little bit of time in some of these countries and their the most ass backwards crude places I've been to(although I'm sure there's worse in the world). The US caring about how we look to them is like a grown man worrying how an infant will perceive him. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think we should nuke them or anything, I just don't think we should bend over backwards to try and appease them.
Things in the world are a bit more complex than "Muslims over the world go >." Why should you care what the Muslim world thinks about America? Because those impoverished kids in the "ass backwards" areas you describe will become the bombers of tomorrow when we nonsensically deny our own principles of free religion and give in to anti-islamic sentiment.
On September 01 2010 07:54 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Things in the world are a bit more complex than "Muslims over the world go >." Why should you care what the Muslim world thinks about America? Because those impoverished kids in the "ass backwards" areas you describe will become the bombers of tomorrow when we nonsensically deny our own principles of free religion and give in to anti-islamic sentiment.
Nothing we do at home affects what impoverished kids halfway across the world think of us. That state of mind has more to do with what we do or what is done in our name in their countries. Only the really well educated and international kinds will think of US being hypocritical. The rest will only use it to confirm what they experience themselves.
This has far more effect inside our own borders on the opinion of Muslims in US and members of other unpopular religions. The hypocrisy of US's freedom of religion will help foster domestic terrorism and disengage the tolerant and non-extremist Muslims.
Teenagers Charged in Harassment at Mosque August 31, 2010 A group of teenagers in western New York have been accused of harassing members of a mosque by yelling obscenities and insults during evening prayers for Ramadan, sideswiping a worshiper with a vehicle and firing a shotgun outside, the authorities said on Tuesday.
I think they should remove all schools within two blocks, especially since schools could serve as a meeting place for like minded teenagers to meet and plot attacks in the very shadow of this horrible incident. And also out of respect for the victim's pain and suffering.
i m sorry but if they fired a shotgun, i dont think dats called harassment, dats prolly terrorism! we need to send these terrorist teens to guantanamo bay for interrogation, like that kid named khadr or something.
Anyways, I'll be honest: I don't give a flying fuck what the Muslim world thinks about America. And by "Muslim world" I'm talking about countries living under the Sharia, not Muslims living in "Western countries". I've spent a little bit of time in some of these countries and their the most ass backwards crude places I've been to(although I'm sure there's worse in the world). The US caring about how we look to them is like a grown man worrying how an infant will perceive him. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think we should nuke them or anything, I just don't think we should bend over backwards to try and appease them.
Things in the world are a bit more complex than "Muslims over the world go >." Why should you care what the Muslim world thinks about America? Because those impoverished kids in the "ass backwards" areas you describe will become the bombers of tomorrow when we nonsensically deny our own principles of free religion and give in to anti-islamic sentiment.
If they become the bombers of tomorrow then they're fighting against free religion. You think the 9/11 hijackers flew the planes into the twin towers in the name of religious freedom? Part of the reasons radical Muslims hate America so much is because of all of our freedoms. It clashes with the strict Sharia law they want everyone to live by. Sure this whole controversy might add a little fuel to their fire, but its not my fault they don't use common sense and figure out why it might be considered offensive.
Anyways, I'll be honest: I don't give a flying fuck what the Muslim world thinks about America. And by "Muslim world" I'm talking about countries living under the Sharia, not Muslims living in "Western countries". I've spent a little bit of time in some of these countries and their the most ass backwards crude places I've been to(although I'm sure there's worse in the world). The US caring about how we look to them is like a grown man worrying how an infant will perceive him. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think we should nuke them or anything, I just don't think we should bend over backwards to try and appease them.
Things in the world are a bit more complex than "Muslims over the world go >." Why should you care what the Muslim world thinks about America? Because those impoverished kids in the "ass backwards" areas you describe will become the bombers of tomorrow when we nonsensically deny our own principles of free religion and give in to anti-islamic sentiment.
Part of the reasons radical Muslims hate America so much is because of all of our freedoms.
Such a canned, America-centric response. There's no indication in any research publication that terrorists commit acts out of jealousy.
They might hate US if we tried to force those freedoms on them.
Maybe that's bringing "democracy" to rest of the world. But they mostly hate US for the "to the rest of the world" part rather than for the "'democracy'" part.
Anyways, I'll be honest: I don't give a flying fuck what the Muslim world thinks about America. And by "Muslim world" I'm talking about countries living under the Sharia, not Muslims living in "Western countries". I've spent a little bit of time in some of these countries and their the most ass backwards crude places I've been to(although I'm sure there's worse in the world). The US caring about how we look to them is like a grown man worrying how an infant will perceive him. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think we should nuke them or anything, I just don't think we should bend over backwards to try and appease them.
Things in the world are a bit more complex than "Muslims over the world go >." Why should you care what the Muslim world thinks about America? Because those impoverished kids in the "ass backwards" areas you describe will become the bombers of tomorrow when we nonsensically deny our own principles of free religion and give in to anti-islamic sentiment.
Part of the reasons radical Muslims hate America so much is because of all of our freedoms.
Such a canned, America-centric response. There's no indication in any research publication that terrorists commit acts out of jealousy.
The terrorist's believe everyone should be muslim. Religous freedom goes against that right?
Anyways, I'll be honest: I don't give a flying fuck what the Muslim world thinks about America. And by "Muslim world" I'm talking about countries living under the Sharia, not Muslims living in "Western countries". I've spent a little bit of time in some of these countries and their the most ass backwards crude places I've been to(although I'm sure there's worse in the world). The US caring about how we look to them is like a grown man worrying how an infant will perceive him. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think we should nuke them or anything, I just don't think we should bend over backwards to try and appease them.
Things in the world are a bit more complex than "Muslims over the world go >." Why should you care what the Muslim world thinks about America? Because those impoverished kids in the "ass backwards" areas you describe will become the bombers of tomorrow when we nonsensically deny our own principles of free religion and give in to anti-islamic sentiment.
Part of the reasons radical Muslims hate America so much is because of all of our freedoms.
Such a canned, America-centric response. There's no indication in any research publication that terrorists commit acts out of jealousy.
I'm not saying they commit acts of terrorism because of jealousy. Many radical Muslims believe that Islam must blanket the entire world. How is this possible if you have a super power like the US promoting such blasphemous ideas like freedom of religion?
@TanGeng
Yes, your right. And trust me, I'm not for the militant spreading of democracy in the Islamic world. If I had it my way, I would have had the US leave Iraq right after we captured Saddam.
On September 01 2010 10:06 Archerofaiur wrote: The terrorist's believe everyone should be muslim. Religous freedom goes against that right?
No evidence that it's the driving force behind terrorism. Some Evangelical Christians also believe everyone should be Christians. Do we think of them as terrorists?
You know those angry Muslims rioted over critiques of Mohammad a while back. They claimed that it violated Muslim sensitivities. Now, this construction of a community center is violating 9/11 sensitivities. The world could use a lot more people with thicker skin and less sensitivity.
But if it's really offensive, feel free to demonstrate in front of the construction site every single day. Just don't riot and destroy any property or harm any people.
Anyways, I'll be honest: I don't give a flying fuck what the Muslim world thinks about America. And by "Muslim world" I'm talking about countries living under the Sharia, not Muslims living in "Western countries". I've spent a little bit of time in some of these countries and their the most ass backwards crude places I've been to(although I'm sure there's worse in the world). The US caring about how we look to them is like a grown man worrying how an infant will perceive him. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think we should nuke them or anything, I just don't think we should bend over backwards to try and appease them.
Things in the world are a bit more complex than "Muslims over the world go >." Why should you care what the Muslim world thinks about America? Because those impoverished kids in the "ass backwards" areas you describe will become the bombers of tomorrow when we nonsensically deny our own principles of free religion and give in to anti-islamic sentiment.
Part of the reasons radical Muslims hate America so much is because of all of our freedoms.
Such a canned, America-centric response. There's no indication in any research publication that terrorists commit acts out of jealousy.
I'm not saying they commit acts of terrorism because of jealousy. Many radical Muslims believe that Islam must blanket the entire world. How is this possible if you have a super power like the US promoting such blasphemous ideas like freedom of religion?
@TanGeng
Yes, your right. And trust me, I'm not for the militant spreading of democracy in the Islamic world. If I had it my way, I would have had the US leave Iraq right after we captured Saddam.
Well to be fair, we also have our own problems with some "Christians" in the USA. Apparently, there's not enough God in our lives guiding us or something.
On September 01 2010 10:06 Archerofaiur wrote: The terrorist's believe everyone should be muslim. Religous freedom goes against that right?
No evidence that it's the driving force behind terrorism. Some Evangelical Christians also believe everyone should be Christians. Do we think of them as terrorists?
You know those angry Muslims rioted over critiques of Mohammad a while back. They claimed that it violated Muslim sensitivities. Now, this construction of a community center is violating 9/11 sensitivities. The world could use a lot more people with thicker skin and less sensitivity.
But if it's really offensive, feel free to demonstrate in front of the construction site every single day. Just don't riot and destroy any property or harm any people.
If those Christians try to kill and conquer non believers to spread fear because they want to conquer the world for Christianity then yes, they are religious terrorists.
If those Christians try to kill and conquer non believers to spread fear because they want to conquer the world for Christianity then yes, they are religious terrorists.
like the founding fathers of the USA when they took land from the native Americans in the glorious name of the Lord?
On September 01 2010 10:06 Archerofaiur wrote: The terrorist's believe everyone should be muslim. Religous freedom goes against that right?
No evidence that it's the driving force behind terrorism. Some Evangelical Christians also believe everyone should be Christians. Do we think of them as terrorists?
You know those angry Muslims rioted over critiques of Mohammad a while back. They claimed that it violated Muslim sensitivities. Now, this construction of a community center is violating 9/11 sensitivities. The world could use a lot more people with thicker skin and less sensitivity.
But if it's really offensive, feel free to demonstrate in front of the construction site every single day. Just don't riot and destroy any property or harm any people.
If those Christians try to kill and conquer non believers to spread fear because they want to conquer the world for Christianity then yes, they are religious terrorists.
You don't quite understand the basis of Islamic terrorism, do you?
On September 01 2010 10:05 TanGeng wrote: They might hate US if we tried to force those freedoms on them.
Maybe that's bringing "democracy" to rest of the world. But they mostly hate US for the "to the rest of the world" part rather than for the "'democracy'" part.
This here is it. That's their problem with US.
The rest of the conquer the world to spread religion portion is largely defunct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On August 31 2010 15:15 Slago wrote: I am raging so hard right now all these fucking idiots (sorry mods temp ban me if you want but I can't handle it) have no idea about anything there blaming all muslims for the acts of a few, are you fucking kidding me, really? you blame all muslims for 9/11 give your fucking head a shake. Ever realize muslims were killed in 9/11 aswell have you no concept of reality to be so ignorant to blame an entire religion for the acts of a few. Is everyone that fucking ignorant or just stupid? It makes me so sad that humanity stil puts up dividers on people based on race and religion, you can deny it all you want but if youre against the mosque essentially you blame all muslims for 9/11. an entire culture based on a few extremist, tell me do you think all catholics are pedofiles? no. Do you blame all catholics for the acts of a corrupted catholics that raped little boys? no you don't. So do not ever blame a religion for the acts of PEOPLE thats what they are people not just "MUSLIMS" you go up to any muslim you know and ask them what they thought of 9/11 I gaurantee you that absolutely none will say "fuck yeah, death to america" do you people have any idea the absolute ignorance you put out.
Sorry mods for the language but please understand that this is a very passionate issue for me and I can't deal with the absolute ignorance people display. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe it or not, the Muslims involved with 9/11 aren't the only muslims that wish death upon America.
To determine if the ground zero mosque is offensive the only thing you have to look at is the intentions of the developers. If they intend for it to be a slap in the face with the mosque overlooking their successful mission then it is offensive. Really simple, isn't it? It's incredibly naive to assume that every muslim with ill sentinment towards the US were on the hijacked 9/11 flights so every other muslim left in the world loves America so it's impossible for the ground zero mosque developers intentions be anything but pure.
uuugh this is excactly the ignorance I'm talking about you are again blaming every muslim for 9/11, you do realize that hating america isn't part of their religion you ignorant fuck, you are a complete idiot to believe that the mosque is being built to spite the 9/11 victims. You really beleive there are a ton of terrorists living in america? No you dumbass stop watching 24 and come back to reality please, and there you go AGAIN with the MUSLIMS, they were also men does that mean that building a YMCA near ground zero is offensive. you are obviously too idiotic to read my whole post or you would've read the part about the catholic priests but I guess your too dumb and ignrant and caught up in your fanatasy white supremist world to realize. but just so you hopefully read it no one blames all catholics for raping little boys, WHY THE FUCK BLAME ALL MUSLIMS FOR TERRORIST ATTACKS. Muslim religion does not support the attacks you dumb fuck
User was warned for this post
Only a warning? lol
I actually did read your whole post and left out the part about the YMCA's and the catholic priests and the KKK as a courtesy to you because those arguments are so retarded that there's really no way to respond to them other than informing you how retarded they are.
Maybe English isn't your first language or maybe your reading comprehension just sucks but maybe you should re-read my post. The only one ranting about "MUSLIMS" is you. My post was directed at the DEVELOPERS of the Groud zero mosque. The ultimate irony here is that you are the ignorant one that is stereotyping all muslims. I am asking about their intentions and you are the one with the fingers in your ear saying "LALALALA ALL MUSLIMS ARE PEACEFUL." That's a stereotype you fool.
This is what talking to you is like:
Me: Sure they have a right to build there, but are they acting in bad faith?
You: BAD FAITH? SO NOW ISLAM IS A BAD FAITH? I GUESS CHRISTIANITY IS A GOOD FAITH HUH HOW ABOUT THE CATHOLIC PRIESTS THAT RAPE BOYS YOU IGNORANT TOOL
Holy crap Slago's rage was fun to read. People aren't blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few, that's foolish. Literally nobody is doing that. No person should be blamed for the acts of other people.
Some people are merely claiming that the Islamic belief system is probably the root of the decisions that some people made, the decisions to commit atrocities against non-Muslims. That's totally different and to most non-religious people, makes complete sense. They aren't bashing Muslims, most Muslims deserve just as much respect and consideration as any other rational human being; they are criticizing Islam for being an intolerant, middle-aged belief system founded in non-rational faith. And it's not like they are singling Islam out, every religion is like that. It's just easy to criticize Islam because of recent events.
If those Christians try to kill and conquer non believers to spread fear because they want to conquer the world for Christianity then yes, they are religious terrorists.
like the founding fathers of the USA when they took land from the native Americans in the glorious name of the Lord?
Well that was an American motivation more than religious one but yes, that's a good point. Doesn't really prove anything though because it happened way before we were all born. I cant be held accountable because of our nations past decisions. I wasn't there.
On September 01 2010 11:03 Meta wrote: Holy crap Slago's rage was fun to read. People aren't blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few, that's foolish. Literally nobody is doing that. No person should be blamed for the acts of other people.
Some people are merely claiming that the Islamic belief system is probably the root of the decisions that some people made, the decisions to commit atrocities against non-Muslims. That's totally different and to most non-religious people, makes complete sense. They aren't bashing Muslims, most Muslims deserve just as much respect and consideration as any other rational human being; they are criticizing Islam for being an intolerant, middle-aged belief system founded in non-rational faith. And it's not like they are singling Islam out, every religion is like that. It's just easy to criticize Islam because of recent events.
I soooo wanted to replace every instance of islam with christianity in this post :p Than I saw that you made the point in the last line and was like darn!
@Blackjack, if the developers told you their intentions would you believe them?
On September 01 2010 10:06 Archerofaiur wrote: The terrorist's believe everyone should be muslim. Religous freedom goes against that right?
No evidence that it's the driving force behind terrorism. Some Evangelical Christians also believe everyone should be Christians. Do we think of them as terrorists?
You know those angry Muslims rioted over critiques of Mohammad a while back. They claimed that it violated Muslim sensitivities. Now, this construction of a community center is violating 9/11 sensitivities. The world could use a lot more people with thicker skin and less sensitivity.
But if it's really offensive, feel free to demonstrate in front of the construction site every single day. Just don't riot and destroy any property or harm any people.
This is it.
Religion is just the vehicle that recruits and organizes these things. It's been used for similar purposes by nearly every other society on the planet, sometimes peacefully and other times violently. The mistake is to blame religion for the motivation, which is entirely political and secular. Like TanGeng said before, it's not about beliefs. It's about American foreign policy, particularly with regards to Israel and Saudi Arabia, but also with the rest of the region. The people's lives that are being radically changed are theirs, not ours.
On September 01 2010 11:03 Meta wrote: Holy crap Slago's rage was fun to read. People aren't blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few, that's foolish. Literally nobody is doing that. No person should be blamed for the acts of other people.
Some people are merely claiming that the Islamic belief system is probably the root of the decisions that some people made, the decisions to commit atrocities against non-Muslims. That's totally different and to most non-religious people, makes complete sense. They aren't bashing Muslims, most Muslims deserve just as much respect and consideration as any other rational human being; they are criticizing Islam for being an intolerant, middle-aged belief system founded in non-rational faith. And it's not like they are singling Islam out, every religion is like that. It's just easy to criticize Islam because of recent events.
@Blackjack, if the developers told you their intentions would you believe them?
/shrug. I don't know anything about them and I don't care enough to research to try to find out who they are. I'm not offended at all by the mosque and I couldn't care less if they build it there.
If my parents died in the WTC then I would want to know if someone is trying to spit on their grave. Someone with poor reading comprehension like that guy that quoted me earlier might take that to mean I hate all muslims and I think all muslims are responsible for 9/11. But I guess we can't all read past a 5th grade level
Links for parts 2-4 in video and related videos box on Youtube. Full interview is a bit over 30 minutes, but definitely worth it. Thoughts?
I was really interested in hearing him speak. Up until this point I had only heard him in like 1 other video so I didn't really know about him from him directly. I pretty much agree with everything he said. He does avoid some questions rather blatantly, but I like how he carried himself. As for the subject matter and what he said, I completely agree about how certain politicians are using this issue for their own gain. If anything, it's an issue for New York. It shouldn't involve so many national figures. I also loved the part of the radicals vs moderates in part 2. When he was arguing about why they can't move because radicals would still see it as an attack on Muslims and how that could affect security was such an interesting argument that I'd never thought of in depth. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a really well spoken dude.
