With the debate going on about the Islamic center near ground zero, I would love everyone's opinions on if this is related, or your opinions in general.
A cabdriver was attacked by a knife-wielding passenger who made anti-Muslim remarks on Tuesday evening, the police said.
The passenger, Michael Enright, 21, of Brewster, N.Y., hailed the cab at Second Avenue and East 24th Street around 6 p.m. Tuesday, the police said. Twenty blocks north, they said, he slashed and stabbed the 43-year-old driver in his throat, face and arm.
The driver, identified by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance as Ahmed H. Sharif, 43, stopped the cab and approached a police officer on Third Avenue near 42nd Street. Mr. Enright was arrested at the scene.
According to the taxi workers alliance, Mr. Sharif’s fare started out the ride asking him in a friendly way if he was Muslim, whether he was observing Ramadan, and how long he had been in the United States.
After falling silent for a few minutes, the passenger began cursing and screaming, and then yelled, “Assalamu Alaikum. Consider this a checkpoint,” and slashed Mr. Sharif across the neck, then on the face from his nose to his upper lip, the alliance said.
Both men were taken to Bellevue Hospital Center. The driver, whose name was not released, was in stable condition. A law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said Mr. Enright was “very drunk” at the time of the attack.
“I feel very sad,” Mr. Sharif said in a statement released by the taxi workers alliance. “ I have been here more than 25 years. I have been driving a taxi more than 15 years. All my four kids were born here. I never feel this hopeless and insecure before.” He added that “right now, the public sentiment is very serious” because of tensions over Park51, the so-called “ground zero mosque.”
The police charged Mr. Enright with attempted murder as a hate crime, assault, aggravated harassment and criminal possession of a weapon. He was awaiting arraignment on Wednesday.
Full release from the New York Taxi Workers Alliance + Show Spoiler +
Ahmed H. Sharif, 43, a yellow taxi cab driver slashed across the neck, face and shoulders by a passenger during an anti-Muslim hate crime will stand with fellow New York Taxi Workers Alliance members, and community, immigrant and Muslim organizations to call for an end to the bigotry and anti-Islamic rhetoric in the debate around the Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center, referred to as the Ground Zero Mosque. "I feel very sad. I have been here more than 25 years. I have been driving a taxi more than 15 years. All my four kids were born here. I never feel this hopeless and insecure before," said Mr. Sharif. "Right now, the public sentiment is very serious (because of the Ground Zero Mosque debate.) All drivers should be more careful." On Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 Mr. Sharif picked up the perpetrator at 24th Street and Second Avenue, his first fare for the shift, and headed toward Times Square. The man, 21, started out friendly, asking Mr. Sharif about where he was from, how long he had been in America, if he was Muslim and if he was observing fast during Ramadan. He then first became silent for a few minutes and then suddenly started cursing and screaming. There, at about 6:15pm at Third Avenue between 40th and 41st Streets, he yelled, "Assalamu Alaikum. Consider this a checkpoint," and then slashed Mr. Sharif across the neck. As Mr. Sharif went to knock the knife out, the perpetrator, continuing to scream loudly, cut the taxi driver in the face (from nose to upper lip), arm and hand. "While a minority of has-been politicians spew ignorance and fear, it's the working person on the street who has to face the consequences," said NYTWA Executive Director Bhairavi Desai. "This kind of bigotry only breeds more violence and makes taxi drivers all the more vulnerable on the streets where there are no bully pulpits or podiums to hide behind." The US Department of Labor reports taxi drivers to be thirty times more likely to be killed on the job than other workers. The 13,000-member NYTWA called on the District Attorney to be vigilant in its prosecution of the attempted murder and hate crime and urged the Governor to sign the Taxi Driver Protection Act, passed by the state legislature on June 26th, 2010, increasing penalties on crimes against taxi drivers and requiring a sign in all taxis, "WARNING: Assaulting a Taxi Driver is Punishable by Up to Twenty-Five Years in Prison." "Maybe if the warning sign was there, this kind of stranger who comes to us with hatred would have to think twice," said Anwar Hossain. "At least we could feel safer and not alone. No matter what political issue is going on, at least we could be treated as equal Americans and feel protected."
"The driver, identified by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance as Ahmed H. Sharif, 43, stopped the cab and approached a police officer on Third Avenue near 42nd Street. Mr. Enright was arrested at the scene."
"Both men were taken to Bellevue Hospital Center. The driver, whose name was not released, was in stable condition. A law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said Mr. Enright was “very drunk” at the time of the attack."
I honestly wish this hadn't taken place during a debate over a nonsense issue such as "Should we allow Muslims to build a community center 2 blocks away from a site where some unrelated Muslims attacked two buildings". A non-newsworthy story has been overhyped by conservative news organizations and inadvertently almost killed a man as a result.
On August 26 2010 02:48 micronesia wrote: I'm very confused by this articleblog?.
Police did not release his name. It was determined through another means (likely the statement issued by the taxi drivers association).
On August 26 2010 02:48 micronesia wrote: "The driver, identified by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance as Ahmed H. Sharif, 43, stopped the cab and approached a police officer on Third Avenue near 42nd Street. Mr. Enright was arrested at the scene."
"Both men were taken to Bellevue Hospital Center. The driver, whose name was not released, was in stable condition. A law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said Mr. Enright was “very drunk” at the time of the attack."
I'm very confused by this articleblog?.
Yeah I noticed, that is why I included links to other sites that posted the story. I believe he has not been identified by the police or the hospital or something, but has been identified by other sources. But that is just my guess.
I love America's speed of justice system. This kind of things happening in Ontario would take 4 years to get to arraignment and another 4 years to get to trial. LOL.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say.
oh my. this is ridiculous at least the guy was drunk. that KINDA makes it a bit better. i hate how people judge. i've flown quite a bit this summer and many middle easterns are flagged. its more a random brown passenger check.
the arraignment happens pretty fast, but then going to trial can still take months and months.
People are going batshit crazy over this mosque thing, seriously chill the fuck out. Attacking them is only giving them reasons to attack us, lets just hope they dont stoop as low as us.
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Definitely related.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
Or give democrats the obvious ammunition that republicans are hateful bigoted pricks who think the freedoms of speech and religion only apply to white people.
The only problem with the mosque is that it is insensitive, we really have no problem with it, just move it away. Im glad that the driver lived and is ok. It's sad to see such hate and anger
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Definitely related.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
Or give democrats the obvious ammunition that republicans are hateful bigoted pricks who think the freedoms of speech and religion only apply to white people.
The poll numbers indicate otherwise. Contrary to your assumptions, many of the people against the mosque are not "bigoted Republicans". A good number of democrats and independents are against the mosque as well. Most New Yorkers are against the mosque (and they're primarily Democrats).
Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Definitely related.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
I see. When protesters were attacking blacks and police to oppose school desegregation in the '70s, would you have said that the black community should have taken the hint and stopped trying to attend white schools?
If you want this kind of violence to end, the way to do it, historically, is to eliminate it by integrating the hated group with the majority, and waiting for new generations to grow up without prejudice. The way not to eliminate it is to continue to discriminate out of fear.
On August 26 2010 03:02 Taniard wrote: The only problem with the mosque is that it is insensitive, we really have no problem with it, just move it away. Im glad that the driver lived and is ok. It's sad to see such hate and anger
It's only insensitive if you hold the false assertion that Islam as a religion of approximately 1-1.8 billion practitioners is connected to the atrocities committed by a few in the name of Islam.
Some muslims also fell victim to 9/11, and from what it seems every muslim living in america is an indirect victim even today.
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
It's also bad news for the intelligent citizens of America, who realize that you don't piss all over the given rights of a community just because you disagree with them. And those that realize that Obama doesn't have a thing to do with the mosque or the stabbing
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
Is it that? Or is it that many were led to believe that this thing was literally right on top of GZ, that a Greek church was delayed so that this could be built, or that this thing is entirely backed by terrorists??
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Definitely related.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
Or give democrats the obvious ammunition that republicans are hateful bigoted pricks who think the freedoms of speech and religion only apply to white people.
The poll numbers indicate otherwise. Contrary to your assumptions, many of the people against the mosque are not "bigoted Republicans". A good number of democrats and independents are against the mosque as well. Most New Yorkers are against the mosque (and they're primarily Democrats).
Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
In that case they are just bigoted Americans, not republicans.
You do not have the right to not be offended by something.
On August 26 2010 03:02 Taniard wrote: The only problem with the mosque is that it is insensitive, we really have no problem with it, just move it away. Im glad that the driver lived and is ok. It's sad to see such hate and anger
It's only insensitive if you hold the false assertion that Islam as a religion of approximately 1-1.8 billion practitioners is connected to the atrocities committed by a few in the name of Islam.
Some muslims also fell victim to 9/11, and from what it seems every muslim living in america is an indirect victim even today.
Exactly. Imagine if they built a mosque right on top of the 9/11 ruins. It would become the biggest monument to democracy, compassion and tolerance. But we all know it wouldn't happen in another 1000 years.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
On August 26 2010 02:48 micronesia wrote: "The driver, identified by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance as Ahmed H. Sharif, 43, stopped the cab and approached a police officer on Third Avenue near 42nd Street. Mr. Enright was arrested at the scene."
"Both men were taken to Bellevue Hospital Center. The driver, whose name was not released, was in stable condition. A law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said Mr. Enright was “very drunk” at the time of the attack."
I'm very confused by this articleblog?.
Lol, I reread that twice to make sure that it really contradicted itself
Crazy people are crazy. Nobody deserves to get stabbed for their beliefs (no matter how ridiculous). Such a sad story
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
Finding Islam offensive is bigoted and those who oppose the mosque should be treated as such.
There is no law being broken. There's literally nothing that could hold up in a court case to stop the mosque from being built. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage, it's just another excuse for bigots to be bigots in public and get away with it.
not newsworthy. Haters are always gonna hate and lets face it, people like that are IRL trolls. They do it for attention and when they get it they consider themselves heroes. Ignore him and throw him in a jail just like a regular criminal, let the inmates sort it out whether its a hate crime or not.
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Definitely related.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
You are telling Muslims Americans to back down due to domestic terrorism? Remember the model of US, we don't negotiate with terrorist, we fight them.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
Finding Islam offensive is bigoted and those who oppose the mosque should be treated as such.
There is no law being broken. There's literally nothing that could hold up in a court case to stop the mosque from being built. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage, it's just another excuse for bigots to be bigots in public and get away with it.
I didnt say it was. My heart goes out to all those who lost love ones in 9/11. And if they will feel further suffering at seeing a mosque then my heart goes out to them again that old wounds have to be opened. But they (and all of us) must be tolerant lest a far worse evil be done.
On August 26 2010 03:22 Disregard wrote: The mosque controversy is pointless, theres another mosque 4 blocks away from Ground Zero. Why not complain about that? What difference does it make?
The other mosque was built 40 years ago for an existing Muslim population. The new mosque was chosen to be built as close to ground zero as possible. It's a $100M, 13 story facility. It's speculated that the funding is from foreign sources, but the developers refuse to divulge this information.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
Finding Islam offensive is bigoted and those who oppose the mosque should be treated as such.
There is no law being broken. There's literally nothing that could hold up in a court case to stop the mosque from being built. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage, it's just another excuse for bigots to be bigots in public and get away with it.
I didnt say it was. My heart goes out to all those who lost love ones in 9/11. And if they will feel further suffering at seeing a mosque then my heart goes out to them again that old wounds have to be opened. But they (and all of us) must be tolerant lest a far worse evil be done.
Actually many of the 9/11 families support the mosque and feel honored by it:
"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."
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
Finding Islam offensive is bigoted and those who oppose the mosque should be treated as such.
There is no law being broken. There's literally nothing that could hold up in a court case to stop the mosque from being built. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage, it's just another excuse for bigots to be bigots in public and get away with it.
I didnt say it was. My heart goes out to all those who lost love ones in 9/11. And if they will feel further suffering at seeing a mosque then my heart goes out to them again that old wounds have to be opened. But they (and all of us) must be tolerant lest a far worse evil be done.
Actually many of the 9/11 families support the mosque and feel honored by it:
"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."
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
Finding Islam offensive is bigoted and those who oppose the mosque should be treated as such.
There is no law being broken. There's literally nothing that could hold up in a court case to stop the mosque from being built. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage, it's just another excuse for bigots to be bigots in public and get away with it.
I didnt say it was. My heart goes out to all those who lost love ones in 9/11. And if they will feel further suffering at seeing a mosque then my heart goes out to them again that old wounds have to be opened. But they (and all of us) must be tolerant lest a far worse evil be done.
We must be tolerant, move your heathen religion structure elsewhere!
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Definitely related.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
Wow. By saying that the mosque developers should stop construction due to violent intimidation, you support terrorism.
I agree that its pretty retarded to get violent over issues such as the building of the mosque near ground zero. Protesting the mosque on the grounds that it is offensive is as ridiculous as allowing censorship of the prophet Muhammad from our media because of death threats from Muslims. People need to wake the fuck up and realize that they are going against one of the very things their country stands for.
That being said, many people in the US believe that Islam is a pathological religious ideology that is (very much to their dismay) gaining a foothold in the western world. On the most fundamental level Islam is intended to spread Sharia law world wide, the Qur'an even encourages its readers to hide their beliefs and intents from non-believers, and spread its political ideologies. This doesn't fly with alot of people in the US, regardless of their beliefs and whether or not they lost loved ones in 9/11, so I can understand the hatred, just not the bandwagon whining about this mosque that goes against the ideological foundations of the US. If you really have a problem, vote in representatives who have right wing stances on immigration law.
(Don't bother arguing with me about the Qur'an and trying to argue that most Muslims don't take the Qur'an that literally. It is intended to be literal, and the concepts of Sharia Law, Taqiyya, and various punishments for crimes written in the Qur'an repulse me (slightly more than similar shit in the bible). Whether or not people take it literally isn't really a concern to me, it still bothers me.)
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
Finding Islam offensive is bigoted and those who oppose the mosque should be treated as such.
There is no law being broken. There's literally nothing that could hold up in a court case to stop the mosque from being built. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage, it's just another excuse for bigots to be bigots in public and get away with it.
