Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on August 22, 2010, 01:18:54 am
-
It's not at Ground Zero.
It's not a mosque.
There should be no debate.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/
-
I was wondering when there would be a topic about this.
-
Yeah, a total non issue blown way out of proportion. Just another distraction from what's important.
-
Actually it is a mosque and already exists in the same building. So the point still stands that there should be no debate.
-
There was mosque destroyed by the 9/11 attacks, y'know.
It was in the Pentagon.
-
If we can have strip clubs in hallowed ground, we can have mosques in hallowed ground.
Also if you think a few blocks away from the WTC is hallowed ground, you're crazy.
-
I was wondering when there would be a topic about this.
I was surprised there wasn't one already. Perhaps, for once on HLP, there isn't anyone stupid enough to actually believe that this isn't a one-sided issue.
-
aaaaand now you've jinxed it....
-
Frankly, the public perception in the States, like it or not, agree with it or not, is that the attack on Sept. 11, 2001 was perpetrated by followers of Islam in the name of their religion. In that light, it's in poor taste to put a Islamic spiritual and outreach center 3 blocks from Ground Zero. Understand, I don't care if they put up 10 mosques. Just show a little judgement as to your location planning so as not to piss off the people you are trying to communicate and live with.
-
So we're supposed to listen to idiots and do whatever they want then?
The fact that they are morons is precisely why we should do the opposite of what they want. :p
-
as far as I can tell it's just a community centre with a prayer room or two....
-
Matt Damon.
-
I was wondering when there would be a topic about this.
I was surprised there wasn't one already. Perhaps, for once on HLP, there isn't anyone stupid enough to actually believe that this isn't a one-sided issue.
I had heard nothing about any of this until now. That's what I get for not following any news sources. ;)
--
Matt Damon.
I thought it was Daemon. :P
-
Reminds me when i was watching nbc news the other day (it's not the greatest news, but it's better than fox). Nbc news was being misleading while a little less misleading, and then back to straight misleading with what they concluded.
They kept saying "mosque will be built at ground zero...approved by obama". When they also said a few times, "mosque will be built a couple of blocks away from ground zero...approved by obama"; this is more accurate, but i don't like nbc news or any kind of headline news on tv anymore because relation by reporters today tends to be horrible since they think the audience can't generate they're own conclusions (and the fact that the news is mostly just what's popularly fashionable to report about, lately it was BP, ground zero, and probably somewhere in the past JT's new album (lately important issues happen to be popular which is good for right now with a bull**** popular misinformation twist)).
In which case nbc news concludes that a mosque being built near ground zero is the exact same thing as building it at ground zero, which is not correct; it's a bad relation. Reminds me of how a lot of headline news during the days before the BP static kill in the gulf happened. BP was using some ingredients found in toothpaste mixed with what i think was normal mud to make sludgy mud they were going to use. In which case reporters equated "some ingredients found in toothpaste" to "using actual full blown toothpaste". Furthering it's another bad relation is also the fact that we didn't see colgate and aquafresh duking it out for a business venture with BP :lol: This is akin to considering you have cookies when all you did was set out the ingredients and you didn't do any mixing or baking.
Back to the point, to furthering headline news spreading lies about the issue is that it's not even a mosque being built. Headline news is funny, so designer fashioned and only about the popular stuff, even if it's wrong in the modern day. Whatever happened to integrity and dignity to those who don't dink around with the small designer popular ****, do their research and actually deliver the truth? At least obama endorses the community center and is pretty much making it happen (to what extent or degree we have yet to see).
But it really seems to show off how lazy and unreliable people in the news industry have become with the select few actually changing their roles to deliver the truth (i understand this issue was written truthfully by somebody who writes for a humor and video website...they did a fantastic job).
I don't have a problem with what the issue is actually about; build that community center 3 blocks from ground zero. I have a problem with the people reporting the news not opposing politician misinformation/re-interpretation/re-argument. This is so a symptom of a bigger issue that it's going to make free lance and independent reporting become even more popular than they are already now; thank you other websites, blogs, social networking.
-
Cracked has more integrity and honesty than headline news.
Cracked.
I'm just gonna let that sink in for a minute.
-
Yeah, a total non issue blown way out of proportion. Just another distraction from what's important.
It's important to Fox. (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0819/fox-news-spends-10-minutes-iraq-exit-focusing-nyc-mosque/)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYWZXWWjwoY
Keith Olbermann pretty much sums this up
-
Yeah, a total non issue blown way out of proportion. Just another distraction from what's important.
It's important to Fox. (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0819/fox-news-spends-10-minutes-iraq-exit-focusing-nyc-mosque/)
and nearly the entire Republican party apparently. If the Republican's want to ever be taken seriously again (Not holding my breath on that one) they need to get off their whole we reject every thing the Dems are doing and lets make a damn holy war while we're at it attitude and actually come up with something substantial to base their party platform on.
Seriously, We are the nation that holds up are freedoms for all to see and then rubs the worlds face in it all the damn time and yet things like this continue to become issues. As long as the builders follow city codes and ordinances let them have their center. Our nation as whole can only become stronger for it.
-
Question being;
If someone actually wanted to build a Mosque on the Ground Zero landmass, would that be wrong?
-
Supposedly we were going to rebuild the towers, but since we aren't, I guess not.
Though, I think almost all of my support for the mosque-thingy near ground zero is just because I want to be antagonistic to right-wingers.
I don't think any mosques, churches, synagogues, etc should be built anywhere, ever. Big, expensive wastes of space.
-
Question being;
If someone actually wanted to build a Mosque on the Ground Zero landmass, would that be wrong?
Counterquestion: Would it be OK for a christian chapel of whatever denomination to be built there? If the answer is yes, then the answer must be that a mosque is OK as well, unless that constitutional amendment americans are so proud about got changed.
-
The answer seems quite logical and rational.
I do wonder why this is getting so much news and differing opinions :)
-
**** news. **** politics. Let them build the damn mosque.
-
The answer seems quite logical and rational.
I do wonder why this is getting so much news and differing opinions :)
Something about Republicans almost unilaterally voting down health benefits for 9/11 first responders or something.
-
whether it's right or wrong, I would think the fact that it's spun out into a huge cluster**** would have made them reconsider their plans. going forward with it even though millions of people are pissed about it (even if for no good reason) sounds like they are trying to make some sort of statement. a statement sort of like "I don't give a **** what you say I'm doing it and there is nothing you can do to stop me". which is their perogitive to make that statement, but I don't think it's a strategically wise position, as it will be used as a platform to launch attacks against Islam. considering how unpopular Islam is in the states what with all the beheadings and cartoon riots and occasional mass murder, one would think that these individuals would take this as an opportunity to show humility and be all like "oh, wow, I didn't realize this would piss you all off so much! I mean, we really don't see why you are so pissed about this. but, we aren't looking for confrontations, so, OK we'll move it somewhere else"
someone else asked about what if a church was built on the site. if that were to happen I would call foul and say it was just some Christians trying to plant a symbolic flag on 9/11 for some political reason. the WTC site is not a place for any one denomination to build anything, it should be a place were America builds a monument of resilience, that is to say we should basically rebuild the towers more or less exactly as they were. unfortunately the only monument we have built thus far is one of incompetence and bureaucracy, showing we can't get anything done.
-
one would think that these individuals would take this as an opportunity to show humility and be all like "oh, wow, I didn't realize this would piss you all off so much! I mean, we really don't see why you are so pissed about this. but, we aren't looking for confrontations, so, OK we'll move it somewhere else"
Why on earth would one think that? Religious organizations take every opportunity to show off and be assholes.
-
that is true, historical evidence is against me on this.
oh, I know where I screwed up, I was assuming they would use some form logic and reason in there decision making process. /*smacks head*/ :lol: oops, now I'm embarrassed. don't know how I made that mistake, I guess I'm just tired.
-
...one would think that these individuals would take this as an opportunity to show humility and be all like "oh, wow, I didn't realize this would piss you all off so much! I mean, we really don't see why you are so pissed about this. but, we aren't looking for confrontations, so, OK we'll move it somewhere else"
I see where you're coming from but do keep in mind that we're not talking about a fast food stand here - we're talking a millions of dollars worth of a project; those tend to be a bit more complicated to move. So put yourself in their shoes; you'd probably be arguing that a) it's not really a mosque, b) it's not being built on the site the neocons and fox news are screaming it is, and c) you've already invested considerable amounts of time and money into the project, have the legal right to proceed with it, and shouldn't have to go through expensive reorganizing and moving the whole thing just because a bunch of neocons decided to use this to fire people up against the US government. I wonder if this would even become an issue if the whole thing was being built in the exact same spot as it is now, but the republicans were in power and not the democrats..? It's not really about the mosque or Islam or those people building the said mosque; they just had the bad luck of being used for someone else's political agenda.
Of course if it were up to me organized religion would be banned and nobody would be building anything of the sort :P
-
whether it's right or wrong, I would think the fact that it's spun out into a huge cluster**** would have made them reconsider their plans. going forward with it even though millions of people are pissed about it (even if for no good reason) sounds like they are trying to make some sort of statement. a statement sort of like "I don't give a **** what you say I'm doing it and there is nothing you can do to stop me". which is their perogitive to make that statement, but I don't think it's a strategically wise position, as it will be used as a platform to launch attacks against Islam. considering how unpopular Islam is in the states what with all the beheadings and cartoon riots and occasional mass murder, one would think that these individuals would take this as an opportunity to show humility and be all like "oh, wow, I didn't realize this would piss you all off so much! I mean, we really don't see why you are so pissed about this. but, we aren't looking for confrontations, so, OK we'll move it somewhere else"
someone else asked about what if a church was built on the site. if that were to happen I would call foul and say it was just some Christians trying to plant a symbolic flag on 9/11 for some political reason. the WTC site is not a place for any one denomination to build anything, it should be a place were America builds a monument of resilience, that is to say we should basically rebuild the towers more or less exactly as they were. unfortunately the only monument we have built thus far is one of incompetence and bureaucracy, showing we can't get anything done.
