Obama supports Ground Zero mosque. Religious freedom or is he being too PC?

Sure. Why can't they be respected by very respectfully building the Cordoba House on the site of a former Burlington Coat Factory, like they've planned to, all along? Sure. Frequently we do it by very respectfully showing respectful pictures of their respectful prophet. Right. Well, you know, Americans love Muslims, it's really too bad that 9/11 victims and their families aren't more popular and widely regarded, they just can't get a fair shake around here, huh? Freedom of speech isn't something the American media can bestow. That's a right protected by our Constitution. Of course if you want to see pictures of the Prophet Mohammed you need look no further than Wikipedia so I'm not entirely clear in what sense you think your free speech rights have somehow been curtailed at the hands of America's one million Muslims.

Why should they go to such enormous expense, when they could show their sensitivity to the offended by simply sensitively building the mosque precisely where they've already planned to?Why does "sensitivity" have to only mean not building the mosque?

Did anyone notice the name?I posted the information about building a mosque on the church in Cordoba, Spain as a symbol of taking that territory.Is it just a coincidence that this mosque is also named Cordoba?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

LOLGood grief.Cordoba was wondrous. It needs to be remembered.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

No, it's named Cordoba precisely in reference to the Spanish community of Cordoba, which was for centuries a place where Muslims, Christians, and Jews co-habited peacefully.

It is interesting how that history gets misrepresented. People tend to forget that in Cordoba under the Muslims, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived side by side in peace and prosperity. But as soon as the Christians drove the Muslims out, they then drove out the Jews (who were rescued by a Muslim Caliph) and then instituted that great example of understanding and acceptance called the Spanish Inquisition.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

From a BBC website:

The alternative view to the Golden Age of Tolerance is that Jews and Christians were severely restricted in Muslim Spain, by being forced to live in a state of 'dhimmitude'. (A dhimmi is a non-Muslim living in an Islamic state who is not a slave, but does not have the same rights as a Muslim living in the same state.)

​

In Islamic Spain, Jews and Christians were tolerated if they:

​

* acknowledged Islamic superiority
* accepted Islamic power
* paid a tax called Jizya to the Muslim rulers and sometimes paid higher rates of other taxes
* avoided blasphemy
* did not try to convert Muslims
* complied with the rules laid down by the authorities. These included:
o restrictions on clothing and the need to wear a special badge
o restrictions on building synagogues and churches
o not allowed to carry weapons
o could not receive an inheritance from a Muslim
o could not bequeath anything to a Muslim
o could not own a Muslim slave
o a dhimmi man could not marry a Muslim woman (but the reverse was acceptable)
o a dhimmi could not give evidence in an Islamic court
o dhimmis would get lower compensation than Muslims for the same injury

Thanks, but no thanks.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And what is the evidence for that "alternative view", aside from anti-Muslim animus? Oh shit! Christians and Jews weren't allowed to engage in the abomination called "slavery" by owning another human being! Oh, the oppression!

Well played, sir, well played.

I appreciate that.Probably on that note I'm going to go back to lurking, since classes start tomorrow and I'm staring down the barrel of some complicated math and chemistry that, frankly, I'm not very good at.

dhimmitude... Look it up.I for one choose not to live under such rules.Nor any other form of religious fundamentalism.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

On TV, when? I didn't know that they ever did. I'm just pointing out the double standard. Maybe you should have lost a family member that day smashing into the towers so you wouldn't act like such a disrespectful faggot. Protected, yes. But the media takes it away anytime they feel it's going to cost them financially. It can't be this hard to follow someone's position in a debate...My rights? What are you talking about? I just pointed to the fact that Comedy Central, out of what they claimed to be respect to the Muslim community, didn't air the image of the prophet. Nor has any TV network. Is that not them censoring those images? Even the media has acknowledged it's own censorship.- Oni

That's a word in English. Why do you think it describes something that happened in medieval Spain? Me neither. How does Christians and Jews building a Muslim community center in New York place us under religious fundamentalism?Isn't fundamentalism where we tell Muslims they can't build mosques?

Dhimmitude is a neologism first found in French denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands. Source.

Check it out. You might learn something.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Oni, there's a picture of Mohammed on the United States Supreme Court, so Mohammed has been depicted on television every time that building has been televised (which is pretty frequently.) He's been on Morgan Spurlock's TV show. He's been shown on South Park.I mean, at this point you're criticizing the American media for not just tucking in pictures of Mohammed for no reason but to piss off Muslims. Depictions of Mohammed on TV are so frequent as to pass beneath notice. Why do you think I haven't? (Because then I would be a bigot opposed to the free expression of religion?) Why do you think I'm being "disrespectful"?Why does "respect" have to mean taking orders from nativist bigots? Why can't it be respectful to respectfully tell them we're going to do what we already planned on doing? Um, no, freedom of speech isn't something the media can take away from anybody. It's simply not possible for the media to somehow prevent you from speaking. But they have aired it. "Super Best Friends", didn't you see it? Hilarious.