I didnt say it was. My heart goes out to all those who lost love ones in 9/11. And if they will feel further suffering at seeing a mosque then my heart goes out to them again that old wounds have to be opened. But they (and all of us) must be tolerant lest a far worse evil be done.
We must be tolerant, move your heathen religion structure elsewhere!
? Im still confused by your statement. As thats not at all what im saying. In no way am i advocating that they should have to move the community center.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
Finding Islam offensive is bigoted and those who oppose the mosque should be treated as such.
There is no law being broken. There's literally nothing that could hold up in a court case to stop the mosque from being built. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage, it's just another excuse for bigots to be bigots in public and get away with it.
I didnt say it was. My heart goes out to all those who lost love ones in 9/11. And if they will feel further suffering at seeing a mosque then my heart goes out to them again that old wounds have to be opened. But they (and all of us) must be tolerant lest a far worse evil be done.
Actually many of the 9/11 families support the mosque and feel honored by it:
"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."
That's a just one of the token 911 families supporting the mosque. Most are against it. Most NYCers are against it. Most New Yorkers are against it. Most Americans are against it. <- all from the polls
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Definitely related.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
Way to back down to intimidation. I wonder what this country would be like if everyone did the same. Or if we'd even be a country.
Most Americans are dumb as rocks and still believe Obama was flying one of the planes that hit the WTC. (i think that is how it go's)
Religious people are crazy and do crazy things. I think it is a victory for Americans that a 13 story super mosque is being constructed. Wasn't the WTC despised because it was a symbol of excess?
Besides, crazy muslims will build it, some crazy christians will destroy it and then where will we be.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
Finding Islam offensive is bigoted and those who oppose the mosque should be treated as such.
There is no law being broken. There's literally nothing that could hold up in a court case to stop the mosque from being built. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage, it's just another excuse for bigots to be bigots in public and get away with it.
I didnt say it was. My heart goes out to all those who lost love ones in 9/11. And if they will feel further suffering at seeing a mosque then my heart goes out to them again that old wounds have to be opened. But they (and all of us) must be tolerant lest a far worse evil be done.
Actually many of the 9/11 families support the mosque and feel honored by it:
"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."
That's a just one of the token 911 families supporting the mosque. Most are against it. Most NYCers are against it. Most New Yorkers are against it. Most Americans are against it. <- all from the polls
Who gives a shit? They have their right to build a mosque/community center wherever they want, regardless of how many people are going to protest them.
If some people are so ignorant that they relate 9/11 with all of Islam, then they deserve to have their feelings hurt.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
Finding Islam offensive is bigoted and those who oppose the mosque should be treated as such.
There is no law being broken. There's literally nothing that could hold up in a court case to stop the mosque from being built. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage, it's just another excuse for bigots to be bigots in public and get away with it.
I didnt say it was. My heart goes out to all those who lost love ones in 9/11. And if they will feel further suffering at seeing a mosque then my heart goes out to them again that old wounds have to be opened. But they (and all of us) must be tolerant lest a far worse evil be done.
Actually many of the 9/11 families support the mosque and feel honored by it:
"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."
That's a just one of the token 911 families supporting the mosque. Most are against it. Most NYCers are against it. Most New Yorkers are against it. Most Americans are against it. <- all from the polls
35% of manhattanites oppose the mosque 53% of NYC opposes it 68% of Americans oppose it
Opposition actually decreases as you get closer to GZ. They want to heal wounds, while maybe Alaskan politicians want to use 911 for cheap political gain.
Also read Time magazine's poll from Aug 16-17. 34% of Americans would oppose building a mosque within 2 blocks of their own home 24% would oppose a Mormon temple 18% a Jewish synagogue
This has as much to do with bigotry as a desire for sensitivity.
America: the land of the free, and home of the brave.
Edit: Incidentally, RE the mosque/community center: Muslims have every right to build whatever they want wherever they want. You can't stop someone from doing something legal.
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Definitely related.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
That's like negotiating with terrorists... They need to keep building that mosque.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
Finding Islam offensive is bigoted and those who oppose the mosque should be treated as such.
There is no law being broken. There's literally nothing that could hold up in a court case to stop the mosque from being built. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage, it's just another excuse for bigots to be bigots in public and get away with it.
I didnt say it was. My heart goes out to all those who lost love ones in 9/11. And if they will feel further suffering at seeing a mosque then my heart goes out to them again that old wounds have to be opened. But they (and all of us) must be tolerant lest a far worse evil be done.
Actually many of the 9/11 families support the mosque and feel honored by it:
"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."
That's a just one of the token 911 families supporting the mosque. Most are against it. Most NYCers are against it. Most New Yorkers are against it. Most Americans are against it. <- all from the polls
After reading his link, tell me one reason to be against it. The only reason you could be against it after reading this is, is if you think that this mosque is "sponsored" by terrorists and was bought with extremists's fundings. Wich theres no proof atm. If you clean your mind and your prejudices about muslims and the whole religion you'll actually understand that theres a lot more chances that this is a non-terrorist related mosque. When theres nothing that make you believe that theres a relation, you cant be against it.
You should really use this to gain respect from moderate muslims (or REAL muslims should I say which represent 99% of them and completely disagree with what Talibans did) cause it would help you in your war against terrorism. They would be far less stronger. It would be far more effective than 100 Afghans wars and would cost you nothing. But instead you're taking it the wrong way, en route to more wars, more deaths and more hate. You're chosing the violent way, closing your eyes so that you dont see your own mistakes.
You could use this symbol, a mosque at ground zero, in a peaceful way (it could do only good things with appropriate political speaches). But you wont and will pay it in the years to come. You'll have earned it.
On August 26 2010 06:30 Gatsbi wrote: just kill all religious people and the world will be a better place
Yes, because my set of intolerance's are better than your set of intolerance's...
At least my intolerances come from a logical and scientific standpoint, as opposed to yours which come from a 2000 year old book about talking snakes and poison apples.
Building a mosque is gonna do jackshit to heal wounds. That's some far left liberal crap. But they do have rights to build a mosque where they want. I think its silly to rub people the wrong way by building it there, just because its bringing all the needless conntroversy. But if they feel they have to build it there to fight for their rights to build it there, whatever. I'm certainly not gonna stop them from doing it.
And its not like they're building it on 9/12/01. Its been 9yrs already. There's a limit the sensitivity period. Get over it. Life has to go on and that includes mosques being built in places.
These are my opinion on this stupid controversy. And p.s I live in ny.
On August 26 2010 06:36 Tazza wrote: Wow, that is really dumb and stupid, also, this looks americans in general look very racist. This is why americans get such a bad rep everywhere
Buddy, I've lived in 4 countries throughout my life and USA is the most tolerant of them all. Say what you want but there is no state in the US where you would feel insecure in general just because you are an immigrant. Everyone screams "racism" but that only means that people are well aware of the problem. Racism exists everywhere, your country would be one of the examples.
I can understand why someone would be anti-islam in NY even though I don't support it, what I can't understand is attacking some random cab driver for their religious views... attack the religion itself in open forums and TV discussions if you must sure, but not the people who practice the religion <.<
On August 26 2010 06:48 Jameser wrote: I can understand why someone would be anti-islam in NY even though I don't support it, what I can't understand is attacking some random cab driver for their religious views... attack the religion itself in open forums and TV discussions if you must sure, but not the people who practice the religion <.<
You are trying to understand why would someone insane attack another person based on some cultural differences? Clinical psychiatry cannot always understand the exact mechanism and motives behind it, why would you waste time trying?
So, he stabbed a guy because some other guys who had nothing to do with the stabbed one did some really nasty shit, and his excuse was the taxi driver and the terrorists had the same religion. I know I wrote it in a confusing manner, forgive me. The stabber should have his brain removed and be replaced with spam or tuna, I'm pretty sure it would make him smarter.
On August 26 2010 06:30 Gatsbi wrote: just kill all religious people and the world will be a better place
Yes, because my set of intolerance's are better than your set of intolerance's...
At least my intolerances come from a logical and scientific standpoint, as opposed to yours which come from a 2000 year old book about talking snakes and poison apples.
Dude are you seriously defending your comment? Read it out loud, think about it for a minute. If you still think what you said is right, I really feel sorry for you.
Obviously it is ridiculous and over the top, but if you really think about it.. without religious people in the world it definitely WOULD be a better place.. there isn't much argument to it.
On August 26 2010 07:06 Gatsbi wrote: Obviously it is ridiculous and over the top, but if you really think about it.. without religious people in the world it definitely WOULD be a better place.. there isn't much argument to it.
That's not true. The world is filled with too many stupid people. Religion keeps them in their place. That's why it was made.
On August 26 2010 06:36 Tazza wrote: Wow, that is really dumb and stupid, also, this looks americans in general look very racist. This is why americans get such a bad rep everywhere
Buddy, I've lived in 4 countries throughout my life and USA is the most tolerant of them all. Say what you want but there is no state in the US where you would feel insecure in general just because you are an immigrant. Everyone screams "racism" but that only means that people are well aware of the problem. Racism exists everywhere, your country would be one of the examples.
Are you an immigrant? What's your ethnicity?
Ofc racism exists everywhere. Including korea. Korea isn't as multi-cultural as US though so its less of a concern(though it is equally important for the minorities in korea, there's less interaction overall for conflicts). If you were a korean you'd say the exact same thing you just said about korea. Duh.
US definitely is not the one of the most tolerant. In fact it sucks balls at it. Though I gotta say, it gets not enough credit for the situation that its in.
On August 26 2010 07:06 Gatsbi wrote: Obviously it is ridiculous and over the top, but if you really think about it.. without religious people in the world it definitely WOULD be a better place.. there isn't much argument to it.
That's not true. The world is filled with too many stupid people. Religion keeps them in their place. That's why it was made.
I agree that if religion went extinct, other stupidity will fill its void, but I don't agree that its keeping them in place. Its obviously not that good at it.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
They're building it at Ground Zero. The site where some extremist Muslims allegedly killed 3000 people for living in a capitalist world power of a country. Can't they at least have some decency about where they decide to build? I'm all for building it 2 blocks over. Imagine going to talk to your uncle, dead from the WTC attacks, and when you leave you happen to look up and see a giant mosque towering over you.
I don't live in New York anymore, so I don't know how much the culture there has changed since 9/11, but from my own point of view and being related to one of the people that died at Ground Zero, I'd think seeing that mosque would inspire negative feelings I'd rather not have towards the majority of Muslims. In one way it could bring the people closer together, and in another it could breed hatred just for being there with you when you decide to pay respects.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
They're building it at Ground Zero. The site where some extremist Muslims allegedly killed 3000 people for living in a capitalist world power of a country. Can't they at least have some decency about where they decide to build? I'm all for building it 2 blocks over. Imagine going to talk to your uncle, dead from the WTC attacks, and when you leave you happen to look up and see a giant mosque towering over you.
I don't live in New York anymore, so I don't know how much the culture there has changed since 9/11, but from my own point of view and being related to one of the people that died at Ground Zero, I'd think seeing that mosque would inspire negative feelings I'd rather not have towards the majority of Muslims. In one way it could bring the people closer together, and in another it could breed hatred just for being there with you when you decide to pay respects.
Hey, I have an opinion too.
Except the Mosque/ COMMUNITY CENTER is being built almost a mile away from Ground Zero. So I guess you have no problem with it then. Politicians are blowing it way out of proportion.
As for Mr. Sharif I wish I could mail or email him and wish me good luck. I truly hope he recovers to perfect condition.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
snip
Except the Mosque/ COMMUNITY CENTER is being built almost a mile away from Ground Zero. So I guess you have no problem with it then. Politicians are blowing it way out of proportion.
As for Mr. Sharif I wish I could mail or email him and wish me good luck. I truly hope he recovers to perfect condition.
Well if it's a mile away, no problem. Unless it's across the street from another location a mile away where we're honoring the victims of 9/11.
By the way, I have no problem with building a mosque. I just assumed it was overlooking Ground Zero, in which case I would have a problem with it. Even if it was being built to overlook GZ, it wouldn't be a violation of our freedom, as some people on the article page are commenting that is so. I'm not that cynical.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Imagine going to talk to your uncle, dead from the WTC attacks, and when you leave you happen to look up and see a giant mosque towering over you.
Imagine if your uncle was muslim.
Yeah... well the problem here is I'm not imagining my uncle. I believe my real uncle who died at GZ was a Christian. And I don't subscribe to religion, because I believe most of the holy books have about 3% true good teachings and 97% fodder used for control. And I realize there are probably a few hundred Muslim victims that died at GZ. That means they shouldn't build a church/jewish temple/etc there either. In fact don't build anything there except a memorial honoring the people.
Edit: Poor Muslim guy got stabbed because there are crazy people in the world. Not his fault the same as it isn't any modern Christian's fault that there were(/are?) Crusades. This case just shows how easily someone can use religion as an excuse for hatred/violence/cruelty. Remember Hitler? Yeah, this stabber guy is like him. Only 60 years later, when we should have moved past this by now.
sarcasm> It's really a wonder why the governments keep things secret from us. We're really adaptable to change. /sarcasm
On August 26 2010 03:42 Wr3k wrote: On the most fundamental level Islam is intended to spread Sharia law world wide, the Qur'an even encourages its readers to hide their beliefs and intents from non-believers, and spread its political ideologies.
The Fuck are you talking about? I'm a muslim and I've never been thought that Sharia Law isnt meant to be world domination garbage. Its a law for muslims, I lived in Malaysia for 20 years and Sharia Law was only applicable to Muslims and people of other religions were not subject to it.
And NEVER have i read/ heard about the Quran encouraging Muslims to hide their religion for political idealogies, the only reason to hide the fact you were a muslim was if you were faced with a life threatening situation. What you said that doesn't make any sense, what kind of political ideologies are you talking about? As far as I know Islam is about equilibrium and certainty, politics has nothing to do with what it teaches.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Because they find islam offensive. They fear it after the connection 9/11 burned in their mind. See thats how the mind works. If you get hurt by something you tend to associate similar things/events/people with that thing. That being said the right action is tolerance. Remember to ask yourself in situations like this WWJD?*
Finding Islam offensive is bigoted and those who oppose the mosque should be treated as such.
There is no law being broken. There's literally nothing that could hold up in a court case to stop the mosque from being built. Like illegal immigration or gay marriage, it's just another excuse for bigots to be bigots in public and get away with it.
