Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 6:11 AM
29 online now:
vimesey (1 member, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
28NextFF
Author Topic:   Obama supports Ground Zero mosque. Religious freedom or is he being too PC?
onifre
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 91 of 406 (576032)
08-22-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
08-22-2010 2:20 PM


If they can find a company willing to rent space to assholes than where is the problem?

Of course, companies don't have to rent space to assholes.

I don't see how this addresses my point. The prophet has been censored on TV because it is offensive to muslims to show his image, however on the same show (South Park) they showed, I think, George Bush taking a shit on Jesus.

In this situation, the mosque is considered offensive by MANY people. Rightfully so, they are still allowed to build their mosque.

Freedom of religion protects them. But freedom of speech is ignored when the image of the prophet is concerned.

It seems hypocritical. Why should we give a shit about how muslims feel when it comes to their prophet's image, but then they don't give a shit when it comes to the feelings of those who find the mosque offensive?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 2:20 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 2:31 PM onifre has responded
 Message 94 by Huntard, posted 08-22-2010 2:37 PM onifre has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 92 of 406 (576036)
08-22-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ringo
08-22-2010 2:27 PM


I agree, but shouldn't the Constitution protect us both?

There are some who find the mosque offensive. There are some who find the image of the prophet offensive. But it seems like in the US the muslims and their feels are considered before the feelings of others for fear of, well, another ground zero somewhere else.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 08-22-2010 2:27 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 08-22-2010 3:20 PM onifre has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31177
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 93 of 406 (576037)
08-22-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by onifre
08-22-2010 2:27 PM


Nonsense.

It is no the government that stops tv from broadcasting images of the Prophet, it is corporate timidity.

If there is any hypocrisy it is not because there is any governmental restriction on freedom of speech.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 2:27 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 6:09 PM jar has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 522 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 94 of 406 (576038)
08-22-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by onifre
08-22-2010 2:27 PM


onifre writes:

I don't see how this addresses my point. The prophet has been censored on TV because it is offensive to muslims to show his image, however on the same show (South Park) they showed, I think, George Bush taking a shit on Jesus.


Not entirely correct. They showed Jesus shitting on Bush and the US Flag. Also, it's not because it is offensive that they don't show it, it's because they're pussies who are afraid fucktards will do something to them if they do show it.

It seems hypocritical. Why should we give a shit about how muslims feel when it comes to their prophet's image, but then they don't give a shit when it comes to the feelings of those who find the mosque offensive?

Like I said, it's not that they care about the feelings of Muslims, they are afraid somebody will hurt them if they do show it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 2:27 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 6:11 PM Huntard has not yet responded
 Message 322 by nator, posted 09-04-2010 8:47 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17142
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 95 of 406 (576047)
08-22-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by onifre
08-22-2010 2:31 PM


onifre writes:

I agree, but shouldn't the Constitution protect us both?

There are some who find the mosque offensive. There are some who find the image of the prophet offensive. But it seems like in the US the muslims and their feels are considered before the feelings of others for fear of, well, another ground zero somewhere else.


As far as I know, that's self-censorship and has nothing to do with the Constitution.


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 2:31 PM onifre has acknowledged this reply

onifre
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 96 of 406 (576076)
08-22-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
08-22-2010 2:31 PM


It is no the government that stops tv from broadcasting images of the Prophet, it is corporate timidity.

Agreed. But since it was American's insulting Muslims, Obama didn't speak up about it. He didn't make it a government issue, like he has in the case of the mosque.

If there is any hypocrisy it is not because there is any governmental restriction on freedom of speech.

Right, but I just meant the way we favor one side's feelings over the other. There are people who sincerely feel the mosque is insulting, but we disregard those feelings in support of freedom of religion.

I think Huntard is right in that we're just scared.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 2:31 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 6:18 PM onifre has responded
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 6:57 PM onifre has acknowledged this reply

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 97 of 406 (576077)
08-22-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Huntard
08-22-2010 2:37 PM


Also, it's not because it is offensive that they don't show it, it's because they're pussies who are afraid fucktards will do something to them if they do show it.

Because those fucktards are offended. But yes, I agree 1000%. It's because we've become pussies.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Huntard, posted 08-22-2010 2:37 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31177
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 98 of 406 (576081)
08-22-2010 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by onifre
08-22-2010 6:09 PM


But no one has stopped the folk that are offended from speaking out.

Where is the issue?

The Muslims have a Constitutional Right to build the mosque.

Folk have a Constitutional Right to speak out against it.

Both rights seem to be supported and working just fine.

Edited by jar, : reely applin spallin


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 6:09 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 8:56 PM jar has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 99 of 406 (576088)
08-22-2010 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by onifre
08-22-2010 6:09 PM


Agreed. But since it was American's insulting Muslims, Obama didn't speak up about it. He didn't make it a government issue, like he has in the case of the mosque.

He was asked about the mosque. And he replied that it was not a government issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 6:09 PM onifre has acknowledged this reply

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 100 of 406 (576095)
08-22-2010 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by onifre
08-22-2010 2:12 PM


onifre writes:

quote:
We've seen it censored on TV

There's that word "censored," again.

No, you haven't seen in censored. Not in any way, shape, or form. Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. The government did not get involved in any decision by Comedy Central to refuse to show the South Park episode that had Mohammed in it.

Do not confuse corporate spinelessness with censorship.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 2:12 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 9:00 PM Rrhain has responded

  
evolutionfacts
Junior Member (Idle past 744 days)
Posts: 12
From: Long Beach, CA
Joined: 08-22-2010


Message 101 of 406 (576100)
08-22-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by onifre
08-14-2010 4:17 PM


Like you, I'm fairly agnostic on this issue. Obama later 'clarified' his point, saying he merely supported the 'right' not necessarily the 'wisdom' of such. I noticed that some 9/11 family members actually support the building of it. There are a few things supporters need to do a better job of explaining;

-It's not a 'mosque' it's a cultural center which includes a mosque.
and..
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has;
-assisted the FBI in anti-terrorist efforts
-openly criticized Islamic terrorist acts
-is in fact a Sufi (Islam with Hinduism makeover)

I think if proponents would do a better job of explaining this instead of just babbling about 1st ammendment rights, there'd be a more meaningful discussion over the propriety of having this thing built. Instead, the bulk of America thinks the Imam is an extension of Jihad and are scared sh*tless thanks to Glenn Beck and other conservative loons.


Evolution Facts | Obama FTW
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by onifre, posted 08-14-2010 4:17 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 8:25 PM evolutionfacts has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 406 (576105)
08-22-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by evolutionfacts
08-22-2010 7:50 PM


I think if proponents would do a better job of explaining this instead of just babbling about 1st ammendment rights

Why? The discussion begins and ends with First Amendment rights.

If Osama bin Laden got together with Jeremiah Wright to build a church in New York - where basically anything at all is "within so-and-so of 'ground zero'" - that would be their First Amendment rights.

It's not "babbling", it's the US Constitution, which we all thought used to mean something to conservatives.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by evolutionfacts, posted 08-22-2010 7:50 PM evolutionfacts has not yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 103 of 406 (576111)
08-22-2010 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
08-22-2010 6:18 PM


But no one has stopped the folk that are offended from speaking out.
Where is the issue?

The Muslims have a Constitutional Right to build the mosque.

Folk have a Constitutional Right to speak out against it.

Both rights seem to be supported and working just fine.

I wasn't arguing that, I was just pointing out the insensitivity from the Muslims building it.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 6:18 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 8:59 PM onifre has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31177
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 104 of 406 (576112)
08-22-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by onifre
08-22-2010 8:56 PM


What insensitivity?

Honestly, all I have seen so far from those protesting the construction is utter ignorance of the facts.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 8:56 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 9:03 PM jar has responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 105 of 406 (576114)
08-22-2010 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rrhain
08-22-2010 7:38 PM


No, you haven't seen in censored. Not in any way, shape, or form. Censorship is governmental restriction of speech.

Censorship is not restricted to just the government, many news, radio and TV stations censor material that they don't want aired.

Do not confuse corporate spinelessness with censorship.

But the corporate spinelessness resulted in Trey and Matt being censored by Comedy Central. Granted, it wasn't the government doing it, but I think that would still be considered censorship.

At least that's what the news called it.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rrhain, posted 08-22-2010 7:38 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Rrhain, posted 08-23-2010 4:08 PM onifre has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
28NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019