Haha when the interviewer brought up how it was "sacred" ground, even though it already has strip clubs, that man threw the serious hammer down. Not sure if that part is in the above video, but it's worth watching.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
Honestly, I'd just throw this here again so people get to understand why religion is being misused. Religion is used for recruitment cause it's the cheapest, instead of trying to bribe people into following you with money and physical stuff, you just offer them heaven in afterlife and make them believe they will go to heaven in their afterlife. It costs you nothing and surprisingly it works wonders.
All of the muslims I've met, and there are a lot, have been generally nice people.
As for the Qur'an, it was written down within one man's lifetime and by the same author. It is extremely faithful to the original version, given that the language it was written in was still alive outside the clergy (unlike latin) and the book did not have to be re-translated repeatedly. The shortness of the Qur'an compared to the bible also helps with maintaining accuracy. Devout muslims sometimes memorize the whole thing.
To make up for all this, the Qur'an is incredibly dry and eminently unquotable. Muhammad may have been a great theologian and religious teacher but an engaging writer he was not. Interesting battles, love stories and all the stuff that makes the bible dramatic aren't there.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
On September 10 2010 22:39 caewil wrote: All of the muslims I've met, and there are a lot, have been generally nice people.
As for the Qur'an, it was written down within one man's lifetime and by the same author. It is extremely faithful to the original version, given that the language it was written in was still alive outside the clergy (unlike latin) and the book did not have to be re-translated repeatedly. The shortness of the Qur'an compared to the bible also helps with maintaining accuracy. Devout muslims sometimes memorize the whole thing.
To make up for all this, the Qur'an is incredibly dry and eminently unquotable. Muhammad may have been a great theologian and religious teacher but an engaging writer he was not. Interesting battles, love stories and all the stuff that makes the bible dramatic aren't there.
I'm sorry but you just haven't read the Qur'an then. It's employs a poetic narrative type that is, in fact, very engaging. That being said, it might be a bit hard to get the right feel for the book with direct translations to English. It really feels like bible with a less vengeful and aggressive but more demanding god, with less violence in stories (bible stories are present in the Qur'an as well).
Good (and the same) story overall as Judaism and Christianity. I just think that the authorship should be given the credit it deserves.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
You have the wrong perspective here. It's the interpretations of the book that people capitalize on to exert control over masses, not the political ideologies present in the book. The text itself is very transparent in nature, partly due to the language it employs as well as the narrative style.
I don't see how Kosher topic is a political one, but surely anyone with half a brain can see that some of the demands of these books are tailored to the needs of the people at that time.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
The Qur'an fits certain groups agendas but it hasn't been modified to do so. Obviously it was influenced by the political points of the time it was written. All books are, whether holy or otherwise.
That doesn't make it a collection of political points though. Unlike the Jewish laws, which were merely a statement and justification of the unwritten laws already practiced by the community, the Qur'anic laws were not in effect prior to the spread of Islam. Which was entirely Muhammad's point as he wanted to impose a new order on the Middle Eastern societies of his time.
EDIT: Well, I am comparing the Qur'an to the King James Version. If we compare it to the average bible, it comes off (in terms of writing) about as well and is MUCH better than the NIV and other modern translations. Possibly the english translation doesn't reflect the poetic nature well, I should stop trying to read it as prose.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
See this is what I meant by 'interpretations of the book' in the above post. This is specifically what's wrong with religion in general and is the reason why terrorism is possible. You have to be able to read and see that these rules are there for specific reasons, not because Allah wants a specific thing from you (except for maybe spiritual solitude and goodness towards others). To point out specifically;
You shall not eat pork because it takes a lot of water to raise pigs, they are dirty animals and people have very low hygiene standards at the time.
You don't drink because it's likely you'll become destructive, offensive or just plain addicted; causing you to lead a dysfunctional and inefficient life.
You pray 5 times a day, so you thank Allah for what he's given you in your life (that's even what's said in the prayers read 5 times a day), that you'll be good to others and you'll share your food, etc. At each prayer, you basically remind yourself of your core values. It's also an opportunity to get together with friends, bring people together and strengthen community ties.
It's when people say things like ' We do it because Allah commanded us so' that you enter the dangerous territory. This takes reason out the window, which Allah certainly wanted you to have.
In fact you say 'we don't need a reason, Allah doesn't has to provide us with one, because he's Allah'. That, I'd say, is the mark of an uneducated point of view/mind. If anything, Qur'an diligently states the importance of having an open and inquiring mind, asking the questions 'how' and 'why' and having learning as the primary goal of life.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
See this is what I meant by 'interpretations of the book' in the above post. This is specifically what's wrong with religion in general and is the reason why terrorism is possible. You have to be able to read and see that these rules are there for specific reasons, not because Allah wants a specific thing from you (except for maybe spiritual solitude and goodness towards others). To point out specifically;
You shall not eat pork because it takes a lot of water to raise pigs, they are dirty animals and people have very low hygiene standards at the time.
You don't drink because it's likely you'll become destructive, offensive or just plain addicted; causing you to lead a dysfunctional and inefficient life.
You pray 5 times a day, so you thank Allah for what he's given you in your life (that's even what's said in the prayers read 5 times a day), that you'll be good to others and you'll share your food, etc. At each prayer, you basically remind yourself of your core values. It's also an opportunity to get together with friends, bring people together and strengthen community ties.
It's when people say things like ' We do it because Allah commanded us so' that you enter the dangerous territory. This takes reason out the window, which Allah certainly wanted you to have.
In fact you say 'we don't need a reason, Allah doesn't has to provide us with one, because he's Allah'. That, I'd say, is the mark of an educated point of view/mind. If anything, Qur'an diligently states the importance of having an open and inquiring mind, asking the questions 'how' and 'why' and having learning as the primary goal of life.
Looks to me you're the one interpreting things. No where in the quran or islam, these reasons are invoked.
Sure you should not blindly follow principles, and there is practical reason to each rules. But the real reason you're following them is because to believe in god and trust him
You don't follow your country laws because you understand each and every one of them, but because you don't want to be an outlaw, and believe in democracy and stuff
I certainly seek to understand my country's laws. And because I believe in "democracy and stuff" I seek to overturn those I believe to be unjust. I choose to follow the law because I believe that most of them are good and that by disobeying a bad law I weaken the force of those laws which are good.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
See this is what I meant by 'interpretations of the book' in the above post. This is specifically what's wrong with religion in general and is the reason why terrorism is possible. You have to be able to read and see that these rules are there for specific reasons, not because Allah wants a specific thing from you (except for maybe spiritual solitude and goodness towards others). To point out specifically;
You shall not eat pork because it takes a lot of water to raise pigs, they are dirty animals and people have very low hygiene standards at the time.
You don't drink because it's likely you'll become destructive, offensive or just plain addicted; causing you to lead a dysfunctional and inefficient life.
You pray 5 times a day, so you thank Allah for what he's given you in your life (that's even what's said in the prayers read 5 times a day), that you'll be good to others and you'll share your food, etc. At each prayer, you basically remind yourself of your core values. It's also an opportunity to get together with friends, bring people together and strengthen community ties.
It's when people say things like ' We do it because Allah commanded us so' that you enter the dangerous territory. This takes reason out the window, which Allah certainly wanted you to have.
In fact you say 'we don't need a reason, Allah doesn't has to provide us with one, because he's Allah'. That, I'd say, is the mark of an uneducated point of view/mind. If anything, Qur'an diligently states the importance of having an open and inquiring mind, asking the questions 'how' and 'why' and having learning as the primary goal of life.
This is very good. I think every religion should be looked at from this perspective.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
See this is what I meant by 'interpretations of the book' in the above post. This is specifically what's wrong with religion in general and is the reason why terrorism is possible. You have to be able to read and see that these rules are there for specific reasons, not because Allah wants a specific thing from you (except for maybe spiritual solitude and goodness towards others). To point out specifically;
You shall not eat pork because it takes a lot of water to raise pigs, they are dirty animals and people have very low hygiene standards at the time.
You don't drink because it's likely you'll become destructive, offensive or just plain addicted; causing you to lead a dysfunctional and inefficient life.
You pray 5 times a day, so you thank Allah for what he's given you in your life (that's even what's said in the prayers read 5 times a day), that you'll be good to others and you'll share your food, etc. At each prayer, you basically remind yourself of your core values. It's also an opportunity to get together with friends, bring people together and strengthen community ties.
It's when people say things like ' We do it because Allah commanded us so' that you enter the dangerous territory. This takes reason out the window, which Allah certainly wanted you to have.
In fact you say 'we don't need a reason, Allah doesn't has to provide us with one, because he's Allah'. That, I'd say, is the mark of an educated point of view/mind. If anything, Qur'an diligently states the importance of having an open and inquiring mind, asking the questions 'how' and 'why' and having learning as the primary goal of life.
Looks to me you're the one interpreting things. No where in the quran or islam, these reasons are invoked.
Sure you should not blindly follow principles, and there is practical reason to each rules. But the real reason you're following them is because to believe in god and trust him
You don't follow your country laws because you understand each and every one of them, but because you don't want to be an outlaw, and believe in democracy and stuff
The book is open to nothing if not interpretation. It's very transparent and that's what the extremists take advantage of. The correct interpretation is obviously needed, but with so many uneducated people around, you get these 'you do it, because he said it so'.
You think those laws you speak of are in effect because senators just made them so? They're made for specific purposes. You obey the law, not believe in it. But every law is made for a reason by men (just like these books are written by men to spread peace and order), and are open for discussion and debate. If you don't understand your country's laws, that speaks of your ignorance but not of the lack of need to understand why they exist.
I guess a helpful reminder would be to point out that these books are fiction (speaking of man made law) and that there is no invisible man commanding you to say a prayer 33 times, because it's a special number and only he knows its meaning. But I suppose this is the wrong thread for an atheist to post something like this.
God does not need to give you any reason, religion is not for God, its for mankind. The concept of god doesnt need us, otherwise it wouldnt be God. You can judge, think, talk but the reason for your worship is not because they are good its because God wants it so. Todays perspective of " Everthing must be centered by Man, and everything must be understood or must be found reasonable by our limited brains" is something the concept doesnt accept. You either belaive God himself is not obliged to anything but his words since he is the God, or you dont accep the concept of God because otherwise God wouldnt be godly. After french revolution, the concept of state changed, isntead of states taking power from God, the state placed it self as God over the society. We are the children of this mentality and considering state laws to something completaly different. Anyways I gave my point and it is completaly clear.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
See this is what I meant by 'interpretations of the book' in the above post. This is specifically what's wrong with religion in general and is the reason why terrorism is possible. You have to be able to read and see that these rules are there for specific reasons, not because Allah wants a specific thing from you (except for maybe spiritual solitude and goodness towards others). To point out specifically;
You shall not eat pork because it takes a lot of water to raise pigs, they are dirty animals and people have very low hygiene standards at the time.
You don't drink because it's likely you'll become destructive, offensive or just plain addicted; causing you to lead a dysfunctional and inefficient life.
You pray 5 times a day, so you thank Allah for what he's given you in your life (that's even what's said in the prayers read 5 times a day), that you'll be good to others and you'll share your food, etc. At each prayer, you basically remind yourself of your core values. It's also an opportunity to get together with friends, bring people together and strengthen community ties.
It's when people say things like ' We do it because Allah commanded us so' that you enter the dangerous territory. This takes reason out the window, which Allah certainly wanted you to have. [b] In fact you say 'we don't need a reason, Allah doesn't has to provide us with one, because he's Allah'. That, I'd say, is the mark of an uneducated point of view/mind. If anything, Qur'an diligently states the importance of having an open and inquiring mind, asking the questions 'how' and 'why' and having learning as the primary goal of life.[/b[
you have no idea what I am talking about, I am talking about the basic principle for worshipping and practicing religion. The basic motive for those I mentioned above MUST be to obey the orders of the god. You can have additional reasons etc but without the intention of following the order, you take religion as a simple civil law nothing else. I am talking about God here, without understanding what I am meaing by God, please dont treat the subject as the belaivers considering God as a simple "State Authority"
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
See this is what I meant by 'interpretations of the book' in the above post. This is specifically what's wrong with religion in general and is the reason why terrorism is possible. You have to be able to read and see that these rules are there for specific reasons, not because Allah wants a specific thing from you (except for maybe spiritual solitude and goodness towards others). To point out specifically;
You shall not eat pork because it takes a lot of water to raise pigs, they are dirty animals and people have very low hygiene standards at the time.
You don't drink because it's likely you'll become destructive, offensive or just plain addicted; causing you to lead a dysfunctional and inefficient life.
You pray 5 times a day, so you thank Allah for what he's given you in your life (that's even what's said in the prayers read 5 times a day), that you'll be good to others and you'll share your food, etc. At each prayer, you basically remind yourself of your core values. It's also an opportunity to get together with friends, bring people together and strengthen community ties.
It's when people say things like ' We do it because Allah commanded us so' that you enter the dangerous territory. This takes reason out the window, which Allah certainly wanted you to have. [b] In fact you say 'we don't need a reason, Allah doesn't has to provide us with one, because he's Allah'. That, I'd say, is the mark of an uneducated point of view/mind. If anything, Qur'an diligently states the importance of having an open and inquiring mind, asking the questions 'how' and 'why' and having learning as the primary goal of life.[/b[
This is very good. I think every religion should be looked at from this perspective.
you have no idea what I am talking about, I am talking about the basic principle for worshipping and practicing religion. The basic motive for those I mentioned above MUST be to obey the orders of the god. You can have additional reasons etc but without the intention of following the order, you take religion as a simple civil law nothing else. I am talking about God here, without understanding what I am meaing by God, please dont treat the subject as the belaivers considering God as a simple "State Authority"
Why are you arguing that I have no idea what you are talking about? I took a post someone else made talking about a way to view religion and its practices, and agreed with it pointing out that I think the same can be said for every religion... not just Islam. If you disagree with me that's fine but don't act like I've been arguing with you.
The book is open to nothing if not interpretation.
have you read even parts of the quran? sure there's things you can interpret in every situation, religion or not. but this statement is kinda harsh
btw I'm agnostic
You see the reason behind it, that's why you obey it (same thing as seeing why democracy is good, and supporting it, not believing in it). Belief is not applicable to rational existences. It's the wrong word to choose to make an analogy regarding religion.
If you lived in a world where the majority of the population suffered from schizophrenia and that spinning on your head 3 times before you left your house was made into law, would you still obey it because you favor and support democracy?
Having written that statement, obviously I must've read the Qur'an to make such specific references. And why would it be harsh to say that the book is open to interpretation? You'd think with all the elaborate allegories and poetic symbolism in these books, the authors would want you to have a take home message. That's assuming that their target audience is human beings (having the ability to question and infer meaning) and not parrots (blindly repeating every word said or written).
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
See this is what I meant by 'interpretations of the book' in the above post. This is specifically what's wrong with religion in general and is the reason why terrorism is possible. You have to be able to read and see that these rules are there for specific reasons, not because Allah wants a specific thing from you (except for maybe spiritual solitude and goodness towards others). To point out specifically;
You shall not eat pork because it takes a lot of water to raise pigs, they are dirty animals and people have very low hygiene standards at the time.
You don't drink because it's likely you'll become destructive, offensive or just plain addicted; causing you to lead a dysfunctional and inefficient life.
You pray 5 times a day, so you thank Allah for what he's given you in your life (that's even what's said in the prayers read 5 times a day), that you'll be good to others and you'll share your food, etc. At each prayer, you basically remind yourself of your core values. It's also an opportunity to get together with friends, bring people together and strengthen community ties.
It's when people say things like ' We do it because Allah commanded us so' that you enter the dangerous territory. This takes reason out the window, which Allah certainly wanted you to have. [b] In fact you say 'we don't need a reason, Allah doesn't has to provide us with one, because he's Allah'. That, I'd say, is the mark of an uneducated point of view/mind. If anything, Qur'an diligently states the importance of having an open and inquiring mind, asking the questions 'how' and 'why' and having learning as the primary goal of life.[/b[
This is very good. I think every religion should be looked at from this perspective.
you have no idea what I am talking about, I am talking about the basic principle for worshipping and practicing religion. The basic motive for those I mentioned above MUST be to obey the orders of the god. You can have additional reasons etc but without the intention of following the order, you take religion as a simple civil law nothing else. I am talking about God here, without understanding what I am meaing by God, please dont treat the subject as the belaivers considering God as a simple "State Authority"
But here are we really following the words of God or the words of men? Let nothing be too sacred to be questioned - even God.
you believe in democracy, not arnachy, so you obey the law you believe in god, so you obey the commandements I don't see the subtility here
The book is open to nothing if not interpretation.
have you read even parts of the quran? sure there's things you can interpret in every situation, religion or not. but this statement is kinda harsh
btw I'm agnostic
You see the reason behind it, that's why you obey it (same thing as seeing why democracy is good, and supporting it, not believing in it). Belief is not applicable to rational existences. It's the wrong word to choose to make an analogy regarding religion.
if you believe in god, the reason why you obey commandments, is that you want to go to heaven. it may not be rational, but it seems a good reason.
and I think that "belief" is a good word to describe your support in democracy. politic is not an exact science, and different people have different convictions, or "beliefs", about these systems. no one have proven that democracy won't slowly bring humanity to a huge failure.
If you lived in a world where the majority of the population suffered from schizophrenia and that spinning on your head 3 times before you left your house was made into law, would you still obey it because you favor and support democracy?
so you're saying you believe in democracy because it works so far?
Having written that statement, obviously I must've read the Qur'an to make such specific references. And why would it be harsh to say that the book is open to interpretation?
you said it's open to nothing but interpretation. that's quite different
You'd think with all the elaborate allegories and poetic symbolism in these books, the authors would want you to have a take home message. That's assuming that their target audience is human beings (having the ability to question and infer meaning) and not parrots (blindly repeating every word said or written).
you believe in democracy, not arnachy, so you obey the law you believe in god, so you obey the commandements I don't see the subtility here
The book is open to nothing if not interpretation.
have you read even parts of the quran? sure there's things you can interpret in every situation, religion or not. but this statement is kinda harsh
btw I'm agnostic
You see the reason behind it, that's why you obey it (same thing as seeing why democracy is good, and supporting it, not believing in it). Belief is not applicable to rational existences. It's the wrong word to choose to make an analogy regarding religion.
if you believe in god, the reason why you obey commandments, is that you want to go to heaven. it may not be rational, but it seems a good reason.
and I think that "belief" is a good word to describe your support in democracy. politic is not an exact science, and different people have different convictions, or "beliefs", about these systems. no one have proven that democracy won't slowly bring humanity to a huge failure.