I didnt say it was. My heart goes out to all those who lost love ones in 9/11. And if they will feel further suffering at seeing a mosque then my heart goes out to them again that old wounds have to be opened. But they (and all of us) must be tolerant lest a far worse evil be done.
Actually many of the 9/11 families support the mosque and feel honored by it:
"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."
That's a just one of the token 911 families supporting the mosque. Most are against it. Most NYCers are against it. Most New Yorkers are against it. Most Americans are against it. <- all from the polls
"the definition a free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular" --adlai stevenson
wait, when did they change it to a mosque? not really news imo. if it becomes a series of attacks then it's serious and needs to be clamped down upon. It's akin to the case years ago of some illegal mexican who killed someone in a drunk driving incident and the story became a huge deal in the eye of the media, regardless of the facts that said otherwise
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
They're building it at Ground Zero. The site where some extremist Muslims allegedly killed 3000 people for living in a capitalist world power of a country. Can't they at least have some decency about where they decide to build? I'm all for building it 2 blocks over. Imagine going to talk to your uncle, dead from the WTC attacks, and when you leave you happen to look up and see a giant mosque towering over you.
I don't live in New York anymore, so I don't know how much the culture there has changed since 9/11, but from my own point of view and being related to one of the people that died at Ground Zero, I'd think seeing that mosque would inspire negative feelings I'd rather not have towards the majority of Muslims. In one way it could bring the people closer together, and in another it could breed hatred just for being there with you when you decide to pay respects.
Hey, I have an opinion too.
It is 2 blocks from WTC more like 4 since the 2 blocks is calculated corner to corner. You won't even recognize it. It looks just like any other business building. Only top two floor is used as prayer room andn the rest is no different from an ordinary YMCA. You won't even know its there unless you actively go up to the top 2 floors.
Doens't matter if all muslims were a bunch of treehugging carebears, the us mass media (edit: and ofcoz your previous gov didn't help either) would still present them as "EEEEVOL TERRORRRISTMUSLIMS HIDING EVERYWHERE, TRYING TO KILL YOUR GRANDMOTHER" and you would still have characters like the stabber
On August 26 2010 07:45 xbankx wrote: It is 2 blocks from WTC more like 4 since the 2 blocks is calculated corner to corner. You won't even recognize it. It looks just like any other business building. Only top two floor is used as prayer room andn the rest is no different from an ordinary YMCA. You won't even know its there unless you actively go up to the top 2 floors.
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
They're building it at Ground Zero. The site where some extremist Muslims allegedly killed 3000 people for living in a capitalist world power of a country. Can't they at least have some decency about where they decide to build? I'm all for building it 2 blocks over. Imagine going to talk to your uncle, dead from the WTC attacks, and when you leave you happen to look up and see a giant mosque towering over you.
I don't live in New York anymore, so I don't know how much the culture there has changed since 9/11, but from my own point of view and being related to one of the people that died at Ground Zero, I'd think seeing that mosque would inspire negative feelings I'd rather not have towards the majority of Muslims. In one way it could bring the people closer together, and in another it could breed hatred just for being there with you when you decide to pay respects.
Hey, I have an opinion too.
ROFL so i bet you think this is how the "mosque" (its not a mosuqe its an islamic centre) will look like; just towering over u...reminding you how islam has taken over your country. yep.
in reality its 5 blocks away from the site and theres other islamic centres there aswell cuz you know muslims live in new york, crazy i know. when in reality it will look like any other ordinary new york building. you won't even notice it
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
They're building it at Ground Zero. The site where some extremist Muslims allegedly killed 3000 people for living in a capitalist world power of a country. Can't they at least have some decency about where they decide to build? I'm all for building it 2 blocks over. Imagine going to talk to your uncle, dead from the WTC attacks, and when you leave you happen to look up and see a giant mosque towering over you.
I don't live in New York anymore, so I don't know how much the culture there has changed since 9/11, but from my own point of view and being related to one of the people that died at Ground Zero, I'd think seeing that mosque would inspire negative feelings I'd rather not have towards the majority of Muslims. In one way it could bring the people closer together, and in another it could breed hatred just for being there with you when you decide to pay respects.
Hey, I have an opinion too.
ROFL so i bet you think this is how the "mosque" (its not a mosuqe its an islamic centre) will look like; just towering over u...reminding you how islam has taken over your country. yep.
in reality its 5 blocks away from the site and theres other islamic centres there aswell cuz you know muslims live in new york, crazy i know. when in reality it will look like any other ordinary new york building. you won't even notice it
ROFL If ur uncle died on 9/11 you wouldn't exactly be researching stuff titled "They're Building A Mosque At Ground Zero" would you?
BTW, thanks to all who helped inform me better about the situation. I was sorta avoiding the topic since I first heard about it but now I feel better.
Edit: I'm sorry you didn't bother reading my post closely enough to understand that I'm not against Muslims at all.
On August 26 2010 03:42 Wr3k wrote: On the most fundamental level Islam is intended to spread Sharia law world wide, the Qur'an even encourages its readers to hide their beliefs and intents from non-believers, and spread its political ideologies.
The Fuck are you talking about? I'm a muslim and I've never been thought that Sharia Law isnt meant to be world domination garbage. Its a law for muslims, I lived in Malaysia for 20 years and Sharia Law was only applicable to Muslims and people of other religions were not subject to it.
And NEVER have i read/ heard about the Quran encouraging Muslims to hide their religion for political idealogies, the only reason to hide the fact you were a muslim was if you were faced with a life threatening situation. What you said that doesn't make any sense, what kind of political ideologies are you talking about? As far as I know Islam is about equilibrium and certainty, politics has nothing to do with what it teaches.
I'm not trying to speak about Islam in general, I should have worded it more carefully. When I read the Qur'an that is how I interpreted it. I'm an agnostic atheist, so perhaps I am jaded and looked at it from a biased point of view, but I still cannot support it or any other religion. I hate how religion has become a dividing factor in this world.
Offensive to the victims of the world trade center? I guess there were some muslims working in the towers as well. I dont see how a mosque can be offensive to those -> Argument invalid.
On August 26 2010 07:06 Gatsbi wrote: Obviously it is ridiculous and over the top, but if you really think about it.. without religious people in the world it definitely WOULD be a better place.. there isn't much argument to it.
That's not true. The world is filled with too many stupid people. Religion keeps them in their place. That's why it was made.
Why religion works: 1) Offers an explanation as to why the universe started 2) Offers people a way to avoid death by promising everlasting life to its followers 3) Shames people for natural impulses, thus guaranteeing a steady stream of followers
On August 26 2010 07:06 Gatsbi wrote: Obviously it is ridiculous and over the top, but if you really think about it.. without religious people in the world it definitely WOULD be a better place.. there isn't much argument to it.
That's not true. The world is filled with too many stupid people. Religion keeps them in their place. That's why it was made.
Why religion works: 1) Offers an explanation as to why the universe started 2) Offers people a way to avoid death by promising everlasting life to its followers 3) Shames people for natural impulses, thus guaranteeing a steady stream of followers
On August 26 2010 02:52 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say.
It is illegal in many muslim countries to preach or set up a temple for a different religion.
On August 26 2010 02:52 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say.
It is illegal in many muslim countries to preach or set up a temple for a different religion.
Good thing this is the United States of America then.
On August 26 2010 02:52 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say.
It is illegal in many muslim countries to preach or set up a temple for a different religion.
I would hope that the U.S., a democracy based on the principles of freedom and human rights would surpass countries such as kenya, afghanistan and other third world nations where Islam is largely prevalent in valuing religious freedom.
But I guess if that's where you want to be heading..
I wish people were required to have a shred of education in the origins, nature, and function of religion both in the present and throughout history before they were allowed to comment on it... (This is for both religious and non-religious people.)
On August 26 2010 02:52 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say.
It is illegal in many muslim countries to preach or set up a temple for a different religion.
I would hope that the U.S., a democracy based on the principles of freedom and human rights would surpass countries such as kenya, afghanistan and other third world nations where Islam is largely prevalent in valuing religious freedom.
But I guess if that's where you want to be heading..
I see that you aren't smart enough to read the post I quoted. Here is what it said.
On August 26 2010 02:52 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say.
To which I said;
On August 26 2010 09:04 SnK-Arcbound wrote: It is illegal in many muslim countries to preach or set up a temple for a different religion.
Please try reading before responding, it makes you appear coherent.
On August 26 2010 09:13 LegendaryZ wrote: I wish people were required to have a shred of education in the origins, nature, and function of religion both in the present and throughout history before they were allowed to comment on it... (This is for both religious and non-religious people.)
Why don't you enlighten us as apparently you know the "purpose" of religion that hundreds of religious scholars can't come to agreement on.
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Definitely related.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
Thankfully, we have people in office who follow the LAW. Not some emotion... because EMOTIONS lead to things like the Holocaust.
No wait, you're right, let's fuckin' kill all Muslims and be done with it.
On August 26 2010 02:52 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say.
It is illegal in many muslim countries to preach or set up a temple for a different religion.
I would hope that the U.S., a democracy based on the principles of freedom and human rights would surpass countries such as kenya, afghanistan and other third world nations where Islam is largely prevalent in valuing religious freedom.
But I guess if that's where you want to be heading..
I see that you aren't smart enough to read the post I quoted. Here is what it said.
On August 26 2010 02:52 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say.
On August 26 2010 09:04 SnK-Arcbound wrote: It is illegal in many muslim countries to preach or set up a temple for a different religion.
Please try reading before responding, it makes you appear coherent.
He was obviously being sarcastic, so I figured you were trying to raise a silly point I've seen a couple of times just in the last couple of days. I guess I was mistaken but either way, calm the fuck down you don't have to get offensive.
On August 26 2010 09:24 hifriend wrote: He was obviously being sarcastic, so I figured you were trying to raise a silly point I've seen a couple of times just in the last couple of days. I guess I was mistaken but either way, calm the fuck down you don't have to get offensive.
I was obviously being sarcastic, so I figured you were trying to raise a silly point I've seen a couple of times just in the last couple of days. I guess I was mistaken but either way, calm the fuck down you don't have to get offensive.
There isn't any legal reason to not build the mosque, I think the muslim gay bar that has been proposed be built right next to it would be the perfect response.
On August 26 2010 09:13 LegendaryZ wrote: I wish people were required to have a shred of education in the origins, nature, and function of religion both in the present and throughout history before they were allowed to comment on it... (This is for both religious and non-religious people.)
Why don't you enlighten us as apparently you know the "purpose" of religion that hundreds of religious scholars can't come to agreement on.
Why don't you learn to read and realize that I did not mention "purpose" in any part of that post? As for the origins, nature, and function of religions, these things can be viewed and analyzed objectively and I doubt you'd find a single credible scholar that would say something so stupid as:
"The world would be better off without religion."
or
"The purpose of religion is _______________."
or
"Religion works because X, Y, and Z."
Whether you agree with religion or not (and there are MANY different religions), it serves various functions in society and has very close ties with the evolution and moral structure of that society. Religion isn't something that someone just sat down one day and decided to construct. It's something that's evolved with us in some form or another for the better part of recorded human history (if not all of it) and not something that could (or even should) be easily stripped away.
The veracity of religious belief is also a non-issue nor is its arbitrary nature. Even from a non-religious standpoint one could certainly value religious texts as literature akin to the many fables so common in our culture that we often use as tools for teaching life lessons and instilling moral structure. Treat religious texts and stories as something that may possibly be deeper and more complex than just tales about a bunch of pious self-righteous "goody two-shoes" people and maybe you'll learn to value them and see that they aren't at all what they're often made out to be.
Just in case you missed all that, I'm not arguing that religion is "right". I'm arguing that even if it's wrong, one could still appreciate it and find value in it. Sadly, religions are often terribly represented by a bunch of idiots that haven't even taken time out to study their own religions or its origins so I can understand if you may find it a bit difficult, particularly given the times we live in where being a Muslim supposedly means you're willing to strap a bomb to your chest for the promise of virgins or being a Christian supposedly means you believe that we were just plopped on the earth out of nowhere and that dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to trick us...
On August 26 2010 02:48 micronesia wrote: "The driver, identified by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance as Ahmed H. Sharif, 43, stopped the cab and approached a police officer on Third Avenue near 42nd Street. Mr. Enright was arrested at the scene."
"Both men were taken to Bellevue Hospital Center. The driver, whose name was not released, was in stable condition. A law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said Mr. Enright was “very drunk” at the time of the attack."
I'm very confused by this articleblog?.
Yeah I had to read that twice before I realized that still made no sense.
On August 26 2010 10:00 Gatsbi wrote: "being a Christian supposedly means you believe that we were just plopped on the earth out of nowhere"
but isn't that what it says in the bible.. like pretty much exactly?
Translations problems and misinterpretations aside, there's nothing about Christianity that inherently requires you to believe the creation story actually happened the way it's supposedly written. This is a common misconception similar to the belief that all Christians actually belief that Moses parted the Red Sea or that Joshua stopped the Sun... In reality, Christian belief was quite varied in the early days so one could argue what actually defines one as a "Christian" given the variety of these beliefs.
That doesn't make sense to me.. if you don't believe the stories in the Bible, how can you call yourself Christian? Isn't the Bible the "word of God"..?
On August 26 2010 10:12 Gatsbi wrote: That doesn't make sense to me.. if you don't believe the stories in the Bible, how can you call yourself Christian? Isn't the Bible the "word of God"..?
On August 26 2010 10:12 Gatsbi wrote: That doesn't make sense to me.. if you don't believe the stories in the Bible, how can you call yourself Christian? Isn't the Bible the "word of God"..?
Where does the Bible make this claim? You make it sound like the Bible is a unified book, which it isn't. The Bible is a collection of scriptures and religious texts gathered from across various periods in time. They've been written, rewritten, adapted, translated, etc. over the years. The point of the scripture in my belief is not in the literal acceptance of the text as is, but rather the message behind them and the points that they make.
Unfortunately, over the course of the years, the texts and their historical context have been forgotten by many and it's now common for churches to teach things out of traditional ideology rather than scriptural interpretation. When looking at Christianity or any religion, it's important to read the text in context and actually search for what the intent of the text is rather than what it says at face value. This is what I mean by many religions being represented by people who don't even know their own religion. That having been said, you'll find that many "bible-based" churches are not actually bible-based at all.
