So, why are you aggressive towards somebody you are not in conflict with? And why do you on one hand agree that not all Muslims are terrorist, yet on the other imply that you are at war with all Muslims?
It might help if fewer Muslims were issuing fatwas and vowing to destroy the Great Satan; video of folks dancing in the street when the trade towers went down didn't help.
Then there are the recent reports of rapes of non-Muslims and killings of Christians in Muslim areas in several areas of the world.
And don't forget the violent riots around the world because of the cartoons depicting their prophet.
If Muslims truly are not aggressive towards non-Muslims, and a religion of peace, perhaps they should start acting like it sometime???
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
But that's not a reason to abrogate the rights of Muslim Americans.
Still, yes: two facts don't cancel out. It's fair to ask where's the Peace Train, Yusuf Islam? We readily demand no less from Christians. Neither population has very good answers.
It's also fair to note that the folks who want to build the center epitomize what we apparently want from immigrants in the U.S.
The imam worked for Bush and works for Obama to promulgate more moderate views among Muslims overseas; his wife organizes for women's rights within Islam. They networked with Jews and Christians in New York to gain support and fellowship.
We can't discriminate against one religion because it's no better than the others--peace trains have never stopped at mosques or churches or temples. If they did, we'd already have peace.
Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?! -Gogol Bordello
As Omnivorous points out, the specific Muslims involved in the centre are acting peacefully. Hence there is absolutely zero reason to be aggressive or provocative towards these Muslims. Nobody is complaining about the Jews or Christians involved in the Cordoba Initiative, when they have just as much stake in the group (as no single religion can have a majority, by their own rules) as any other; why a problem specifically with the Muslims, then?
Yet aggression is the only attitude expressed by saying that you are at war with someone "set[ting] up camp in your fucking house". The US is at war with terrorists who happen to be Muslims. It is not at war with Muslims in general. Muslims who are doing their best to remove the cultural, religious and other barricades to understanding -- people trying to lessen the impact of and prevent the kinds of examples you provide -- should be fully supported in their endeavour. Not treated with suspicion and derision, not accused of the very acts they work to stop, not placed on the same level as the terrorists.
Should I condemn all Christians because of a few idiots using that as an excuse to be idiots? No. Should we condemn all Indonesians, all Somalians, all Cubans, all of any group you care to name, because of a few idiots? No. Of course not. Stereotypes aren't universal descriptions, nor are they often remotely correct. And you know this well Coyote, but I think some do not quite get it. Likewise, one should not condemn all Muslims simply because a few idiots choose to use Islam as an excuse. On the contrary, they should help the Muslims that are not idiots, because then there is no excuse for the idiots to be idiots anymore. You cannot convert successfully by using the sword: the pen, the grain, the machine and especially the dollar work far better.
And for someone who stated they agree with the idea of seeing a difference, there is also an indication that they don't. Else why were they not seeing a difference?
I completely agree with the person earlier in this thread that said they ought to be able to hang a big poster of a cartoon drawing of the prophet mohammed. In fact, If I was living anywhere near NY I would have considered doing that myself.
Why? To be deliberately provocative and offensive?
Would you consider hanging a big white sign with bold red lettering saying "NIGGER!"?
Every population has its crazies and while most of the local black folk would be all mighty offended you might find, however, one of the more reactionary leaders calling for "something to be done to this racist!" and thus shouldn't be surprised if a small band of crazy thugs come after you with guns and knives.
By the same token we already know there are a whole big bunch of moslem crazies out there. Probably no more than any other population as a percentage, but there are lots more moslems in the world than there are blacks in the USA. And while most moslems would be all mighty offended you might find some radical Imam will invoke a fatwa against you and you probably shouldn't be surprised if a small band of crazy thugs came after you with C4 and scimitars.
Well, it's just a cartoon caricature isn't it?
Yes. And "NIGGER!" is just a word, isn't it.
Analogies are never perfect, but if you understand Islam then you appreciate that this analogy is especially apt.
Why would you want to be deliberately offensive and hateful to an entire population?
Why would you want to be deliberately offensive and hateful to an entire population?
I don't know, why do some muslims want to be?