Because if we were in the habit of doing what the mob wants rather then doing what's right we would still have segregation, gender inequality, etc. Cowering to foolishness only begets more foolishness. Already you have stupid wahoos demanding that the cease giving out any permits for mosques, you want to empower them?
-
well if they keep this up their 'community center' is going to become nothing but a divisive symbol.
-
well if they keep this up their 'community center' is going to become nothing but a divisive symbol.
It will be there long after the Republican Party has carciaturized themselves out of existence.
The entire concept that they should change the location over public outcry is flawed because the public outcry itself is flawed. They have a legal right to build it there, they have obtained the necessary permissions and permits from the local government (not cheap, by the way), they have purchased the site (also not cheap in that neighborhood). The rule of law can and must trump emotion.
-
I wish you would be more honest like zack
I think almost all of my support for the mosque-thingy near ground zero is just because I want to be antagonistic to right-wingers.
-
I wish you would be more honest like zack
I wish you wouldn't think that trumped up election year kulturkampf is a good reason not to do something. The two minutes hate will soon find another target.
-
I wish you would be more honest like zack
I am being honest. If you want me to be brutally honest I'll note that I'm in the business of advocating blowing up any deity that turns out to exist, but that really has no bearing on their followers.
-
I would like to pursue that tangent, and ask how one would go about committing deicide.
-
I would like to pursue that tangent, and ask how one would go about committing deicide.
the gods live by being worshipped. Best bet is to kill all the worshippers.
Pretty much any other solution i can think of involves technobabble and requires a deflector dish
-
I would like to pursue that tangent, and ask how one would go about committing deicide.
The most impressive acts of God that remain scientifically viable involve destroying ancient cities of relatively small size and poor construction. Even estimating very conservatively most Gods will be hard-pressed to generate more than a one megaton-warhead's worth of raw energy.
Thus I recommend liberal application of the standard 5 MT strategic warhead to any God you encounter. This will in many pantheons be overkill, of course.
-
Thus I recommend liberal application of the standard 5 MT strategic warhead to any God you encounter. This will in many pantheons be overkill, of course.
... and use MIRVs for those nasty polytheistic situations :P
-
If God of War was about the Hindu pantheon, they could have made about a million sequels.
-
There should be no debate.
**** news. **** politics. Let them build the damn mosque.
:yes:
So sick of hearing about this.
-
In short, why people are opposed to the center. (http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4460/72372636.jpg)
EDIT: Come to think of it, I don't think I know anyone that's actually opposed to the community center.
-
The whole thing is laughable, people like Sarah Palin being taken seriously is far greater evidence of where the Terrorists have won than a mosque would be. Apparently, if you can't beat the mentality, join it...
-
Slacktivist delivers (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/08/please-forgive-me-for-the-actions-of-extremists-i-have-never-met-who-commit-acts-of-violence-that-i-.html).
As a white male Baptist, it is my duty today to denounce the violence perpetrated by Patrick Gray Sharp, 29, who yesterday attacked the police headquarters in McKinney, Texas, in a heavily armed but ineffectual assault involving a high-powered rifle, road flares, "gasoline and ammonium nitrate fertilizer."
I understand that this denunciation must be swift and unambiguous and that, in the absence of such denunciations made by and on behalf of every and all white male Baptists, others are entitled to assume that every white male Baptist is fully in agreement with the actions of Patrick Gray Sharp and to therefore deny white male Baptists the rights others enjoy.
(snip)
UPDATE: Boy is my face red. This is so embarrassing -- I totally skimmed past the fine print on the unwritten rules and completely missed the exemption for hegemonic classes. It turns out that we white people, males and Protestants never have to worry about extravagant displays of vicarious contrition. As a white male Protestant, apparently, I don't need to promptly denounce every evil act committed by any and every other white male Protestant.
This is awesome. Do you realize how much time this is going to save me? Plus just the relief of no longer having to watch the news on pins and needles, worrying every time there's a crime or a gun-nut on a spree that it'll be some white male Protestant guy and that everyone is going to assume we're all like that. What an enormous relief to be judged only as an individual and not prejudged according to the worst thing ever done by anyone ever claiming to belong to my faith community, or sharing my gender or my ethnicity. It's not just a relief it's a ... oh, what's the word? ... privilege. Yes, that's what it is -- a fantastic privilege.
-
I'd like to know why kara felt it necessary to drop the entire HLP collective's IQ by 10 points by opening a thread on this asinine issue. Shame on you, sir! Seriously, anytime anyone invokes the cause and/or name of She-who-shall-not-be-named (lest we all lose another 10 points off our IQs) it simply devolves from there. A small pinch of shame for Flipside for invoking the aforementioned name, too.
:lol:
-
I'd like to know why kara felt it necessary to drop the entire HLP collective's IQ by 10 points by opening a thread on this asinine issue. Shame on you, sir! Seriously, anytime anyone invokes the cause and/or name of She-who-shall-not-be-named (lest we all lose another 10 points off our IQs) it simply devolves from there. A small pinch of shame for Flipside for invoking the aforementioned name, too.
:lol:
I can probably invoke her name (though I shall refrain), as I have absolutely no ties to her, being as I reside in another nation entirely. However, we have our own devils who's name shall cause full blown IQ dives when invoked. Such as our dearest new prime minister.
-
I'd like to know why kara felt it necessary to drop the entire HLP collective's IQ by 10 points by opening a thread on this asinine issue. Shame on you, sir! Seriously, anytime anyone invokes the cause and/or name of She-who-shall-not-be-named (lest we all lose another 10 points off our IQs) it simply devolves from there. A small pinch of shame for Flipside for invoking the aforementioned name, too.
:lol:
Most of us can afford a small drop. I was hoping that anyone against the mosque would actually drop low enough to forget to breathe. :p
-
I think the whole thing had to put up for comedy value if nothing else. Seeing all those poor deluded prejudiced fools standing at Ground Zero saying that building a mosque was an insult to the victims of 9/11 was quite hilarious on a certain level. Especially if you consider that one of the other proposals for Ground Zero itself was a light airport... now, that is what I'd consider taking the piss....
-
I'd like to know why kara felt it necessary to drop the entire HLP collective's IQ by 10 points by opening a thread on this asinine issue. Shame on you, sir! Seriously, anytime anyone invokes the cause and/or name of She-who-shall-not-be-named (lest we all lose another 10 points off our IQs) it simply devolves from there. A small pinch of shame for Flipside for invoking the aforementioned name, too.
:lol:
(http://www.chafee.net/wnba/images/ni.jpg)
Don't say that word!
-
What, Betelgeuse got a sex change?
-
**** news. **** politics. Let them build the damn COMMUNITY CENTER.
Most of us can afford a small drop. I was hoping that anyone against the mosque would actually drop low enough to forget to breathe. :p
Can i redirect those people to my blow up monkey doll video on youtube?
-
No, I said what I meant. Even if it was a full blown mosque, they should damn well better be able to build it there. provided they got the permits and stuff that everyone else has to get too.
-
Ironic part is, if a Mosque or Community Centre was built there, how long would it be before some nutcase tried to plant an IED there, commiting an act of Terrorism in the name of 'stopping the Terrorists'?
-
well, probably a while cause there really have not been very many cases of that, at most it's normally a window getting smashed.
-
Ironic part is, if a Mosque or Community Centre was built there, how long would it be before some nutcase tried to plant an IED there, commiting an act of Terrorism in the name of 'stopping the Terrorists'?
A fairly long time since nothing of the sort has happened yet.
-
Muslims are below gays and "abortionists" on the hit list.
-
Ironic part is, if a Mosque or Community Centre was built there, how long would it be before some nutcase tried to plant an IED there, commiting an act of Terrorism in the name of 'stopping the Terrorists'?
A fairly long time since nothing of the sort has happened yet.
I'd suspect that this could be partly because it hasn't been built yet...
But, yes, I know what you mean, no mosques in other parts of the US have been attacked, but this one is in a somewhat 'unique' situation, and seems to be the focus of a great deal of ire from various quarters, like the targetting of high-profile abortion doctors, this is somewhat more of a target than most other mosques.
-
Ironic part is, if a Mosque or Community Centre was built there, how long would it be before some nutcase tried to plant an IED there, commiting an act of Terrorism in the name of 'stopping the Terrorists'?
A fairly long time since nothing of the sort has happened yet.
I'd suspect that this could be partly because it hasn't been built yet...
But, yes, I know what you mean, no mosques in other parts of the US have been attacked, but this one is in a somewhat 'unique' situation, and seems to be the focus of a great deal of ire from various quarters, like the targetting of high-profile abortion doctors, this is somewhat more of a target than most other mosques.
Probably still won't happen because the cud chewin' neobarb will be too dumb to accomplish it because they :
A) Will be looking for a mosque not a community center.
B) Will be looking around Ground Zero not a building a few blocks away.
-
Ironic part is, if a Mosque or Community Centre was built there, how long would it be before some nutcase tried to plant an IED there, commiting an act of Terrorism in the name of 'stopping the Terrorists'?
A fairly long time since nothing of the sort has happened yet.
I'd suspect that this could be partly because it hasn't been built yet...
But, yes, I know what you mean, no mosques in other parts of the US have been attacked, but this one is in a somewhat 'unique' situation, and seems to be the focus of a great deal of ire from various quarters, like the targetting of high-profile abortion doctors, this is somewhat more of a target than most other mosques.
Depends how you define "attacked." There are some that repeatedly get windows broken and graffitti'd and such. But I think most people don't know where their local mosques are. Almost no one around here knows that there's a mosque a few blocks from my campus.
-
While I personally believe that they are entitled to and if they really want to, have all the right to build the mosque there, it seems to me as if they're trying to "force" tolerance on people.
Don't get me wrong, again, I support the initiative and am not against it, but it's not like the other side is completely wrong either. They're building a very large Islamic community center relatively close to where the 9/11 attacks happened.