I really don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but if you are interested in a more objective look at the Old Testament than what the average church may provide, then I'd suggest checking this course out:
It's by no means a complete study of the Christian Bible or Christianity since it limits itself to the Old Testament and the Jewish history and context surrounding it, but given the fact that Christianity and Islam both grew out of Judaism, it helps to know where things began in order to be able to understand a bit more about these religions overall. At very least, it may clear up some misconceptions about the "In the beginning" stuff...
If you want something specifically about Christianity, Yale also has an open intro course about New Testament History and Literature here:
As for how I define myself as a Christian, I define myself as a Christian by what I consider to be Christian principles and beliefs in regard to the issue of my relationships and salvation. For me, this is a very personal issue and I've no interest in imposing it on anyone else. Similarly, I've little interest in the origins of the universe simply due to the fact that it's not a basis for anything I believe in the first place. This doesn't mean I'm not curious, but rather that I see it as something pretty irrelevant and insignificant that people seem to make a huge deal out of for no real reason.
On August 26 2010 02:52 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say.
Yes, lets retaliate towards bigotry with more bigotry. Should solve everything.
Also, nowhere in the article did it say he was Christian -_-.
On August 26 2010 09:13 LegendaryZ wrote: I wish people were required to have a shred of education in the origins, nature, and function of religion both in the present and throughout history before they were allowed to comment on it... (This is for both religious and non-religious people.)
Why don't you enlighten us as apparently you know the "purpose" of religion that hundreds of religious scholars can't come to agreement on.
Why don't you learn to read and realize that I did not mention "purpose" in any part of that post? As for the origins, nature, and function of religions, these things can be viewed and analyzed objectively and I doubt you'd find a single credible scholar that would say something so stupid as:
"The world would be better off without religion."
or
"The purpose of religion is _______________."
or
"Religion works because X, Y, and Z."
Whether you agree with religion or not (and there are MANY different religions), it serves various functions in society and has very close ties with the evolution and moral structure of that society. Religion isn't something that someone just sat down one day and decided to construct. It's something that's evolved with us in some form or another for the better part of recorded human history (if not all of it) and not something that could (or even should) be easily stripped away.
The veracity of religious belief is also a non-issue nor is its arbitrary nature. Even from a non-religious standpoint one could certainly value religious texts as literature akin to the many fables so common in our culture that we often use as tools for teaching life lessons and instilling moral structure. Treat religious texts and stories as something that may possibly be deeper and more complex than just tales about a bunch of pious self-righteous "goody two-shoes" people and maybe you'll learn to value them and see that they aren't at all what they're often made out to be.
Just in case you missed all that, I'm not arguing that religion is "right". I'm arguing that even if it's wrong, one could still appreciate it and find value in it. Sadly, religions are often terribly represented by a bunch of idiots that haven't even taken time out to study their own religions or its origins so I can understand if you may find it a bit difficult, particularly given the times we live in where being a Muslim supposedly means you're willing to strap a bomb to your chest for the promise of virgins or being a Christian supposedly means you believe that we were just plopped on the earth out of nowhere and that dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to trick us...
Speaking as an Atheist <3 :p. Imo, too many Atheists just fall into the same trap as the bigoted overzealous fundamentalists they resent, using their beliefs as a tool to marginalize and feel superior to a multifaceted group of people.
On August 26 2010 11:25 Half wrote: Speaking as an Atheist <3 :p. Imo, too many Atheists just fall into the same trap as the bigoted overzealous fundamentalists they resent, using their beliefs as a tool to marginalize and feel superior to a multifaceted group of people.
I suppose it's somewhat understandable once you start seeing the type of nonsense the more vocal religious extremists start spewing. The voices of reason and compromise are far too often overwhelmed by the deafening roar of the ignorant and intolerant. How we got from "Love thy neighbor." to what we see on the news every single day, I'll never know... I have to admit that it's somewhat depressing...
On August 26 2010 11:25 Half wrote: Speaking as an Atheist <3 :p. Imo, too many Atheists just fall into the same trap as the bigoted overzealous fundamentalists they resent, using their beliefs as a tool to marginalize and feel superior to a multifaceted group of people.
I suppose it's somewhat understandable once you start seeing the type of nonsense the more vocal religious extremists start spewing. The voices of reason and compromise are far too often overwhelmed by the deafening roar of the ignorant and intolerant. How we got from "Love thy neighbor." to what we see on the news every single day, I'll never know... I have to admit that it's somewhat depressing...
"Believe this because I (or The Book) say so, not because there's any reason to believe it" trains people not to question authority and is therefore easily abused. Furthermore, it corrupts rational thought by valuing incoherent metaphysical justifications over science and reason.
Secularism addresses this problem by letting people pretend to be religious when really they're not. But part of the package is shielding religious notions from serious inspection... which stabs society in the back if there are some religious notions so abhorrent they need to be struck down.
Bloomberg's gonna use him for some PR tomorrow, going to City Hall to have a meeting. The attacker is a college student that just came back from Afghanistan where he was a correspondent embedded with the Marines, all for a senior project... irrc at School of Visual Arts.
Guess those times there really created some type of psychological problem for him, or maybe he was just drunk. Thats what I heard at least.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ <- criticism of all aspects regarding Islam (womens rights, gays, rape, leaving Islam, nonbelievers, etc). Also has a list of all terror attacks done in the last 10 years in the name of Islam.
On August 26 2010 12:39 Disregard wrote: Bloomberg's gonna use him for some PR tomorrow, going to City Hall to have a meeting. The attacker is a college student that just came back from Afghanistan where he was a correspondent embedded with the Marines, all for a senior project... irrc at School of Visual Arts.
Guess those times there really created some type of psychological problem for him, or maybe he was just drunk. Thats what I heard at least.
Interesting, so it's a Muslim on Muslim crime? Maybe the Afghan student was against Park51.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ <- criticism of all aspects regarding Islam (womens rights, gays, rape, leaving Islam, nonbelievers, etc). Also has a list of all terror attacks done in the last 10 years in the name of Islam.
On August 26 2010 12:39 Disregard wrote: Bloomberg's gonna use him for some PR tomorrow, going to City Hall to have a meeting. The attacker is a college student that just came back from Afghanistan where he was a correspondent embedded with the Marines, all for a senior project... irrc at School of Visual Arts.
Guess those times there really created some type of psychological problem for him, or maybe he was just drunk. Thats what I heard at least.
Interesting, so it's a Muslim on Muslim crime? Maybe the Afghan student was against Park51.
I haven't heard anything about the attacker being a Muslim.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ <- criticism of all aspects regarding Islam (womens rights, gays, rape, leaving Islam, nonbelievers, etc). Also has a list of all terror attacks done in the last 10 years in the name of Islam.
On August 26 2010 12:39 Disregard wrote: Bloomberg's gonna use him for some PR tomorrow, going to City Hall to have a meeting. The attacker is a college student that just came back from Afghanistan where he was a correspondent embedded with the Marines, all for a senior project... irrc at School of Visual Arts.
Guess those times there really created some type of psychological problem for him, or maybe he was just drunk. Thats what I heard at least.
Interesting, so it's a Muslim on Muslim crime? Maybe the Afghan student was against Park51.
It was an American student who was in Afghanistan with the marines for a senior project. Just like it says in the post you quoted. Some of you people should employ others to do your thinking for you, clearly the challenge of reading is too great.
On August 26 2010 07:45 bdams19 wrote: damn... I live on 1st and 20th and that shit is crazy. People are all pissed off about this 9/11 mosque bs are being ridiculous.
On August 26 2010 13:04 thesighter wrote: Islam, the religion of peace. 15,911 terror attacks since 9/11
thereligionofpeace.com
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.
Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.
More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.
19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years.
You could use the fact that they were all Muslims to paint a billion people with the same brush. But to be honest I think you're still thinking too small, sure stereotyping a billion people is good but have you considered that they were all living humans? That can up us to almost seven billion. All human? Now every person who has ever lived is a terrorist. If you're going to use these fallacies, think big. I for one think all carbon based lifeforms in all wheres and whens of the universe are terrorists.
On August 26 2010 13:04 thesighter wrote: Islam, the religion of peace. 15,911 terror attacks since 9/11
thereligionofpeace.com
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.
Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.
More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.
19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years.
You could use the fact that they were all Muslims to paint a billion people with the same brush. But to be honest I think you're still thinking too small, sure stereotyping a billion people is good but have you considered that they were all living humans? That can up us to almost seven billion. All human? Now every person who has ever lived is a terrorist. If you're going to use these fallacies, think big. I for one think all carbon based lifeforms in all wheres and whens of the universe are terrorists.
Not painting all with the same brush. Islamic teachings are dangerous and easily misinterpreted by extremists. There is something fundamentally wrong with the teachings of the Quran.
On August 26 2010 12:39 Disregard wrote: Bloomberg's gonna use him for some PR tomorrow, going to City Hall to have a meeting. The attacker is a college student that just came back from Afghanistan where he was a correspondent embedded with the Marines, all for a senior project... irrc at School of Visual Arts.
Guess those times there really created some type of psychological problem for him, or maybe he was just drunk. Thats what I heard at least.
Interesting, so it's a Muslim on Muslim crime? Maybe the Afghan student was against Park51.
It was an American student who was in Afghanistan with the marines for a senior project. Just like it says in the post you quoted. Some of you people should employ others to do your thinking for you, clearly the challenge of reading is too great.
On August 26 2010 12:39 Disregard wrote: Bloomberg's gonna use him for some PR tomorrow, going to City Hall to have a meeting. The attacker is a college student that just came back from Afghanistan where he was a correspondent embedded with the Marines, all for a senior project... irrc at School of Visual Arts.
Guess those times there really created some type of psychological problem for him, or maybe he was just drunk. Thats what I heard at least.
Interesting, so it's a Muslim on Muslim crime? Maybe the Afghan student was against Park51.
It was an American student who was in Afghanistan with the marines for a senior project. Just like it says in the post you quoted. Some of you people should employ others to do your thinking for you, clearly the challenge of reading is too great.
I just looked this up. The attacker in the taxi was an American student who works for a liberal organization that supports the mosque.
This was a pathetic attempt at faking an Islamaphobic attack intended to generate sympathy for Park51.
a) not a mosque
b) do you honestly believe this guy is going to slit someone's throat and serve max 25 years in federal prison just to generate sympathy for a fucking ymca? or are you just trolling
On August 26 2010 13:04 thesighter wrote: Islam, the religion of peace. 15,911 terror attacks since 9/11
thereligionofpeace.com
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.
Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.
More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.
19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years.
You could use the fact that they were all Muslims to paint a billion people with the same brush. But to be honest I think you're still thinking too small, sure stereotyping a billion people is good but have you considered that they were all living humans? That can up us to almost seven billion. All human? Now every person who has ever lived is a terrorist. If you're going to use these fallacies, think big. I for one think all carbon based lifeforms in all wheres and whens of the universe are terrorists.
Not painting all with the same brush. Islamic teachings are dangerous and easily misinterpreted by extremists. There is something fundamentally wrong with the teachings of the Quran.
There is no shortage of violent teachings in the Bible either. The difference is the west has advanced sufficiently as a society to ignore them (most of the time). The problem isn't the religious teachings, it's that the society is still backwards enough to think it acceptable to follow them.
On August 26 2010 02:52 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say.
And doing that is supposed to help christian-muslim relations? The few "christians" who do this type of thing are as rare as the muslims who fly planes into buildings
On August 26 2010 12:39 Disregard wrote: Bloomberg's gonna use him for some PR tomorrow, going to City Hall to have a meeting. The attacker is a college student that just came back from Afghanistan where he was a correspondent embedded with the Marines, all for a senior project... irrc at School of Visual Arts.
Guess those times there really created some type of psychological problem for him, or maybe he was just drunk. Thats what I heard at least.
Interesting, so it's a Muslim on Muslim crime? Maybe the Afghan student was against Park51.
It was an American student who was in Afghanistan with the marines for a senior project. Just like it says in the post you quoted. Some of you people should employ others to do your thinking for you, clearly the challenge of reading is too great.
I just looked this up. The attacker in the taxi was an American student who works for a liberal organization that supports the mosque.
This was a pathetic attempt at faking an Islamaphobic attack intended to generate sympathy for Park51.
a) not a mosque
b) do you honestly believe this guy is going to slit someone's throat and serve max 25 years in federal prison just to generate sympathy for a fucking ymca? or are you just trolling
a) 2000 person prayer hall, yes it's a mosque. big one at that.
b) not trolling. there have been "islamaphobic" attacks faked in the past
On August 26 2010 12:39 Disregard wrote: Bloomberg's gonna use him for some PR tomorrow, going to City Hall to have a meeting. The attacker is a college student that just came back from Afghanistan where he was a correspondent embedded with the Marines, all for a senior project... irrc at School of Visual Arts.
Guess those times there really created some type of psychological problem for him, or maybe he was just drunk. Thats what I heard at least.
Interesting, so it's a Muslim on Muslim crime? Maybe the Afghan student was against Park51.
It was an American student who was in Afghanistan with the marines for a senior project. Just like it says in the post you quoted. Some of you people should employ others to do your thinking for you, clearly the challenge of reading is too great.
I just looked this up. The attacker in the taxi was an American student who works for a liberal organization that supports the mosque.
This was a pathetic attempt at faking an Islamaphobic attack intended to generate sympathy for Park51.
a) not a mosque
b) do you honestly believe this guy is going to slit someone's throat and serve max 25 years in federal prison just to generate sympathy for a fucking ymca? or are you just trolling
a) 2000 person prayer hall, yes it's a mosque. big one at that.
b) not trolling. there have been "islamaphobic" attacks faked in the past
I see two possibilities here. - He's a liberal and feels so strongly about it that he is willing to take 25 years in prison and possibly kill a Muslim to defend Muslim rights. He hadn't considered that it's on record that some people who he worked for at some point released a statement which said their opinion, and not his, was that it should go ahead. - His experience in Afghan traumatized him and left him violently against Islam. He got drunk and some PTSD kicked in.