If you lived in a world where the majority of the population suffered from schizophrenia and that spinning on your head 3 times before you left your house was made into law, would you still obey it because you favor and support democracy?
so you're saying you believe in democracy because it works so far?
Having written that statement, obviously I must've read the Qur'an to make such specific references. And why would it be harsh to say that the book is open to interpretation?
you said it's open to nothing but interpretation. that's quite different
You'd think with all the elaborate allegories and poetic symbolism in these books, the authors would want you to have a take home message. That's assuming that their target audience is human beings (having the ability to question and infer meaning) and not parrots (blindly repeating every word said or written).
thats a very subtile analysis
If you truly are a religious person, the reason you'd believe in god and obey his commands wouldn't be so that you'd get to go to heaven (how can a god desire such a 'quid pro quo' relationship? what happened to do good without expecting anything in return?). It'd be for the love of god that you'd follow him. The most rational explanation I can come up with is that as you learn more and more about the physics and science of everything that surrounds you, you see it's all a wonder and admire the man behind the curtain. Next step up from this would be appreciating the scientific part of it more, understanding the complexity and embracing the causality and become an atheist. Funny that, being a truly religious and spiritual person and an atheist are thinly separated concepts at best.
Secondly, yes I believe in (synonymous with support, that's why I say the word 'believe' is not the same thing in both concepts) democracy because it works so far. You only have to look at the example I supplied to reason why. You support or are in favor of certain mechanisms, be it within the democratic system or not, or you don't. Regardless of what you believe though, there is a system called democracy.
And the analysis I made there should be obvious to everyone, it's not rocket science. You supply an analogy or a symbol to make a point. Unless, of course, if you literally believe that the earth is 6000 years old. In that case you need to hit the science books.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
See this is what I meant by 'interpretations of the book' in the above post. This is specifically what's wrong with religion in general and is the reason why terrorism is possible. You have to be able to read and see that these rules are there for specific reasons, not because Allah wants a specific thing from you (except for maybe spiritual solitude and goodness towards others). To point out specifically;
You shall not eat pork because it takes a lot of water to raise pigs, they are dirty animals and people have very low hygiene standards at the time.
You don't drink because it's likely you'll become destructive, offensive or just plain addicted; causing you to lead a dysfunctional and inefficient life.
You pray 5 times a day, so you thank Allah for what he's given you in your life (that's even what's said in the prayers read 5 times a day), that you'll be good to others and you'll share your food, etc. At each prayer, you basically remind yourself of your core values. It's also an opportunity to get together with friends, bring people together and strengthen community ties.
It's when people say things like ' We do it because Allah commanded us so' that you enter the dangerous territory. This takes reason out the window, which Allah certainly wanted you to have. [b] In fact you say 'we don't need a reason, Allah doesn't has to provide us with one, because he's Allah'. That, I'd say, is the mark of an uneducated point of view/mind. If anything, Qur'an diligently states the importance of having an open and inquiring mind, asking the questions 'how' and 'why' and having learning as the primary goal of life.[/b[
This is very good. I think every religion should be looked at from this perspective.
you have no idea what I am talking about, I am talking about the basic principle for worshipping and practicing religion. The basic motive for those I mentioned above MUST be to obey the orders of the god. You can have additional reasons etc but without the intention of following the order, you take religion as a simple civil law nothing else. I am talking about God here, without understanding what I am meaing by God, please dont treat the subject as the belaivers considering God as a simple "State Authority"
Why are you arguing that I have no idea what you are talking about? I took a post someone else made talking about a way to view religion and its practices, and agreed with it pointing out that I think the same can be said for every religion... not just Islam. If you disagree with me that's fine but don't act like I've been arguing with you.
I am sorry for mis quoting I guess I forgot to remove your quote from there I will edit it now.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
See this is what I meant by 'interpretations of the book' in the above post. This is specifically what's wrong with religion in general and is the reason why terrorism is possible. You have to be able to read and see that these rules are there for specific reasons, not because Allah wants a specific thing from you (except for maybe spiritual solitude and goodness towards others). To point out specifically;
You shall not eat pork because it takes a lot of water to raise pigs, they are dirty animals and people have very low hygiene standards at the time.
You don't drink because it's likely you'll become destructive, offensive or just plain addicted; causing you to lead a dysfunctional and inefficient life.
You pray 5 times a day, so you thank Allah for what he's given you in your life (that's even what's said in the prayers read 5 times a day), that you'll be good to others and you'll share your food, etc. At each prayer, you basically remind yourself of your core values. It's also an opportunity to get together with friends, bring people together and strengthen community ties.
It's when people say things like ' We do it because Allah commanded us so' that you enter the dangerous territory. This takes reason out the window, which Allah certainly wanted you to have.
In fact you say 'we don't need a reason, Allah doesn't has to provide us with one, because he's Allah'. That, I'd say, is the mark of an educated point of view/mind. If anything, Qur'an diligently states the importance of having an open and inquiring mind, asking the questions 'how' and 'why' and having learning as the primary goal of life.
Looks to me you're the one interpreting things. No where in the quran or islam, these reasons are invoked.
Sure you should not blindly follow principles, and there is practical reason to each rules. But the real reason you're following them is because to believe in god and trust him
You don't follow your country laws because you understand each and every one of them, but because you don't want to be an outlaw, and believe in democracy and stuff
So, you honestly think that people should follow law because else they would be outlaw? That's offending. Law and society are just rules for those that can't understand the greater design behind them, because they have never thought about that or for other reasons, like being uneducated. Religion textbooks have a clear, crystal design behind them. Law and religion were both designed for the same reasons, and they follow they same principle, and it's pretty easy to see what's the driving force behind them. Assuming they're just there because "you have to believe so" it's insulting to the human intelligence, and miss the crucial point about them, because people simply "reading" and not "comprehending" can easily read things as they like. But if you understand the real reason behind such writings, you can see easily what who wrote those wanted you to do, being the message a law or a religion.
you believe in democracy, not arnachy, so you obey the law you believe in god, so you obey the commandements I don't see the subtility here
The book is open to nothing if not interpretation.
have you read even parts of the quran? sure there's things you can interpret in every situation, religion or not. but this statement is kinda harsh
btw I'm agnostic
You see the reason behind it, that's why you obey it (same thing as seeing why democracy is good, and supporting it, not believing in it). Belief is not applicable to rational existences. It's the wrong word to choose to make an analogy regarding religion.
if you believe in god, the reason why you obey commandments, is that you want to go to heaven. it may not be rational, but it seems a good reason.
and I think that "belief" is a good word to describe your support in democracy. politic is not an exact science, and different people have different convictions, or "beliefs", about these systems. no one have proven that democracy won't slowly bring humanity to a huge failure.
If you lived in a world where the majority of the population suffered from schizophrenia and that spinning on your head 3 times before you left your house was made into law, would you still obey it because you favor and support democracy?
so you're saying you believe in democracy because it works so far?
Having written that statement, obviously I must've read the Qur'an to make such specific references. And why would it be harsh to say that the book is open to interpretation?
you said it's open to nothing but interpretation. that's quite different
You'd think with all the elaborate allegories and poetic symbolism in these books, the authors would want you to have a take home message. That's assuming that their target audience is human beings (having the ability to question and infer meaning) and not parrots (blindly repeating every word said or written).
thats a very subtile analysis
If you truly are a religious person, the reason you'd believe in god and obey his commands wouldn't be so that you'd get to go to heaven (how can a god desire such a 'quid pro quo' relationship? what happened to do good without expecting anything in return?). It'd be for the love of god that you'd follow him. The most rational explanation I can come up with is that as you learn more and more about the physics and science of everything that surrounds you, you see it's all a wonder and admire the man behind the curtain. Next step up from this would be appreciating the scientific part of it more, understanding the complexity and embracing the causality and become an atheist. Funny that, being a truly religious and spiritual person and an atheist are thinly separated concepts at best.
Secondly, yes I believe in (synonymous with support, that's why I say the word 'believe' is not the same thing in both concepts) democracy because it works so far. You only have to look at the example I supplied to reason why. You support or are in favor of certain mechanisms, be it within the democratic system or not, or you don't. Regardless of what you believe though, there is a system called democracy.
And the analysis I made there should be obvious to everyone, it's not rocket science. You supply an analogy or a symbol to make a point. Unless, of course, if you literally believe that the earth is 6000 years old. In that case you need to hit the science books.
I hate to talk about things not related to the OP but, I think the other subject is discussed and we are now having a brain storm on other things. I hope TL mods are comfortable with this and sorry for dragging the subject away but had to give an answer.
Anyways lets come to the Quoted part. You perspective is exactly what is described. Muslims also wondered why God created the universe, why do we exist other than worshipping (since God does not need us) Ofcourse the answers are always speculation. One of them is in sunni/sufi/tasavvufi belaif is God wanted to see his own beauty and uniqueness therefore we exist and carrying parts of his soul.
About the heaven deal, there are levels of belaif 2 people are not the same to eachother. Hadiths reports, Allah said "If I did not create heaven and hell, would you not find me worthy of worshipping?" Meaning that the way you should belaive me must be purely for me. (In tasavvuf/sufi belaif the followers wants to dissapear in the existence of God, they dont even wish to go to heaven) But Hadiths also mentions about the people who are hoping to go to heaven and having a good life. They are not to blame because its Allah's promise, and even their level of belaif might not the ultimate one they are still worthy of blessing and there is nothing wrong of hoping to go to heaven or being a good person because you also are afraid of hell or God.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
Your belief is that these things are god's will. You understand that many of these things are instructions for living a better life, a better life that includes adherence to a certain religion.
"Because God wills it" is not a justification for morals or actions. There is always an underlying reason behind them. There isn't any moral ground for not eating pork compared to other meats, the reason is simply an economic holdover from a different time. You could fairly easily construct arguments as to why the consumption of alcohol is bad (hindering presence of mind) or why you should pray 5 times a day (reaffirming your own beliefs/allegiances).
The Qur'an was written by men, who believed it was a good idea to include every instruction for how to live the best life possible (at least that's what they believed). Should the same people living in another region of the world attempt to write the same book, you might find several customs and traditions different. This makes sense when viewed historically, as living in a desert in 500 AD, you wouldn't be able to find many people to disagree with your "pork is bad" sentiment.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
Your belief is that these things are god's will. You understand that many of these things are instructions for living a better life, a better life that includes adherence to a certain religion.
"Because God wills it" is not a justification for morals or actions. There is always an underlying reason behind them. There isn't any moral ground for not eating pork compared to other meats, the reason is simply an economic holdover from a different time. You could fairly easily construct arguments as to why the consumption of alcohol is bad (hindering presence of mind) or why you should pray 5 times a day (reaffirming your own beliefs/allegiances).
The Qur'an was written by men, who believed it was a good idea to include every instruction for how to live the best life possible (at least that's what they believed). Should the same people living in another region of the world attempt to write the same book, you might find several customs and traditions different. This makes sense when viewed historically, as living in a desert in 500 AD, you wouldn't be able to find many people to disagree with your "pork is bad" sentiment.
You are pretty sure about what you write altough they are base on your assumption. I am not goint to argue about what you speculate since you cannot prove anything, and I dont have to prove anything about my belaif too. Lets continue our lives where you belaive Quran is man made, and I belaive not.
You can't stop someone from doing something legal. No matter how distasteful you personally find it. Whether or not one is even right to consider it distasteful is another matter, but you can't stop someone from doing something legal. And religious freedom is, dare I say it, the principle on which the USA was founded on. The moment we back away from that, we lose all credibility to call ourselves the leader of the free world.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
Your belief is that these things are god's will. You understand that many of these things are instructions for living a better life, a better life that includes adherence to a certain religion.
"Because God wills it" is not a justification for morals or actions. There is always an underlying reason behind them. There isn't any moral ground for not eating pork compared to other meats, the reason is simply an economic holdover from a different time. You could fairly easily construct arguments as to why the consumption of alcohol is bad (hindering presence of mind) or why you should pray 5 times a day (reaffirming your own beliefs/allegiances).
The Qur'an was written by men, who believed it was a good idea to include every instruction for how to live the best life possible (at least that's what they believed). Should the same people living in another region of the world attempt to write the same book, you might find several customs and traditions different. This makes sense when viewed historically, as living in a desert in 500 AD, you wouldn't be able to find many people to disagree with your "pork is bad" sentiment.
You are pretty sure about what you write altough they are base on your assumption. I am not goint to argue about what you speculate since you cannot prove anything, and I dont have to prove anything about my belaif too. Lets continue our lives where you belaive Quran is man made, and I belaive not.
Surely any being that can call itself God must have a reason for it's actions, God does not decree such things for shits and giggles. If so, then what is the justification for not eating pork? Have you considered that God may only have given that advice to Muhammad and his immediate followers of the time? Have you considered that some laws weren't meant to be eternal? Even under your own belief system, these rules do not make sense.
God does not exist, religion is an ancient bonding technique to increase the strength of a group via numbers. There is no debate as to whether the Qur'an is man made or not, as "God" does not write things down. The only issue is whether or not you believe rules made for an entirely different time and culture could possibly apply to modern society.
I don't even know how people can say God doesn't exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
Your belief is that these things are god's will. You understand that many of these things are instructions for living a better life, a better life that includes adherence to a certain religion.
"Because God wills it" is not a justification for morals or actions. There is always an underlying reason behind them. There isn't any moral ground for not eating pork compared to other meats, the reason is simply an economic holdover from a different time. You could fairly easily construct arguments as to why the consumption of alcohol is bad (hindering presence of mind) or why you should pray 5 times a day (reaffirming your own beliefs/allegiances).
The Qur'an was written by men, who believed it was a good idea to include every instruction for how to live the best life possible (at least that's what they believed). Should the same people living in another region of the world attempt to write the same book, you might find several customs and traditions different. This makes sense when viewed historically, as living in a desert in 500 AD, you wouldn't be able to find many people to disagree with your "pork is bad" sentiment.
You are pretty sure about what you write altough they are base on your assumption. I am not goint to argue about what you speculate since you cannot prove anything, and I dont have to prove anything about my belaif too. Lets continue our lives where you belaive Quran is man made, and I belaive not.
Surely any being that can call itself God must have a reason for it's actions, God does not decree such things for shits and giggles. If so, then what is the justification for not eating pork? Have you considered that God may only have given that advice to Muhammad and his immediate followers of the time? Have you considered that some laws weren't meant to be eternal? Even under your own belief system, these rules do not make sense.
God does not exist, religion is an ancient bonding technique to increase the strength of a group via numbers. There is no debate as to whether the Qur'an is man made or not, as "God" does not write things down. The only issue is whether or not you believe rules made for an entirely different time and culture could possibly apply to modern society.
Modern society is man made too. Therefore all my points are still valid based on my belaifs. Those are your ideas and since I belaive there is a God anypoit point you made cannot falsify what I said based on the existence of God.
On September 11 2010 02:31 ArvickHero wrote: I don't even know how people can say God doesn't exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
I don't even know how people can say God does exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
See how dumb this argument is?
The argument is arrogant and stupid, not the sides people choose to be on. Have your beliefs and let others' have theirs.
On September 11 2010 02:31 ArvickHero wrote: I don't even know how people can say God doesn't exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
I don't even know how people can say God does exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
See how dumb this argument is?
The argument is arrogant and stupid, not the sides people choose to be on. Have your beliefs and let others' have theirs.
That's why I'm an agnostic dude. I don't know if there is one.. all I know its pretty much to impossible to prove there isn't a god unless you died and came back to life. Proving there is a god would be almost as impossible, except you have the added option of having God manifest himself unto the world or perform some miracle.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
Your belief is that these things are god's will. You understand that many of these things are instructions for living a better life, a better life that includes adherence to a certain religion.
"Because God wills it" is not a justification for morals or actions. There is always an underlying reason behind them. There isn't any moral ground for not eating pork compared to other meats, the reason is simply an economic holdover from a different time. You could fairly easily construct arguments as to why the consumption of alcohol is bad (hindering presence of mind) or why you should pray 5 times a day (reaffirming your own beliefs/allegiances).
The Qur'an was written by men, who believed it was a good idea to include every instruction for how to live the best life possible (at least that's what they believed). Should the same people living in another region of the world attempt to write the same book, you might find several customs and traditions different. This makes sense when viewed historically, as living in a desert in 500 AD, you wouldn't be able to find many people to disagree with your "pork is bad" sentiment.
You are pretty sure about what you write altough they are base on your assumption. I am not goint to argue about what you speculate since you cannot prove anything, and I dont have to prove anything about my belaif too. Lets continue our lives where you belaive Quran is man made, and I belaive not.
Surely any being that can call itself God must have a reason for it's actions, God does not decree such things for shits and giggles. If so, then what is the justification for not eating pork? Have you considered that God may only have given that advice to Muhammad and his immediate followers of the time? Have you considered that some laws weren't meant to be eternal? Even under your own belief system, these rules do not make sense.
God does not exist, religion is an ancient bonding technique to increase the strength of a group via numbers. There is no debate as to whether the Qur'an is man made or not, as "God" does not write things down. The only issue is whether or not you believe rules made for an entirely different time and culture could possibly apply to modern society.
Modern society is man made too. Therefore all my points are still valid based on my belaifs. Those are your ideas and since I belaive there is a God anypoit point you made cannot falsify what I said based on the existence of God.
You didn't answer the question.
On September 11 2010 02:31 ArvickHero wrote: I don't even know how people can say God doesn't exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
There is zero proof of god's existence. A poorly defined religious god even more so.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
Your belief is that these things are god's will. You understand that many of these things are instructions for living a better life, a better life that includes adherence to a certain religion.