I think both sides should compromise; the anti-mosque crowd should accept a mosque near the area, while the pro-mosque crowd should be open to moving it to a less contentious property. Yes, religious tolerance is important, but you're not going to win hearts and minds by shoving this down what (at this point) seems to be half the country - you'll probably do a lot more harm than good in the end.
In the end, I guess my biggest problem with this whole thing is it's an example of how my country has practically split in two; on the one side, we have the who just basically say "lol idiots of course they can build it the Constitution says so and it's open and shut so stop being stupid backwards rednecks!" and the other side who basically says "**** you you children killers you killed thousands of us so get the **** out" - and there is almost no one in the middle going "Guys, guys - you both have legitimate points. Let's talk this over". This entire country and this entire debate have devolved into "I want it all or else" - for BOTH sides. Everyone needs to seriously take a step back and realize that maybe the other side might actually have something to say.
-
While I personally believe that they are entitled to and if they really want to, have all the right to build the mosque there, it seems to me as if they're trying to "force" tolerance on people.
Don't get me wrong, again, I support the initiative and am not against it, but it's not like the other side is completely wrong either. They're building a very large Islamic community center relatively close to where the 9/11 attacks happened.
I think both sides should compromise; the anti-mosque crowd should accept a mosque near the area, while the pro-mosque crowd should be open to moving it to a less contentious property. Yes, religious tolerance is important, but you're not going to win hearts and minds by shoving this down what (at this point) seems to be half the country - you'll probably do a lot more harm than good in the end.
In the end, I guess my biggest problem with this whole thing is it's an example of how my country has practically split in two; on the one side, we have the who just basically say "lol idiots of course they can build it the Constitution says so and it's open and shut so stop being stupid backwards rednecks!" and the other side who basically says "**** you you children killers you killed thousands of us so get the **** out" - and there is almost no one in the middle going "Guys, guys - you both have legitimate points. Let's talk this over". This entire country and this entire debate have devolved into "I want it all or else" - for BOTH sides. Everyone needs to seriously take a step back and realize that maybe the other side might actually have something to say.
I think that you just described every modern society on every issue that there has ever been.
-
The thing is, I'd really rather not be a Muslim living in New York these days, I suspect life is very difficult for people of that religion in the city that was the victim of of the 9/11 attacks. Personally I'd say that any kind of centre where people can meet and discuss social or faith matters, like the proposed open Community Centre, would, rather than be helping the Terrorists, instead would be kicking them in the teeth by trying to help to improve tolerance between Muslims and non-Muslims in New York. If there's one thing that Terrorists want, it's internal strife, particularly strife directed as Muslims, so, in truth, those who are holding up the placards are probably being cheered on by Terrorist elements, because they are doing their promotional work for them.
-
That's a good point Flipside - but the opposition to the Mosque isn't opposed to them building one; they're opposed to them building one in relatively close proximity to the WTC remains. Again, I know it's really not anywhere near Ground Zero - but at this point, does it even matter anymore? People feel as if it is, and feelings are what's pushing this debate along. I'm sure if they located it anywhere else (and I'm sure there are many different suitable, high profile locations), people would be fine with it...so again, if they really really want it that close to the WTC area, then they should be willing to compromise, because by putting it there and basically telling the other side to be quiet, they're probably doing more damage to their cause than they are good.
-
hell they could probably even move it closer, just the act of moving it at all would send a message of 'Im willing to compromise'
-
Yea I think that's the main sticking point. They're refusing to compromise on something that they should really consider compromising on - they're kind of staying behind this wall of "we're trying to reconcile our differences", when in reality the refusal to compromise (again, on both sides) is making reconciliation even harder
-
Uhm, so basically you're saying that a group of people who have already sunk a ****load of money into their project, who have nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, who have every legal right to continue their project, should acquiesce to the inane, paranoid ravings of a bunch of racist morons?
land of the free, whoopee.
-
**** that, build the community center.
The people who don't like it can go piss off somewhere else.
-
While I personally believe that they are entitled to and if they really want to, have all the right to build the mosque there, it seems to me as if they're trying to "force" tolerance on people.
Don't get me wrong, again, I support the initiative and am not against it, but it's not like the other side is completely wrong either. They're building a very large Islamic community center relatively close to where the 9/11 attacks happened.
I think both sides should compromise; the anti-mosque crowd should accept a mosque near the area, while the pro-mosque crowd should be open to moving it to a less contentious property. Yes, religious tolerance is important, but you're not going to win hearts and minds by shoving this down what (at this point) seems to be half the country - you'll probably do a lot more harm than good in the end.
In the end, I guess my biggest problem with this whole thing is it's an example of how my country has practically split in two; on the one side, we have the who just basically say "lol idiots of course they can build it the Constitution says so and it's open and shut so stop being stupid backwards rednecks!" and the other side who basically says "**** you you children killers you killed thousands of us so get the **** out" - and there is almost no one in the middle going "Guys, guys - you both have legitimate points. Let's talk this over". This entire country and this entire debate have devolved into "I want it all or else" - for BOTH sides. Everyone needs to seriously take a step back and realize that maybe the other side might actually have something to say.
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if we were actually discussing a mosque on ground zero, if the community center had anything to do with the objectives of 9/11, and if the the arguments of the side of those that oppose the community center weren't wholly based on intolerance. Heeding intolerant arguments doesn't magically spawn tolerance.
-
Uhm, so basically you're saying that a group of people who have already sunk a ****load of money into their project, who have nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, who have every legal right to continue their project, should acquiesce to the inane, paranoid ravings of a bunch of racist morons?
land of the free, whoopee.
Just because you have the ability to do something, does not mean you should do that thing. They're perfectly within their rights and I sympathize, but really, with all of the negative emotions swirling around it, it would do a LOT for their cause if the offered to compromise. Right now to the opposition it just seems like them aggressively shoving it down their throats.
Scotty: that's exactly the sort of attitude that's at the root of the problem.
sizzler: at this point, it doesn't really matter whether or not it's technically at Ground Zero - people feel that it is, so the simple act of saying "ok, we'll listen to your concers" would do a lot to calm the furor I think.
-
This sort of reminds me of what's legal for motorized vehicles that don't require registration and insurance. The law here says must be below 50cc engine size. So now you have all of these 49.99cc small mopeds and scooters everywhere.
In this situation you wont see law enforcement impounding my small moped or scooter because i'm cheating by having a 49.99cc engine so i don't need to register or insure it. I however would probably get a citation or maybe get it impounded if i decided to ride the damn thing on the road as opposed to the side walk.
In other words, we shouldn't be considering the oppositions feelings on the matter at all. Because it's not a mosque, it's not being built on ground zero, and no ones doing anything wrong.
Now if where they're building is going to be around a bunch of intolerant people is the real issue. But, then again considering that izlam is not real popular in america right now, i think you'd find people telling them not to build anywhere. They should build anyway because i don't see it getting treated too much differently if they moved to a different location.
People feeling that something shouldn't be built because of religious intolerance isn't a very good reason i think in this case since you're currently going to have intolerance to izlam anyway.
-
thizzler: at this point, it doesn't really matter whether or not it's technically at Ground Zero - people feel that it is, so the simple act of saying "ok, we'll listen to your concers" would do a lot to calm the furor I think.
But their furor is unfounded. The opponents of of the community center are essentially children throwing a temper tantrum. I don't think the community center buyers should inconvenience themselves because the public is too butthurt to acknowledge that the buyers are perfectly legitimate people in all respects. Come to think of it, not building the community center because "it's a mosque at ground zero" is infinitely better than not building the community center because people would get mad. At least the former was based on some sort of (flawed) rationale as opposed to a response to anger.
-
Uhm, so basically you're saying that a group of people who have already sunk a ****load of money into their project, who have nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, who have every legal right to continue their project, should acquiesce to the inane, paranoid ravings of a bunch of racist morons?
land of the free, whoopee.
Right now to the opposition it just seems like them aggressively shoving it down their throats.
HOW DARE THEY EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN RACISTS ARE AROUND. Yeah, maybe blacks in the south should have just compromised and not voted even after they got the right to. I mean, it caused a lot of uproar when they tried. The opposition was organized, you know, and maybe those uppity blacks should have respected their feelings and not voted, right?
-
It's close, but not the same iamzack. This is a private development, not a government one (like allowing blacks to vote). Also, I fail to see the point in refusing to even talk to the opposition about it - at the very least there could be a high level dialog, instead of rabid screamers yelling at each other over a police line. That is, after all, what putting this there is about, right? A dialog? They've even got a 9/11 memorial inside the building. You can't just put your fingers in your ear and give the finger to the other side, you won't get anything but animosity and hate. If you do talk and end up going the same route, you'll at least have tried.
But their furor is unfounded. The opponents of of the community center are essentially children throwing a temper tantrum. I don't think the community center buyers should inconvenience themselves because the public is too butthurt to acknowledge that the buyers are perfectly legitimate people in all respects. Come to think of it, not building the community center because "it's a mosque at ground zero" is infinitely better than not building the community center because people would get mad. At least the former was based on some sort of (flawed) rationale as opposed to a response to anger.
How well is telling them that their furor is unfounded working out? "Everything you're worried about is wrong and you're an idiot" is the attitude coming from the left. I don't personally care that their fear is unfounded - it's still fear. You need to talk to them about it. You don't comfort a child who's afraid of the dark by yelling at them that they're stupid for believing in monsters and shutting the door.
-
There's nothing to talk about. What do you want, a patronizing "Wow, really sorry you feel that way, buuuuut we're gonna continue our project anyway"? Or do you honestly want them to dump their project and start all over again just because a handful of complete morons watch who too much Fox news and don't know their own asshole from a hole in the ground are whinging?
Edit:
How well is telling them that their furor is unfounded working out? "Everything you're worried about is wrong and you're an idiot" is the attitude coming from the left. I don't personally care that their fear is unfounded - it's still fear. You need to talk to them about it. You don't comfort a child who's afraid of the dark by yelling at them that they're stupid for believing in monsters and shutting the door.