On August 26 2010 12:39 Disregard wrote: Bloomberg's gonna use him for some PR tomorrow, going to City Hall to have a meeting. The attacker is a college student that just came back from Afghanistan where he was a correspondent embedded with the Marines, all for a senior project... irrc at School of Visual Arts.
Guess those times there really created some type of psychological problem for him, or maybe he was just drunk. Thats what I heard at least.
Interesting, so it's a Muslim on Muslim crime? Maybe the Afghan student was against Park51.
It was an American student who was in Afghanistan with the marines for a senior project. Just like it says in the post you quoted. Some of you people should employ others to do your thinking for you, clearly the challenge of reading is too great.
I just looked this up. The attacker in the taxi was an American student who works for a liberal organization that supports the mosque.
This was a pathetic attempt at faking an Islamaphobic attack intended to generate sympathy for Park51.
a) not a mosque
b) do you honestly believe this guy is going to slit someone's throat and serve max 25 years in federal prison just to generate sympathy for a fucking ymca? or are you just trolling
a) 2000 person prayer hall, yes it's a mosque. big one at that.
b) not trolling. there have been "islamaphobic" attacks faked in the past
I see two possibilities here. - He's a liberal and feels so strongly about it that he is willing to take 25 years in prison and possibly kill a Muslim to defend Muslim rights. He hadn't considered that it's on record that some people who he worked for at some point released a statement which said their opinion, and not his, was that it should go ahead. - His experience in Afghan traumatized him and left him violently against Islam. He got drunk and some PTSD kicked in.
I don't know which one it is, both are possible at this point. We'll find out soon enough. In any case, hes a nutjob.
On August 26 2010 07:45 bdams19 wrote: damn... I live on 1st and 20th and that shit is crazy. People are all pissed off about this 9/11 mosque bs are being ridiculous.
He said the mosque isn't an insult to 9/11 family members, yet those family members themselves disagree. He then states that the "community center" isn't even a mosque because a mosque is "only" used for worship (entirely wrong, and a strawman). He then ignores mosques here in the US that have supported terrorism by calling up one with a pipebomb (omission of truth). He then says the pipebomb would have killed all 60 worshipers. I wasn't aware he was a ballistics expert (another strawman). He then says islamic men and women face a greater threat of being murdered, without any evidence (another strawman). He then omits that Cordoba was indeed conquered by muslims, just skips it and jumps to later on when the Ottoman empire crushed it (another omission). He then says that the mosque was turned back into a church, which is wasn't, a church was built inside the mosque (another omission). He then brings up another strawman, other places or worship are closer (because they were there before 9/11). Another strawman, an incoherent sentence about free business and enterprise. And then another omission, and jumping to a completely random thing, why we went into Iraq. That's easy, because Saddam pays islamic terrorists, just like Iran, Yemen, and other countries in the region. And then another strawman, ignoring that Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people (a man after Hitlers own heart), and instead saying we went there to free "muslims", making the assumption that we only free what, jewish people? And another omission, that all of our previous generations fought for freedom (that most certainly isn't true of the Democratic Party). And another strawman, trying to claim that the purpose for stopping the mosque is the same as what the terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers wanted; "to change America". And then another strawman, finding some random person with an equally random idea against Islam and quoting it as if there is some master plan to wipe all islamic faith from the country. He then ends with a famous strawman, that our founders stopped intolerance. That wasn't true until the Republican Party was created to oppose the (racist) Democratic party.
So in 12 and a half minutes, that was a whole lot of fallicies.
I'll see your Olbermann and raise you someone who can read;
EDIT:
On August 26 2010 13:26 benjammin wrote: a prayer hall does not a mosque make
sure looks fake, doesn't it. what a publicity stunt!
If the guy really wanted to kill the cab driver, the cut to the throat would have been fatal, he obviously didn't want to kill him. And you act like similar things haven't happened, namely the man who commited suicide and tried to make it look like some anti government (right-wing) people had hanged him.
^ this post is so confused, I don't have the energy to refute it.
There are 5000 (five THOUSAND) muslims fighting in the American army. They are doing their job to contribute to this nation. To FIGHT FOR FREEDOM.
EXTREMISTS are trying to 'hijack' Islam. And listening to your rant, they're succeeding! They have convinced you that Islam equals terrorism! But you're wrong! (25% of the world's population is Islam--almost ALL are peaceful. Are you saying American should declare war to them because of a FEW individuals?)
Listen to this, for instance: . It's a story about an Islam AMERICAN soldier who died in Iraq FIGHTING FOR AMERICA. What have you done for this country?
This is McCarthyism all over again (wiki that term). Fear-mongering, scape-goating, the oldest tools in the box to get people riled up and into mass-hysteria.
He said the mosque isn't an insult to 9/11 family members, yet those family members themselves disagree. He then states that the "community center" isn't even a mosque because a mosque is "only" used for worship (entirely wrong, and a strawman). He then ignores mosques here in the US that have supported terrorism by calling up one with a pipebomb (omission of truth). He then says the pipebomb would have killed all 60 worshipers. I wasn't aware he was a ballistics expert (another strawman). He then says islamic men and women face a greater threat of being murdered, without any evidence (another strawman). He then omits that Cordoba was indeed conquered by muslims, just skips it and jumps to later on when the Ottoman empire crushed it (another omission). He then says that the mosque was turned back into a church, which is wasn't, a church was built inside the mosque (another omission). He then brings up another strawman, other places or worship are closer (because they were there before 9/11). Another strawman, an incoherent sentence about free business and enterprise. And then another omission, and jumping to a completely random thing, why we went into Iraq. That's easy, because Saddam pays islamic terrorists, just like Iran, Yemen, and other countries in the region. And then another strawman, ignoring that Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people (a man after Hitlers own heart), and instead saying we went there to free "muslims", making the assumption that we only free what, jewish people? And another omission, that all of our previous generations fought for freedom (that most certainly isn't true of the Democratic Party). And another strawman, trying to claim that the purpose for stopping the mosque is the same as what the terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers wanted; "to change America". And then another strawman, finding some random person with an equally random idea against Islam and quoting it as if there is some master plan to wipe all islamic faith from the country. He then ends with a famous strawman, that our founders stopped intolerance. That wasn't true until the Republican Party was created to oppose the (racist) Democratic party.
So in 12 and a half minutes, that was a whole lot of fallicies.
I'll see your Olbermann and raise you someone who can read;
On August 26 2010 13:26 benjammin wrote: a prayer hall does not a mosque make
sure looks fake, doesn't it. what a publicity stunt!
If the guy really wanted to kill the cab driver, the cut to the throat would have been fatal, he obviously didn't want to kill him. And you act like similar things haven't happened, namely the man who commited suicide and tried to make it look like some anti government (right-wing) people had hanged him.
No, you're an idiot. Whoever made that video is an idiot, not to mention an annoying shit head. "3 things you didn't know about Islam"? Are you fucking serious? You're attempting to make some serious argument and you put a video like that in your post? The whole video just goes over the evil things about Islam, the contradictions and generally disgusting things written in the Qu'ran. Really it should say "3 things you didn't know about EVERY SINGLE FUCKING RELIGION ON THE PLANET", but of course, you wouldn't scare anyone into believing what you believe that way so what's the point?
The best part about this post is the end where you actually and seriously suggest that the man in the photo "would have been dead if he was really trying to kill him". Yeah, what a great fucking stunt to almost take someones life in order to protect the rights of his people. Shit, I'll bet he was even in on it too! Fucking god damned terrorists and liberals trying to take over the world again, what has this world come too?
Some people really are fucked up, why would someone swing a knife at someones face if you hate them so much? You are the one who will get in the most trouble.
On August 26 2010 13:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Keith Olbermann is an idiot.
He said the mosque isn't an insult to 9/11 family members, yet those family members themselves disagree. He then states that the "community center" isn't even a mosque because a mosque is "only" used for worship (entirely wrong, and a strawman). He then ignores mosques here in the US that have supported terrorism by calling up one with a pipebomb (omission of truth). He then says the pipebomb would have killed all 60 worshipers. I wasn't aware he was a ballistics expert (another strawman). He then says islamic men and women face a greater threat of being murdered, without any evidence (another strawman). He then omits that Cordoba was indeed conquered by muslims, just skips it and jumps to later on when the Ottoman empire crushed it (another omission). He then says that the mosque was turned back into a church, which is wasn't, a church was built inside the mosque (another omission). He then brings up another strawman, other places or worship are closer (because they were there before 9/11). Another strawman, an incoherent sentence about free business and enterprise. And then another omission, and jumping to a completely random thing, why we went into Iraq. That's easy, because Saddam pays islamic terrorists, just like Iran, Yemen, and other countries in the region. And then another strawman, ignoring that Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people (a man after Hitlers own heart), and instead saying we went there to free "muslims", making the assumption that we only free what, jewish people? And another omission, that all of our previous generations fought for freedom (that most certainly isn't true of the Democratic Party). And another strawman, trying to claim that the purpose for stopping the mosque is the same as what the terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers wanted; "to change America". And then another strawman, finding some random person with an equally random idea against Islam and quoting it as if there is some master plan to wipe all islamic faith from the country. He then ends with a famous strawman, that our founders stopped intolerance. That wasn't true until the Republican Party was created to oppose the (racist) Democratic party.
So in 12 and a half minutes, that was a whole lot of fallicies.
I'll see your Olbermann and raise you someone who can read;
On August 26 2010 13:26 benjammin wrote: a prayer hall does not a mosque make
sure looks fake, doesn't it. what a publicity stunt!
If the guy really wanted to kill the cab driver, the cut to the throat would have been fatal, he obviously didn't want to kill him. And you act like similar things haven't happened, namely the man who commited suicide and tried to make it look like some anti government (right-wing) people had hanged him.
yes, someone who slashed a guy's throat was *OBVIOUSLY* not trying to kill him. No, really, do you actually think and reread your posts before hitting submit?
also, stop using the word "strawman" when you have no idea what that means
I am someone who has supported the (whatever you want to call the Muslim building) being built, but this is downright fishy. If someone had a knife, and was able to stab him in the neck, he EASILY could have killed this guy. In fact, I would say it is almost impossible that someone in that position would fail to kill him. It would take like 2 seconds to kill someone in that position.
Holy fuck, conspiracy theory! This one is bigger and more elaborate than anything I've ever heard. There is of course some chance that it's actually true. However, those far away and not all that dangerous can be safely ignored while we work to influence the Muslims that are nearby and part of our immediate society.
Even if the commandments of the Qu'ran are absolute, there is no reason why outsiders can't undermine the ethics of violence and domination into ethics of coexistence and cooperation. Muslims are people and the Qu'ran is a book. Its rules are upheld by society, and rules get evolve to suit the needs of society.
Seriously I know quite a lot of Muslims and they've all come around. But who knows. Maybe they were all just putting up an elaborate facade. That would be one hell of a crazy conspiracy. (If you thought 9/11 truthers were crazy...)
On August 26 2010 14:49 BigBadSkathe wrote: No, you're an idiot. Whoever made that video is an idiot, not to mention an annoying shit head. "3 things you didn't know about Islam"? Are you fucking serious? You're attempting to make some serious argument and you put a video like that in your post? The whole video just goes over the evil things about Islam, the contradictions and generally disgusting things written in the Qu'ran. Really it should say "3 things you didn't know about EVERY SINGLE FUCKING RELIGION ON THE PLANET", but of course, you wouldn't scare anyone into believing what you believe that way so what's the point?
The best part about this post is the end where you actually and seriously suggest that the man in the photo "would have been dead if he was really trying to kill him". Yeah, what a great fucking stunt to almost take someones life in order to protect the rights of his people. Shit, I'll bet he was even in on it too! Fucking god damned terrorists and liberals trying to take over the world again, what has this world come too?
Yup, insults and no actual argument. You didn't refute anything, just insults. Rather than insulting, why don't you break down what is said in the video, and then post why it's wrong.
On August 26 2010 15:01 javy925 wrote:also, stop using the word "strawman" when you have no idea what that means
a strawman is creating an misrepresenting an argument, which is or course, making one up entirely. Which he did multiple times.
On August 26 2010 15:34 TanGeng wrote: Holy fuck, conspiracy theory! This one is bigger and more elaborate than anything I've ever heard. There is of course some chance that it's actually true. However, those far away and not all that dangerous can be safely ignored while we work to influence the Muslims that are nearby and part of our immediate society.
Even if the commandments of the Qu'ran are absolute, there is no reason why outsiders can't undermine the ethics of violence and domination into ethics of coexistence and cooperation. Muslims are people and the Qu'ran is a book. Its rules are upheld by society, and rules get evolve to suit the needs of society.
Seriously I know quite a lot of Muslims and they've all come around. But who knows. Maybe they were all just putting up an elaborate facade. That would be one hell of a crazy conspiracy. (If you thought 9/11 truthers were crazy...)
There are only one set of rules. Sharia law dictates everything. Everything. From the food you eat, to the way you dress, to the way to you act and what you are allowed to say. And there are no outsiders, you're either muslim or you are dead. It also isn't a conspiracy, as it's what the Qur'an says.
On August 26 2010 15:14 Mohdoo wrote: I am someone who has supported the (whatever you want to call the Muslim building) being built, but this is downright fishy. If someone had a knife, and was able to stab him in the neck, he EASILY could have killed this guy. In fact, I would say it is almost impossible that someone in that position would fail to kill him. It would take like 2 seconds to kill someone in that position.
...Wow. Consider me a formerly pro-(whatever you want to call the Muslim building) individual.
Man I hate it when people post youtube videos like that. I have the power to edit them out but I dislike using it on opinions, even when they're as horribly misinformed and misleading as the ones in that video. I'm letting it stand at present because imo it probably falls under an opinion and people are allowed wrong opinions. But please don't start treating it like facts, it's a youtube video ffs, of course it's bollocks.
If I can't trust you people to tell the difference between facts and youtube videos then I'm going to have to start censoring opinions to protect your silly little minds and nobody wants that. Just please, exercise a little skepticism.
On August 26 2010 15:56 SnK-Arcbound wrote:There are only one set of rules. Sharia law dictates everything. Everything. From the food you eat, to the way you dress, to the way to you act and what you are allowed to say. And there are no outsiders, you're either muslim or you are dead. It also isn't a conspiracy, as it's what the Qur'an says.
I have a friend who is both gay and Muslim. Obviously that's against the Qur'an (and the Bible) but he manages to get around it by choosing to ignore that bit because it's stupid. And while some of the fundamentalists would say he's not a true Muslim (just as the God hates fags guys would say you can't be gay and Christian) he manages to get around that by choosing to ignore them because they're stupid. And I expect you'll say that you're not allowed to ignore bits in Islam but guess what, he gets around that by ignoring it because it's stupid.
Religion is what you make of it. My friend's parents immigrated from Bangladesh but he's grown up all his life in Britain and those are the cultural values he recognises as his own.
I think you should be giving out warnings not just on the basis of not abiding by forum etiquette but also for being retarded and failing at an argument. Some of the posters above are really atrocious no matter how nice they act.
Why does someone that says "zerg imba roflstomp" or something equally obnoxious gets banned, yet someone that links a retarded conspiracy video trying to prove a point that opposes common sense and goes against whatever is considered humane is still allowed to try and make his point?
it is sadly true but, this does not surprise me. With the direction the US has been moving, I would expect more events like this to occur. I feel bad for the man, I mean seriously. He is probably going to get out of the hospital and for a very long time, fear for his life that someone may finish the job just because of his religion. I know what it is like to live a life of fear, each day thinking something can happen without any warning. It is not fun, not in the least bit :-/
On August 26 2010 16:11 News wrote: I think you should be giving out warnings not just on the basis of not abiding by forum etiquette but also for being retarded and failing at an argument. Some of the posters above are really atrocious no matter how nice they act.
Why does someone that says "zerg imba roflstomp" or something equally obnoxious gets banned, yet someone that links a retarded conspiracy video trying to prove a point that opposes common sense and goes against whatever is considered humane is still allowed to try and make his point?
The thing is many people here can and do rightly call themselves SC experts. They can speak with some authority on the subject and know that something like "zerg imba roflstomp" is just garbage. By the same token, I highly doubt there are any here who can rightly call themselves foreign policy or political analysis experts so more leeway is allowed. Of course, the truly ridiculous stuff should still be frowned upon but that threshold is quite low, as I'm sure you've noticed by now.
Muslim Taxi Drivers getting stabbed is the result you get when you start building up Islam as a global enemy. In fact the first sign was Samuel Hintungton's Clash of Civilizations where he predicts that Western culture and Islamic culture will batlle it out in the 21th century. I wonder if that is a self fulfilling prophecy. Or maybe a country ike the US just needs an enemy, and since Soviet Russia ragequitted that cold war game, there was no one to play anymore?
Anyhow, if you watch certain "news channels" (more like opinion channels), the people there try to influence the public opinion towards discrimination against Islam. That has been gping on for some years now, and, bluntly speaking, its a wonder that it has taken such a long time until the first idiot thinks he is doing his country a servive by attacking a Muslim.
Xenophobia, nurtured by politically motivated media = not good. Yet, some people still just don't get it. Also, they miss some crucial parallels in history. If you do a little research you will find that antisemitism started in a similar way and - contrary to what most people know nowadays - it was generally accepted throughout most european countries, as was the idea of social darwinism.
On August 26 2010 13:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Keith Olbermann is an idiot.
He said the mosque isn't an insult to 9/11 family members, yet those family members themselves disagree.
Strawman. Some of those faimly members have agreed, and some have disagreed.
He then states that the "community center" isn't even a mosque because a mosque is "only" used for worship (entirely wrong, and a strawman).
It's a semantic argument, aimed at combating the somewhat commonly held perception of Park51 as a giant mosque with domes and crescents directly overlooking the base of the WTC. We can debate semantics, but in any case, it isn't a strawman.
He then ignores mosques here in the US that have supported terrorism by calling up one with a pipebomb (omission of truth). He then says the pipebomb would have killed all 60 worshipers. I wasn't aware he was a ballistics expert (another strawman).
His point isn't that no mosque in the US supports terrorism. (strawman argument lol) His point is that you can't say that because something is a mosque, it supports or can be associated with terrorism.
You don't need to be a ballistics expert to say that a bomb would have killed people. Yes, it's possible that they might have survived (people even survive gunshot wounds to the head) but it's a reasonable assertion that being in a small room when a bomb goes off will, in the vast majority of cases, result in death.
He then says islamic men and women face a greater threat of being murdered, without any evidence (another strawman).
That's not what strawman means. It's called conjecture.
He then omits that Cordoba was indeed conquered by muslims, just skips it and jumps to later on when the Ottoman empire crushed it (another omission). He then says that the mosque was turned back into a church, which is wasn't, a church was built inside the mosque (another omission).
This segment is kinda moot now that the center is being called Park51, rather than the Cordoba House. Looks like the center's planners are sensitive to reasonable criticism.
He then brings up another strawman, other places or worship are closer (because they were there before 9/11).
Actually, that isn't a strawman either.
When the Muslims built "monuments to victory" in cities they conquered, these obviously weren't in places where mosques already existed or where Islam was being practiced in peace with other religions. Comparing NYC in 2010 or 2001 to Cordoba in 929 is comparing apples and oranges. NYC was attacked, but it was not conquered.
Furthermore, when Park51 opponents claim that building that Islamic center is offensive, surely they don't mean that the construction process if offensive. They mean that going to the area around the WTC and seeing a Muslim place of worship right there is offensive. But if that's true, then it doesn't matter if the building was constructed in 1970 or in 2010. It's the use of the building that is offensive, so whether the mosque is 40 years old or brand new, it's equally offensive. Disregarding any arguments about which view is right for a moment, it is inconsistent to allow the Masjid Mosque to continue their worship but not allow the congregation of Park51 to worship in the same part of town.
Another strawman, an incoherent sentence about free business and enterprise. And then another omission, and jumping to a completely random thing, why we went into Iraq. That's easy, because Saddam pays islamic terrorists, just like Iran, Yemen, and other countries in the region. And then another strawman, ignoring that Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people (a man after Hitlers own heart), and instead saying we went there to free "muslims", making the assumption that we only free what, jewish people?
The Iraq-Al Qaeda link was discredited years ago, as was the argument that Iraq had nuclear weapons. The only remaining official reason for us to go to war (ie, not claims that we did it over oil) was that we were liberating Iraqis from the iron fist of the Saddam Hussein regime.
No assumption was made that we only free Jewish people. He's arguing that it is illogical to fight a war in Iraq in the name of freedom for Iraqi Muslims while at the same time not allowing Muslims to freely worship in the US. If we don't care about the liberties of Muslims here, why should American soldiers be dying in Iraq to protect the liberties of Muslims there? We could have killed Saddam Hussein and any terrorists in the region by just nuking them... but we didn't, and we've clearly lost a lot of lives and dedicated a lot of resources to trying to give Iraq a stable democracy. If Muslims are all evil and don't deserve the same freedoms that you and I have, this seems like a colossal error.
And another omission, that all of our previous generations fought for freedom (that most certainly isn't true of the Democratic Party).
Um what? I mean, you are aware that this country fought both World Wars under Democratic leadership, right? In fact during the 30s it was FDR who wanted to get involved in Europe while the Republicans favored a policy of isolationism.
Actually having some knowledge of our nation's history, I find the assertions that only one party is patriotic, or only one party fights for freedom, etc, moronic beyond what I thought was even possible.
And another strawman, trying to claim that the purpose for stopping the mosque is the same as what the terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers wanted; "to change America".
It's reasonable to disagree with his statement here (disagreeing with his assertion of either what the terrorists or the opponents of Park51 want), but again that is not what "strawman argument" means. Again, it is more like conjecture... and noting the previous support from conservatives (even Fox News reporters) that the Cordoba House had as recently as December 2009, and now with elections coming up that tone has changed and Park51 is being presented as one of the greatest threats to America, I think it's fair game to make conjecture as to why that stance would change so suddenly.
And then another strawman, finding some random person with an equally random idea against Islam and quoting it as if there is some master plan to wipe all islamic faith from the country.
Again this is an argument of his that you are welcome to disagree with, and again it is not a strawman argument. I'm getting the feeling that "strawman argument" is a phrase you've recently learned and you're trying to apply it to debate whenever possible. Easy on that. If anything, it's a "slippery slope" argument - arguing that by siding with the opponents of Park51, we would be strengthening the movement to wipe the Islamic faith from America. (Given that, according to Time's poll last week, a majority of Park51 opponents would also be opposed to building a mosque within 2 blocks of their own home, I find his argument plausible. Sadly, these "random ideas" have a fair amount of supporters.)
He then ends with a famous strawman, that our founders stopped intolerance. That wasn't true until the Republican Party was created to oppose the (racist) Democratic party.
If you want to critique him for claiming that our founders stopped intolerance, when in fact intolerance still existed after the founding of our country, then you can't immediately afterward claim that intolerance wasn't stopped "until the Republican Party was created[...]" since intolerance exists even to this day.
Additionally, any implication that the parties today hold the same values that they had 150 years ago is being intellectually dishonest. The party that freed the slaves was also the party that opposed the 60s civil rights movement.
LOL To think of all the times in history when the bible was taken literally. As all to many chistians (and others) have proven you dont need specific instructions to pick out the worst parts of your book and follow them. If you are violence oriented you will practice violent religion. Like the video itself admits you gravitate towards what you know.
On August 26 2010 16:51 Draconizard wrote: By the same token, I highly doubt there are any here who can rightly call themselves foreign policy or political analysis experts so more leeway is allowed.
We're here, but the nature of free politics is that everyone's opinion (and everyone has them) can be heard, even if most are incredibly wrong.
To be honest, the cab driver thing is a non-issue (not a non-story, however) on the national level. Drunk man attacks cab driver isn't exactly a rare occurrence in all of New York. The motivations are simply speculation at this point as painted by the media.
On August 26 2010 16:55 Electric.Jesus wrote: Muslim Taxi Drivers getting stabbed is the result you get when you start building up Islam as a global enemy. In fact the first sign was Samuel Hintungton's Clash of Civilizations where he predicts that Western culture and Islamic culture will batlle it out in the 21th century. I wonder if that is a self fulfilling prophecy.
It is in some sense. The worst consequence of Clash of Civilizations isn't simply the hit to Huntington's academic career (he's completely wrong) but the fact that a polarizing argument like that alienates everyone in the middle ground (which is the vast majority of people) and legitimizes claims from fanatics. In reality, the conflicts are political, economical and secular in nature, but in order to gain support, terrorists paint it as ideological. Then you get a leading American scholar making the exact same stupid argument. In the academic world, Huntington rightfully gets killed for having written that article but unfortunately it still holds weight among the public.
I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say
Anyone who mutilates another person in any way, physically or verbally is so far distanced from christianity.. Saying you belong to a religion does not make you a sincere follower, neither does visiting a church or mosque. I will not speak for Islam, but someone who does this is NOT a christian, whatever he or she may claim.
I feel offended to be categorised together with such a person, hope this does not derail the thread.
I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say
Anyone who mutilates another person in any way, physically or verbally is so far distanced from christianity.. Saying you belong to a religion does not make you a sincere follower, neither does visiting a church or mosque. I will not speak for Islam, but someone who does this is NOT a christian, whatever he or she may claim.
I feel offended to be categorised together with such a person, hope this does not derail the thread.
Being Christian simply means accepting Jesus as your savior. Saying that somebody isn't a Christian because, while they believe in God and in Christ, they don't follow certain laws of the Bible, or they don't follow the spirit of the religion, or they do things that secular society considers bad, etc, is making the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Whether that person dedicates their life to working for charity or becomes a mass murderer has nothing to do with whether they have accepted Christ or not. In fact one of the central beliefs of that religion is that no matter how you have sinned, faith in Christ guarantees salvation.
I don't think the person you are quoting meant what he said literally, but rather was making an analogous argument to demonstrate the flaws in the way (some) people are judging Islam - looking at its worst members, and claiming that they are representative of the entire group.
Often they will quote a passage of the Quran where Muslims are told to kill in the name of their faith. Contrary to what is often claimed, there are parts of the Bible where Christians are commanded to kill in the name of theirs. For example, people who quote Leviticus 18 as an argument against homosexuality should be aware that Leviticus 20 clearly spells out that the punishment for homosexuality is death... it would be difficult to argue that somebody who kills a gay man because "it is sin" wasn't following the Bible.
However, the majority of Christians are civilized people and would never actually do that... similarly, the majority of Muslims are civilized and wouldn't commit acts of terrorism, even if right-wing groups can cherry-pick passages from the Quran to make it appear otherwise.
Any belief system - that is, any religion, or belief systems that are not theistic - can be used for good or for evil. What we should be promoting is tolerance, understanding, and respect.
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
<- hadith (action/saying attributed to Muhammad), often quoted by Hamas
From another hadith, "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."
On August 27 2010 01:19 thesighter wrote: Not all religions are created equal. Through human history, some eastern religions have been much more peaceful than Islam.
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
<- hadith (action/saying attributed to Muhammad), often quoted by Hamas
From another hadith, "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."
What is being taught in Saudi Arabia today. I'm not even talking about Palestine.
FIRST GRADE
" Every religion other than Islam is false."
"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."
SIXTH GRADE
"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power."
EIGHTH GRADE
"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."
God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God's book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did."
"They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them]."
"Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God."
TENTH GRADE
"Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is 'of the book' or not 'of the book' (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).
"Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel."
ELEVENTH GRADE
"The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others."
"If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims."
"Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."
TWELFTH GRADE
"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God."
On August 27 2010 01:19 thesighter wrote: Not all religions are created equal. Through human history, some eastern religions have been much more peaceful than Islam.
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
<- hadith (action/saying attributed to Muhammad), often quoted by Hamas
From another hadith, "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."
Yeah, so your links are absolutely terrible. Thanks for teaching us all through Wikipedia! Any tips on when I should invest in gold?
Just like the Bible and the Torah, the Quran has many contradictory elements that don't fit together (because they're all man made.) You can cite parts that condemn Jews just as you can cite parts that praise them. Mohammed himself was taught by Jewish teachers and he interacted heavily with them.
