Machjo

So I'll ask another question; should a black man kill a white man, do you think the entire black community should "be a little more sensitive" to the feelings of the white? Or let's say a black man kills a white woman's white husband, and then another black man eventually marries her. Would you argue that that black man was somehow insensitive to the feelings of the white community, that his marriage is somehow a "victory" marriage for the black community? Or do you treat each person on his own merits? And why should it be any different for an Islamic Center: Some people killed thousands on 9/11 in the name of Islam (the black man killing the white woman's white husband). Later, an Islamic Center is built in a building damaged by 9/11 (another black man marries the same white woman). And suddenly a bunch of people start crying foul over a "victory mosque" (crying foul over a "victory marriage" and lack of sensitivity). So, explain to me how there is no parallel.

I was linking it back to the point about opposing the development of the Islamic Center project in NYC. The members of NYC's Muslims community themselves lost family and friends to 9/11, and openly condemned the attacks on 9/11. Yet you propose they should still feel guilty for what others have done. That in my mind is equivalent to saying that because Saudi Arabia restricts freedom of religion in their country, we must therefore punish American Muslims for it, or saying that because one black man robbed, raped or killed someone, all blacks ought to feel guilty about it more so than whites. It's a matter of collective blame for the actions of individuals.

I was criticising your collectivist mindset. To say that we should punish Muslims for what some individuals have done in the name of Islam is equal to punishing all blacks for what one black may have done to a white man. Imagine expecting the black community to come out and apologize profusely every time a black man killed a white man. This is what we are asking of the Muslim community.

First off, not all Muslims agree with Saudi Arabia. After all, the Qur'an itself states: "Let there be no compulsion in religion". Secondly, there is no reciprocation, since reciprocation implies X (in this case Saudi Arabia) gives Y (in this case the US) something, and Y gives X something in return. What we're talking about here is X (Saudi Arabia) removing freedoms from A (Christians), and Y (the USA) giving B (Muslims) freedom of religion. So we have X removing freedoms from A and Y giving freedoms to B. No relationship whatsoever.

Agreed. Better yet. I was simply trying to point out that rather than lower our own standards to those of tyrants does not make sense.

I guess you do have a point. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, if a black man should harm a white man in any way, the ENTIRE local black community, or perhaps the entire African American community nationwide had to brace for impact! That was a great way to keep blacks in their place. :~ So why not apply the same principle now: if a Muslim kills an American, make sure all Muslims know our displeasure. If Saudi Arabia discriminates against Christians, we'll discriminate right back at them. After all, it worked for China too. In the 1800s, when China dared seize and burn the opium from a British ship and send the crew back empty handed, the whole British army made sure the whole of China felt its displeasure. Collective punishment for the crimes of the few has always been an effective deterrent. Right? :~

A minor issue though is that the parliaments of each and every one of them would have to have a majority vote for war, unlike only one US government.

It's nice to have a bunch of boots on the ground, but that's also fewer people building up a debt-ridden economy. Also, numbers are not all that matters. It's generally more difficult and expensive to fight a war abroad than on home soil owing to the extra logistical costs involved, not to mention that when fighting on home soil, all but the religiously pacifist will take up arms, whereas when fighting abroad, only hawks and, depending on the legitimacy of the cause, possibly moderates will support it. Look at how the US had to leave Vietnam not so much owing to events in vietnam, but owing to lack of political support at home. There was no such passive indifference on the Vietnamses side fighting on home turf.

Fully agreed. So let's practice freedom of religion here to set an example to the Saudi regime.

I just did, and came across this gem: "El-Gamal's new tactic is in line with the moderate, non-violent global approach for Islamic conquest of Western societies. Terrorism is the tool of choice by radical Muslims. But, under the guise of love and peace, moderate Muslims populate neighborhoods and build Mosques as the tool to take over communities, one at a time. This is what has happened in Germany with multiculturalism, as well as France, Sweden, Spain, Australia, Denmark and the UK. Neighborhood after neighborhood, Muslims build up their population to an intimidating level where police do not even enter. They build their religious centers with leaders and literature that radicalizes their membership. They demand that 'Sharia Law' becomes the law of their enclave and the original residents are either driven out or run scared." Hardly objective. It's making an a priori conclusion that as soon as a Muslim is kind, it MUST be because he's trying to convert you. Never that mind all religions proselitize, but now Muslim kindness is to be treated with supsicion. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The first paragraph from your link: "The Park51 project for a 15-story mosque/community center at Ground Zero, led by developer Sharif El-Gamal and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has dwindled down to a much smaller vision, a four or five-story 'PrayerSpace' and community center. This may be a far cry from their original plan, but many are bewildered as to why they are still moving ahead with any planned mosque at this site, given the tremendous negative opinion most Americans have of its location." Clearly it's succumbing to pressure from the Islamophobes and other bigots (though I doubt it describes the majority of Americans as the article claims). As I suspected, they're simply wisely scaling the project back to try to divert some of the bigotry.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (bolding mine): Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

It may be that they are tired of the harassment? If a person simply gets tired of the local bigotry and so moves away, it doesn't make the community less bigoted.

Wow, this thread is still going on. So any conclusions yet? I haven't read the entire thread, but I'll guess that there really have been only three positions presented in spite of the long thread: 1. The "communitarian" argument, arguing that the community is responsible for the actions of its members, thus all Muslims, including victims of 9/11 and their families, are guilty by association and should therefore be punished somehow such as by not being allowed to build community centres in select locations, and 2. The legal argument, arguing that each person must be judged on his own merits and not on those of his community, thus no person, regardless of his religious convictions, should have to apologize for the actions of others, especially wehn he himself disagrees with them. I still fall into the second category. And even if I held the former view, I could just as easily argue that, especially with regards to Park 52 seeing that the members of local NYC Muslim community have themselves lost members to the terror attacks on 9/11. Looking at it that way (not that it should really matter), they, along with members of other religious communities that have lost members to the 9/11 attacks, should have a prior right to decide what is to be built there. So, am i wrong that any other view has been presented other than those 2?

I voted no. Instead, I'd say eliminate minimum-wage laws too and simply introduce German-style co-determination legislation, and then let the workers negotiate their own holidays with the employer. After all, not everyone wants more days off. Some would rather more paid days off but a lower salary. Others a higher salary but fewer days off. Some would willingly exchange higher wages for other perks like free in-houise daycare or free daily lunches, etc. etc. etc. One-size-fits-all laws don't always work for everyone.

i don't see how we can determine a person's place of birth based on his religion. I've met Arab and Chinese Christians, Salish, Innu, and Mohawk Baha'is and even an Algonquin Muslim. I don't see how adopting a religion suddenly makes one a foreigner. By the same standard, does an indigenous North American who adopts the Christian faith suddenly become a foreigner?

The problem with that is that it still treats Catholic schools differently. Now if we were talking about cutting all public funding for Catholic schools and extend the same tax break to Catholics. It's the principle of equality here. The Green party's solution of simply one system is not one I'm particularly fond of, but I'll say at least it does treat all religions equally. The Swedish voucher system would also treat them all equally. The point is, what applies to one ought to apply to all.

The big "so-what" is that a Catholic can send his kids to a public Catholic school covered on his taxes, whereas with any other religion, he must pay out of pocket and forfeit the taxes he pays into the public system.

Thanks for the correction. Odd though that the same constitution that guarantees Catholics a special privilege in education rights, it bans the same Catholics from marrying the reigning monarch.

Of course it should be done for all religions equally. In the case of Christians however, we have a constitutional provision ensuring that the monarch be a member of a Christian Chursh, and that Christian communities at least in some provinces are guaranteed their own separate school system. Muslims don't have that.

Oh come on. One kid acts in an insulting fashion, and suddenly you decide he represents Islam? Also, if local mosques are well-kept and local churches are run-down, whose fault is that? And as for immigrants assimilating, most of us assimilated to a transplanted European culture.

I doubt very much the Christian Heritage Party was protesting Christian Paryer in school.

What I don't get is how we all go bonkers over a school accommodating prayer, yet have no issue with the Canadian constitution requiring the monarch to be a member of the Church of England, prohibiting the monarch from marrying a Catholic, and granting special education rights to Catholics not guaranteed to other religions, and you don't hear a whisper about that.

And what about the Separate Cathoic school?

Perhaps. But those rights are protected by law only, and not by the constitution.