I missed that part. Are right-wingers children now? Are they that mentally incompetent? I mean, if they really are all developmentally challenged, that would change everything.
-
How well is telling them that their furor is unfounded working out? "Everything you're worried about is wrong and you're an idiot" is the attitude coming from the left. I don't personally care that their fear is unfounded - it's still fear. You need to talk to them about it. You don't comfort a child who's afraid of the dark by yelling at them that they're stupid for believing in monsters and shutting the door.
Then people should certainly do that, but not at the expense of those that aren't doing anything wrong.
-
Scotty: that's exactly the sort of attitude that's at the root of the problem.
No. Calling that attitude a problem is the real ****ing problem.
No minority should ever have to bow to a wrong majority opinion, especially if it's an "inalienable right" as laid down in the Constitution. That's why the damn right is there in the first place.
So, no, my attitude isn't the problem. It's any attitude limiting anyone's Constitutional freedoms for ANY reason that's the problem.
Unless you think that homosexuals should have compromised and just still not marry, even though they can now, since that's fairly analogous to your position.
It's close, but not the same iamzack. This is a private development, not a government one (like allowing blacks to vote).
Hold it, full stop, right now. Absolutely wrong. It's a religious building, and they have every right to put it there. The permits are done, and it's guaranteed by GOVERNMENT statute.
-
No, see, Scotty, rabid fanaticism is the problem - you've got the same attitude the right does, and that sort of screaming has literally paralyzed the country from the top down.
I was just picking at straws with my previous example of the differences between the situations. It really isn't that different, and yea, they have every right to do it. I was wrong to disagree with zack's example.
Then people should certainly do that, but not at the expense of those that aren't doing anything wrong.
Agreed. But I think this whole debate is missing what I'm trying to say; I'm not debating whether or not they're legally allowed to do it. They are. It's completely justified and perfectly acceptable. What I'm debating is the notion that they should just completely ignore people who opposite it. One of the stated goals of this community center is to promote a healing process; how is ignoring the people who disagree with you promoting healing? If you really want a dialog because of this, it might be good to try and talk to these people directly, even if you end up not changing at all (which you probably shouldn't if you want to be steadfast to the Constitution). It's the fact that you're reaching out instead of just saying "lol hicks" and ignoring them - it does neither side any good. Also, it doesn't help you get your side out to moderates who might be more sympathetic.
I missed that part. Are right-wingers children now? Are they that mentally incompetent? I mean, if they really are all developmentally challenged, that would change everything.
First of all, you really don't have much right to call me out on insulting right wingers after that little mini rant you spat out in the first part of your post. Second of all, I was continuing the "child" analogy first put forth by thesizzler. I don't necessarily agree with it.
-
No, see, Scotty, rabid fanaticism is the problem - you've got the same attitude the right does, and that sort of screaming has literally paralyzed the country from the top down.
It's not fanaticism. It's acting like the Constitution is worth more than the paper it's printed on.
There would be no problem if this were a church or Christian community center. There should be no problem now, and I'm not going to move on that. The fact that there IS a problem is sickening.
-
No, see, Scotty, rabid fanaticism is the problem - you've got the same attitude the right does, and that sort of screaming has literally paralyzed the country from the top down.
It's not fanaticism. It's acting like the Constitution is worth more than the paper it's printed on.
There would be no problem if this were a church or Christian community center. There should be no problem now, and I'm not going to move on that. The fact that there IS a problem is sickening.
Not the point I'm trying to make here. I agree with everything you're saying, just not the way you're saying it. Demonizing the other half of the same country only ends up with more problems than it solves. Disagree as strongly as you want, but hating half of your countrymen because of their political beliefs is just as bad as racism IMO.
-
I'm not demonizing anything. I'm not hating anyone. I'm saying that half of the country is wrong, and if making it better means lying about it and telling them they're right, I don't want to make it better, because that will make it worse for everyone.
-
I don't think I ever said to lie and say they were right. I believe what I've been saying is to talk to them. There is absolutely no dialog, at least, no civilized dialog, going on right now between the two sides. If the people building the center are willing to put a 9/11 memorial in the building (they are), then it's obvious they are at least aware of what they're doing and how it's stepping on people's toes. So at least opening a dialog with some back and forth, just talking this through instead of saying "**** you you're wrong!" to each other, will end up with a much better result. Do you think all of this is going to go away if they do build it? Do you think all this seething anger and resentment is suddenly just going to vanish when they see it being built? That they'll just go "Goddamn liberals, they beat us!" and go away?
No, this anger will stay there and stay very real. The very least the people who are building this center could do is actually start building bridges, like they say they want to, and try to reach out to people and explain things and assuage their fears.
Standing on opposite sides of a flooding river yelling at each other to fix the dam will only drown everyone.
We live in very, very uncertain times, and the only way we can get through them is if we go together. You can't just give the finger to one side of the country and expect to move on with any degree of success. We really have to stop trying to be louder than the other side and start trying to come together and talk about things.
EDIT: One last thing before I go to bed. Remember that talking does not mean you're losing, or you will lose, or anything like that. It means talking. In the end you might still return to your camps and continue the fight, but at least you will have tried, and maybe, just maybe, the furor will have calmed. There is nothing wrong with listening to the other side, no matter how wrong they are - it doesn't mean your points are any less valid or their misconceptions are any more true.
-
Honestly, there shouldn't be anything to talk about. Talking about it grants some legitimacy to the bull**** position these people are adopting.
Standing in the middle of a crumbling bridge trying to fix it by actually allowing religious freedom is more productive than letting it all wash away to go talk to the people who just feel like letting their half fall apart.
-
I know I said I'd go to bed, but I got distracted.
Talking to people about the problem and saying "no, I understand where you're coming from, but here are the facts. do you still have a problem with this and why?" does not mean that you are suddenly ceding ground to the opposition. You're opening a dialog wherein you actually have a chance of getting these people to either realize that they're wrong, or (more likely) letting third party observers realize that they're wrong.
This is different than what is currently going on ("**** you!") and different than what you seem to think I mean "Ok, well, I think you have some very good points, so hopefully we can just be friends.".
If you really want to use an example of the Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King spoke calmly, peacefully, and rationally - he explained his points and did not give in to frothing at the mouth rage at the other side for their injustices. That works a whole hell of a lot better than "**** THESE PEOPLE THEY'RE RACIST", which is what the left is doing right now.
Standing in the middle of a crumbling bridge and trying to fix it while the other half lets their side wash away will still make you end up with a broken, crumbling bridge.
-
I still can't imagine what conversation you think could possibly happen.
"YOU CANT BUILD A MOSQUE ON GROUND ZERO, THATS DISRESPECTFUL TO THE *REAL* AMURICANS THAT DIED THERE"
"it's not a mosque, it's not at ground zero, it's only disrespectful if you truly believe we personally had something to do with 9/11, ans muslims died on 9/11 too"
"STUPID MUZZIES RUININ' OUR ****RY"
"sorry you feel that way"
Hard to have a conversation when one side has literally *nothing* to back up their claims.
-
iamzack, I imagine the conversation would be the same if I was talking to you in the reverse;
"We object to putting an Islamic center so close to where these people died by Muslim extremists"
"Lol you ****ing racist moron, shut up and go **** some cows."
"Look, we just don't like the idea of this being put there even though a great number of us object - it's like we're being ignored"
"No **** you're being ignored, you're all retarded."
Again, I'm not saying they're right, I'm preaching the radical notion* that if you want to affect real, lasting change and catharsis, you have to be willing to speak quietly and persevere, rather than scream, ridicule, and ignore. Again, I bring us back to the example of Mr. King, or Ghandi, or any other person that affected real change; how many people do you read about corrected social injustice by screaming and insulting the other person, or constantly belittling them as idiots?
*sarcasm
-
Again, I bring us back to the example of Mr. King, or Ghandi, or any other person that affected real change; how many people do you read about corrected social injustice by screaming and insulting the other person, or constantly belittling them as idiots?
How many people do you read about correcting social injustice by ignoring the people doing the wrongs to them? At sit-ins, Dr. King's supporters ignored insults and violence. During marches, ignoring bigotry and the like.
I'd take your example a step farther and say ignoring stupid platforms like this (not necessarily the people in all cases, mind you) is exactly the right thing to do.
-
The people who object are *actually retarded.* They actually believe that all muslims are in cahoots with the ones who committed 9/11. That's why they ****ing object. They are abject imbeciles, and their feelings are not valid. I mean, ****, do you want us to start patting the heads of young earth creationists, too? Should we start respecting their feelings on whether evolution is a real phenomenon or not? Do we need to compromise with them too? NO!
There is no gray area here. One group is going about their business, building a community center because the constitution guarantees their right to, they went through all the proper channels, the city approved the project, the ****ing president is on their side. The other side believes that every Muslim is responsible for 9/11. The other side isn't concerned about whether objecting to an Islamic community center is insensitive to american muslims who died in the WTC, they're only concerned about being insensitive to all the "real" americans.
-
I can't help thinking we shouldn't fold on the Constitution nor trample our ideals and freedoms for the same basic sentiment that in 1942 wound over a hundred thousand of our citizens in internment camps. Now the stakes are certainly not as grave as they were back then but still we shouldn't legitimize a position that is both fundamentally at odds with what we supposedly stand for and is based upon fear mongering and hate. Especially since this issue is being fueled into a frenzy because of political machinations.
-
Again, I bring us back to the example of Mr. King
I sentence you to twenty readings of Letter From The Birmingham Jail if you honestly believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would have taken any other stance than "damn the Palinists, full speed ahead".
The civil rights movement did not succeed through compromise. It made demands that forced its opponents into an untenable situation by opposing them. Ghandi did not succeed by compromising; he made demands that forced the British into an untenable situation opposing them.
