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

That's why most radio people are switching to satellite, 'cause of the fucking FCC and thier petty fines.In this case, the courts reversed the decision, and it was due to an awared show accidental use of bad language. But had it been on the radio, more than likely, the DJ would have just been fired. The courts could reverse it later but the DJ would still be out of a job.It's what happened to Opie & Anthony, discussed here: Gender and Humor, starting at the middle of the page.- Oni

I don't think anything. I was assuming that this particular group of Muslims would be under the watchful eye of homeland security, and other nay-sayers.I later read that the date was false, and originally put out by a right wing extremist.
How the "ground zero mosque" fear mongering began | Salon.comIf the link is true.

Listen, there is nothing wrong with questioning the motives of Muslims, since it was Muslims who declared Jihad on us. Of course I do not believe that every Muslim believes that all infidels should die. But they are taught to lie to us, and keep the truth to themselves. What does that leave us to think about them? How do we differentiate?

I'm sorry but why the hell should "this particular group of Muslims would be under the watchful eye of homeland security"?

---

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

More like hand in hand with them:

"By their fruits shall ye know them."

Tram law responds to me:

quote:

---

How exactly are people being affected by the center besides just feeling insulted?

---

It's physically in their neighborhood. A building in New York City doesn't have much effect, if any, upon me here in San Diego. But having new construction down here by Qualcomm Stadium is going to affect me.There are mosques in Manhattan that are popular enough that there is not enough room for everyone. They spill out onto the street and can cause traffic problems during prayer times.

quote:

---

Does it cause mental harm? Cause people to become unhinged in some way?

---

Self-inflicted, it would seem.As we all know, the way to show that we aren't like those who oppress religious expression and faith is to, you know, oppress religious expression and faith.

---

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.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

What I support is that whatever gets decided, gets done fairly.

---

And thus, you show how you keep avoiding the question: I am asking you directly how you would determine it be done "fairly."Somebody, possibly everybody, is going to come away without getting what they want. How do we decide who is going to be sad?

quote:

---

Either it's all good to do, say and express, or none of it is.

---

That makes no sense at all. Does context have no affect on how one decides if something is fair? All reactions should be automatic and by default with no consideration for specific circumstances that make the individual scenario unique?

quote:

---

I don't care about people's feelings, I care about it being fair game for everyone.

---

You keep saying this but then you show you don't really mean it. Partly by refusing to describe what you mean by "fair" and partly by showing that you think those who disagree with you should "shut the fuck up about it."So which is it? How do we decide who is going to be sad?Be specific.

---

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.

Your statement is self-contradictory. You state that there is nothing wrong with questioning the motives of Muslims, and then contradict that statement by saying that not every Muslim believes that all infidels should die.All Muslim terrorists are Muslim. Not all Muslims are Muslim terrorists.Saying we should question the motives of Muslims because of the actions of a small minority of Muslims is like suggesting that we should question the motives of Christians because of Christian abortion clinic murderers.There are precisely two reasons to stigmatize all Muslims and suggest that it's difficult to "differentiate" or that it's okay to "question their motives:" bigotry and fear. I understand that it's extremely tempting and even easy to blanket all Muslims for the actions of a few - the terrorists make their religion such a focus as a justification of their actions that I'd even agree that it's difficult not to associate the religion in its entirety with terrorism.But that's only because you and I are third parties, looking in from the outside. It's very easy to paint a minority that's different from yourself as "them."Christian abortion clinic terrorists make a similarly strong focus on their religion as justification for their actions. The primary differences are lower body counts due to a more specific focus for victims to be terrorized, and the fact that the Christians are not an easily separated minority - White American English-speaking Christians cannot easily identify other white American English-speaking Christians as a "them" to be feared, reviled, and discriminated against.Be very, very careful that you don't fall into that trap. Al Qaeda does certainly use their interpretation of the Koran as a justification for their vile acts...but the vast majority of Muslims would no more follow religious instructions to kill an infidel than your average Christian would stone a rebellious child to death.The more we allow fear to broaden and generalize the identity of our enemies through association, the more we give peaceful, normal people a legitimate reason to feel disenfranchised and fearful themselves.You cannot question a person's motives simply because they share the name of their religion with a bunch of lunatic murderers, for the same reason I can't question your motives simply because you share the name of your religion with another bunch of lunatic murderers.

