Machjo

I think you're wrong here. I doubt very much that those Muslims who oppose building a mosque near Ground Zero do so owing to their own bigotry, but rather owing to their taking into account the potential repercussions against Muslims by the hateful should this be built. Looking at it that way, they do have a point. The danger though is that it's also a slippery slope. Once the hateful see that they can intimidate Muslims into a retreat, that will merely bolden them even more, eventually expanding the circle around the 9/11 site and saying there should be no mosque for at least 2 miles around the site. And if they win that, then that no Muslim should be allowed to travel within that distance of the site and should move away, etc. etc. etc. And as long as Muslims give in, the hateful will ask for more. Looking at it that way, I guess it does make sense tobuild the mosque as a way of taking a stand and saying that the family, friends and congregation of victims of 9/11 all have a right to freedom of religion, even those who are Muslim. After all, a Muslim who lost a family member to 9/11 suffered just as much as a non-Muslim who had. Attacking them now is adding insult to injury, especially when the attacks come from those who have not lost any close relative to 9/11, seeing that that congregation has more right than most to build there seeing that they themselves were victims.

Now if the argument is that that mosque should not be built owing to possible repercussions on the Muslim community, yes, that is indeed a valid point, and when that point is brought up, I do have to consider then whether that mosque should be built there or not, and the wisdom of doing so. That said, that would still be a decision for the members of that congregation to make, as long as they are aware that this will likely attract more aggression against Muslims and their property across not just NYC, but across the English-speaking world that will read all the articles inciting such hatred against Muslims.

Consider though that those Muslims who oppose the construction of that mosque likely do so because they fear a backlash from the general population. While they do have a point, and in an earlier post in this thread even I'd entertained that point, consider that this does not say much for those who lead us to consider that, for safety reasons, it might be wise for Muslims not to build that mosque. After all, look at what happened to some mosques, Muslims, and even people who just looked Middle-Eastern after 9/11. A couple of them were even beaten to death.

Again, you keep quoting this and that article making ridiculous claims about the Resolution. I'd linked the Resolution for you in a previous post already. I'd read it and it's clear that those who say it suppresses freedom of expression either did not read the Resolution (you know how the game of telephone works, don't you), or read it and then chose to interpret it very creatively. Admit it. You have not read the Resolution or are incapable of admitting that there is in fact nothing in it of what you claim. If you're right, all you'd have to do is quite the part of the Resolution that bans freedom of thought and expression.

Again, you failed to quote the Resolution. There is nothing in there prohibiting criticism of religion per se, which again shows you have not even looked at the Resolution and so have no clue what you're talking about. Please quote me the part of the resolution that prohibits criticizing Religion. And no, linking to a biased site that obviously has not read it either does not count as quoting the Resolution. Get it from the horse's mouth please. The Resolution is linked in my post above.

Now going back to the UN resolution, that's why I usually hold my tongue over anything I don't know. I won't look foolish if I say I don't know. For those who'd opposed the UN Resolution without even reading it now look quite foolish in my mind now that I've actually read the Resolution, since they're essentially saying a Resolution protecting freedom of religion is shameful.

exactly. I'd say it's more important to push for the freedom of that church to rebuild than of the islamic centre to not build. Why would we be more interested in suppressing freedom of religion for Muslims down to that of that Christian community instead of pushing for that Christian community to have the same freedom as the Muslim one? Which do you think is a better cause? For all we know, the protests against the Islamic centre might themselves be to blame for the bureaucracy being so slow over the building of that church since it's too busy trying to defend the freedom of religion of the Muslim community.

Interesting that the article never quotes the Resolution itself: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf Now, please quote (not paraphrase) the part of the Resolution you take issue with, and we could then discuss that. Now that I've read it, I think it's actually a reasonable Resolution. Thanks for settling that one for me.

Instead of picketing against the Islamic centre, why don't the protesters picket for the church? Is it not better to be fore something than against something?

Certainly unless there is some safety or other legitimate issue involved, that church should be allowed to be built.So instead of trying to curtail freedom of religion for Muslims, why not champion freedom of religion for Christians? Would that not be a more worthy cause? Why try to bring freedom of religion down to the lowest common denominator?

Proof please.

Quote please.

Quote, please? From my understanding, it was not about making criticism of religion, but rather hate speech against religion, a crime, or something to that effect. Do I agree with it? I don't know, since I'd need to know more details as to where it draws the line. Therefore, can you link to the official document on this so that we can have an intelligent debate on it? Based on the limited knowledge I have of it so far, if it is what I think it is, then I think I'd oppose it. But to say that: 1. Some who call themselves Muslim support this, 2. The members of that congregation in NYC are Muslim, so 3. therefore all members of that community support this... is just plain illogical reasoning.

Non-sequitur. His premise is: 1. There are extrimists who call themselves Muslim who want to ban all criticism of Islam, 2. The community that wants to build the mosque also calls itself Muslim, 3. Therefore, that community also wants to ban all criticism of Islam. The guy in that video needs ot go back to school to learn logical reasoning skills. By the same logic: 1. I'm a man, 2. A man raped a woman the other day, 3. Therefore, I raped a woman the other day. Thank God that guy's not a lawyer.

Empathy for whom? Family members of the victims of 9/11 have every right to convert to Islam, join that Muslim congregation and donate funds to the building of a mosque in that area to commemorate their loved ones who died on 9/11. By the way, some family members of 9/11 victims have since converted to Islam: Some of the members of that congregation did lose members to 9/11: And so their family members are contributing to the building of that community centre, with the cooperation and support of the local Jewish community! Who are we who did not lose relatives on 9/11 to tell the family and friends of the victims of 9/11 what they can or cannot do? You seem to focus exclusively on a small group of family and friends of the victims of 9/11 who likely harboured prejudices against Is;am even before 9/11, and so their objections have nothing to do with 9/11; they're just using the memory of those loved ones to their bigoted advantage. Those who did not hold such views before 9/11 certainly would not hold them after either, as they'd be able to recognize that a life is a life, Muslim or otherwise, and that those Muslims have a right to heal and move on ust like the rest. Why stand in their way?