We have the untenable situation, the direct violation of Constitutional rights of American citizens, right here. We will not succeed by compromising on the inalienable rights of the citizenship.
-
There is already a Mosque 4 blocks from Ground Zero. The one being built 2 blocks from GZ has a prayer room + 12 stories of community center stuff (Gym, cultural center, etc.). I'm told the Mosques nearby GZ are already overcrowded; which is believable considering how many people live in the area.
So why not allow them to build? The Imam used to come on Fox News and give his points of view about US-Muslim relations and was stopped once the whole controversy began, and by controversy I mean once Politicians began using this to gain and edge in the Nov. Elections.
-
Actually I'm of the opinion that they should actually make a concession to the right wing. They should make a very loud noise about the fact that in deference to public sentiment they've decided that instead of a mosque they'll build a community centre and instead of having it near Ground Zero they'll put it 3 blocks away.
I'd love to see how Fox would spin that announcement. :p
-
Actually I'm of the opinion that they should actually make a concession to the right wing. They should make a very loud noise about the fact that in deference to public sentiment they've decided that instead of a mosque they'll build a community centre and instead of having it near Ground Zero they'll put it 3 blocks away.
I'd love to see how Fox would spin that announcement. :p
IT'S BRILLIANT! Email that to their PR people now =)
-
I'm very sorely tempted to link you guys to a thread from a Descent forum discussing this same issue. You'd probably weep at it. Lord knows I am. :p
-
Again, I'm not saying they're right, I'm preaching the radical notion* that if you want to affect real, lasting change and catharsis, you have to be willing to speak quietly and persevere, rather than scream, ridicule, and ignore.
Who's screaming?
But, look, it's like this. "I'm uncomfortable with a mosque being near the WTC ruins (but not there being a mosque in the Pentagon, because I'm ignorant of its existence and/or that's not hallowed ground like the WTC because, uh, because it didn't fall down and not get rebuilt? Sure, we'll go with that." Now, if the person who's uncomfortable lost a friend or relative in the attacks, I'll make allowances--with some reservations--but jesus mother****ing christ on his mother****ing cross, anyone else? Sarah Palin? The pain is too raw, too real? **** you. Grow the **** up and grow a ****ing pair of balls or ovaries, as applicable. It's been nine years, get over it.
Furthermore, you're uncomfortable with the mosque being near the WTC because you associate Islam as a whole with the actions of a few murderous ****s. You do this because you're a bigot. There's no need for anyone to be sensitive of, much less to accommodate, your bigotry. In short, **** you.
Sure, I could be nicer about it, but see the part about not needing to be sensitive of other people's bigotry. Also I'm a dick, but that's not the point.
Now, aren't you glad you asked for a discussion?
-
I sentence you to twenty readings of Letter From The Birmingham Jail if you honestly believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would have taken any other stance than "damn the Palinists, full speed ahead".
Man, people seem to be incapable of reading my posts in any depth; I didn't say you had to compromise, I said to talk. The reason I brought up King was because he went ahead with what he was doing, but didn't stoop to the level of argument that, say, mxlm is.
Glad to see kara is on the ball as always though :p
Anyway, I guess since no one seems to actually be reading what I'm saying properly, I'll say it simply: I want them to build the mosque and they deserve that freedom, but if I had to choose a debate team I sure as hell wouldn't pick half the liberals I hear talking about the subject, because they're just as bad as the conservatards IMO - they drive the tone of the debate just as low.
-
but if I had to choose a debate team I sure as hell wouldn't pick half the liberals I hear talking about the subject, because they're just as bad as the conservatards IMO.
Oh, please.
-
What, giving the finger to the other half of the country doesn't make you just as bad as them giving the finger to the other half?
I'm not just applying this to this debate, I'm applying it to all of them. Both sides are assholes.
In support of the mosque, I think this article is pretty good though;
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/23/park51
Certainly makes me think over my position in more depth.
-
I'm not just applying this to this debate, I'm applying it to all of them. Both sides are assholes.
I'm uncertain what you mean here. You're talking about...every debate between left and right in the country? Every debate about the mosque in the country? Something else?
Although I am curious about something; do you genuinely not view your past several posts as, mm, somewhat hypocritical? You're talking about conservatards in the same sentence you lament the low tone of debates?
This isn't a gotcha, incidentally; I suspect that an honest assessment of what drove you to write what you did will yield insights into why other people write and say what they do.
-
Y'know, UT is absolutely right. I have to put up with a whole other forum's worth of Fox-worshiping uber-conservatives who think that "liberal" is spelled with four letters, but there are certain individuals here on the completely-opposite side of the spectrum whom I consider every bit as bad. You don't convince anyone that you have a good point by calling them a ****wit.
-
I'm pretty sure that's the one post I insulted the other side so directly in, and I debated saying it. The reason I said it is to draw parallels between the racist, idiotic side of the conservatives (conservatards), and the near-rabid, "intellectually superior" **** them **** them **** them side of the liberals. I was insulting both by drawing parallels to a common insult of the one.
And I guess it's my fault about a bit of the confusion; I don't just view this from the POV that it's "just the mosque debate", so I'm arguing for more dialog in general, starting with this. Reading that article I linked in my edited post above, it makes me understand why we shouldn't compromise on this site, but I still think that talking about this and trying to make the middle and less extreme portions of the other side understand is better than screaming across picket lines.
Also, I'd like to draw attention to that video where the black guy was accosted as he tried to make it through the crowd - if you listen, when you hear the bad ones chanting "Muhammad's a pig, Muhammad's a pig", you also hear "you don't need to say that" from a female in the crowd. THAT'S the person that you want to talk to, and THAT'S the person that you're driving away by dismissing outright.
-
You don't convince anyone that you have a good point by calling them a ****wit.
Sure. OTOH, if bigotry on this board is greeted solely with scorn and vitriol, well, it's a tad less likely bigotry will be expressed. Which is a positive thing. Even if we don't convince anyone to acknowledge the error of their ways. Or thinking.
but I still think that talking about this and trying to make the middle and less extreme portions of the other side understand is better than screaming across picket lines.
Alright. One of the points I was making was that, well, the opposition to the placement of the community center and mosque is rather rooted in bigotry, as well as the utterly unhealthy way we've made a fetish out of the WTC, and, um, you're going to have a real hard time telling folks that without insulting them, as bigot is a word viewed as an insult, not a descriptor.
-
You don't convince anyone that you have a good point by calling them a ****wit.
Sure. OTOH, if bigotry on this board is greeted solely with scorn and vitriol, well, it's a tad less likely bigotry will be expressed. Which is a positive thing. Even if we don't convince anyone to acknowledge the error of their ways. Or thinking.
But I'd say it's a far better goal to get people to reconsider their positions than to simply shut them up. All you're doing there is muting the expression of the bigotry, not challenging it.
-
but if I had to choose a debate team I sure as hell wouldn't pick half the liberals I hear talking about the subject, because they're just as bad as the conservatards IMO - they drive the tone of the debate just as low.
I wouldn't say they are as bad cause at least they are correct.
But I will agree that they should either be more tactful or a hell of a lot less. If they started screaming "If you are against the mosque, you are against the constitution and you support fascism!" people might listen. The problem is that they keep trying to maintain a middle ground of neither reasoned debate nor sinking to the Republicans level of demagoguery and that simply means that they fail to get through to the uninformed (who don't listen to shouting from the other side unless it's really simple).
-
You don't convince anyone that you have a good point by calling them a ****wit.
Sure. OTOH, if bigotry on this board is greeted solely with scorn and vitriol, well, it's a tad less likely bigotry will be expressed. Which is a positive thing. Even if we don't convince anyone to acknowledge the error of their ways. Or thinking.
But I'd say it's a far better goal to get people to reconsider their positions than to simply shut them up. All you're doing there is muting the expression of the bigotry, not challenging it.
Agreed, thank you Mongoose, was getting a bit lonely here. :p
but if I had to choose a debate team I sure as hell wouldn't pick half the liberals I hear talking about the subject, because they're just as bad as the conservatards IMO - they drive the tone of the debate just as low.
I wouldn't say they are as bad cause at least they are correct.
But I will agree that they should either be more tactful or a hell of a lot less. If they started screaming "If you are against the mosque, you are against the constitution and you support fascism!" people might listen. The problem is that they keep trying to maintain a middle ground of neither reasoned debate nor sinking to the Republicans level of demagoguery and that simply means that they fail to get through to the uninformed (who don't listen to shouting from the other side unless it's really simple).
I'd agree with that. The left simply sucks at getting out their message. Honestly I think they should be more tactful and peaceful, as that would push home that they are right - sinking to screamo matches and fear mongering would probably work more efficiently, but would serve to make their points indistinguishable from the right's in terms of how trustworthy they are.
-
Just watch the video: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/08/daily_show_on_manhattan_islami.php
-
I'm very sorely tempted to link you guys to a thread from a Descent forum discussing this same issue. You'd probably weep at it. Lord knows I am. :p
Put up or shut up. :p
-
Man, people seem to be incapable of reading my posts in any depth; I didn't say you had to compromise, I said to talk. The reason I brought up King was because he went ahead with what he was doing, but didn't stoop to the level of argument that, say, mxlm is.
This is true, however it is true only because...
Wait. Wait.
Yea I think that's the main sticking point. They're refusing to compromise on something that they should really consider compromising on - they're kind of staying behind this wall of "we're trying to reconcile our differences", when in reality the refusal to compromise (again, on both sides) is making reconciliation even harder
No it's not! That is your starting posistion!
Then a couple posts down the page you converted to talking. I again sentence you to reading Letter From The Birmingham Jail twenty times because you're not getting it. Civil rights was not a dialogue; it was demand, a demand for things so breathtakingly normal to the general public that opposition to them could not be sustained without looking like monsters and fools. The same can be said of Indian independence.
That is the strategy here. It is wise, just, and necessary. You would have those who follow Islam wait, compromise, delay, talk. The time for talking, as King said in the aformentioned document, is past. The people building this indicated their willingness to talk and none voiced objection, so they proceeded. Now that the objection has come and the idiots appeared from the woodwork you would have them delay. Delay has never won anything for the rights of man, again to reference King. Let the naysayers rant and rave and scream. They damage their cause immeasurably more for every day. This is how the battle is won, and that you do not understand this is the great tragedy.
-
I'm very sorely tempted to link you guys to a thread from a Descent forum discussing this same issue. You'd probably weep at it. Lord knows I am. :p
Put up or shut up. :p
Fair enough (http://www.descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?t=17242&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0). :p
-
I'm very sorely tempted to link you guys to a thread from a Descent forum discussing this same issue. You'd probably weep at it. Lord knows I am. :p
Put up or shut up. :p
Fair enough (http://www.descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?t=17242&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0). :p
:yes:
I liked the Chicken Little post.
P.S. I'd forgotten how eye-wrenching the Descent BB color scheme is. :p
-
No it's not! That is your starting posistion!
Then a couple posts down the page you converted to talking. I again sentence you to reading Letter From The Birmingham Jail twenty times because you're not getting it. Civil rights was not a dialogue; it was demand, a demand for things so breathtakingly normal to the general public that opposition to them could not be sustained without looking like monsters and fools. The same can be said of Indian independence.
That is the strategy here. It is wise, just, and necessary. You would have those who follow Islam wait, compromise, delay, talk. The time for talking, as King said in the aformentioned document, is past. The people building this indicated their willingness to talk and none voiced objection, so they proceeded. Now that the objection has come and the idiots appeared from the woodwork you would have them delay. Delay has never won anything for the rights of man, again to reference King. Let the naysayers rant and rave and scream. They damage their cause immeasurably more for every day. This is how the battle is won, and that you do not understand this is the great tragedy.
Ah, you caught me. You're right, I ended up changing my position as the thread went along. I guess I just had difficulty with separating this (worthwhile) shouting match from all the other shouting matches that really should be compromised on (the budget, for instance). Fair does, I admit it is wrong to compromise in this situation - which is why I've changed my tune over the last several posts.
I'm also off to read Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
EDIT: Very powerful stuff, that. Thanks for the recommendation.
-
I'm very sorely tempted to link you guys to a thread from a Descent forum discussing this same issue. You'd probably weep at it. Lord knows I am. :p
Put up or shut up. :p
Fair enough (http://www.descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?t=17242&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0). :p
:yes:
I liked the Chicken Little post.
P.S. I'd forgotten how eye-wrenching the Descent BB color scheme is. :p
I liked the 1812 comment, I was disappointed when the opposition didn't retort "They're gonna turn the Washington Monument into a Minaret!" that would have been perfection.
-
If Islam is and always has been on the march, why is the thread titled, "when Islam acts like a conquering army"? It's like titling a thread, "When the sky is blue."
Which, to be fair, might have been the point.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaQBrTROj2w
Hahahahahahahaha
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaQBrTROj2w
Hahahahahahahaha
I kept expecting to find out it was from South Park, it had the right sound and over the top silliness that I was assuming it to be satire.
-
I kept expecting to find out it was from South Park, it had the right sound and over the top silliness that I was assuming it to be satire.
You know, this is most unfair. If these people continue to mock themselves this well they'll run South Park right out of business :P
-
ok, so in spite of voicing an opinion earlier I have for the most part been ignoring this issue, I decided to actually look into what has been going on. so there are a number of interesting details, such as originally it was planned to be a condo. however, it seems like the guy running the operation is not a bad guy, but is just really really bad at PR. I think what he needs to do is offer some sort of gesture that can let everyone else settle down, I think if they simply say that they are going to move the mosque/prayer-room to a different location, without actually changing anything in the building, then this situation might be able to blow over, and then they can re-purpose the room back to it's original purpose later.
-
The black people can go back to sitting at the front of the bus as soon as there aren't any white people left on it
-
what does that have anything to do with anything anyone has said.
-
You seem to be going along with the politician line of "they have every right to do it, but they shouldnt and they should be more sensitive" which is a heaping pile of bull****.
(what's the point of having rights if you can't use them for fear of offending some retards)
-
ok, so in spite of voicing an opinion earlier I have for the most part been ignoring this issue, I decided to actually look into what has been going on. so there are a number of interesting details, such as originally it was planned to be a condo. however, it seems like the guy running the operation is not a bad guy, but is just really really bad at PR. I think what he needs to do is offer some sort of gesture that can let everyone else settle down, I think if they simply say that they are going to move the mosque/prayer-room to a different location, without actually changing anything in the building, then this situation might be able to blow over, and then they can re-purpose the room back to it's original purpose later.
No
No No No No No No
This country was founded by people looking to escape religious persecution. It's one of our fundamental freedoms, its one of the main reasons the melting pot works and why we haven't suffered massive civil strife based on religious matters. You're looking to compromise on one of the things thats intrinsic to our nation's success.
Not to mention you want to compromise and legitimize a position that is completely wrong. Let's put this into perspective, you think we should throw a kinip**** if it was a German cultural center instead? I mean those krafty kruats sure caused a lot of trouble back in the 30s and 40s its obvious that the entire Hun race is threat to our existence. Does that sound like a legitimate idea?
Not to mention do you think we will ever have peace again if we allow the attitude that every Muslim in the world is the enemy to continue? There's over a billion of them!
-
ok, so what you want to do is antagonize half the country, it doesn't have to amount to anything he just has to say he's moving the mosque when in reality he's doing nothing different other than pushing the opening ot the mosque back by a month.
-
ok, so what you want to do is antagonize half the country, it doesn't have to amount to anything he just has to say he's moving the mosque when in reality he's doing nothing different other than pushing the opening ot the mosque back by a month.
A) Thats lying
B) If pissing people off is reason enough for not doing whats right then we can re-segregate schools, throw gay marriage on its ear and hey remove women out of the workplace.
-
ok, so what you want to do is antagonize half the country
Yes, if half of the country has decided to ignore the 1st Amendment whenever they feel insulted.
They. Are. Wrong. And need to be shown that.
-
lying?
I am lying?
I am intentionally stating a falsehood as fact?
what, exactly, is it I am lying about?
Pissing people off is a bad idea in general if you want to be liked. it's not like they don't have the legal right to build it, but you know some politician may use this situation to 'fix' that if they can gain enough popular support from the pissed off masses.
1st amendment says what you can do not what you should do.
for example, the first amendment says that people can protest building a mosque in the middle of the wreckage of the world trade center even if no one is planning to do so. doesn't mean they should do that.
-
lying?
I am lying?
I am intentionally stating a falsehood as fact?
what, exactly, is it I am lying about?
Not you. If the people opening the mosque were to say they were moving it and then not do so, it's lying. You were proposing they lie to avoid pissing people off.
Pissing people off is a bad idea in general if you want to be liked. it's not like they don't have the legal right to build it, but you know some polititioan may use this situation to 'fix' that if they can gain enough popular support from the pissed off masses.
Okay, you bring up something I don't think you've thought through all the way. The objective of exercising a right is not to be liked. It's to be able to do something despite someone not liking it.
Also, "Damn the torpedoes politicians, full speed ahead!"
1st amendment says what you can do not what you should do.
While this is true, you're flipping it in relation to this issue. These people can do this, and everyone else SHOULDN'T be *****ing about it. Unless you think they were honestly trying to piss off people in the first place.
-
Not you. If the people opening the mosque were to say they were moving it and then not do so, it's lying. You were proposing they lie to avoid pissing people off.
but it's not a mosque, it's a cultural center :)
Okay, you bring up something I don't think you've thought through all the way. The objective of exercising a right is not to be liked. It's to be able to do something despite someone not liking it.
Also, "Damn the torpedoes politicians, full speed ahead!"
except the goal of this place is apparently to get everyone to like Muslims.
While this is true, you're flipping it in relation to this issue. These people can do this, and everyone else SHOULDN'T be *****ing about it. Unless you think they were honestly trying to piss off people in the first place.
of course I'm flipping it around, I'm trying to get you to see what it looks like to the people you think need to be silenced.
-
lying?
I am lying?
I am intentionally stating a falsehood as fact?
what, exactly, is it I am lying about?
Pissing people off is a bad idea in general if you want to be liked. it's not like they don't have the legal right to build it, but you know some polititioan may use this situation to 'fix' that if they can gain enough popular support from the pissed off masses.
1st amendment says what you can do not what you should do.
If the community center says they aren't going to add the prayer room only to add it a month later that's called a lie. You don't think a month down the line FOX News or whoever gets wind that they actually added the prayer room when they said they wouldn't it's not going to blow up again? ****, they'll be screaming bloody murder. They'll probably be claiming that its a terrorist training camp.
Listen I don't give a flip about religion. But this argument is about doing something that is morally wrong, fueled by political machinations and most importantly threatens the rights and freedoms that are fundamental to this country. Blood, sweat and tears have continually forged this nation into a better place, and this issue threatens to see us backpedal on that progress and shed the very ideals that makes us great. Already you have a number of places across the nation moving to ban mosques from being built, you start waffeling on the issue of religious freedom we will go into a moral backslide. It doesn't work if its Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for everyone but Muslims.
-
I don't care what it is. I wouldn't care if it was a full blown mosque with towering minarets. There should still be exactly zero debate over this. Zoning law and all that has been followed. End of argument.
of course I'm flipping it around, I'm trying to get you to see what it looks like to the people you think need to be silenced.
I'm aware of how they see it. I'm also aware that their view is wrong. I'm not saying they should be silenced (say hi to the 1st Amendment again, folks), I'm saying they should be ignored as if they don't exist.
-
well they are 'aware' that your view is 'wrong', if the issue is forced, it will come to a vote.
-
Also wrong.
"Their" view is wrong because it hinges entirely on "they shouldn't be (able) to do that", when 'that,' building the community center, is protected by their 1st Amendment rights. Any proposed alternative to that is violating those rights.