Again, I don't care about the feelings. I don't care who ends up sad. In fact, if it's fair, everyone will at some point be sad.No one needs to decide who is going to be sad, that doesn't even make sense. By default someone will be sad, but if it's fair, everyone at some point will feel it.What we shouldn't do is decide to hold back because one perticular group will get sad, then shit on another group who we don't care about or disregard their feelings - Like not allowing the image of Mohammed in the same episode that allowed the image of Jesus to shit on Bush and the flag. That is hypocritical bullshit. That's what I mean by, it should be fair game. I haven't refused, maybe just misunderstood what you wanted me to answer. Lots of posts. But I have answered it, so I hope you of all people are content with the answer - prolly not though.And if I wanted people to shut the fuck up, why would I be here debating you and others? If it's fair, everyone will be sad at some point.- Oni

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't see the issue?

---

The issue is you avoiding the direct question I have put to you: How do we make the decision of who gets to be the one(s) to have to suck it up?

quote:

---

No, I am well aware of the difference, I just don't care about someone deliberately going out to offend people, that's protected under freedom of speech/expression.

---

But your statements don't seem to be indicative of you being aware of that difference. Else, why are you trying to compare an act of deliberate provocation with an act that is not provocative? Just because somebody finds it upsetting doesn't mean it was carried with an intent to upset someone.

quote:

---

It's how we react to that that I take issue with, because in the end, no matter what the means were, someone is left offended.

---

Nice try, but that's my point to you.Now, why don't you tell us how we get to decide who is left offended?

quote:

---

Now, if I have to censor myself to not offend someone, then, no matter what it is that I find offensive, even if it's irrational to do so, the other person needs to censor themselves too.

---

Who is this "other person" you're referring to? You keep making these vague, non-committal statements about non-existent people that only have whatever fantasy qualities you wish for them to have rather than dealing with real examples of extant people.In other words, you're building a lovely strawman.

quote:

---

Or, better yet, no one is censored, whether they are trying to offend or not, and people's feelings can take a backseat to freedom of speech, expression and, in the case with the mosque, religion.

---

And how did you come to this conclusion? What specific process did you follow? Are there certain ethical rules you are following? If so, what are they? How did you manage to determine who has to go away without getting what they wanted?Be specific.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Who are these "Muslims" you are referring to?

---

​

Those who would not like to see the image of the prophet on TV, in a cartoon, etc.

---

But who are they? Some anonymous, unknown nobody whom you can't identify? Why should anybody care about that? Nothing is satisfactory to everybody so there will always be somebody who would rather you not do what you just did. So since that is the case, why should anybody think that this particular instance is any different?How do you determine that you care enough about how other people will react that you alter your behaviour so as not to be a problem? What process do you use?Be specific.

quote:

---

Those who Comedy Central considered when they pulled the episode. Those who Yale University considered when they originally censored the image from a book about the cartoons.

---

But who are they? You haven't identified a single real person. It's naught but phantoms in your head. You have gone on and on about how "they" have exerted such control such that images of Mohammed are never shown (desptie the fact that you have been shown repeated examples where that isn't true) as if "they" are a real group that we should be considering.But you have yet to indicate who "they" are. If you're going to ascribe power to "them," it would help if we could identify exactly who "they" are so we can examine "their" tactics.

quote:

---

But people have made that request

---

But someone will always make that request. You don't think that Comedy Central didn't get protests from Christians regarding South Park's portrayal of Jesus? Why is this instance different? What process do we use to determine who gets to be the one to suck it up?Be specific.

quote:

---

why did Comedy Central react the way they did if such a request wasn't made?

---

Corporate spinelessness as opposed to this grand Muslim conspiracy to suppress speech that you seem to have concocted. Comedy Central had no problem standing up to Christian groups who were not happy with that way South Park handled Christianity, but they suddenly turn into quivering lumps of Jell-O when faced with threats from some Muslims. Unless you can identify some real difference between the Christian crazies and the Muslim crazies, the only reason seems to be that Comedy Central lacks the courage of their convictions. They repeatedly showed the image of Mohammed long before now so what's so special about this time?

quote:

---

I'm using the term losely to refer to the media, the US, anyone who doesn't want to offend Muslims.

