[StarSlayer]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[StarSlayer]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Bobboau]

well they are 'aware' that your view is 'wrong', if the issue is forced, it will come to a vote.

[Scotty]

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.

[Locutus of Borg]

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

[newman]

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..

[mxlm]

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."

[Bobboau]

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.

[General Battuta]

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?

[Bobboau]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Bobboau]

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?

[General Battuta]

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.

[StarSlayer]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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.