I personally haven't, but a lot of Muslims were in the US and Canada post 9/11, with some getting beaten, mosques getting firebombed, and a few who got beaten to death; and a few cases of non-Muslims, even Latinos in the US, getting taken for Muslims. I wonder if anyone in this forum was involved in these acts in Canada.

Oh please. You say you're not a secularist, yet will pick and choose from the Bible. Sounds pretty secularist to me. I do not follow all the social teachings of the Gospel, but then again I don't profess the Christian Faith either. You can't have it both way; either you profess the Christian Faith and strive to put all its teachings into practice or you're not a real Christian. At least I don't pretend to be a Christian. This is why I believe you're a troll. I can't imagine any kind of Christian saying the stuff you say. You say it's because of secularization that Islam is gaining ground, yet you yourself are quite secularist by definition based on what you say, not on what you claim you are. It would seem more that you're just using the Christian Faith as a convenient excuse to hate Muslims. And in fact many of your claims are so nonsensical they lead me to believe that if anything you're probably an anti-Christian troll trying to make Christians look bad. You have no clue what you're talking about here. The Christian Faith and Islam both acknowledge that individual and the community as both equally important. I have no clue what you're talking about here.

Ridiculous. Those videos are based on a particular interpretation of Islam, just as some 'Christians' believe it's OK to murder abortion doctors in the name of God, with others defending them and praising them for it.

Oleg, many of your claims are next to impossible to believe. I've met many Muslims too, and can't imagine you heard what you claim you heard. I have no choice but to call you out as a troll, and I don't make such accusations lightly.

Wait a minute. So you reject the Bible yourself or at least pick and choose from it and then criticize the US for being as secular as you are? Talk about the kettle calling the grey cloud black. I have a hard time imagining a real Christian would type what you typed. This leads me to believe you're an anti-Christian troll trying to give Christians a bad name. Am I right?

Innocent until proven guilty... unless you're a Muslim by Oleg Bach of course. Yup, innocent until proven guilty is highly overrated. Also,all those Christian churches in China (and yes, I've lived in China and believe it or not, there are churches and Christian congregations there) are an example of the West taking over China religiously speaking according to your logic. Personally though, i'd disagree and say those Christians are just as Chinese as any other Chinese and became Christian not to be Westernized, but because they believe in Christ. Yet you now imply that an American who converts to Is;am also converts to Arabism and is no longer a true American; that you have to believe in Christ to be a true American. So now you pathetically blame Muslims for churches falling into disrepair? I'm not a Christian myself and so give to my own religious community, so I can't do much about Christians who choose to be less than charitable about funding and maintaining your churches. Now what? You want the government to tax me and fund the maintenance of churches itself with my tax dollars because Christians have chosen to be less than charitable? I'm all religious organizations being tax exempt, but that's a far cry from actually forcing me to fund a religion that is not even my own because you're too cheap to open up your wallet. Now that just shows your no-so-Christian hatred for others because of what some otehrs they did not een know did. Besides, many innocent Muslims died too. Amen, Alleluja, and Praise the lord Almighty.

First off, most Muslims in NYC are likely locals, possibly even natives, and not foreigners. Secondly, I can't imagine Jesus Christ campaigning for religious persecution. Last I'd read the Gospels, he taught to stay out of politics and that all are children of God. What Bible have you been reading?

Perhaps, but would you intend for this to apply to all not-for-profit organizations and not just mosques?

First off, unless there is a truly valid reason for the government to force the mosque to disclose that information, at least to the public, the Constitution would likely not permit it, And secondly, to require all mosques to disclose such information within certain geographical areas would likely require the government to require all religious institutions within these areas to do the same.

If you're referring to Rabble (a site I seldom go on), I've never come across black racists there to the best of my memory. However, I must say that what annoys me the most about Rabble is the excessive sensitivity about other groups. One perfect example was when I was critical of the Official Languages Act, and suddenly all the fangs came out about my being a Francophobe, and then all the prejudices really came out once I'd announced that I'm a native French-speaker. Suddenly they all presumptuously put on their blinders and accused me of being a lyar because as per their prejudices and preconceived notions, no francophone could possibly have such thoughts. Then when I'd actually switched to French, many of them started calling me rude for having done so when they could not understand me. So no matter what I did, I couldn't win. Looking at it that way I'd argue that they do have certain prejudices, but more specifically what we might call reverse-prejudice, and in a major and intense way that can really cause the vitriol to flow. They tend to be overly sensitive and defensive of other groups even when the other groups don't welcome it. ON the forum about First Nations I remember asking some straightforward questions out of curiosity. The First Nations on their could understand my ignorance and were more than happy to reply; meanwhile all the Whites had their fangs out for my having dared to ask questions. Even some of the First Nations were telling the rest to back off, that they're adults and quite capable of taking care of themselves, thank you very much. I don't know how I could more specifically categorize that kind of prejudice, but prejudice it is, even if it is an oddly reversed form of it. But I seldom go to Rabble because it's next to impossibly to admit ignorance on a topic and ask an honest question without all the fangs coming out of the woodwork presuming some malicious intent behind the questions. Nor is it possible, even for Francophones, to challenge anything that goes against their preconceived notions with regards to language policy, which I honestly found to be highly offensive as a Francohone myself.