---

The problem is that this lets you justify any point you desire since any and all reactions have been seen. You can cherry-pick the ones that justify your claim and then dismiss all the counter-examples. You take an example of Comedy Central and then expand that out to include the entire media as if that were a valid and justified thing to do.

quote:

---

But you won't see them "...set fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City."

---

No, they'll just blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building, wander into Jewish schools and start shooting people, bomb the Olympics, kill doctors who peform abortions, etc., etc.You make it seem like Christian people aren't just as soaked in blood as the phantom "they" you refer to.

---

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.

The same question would surely apply not just to people who say they're moderate Muslims but to people who say they're not Muslims at all. Like you.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

If you followed the debate, you'd notice some posts back that I said this was my friends position.

---

You have long since abandoned your "friend's" position and started talking about your own position...and then avoided every polite request for you to provide the background on how you arrived at that conclusion.

quote:

---

No, but it would surprise me if you had the evidence to support that assertion.

---

And thus, you prove my point: You didn't do any homework to allow yourself to be knowledgeable about the subject before you opened your yap. 64% Yes
27% NoEven the majority of those who personally don't want the center built there believe that they have the right to do so, 51-42. Why do you require other people to do your homework for you?

---

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.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

Again, I don't care about the feelings.

---

And yet, clearly you do or you wouldn't be trying to justify going out of your way to piss people off.Interesting that the ones who shout the loudest about etiquette being a straightjacket get even louder when their own sensibilities get offended.

quote:

---

In fact, if it's fair, everyone will at some point be sad.

---

Huh? That makes no sense. The person who is looking for fairness will never go away sad if it's fair. They'll only be sad if it's unfair.

quote:

---

No one needs to decide who is going to be sad, that doesn't even make sense.

---

Huh? That makes no sense. Either the building will be built or it won't. Either the people who want to build the building will go through with it or they will they won't. Either the people who want to see it stopped will succeed or they won't. All of those results require the direct actions of conscious people making decisions. Those results are in direct conflict with the stated desires of the people involved. If A wants the building to go up and B doesn't then if it goes up, A will be happy and B will be sad. If it doesn't go up, then B will be happy and A will be sad.How do we decide which one is going to have to suck it up?

quote:

---

By default someone will be sad, but if it's fair, everyone at some point will feel it.

---

Huh? That makes no sense. The person who is looking for fairness will never go away sad if it's fair. They'll only be sad if it's unfair.

quote:

---

What we shouldn't do is decide to hold back because one perticular group will get sad, then shit on another group who we don't care about or disregard their feelings

---

But that's the inevitable result: If we don't allow the building out of sympathy for B, we're shitting on A and disregarding their feelings. If we do allow the building out of sympathy for A, we're shitting on B and disregarding their feelings.So how do you propose we decide whose feelings we're going to mollify and whose feelings we're going to disregard?Be specific.

quote:

---

Like not allowing the image of Mohammed in the same episode that allowed the image of Jesus to shit on Bush and the flag. That is hypocritical bullshit.

---

When did Comedy Central become "we"?

quote:

---

That's what I mean by, it should be fair game.

---

Why is that "fair"?Be specific.Back to a direct question I asked of you which you refused to answer:Should Comedy Central simply accept anything that Parker and Stone provide and broadcast it without any commentary at all?

quote:

---

And if I wanted people to shut the fuck up, why would I be here debating you and others?

---

Do you really want an answer to that? I've seen the baiting you've been attempting.

quote:

---

If it's fair, everyone will be sad at some point.

---

Huh? That makes no sense. The person who is looking for fairness will never go away sad if it's fair. They'll only be sad if it's unfair.

---

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.

Disclaimers - I don't follow South Park much, although I have seen some and I do know they can be pretty rude. Also, I haven't followed recent stretches of this topic closely.And I do fully support the presence of the so called "ground zero mosque". I certainly don't like many of the actions of any of the "religious crazies". That said, the Muslim branch of Crazy Inc. does have a pretty bad recent record of violent reactions to visual depictions of might Mo. Maybe not a prudent thing to provoke. Or have I overlook some Christian based riots in recent times?And that said, might depicting Mo in a bear costume (I believe) actually be funnier and a greater social commentary in the situation context?Please, no long winded replies to this message.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

​

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose