the Jimmy Carter years have been erased....

Hmmm....
Some family members of 9/11 victims to support mosque construction - CNN.com
People in here need to start being reminded of the Constitution, the right to religious freedom and that the government cannot discriminate based on religion. People also need to stop vilifying an entire population based on the actions of a micro-percentage of that group.

Good Luck with that......

Yup. Been that way for eons and not bound to change.

quick and simple questions for Johnny D and Spence -
1. Do you want anti- abortion protestors at Planned Parenthood heckling girls as they enter?
2. Do you want anti-military protestors at the funerals of service men/women KIA?

The fact is they have the constitutional right to do those things. However most people dont think its the right thing to do. Exact same thing as this mosque, simple concept that you do not seem to be able to grasp.

I think you're missing with this one.

In both cases, the protests can be considered out of the mainstream. Perhaps less so for anti-abortion advocates , but certainly the groups protesting the military are way, way out there.

The abortion issue may be closer as there is a large % of Americans that do believe in the right to life issue, but the majority wouldn't join a picket line. But when you think about it, drawing a parallel between when life begins and religious fanaticism is a really big stretch!

So same issue I say they are not.

-spence

1. Nope
2. Nope

The difference in your example is that 1 and 2 are Constitutional. Telling a particular religion that it cannot build a Muslim community center somewhere because it is offensive is not Constitutional.

It's not even close to the exact same thing because you're switching up who the antagonist is when comparing 1, 2 and the Mosque.

In 1 and 2, the protesters are the antagonists. They are being offensive with the goal of getting in the face of their opposition and either being offensive or bringing change. The Muslims trying to build their compound have not displayed an intent to offend or be antagonistic in any way. The people who don't think building this Center is the right thing, are the antagonists.

The fact is should this have been a Christian Community Center, it would have been approved quickly and there would be no news coverage. The fact is that the only reason this is a major controversy is because of the religious group involved.

My wants, needs, desires and what I am offended by have no bearing on the law. *I* am not the Constitution - *I* am not the law - *I* do not declare what is right and what is wrong; and that goes for every single person involved with this discussion. Politicians already buckle at the slightest sign a demographic might be *offended*. All this PC bulls#t is a result of people being offended. Growing up, if something offended me, I was told to suck it up... that's life. It'll be a frozen day in hell when I spend my day-to-day life walking on eggshells out of fear of offending someone and I wouldn't expect anyone else to walk on eggshells out of fear for offending me.


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

People are allowed to be pissed about the Center and they should be allowed to voice their opinion. On the other hand, that shouldn't be a reason to prevent development of the Center.

the fact that neither of you get it is no suprise. Makes perfect, simple sense.
You both chose to question the motives of the protestors, thats not the issue. The issue is the RIGHT to do it. All 3 are constitutional RIGHTS. you both dove into the "act" (protest/mosque) vs. people's response/opinion. Thats what Im driving at. The response. I dont care about the correlation of the "act".
If you are against these protestors, which I assume you are, are you against people's civil rights? Freedom of expression? I dont think so. So - dont label those opposed to the mosque as bigots. Dont say there against freedom of religion.
You may have no issue with the mosque being built, but some do. Just as Spence says right to lifers may not have a problem with PP protests, but some do. The mosque may not be "out there" but neither you nor I lost any family on 9/11, we werent evacuated from our offices in the midst of chaos and we dont have family overseas being blown up by religious fanatics. But some do, and I value their opinions and understand them.

Not to change the focus here.:rotf2:


Do you think this mosque will get the same attention by Homeland Security then say... St. Mary's here in Mansfield?

Why would it?

I don't think we've ever said that people don't have the right to voice their opinion for or against the Islamic community center.

What we have questioned is why people are against it. My argument is that it's driven by 1) misunderstanding of what the intended use of the site it and where it's really located 2) animosity and mistrust of Muslims in general 3) stereotypes 4) 9/11 shell shock and 5) all whipped up by political activists out to toss bombs at everyone's expense.

I've yet to hear a good rational argument against the facility, other than doing so hurts people's feelings...so much of which is driven by misinformation and political gain.

-spence

I just swallowed my vomit. I actually agree with you.

Good, we should go fishing in celebration :cheers:

But the white elephant in the room here, is that Americans don't understand Islam.

-spence

Not sure we understand alot of religions. What's your point? Islam isn't the problem,right?

I think "we" understand Christianity pretty well. Judaism somewhat depending on what part of the country you live in. Hinduism not that well, but then again...they don't have a lot of natural resources :hihi:

-spence

I don't understand a lot of religions. But right now, a lot of bloodshed and senseless killing is being done in the name of islam.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

__________________________________________________ ___________________________________


Misleading article title listed as ""some family members of 9/11victims to support
mosque contruction" and left out "AND Denounce NYC Islamic Ctr.

Article's main theme was coalition of 40 relegious and civic organizations to
show support ,not some 9/11 victims to support Mosque.

The article spoke of some 9/11 victims were reliving some of the post traumatic
syndrome because of the controversy. I agree with your statement of not vilifying
an entire population on the actions of a few, however it is upto the many to
speak up against the few and in the this case where a relegious group is
involved there should be no problem in taking the feelings of the victims into
account as relegion should be about how you treat your fellow man.

Kinda like the milk of human kindness is needed.

Do you think that every German should be held responsible by the Jewish for the Holocaust?

How about we hold every Japanese responsible for Pearl Harbor?

Then there's all those wars motivated by Christianity like the Crusades and the 30 Years War.

I guess everyone should look at everyone else with a critical eye. I'm sure you're people, whatever your background, is responsible for the deaths of many. I know mine are.

I was thinking of this today. Remember we did for a while, interning over 100,000 people of Japanese descent (including a lot of American citizens) because of mistrust.

You could make a similar argument to 9/11, that because of the actions of some, that the American people became mistrustful of the many.

That being said, I think we'd all agree that the actions of 1942 by FDR were unjustified and counter to our values.

-spence

I wonder if this was just a coincidence...
Taxi driver stabbed after passenger asks if he's Muslim - CNN.com

I was waiting for you to jump on this. FYI, the kid that slashed him was for the "community center" and also a left wing activist and the Muslim was against it.

I get a kick at how quick this was called a hate crime by the media and how the attack on our solders by a Muslim wasn't.

But look how good it worked out :rotf2: Now we live in peace together.

Where did you read this?

Turns out the kid was stinking drunk...sad story.

-spence

Did Jon Stewart "nail it"? Or was he just, as you accuse Rush and his ilk of doing, being an entertainer prostituting himself for his sponsors (and making a bundle for himself in the process)?

It was a funny piece. But argument by humor can be deceptive. Starts out by tsk tsking Fox News (a competitor?) for its commentator saying, at the time, that no one had a problem with the mosque. Later, of course, Fox Network and News (as well as other networks who Stewart doesn't mention) had commentators discussing the "problem." As if that were some change of . . . of . . . I don't know of what. The first instance was reportage of conditions at the time. Things changed and Fox reported and discussed that. Tsk, tsk.

Stewart says he can accept the symbolic argument against the mosque being there, then trots out some false analogies that are supposed to poo-poo the objections--the most telling being the Charlton Heston NRA thing. Because the Columbine whakos used guns, the NRA was being insensitive according to the liberals of the time? And this is analogous to the mosque situation? The columbine killers also ate food and slept in a bed. So a bed and breakfast convention should not be held at Columbine? A true analogy would have been if the killers were NRA members who killed in the name of the NRA and slaughtered the disbelievers of gun rights and NRA bylaws.