"Because God wills it" is not a justification for morals or actions. There is always an underlying reason behind them. There isn't any moral ground for not eating pork compared to other meats, the reason is simply an economic holdover from a different time. You could fairly easily construct arguments as to why the consumption of alcohol is bad (hindering presence of mind) or why you should pray 5 times a day (reaffirming your own beliefs/allegiances).
The Qur'an was written by men, who believed it was a good idea to include every instruction for how to live the best life possible (at least that's what they believed). Should the same people living in another region of the world attempt to write the same book, you might find several customs and traditions different. This makes sense when viewed historically, as living in a desert in 500 AD, you wouldn't be able to find many people to disagree with your "pork is bad" sentiment.
You are pretty sure about what you write altough they are base on your assumption. I am not goint to argue about what you speculate since you cannot prove anything, and I dont have to prove anything about my belaif too. Lets continue our lives where you belaive Quran is man made, and I belaive not.
Surely any being that can call itself God must have a reason for it's actions, God does not decree such things for shits and giggles. If so, then what is the justification for not eating pork? Have you considered that God may only have given that advice to Muhammad and his immediate followers of the time? Have you considered that some laws weren't meant to be eternal? Even under your own belief system, these rules do not make sense.
God does not exist, religion is an ancient bonding technique to increase the strength of a group via numbers. There is no debate as to whether the Qur'an is man made or not, as "God" does not write things down. The only issue is whether or not you believe rules made for an entirely different time and culture could possibly apply to modern society.
Modern society is man made too. Therefore all my points are still valid based on my belaifs. Those are your ideas and since I belaive there is a God anypoit point you made cannot falsify what I said based on the existence of God.
On September 11 2010 02:31 ArvickHero wrote: I don't even know how people can say God doesn't exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
There is zero proof of god's existence. A poorly defined religious god even more so.
Have you considered that God may only have given that advice to Muhammad and his immediate followers of the time?
Is this your question? I did not answer it because it told me you have no idea about Quran or Islam so I chose not to continue arguing with someone who has no knowledge about what he is talking about. You continue to speculate and consider what ever you want (because it is like what if god creates a rock he cant even carry etc type question) the question is so simple so obvious so childish I did not find it worthy of response. Read Quran, there is your answer for that question.
On September 01 2010 01:47 Offhand wrote: Are the Qu'ranists rejecting all hadiths or just the Sunni ones? Either way, good luck getting any religion to discard a set of holy works. I know the Qu'ran was written/compiled some 200 years after Mohamed, but I don't know if it's as distorted and politicized as original versions of the bible.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
Your belief is that these things are god's will. You understand that many of these things are instructions for living a better life, a better life that includes adherence to a certain religion.
"Because God wills it" is not a justification for morals or actions. There is always an underlying reason behind them. There isn't any moral ground for not eating pork compared to other meats, the reason is simply an economic holdover from a different time. You could fairly easily construct arguments as to why the consumption of alcohol is bad (hindering presence of mind) or why you should pray 5 times a day (reaffirming your own beliefs/allegiances).
The Qur'an was written by men, who believed it was a good idea to include every instruction for how to live the best life possible (at least that's what they believed). Should the same people living in another region of the world attempt to write the same book, you might find several customs and traditions different. This makes sense when viewed historically, as living in a desert in 500 AD, you wouldn't be able to find many people to disagree with your "pork is bad" sentiment.
You are pretty sure about what you write altough they are base on your assumption. I am not goint to argue about what you speculate since you cannot prove anything, and I dont have to prove anything about my belaif too. Lets continue our lives where you belaive Quran is man made, and I belaive not.
Surely any being that can call itself God must have a reason for it's actions, God does not decree such things for shits and giggles. If so, then what is the justification for not eating pork? Have you considered that God may only have given that advice to Muhammad and his immediate followers of the time? Have you considered that some laws weren't meant to be eternal? Even under your own belief system, these rules do not make sense.
God does not exist, religion is an ancient bonding technique to increase the strength of a group via numbers. There is no debate as to whether the Qur'an is man made or not, as "God" does not write things down. The only issue is whether or not you believe rules made for an entirely different time and culture could possibly apply to modern society.
Modern society is man made too. Therefore all my points are still valid based on my belaifs. Those are your ideas and since I belaive there is a God anypoit point you made cannot falsify what I said based on the existence of God.
You didn't answer the question.
On September 11 2010 02:31 ArvickHero wrote: I don't even know how people can say God doesn't exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
There is zero proof of god's existence. A poorly defined religious god even more so.
Have you considered that God may only have given that advice to Muhammad and his immediate followers of the time?
Is this your question? I did not answer it because it told me you have no idea about Quran or Islam so I chose not to continue arguing with someone who has no knowledge about what he is talking about. You continue to speculate and consider what ever you want (because it is like what if god creates a rock he cant even carry etc type question) the question is so simple so obvious so childish I did not find it worthy of response. Read Quran, there is your answer for that question.
It's one of the questions, definitely a valid one as well. Perhaps God could have more accurately said "Don't eat pork because you can't support a pig farm in the desert. When you invent better irrigation or move to a more temperate climate then it's totally fine though." but that wouldn't have fit well within the scripture.
Otherwise, you acknowledge that you do not understand why God would make such a rule. You admit that you follow something without any knowledge of why.You fail to understand your own God.
Please explain why eating pork is a sin. Explain why pork should not be consumed at all points in human history. An argument from ignorance will get you nowhere.
EDIT: "He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
This in no way describe why something shouldn't happen, only that it is forbidden. A religious person would read this and follow it without question. A historian would read it and look at the lifestyles of the people who wrote it.
On September 11 2010 02:31 ArvickHero wrote: I don't even know how people can say God doesn't exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
I don't even know how people can say God does exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
See how dumb this argument is?
The argument is arrogant and stupid, not the sides people choose to be on. Have your beliefs and let others' have theirs.
That's why I'm an agnostic dude. I don't know if there is one.. all I know its pretty much to impossible to prove there isn't a god unless you died and came back to life. Proving there is a god would be almost as impossible, except you have the added option of having God manifest himself unto the world or perform some miracle.
God could be defined as a consciousness without material existence. Consciousness exists because of matter. You can't have consciousness without matter. Some animals aren't even conscious beings and they got brains. How da fuck is god going to be conscious without any blood going to his brain? I'm conscious in this universe cause I got a brain and blood flowing to it. You are saying There might exist something out there that is conscious with no brain or blood? Even if a computer develops a consciousness, it still would be taking up material existence. Even if the computer turned into light and was a light being, it still be in the universe as a material being.
God doesn't exist because its definition makes it impossible for it to exist. Like someone saying God is a square circle. Well we don't know if a square circle doesn't exist. Yes we do.. a square circle can't exist!
BTW my friend died for 2 minutes and came back to life. I asked him about the afterlife. He said there was nothing.
Wrong. The Qur'an was written down while prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was alive. Add to that the Qur'an was also memorized by Muslims since the days of prophet Muhammad as we use the Qur'an in our daily prayers. So this pretty much protected the Qur'an from being modified to fit a certain group's agenda.
This still doesn't prevent the book from being a collection of political points from the time it was written. That's how we get most of our nonsensical sounding religious functions.
For example, it's against Kosher law to eat pork. The stated reason being that pigs are unclean animals which is pretty much a double standard when you consider the era it was written down predates most soap use. The reality is that it takes an enormous amount of water to raise a pig, this doesn't work well with a group of desert peoples.
We dont eat pork, because Allah advised us not to. We dont drink alcohol simply because Allah advised not to (you can still do these things and be a muslim, these are sins, not fundemantel rules of "faith" it just makes you little less ideal muslim described in Quran)
We are not praying 5 times a day, because it is good for our bones (the movement I am referring) but we are doing it because the prophet showed us the way, and Allah ordered it in Quran.
The religious practices are done because the Gods wants so. If we accept the existence of God, and his nature and adjectives described in QUran and in other books, theres no need for another reason. Because the creator of everthing is not obliged to show creatures any reason for any order of him, why? because he is the God. It is the same principle for not allowing Adam to eat that only fruit on the tree. No because the fruid was bad for him but in the sake of testing his obedeince.
Just wanted to clear out the confusion about Quranic practice and the reasons behind it.
Your belief is that these things are god's will. You understand that many of these things are instructions for living a better life, a better life that includes adherence to a certain religion.
"Because God wills it" is not a justification for morals or actions. There is always an underlying reason behind them. There isn't any moral ground for not eating pork compared to other meats, the reason is simply an economic holdover from a different time. You could fairly easily construct arguments as to why the consumption of alcohol is bad (hindering presence of mind) or why you should pray 5 times a day (reaffirming your own beliefs/allegiances).
The Qur'an was written by men, who believed it was a good idea to include every instruction for how to live the best life possible (at least that's what they believed). Should the same people living in another region of the world attempt to write the same book, you might find several customs and traditions different. This makes sense when viewed historically, as living in a desert in 500 AD, you wouldn't be able to find many people to disagree with your "pork is bad" sentiment.
You are pretty sure about what you write altough they are base on your assumption. I am not goint to argue about what you speculate since you cannot prove anything, and I dont have to prove anything about my belaif too. Lets continue our lives where you belaive Quran is man made, and I belaive not.
Surely any being that can call itself God must have a reason for it's actions, God does not decree such things for shits and giggles. If so, then what is the justification for not eating pork? Have you considered that God may only have given that advice to Muhammad and his immediate followers of the time? Have you considered that some laws weren't meant to be eternal? Even under your own belief system, these rules do not make sense.
God does not exist, religion is an ancient bonding technique to increase the strength of a group via numbers. There is no debate as to whether the Qur'an is man made or not, as "God" does not write things down. The only issue is whether or not you believe rules made for an entirely different time and culture could possibly apply to modern society.
Modern society is man made too. Therefore all my points are still valid based on my belaifs. Those are your ideas and since I belaive there is a God anypoit point you made cannot falsify what I said based on the existence of God.
You didn't answer the question.
On September 11 2010 02:31 ArvickHero wrote: I don't even know how people can say God doesn't exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
There is zero proof of god's existence. A poorly defined religious god even more so.
Have you considered that God may only have given that advice to Muhammad and his immediate followers of the time?
Is this your question? I did not answer it because it told me you have no idea about Quran or Islam so I chose not to continue arguing with someone who has no knowledge about what he is talking about. You continue to speculate and consider what ever you want (because it is like what if god creates a rock he cant even carry etc type question) the question is so simple so obvious so childish I did not find it worthy of response. Read Quran, there is your answer for that question.
It's one of the questions, definitely a valid one as well. Perhaps God could have more accurately said "Don't eat pork because you can't support a pig farm in the desert. When you invent better irrigation or move to a more temperate climate then it's totally fine though." but that wouldn't have fit well within the scripture.
Otherwise, you acknowledge that you do not understand why God would make such a rule. You admit that you follow something without any knowledge of why.You fail to understand your own God.
Please explain why eating pork is a sin. Explain why pork should not be consumed at all points in human history. An argument from ignorance will get you nowhere.
EDIT: "He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
This in no way describe why something shouldn't happen, only that it is forbidden. A religious person would read this and follow it without question. A historian would read it and look at the lifestyles of the people who wrote it.
You dont read do you? God is not a Prime Minister who has to explain everything to the citizens, maybe I am ignorant but you are completaly arrogant even tough you dont think so. Once you understand the concept of God, you can argue untill then you points are childish. I have tons of friends saying those things to me everyday (close friends) and each time I give them the answer just because they cannot underrstand completalu the fact that God's existance or the concept of God (I am not talking about Zeus here..) they keep asking why God did not give this, why god let this, why god forbid this why god did not show himself to us? Once I figured out and belaived that there is a God, and I read Quran and felt it is his words, the rest is meaningless to me. I dont need a rational argument to not to eat port. Can you understand this? You cant. Can you oppose this? Ofcourse that is your right but you are not making a point I describe the way it is in Islam and you describe you own ideas of religion those are not facts or points just plain assumptions and ideas. I dont agree with them and I dont have to, just like you dont have to. If Allah wanted all to be belaivers ofcourse he would've done so since he did not. I accept that fact I understand that. But you still dont understand what I mean.
Allah doesn't have a reason for no pork, he's just dicking around with you guys.
you don't need a reason not to eat pork because that's your faith telling you how to live etc etc.. but god certainly better have a reason for what he's commanding or else.. just screwing around with you.
Are you aware that saying "i need no reason to know why i don't have to eat pork" is basically the same as denying your own self-will? We weren't made to be zergs.
On September 11 2010 04:07 Gheizen64 wrote: Are you aware that saying "i need no reason to know why i don't have to eat pork" is basically the same as denying your own self-will? We weren't made to be zergs.
I think his point is that it's acceptable to do something blindly, for no reason other then the belief that it is correct. This accurately describes the problem with most religions.
Giving up pork is very appealing to me, but is something i simply can't attain.
Everytime i eat pork / ham / bacon i think about cute little piggies and it burns my soul. Yet i can't stop. How can 1 animal, albeit adorable and smarter than half of humanity, be so delicious in so many ways? It's one of life's greatest jokes/tragedies.
Edit: So yeah, more on point, Allah is a better man than i am. Er, God, not man.
On September 11 2010 06:12 DannyJ wrote: Giving up pork is very appealing to me, but is something i simply can't attain.
Everytime i eat pork / ham / bacon i think about cute little piggies and it burns my soul. Yet i can't stop. How can 1 animal, albeit adorable and smarter than half of humanity, be so delicious in so many ways? It's one of life's greatest jokes/tragedies.
Edit: So yeah, more on point, Allah is a better man than i am. Er, God, not man.
On September 11 2010 06:12 DannyJ wrote: Giving up pork is very appealing to me, but is something i simply can't attain.
Everytime i eat pork / ham / bacon i think about cute little piggies and it burns my soul. Yet i can't stop. How can 1 animal, albeit adorable and smarter than half of humanity, be so delicious in so many ways? It's one of life's greatest jokes/tragedies.
Edit: So yeah, more on point, Allah is a better man than i am. Er, God, not man.
On September 11 2010 02:31 ArvickHero wrote: I don't even know how people can say God doesn't exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
I don't even know how people can say God does exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
See how dumb this argument is?
The argument is arrogant and stupid, not the sides people choose to be on. Have your beliefs and let others' have theirs.
That's why I'm an agnostic dude. I don't know if there is one.. all I know its pretty much to impossible to prove there isn't a god unless you died and came back to life. Proving there is a god would be almost as impossible, except you have the added option of having God manifest himself unto the world or perform some miracle.
You can use that line of logic with santa claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and other magical creatures. I know that I can't disprove their existence and neither can you but you aren't also santa claus agnostic, are you?
On September 11 2010 02:31 ArvickHero wrote: I don't even know how people can say God doesn't exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
I don't even know how people can say God does exist, there's no way you can prove that, and to say so affirmatively without concrete proof is just arrogant and stupid.
See how dumb this argument is?
The argument is arrogant and stupid, not the sides people choose to be on. Have your beliefs and let others' have theirs.
That's why I'm an agnostic dude. I don't know if there is one.. all I know its pretty much to impossible to prove there isn't a god unless you died and came back to life. Proving there is a god would be almost as impossible, except you have the added option of having God manifest himself unto the world or perform some miracle.
That's not how burden of proof exists.
Please list off the things you can truly disprove. Vampires? Nope. Werewolves? Nope. Girls on the internet? Nope.
There's still not a shred of evidence that any of these exist, thus you shouldn't believe in them unless you have some personal form of evidence, such as faith. Believing in something because it hasn't been disproved is just idiotic.
The reason why I believe in God is because I decided that ultimately in the beginning, something had to have come from nothing. And while I still have to read Stephen Hawkings new book regarding this subject, I just do not see his "spontaneous creation" really happening without a cause. Again, I'll have to look into it. But in the end, everything has a cause, until you come to God. Only the existence of an omnipotent, ever-present, timeless God can transcend the problems plaguing the very beginning of the universe as we know it.
Far fetched? Perhaps.
But as I see it its the best answer I have.
You can't tell someone that God doesn't exist. For really, there is no direct proof that God does/does not exist. And when I say God, I mean God in the truest form. Personally I believe it to be Allah because I found truth in His...transcending description. You can say, "Oh hey, perhaps there are flaws with this particular religion." But ultimately the question of whether a religion can exist and whether there is a God(two different questions) lays down to faith, and belief. And that is something you have no right to question someone on when you yourself have nothing but that.
But now I'm just ranting. Just my thoughts, anyway.
We can't really uphold that our nation is a free country with free speech rights if we won't allow the mosque to be built.
And while I believe in free speech as an important part of our country, the dude in Gainesville burning Korans isn't doing anyone a favor--it's a "you're screwing it up for everyone else in the country" kind of deal.
Go away thread! you've lived your usefulness to tell us what was going on. Stop inciting hate. Guy builds mosque. Guy burns Qurans. Guy gets revenge on guy burning books. World War 3.
Seriously, it's been said before. All talking about these incidents does is create hate.
Trump offers to pay $6 million "Two-building site and related lease rights last year, plus a 25-percent premium.", in exchange for the Mosque to be built atleast 5 blocks further away from the WTC site. Hisham Elzanaty (who claims to have a majority ownership interest in the two-building site) calls it a publicity stunt and an insult. Elzanaty yesterday had said he was willing to sell the site and related lease rights for "18 or 20 million dollars."
Religion is the biggest mistake man has ever created. I can't believe how many people are slaves to it despite all the turmoil and problems that clearly stem from it. Building any type of religious building there is a waste of real estate.
This is a politics issue. Elections are on doors and it's being used to pressure the Democrats. Somehow it's "cool" to hate on the Muslims right now in America, so the republicans are using that to win votes.
Also that Trump guy is just doing it for publicity, just wait before he starts using that for political purposes (or he already does? I don't know who that guy is, but I'm sure it's not "good will" behind it, but rather politics. Nobody pays $6 that easily).
On September 11 2010 14:50 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: Go away thread! you've lived your usefulness to tell us what was going on. Stop inciting hate. Guy builds mosque. Guy burns Qurans. Guy gets revenge on guy burning books. World War 3.
Seriously, it's been said before. All talking about these incidents does is create hate.
************_o *THREAD* | ************ |\
Glad Quran burning got called off.