It's absolutely true that Islam is/was an aggressive religion, just as Christianity and Buddhism are/were. Your argument continues to be selective bullshit that totally ignores the histories and contexts of everything you're talking about. If you want to make an argument about the historical violence of Islam, then you need to include Christianity as well, which was far more violent during the Crusades (against Jews as well) and in which every major empire has treated Jews much worse than their Muslim counterpart empires. If you want to bring up contemporary violence, which is no more connected to ancient scriptures than the Serbian slaying of Bosnians was connected to St. Lazarus, then you can't leave out Serbo-Christianity or even Judaism and its influence on the incredibly violent early Zionist movements.
On August 27 2010 01:19 thesighter wrote: Not all religions are created equal. Through human history, some eastern religions have been much more peaceful than Islam.
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
<- hadith (action/saying attributed to Muhammad), often quoted by Hamas
From another hadith, "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."
I wonder why the Muslims under Mohammed let the Israelis live peacefully after conquering Israel in the 7th century.
Jews and Christians in Persia and Jews and Monophysites in Syria were dissatisfied and sometimes even welcomed the Muslim forces, largely because of religious conflict in both empires.[2] In the case of Byzantine Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had only a few years before been reacquired from the Persians, and had not been ruled by the Byzantines for over 25 years.
It may have had something to do with the practice of accepting "people of the the book" which was used in both the initial Muslim conquests and the Ottoman Empire. The millet system included all conquered peoples as subjects of the nation, but not Muslim faith meaning religious laws did not apply to non-Muslims. Non-Muslims normally were required to pay a tax however (in keeping with the practice of alms-giving, known as zakat).
You're welcome to debate Islam as a hateful religion. I did my history thesis on Israel and the various peoples who ruled the area. If Mohamed wanted to annihilate the Jews he very well would have when Israel was conquered, but he let them live as peaceful subjects of the empire.
Sunni and Shia reference different collections of the Hadith. The Sunni Haddiths were wriiten over 200 years after the death of Mohammed and their authenticity as actual works of Mohamed have been debated by Sunni scholars. Shia Hadiths were written by the "three Mohameds" so, yes, you can attribute their sayings to "a" Mohamed. Shia scholars have admitted there is not complete authenticity in any Hadith. Wahhabists are a Sunni sect.
On August 27 2010 01:19 thesighter wrote: Not all religions are created equal. Through human history, some eastern religions have been much more peaceful than Islam.
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
<- hadith (action/saying attributed to Muhammad), often quoted by Hamas
From another hadith, "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."
Yeah, so your links are absolutely terrible. Thanks for teaching us all through Wikipedia! Any tips on when I should invest in gold?
Just like the Bible and the Torah, the Quran has many contradictory elements that don't fit together (because they're all man made.) You can cite parts that condemn Jews just as you can cite parts that praise them. Mohammed himself was taught by Jewish teachers and he interacted heavily with them.
It's absolutely true that Islam is/was an aggressive religion, just as Christianity and Buddhism are/were. Your argument continues to be selective bullshit that totally ignores the histories and contexts of everything you're talking about. If you want to make an argument about the historical violence of Islam, then you need to include Christianity as well, which was far more violent during the Crusades (against Jews as well) and in which every major empire has treated Jews much worse than their Muslim counterpart empires. If you want to bring up contemporary violence, which is no more connected to ancient scriptures than the Serbian slaying of Bosnians was connected to St. Lazarus, then you can't leave out Serbo-Christianity or even Judaism and its influence on the incredibly violent early Zionist movements.
Modern interpretations of the Quran are heavily antisemitic. I can find plenty of examples of antisemitic remarks made by prominent Islamic preachers.
The Imam of the Al—Haram mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abd Al—Rahman Al—Sudayis, explained in one of his sermons:
Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil forefathers of the even more evil Jews of today: infidels, falsifiers of words, calf worshippers, prophet murderers, deniers of prophecies . . . the scum of the human race, accursed by Allah, who turned them into apes and pigs . . . These are the Jews — an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption . . .
At the same link, Sheikh Muhammad Al—Saleh Al—'Athimein said in a sermon at the Great Mosque in Al—'Unayza, Arabia:
O Muslims, the Jews are treacherous and deceitful people over whom lies the curse and anger of Allah. They permitted what Allah forbade, with the lamest of excuses; therefore, He cursed them and turned them into apes and pigs. Allah sentenced them to humiliation anywhere they might be . . . .�
Buddhism in India was destroyed by Islam, don't even mention it in the same vein as Islam. www.historyofjihad.org <- history of Islamic conquests
On August 27 2010 01:19 thesighter wrote: Not all religions are created equal. Through human history, some eastern religions have been much more peaceful than Islam.
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
<- hadith (action/saying attributed to Muhammad), often quoted by Hamas
From another hadith, "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."
Yeah, so your links are absolutely terrible. Thanks for teaching us all through Wikipedia! Any tips on when I should invest in gold?
Just like the Bible and the Torah, the Quran has many contradictory elements that don't fit together (because they're all man made.) You can cite parts that condemn Jews just as you can cite parts that praise them. Mohammed himself was taught by Jewish teachers and he interacted heavily with them.
It's absolutely true that Islam is/was an aggressive religion, just as Christianity and Buddhism are/were. Your argument continues to be selective bullshit that totally ignores the histories and contexts of everything you're talking about. If you want to make an argument about the historical violence of Islam, then you need to include Christianity as well, which was far more violent during the Crusades (against Jews as well) and in which every major empire has treated Jews much worse than their Muslim counterpart empires. If you want to bring up contemporary violence, which is no more connected to ancient scriptures than the Serbian slaying of Bosnians was connected to St. Lazarus, then you can't leave out Serbo-Christianity or even Judaism and its influence on the incredibly violent early Zionist movements.
Modern interpretations of the Quran are heavily antisemitic. I can find plenty of examples of antisemitic remarks made by prominent Islamic preachers.
The Imam of the Al—Haram mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abd Al—Rahman Al—Sudayis, explained in one of his sermons:
Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil forefathers of the even more evil Jews of today: infidels, falsifiers of words, calf worshippers, prophet murderers, deniers of prophecies . . . the scum of the human race, accursed by Allah, who turned them into apes and pigs . . . These are the Jews — an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption . . .
At the same link, Sheikh Muhammad Al—Saleh Al—'Athimein said in a sermon at the Great Mosque in Al—'Unayza, Arabia:
O Muslims, the Jews are treacherous and deceitful people over whom lies the curse and anger of Allah. They permitted what Allah forbade, with the lamest of excuses; therefore, He cursed them and turned them into apes and pigs. Allah sentenced them to humiliation anywhere they might be . . . .�
Buddhism in India was destroyed by Islam, don't even mention it in the same vein as Islam. www.historyofjihad.org <- history of Islamic conquests
First of all: stop posting links to ridiculous, fanatical, hate mongering blogs. That's a warning.
Second, you're citing a Saudi Imam, which is in no way indicative of Islam as a whole. It's equivalent to condemning American Protestants for comments made by a Greek Orthodox priest. The culture of Saudi Arabia is what dictates its religion, not the other way around. Furthermore, the statements you're "citing" are again, in response to a political, secular conflict.
If you think Buddhism is a historically peaceful religion, then you know nothing about it.
"Mohammad in real life was far more murderous than this portrait might suggest. He was a pioneer in mass murder, lecherous incest and mind-numbing torture. Hence this relatively ‘humane’ looking portrait of this heinous ghoul Mohammad is in fact our tribute to him."
Mohamed's Believe it or else! From a completely non-biased author. Thesighter, I thought you had nothing against Islam.
On August 27 2010 01:19 thesighter wrote: Not all religions are created equal. Through human history, some eastern religions have been much more peaceful than Islam.
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
<- hadith (action/saying attributed to Muhammad), often quoted by Hamas
From another hadith, "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."
Jews and Christians in Persia and Jews and Monophysites in Syria were dissatisfied and sometimes even welcomed the Muslim forces, largely because of religious conflict in both empires.[2] In the case of Byzantine Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had only a few years before been reacquired from the Persians, and had not been ruled by the Byzantines for over 25 years.
It may have had something to do with the practice of accepting "people of the the book" which was used in both the initial Muslim conquests and the Ottoman Empire. The millet system included all conquered peoples as subjects of the nation, but not Muslim faith meaning religious laws did not apply to non-Muslims. Non-Muslims normally were required to pay a tax however (in keeping with the practice of alms-giving, known as zakat).
You're welcome to debate Islam as a hateful religion. I did my history thesis on Israel and the various peoples who ruled the area. If Mohamed wanted to annihilate the Jews he very well would have when Israel was conquered, but he let them live as peaceful subjects of the empire.
Sunni and Shia reference different collections of the Hadith. The Sunni Haddiths were wriiten over 200 years after the death of Mohammed and their authenticity as actual works of Mohamed have been debated by Sunni scholars. Shia Hadiths were written by the "three Mohameds" so, yes, you can attribute their sayings to "a" Mohamed. Shia scholars have admitted there is not complete authenticity in any Hadith. Wahhabists are a Sunni sect.
Okay, so you're going to blame those quotes on the Sunnis. The Shia don't have a good tracking record on anti-Semitism either, especially in the modern age.
If you want to talk about Muhammad, there are plenty of things to talk about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha Muhammad took her as his wife when she was 6 or 7 years old. Was Muhammad a pedophile?
The issue is not whether a mosque should be allowed be built their or not(that is pretty obvious yes) the issue is, Who is building is this mosque? Are the moderate? or exterme As long as their are no "questionable" ties to groups like Ham-mass(not sure if that is the correct spelling) it should be built. As a conservative the only thing i dislike more than extremely left points of view are people who try to argue conservative topic and just end up sounding sounding like big-gits because they are uninformed.
On August 27 2010 02:31 Calidus wrote: The issue is not whether a mosque should be allowed be built their or not(that is pretty obvious yes) the issue is, Who is building is this mosque? Are the moderate? or exterme As long as their are no "questionable" ties to groups like Ham-mass(not sure if that is the correct spelling) it should be built. As a conservative the only thing i dislike more than extremely left points of view are people who try to argue conservative topic and just end up sounding sounding like big-gits because they are uninformed.
What bugs me is how social conservatives can step in and say a private group should be banned from building their own structure on private property. Obviously the reason is because they're not actual conservatives, they're just hypocrites and bigots, but there's quite a few of them these days. I almost wish there were more Libertarians to counteract them.
As for the "mosque", it's a Muslim YMCA with a prayer hall. It's no different than any JCC, and there's tons of them in NY.
"Mohammad in real life was far more murderous than this portrait might suggest. He was a pioneer in mass murder, lecherous incest and mind-numbing torture. Hence this relatively ‘humane’ looking portrait of this heinous ghoul Mohammad is in fact our tribute to him."
Mohamed's Believe it or else! From a completely non-biased author. Thesighter, I thought you had nothing against Islam.
Islam needs to be criticized regarding its views of womens rights, homosexuality, apostasy, jizya, jihad, temporary marriage, etc..
"Mohammad in real life was far more murderous than this portrait might suggest. He was a pioneer in mass murder, lecherous incest and mind-numbing torture. Hence this relatively ‘humane’ looking portrait of this heinous ghoul Mohammad is in fact our tribute to him."
Mohamed's Believe it or else! From a completely non-biased author. Thesighter, I thought you had nothing against Islam.
Islam needs to be criticized regarding its views of womens rights, homosexuality, apostasy, jizya, jihad, temporary marriage, etc..
On August 26 2010 03:02 Taniard wrote: The only problem with the mosque is that it is insensitive, we really have no problem with it, just move it away. Im glad that the driver lived and is ok. It's sad to see such hate and anger
It's only insensitive if you hold the false assertion that Islam as a religion of approximately 1-1.8 billion practitioners is connected to the atrocities committed by a few in the name of Islam.
Some muslims also fell victim to 9/11, and from what it seems every muslim living in america is an indirect victim even today.
I wonder how your opinion would be different if a terrorist attack on the same scale of 9/11, in the name of Islam, happened in Sweden and then a muslim group wanted a mosque to be constructed nearby? I think anyone who isn't American really must understand that their opinions are irrelevant in this matter, because as much as you want to appear to be a modern, unbiased person, you have to understand that nationalist sentiments will override the views of people in the US who would otherwise share your same moderate views.
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Definitely related.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
Are you blaming the developers? Really now. Thank the media for bringing so much attention to it.
"Mohammad in real life was far more murderous than this portrait might suggest. He was a pioneer in mass murder, lecherous incest and mind-numbing torture. Hence this relatively ‘humane’ looking portrait of this heinous ghoul Mohammad is in fact our tribute to him."
Mohamed's Believe it or else! From a completely non-biased author. Thesighter, I thought you had nothing against Islam.
Islam needs to be criticized regarding its views of womens rights, homosexuality, apostasy, jizya, jihad, temporary marriage, etc..
I could carefully explain why this is no more or less extreme then other religions, but it's a red herring, so I'll leave it at that.
Isn't bigotry a bannable offense on these forums anyway?
I'm stating the facts about Islam. I've seen plenty of Christianity bashing in these forums, everyone was fine with it. Islam needs to be criticized for it to be reformed.
The fundamental problems in Islam are related to the current poor state of the Middle East. Look at the advancement of Israel and compare it to its Arab neighbors. Without oil, how much different would the Arab states be from Africa ?
In another brazen anti-Muslim incident, a man wandered into a mosque in Queens Wednesday night, shouting racial slurs and urinating all over prayer rugs.
According to police, a drunk Omar Rivera shouted "terrorists" before relieving himself in the Iman Mosque.
def against the mosque, while at it demolish all churches as well, religion is getting way too out of hand and its been like that since the inquisition
"Mohammad in real life was far more murderous than this portrait might suggest. He was a pioneer in mass murder, lecherous incest and mind-numbing torture. Hence this relatively ‘humane’ looking portrait of this heinous ghoul Mohammad is in fact our tribute to him."
Mohamed's Believe it or else! From a completely non-biased author. Thesighter, I thought you had nothing against Islam.
Islam needs to be criticized regarding its views of womens rights, homosexuality, apostasy, jizya, jihad, temporary marriage, etc..
"Mohammad in real life was far more murderous than this portrait might suggest. He was a pioneer in mass murder, lecherous incest and mind-numbing torture. Hence this relatively ‘humane’ looking portrait of this heinous ghoul Mohammad is in fact our tribute to him."
Mohamed's Believe it or else! From a completely non-biased author. Thesighter, I thought you had nothing against Islam.
Islam needs to be criticized regarding its views of womens rights, homosexuality, apostasy, jizya, jihad, temporary marriage, etc..
"Mohammad in real life was far more murderous than this portrait might suggest. He was a pioneer in mass murder, lecherous incest and mind-numbing torture. Hence this relatively ‘humane’ looking portrait of this heinous ghoul Mohammad is in fact our tribute to him."
Mohamed's Believe it or else! From a completely non-biased author. Thesighter, I thought you had nothing against Islam.
Islam needs to be criticized regarding its views of womens rights, homosexuality, apostasy, jizya, jihad, temporary marriage, etc..
"Mohammad in real life was far more murderous than this portrait might suggest. He was a pioneer in mass murder, lecherous incest and mind-numbing torture. Hence this relatively ‘humane’ looking portrait of this heinous ghoul Mohammad is in fact our tribute to him."
Mohamed's Believe it or else! From a completely non-biased author. Thesighter, I thought you had nothing against Islam.
Islam needs to be criticized regarding its views of womens rights, homosexuality, apostasy, jizya, jihad, temporary marriage, etc..
Yeah, which is a shame since he is such a smart person. But the whole "faith sufferer" thing is over the top, and on this subject he us prone to mix a lot of bad arguments in with the legitimate criticism, as well as the legitimate concerns about our society's negative bias against atheists. Intelligence and prejudice are not mutually exclusive.
On August 27 2010 04:56 Signet wrote: Yeah, which is a shame since he is such a smart person. But the whole "faith sufferer" thing is over the top, and on this subject he us prone to mix a lot of bad arguments in with the legitimate criticism, as well as the legitimate concerns about our society's negative bias against atheists. Intelligence and prejudice are not mutually exclusive.
You do know a lot of atheists are against Islam, right? It actually a LOT of sense, given that atheism is classified as apostasy in Islam, and it is punishable by death in many Muslim countries.
On August 27 2010 04:56 Signet wrote: Yeah, which is a shame since he is such a smart person. But the whole "faith sufferer" thing is over the top, and on this subject he us prone to mix a lot of bad arguments in with the legitimate criticism, as well as the legitimate concerns about our society's negative bias against atheists. Intelligence and prejudice are not mutually exclusive.
You do know a lot of atheists are against Islam, right? It actually a LOT of sense, given that atheism is classified as apostasy in Islam, and it is punishable by death in many Muslim countries.
Here in America, we prefer to punish atheists by making their lives suck instead.
On August 27 2010 04:56 Signet wrote: Yeah, which is a shame since he is such a smart person. But the whole "faith sufferer" thing is over the top, and on this subject he us prone to mix a lot of bad arguments in with the legitimate criticism, as well as the legitimate concerns about our society's negative bias against atheists. Intelligence and prejudice are not mutually exclusive.
You do know a lot of atheists are against Islam, right? It actually a LOT of sense, given that atheism is classified as apostasy in Islam, and it is punishable by death in many Muslim countries.
My comment was about Dawkins specifically. He says the same things about religion in general.
A lot of people of any worldview make the claim "if everyone believed what I believe, the world would be a better/less violent place." Even without addressing the absurdity of even speculating on how the world would have actually developed without religion, it's just not a compelling argument. Like saying there would be no racism if everyone was the same color.
Hate to burst many of your bubbles on this but the instigator in this attack was a liberal and supported the construction of the mosque. I don't think any of us can really assume what his true purpose was in attacking the cab driver other than perhaps he was just plain crazy.
On August 27 2010 06:07 firegawd wrote: Hate to burst many of your bubbles on this but the instigator in this attack was a liberal and supported the construction of the mosque. I don't think any of us can really assume what his true purpose was in attacking the cab driver other than perhaps he was just plain crazy.
On August 27 2010 04:56 Signet wrote: Yeah, which is a shame since he is such a smart person. But the whole "faith sufferer" thing is over the top, and on this subject he us prone to mix a lot of bad arguments in with the legitimate criticism, as well as the legitimate concerns about our society's negative bias against atheists. Intelligence and prejudice are not mutually exclusive.
You do know a lot of atheists are against Islam, right? It actually a LOT of sense, given that atheism is classified as apostasy in Islam, and it is punishable by death in many Muslim countries.
My comment was about Dawkins specifically. He says the same things about religion in general.
A lot of people of any worldview make the claim "if everyone believed what I believe, the world would be a better/less violent place." Even without addressing the absurdity of even speculating on how the world would have actually developed without religion, it's just not a compelling argument. Like saying there would be no racism if everyone was the same color.
Which part of religion was so essential to development of human race?
Do you have a source backing up that claim or just poor reading comprehension?
taken from the story i just linked:
Enright -- whose alcoholism has lead to several minor brushes with the NYPD -- returned to the United States in May after five weeks in Helmand Province filming the Marines.
He shot film projects for Intersections International, a nonprofit group that supports the mosque and "promotes interfaith dialogue and cross-cultural cooperation, specifically with our Muslim brothers and sisters."
I wonder if the attacker is a paranoid schizophrenic. He may have been legally insane at the time of the attack. Hard to know. You have to feel bad for the cab driver.
Until more is made clear about the attacker, I think this is an extremely premature title for the thread.
Do you have a source backing up that claim or just poor reading comprehension?
taken from the story i just linked:
Enright -- whose alcoholism has lead to several minor brushes with the NYPD -- returned to the United States in May after five weeks in Helmand Province filming the Marines.
He shot film projects for Intersections International, a nonprofit group that supports the mosque and "promotes interfaith dialogue and cross-cultural cooperation, specifically with our Muslim brothers and sisters."
On August 26 2010 02:52 thesighter wrote: Definitely related.
Mosque developers need to take a hint and stop the construction. If the mosque is constructed, I anticipate that there will be more anti-Islam violence, eg the mosque makes the situation of Muslims in NYC much worse.
Republicans are going to use this mosque issue as ammunition for the coming elections. Given that over 60% of Americans are against the mosque, this is going to bad news for the Obama administration.
What stupid logic. You're essentially saying the mosque developers should just give in to fear of domestic terrorism.
The mosque should be built for the exactly THAT reason: to show these ridiculous bigots that Muslims are no different than Christians or Buddhists or Atheists, and are given equal protection under the law, no matter the current political circumstances.
On August 27 2010 04:56 Signet wrote: Yeah, which is a shame since he is such a smart person. But the whole "faith sufferer" thing is over the top, and on this subject he us prone to mix a lot of bad arguments in with the legitimate criticism, as well as the legitimate concerns about our society's negative bias against atheists. Intelligence and prejudice are not mutually exclusive.
You do know a lot of atheists are against Islam, right? It actually a LOT of sense, given that atheism is classified as apostasy in Islam, and it is punishable by death in many Muslim countries.
My comment was about Dawkins specifically. He says the same things about religion in general.
A lot of people of any worldview make the claim "if everyone believed what I believe, the world would be a better/less violent place." Even without addressing the absurdity of even speculating on how the world would have actually developed without religion, it's just not a compelling argument. Like saying there would be no racism if everyone was the same color.
Which part of religion was so essential to development of human race?
My point was less that religion was essential, more that religion was ubiquitous. You can't just say that without religion, we get more or less the same world that we have today, minus some of the intolerance and opposition to scientific research. Virtually all of human history was influenced by various religions and cultures based upon them.
In fact, the more individual events changed (even for the better), the more unpredictable the outcome would be. Like, let's speculate that without religion, the Nazis never rise to power and the Holocaust never happens. Well, that's certainly good. But what happens instead? Maybe Europe becomes united in a peaceful way, resists Russian influence, and Japan is never urged to attack the US. Sure, the Pacific islands are under Japanese imperialism a little longer, but overall the goods outweigh the bads. Or maybe Europe doesn't redevelop fast enough to hold out against the Russians, Japan attacks the US - which is now not fighting a war on two fronts and defeats the Japanese by 1943, Hiroshima never happens and there is no doctrine of MAD, the US and USSR get into an actual war and 25 cities are nuked before it's over. That version kinda sucks. Which of these outcomes is more likely? Of course neither -- without the influence of religion, the world in 1900 looks completely different, because of changes even earlier in history.
It's like looking at global warming, and saying that the earth would be better off without the element carbon. Tough to really say what such a world would be like.
Although on the completely opposite note, you might be able to make an argument that, due to some convergent property of evo psych/memetics, any hypothetical social developments that happened with the aid of religion would have happened without it as well. Some society simply would have come up with a mechanism that served the same purpose, and that would have spread instead. Of course, if societies come up with these alternative mechanisms that replace the evolutionary functions of religion, then those mechanisms probably come with similar plusses and minusses, and then we end up not really better or worse off. So maybe the world would be completely, totally different and we can't really say if it's better or worse... or maybe it would be almost exactly the same, and instead of religion we'd have something else that's 99% the same thing.
Changing the course of human history on such an early and fundamental level is just pure speculation.
On August 27 2010 02:41 muta_micro wrote: I wonder how your opinion would be different if a terrorist attack on the same scale of 9/11, in the name of Islam, happened in Sweden and then a muslim group wanted a mosque to be constructed nearby? I think anyone who isn't American really must understand that their opinions are irrelevant in this matter, because as much as you want to appear to be a modern, unbiased person, you have to understand that nationalist sentiments will override the views of people in the US who would otherwise share your same moderate views.
Hi, I'm also an American, so maybe you'll let me talk about this.
The huge problem with your argument is that the people who want to build the mosque are not the same people who did 9/11. You can't just claim over a billion people are some sort of monolithic unit because 19 people committed an atrocity "in the name of Islam". This is America, you don't have a right to not be offended. If a [insert race here] person mugged you, you don't have the right to demand all [race] stay away from you because it makes you feel uncomfortable. While my heart goes out to anyone directly affected by 9/11, that doesn't give them a license to be bigoted towards over a billion people around the world and over 2 million of their fellow citizens.
Furthermore, identifying Americans who are Muslim as anything other than fellow citizens with full rights to build their houses of worship where they please damages national security and advances the goals of those 19 murderers: it creates a mental construct that separates "real" Americans and Americans who are Muslim. Alienating and pushing away American citizens plays right into the hands of the real bad guys.
america revolves around hate and ignorance now days. shame bout the muslim driver he just trying to make a living.
how bad are the arguments going on with the mosque near ground zero? i still think the attacks were a sham had to stop reading the news for a while after the oil spills, just depressing.
On August 27 2010 04:56 Signet wrote: Yeah, which is a shame since he is such a smart person. But the whole "faith sufferer" thing is over the top, and on this subject he us prone to mix a lot of bad arguments in with the legitimate criticism, as well as the legitimate concerns about our society's negative bias against atheists. Intelligence and prejudice are not mutually exclusive.
You do know a lot of atheists are against Islam, right? It actually a LOT of sense, given that atheism is classified as apostasy in Islam, and it is punishable by death in many Muslim countries.
My comment was about Dawkins specifically. He says the same things about religion in general.
A lot of people of any worldview make the claim "if everyone believed what I believe, the world would be a better/less violent place." Even without addressing the absurdity of even speculating on how the world would have actually developed without religion, it's just not a compelling argument. Like saying there would be no racism if everyone was the same color.
Which part of religion was so essential to development of human race?
religion was needed to take control and financially benefit off the stupid masses of people who couldn't think for themselves.
think of religion as the first type of government. think of it as the only institutional power form that survived the ages. great tool for making ppl give money, follow and support blindly without any facts.
god i wish i could start my own religion like joseph smith !
On August 26 2010 03:03 thesighter wrote: Americans are against the building of the mosque becuase it is offensive to the 9/11 families .
How is it offensive to 9/11 families? It's a mosque, there's others like it in and around New York.
Some people, including Muslims themselves, feel that the building of the mosque will only result in further violence against Muslim people. While I, personally, hold no grudge against that particular religion, I do agree that it is needless, and dangerous to build a mosque in that particular location. You can't count on people to be smarter, or better than to do stuff like the guy that stabbed the cab driver. And things like that should be taken into consideration when building things like a mosque near the former target of a religious attack.
Like I mention in the Mosque thread though, tolerance and acceptance has never been easily accepted by Americans. The Civil Rights movement was pretty much forced upon most of the country, and the same thing is happening for gays now. Hispanic and Muslim peoples are still screwed.
It's very well understood that discriminating someone for race, religion, orientation, etc is a bad thing. That's why we needed laws that force "illegal looking people" in Arizona to carry papers with them. This is why we need to associate a religion of 1.5 billion with terrorism so we can pressure a NY congregation to stop their building plans.
That's where the mosque wins though. People are powerless to stop its construction in a legal sense. Religious tolerance gets forced down their throats whether they like it or not. No one is expecting Park 51 to go completely without a hitch after the media over-exaggerated the story. Those that do cause problems will be outed for their bigotry, that's the best anyone can do at this point. Overcoverage of this story turned it into a civil rights issue, it was just another building beforehand.
A bit of semantics, but this is in no way forcing tolerance and acceptance on anyone. The level of tolerance and acceptance before and after the approval will be just about the same. Bigots still might attack Middle Easterners with the idea that they are somehow responsible for the tragedy. They still might vandalize the property of Middle Eastern facing businesses
The path to real tolerance and real acceptance will be ugly and it will always be ugly. Human beings are usually fearful of things that are foreign and unfamiliar. People have to get over their own barriers and reach a mutual understand and it always takes time.
Instead it's a question of whether or not we want to institutionalize discrimination through politics and law. This is about whether or not we want to legitimize discrimination and make the bigots feel righteous about it above and beyond the merits of their argument for discrimination, and thus it is even uglier than the process of achieving tolerance.
There are some cases of racial discrimination occurring natural like cabbies not stopping for black people in the inner city. Maybe it's racial prejudice, maybe they've been burned too many times by blacks, or maybe a combination of both. Regardless, cabbies know exactly why they are discriminating against black and it will cross their mind every time they do. What the cabbies don't do is chuck it up to the fact that there is a law supporting their behavior.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/ntir/Fotoblog/SultanMosque.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2010/08/25/PH2010082505084.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img263.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=41742_comic_122_481lo.JPG)