"Being offensive" is, in my oppinion, such a poor excuse for not doing something. Something is bound to be offensive to someone, should we just not do anything that could potentially be found offesive to somone? Or is the only thing that matters here how big the group of people is that get offended? If so, then where do we draw the line? 100 people? 500? 1000? When should we not do something that could be said to be offensive to others?
Which Muslims would those be, then? I don't recall any (apart from the idiots) that deliberately act to offend anyone.
"Being offensive" is, in my oppinion, such a poor excuse for not doing something. Something is bound to be offensive to someone, should we just not do anything that could potentially be found offesive to somone?
True; not doing something simply because it will cause offense is stupid. But...
Or is the only thing that matters here how big the group of people is that get offended? If so, then where do we draw the line? 100 people? 500? 1000? When should we not do something that could be said to be offensive to others?
You should certainly not do something offensive if there is no necessity at all; there is no good reason to hang up a sign of Muhammed or saying "NIGGER!". You should certainly not do something offensive if you could achieve the same effect without doing it; the US could have dealt with Saddam, the Taliban, al Quaeda by NOT offending half the world's intelligent people, by NOT offending the Muslim world, and by NOT introducing war to entire countries. And you should certainly not do something offensive if your sole purpose is to offend people to the detriment of building a peaceful relationship with them; hence, one should certainly not put up one of those signs or invade other countries on a whim.
How many people get offended isn't an issue. Why they get offended and why you did it are.
Which Muslims would those be, then? I don't recall any (apart from the idiots) that deliberately act to offend anyone.
Well, those idiots would be them then.
True; not doing something simply because it will cause offense is stupid. But...
You should certainly not do something offensive if there is no necessity at all; there is no good reason to hang up a sign of Muhammed or saying "NIGGER!".
There could be. I call some of my friends "nigger" (and no, neither I nor them are black), is that a valid reason to say it?
You should certainly not do something offensive if you could achieve the same effect without doing it; the US could have dealt with Saddam, the Taliban, al Quaeda by NOT offending half the world's intelligent people, by NOT offending the Muslim world, and by NOT introducing war to entire countries.
Perhaps, but that's not the kind of offensive I am talking about, I am talking about offensive on the "personal" level. Why should I not call my frineds "nigger", or send them a picture of mohammed because some dickweed finds it offensive?
And you should certainly not do something offensive if your sole purpose is to offend people to the detriment of building a peaceful relationship with them; hence, one should certainly not put up one of those signs or invade other countries on a whim.
I agree.
How many people get offended isn't an issue. Why they get offended and why you did it are.
Exactly, and since I didn;t do it to offend anyone, they have no reason to get offended if I just happen to draw a picture of mohammed, or call someone nigger. Or anything at all that isn't directed at them. But guess what? They do get offended. And that's what I was getting at here.
You are sacrificing our safety, and our freedom just to dis-agree with me. That is what it seems. I agree that there is plenty of hate groups in America (as I pointed out already) and it is well within their right to do so. But we are at war jar. And when you are at war, you don't let the enemy set up camp in your fucking house.
The only significant threat to the United States I see is statements like that. If you think we are at War, then we have already lost. If you think safety is worth destroying the Constitution then we have already lost.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Why would you want to be deliberately offensive and hateful to an entire population?
Actually, I would consider hanging a big white sign that says nigger if they make a big enough deal out of it.
Everything we say and do is bound to offend someone. Not doing something because you're afraid to offend some people is a poor way at looking at life.
It takes 2 to tango. Obviously, that mosque is going to offend a lot of people. If they want to practice their free religion, they have to accept other people's free speech.
The very bottom line is this: The United States, being a Constitutional Republic, is bound by the laws therein.
There is no legal justification to prevent willing buyers who have the capital to build a mosque, a church, a store, a frigging petting zoo.
Being a nation of laws, we cannot go off on crusades to destroy things that are personally offensive. And since we are all granted the right to be as offensive as we want, we really have to take the good with the bad. When you start jeopardizing the rights and freedoms of others, your rights and freedoms are also imperiled.
Unless we have some kind of probable cause stating otherwise, the United States assumes innocence before guilt (in theory, anyway). We must do the same.
Now, my personal belief is that these muslims can take their peace offering and shove straight up their ass. Spare me the song and dance, because I don't care. And they shouldn't be surprised that the American public is reticent or offended by this.
Strictly from a pragmatic viewpoint, if I were the titleholder of this piece of property, I wouldn't have purchased it to begin with. It's a terrible investment. Something really bad is going to happen to that mosque. I'm certainly not advocating anything be done to it, but I know there's a bunch of crazy good 'ole boys out there who will ensure that thing is a pile of rubble.
But, guess what? We're all offended, all the time, and we don't have right not to be.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
I am not having a panic attack. I am for the building.
Fox. It came from Fox. Are you saying that Fox News is actually a Muslim conspiracy?
I heard that fox supported it, I did not know it was monetary. It was reported (by Fox) that the funding was under question.
And given all the paranoia you're displaying, doesn't it just make good sense to make sure that you, too, are harmless? After all, it's the Christians just like you who are the ones most likely to cause widespread violence here in the United States. How many more delusional Christians have to attack innocent Muslims before we should start watching all of you?
I agree, Christians are dangerous. And I am not paranoid. I am just stating facts.
Without any particular reason, it would be idiotic to do so for it would set the precedent that the government has any business in being the paranoid lunatic you seem to want it to be.
But there is a reason. That is what I am saying. Haven't you been reading what I said? There is something going on, and the people who are wrong, need to be found out. Either the Muslims are wrong, or the people accusing them are wrong. They both need to be investigated, and this stupidity put to rest.
It is not right that people can falsely accuse the Muslims like they are, right?
Re: If you have nothing to hide, you don't need rights.
Hey, my name riverrat came when I was a kid, back in the CB days, it was my handle. It was the name of a boat. Rat being a bigblock chevy engine (aka rat motor). I did not know about the riverrats at that time. It has been the name on my boat, and my handle for 35 years.
When people make the kind of argument I'm making to you, they're asking you to imagine being subject to investigations, with all the public and private contumny and shame that entails, for no other reason than who you are.
That is obviously not a good reason. But I keep thinking about if someone reports you to social services for child abuse, you automatically get investigated, just from an accusation. You can really mess with your neighbor if you want. Of course that does not make it right. People should not get investigated for any reason. But if a flag goes up, then an investigation needs to be done, to clear your name, and find out who is wrong. Obviously, someone is wrong here. It is really not that big of a deal. If you get pulled over, and if the police is suspicious for any reason, they can search your car.
To let this all go, and let the people solve it would be wrong IMO.
People are making a lot of accusations, and if the Muslims aren't doing anything wrong, then the people making those accusations, need to be silenced.
Re: If you have nothing to hide, you don't need rights.
riVeRraT writes:
People are making a lot of accusations, and if the Muslims aren't doing anything wrong, then the people making those accusations, need to be silenced.
Do you really think that any investigation is going to shut the nutters up? I mean, really, look at what happened with the "birthers". They're still saying the same shit as they did before, even though I don't know how many officials have said that Obama was born in Hawaii and even the document wes produced.
That's why so many Christians get away with it. The typical US terrorist is a white, Christian male.
Just like you, riVeRraT.
Yep. You are barking up the wrong tree Rrhain, I guess you missed the part of the thread where I said I support the building of the Mosque.
Why aren't you protesting Bill Keller's little endeavour?
We are not talking about him, and I have no idea who he is. I have not seen him in the news, and there seems to be no apparent problem in my little world.
You're calling him a sleeper terrorist ("It is a terrorists [sic] job to hide in plain sight.")
I have not called him anything. I have no fucking clue who he is, or what he is about.
Constitutional violations of fundamental rights to be left alone and be free from governmental intrusion.
Great, I guess no one should ever be investigated ever, for any reason. We really need to get rid of our investigators.
I'm sure you'll feel perfectly fine in having me "investigate" you to ensure that you're not hiding something, right? After all, you're a white, male Christian.
No one is accusing me of anything. Make a valid comparison please.
™ Version 4.2