Don't think for a second that the guy is telling the truth he knew he was in a corner and Palin and Gingrich gave him a scapegoat the Mosque in New York. Also there are still Quran burnings scheduled today in TN, and the Westboro Baptist Church.
I am a former Marine who enlisted in the infantry as a rifleman post 9/11.
I am strongly against all forms of radical religious sects that use violence and intimidation to push their oppressive views onto others (many religious sects are guilty of this)
The community center that is being built is BLOCKS away from ground zero.
The AMERICAN Muslim community that is building the community center is just as offended by the acts of osama bin laden as any patriotic "American" is (perhaps more since those acts cause many ignorant people worldwide to adopt a negative view of their religion as a whole)
This country has complete freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom for everyone to pursue happiness. If the community center was not allowed to be built it would violate all of these freedoms and many more that I didn't have the time to list.
And furthermore every time some stupid ignorant white trash bible humping retard speaks out against this community center, another wave of Muslims is coerced by the recruitment propaganda that is being reinforced by the ACTUAL actions of our dumbest and most ill-informed citizens.
If only these people knew that their stupidity was strengthening the enemy that executed the very attack that caused the tragedy they are so angered about.
or maybe the dumb fucks just hate brown people so much they don't even care about the negative results of their actions.
On September 11 2010 15:49 Deyster wrote: This is a politics issue. Elections are on doors and it's being used to pressure the Democrats. Somehow it's "cool" to hate on the Muslims right now in America, so the republicans are using that to win votes.
Also that Trump guy is just doing it for publicity, just wait before he starts using that for political purposes (or he already does? I don't know who that guy is, but I'm sure it's not "good will" behind it, but rather politics. Nobody pays $6 that easily).
No, he definitely can.
Actually, so can I!
Edit: but yeah even if it's 6 million, yes he can.
On September 11 2010 10:38 Khul Sadukar wrote: You cant force tolerance down ppls throats.
9/11 was done in the name of Jihad. Theres no denying that.
I think the muslims are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to build a Mosque there.
I think the gays are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to get into the Stonewall Inn.
I think the blacks are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to sit on the back of the bus.
I think the christians are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by preaching their faith and upsetting the roman gods.
I think you're being ridiculous and only making the situation worse by posting.
I think your post is rediculous since your comparing gay rights and racist laws & offending imaginary gods to actually building a shrine to a faith at a place which only recently many people were killed in the name of.
You dont see us building churches over in Afghanistan/Iraq do you?
We would never do this if it were a church being constructed and this controversy has little reason behind it.
ok so a mosque is being constructed at ground zero.
OHMYGOD!!!! BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO GROUND ZERO MEANS THAT IT'S AN ALQAEDA PLOT MEANING THAT MUSLIMS MUST BE INVOLVED IN MAKING THIS AND THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY MUST BE KNOWLEDGABLE OF THE MOSQUE MEANING THAT OBAMA MUST BE A TERRORIST!!!!
EDIT: If this were stated on television, I wouldn't be surprised. everything else has the same form of reasoning behind it.
EDIT....2: I also find it odd that this was bumped and I replyed on patriots day
Having passed the general vicinity of the proposed site today, I can understand how badly this whole thing has been twisted. Not even close to on ground zero---as if that would even change the legality of the thing . So fucking stupid.
i like when this kind of stuff happens because then americans will show their true colors of racism, bigotry and ignorance. just like they did in the obama elections.
On September 11 2010 10:38 Khul Sadukar wrote: You cant force tolerance down ppls throats.
9/11 was done in the name of Jihad. Theres no denying that.
I think the muslims are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to build a Mosque there.
I think the gays are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to get into the Stonewall Inn.
I think the blacks are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to sit on the back of the bus.
I think the christians are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by preaching their faith and upsetting the roman gods.
I think you're being ridiculous and only making the situation worse by posting.
I think your post is rediculous since your comparing gay rights and racist laws & offending imaginary gods to actually building a shrine to a faith at a place which only recently many people were killed in the name of.
You dont see us building churches over in Afghanistan/Iraq do you?
Wonder how well that would sit with the locals...
I think his post is spot on. People against this are just stereotyping and discriminating based upon the religion. In fact, most people against this are just extrapolating the actions of extremists to the whole group. They want to build a shrine of faith to Islam? OH MY GOD, CAN'T HAPPEN. NOT NEAR GROUND ZERO! You know what else? It was MEN who drove those planes. Therefore, wouldn't it offend all women to have anything dealing with men near ground zero? QUICK, DESTROY ALL MEN'S BATHROOMS NEAR GROUND ZERO! Oh no, those people were wearing CLOTHES too? DESTROY ALL DEPARTMENT STORES! It might offend the nudists! God, do people not realize that Muslims died in the attack too? Over 300 American Muslims died in that attack. Therefore, we should discriminate against Muslims and their faith? >_>
On September 11 2010 10:38 Khul Sadukar wrote: You cant force tolerance down ppls throats.
9/11 was done in the name of Jihad. Theres no denying that.
I think the muslims are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to build a Mosque there.
I think the gays are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to get into the Stonewall Inn.
I think the blacks are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to sit on the back of the bus.
I think the christians are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by preaching their faith and upsetting the roman gods.
I think you're being ridiculous and only making the situation worse by posting.
I think your post is rediculous since your comparing gay rights and racist laws & offending imaginary gods to actually building a shrine to a faith at a place which only recently many people were killed in the name of.
You dont see us building churches over in Afghanistan/Iraq do you?
Wonder how well that would sit with the locals...
I think his post is spot on. People against this are just stereotyping and discriminating based upon the religion. In fact, most people against this are just extrapolating the actions of extremists to the whole group. They want to build a shrine of faith to Islam? OH MY GOD, CAN'T HAPPEN. NOT NEAR GROUND ZERO! You know what else? It was MEN who drove those planes. Therefore, wouldn't it offend all women to have anything dealing with men near ground zero? QUICK, DESTROY ALL MEN'S BATHROOMS NEAR GROUND ZERO! Oh no, those people were wearing CLOTHES too? DESTROY ALL DEPARTMENT STORES! It might offend the nudists! God, do people not realize that Muslims died in the attack too? Over 300 American Muslims died in that attack. Therefore, we should discriminate against Muslims and their faith? >_>
On September 11 2010 10:38 Khul Sadukar wrote: You cant force tolerance down ppls throats.
9/11 was done in the name of Jihad. Theres no denying that.
I think the muslims are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to build a Mosque there.
I think the gays are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to get into the Stonewall Inn.
I think the blacks are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to sit on the back of the bus.
I think the christians are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by preaching their faith and upsetting the roman gods.
I think you're being ridiculous and only making the situation worse by posting.
I think your post is rediculous since your comparing gay rights and racist laws & offending imaginary gods to actually building a shrine to a faith at a place which only recently many people were killed in the name of.
You dont see us building churches over in Afghanistan/Iraq do you?
Wonder how well that would sit with the locals...
I think his post is spot on. People against this are just stereotyping and discriminating based upon the religion. In fact, most people against this are just extrapolating the actions of extremists to the whole group. They want to build a shrine of faith to Islam? OH MY GOD, CAN'T HAPPEN. NOT NEAR GROUND ZERO! You know what else? It was MEN who drove those planes. Therefore, wouldn't it offend all women to have anything dealing with men near ground zero? QUICK, DESTROY ALL MEN'S BATHROOMS NEAR GROUND ZERO! Oh no, those people were wearing CLOTHES too? DESTROY ALL DEPARTMENT STORES! It might offend the nudists! God, do people not realize that Muslims died in the attack too? Over 300 American Muslims died in that attack. Therefore, we should discriminate against Muslims and their faith? >_>
it reminds me in high school of pep rallies where they had skits making fun of the other school our football team was playing, and how people talked about how much they hated kids from the other high school and how we were rivals
i didn't rlly give a fuck i didn't know anyone from the other school so I reserved judgement, but of course you don't tell anyone that in your high school, wouldn't want to look weird or anything.
just played computer games (starcraft) when I got home
On September 11 2010 10:38 Khul Sadukar wrote: You cant force tolerance down ppls throats.
9/11 was done in the name of Jihad. Theres no denying that.
I think the muslims are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to build a Mosque there.
I think the gays are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to get into the Stonewall Inn.
I think the blacks are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to sit on the back of the bus.
I think the christians are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by preaching their faith and upsetting the roman gods.
I think you're being ridiculous and only making the situation worse by posting.
I think your post is rediculous since your comparing gay rights and racist laws & offending imaginary gods to actually building a shrine to a faith at a place which only recently many people were killed in the name of.
You dont see us building churches over in Afghanistan/Iraq do you?
Wonder how well that would sit with the locals...
I think his post is spot on. People against this are just stereotyping and discriminating based upon the religion. In fact, most people against this are just extrapolating the actions of extremists to the whole group. They want to build a shrine of faith to Islam? OH MY GOD, CAN'T HAPPEN. NOT NEAR GROUND ZERO! You know what else? It was MEN who drove those planes. Therefore, wouldn't it offend all women to have anything dealing with men near ground zero? QUICK, DESTROY ALL MEN'S BATHROOMS NEAR GROUND ZERO! Oh no, those people were wearing CLOTHES too? DESTROY ALL DEPARTMENT STORES! It might offend the nudists! God, do people not realize that Muslims died in the attack too? Over 300 American Muslims died in that attack. Therefore, we should discriminate against Muslims and their faith? >_>
Go build a church in Irag I dare you.
See the reaction from the locals.
So because they're possibly, POSSIBLY bigoted, we should be too? Should we follow the ideals of Iran too then and become a theocracy?
On September 11 2010 10:38 Khul Sadukar wrote: You cant force tolerance down ppls throats.
9/11 was done in the name of Jihad. Theres no denying that.
I think the muslims are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to build a Mosque there.
I think the gays are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to get into the Stonewall Inn.
I think the blacks are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to sit on the back of the bus.
I think the christians are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by preaching their faith and upsetting the roman gods.
I think you're being ridiculous and only making the situation worse by posting.
I think your post is rediculous since your comparing gay rights and racist laws & offending imaginary gods to actually building a shrine to a faith at a place which only recently many people were killed in the name of.
You dont see us building churches over in Afghanistan/Iraq do you?
Wonder how well that would sit with the locals...
I think his post is spot on. People against this are just stereotyping and discriminating based upon the religion. In fact, most people against this are just extrapolating the actions of extremists to the whole group. They want to build a shrine of faith to Islam? OH MY GOD, CAN'T HAPPEN. NOT NEAR GROUND ZERO! You know what else? It was MEN who drove those planes. Therefore, wouldn't it offend all women to have anything dealing with men near ground zero? QUICK, DESTROY ALL MEN'S BATHROOMS NEAR GROUND ZERO! Oh no, those people were wearing CLOTHES too? DESTROY ALL DEPARTMENT STORES! It might offend the nudists! God, do people not realize that Muslims died in the attack too? Over 300 American Muslims died in that attack. Therefore, we should discriminate against Muslims and their faith? >_>
Go build a church in Irag I dare you.
See the reaction from the locals.
Why you continue to spout this nonsense is ridiculous.
The U.S. is governed by a different set of principles than Iraq is.
Most of these posts are very, very immature views. No one is implying that we hate Islam, and when you make assumptions off another point to make an argument, that's what we call a fallacy. If you can't understand why people don't want this to be built, you really have to look at yourself in the mirror, because you have to grow the fuck up. A lot of the people against the mosque have pretty immature views too, that's for sure. The fact of the matter is, people died in the name of the Islamic god Allah 9 years ago today. When these people that want to build it tell you what it's "really for", and what will happen there, there's a good chance they're bending the truth to make you agree and be okay with it. In reality Allah WILL be worshiped there, regardless of who is in there worshiping, their beliefs, agree with the extremists or not, Allah will be worshiped there.
It seems kind of like a slap in the face. There are tons of other places this could be built, why there? Why the controversy? It's clear that this would have brought on some bad feelings from the past. There has to be other motives with them having this knowledge.
On September 12 2010 11:07 Demarini wrote: Most of these posts are very, very immature views. No one is implying that we hate Islam, and when you make assumptions off another point to make an argument, that's what we call a fallacy. If you can't understand why people don't want this to be built, you really have to look at yourself in the mirror, because you have to grow the fuck up. A lot of the people against the mosque have pretty immature views too, that's for sure. The fact of the matter is, people died in the name of the Islamic god Allah 9 years ago today. When these people that want to build it tell you what it's "really for", and what will happen there, there's a good chance they're bending the truth to make you agree and be okay with it. In reality Allah WILL be worshiped there, regardless of who is in there worshiping, their beliefs, agree with the extremists or not, Allah will be worshiped there.
It seems kind of like a slap in the face. There are tons of other places this could be built, why there? Why the controversy? It's clear that this would have brought on some bad feelings from the past. There has to be other motives with them having this knowledge.
Of course Allah will be worshiped there. There will be a mosque after all.
I don't see anything wrong with that. The fact that some extremists, who are the minority in Islam, decided to harm innocent civilians in the name of Allah has no bearing on what American Muslims do in the name of Allah.
As for why that location. I believe somewhere in this topic someone posted a news article that stated the owners bought that land because a wing or the fail fin of one of the planes landed on the building.
On September 12 2010 11:07 Demarini wrote: Most of these posts are very, very immature views. No one is implying that we hate Islam, and when you make assumptions off another point to make an argument, that's what we call a fallacy. If you can't understand why people don't want this to be built, you really have to look at yourself in the mirror, because you have to grow the fuck up. A lot of the people against the mosque have pretty immature views too, that's for sure. The fact of the matter is, people died in the name of the Islamic god Allah 9 years ago today. When these people that want to build it tell you what it's "really for", and what will happen there, there's a good chance they're bending the truth to make you agree and be okay with it. In reality Allah WILL be worshiped there, regardless of who is in there worshiping, their beliefs, agree with the extremists or not, Allah will be worshiped there.
It seems kind of like a slap in the face. There are tons of other places this could be built, why there? Why the controversy? It's clear that this would have brought on some bad feelings from the past. There has to be other motives with them having this knowledge.
It's not a fallacy that people against the mosque are usually discriminating based upon religion. Let's look at the facts: Extremists crashed the plane. The people who want to build the community center are not extremists. People don't want the community center built. Why? Because they're Islamic. Okay... What does that have to do with anything? Islamic Extremists crashed the plane. Okay... so? Therefore we cannot allow a building to worship Islam to be built within the vicinity. I'm sorry, but is that not discriminating against a religion?
I also don't understand how your argument against it is anything aside from discrimination based upon religion. Because Allah or God is worshiped there, and it happens to be the Islamic God, this community center shouldn't be built? And the reason for this is because extremists died for this Allah? Why is it that the majority of Muslims are discriminated against and have their rights stripped because of the minority? The fact of the matter is that you're against this because this is a Mosque, not a Synagogue, not a Buddhist Temple, not a Hindu Temple, not a Church, but a Mosque. The fact of the matter is the people who died in the name of the Islamic God were also extremists, outliers of the religion. The fact of the matter is 300 Muslims ALSO died in the 9/11 attacks, not just Christians.
And why there you ask? Because it's cheap property. Because there's another mosque near by that's extremely crowded so they need another place of worship. If your church/synagogue/temple was so full that you had to worship on the street, would you not want another one? Also, why should they have to move for the sympathy of the majority?
On September 12 2010 11:22 Lobotomist wrote: I hope it gets burned down.
Yet another ignorant asshole who doesn't realize his ill-informed attitude directly results in the strengthening of the most dangerous enemy America has ever faced.
We have tens of thousands of military personnel from many countries fighting worldwide to combat the threat of extremists, they hunt for and kill these extremists on a daily basis while ignorant fuck-tards like you unknowingly (hopefully) bolster groups like al-qaeda during the day and sleep safely in your bed at night.
Although the efforts of the military can be attributed directly to the weakening of osama and his lackeys, I think that hunting and killing people like you would do much more for the cause of eradicating these threats to our country.
On September 12 2010 11:22 Lobotomist wrote: I hope it gets burned down.
Yet another ignorant asshole who doesn't realize his ill-informed attitude directly results in the strengthening of the most dangerous enemy America has ever faced.
Some Russians are going to be angry at this insult.
On September 12 2010 11:22 Lobotomist wrote: I hope it gets burned down.
Yet another ignorant asshole who doesn't realize his ill-informed attitude directly results in the strengthening of the most dangerous enemy America has ever faced.
Some Russians are going to be angry at this insult.
the Russians never killed over 4000 American civilians in a single day. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have even wanted to.
Although the Russians were a great threat they never went through with attacks that purposely targeted American civilians (with German civilans that might be a different story). Although they have a large arsenal of nukes they have never once used one in war.
I'm pretty sure that if osama had access to even one nuke, he would use it immediately with devastating results.
On September 12 2010 12:03 zealotz55 wrote: Although the Russians were a great threat they never went through with attacks that purposely targeted American civilians (with German civilans that might be a different story). Although they have a large arsenal of nukes they have never once used one in war.
I'm pretty sure that if osama had access to even one nuke, he would use it immediately with devastating results.
Yeah, a nuke made by or stolen from Russia most likely. Russia even gives Iran uranium for their "power plants."
Russia was by far the biggest threat America has ever had. Sure they didn't destroy America and the world, but they could have, which is kind of the point. Not to mention Korea and Vietnam weren't very fun for our country.
Communism was a gigantic threat to the entire world.
On September 12 2010 12:03 zealotz55 wrote: Although the Russians were a great threat they never went through with attacks that purposely targeted American civilians (with German civilans that might be a different story). Although they have a large arsenal of nukes they have never once used one in war.
I'm pretty sure that if osama had access to even one nuke, he would use it immediately with devastating results.
Yeah, a nuke made by or stolen from Russia most likely. Russia even gives Iran uranium for their "power plants."
Russia was by far the biggest threat America has ever had. Sure they didn't destroy America and the world, but they could have, which is kind of the point. Not to mention Korea and Vietnam weren't very fun for our country.
Communism was a gigantic threat to the entire world.
On September 12 2010 12:03 zealotz55 wrote: Although the Russians were a great threat they never went through with attacks that purposely targeted American civilians (with German civilans that might be a different story). Although they have a large arsenal of nukes they have never once used one in war.