It CANNOT come to a vote, exactly because it is a right. The United States is set up so that the majority cannot trample the rights of the minority. This could very well become a textbook example of that.
-
If construction of the cultural center is blocked, then we're setting this nation onto a slippery slope. Once one minority group is denied its constitutional rights, then we'll start denying rights to any group that disgusts or offends us.
I think this except is very poignant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-pxUIBO5EU
-
except the goal of this place is apparently to get everyone to like Muslims.
Even if that were true, how would it be a bad thing? If you have a pneumonia but keep thinking it's just a cold you'll never get proper treatment - misdiagnosis is bad that way. So is wrongly identifying who the enemy is. A statement that it was Islam who took out the twin towers is horribly wrong. Saying that every muslim in the world is the enemy is not only wrong, it's stupid.
Since this whole argument started I've heard a startling amount of bull**** and a lot of hatred directed at Islam. Not surprising, the loudest and sorriest of these bigots pretty clearly showed they have absolutely no idea what Islam is. What these people need to get through their heads is that the Islam does not equal Al-Qaeda, and that the majority of the muslims are just as likely to strap explosives to their chests and go blow up a building as most catholics are likely to whip themselves after allowing themselves a moment of lustful thought about the neighbour's hot wife.
Secondly, pampering people who demand religious persecution and legitimizing their arguments is a thoroughly bad idea. What you're suggesting is using a cheap trick to cool these people down, suggesting you don't exactly consider them the brightest examples of humanity either. Thing is, two wrongs don't make a right. If you guys want to retain all that "land of the free" rhetoric then you can't have exceptions to the rule of "free religion". Pretending to acknowledge the arguments of people attacking that freedom while ignoring them at the same time is wrong for 3 reasons:
1) It's immoral, and not fair to either the Muslims or these right wing Sarah Palin worshippers,
2) It's spineless,
and 3) you shouldn't have to do that in the land of the free, should you? Unless you guys are changing that slogan to "land of the sort-of free.. depending on what's considered convenient at the moment". A bit long and not so catchy, if you ask me..
-
ok, so what you want to do is antagonize half the country
The country only got antagonized when the GOP decided it needed social wedge issues, since it couldn't well run by promising to trim government services--that ****'s unpopular. No, really. Go look at how Fox reacted back in December, "Oh, a community center. Cool, build it."
-
Even if that were true, how would it be a bad thing?
I didn't say it was a bad thing, I said this is not the way to do that.
very few have said they can not, or should not be legally allowed to to this, most who have a problem with it (which for the record I am not among) are saying that they should not because they feel it is in poor taste because it was in fact members of their community that caused the destruction in the near by area. I don't think helping to wip these people into further hysteria with a confrontational attitude is helpful to anyone except the people manipulating them.
-
because it was in fact members of their community that caused the destruction in the near by area
So I'm going to make the assumption that you're a white male American.
Members of the white male American community conducted a devastating terrorist attack in Oklahoma City. Weirdly enough, other members of this community were subsequently permitted to conduct rescue operations and commercial development very near that site.
Why? Didn't members of your community cause the destruction in the nearby area?
-
which community did the attack most prominently effect?
a better example, would be to use Iraq, the people in Iraq would have some very justifiable reasons for being upset with us, even though there are americans who very vocaly opposed our actions.
-
which community did the attack most prominently effect?
I don't know. Given that the attack took out a mosque, it seems only right to rebuild one, doesn't it?
a better example, would be to use Iraq, the people in Iraq would have some very justifiable reasons for being upset with us, even though there are americans who very vocaly opposed our actions.
That's not a better example at all. Our democratically elected government chose to invade Iraq with the support of most of our populace and legislature.
That would only be a better example if a single US PMC had decided to invade Iraq and as a result the Iraqis had decided to hate all Americans. Which they probably would, but they wouldn't have a very good reason for it.
-
I don't know. Given that the attack took out a mosque, it seems only right to rebuild one, doesn't it?
which community did the Oklahoma City attack most prominently effect?
ok how about Muslims hating all Christians for the crusades? what if some new church was being built in Jerusalem and it offended many of the Muslims of the world for some exasperated reason? wouldn't saying 'maybe you should build that church somewhere else' be comparable?
-
I don't know. Given that the attack took out a mosque, it seems only right to rebuild one, doesn't it?
which community did the Oklahoma City attack most prominently effect?
People who live in Oklahoma, I guess? Kids in day care?
ok how about Muslims hating all Christians for the crusades? what if some new church was being built in Jerusalem and it offended many of the Muslims of the world for some exasperated reason? wouldn't saying 'maybe you should build that church somewhere else' be comparable?
I don't think Muslims hate all Christians for the Crusades. None of the Muslims I hang with (either here on HLP or in real life) do.
And no I'm not sure that latter example would be reasonable. This objection isn't reasonable either, particularly because there are a lot of other things even closer to Ground Zero that seem more worrisome than a mosque: strip clubs, gambling parlors, etcetera.
-
ok how about Muslims hating all Christians for the crusades? what if some new church was being built in Jerusalem and it offended many of the Muslims of the world for some exasperated reason? wouldn't saying 'maybe you should build that church somewhere else' be comparable?
So nice that we should conduct ourselves not in a fashion worthy of a first tier enlightened superpower but instead at the lowest common denominator. I hear some nations have press censorship, if its good enough for them why don't we adopt that? It's certainly reasonable since it seems we can't seem to throw religious freedom on its arse fast enough.
-
Bob, you're arguing the same point I was arguing before - and it's a pretty reasonable one. But the reason I've changed my position is because, frankly, this should not be blocked and they should go along with it exactly as planned. The reason is is that if they compromise, then they're accepting the idea that their civil rights aren't as important as people's feelings - that they're accepting the blame for something that these extremists did. There were better arguments put forth in the thread, but essentially, if they compromise then they're, yes, making the people happy and probably showing people that they're reasonable...but that's only if you're looking at it from the point of view of "being good neighbors". If you look at it from a Constitutional perspective, this entire debate is basically the outpouring of the last ten years of bottled up anger at the Muslim community, and we're at risk of marginalizing them if they're forced to compromise on their Constitutional rights.
I hope this makes sense, it's late.
-
Tolerance of intolerance is a contradiction in itself. This isn't a minor point these people are wrong about. Basic freedoms, like freedom of speech, religion, etc, should never even be a matter of debate. They're just there. And trying to spin it so it seems they're tolerant when they're really not is a load of bs as well. I'm referring to the "oh yea they do have the right to proceed but it's in poor taste so they shouldn't" demagoguery. They're still trying to get them to abandon their rights but they're trying to look tolerant so they're guilting them out of it.
Heck if I was a Muslim I'd probably consider abandoning the project just because it's tied to Islam as admitting publicly that the whole of Islam=9/11 terrorists.
-
I'm not saying it should be blocked.
-
No, I know you're not - earlier I wasn't saying it should be blocked either. I, like you, was saying there should be compromise, because I believe that's the best way forward in 99% of situations. In this one, though, compromise is the same as losing - it's that 1% exception.
-
because it was in fact members of their community that caused the destruction in the near by area.
No it wasn't. Please explain how, exactly, you've come to the conclusion that the folks building the community center are in the same community as mother****ing al-qaeda.
I'm going to repost the slacktivist (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/08/please-forgive-me-for-the-actions-of-extremists-i-have-never-met-who-commit-acts-of-violence-that-i-.html) bit, since you didn't read it.
-
To reference Battuta's point, the Oklahoma City bomber was a white American, and his attack killed dozens or hundreds of people, yet white Americans still participated in the reconstruction of the area and rescue operations.
Of, if you want to look at it differently, it's like saying some Siberian town is made up of members of your community because they may be Christians. They aren't. At all. Two completely different communities.
-
No, I know you're not - earlier I wasn't saying it should be blocked either. I, like you, was saying there should be compromise, because I believe that's the best way forward in 99% of situations. In this one, though, compromise is the same as losing - it's that 1% exception.
Indeed. These are the people with whom you cannot reason, because Fox implicitly tells them that Muslims are all terrorists and all mosques churn out terror babies. Racism is an ugly thing, even in its distilled "we just don't want a mosque there" form that the right wing people like Glenn Beck are spouting out. The funny thing is, the same thing is going on elsewhere. I can't remember the article, but it was about some outrage about another mosque being in another part of the country. It's racism, plain and simple. Another interesting thing is that this is not about facts, as shown in how the mosque is described by the opponents of the mosque - "Ground zero mega-mosque". I'll leave it at that.
-
racism toward a religion.
because Islam is a race.
-
So you're not going to explain why you think AQ and Rauf are part of the same community, then? That's alright, we all know why you think that: they're Muslims.
Which is stupid.
-
racism toward a religion.
because Islam is a race.
Anti-semitism.
Nemesis: I would not say they can't be reasoned with. I'm sure there is a large portion of the crowd that can be - it's the 25% that takes Fox News as the Lord God's Word and believes that if they don't get their way, it's not a democracy.
-
racism toward a religion.
because Islam is a race.
You say that like you can somehow plead down to a lesser charge of bigotry.
-
Waaaait a minute.
So it's OK ok to be bigoted towards Christianity et al, but Islam gets a pass why exactly? My hypocrite meter just went off the scale.
-
Take a look at who's been saying what, Lib. No ones saying they get a free pass, they're just saying take shots elsewhere, and not in the Constitutional rights department.
-
So it's OK ok to be bigoted towards Christianity et al, but Islam gets a pass why exactly? My hypocrite meter just went off the scale.
I think what you say is idiotic, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. And my right to ridicule it.
I know that whole free speech thing is a really hard concept to grasp, sometimes...
-
So it's OK ok to be bigoted towards Christianity et al, but Islam gets a pass why exactly? My hypocrite meter just went off the scale.
Name names.
-
To play devil's advocate: the usual suspects.
Zack, Tura, etc.