It's a funny piece, as is the other U Tube video about Glen Beck Nazi Tourettes. Of course, that didn't actually discuss whether Beck was right or wrong about Beck's comparisons, just ridiculed them, not in a dispassioned, reasonable, methodical and demonstrative way (logical argument) but with great humor. Ridicule as a tactic, and feigned shock at hypocricy with facial expressions and body twitches are reminiscent of tactics discussed in another thread.

I think Stewart was being pretty straightforward with this commentary.

The conditions about the issue didn't change, just the controversy surrounding it and how some were just out to stir the pot as we've discussed here at length.

FOX may get special attention, but are they more guilty of promoting misleading or unfair accusations? While the video certainly isn't a detailed report on the issue, I can say I sure don't hear the kind of rhetoric (or it's inverse) on the other cable news networks.

Terrorist training center...there could be a Hamburg cell right downtown...And this is by FOX regulars...

The Heston remarks really had nothing to do with the NRA. It was about letting the actions of a few dictate your policy toward the many.

Sure it did, as he pointedly hammered on the shallowness of Beck's own attacks and how he's degraded the Nazi card to a cheap commodity.

And god forbid it's employed by a comic. To think...the nerve.

-spence

Very sad. All you pro Mosque people are the same.

I guess the terms "right now" in my post doesnt mean anything to you. Again, lets have common sense. In the last 10 years and seen to be growing each week, the headlines from the mid-east to africa are full of attrocities commited by one religion. Not all of them, but enough. suicide bombings, beheadings, pillaging villages, etc. So - its not an issue of my "understanding". Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Satanists and the Presbertyrians need to step it up a few notches if they want to make the headlines. Then I'll be concerned with them.
For me, Im a mutt, but I'll play along. I'm 1/4 Lebanese and 1/4 Polish. So lets see, where would I feel less threatened visting Lebanon or visiting Poland.......hmmm? I guess Im a bigot 'cause theres no way in HELL I'm goign to Lebanon. Sorry y desert brothers, I dont understand you.

Interesting...From Wikipedia...

Intentional homicide rate per 100,000 in 2006, the last year they had data for all three countries.

Lebanon 0.57
Poland 1.28
USA 5.4

I'm sure it's higher today, but remember that Lebanon has historically been a pretty cosmopolitan place and quite a tourist destination.

-spence

put up the stats on religiously motivated violence against Americans and then we'll talk.

I can go to Wiki too - I guess this is just wacky right wing nonsense or we are too dumb to understand....

As Paul Hollander has written: "The most obvious and clear link between anti-Americanism and modernization is encountered in Islamic countries and other traditional societies where modernization clashes head on with entrenched traditional beliefs, institutions, and patterns of behavior, and where it challenges the very meaning of life, social relations, and religious verities. What becomes of the world when women can go to work and show large surfaces of skin to men they are not related to? In a recent case, the indignant male members of a Kurdish family in Sweden were 'provoked' by the transgressing female of their family who had the temerity to have a job and a boyfriend and dress in Western ways. She was finally killed by her father."[4]

Hollander went on to explain:

"In Arab countries and among Muslim populations, anti-Americanism is not only the monopoly of intellectuals but also a widespread disposition of the masses. In these areas, traditional religion, radical politics, and economic backwardness combine to make anti-Americanism an exceptionally widespread, virulent, and reflexive response to a wide range of collective and personal frustrations and grievances-and a welcome alternative to any collective or individual self-examination or stock-taking. More generally, it is the rise of alternatives, ushered in by modernization, that threatens traditional societies and generates anti-American reaction. The stability of traditional society (like that of modern totalitarian systems) rests on the lack of alternatives, on the lack of choice. Choice is deeply subversive-culturally, politically, psychologically. The recent outburst of murderous anti- Americanism has added a new dimension to the phenomenon, or at any rate, throws into relief the intense hatred it may encapsulate. The violence of September 11 shows that when anti-Americanism is nurtured by the kind of indignation and resentment that in [turn] is stimulated and sanctioned by religious convictions, it can become spectacularly destructive."[4]