I'm pretty sure that if osama had access to even one nuke, he would use it immediately with devastating results.
Yeah, a nuke made by or stolen from Russia most likely. Russia even gives Iran uranium for their "power plants."
Russia was by far the biggest threat America has ever had. Sure they didn't destroy America and the world, but they could have, which is kind of the point. Not to mention Korea and Vietnam weren't very fun for our country.
Communism was a gigantic threat to the entire world.
ok i give up you win.
The Russians you insulted will break out the Vodka! Rejoice comrades!!!!!
On September 12 2010 11:07 Demarini wrote: Most of these posts are very, very immature views. No one is implying that we hate Islam, and when you make assumptions off another point to make an argument, that's what we call a fallacy. If you can't understand why people don't want this to be built, you really have to look at yourself in the mirror, because you have to grow the fuck up. A lot of the people against the mosque have pretty immature views too, that's for sure. The fact of the matter is, people died in the name of the Islamic god Allah 9 years ago today. When these people that want to build it tell you what it's "really for", and what will happen there, there's a good chance they're bending the truth to make you agree and be okay with it. In reality Allah WILL be worshiped there, regardless of who is in there worshiping, their beliefs, agree with the extremists or not, Allah will be worshiped there.
It seems kind of like a slap in the face. There are tons of other places this could be built, why there? Why the controversy? It's clear that this would have brought on some bad feelings from the past. There has to be other motives with them having this knowledge.
It's not a fallacy that people against the mosque are usually discriminating based upon religion. Let's look at the facts: Extremists crashed the plane. The people who want to build the community center are not extremists. People don't want the community center built. Why? Because they're Islamic. Okay... What does that have to do with anything? Islamic Extremists crashed the plane. Okay... so? Therefore we cannot allow a building to worship Islam to be built within the vicinity. I'm sorry, but is that not discriminating against a religion?
I also don't understand how your argument against it is anything aside from discrimination based upon religion. Because Allah or God is worshiped there, and it happens to be the Islamic God, this community center shouldn't be built? And the reason for this is because extremists died for this Allah? Why is it that the majority of Muslims are discriminated against and have their rights stripped because of the minority? The fact of the matter is that you're against this because this is a Mosque, not a Synagogue, not a Buddhist Temple, not a Hindu Temple, not a Church, but a Mosque. The fact of the matter is the people who died in the name of the Islamic God were also extremists, outliers of the religion. The fact of the matter is 300 Muslims ALSO died in the 9/11 attacks, not just Christians.
And why there you ask? Because it's cheap property. Because there's another mosque near by that's extremely crowded so they need another place of worship. If your church/synagogue/temple was so full that you had to worship on the street, would you not want another one? Also, why should they have to move for the sympathy of the majority?
That's the immaturity that I'm talking about. You honestly can not see the enormous impact 9/11 had, and was. How. How can't you see that 9/11 was the biggest moment in this country since Pearl Harbor, the first attack on US soil since that day. It hurts, it should hurt every time you think of it, you should cringe. I was 10, I still understoond how big of a day that was and how awful it is that thousands of people's lives were taken. You say I'm insensitive. How the fuck aren't they insensitive? Yes, I know they aren't extremists, I know they probably aren't bad people, but it doesn't change the fact that they very well know what they're doing by building a mosque at ground zero. The country is a pretty big place, new york is a pretty big place, hell, new york city is a pretty god damn big place. There are multiple other locations that they could build that, yet they choose that. They know exactly what they're doing, and I don't like it. I don't see the good in a person's soul when they're intentionally bringing bad memories to others. I can't stress it enough that this Imam knows exactly what he's doing.
On September 11 2010 10:38 Khul Sadukar wrote: You cant force tolerance down ppls throats.
9/11 was done in the name of Jihad. Theres no denying that.
I think the muslims are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to build a Mosque there.
I think the gays are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to get into the Stonewall Inn.
I think the blacks are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by trying to sit on the back of the bus.
I think the christians are being rediculous and only making the situation worse by preaching their faith and upsetting the roman gods.
I think you're being ridiculous and only making the situation worse by posting.
I think your post is rediculous since your comparing gay rights and racist laws & offending imaginary gods to actually building a shrine to a faith at a place which only recently many people were killed in the name of.
You dont see us building churches over in Afghanistan/Iraq do you?
Wonder how well that would sit with the locals...
I think his post is spot on. People against this are just stereotyping and discriminating based upon the religion. In fact, most people against this are just extrapolating the actions of extremists to the whole group. They want to build a shrine of faith to Islam? OH MY GOD, CAN'T HAPPEN. NOT NEAR GROUND ZERO! You know what else? It was MEN who drove those planes. Therefore, wouldn't it offend all women to have anything dealing with men near ground zero? QUICK, DESTROY ALL MEN'S BATHROOMS NEAR GROUND ZERO! Oh no, those people were wearing CLOTHES too? DESTROY ALL DEPARTMENT STORES! It might offend the nudists! God, do people not realize that Muslims died in the attack too? Over 300 American Muslims died in that attack. Therefore, we should discriminate against Muslims and their faith? >_>
Go build a church in Irag I dare you.
See the reaction from the locals.
Iraq was largely secularized under Saddam's rule. I can't believe you're actually arguing against freedom of religion, and pointing to 3rd world countries as your rolemodels. Lol.
On September 12 2010 11:07 Demarini wrote: Most of these posts are very, very immature views. No one is implying that we hate Islam, and when you make assumptions off another point to make an argument, that's what we call a fallacy. If you can't understand why people don't want this to be built, you really have to look at yourself in the mirror, because you have to grow the fuck up. A lot of the people against the mosque have pretty immature views too, that's for sure. The fact of the matter is, people died in the name of the Islamic god Allah 9 years ago today. When these people that want to build it tell you what it's "really for", and what will happen there, there's a good chance they're bending the truth to make you agree and be okay with it. In reality Allah WILL be worshiped there, regardless of who is in there worshiping, their beliefs, agree with the extremists or not, Allah will be worshiped there.
It seems kind of like a slap in the face. There are tons of other places this could be built, why there? Why the controversy? It's clear that this would have brought on some bad feelings from the past. There has to be other motives with them having this knowledge.
It's not a fallacy that people against the mosque are usually discriminating based upon religion. Let's look at the facts: Extremists crashed the plane. The people who want to build the community center are not extremists. People don't want the community center built. Why? Because they're Islamic. Okay... What does that have to do with anything? Islamic Extremists crashed the plane. Okay... so? Therefore we cannot allow a building to worship Islam to be built within the vicinity. I'm sorry, but is that not discriminating against a religion?
I also don't understand how your argument against it is anything aside from discrimination based upon religion. Because Allah or God is worshiped there, and it happens to be the Islamic God, this community center shouldn't be built? And the reason for this is because extremists died for this Allah? Why is it that the majority of Muslims are discriminated against and have their rights stripped because of the minority? The fact of the matter is that you're against this because this is a Mosque, not a Synagogue, not a Buddhist Temple, not a Hindu Temple, not a Church, but a Mosque. The fact of the matter is the people who died in the name of the Islamic God were also extremists, outliers of the religion. The fact of the matter is 300 Muslims ALSO died in the 9/11 attacks, not just Christians.
And why there you ask? Because it's cheap property. Because there's another mosque near by that's extremely crowded so they need another place of worship. If your church/synagogue/temple was so full that you had to worship on the street, would you not want another one? Also, why should they have to move for the sympathy of the majority?
That's the immaturity that I'm talking about. You honestly can not see the enormous impact 9/11 had, and was. How. How can't you see that 9/11 was the biggest moment in this country since Pearl Harbor, the first attack on US soil since that day. It hurts, it should hurt every time you think of it, you should cringe. I was 10, I still understoond how big of a day that was and how awful it is that thousands of people's lives were taken. You say I'm insensitive. How the fuck aren't they insensitive? Yes, I know they aren't extremists, I know they probably aren't bad people, but it doesn't change the fact that they very well know what they're doing by building a mosque at ground zero. The country is a pretty big place, new york is a pretty big place, hell, new york city is a pretty god damn big place. There are multiple other locations that they could build that, yet they choose that. They know exactly what they're doing, and I don't like it. I don't see the good in a person's soul when they're intentionally bringing bad memories to others. I can't stress it enough that this Imam knows exactly what he's doing.
Where do you live, specifically? Do you know what the area around there is like? This is a community center, not a mosque, and there already is a mosque within 4 blocks of the site.
This is unbelievably frustrating to listen to people with little understanding of Manhattan ramble on about the location, when they don't understand the blocks or distances or areas of NYC. It's not in view of the WTC site and that's a depressed part of Park Place. The reason they can move in there is because no businesses want to. It's relatively cheap open property which, if you lived in NYC you'd know, is harder to find than a Kpop singer with talent. In all the time since that Burlington Coat Factory had closed, no one had bought it. And know who found that location for the developer? A 21 year old Columbian immigrant who had been on some reality TV show for real estate or something. Such malicious intentions!
Do you know what's near that hallowed and sacred ground? While you're giving your thoughts and prayers to the families of 9/11, you can stop by NY Dolls, the Pussycat Lounge or Thunder Lingerie to buy a couple of dildos for yourself.
Finally, for the last time, it's not a mosque. You're a fool if you think it is. That's not a debatable point. Cordoba House is modeled after 92Y. Look it up if you don't know what it is.
Do you know what's truly desecrating that site? The flocks of goddamn tourists who tell their cab drivers to go to "Ground Zero." Thousands of them, every day. New York is the most multicultural city in the world and most of the people trying to stop that aren't from there.
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.
Why are you guys worried about ground zero? The trade centers are ALREADY GONE. Worry about them building a mosque around the Sear's Tower or the statue of liberty!
1) Build it anyway 2) Tell the U.S entertainment companies to stop calling themselves "News" 3) Find someone who will actually provide NEWS. Germany and other countries do a pretty good job at it...but I can't read their language --; 4) Figure out how we are going to educate Americans so we don't have idiots running around "representing" those who actually learned something in school.
On September 13 2010 00:26 Obelisk7 wrote: 1) Build it anyway 2) Tell the U.S entertainment companies to stop calling themselves "News" 3) Find someone who will actually provide NEWS. Germany and other countries do a pretty good job at it...but I can't read their language --; 4) Figure out how we are going to educate Americans so we don't have idiots running around "representing" those who actually learned something in school.
Amen to that... Unfortunately it doesn't seem feasible =(
On September 13 2010 00:26 Obelisk7 wrote: 1) Build it anyway 2) Tell the U.S entertainment companies to stop calling themselves "News" 3) Find someone who will actually provide NEWS. Germany and other countries do a pretty good job at it...but I can't read their language --; 4) Figure out how we are going to educate Americans so we don't have idiots running around "representing" those who actually learned something in school.
Amen to that... Unfortunately it doesn't seem feasible =(
Its too bad we can't shoot the people who do this kind of shit on sight the same way we shoot terrorists with their fingers on the trigger of a roadside bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan...
They are both directly bolstering al-qaeda, the former much more than the latter.
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.
Its too bad we can't shoot the people who do this kind of shit on sight the same way we shoot terrorists with their fingers on the trigger of a roadside bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan...
They are both directly bolstering al-qaeda, the former much more than the latter.
Who gives a crap about bolstering Al Qaeda when our government is executing citizens in the streets in cold blood?
On September 12 2010 11:07 Demarini wrote: Most of these posts are very, very immature views. No one is implying that we hate Islam, and when you make assumptions off another point to make an argument, that's what we call a fallacy. If you can't understand why people don't want this to be built, you really have to look at yourself in the mirror, because you have to grow the fuck up. A lot of the people against the mosque have pretty immature views too, that's for sure. The fact of the matter is, people died in the name of the Islamic god Allah 9 years ago today. When these people that want to build it tell you what it's "really for", and what will happen there, there's a good chance they're bending the truth to make you agree and be okay with it. In reality Allah WILL be worshiped there, regardless of who is in there worshiping, their beliefs, agree with the extremists or not, Allah will be worshiped there.
It seems kind of like a slap in the face. There are tons of other places this could be built, why there? Why the controversy? It's clear that this would have brought on some bad feelings from the past. There has to be other motives with them having this knowledge.
It's not a fallacy that people against the mosque are usually discriminating based upon religion. Let's look at the facts: Extremists crashed the plane. The people who want to build the community center are not extremists. People don't want the community center built. Why? Because they're Islamic. Okay... What does that have to do with anything? Islamic Extremists crashed the plane. Okay... so? Therefore we cannot allow a building to worship Islam to be built within the vicinity. I'm sorry, but is that not discriminating against a religion?
I also don't understand how your argument against it is anything aside from discrimination based upon religion. Because Allah or God is worshiped there, and it happens to be the Islamic God, this community center shouldn't be built? And the reason for this is because extremists died for this Allah? Why is it that the majority of Muslims are discriminated against and have their rights stripped because of the minority? The fact of the matter is that you're against this because this is a Mosque, not a Synagogue, not a Buddhist Temple, not a Hindu Temple, not a Church, but a Mosque. The fact of the matter is the people who died in the name of the Islamic God were also extremists, outliers of the religion. The fact of the matter is 300 Muslims ALSO died in the 9/11 attacks, not just Christians.
And why there you ask? Because it's cheap property. Because there's another mosque near by that's extremely crowded so they need another place of worship. If your church/synagogue/temple was so full that you had to worship on the street, would you not want another one? Also, why should they have to move for the sympathy of the majority?
That's the immaturity that I'm talking about. You honestly can not see the enormous impact 9/11 had, and was. How. How can't you see that 9/11 was the biggest moment in this country since Pearl Harbor, the first attack on US soil since that day. It hurts, it should hurt every time you think of it, you should cringe. I was 10, I still understoond how big of a day that was and how awful it is that thousands of people's lives were taken. You say I'm insensitive. How the fuck aren't they insensitive? Yes, I know they aren't extremists, I know they probably aren't bad people, but it doesn't change the fact that they very well know what they're doing by building a mosque at ground zero. The country is a pretty big place, new york is a pretty big place, hell, new york city is a pretty god damn big place. There are multiple other locations that they could build that, yet they choose that. They know exactly what they're doing, and I don't like it. I don't see the good in a person's soul when they're intentionally bringing bad memories to others. I can't stress it enough that this Imam knows exactly what he's doing.
They are doing something only because you choose to be offended. You just said they are probably good people and stuff and don't realize what they could be causing. Well good, they shouldn't because there is no logical basis behind stopping the community center from being built. They aren't intentionally bringing bad memories, people just irrational. Like Jibbs said, the real problem is the tourist who go to ground zero for pure tourism. I can't believe that's a tourist site but its really unbelievable.
Just because you are offended by something does not mean that what other people do is bad or unjustified. If we kept going by our emotions or feeling all the time the world would be chaotic. So keep your feelings to yourself, this center is going to be built.
Its too bad we can't shoot the people who do this kind of shit on sight the same way we shoot terrorists with their fingers on the trigger of a roadside bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan...
They are both directly bolstering al-qaeda, the former much more than the latter.
I agree, political protesters ought to be shot or perhaps jailed for life.
Its too bad we can't shoot the people who do this kind of shit on sight the same way we shoot terrorists with their fingers on the trigger of a roadside bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan...
They are both directly bolstering al-qaeda, the former much more than the latter.
I agree, political protesters ought to be shot or perhaps jailed for life.
Political protesters, as in, Civil Rights era KKK political protesters.
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.
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?
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?
shall we start talking about carpet bombing of Baghdat, 2 million CIVILIAN deaths (600.000 women, 400.000 children) in Iraq, shall we start talking about collars around naked prisoners? or cold water torture to those people in Ebu Garib? Shall we start talking about Guantanamo? Should I point out the mother of my Iraqi friend who had been raped by US troops? or his father who got shot because he opened his door a few minutes late to the US troops? I am not going to continue but I know you wont get the point anyways.
On September 13 2010 03:53 Floophead_III wrote: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.
You can't be so terribly Naive to think this is about "idealogical differences" right? Yeah, so were the crusades amirite?
Radical islam doesn't exist. Radical Islam is just what we call the tools Al'Quada, the Taliban, etc, uses the pressure millions of starving, poor, and desperate people into join there ranks to protect there economic interests in the Opium trade, weapons trade, and the oil market. .
Likewise, the the so called "war on terrorism" is just a tool the U.S government uses to wage economic wars for a stable base of power in the middle east and other economic interests tied to oil supplies. (Often as much about increasing rarity then decreasing it).
And everyone else? All casualties. From the Suicide bombers who kill themselves to vindicate themselves admist a deadend environment where they have no future, often pressured to do so by social harassment or humiliation rape, to the thousand of American lives lost 9/11, to the millions of Iraqi civilian dead, and the thousands of U.S soldiers who died bravely "for there country", whatever the fuck that means, or just another paycheck to get themselves out of there posturban ghettos.
And that isn't to say you shouldn't shoot them if they're about to blow themselves up on you or anything. But to hate, and to believe in these false values put in your hearts to prejure you to go on "ideological wars" for someone else pocket, well, that just about the worst thing you could do.
tl;dr Life sucks if your not in power, so have a little bit of empathy for the poor son of a bitches on the other side.
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 know extremist Muslims exist that want nothing more than to see every American die. But it doesn't have to be a war. Otherwise, we're in a kill them all before they kill us kind of situation. I'm not talking about fairy tale idealogy. The main example I was thinking of (but didn't mention) was the progressive movement against segregation of black people in America. It used to be "common knowledge" black people were slaves, that's just what it was. You can debate equality existing nowadays, but it's improved tremendously from what it used to be.
The world can't move forward if we keep hatred in our hearts. Yeah, that sounds like a completely hippie + Show Spoiler +
pussy
thing to say, but it's true. We'll be stuck where we are now, and like it or not one side has to make a change. It's obvious extremist grounds like Al-Qaeda won't, but here in America where we value religious freedom, and the freedom of speech and so many things other cultures look down up we have the power to start making a change in race relations. Unless you want to go to the Middle East and just "kill em all," we need to start making that change or this whole situation will never get fixed.
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).
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).
Look, this is just flat out retarded because Nazi ideology is intrinsically bad, while Islam is not intrinsically bad.