-
I was raised muslim before i figured out religion was bull****
I freely admit to being totally biased.
-
You were raised muslim before you formed the opinion that relgion was bull****.
It's impossible for either side to call religion factual true or factual bull****. There is only opinion and belief.
-
[vader]No No Noooo!!![/vader]
We were doing so well, don't ruin it with with a there is(n't) a supreme being debate.
-
what's there to debate, there isn't.
</troll>
-
what's there to debate, there isn't.
</troll>
"Take us into orbit, Mr. Malsteen, we've seen enough"
-
Don't do this, I'm watching this thread. Get back on topic, people.
-
Good, then we can make the real topic about this, appropriately titled "The 2-Blocks from Ground Zero Muslim Community Center Debate"
-
More from Jon Stewart on this, with bonus points for what he did with fox news, missed it before: http://www.mediaite.com/online/jon-stewart-connects-the-nonexistent-dots-is-fox-news-a-terrorist-command-center/
Funny with a point. Guess he's like that Mr. Plinkett guy in that respect :)
-
I liked how Jon Stewart pointed out that we just shouldn't give a **** what al-Qaeda and the jihadists think about the Community Center.
He's totally right. They want to think they won, that's fine--we'll come out on top by not succumbing to fear and rampant paranoia...well, this time at least.
-
what's there to debate, there isn't.
</troll>
"Take us into orbit, Mr. Malsteen, we've seen enough"
nice one, nice one
-
Uhm, where's the "debate" in this topic?
I honestly can't see any rational argument against it being built :confused:
-
Because there isn't one.
-
Uhm, where's the "debate" in this topic?
I honestly can't see any rational argument against it being built :confused:
There was a debate on whether or not there should be a debate on this in the first place. Does that count? :P
-
An ironic truth - Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of the Saudi monarchy owns 5% of News Corporation, of which Fox News is a parent company. In 2005, during the riots in France, which Fox News called "Muslim Riots", Alwaleed bin Talal called Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, and had him change the headlines to say "Civil Riots". Then he went on to brag about it on Arab television.
So, if you don't want to support muslims/Saudi Arabia/terrorists/people of terrorist descent, stop watching Fox News!
-
There was a debate on whether or not there should be a debate
HLP: where you can argue about arguing.
-
HLP: where you can argue about arguing.
You're such a tool.
-
He's just making an observation, jeez.
(LET THE GAMES BEGIN!)
-
this thread is not argument enough!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQE4orNMDAw
actually, I just came up with a perfect solution for this situation, have them build the thing, then build the worlds biggest gay bar right next door and call it even.
-
You do realize there's a good chance it's already next door to the world's largest gay bar?
Hell, there's probably a strip club on the other side too.
-
oh? I must admit I lack an encyclopedic knowledge of the major gay bars of New York city. so perhaps I will defer to your knowledge on the subject, however, I would doubt there is good enough fortune for irony of this caliber to simply come into existence, and I would bet that they would not have picked a site right next to a gay bar when looking for a place to build this.
-
HLP: where you can argue about arguing.
You're such a tool.
Man this board's balls got sucked up into it's own body and disappeared in the time I've been gone.
-
oh?
Two blocks from the WTC ain't a nice neighborhood. You must have missed everyone else in the thread who happened to mention the strip clubs and peep shows and the rest.
-
I did miss that
but maybe this is an opportunity for the gay community improve their relations with the soccer mom and republican demographic, weekly gay pride parades down Park Place. I'm just ****ing giddy in anticipation for the moment they ask 'couldn't this be done some were else?'
-
It gets more interesting. Fox News accuse one of their own major shareholders of being behind terrorism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html).
-
If we can have strip clubs in hallowed ground, we can have mosques in hallowed ground.
From the first page for you.
And no I'm not sure that latter example would be reasonable. This objection isn't reasonable either, particularly because there are a lot of other things even closer to Ground Zero that seem more worrisome than a mosque: strip clubs, gambling parlors, etcetera.
Page 6 in a direct response to you.
I checked, just for fun, if there was a google streets image of the proposed location. There isn't that I could find. (This may be the needlessly arcane nature of the current system.)
-
ok, so, let us for the moment, assume that there is not a prominent gay bar within the vicinity of this building, would it not be the very pinnacle of delicious irony if a gay bar were to be built near by and the people in the titular building cried about it's proximity?
can anyone think of a reason the cultural center should be built that can not be applied to the gay bar? other than, you know, fox news supports the gay bar idea apparently.
-
Actually I'd far rather see them build a Jewish cultural centre next door. :p
-
they can build both, there are two sides to the building.
-
Mayor Bloomberg summed it up nicely.
1) This will go away after elections.
2) No kidding, we can't build a church in Saudi Arabia. That's the whole freakin' point. Terrorists hate our freedoms so much that they want to destroy the very freedom that allows muslims to build a mosque in the states in the first place.
3) If you build it, terrorists will claim it's a victory mosque and be happy. If you DON'T build it, terrorists will claim that it's because they struck fear into our hearts, and will be happy. These fanatics spin it any way they want...so just build the damned thing. There's no legal precedence against it.
I think we should work out a compromise: No mosque near ground zero, as long as the catholic church agrees not to build churches near playgrounds.
-
"No mosque near ground zero, as long as the catholic church agrees not to build churches near playgrounds."
bwahahahaha :yes:
-
Bravo, I lol'd.
-
This is DELICIOUS!
Bigot starts ground zero church: Where's the outrage?
A bigoted pastor who has assailed gays and Muslims is launching the "9-11 Christian Center at Ground Zero" a mere two blocks from the World Trade Center site this Sunday, but so far the project hasn't drawn a peep of protest from those who are outraged by the "ground zero mosque."
Pastor Bill Keller of Florida said today he will begin preaching Sunday at the Marriott at 85 West Street (see proximity to ground zero here). A weekly service is planned at the hotel until the $8 million 9/11 Christian Center finds a permanent space. (Fundraising is going well, Keller told Salon today.)
To get a sense of where Keller is coming from, consider his project's website, which calls Islam a religion of "hate and death" whose adherents will go to hell. It also says: "Islam is a wonderful religion... for PEDOPHILES!"
Keller is the same pastor who hosted a birther infomercial that encouraged viewers to send him and a partner donations to advance the birther cause. His Internet ministry explicitly calls President Obama the new Hitler. He calls homosexuality a perversion. And in 2008, he targeted presidential contender Mitt Romney for being Mormon with a campaign called "voting for Satan."
In short, if critics of the Park51 Islamic community center, which is explicitly welcoming of all faiths, truly believe that there is a "zone of solemnity" around ground zero (as Gov. Pat Quinn put it), they should be horrified at Keller's 9/11 Christian Center.
Ditto for those who believe that religious leaders should not build "deliberately provocative" projects around ground zero, as another mosque opponent put it.
(An enterprising reporter could no doubt find some Sept. 11 families who are offended by Keller's project, just as an enterprising reporter did in the beginning of the Park51 controversy.)
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/30/bigot_establishes_ground_zero_church/index.html
-
If I was a priest on the christian side of things, I wouldn't be so quick to accuse others of being pedophiles of all things..
-
You know, that's almost exactly the same kind of generalization as saying all imams/muslim clerical position support terrorism.
-
"Islam is a wonderful religion... for PEDOPHILES ME TO POOP ON!"
(http://thisiswhyitsucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/triumph.jpg)
-
If I was a priest on the christian side of things, I wouldn't be so quick to accuse others of being pedophiles of all things..
You do realize that the rate of pedophilia in Christian churchs, and Catholic since we know that's what you mean but you won't come out and say it, is pretty much identical to the rate in public or private schooling?
But you don't get as much of a ****storm by pointing that out, though you should...
-
Man this board's balls got sucked up into it's own body and disappeared in the time I've been gone.
You're a tool as well, and so is your face.
Nah, I'm just amused that bob's going to keep posting in this thread but not acknowledge or respond to questions directed his way. That's what makes him a tool, not taking shots at the board.
-
You know, that's almost exactly the same kind of generalization as saying all imams/muslim clerical position support terrorism.
Except that there is a centralized authority in the Catholic church that systematically protects its child molesters. There is no such overarching authority in islam.
-
And there are indeed imams and clerics out there somewhere that can and will protect and direct terrorists.
The point is still the same. Generalizations are bad.
-
Except that there is a centralized authority in the Catholic church that systematically protects its child molesters. There is no such overarching authority in islam.
I believe you need to correct your verb tense. :P
-
And there are indeed imams and clerics out there somewhere that can and will protect and direct terrorists.
The point is still the same. Generalizations are bad.
Well, Turambar's point is fair in that one can say that the Catholic Church as a whole protects child molesters, because it does. The same cannot be said of Islam because no coherent Muslim authority exists; unlike Catholicism it is not a centralized hierarchy.
Some Muslim clerics may promote terrorism, but Islam does not. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has a history of protecting pedophiles, which is troubling even if it does not speak to every Catholic (including many priests) everywhere.
-
You know, that's almost exactly the same kind of generalization as saying all imams/muslim clerical position support terrorism.
It was a joke.. sheesh.
...and Catholic since we know that's what you mean but you won't come out and say it, is pretty much identical to the rate in public or private schooling?
Oh noes, Sherlock here figured out my well hidden Catholic church reference. Now if he could figure out it was just a joke, we'd really be cooking..
Technically I'm a member of the Catholic church, which makes me eligible to make fun of it. The fact I'm not a practicing member is what makes me qualified :P (was brought up in the catholic spirit; mass every sunday, sacraments, all that jazz.. then I grew up and decided it's just not for me). So relax, Sherlock. No need to start foaming at the mouth for a small sarcastic quip. Not like they don't deserve to be made fun of here and there. Once they stop protecting pedophiles in their ranks, I'll stop making fun of them about it. How's that?
-
Once they stop protecting pedophiles in their ranks, I'll stop making fun of them about it. How's that?
You seem to be several years behind the times. And I say this as an avowed enemy of that Church and every other.