And explicating on that further, the Auschwitchz memorial exists as a rejection of Nazi ideology and represents a societal departure from genocide. Ground Zero should represent a similar stance against extremist mentality. By disallowing the building of the Mosque, your implying that all Muslims are extremists. In reality, the Korah advocates no more extremist mentality then The Bible.
It is fair to say that 9/11 was carried out in the name of Allah
9/11 is was carried out for personal hatreds, prejudices, glory, and bias, and vindicated through Islam. Sociology 101.
I am studying international relations at one of the best universities in the world.
Oh, fantastic. I feel so much better knowing you might be a future diplomat.
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.
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).
I think i mightve already posted this once but i think ill have to say it again. Im certain that there were muslims working in the twin towers and those were killed by those extremist factions. So i think saying that al qaeda did this for religious reasons is like saying the nazis hunted jews for religious reasons. After all hitler was a devout christian, believing to do good in the name of god. I dont see how this is any different. Its an extremist faction that does not care about the lives of their 'own' people, should they stand in the way of their goals. So i dont see a reason why there shouldnt be a mosque (2 block away from ground zero mind you) built where it is planned to be built.
Hope anything i wrote there made sense, im not exactly in tip top form today.
I hate how people talk about this being insensitive, when they are out there protesting the "mosque" on 9/11. If they were really sensitive, they'd have the respect to leave ground zero alone for the people there to mourn on 9/11. It's not disrespectful at all to have a "mosque" there. It's not a slap in the face. It's just people trying to use the issue to secure votes for the 2010 midterm election. It's pathetic really that this is an issue with all the other things currently going on in the world.
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).
Look, this is just flat out retarded because Nazi ideology is intrinsically bad, while Islam is not intrinsically bad.
I am studying international relations at one of the best universities in the world.
Oh, fantastic. I feel so much better knowing you might be a future diplomat.
Nothing is 'intrinsically good or bad'. These are just opinions. Your first statement about how Islam is not intrinsically bad, for example, is something I disagree with. I personally believe it is very bad, placing somewhere inbetween christianity and nazism. Even if it wasn't bad, it would not change the conclusion in my argument. This is something that is very difficult to convince people of, because most people have an irrational belief that an actions inherent "goodness or badness" changes everything. You will just have to try figuring that out for yourself.
I am not sure where you took your sociology 101, but there are a lot of complex reasons for why 9/11 happened. It is definately true that the underlying reasons were only partly motivated by religion, but that does not changing anything either. The people who carried out the act, the ones who were on the planes, THEY did it in the name of islam no matter what motivated the masterminds behind the plan.
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.
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?
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).
I think i mightve already posted this once but i think ill have to say it again. Im certain that there were muslims working in the twin towers and those were killed by those extremist factions. So i think saying that al qaeda did this for religious reasons is like saying the nazis hunted jews for religious reasons. After all hitler was a devout christian, believing to do good in the name of god. I dont see how this is any different. Its an extremist faction that does not care about the lives of their 'own' people, should they stand in the way of their goals. So i dont see a reason why there shouldnt be a mosque (2 block away from ground zero mind you) built where it is planned to be built.
Hope anything i wrote there made sense, im not exactly in tip top form today.
There is a mistake here. You are twisting my words to make them familiar to you. I have not said Al Qaida did this for religious reasons, I have said that it was done in the name of Allah/Islam. There is a very significant difference. If you want I will explain it to you.
Again, as I have said, it is not about the different groupings, it is about the name in which the action was carried out. I understand that this concept is difficult to grasp.
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.
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.
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?
Nothing is 'intrinsically good or bad'. These are just opinions. Your first statement about how Islam is not intrinsically bad, for example, is something I disagree with. I personally believe it is very bad, placing somewhere inbetween christianity and nazism. Even if it wasn't bad, it would not change the conclusion in my argument. This is something that is very difficult to convince people of, because most people have an irrational belief that an actions inherent "goodness or badness" changes everything. You will just have to try figuring that out for yourself.
I mean "Socially accepted as intrinsically bad" ok?
I'm very fucking aware actions don't carry intrinsic weight. I hate it when people make semantical arguments like that.
And if you're point is "We shouldn't build the Mosque on Ground Zero because people think Islam is evil", then that is just a whole new subset of problems that need to be solved, and can only be solved by not caving into stupid crap like that.
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?
What is up with you and making inappropriate analogies? It has been Nine years since 9/11, and the most important thing to do if you want the nation and the world to heal from these wounds isn't to continue to cling on to old prejudices. If this was happening on 2001, I would be singing a different tune, but guess what? Its 2010.
Its important to realize that the people in the Middle East do not do this because they are defective people (which very few people, but a couple, think), and more commonly, they have a defective belief. That is simply not the case. 99.9% of insurgents and "terrorists" because so due to zero sustainable opportunities for there future, and a huge variety of social problems, and a natural human resentment for occupants of ones ancestral home. Religion does play a role, but only as a way these people can vindicate and feel conviction in there lifestyles and directives, not a cause in itself.
I am not sure where you took your sociology 101, but there are a lot of complex reasons for why 9/11 happened. It is definately true that the underlying reasons were only partly motivated by religion, but that does not changing anything either. The people who carried out the act, the ones who were on the planes, THEY did it in the name of islam no matter what motivated the masterminds behind the plan.
Not talking about the masterminds, that had a long and complex history behind it that is irrelevent and isn't really connected to religion, I'm talking about the actual Hijackers.
And for them, religion is just a tool to vindicate and rationalize basic selfish human desires.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing is 'intrinsically good or bad'. These are just opinions. Your first statement about how Islam is not intrinsically bad, for example, is something I disagree with. I personally believe it is very bad, placing somewhere inbetween christianity and nazism. Even if it wasn't bad, it would not change the conclusion in my argument. This is something that is very difficult to convince people of, because most people have an irrational belief that an actions inherent "goodness or badness" changes everything. You will just have to try figuring that out for yourself.
I mean "Socially accepted as intrinsically bad" ok?
I'm very fucking aware actions don't carry intrinsic weight. I hate it when people make semantical arguments like that.
And if you're point is "We shouldn't build the Mosque on Ground Zero because people think Islam is evil", then that is just a whole new subset of problems that need to be solved, and can only be solved by not caving into stupid crap like that.
I am not sure where you took your sociology 101, but there are a lot of complex reasons for why 9/11 happened. It is definately true that the underlying reasons were only partly motivated by religion, but that does not changing anything either. The people who carried out the act, the ones who were on the planes, THEY did it in the name of islam no matter what motivated the masterminds behind the plan.
Not talking about the masterminds, that had a long and complex history behind it that is irrelevent and isn't really connected to religion, I'm talking about the actual Hijackers.
And for them, religion is just a tool to vindicate and rationalize basic selfish human desires.
In this case the semantic argument is important though, because you gave the intrinsic value weight where it shouldn't have any. Islam being 'intrinsically good'(I don't agree with this) does not change the fact that 9/11 was carried out in the name of Islam.
As for your second point, I couldn't care less about people who think Islam is evil. I would like you to read my last post in this thread where I make an example with an animal protection group.
As for your final point, their motivation is not interesting either. It was done in the name of Allah even if all they were thinking about were the 72 virgins waiting for them heaven. It is similar to an author dedicating his book to someone on the first page. It's about the message you send, and not about what is actually true.
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.
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 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.
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.
I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there.
On September 13 2010 06:33 Keyser wrote: In this case the semantic argument is important though, because you gave the intrinsic value weight where it shouldn't have any. Islam being 'intrinsically good'(I don't agree with this) does not change the fact that 9/11 was carried out in the name of Islam.
By that I mean that Nazism in any form advocates Ideals that are no longer tolerated by western society, while mainstream Islam does not. Not in any way moreso then Christianity or Judaism does anyway.
As for your second point, I couldn't care less about people who think Islam is evil. I would like you to read my last post in this thread where I make an example with an animal protection group.
I already addressed that lolwut.
What is up with you and making inappropriate analogies? It has been Nine years since 9/11, and the most important thing to do if you want the nation and the world to heal from these wounds isn't to continue to cling on to old prejudices. If this was happening on 2001, I would be singing a different tune, but guess what? Its 2010.
As for your final point, their motivation is not interesting either. It was done in the name of Allah even if all they were thinking about were the 72 virgins waiting for them heaven. It is similar to an author dedicating his book to someone on the first page. It's about the message you send, and not about what is actually true.
No, they weren't thinking about the 72 virgins. That's an extremely shallow view of religion and why people are driven to such extremes by it. Imagine yourself living a marginalized existence, degraded by the powers that be, completely powerless, and filled with hate. What religion does is vindicate that hatred and allows a person the conviction to go and kill himself "for the cause".
That isn't intrinsically connected to Islam at all. Islam can be substituted with any religion, and even if you removed all the worlds religions, the need to vindicate ones own desires for significance and an outlet for hatred would simply create religions.
Trust me, for extremists, the 72 virgins is a just a bonus on the back of there head.
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.
I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there.
How is it that entire ideologies change within a 5-10 year period? At one moment, all Japanese citizens are willing to die for the Emperor and the next, they're head over heels for General McCarthur? Is Shintoism really to blame?
I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there.
Then if you agree that Islam is not intrinsically problematic and is compatible with Western society, and that it can change relatively quickly, AND that mainstream islam is not any worse then Christianity, then why are you opposed to it?
(and I'll be honest, I didn't' even know you agreed with the above...I thought you thought that Islam was inherently problematic in Modern society...)
Because by halting it, you can only ever slow down the "integration" of Islamic values with Western society. When has stratification and polarization led to less stratification and polarization?
Well to be fair there isn't a mosque being built at Ground Zero. People lose sight of the fact that it is merely a community center with a mosque inside of it and it's three blocks away from ground zero. This is like calling a hospital a church because it has a chapel inside of it.
As far as calling it a "victory mosque" nothing could be more ridiculous. The real victory for the terrorists who committed these acts is that they have caused a massive division amongst the public and generated irrational hate for Islam. Limiting religious freedom in our country will only prove to the extremist factions of Islam that their violence and hatred has affected our way of life. Embracing muslim-americans doesn't harbor terrorism imo, it spits in the face of it.
On September 13 2010 06:33 Keyser wrote: In this case the semantic argument is important though, because you gave the intrinsic value weight where it shouldn't have any. Islam being 'intrinsically good'(I don't agree with this) does not change the fact that 9/11 was carried out in the name of Islam.
By that I mean that Nazism in any form advocates Ideals that are no longer tolerated by western society, while mainstream Islam does not. Not in any way moreso then Christianity or Judaism does anyway.
As for your second point, I couldn't care less about people who think Islam is evil. I would like you to read my last post in this thread where I make an example with an animal protection group.
What is up with you and making inappropriate analogies? It has been Nine years since 9/11, and the most important thing to do if you want the nation and the world to heal from these wounds isn't to continue to cling on to old prejudices. If this was happening on 2001, I would be singing a different tune, but guess what? Its 2010.
As for your final point, their motivation is not interesting either. It was done in the name of Allah even if all they were thinking about were the 72 virgins waiting for them heaven. It is similar to an author dedicating his book to someone on the first page. It's about the message you send, and not about what is actually true.
No, they weren't thinking about the 72 virgins. That's an extremely shallow view of religion and why people are driven to such extremes by it. Imagine yourself living a marginalized existence, degraded by the powers that be, completely powerless, and filled with hate. What religion does is vindicate that hatred and allows a person the conviction to go and kill himself "for the cause".
That isn't intrinsically connected to Islam at all. Islam can be substituted with any religion, and even if you removed all the worlds religions, the need to vindicate ones own desires for significance and an outlet for hatred would simply create religions.
Trust me, for extremists, the 72 virgins is a just a bonus on the back of there head.
About healing from the wounds: I agree with you. All I have ever said in this thread is that building a monument to Islam on the gravesite of people killed in the name of Islam is reasonable to be offended by. That's the only thing i've said, and people keep pinning all these other views on me that I don't have. I am not interested in arguing the proper course to "heal from the wounds" or whatever. I have no "old prejudices". I am not prejudiced at all. Personally I couldn't care less about 9/11 as a tragedy, and it didn't really surprise me that it happened after all USA has done to the world, but that's a completely different debate.
As for the 72 virgins: I know it's overly simplistic, I was sparing you the details because I didn't feel like it was relevant to the discussion. At this point it seems like you just want to "win" the discussion by turning it into something else because you can't really attack the one and only argument i've made(mentioned above).
About healing from the wounds: I agree with you. All I have ever said in this thread is that building a monument to Islam on the gravesite of people killed in the name of Islam is reasonable to be offended by.
:/.
I agree that it is "reasonable" to be offended by it in the sense that "I could see why a normal person would be offended by it. In fact, the first time I heard this, I was kind of shocked until I read a bit more closely into it, and found out some crucial facts (Like it isn't a big fucking traditional Muslim Mosque literally on top of ground Zero, but a community center for the Muslim community a few blocks down). If you had expressed that view clearly, there wouldn't have ever been an argument.
And I can see how the masses of people would be offended after pundits convinced them that a "monument" to Islam was being built on "Top" of ground zero. But as we can clearly see, neither are event vaguely true.
However, that really isn't what you started the argument with.
Namely, comparing Imam Rauf to Neo-Nazis, and comparing the building of the Mosque to building a Neo-Nazi "clubhouse" on Auschwitz....
edit:
and before you say "I'm not comparing"
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.
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.
I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there.
How is it that entire ideologies change within a 5-10 year period? At one moment, all Japanese citizens are willing to die for the Emperor and the next, they're head over heels for General McCarthur? Is Shintoism really to blame?
In the case of Islam, I believe the ideology has not changed very much. Instead, the political landscape has changed, and Islam is now being "more fully utilized" by prominent leader figures. I feel like Islam lends itself better to extremism than other religions. For example, you won't find examples of suicide bombings within other mainstream religions(at least not on any significant scale). As for Japan, it would just be speculation. I don't really think Japanese culture at its core has changed that much, they are just behaving differently in a different situation. Give them the emperor and their old situation back and they would be willing to die for him all over again.
Ok I'm not sure if this was mentioned yet, but this building is not a mosque. It's a sports center that's open to all people and just so happens to have a room for praying for Muslims out of convenience. This story was just overblown by the media and exaggerated way beyond proportion.
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.
I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there.
How is it that entire ideologies change within a 5-10 year period? At one moment, all Japanese citizens are willing to die for the Emperor and the next, they're head over heels for General McCarthur? Is Shintoism really to blame?
In the case of Islam, I believe the ideology has not changed very much. Instead, the political landscape has changed, and Islam is now being "more fully utilized" by prominent leader figures. I feel like Islam lends itself better to extremism than other religions. For example, you won't find examples of suicide bombings within other mainstream religions(at least not on any significant scale). As for Japan, it would just be speculation. I don't really think Japanese culture at its core has changed that much, they are just behaving differently in a different situation. Give them the emperor and their old situation back and they would be willing to die for him all over again.
Thats because there are basically only five mainstream religions. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.
Among them, only two of them are commonplace in extremely volatile and uneducated places in the world. Islam and Hinduism. In the case of Hinduism, the Naxalites are commies lols, so obviously, Hinduism isn't really relevant.
So that just leaves Islam. Its really pretty coincidental. Personally I think Christianity and Islam are on a perfectly even "tendency to make people do irrationally crazy shit" scale, but Christianity doesn't get as much hate because most predominately Christian countries are in the west.
And really, religious ideologies are reflections of culture, not the other way around. If you properly educate people and give them sustainable and stable futures, then the extremism goes away.
I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there.
Then if you agree that Islam is not intrinsically problematic and is compatible with Western society, and that it can change relatively quickly, AND that mainstream islam is not any worse then Christianity, then why are you opposed to it?
(and I'll be honest, I didn't' even know you agreed with the above...I thought you thought that Islam was inherently problematic in Modern society...)
Because by halting it, you can only ever slow down the "integration" of Islamic values with Western society. When has stratification and polarization led to less stratification and polarization?
There's the ideology/religion itself and then there is the actual practice of it. Most religious ideologies are incompatible with modern society, but people can be molded to conform to a more acceptable version. This is what happened with Christianity. Islam today is more connected to its roots, in part because of how the Quran is taken as the absolute word of Allah whereas The Bible is accepted to be written by a collaboration of priests and important people, and in part because the Muslim countries are less advanced.
See, I don't like most of the values being preached by the Quran. I don't like Christianity either. I have no religious beliefs whatsoever. I do agree that integration is the best alternative for the world, but integration is a two-way street. It doesn't happen by tolerating everything. But I am not trying to halt anything. My criticism of a potential mosque on ground zero was actually not related to religion. For example, if the plane crashes was done in the name of the animal liberation front, and some other, less extreme animal rights organization opened a new office right on top of ground zero, i'd be saying the same thing.
opened a new office right on top of ground zero, i'd be saying the same thing.
But as many have said, it isn't building a giant Mosque right on ground Zero.
First of all, its three New York blocks away. That's basically half a mile. Then it isn't a full blown mosque, its a praying/communion area inside of a community center.
About healing from the wounds: I agree with you. All I have ever said in this thread is that building a monument to Islam on the gravesite of people killed in the name of Islam is reasonable to be offended by.
:/.
I agree that it is "reasonable" to be offended by it in the sense that "I could see why a normal person would be offended by it. In fact, the first time I heard this, I was kind of shocked until I read a bit more closely into it, and found out some crucial facts (Like it isn't a big fucking traditional Muslim Mosque literally on top of ground Zero, but a community center for the Muslim community a few blocks down). If you had expressed that view clearly, there wouldn't have ever been an argument.
And I can see how the masses of people would be offended after pundits convinced them that a "monument" to Islam was being built on "Top" of ground zero. But as we can clearly see, neither are event vaguely true.
However, that really isn't what you started the argument with.
Namely, comparing Imam Rauf to Neo-Nazis, and comparing the building of the Mosque to building a Neo-Nazi "clubhouse" on Auschwitz....
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.
This, by definition, is comparing.
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
opened a new office right on top of ground zero, i'd be saying the same thing.
But as many have said, it isn't building a giant Mosque right on ground Zero.
First of all, its three New York blocks away. That's basically half a mile. Then it isn't a full blown mosque, its a praying/communion area inside of a community center.
And then the pundits come :/.
I know it's not right on ground zero. In fact, I started this argument by announcing that since it is not actually on ground zero, I don't mind if they set up a mosque there. The argument escalated from there and turned into a "what if it was right on top of ground zero" debate. I am sure that caused some confusion for people who didn't read the post where I wrote that.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
freedom of religion. Let them have it, they are no exception to that principle. The fact that this is actually a discussed topic really speaks volumes about how idiotic some people really are.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
(and @ the above guy)
The difference is we wouldn't morally support ANY kind of Neo Nazi monument. Because Neo-Nazism is fucking awful. I'd hope your fine with Mosques in generally.
Building a Neo-Nazi monument in Auschwitz would be just as reprehensible as building a Neo Nazi monument anywhere. The fact that they're building it on Auchswitz is just insult to injury so to speak.
Building a Mosque is not an insult. So building one near a site of "injury" is not adding "insult", because building a Mosque for a conservative Muslim group is not an Insult anyway.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
Yes, what is giving you trouble? Imam Rauf and Al Qaida share the same ideology with different interpretation and exercise of it, much like two people can believe that all animals have the right to be free while only one of them actually bombs animal shelters to free them. They have the same basic ideology, but they are not the same. It is the religion they have in common, the belief in Allah, that is praised by placing a mosque on ground zero. The plane crashing was done in the name of Allah. Allah is within the realm of what Imam Rauf and the Al Qaida plane crashers have in common, even if they are different in how they actually go about their beliefs and how much of it they accept, and that is why it is inappropriate that Imam Rauf builds a mosque to praise Allah on Ground Zero.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
So are you in favor of banning any churches that might be built near kids because some priests were pedophiles protected by the Catholic Church?
It's pretty damn insensitive to all caring and protective parents. Who knows what the local priest might do to our kids?
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
(and @ the above guy)
The difference is we wouldn't morally support ANY kind of Neo Nazi monument. Because Neo-Nazism is fucking awful. I'd hope your fine with Mosques in generally.
Building a Neo-Nazi monument in Auschwitz would be just as reprehensible as building a Neo Nazi monument anywhere.
How bad neo-nazi's are is irrelevant. It was an example. We could compare it to setting up a gold-layered fucking fruitwagon at the scene where an entire family was violently sodomized and killed by a banana-wielding maniac acting in the name of fruitvendors everywhere, if that makes you more comfortable. He killed them in the name of fruitvendors. Don't set up a golden fruitwagon to praise fruitvendors right where they died.
I typically stay away from inflammatory threads like these, but after discussing this with my family over the weekend, I've come to this conclusion.
1st and foremost: This is America. Muslims have the right to build this mosque. Blocking it politically would be a very bad thing.
That being said, I don't think there's any denying the sensitive nature of this mosque's location. Whether the mosque is meant to be a staunch reminder of 9/11 or not is irrelevant. Because of the nature of the attacks, and because of the religion of the people who carried out those attacks, Americans will always associate Islam with what happened that day. You can call it ignorance if you want, (I don't think it is) but the fact of the matter is constructing a temple to the thing that incited these attacks is going to leave a lot of Americans with a bad taste in their mouth. Period.
So, with that in mind, if the Imam of this mosque really wants to impress upon Americans that his people are peaceful, understanding, and sympathetic to what happened that day, why doesn't he just come out and say "You know what? I understand why Americans are so sensitive about this, and out of respect to them, I'm going to relocate my mosque".
To me, that's the course of action that a true holy-man would take.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
So are you in favor of banning any churches that might be built near kids because some priests were pedophiles protected by the Catholic Church?
It's pretty damn insensitive to all caring and protective parents. Who knows what the local priest might do to our kids?
I am not in favor of banning anything. I've only been saying that it is reasonable to be offended by it. Discussing in threads like this is hopeless because people like you always show up and give me opinions I never had.
But to use your example, the answer is no. If a pedophile priest raped you, and then the catholic church decided to build a church right next to your house, you'd have good reason to be offended. That's a direct translation of what i've been saying to your scenario. I have never mentioned bans of any kind. Do you really disagree with this?
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
So are you in favor of banning any churches that might be built near kids because some priests were pedophiles protected by the Catholic Church?
It's pretty damn insensitive to all caring and protective parents. Who knows what the local priest might do to our kids?
I am not in favor of banning anything. I've only been saying that it is reasonable to be offended by it. Discussing in threads like this is hopeless because people like you always show up and give me opinions I never had.
Its almost like hes offended of what he thinks your position is and isnt really considering how you really feel. Hes kinda just lumping you in with another group of people.
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.
Yes but what I said is that moderate muslims do not actually follow the pure ideology of Islam. These ideas are therefore not in conflict.
The West IS in an ideological war. Islamic ideals and western ideals do NOT work together. They are incompatible.
Islam itself needs a moderate reform, to show that it can be compatible with modern western ideals. There are plenty of moderate muslims, but they need to showcase their affirmation that radical Islam is wrong and bad.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
Yes, what is giving you trouble? Imam Rauf and Al Qaida share the same ideology with different interpretation and exercise of it, much like two people can believe that all animals have the right to be free while only one of them actually bombs animal shelters to free them. They have the same basic ideology, but they are not the same. It is the religion they have in common, the belief in Allah, that is praised by placing a mosque on ground zero. The plane crashing was done in the name of Allah. Allah is within the realm of what Imam Rauf and the Al Qaida plane crashers have in common, even if they are different in how they actually go about their beliefs and how much of it they accept, and that is why it is inappropriate that Imam Rauf builds a mosque to praise Allah on Ground Zero.
If that didn't explain it to you then I am done.
And again in your explanation you return to the misconception (now a deliberate lie rather than a mistake on your part since you have been informed) that Allah is a uniquely Islamic deity.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
whats insane is violation of free fall and constant acceleration, violation of melting point, ignoring the evidence of nanothermate done by prof steven jones, skyscrapers falling on their imprint from an assymetrical blow. buildings falling in the exact same manner without being hit by planes... and still believing that the planes caused bulidings to fall.... the government said it, it must be true.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
i think your gravely confused. i dont think imam rauf adheres to al qaeda's idealogy. yes thats right the idealogy of al qaeda is not the same as most muslims. those who share al qaeda's idealogy are terrorist groups. to say that imam rauf follows the idealogy of al qaeda is very stupid. now your saying that they both follow the "idealogy of islam" but this is a huuuuuge simplification of the issue. ask muslims what an "islamic idealogy" is and you will get very different answers from them. ask any terrorist group what an islamic idealogy is and you will still get different answers. very very few people will adhere to al qaeda's idealogy of armed global war in the name of religion
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
i think your gravely confused. i dont think imam rauf adheres to al qaeda's idealogy. yes thats right the idealogy of al qaeda is not the same as most muslims. those who share al qaeda's idealogy are terrorist groups. to say that imam rauf follows the idealogy of al qaeda is very stupid. now your saying that they both follow the "idealogy of islam" but this is a huuuuuge simplification of the issue. ask muslims what an "islamic idealogy" is and you will get very different answers from them. ask any terrorist group what an islamic idealogy is and you will still get different answers. very very few people will adhere to al qaeda's idealogy of armed global war in the name of religion
I was actually quoting another poster because he claimed he never said anything crazy.
You simply cannot say that you dislike a mosque being built near ground zero and simultaneously say that you aren't being intolerant of Islam. Forty pages in I would have thought we'd have that at least clear. Almost no Muslims are part of Al-Qaeda.
And that people would even equate Islam as a whole with Neo-Nazis is abhorrent.
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.
I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there.
How is it that entire ideologies change within a 5-10 year period? At one moment, all Japanese citizens are willing to die for the Emperor and the next, they're head over heels for General McCarthur? Is Shintoism really to blame?
In the case of Islam, I believe the ideology has not changed very much. Instead, the political landscape has changed, and Islam is now being "more fully utilized" by prominent leader figures. I feel like Islam lends itself better to extremism than other religions. For example, you won't find examples of suicide bombings within other mainstream religions(at least not on any significant scale). As for Japan, it would just be speculation. I don't really think Japanese culture at its core has changed that much, they are just behaving differently in a different situation. Give them the emperor and their old situation back and they would be willing to die for him all over again.
Suicide bombing is a relatively recent tactic, only really becoming a mainstream terrorism tactic in the 1970s used by Palestinians.
You make statements like "I believe" or "I feel like" but on what weight does your judgment actually carry? Have you done/studied religious studies or international relations or international security? The experts' findings contradict your beliefs.
Nothing should be built near ground zero imo. It should be declared holy ground like the Native burial grounds. There's nothing racist about it, it's just that an unfortunate event took place there and over 2000 people were killed.
You mean suicide bombing of civilians, right? Suicide missions has always had a place in military traditions. Once there were bombs, suicide missions started using them, too. And as far as commit suicide by explosion, European commanders have always been trained to detonated artillery stores on themselves rather than let the ammunition fall into enemy hands.
Japanese people are proud and can be somewhat xenophobia, but they've learned their lesson from global trade. Their people are wealthier now than they could ever be under an imperialistic political-economic model.
On September 13 2010 11:33 TwoPac wrote: Nothing should be built near ground zero imo. It should be declared holy ground like the Native burial grounds. There's nothing racist about it, it's just that an unfortunate event took place there and over 2000 people were killed.
Behold, 2pac speaking to us from the beyond using intrawebz.
Well, when I was in Canaduh on summer vacation, I mainly stayed in Toronto, ON.( Don't think there was as much Native Americans as in other parts of NA(?) area, and visited Alberta, from what I heard from people I befriended etc. they are building on Native American grounds? Altho that's only what I heard, I don't know this for a fact, but that's way worse then building a Community center like 1KM or whatever from GZ.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
i think your gravely confused. i dont think imam rauf adheres to al qaeda's idealogy. yes thats right the idealogy of al qaeda is not the same as most muslims. those who share al qaeda's idealogy are terrorist groups. to say that imam rauf follows the idealogy of al qaeda is very stupid. now your saying that they both follow the "idealogy of islam" but this is a huuuuuge simplification of the issue. ask muslims what an "islamic idealogy" is and you will get very different answers from them. ask any terrorist group what an islamic idealogy is and you will still get different answers. very very few people will adhere to al qaeda's idealogy of armed global war in the name of religion
I can't believe this guy was the only person on the last page to call out Hunter for comparing Imam Rauf (a Sufi Muslim) to Al Qaeda (an extremist Sunni organization) based purely on religion. It's clear that Hunter couldn't identify a Sufi Muslim if one punched him in the face. (Which, of course, Sufi being one of the most moderate and peaceful brands of Islam, would never happen.)
That's like comparing Mother Theresa to the IRA because they both share a "Catholic idiology". That's like comparing the Dalai Lama to Aum Shinrikyo because they both share a "Buddhist idiology".
i say what if the acts of terrorism were commited by a select few christian (and i put emphasis on if) extremists? Would people be protesting against building a church in exactly the same place? Because al qaeda is nothing more that! A small group of muslim extremists that in no way whatsoever speak or stand for all muslims. I think people should stop being so ignorant. Watch the discovery channel for a change! Read a book or something! How many of those people protesting even know that muslims themselves in afghanistan and iraq are just as badly and probably worsely affected by al qaeda activity? Its a mosque. Wake up. Dont you think everyone is reminded of that day every time they look at the location and see the empty space that was the wtc?
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
After reading many blogs and news articles on this matter, I'll share my opinion:
When I first got to know the story, I was pretty opposed to its construction... they have the right, but they're being insensitive if the mosque is being built next to the tower site. But, they're not building the mosque anywhere NEAR "ground zero", it's a few blocks away and that's why they have every right to do it. It's all blown out of porporations due to media sensationalism.
On September 14 2010 01:58 ArbAttack wrote: After reading many blogs and news articles on this matter, I'll share my opinion:
When I first got to know the story, I was pretty opposed to its construction... they have the right, but they're being insensitive if the mosque is being built next to the tower site. But, they're not building the mosque anywhere NEAR "ground zero", it's a few blocks away and that's why they have every right to do it. It's all blown out of porporations due to media sensationalism.
It's being built as close to ground zero as possible. The particular building was chosen for its "symbolic significance" in that a piece of WTC shrapnel damaged that building.
In his interview with Larry King, Rauf said that "moving the project to another location would strengthen Islamist radicals' ability to recruit followers and would increase violence against Americans."
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years
edit: dont say suicide bombs
We could start with the accomplishments of the Ottoman Empire. I assume you'll selectively ignore those parts about them welcoming Jews fleeing from western Europe though.
But just from the Ottomans alone we can attribute: - Modern religious freedoms - Sassanid architecture - Modern Welfare (soups kitchens, bath houses, hospitals) - The earliest world maps (the most accurate in the 16th century) - optics (including basic understanding of the speed of light as a constant) - the earliest steam engine - mechanical clocks
lol, pathetic list. you left out the armenian genocide!! oh wait, that never happened.
User was temp banned for this post.
FFFFFUUUUU his ban has expired and now he's back to trash the thread again.
Americans seriously need to get over this mosque project. It's a good thing that it's being built. There are actual problems that deserve attention.
yes it's offensive to some, if u believe the whole muslim fanatic terrorist thing.
it's not a good idea even if it was true.
but since when was violating property rights, and going agianst the philosophy of a republic where u rule by law, not by the mob, and freedom of religion consistent with being american?
newsflash: freedom allows for offensive statements.
I can see it from both sides of the coin. The respecting the family's of the victims and the freedom to practice which so ever religion someone chooses. Personally I think it should be allowed as those who participated in 9/11 aren't true muslims anyway and have contorted and rearranged the muslim faith to suit their needs.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
i think your gravely confused. i dont think imam rauf adheres to al qaeda's idealogy. yes thats right the idealogy of al qaeda is not the same as most muslims. those who share al qaeda's idealogy are terrorist groups. to say that imam rauf follows the idealogy of al qaeda is very stupid. now your saying that they both follow the "idealogy of islam" but this is a huuuuuge simplification of the issue. ask muslims what an "islamic idealogy" is and you will get very different answers from them. ask any terrorist group what an islamic idealogy is and you will still get different answers. very very few people will adhere to al qaeda's idealogy of armed global war in the name of religion
I can't believe this guy was the only person on the last page to call out Hunter for comparing Imam Rauf (a Sufi Muslim) to Al Qaeda (an extremist Sunni organization) based purely on religion. It's clear that Hunter couldn't identify a Sufi Muslim if one punched him in the face. (Which, of course, Sufi being one of the most moderate and peaceful brands of Islam, would never happen.)
That's like comparing Mother Theresa to the IRA because they both share a "Catholic idiology". That's like comparing the Dalai Lama to Aum Shinrikyo because they both share a "Buddhist idiology".
Oh wait, generic stereotypes don't work. Ever.
The sad fact is, most Americans couldn't tell you if Al Qaeda was a Sunni or Shia organization even 9 years after the attack. Most wouldn't have a clue as to what Sufism is either. American opinion lumps all Muslims together and that's where you get the Islam = terrorism association.
Brief pause for everyone reading the thread to go wiki these groups in a sad attempt to appear worldly.
I would think most Americans have some knowledge of the differences in other religions. Even if it's as simple as understanding why Jesus isn't on the cross in one church and is on the cross on another. Then I remember that most of my father's family accidentally converted from Episcopalian to Lutheran simply because the drive to church was easier...
the western is way too tolerance toward the minority, just take view on other side. For e.g there are already 2 attacks on church in indonesia within 2 months.
(what did they say? they dont want a church to be built there?)
now we have a good comparison between this two world
for eg this guy Alex Stewart already receiving death threat, that's not new from islam country. Funny is that he also burned bible but what? the reaction of the christian is as expected, clearly that they are more peaceful than the folks from other side.
sorry, claims that islam is peace is very different from the fact that I observed.
On September 15 2010 03:59 Melancholia wrote: Yes, nerokae, because we should definitely not hold ourselves to a higher standard than Indonesia or the Middle East.
You're arguing with the same people that would have been screaming death threats at black children in integrated schools if it was 1954...
On September 15 2010 03:59 Melancholia wrote: Yes, nerokae, because we should definitely not hold ourselves to a higher standard than Indonesia or the Middle East.
What's wrong with the standards in the Middle East? Are you saying they are morally inferior to us? Do you hate muslims or something?
On September 15 2010 03:59 Melancholia wrote: Yes, nerokae, because we should definitely not hold ourselves to a higher standard than Indonesia or the Middle East.
What's wrong with the standards in the Middle East? Are you saying they are morally inferior to us? Do you hate muslims or something?
If we're talking about freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to vote, etc., then we shouldn't lower ourselves to the standards of the Middle East. We should be raising their standards while upholding and improving our own.
On September 15 2010 03:59 Melancholia wrote: Yes, nerokae, because we should definitely not hold ourselves to a higher standard than Indonesia or the Middle East.
What's wrong with the standards in the Middle East? Are you saying they are morally inferior to us? Do you hate muslims or something?
major problem most of em are very religious which actually isnt bad thing but then again it would make them more easier to be influenced by anti western propanganda which we have heard lots of.
I'm not trying to spread hatred but just throwing down the fact and trying to figure it out how we can live together with less conflict.
ok all of that, because of what? their own gov let it in order to misdirect their own peoples depression because of their social status, its better than if they started to think about their gov and how corrupt is their land. Imam is basically almost like christian religious leader in dark age.
this become more dangerous for overseers as we know many immigrant from middle east is increasing problem in europe for like crime etc. But that's normal because they have integration problem which caused by their strong believe.
yea its a vicious circle.
muslim has to be more modern like majority of christian these days. I'm an atheis, I dun give a damn about religion, but the situation atm disturb me lots.
I also dont get it why cant iraq or afgranistan get over it and start to build their country like japan, korea, china did. Instead of keep fighting the foreigners.... Its so silly, Japan was or maybe still be occupied by the USA but what!? they dont give a damn shit about it. If japan could make it why cant middle east too? I dont mean like starting modern industry but they could start with something else which they are good at.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs381.snc4/44432_145483098807067_100000361325537_316502_40614_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/piechart2-1024x1024.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/5425/38523765.png)
![[image loading]](http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss194/GAT_00/Religion/TacgJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/6671/29865.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PT4KI.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Serbian_Cross1.svg/150px-Serbian_Cross1.svg.png)
