Mosque going up in NYC building

[msj]

Freedom of religion includes my freedom to say you god-types are frickin' nutz.

Sure you can.

Since I'm an atheist I agree with you although I'm sure the flying spaghetti monster will be in touch with you soon.

[msj]

Indeed, glad some of you guys are starting to understand the issue.

So, msj, is your friend Sir Bandelot also a "bigot" for posting the above?

Perhaps you have missed a thread quite awhile ago where I was calling him, tongue in cheek, granted, SID.

As in Sir Intellectually Dishonest.

I don't have any "friends" on these forums because I don't know any of you well enough to call friends.

As for Sir B's attitude: well, many people, black and white included, thought what Rosa Parks did was controversial and troublemaker material.

Sometimes controversy is necessary and there are those who shun it and those who embrace it.

To each their own.

[msj]

I think that the fact this issue is causing so much controversy and bad feeling is a pretty good indicator that it is a bad idea. Those who are promoting it are at the least, exercising poor judgment. It won't heal anything, quite the contrary.

Yes, I'm sure some people said the same thing about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr as well....

Not that I'm equating this issue with an entire civil rights movement; but, there are certainly similarities, however small.

[Smallc]

Try learning some respect for women. I'll give you a clue to get you started. You can begin by not comparing segregation and discrimination against women to the Scouts.

Let me put it this way. You have made numerous statements that point to you bigoted against muslims. You accusing me of somehow being against equal rights because I support freedom of religion has nothing to do with this. I support equal rights, but I also support freedom of religion. Further, equality rights have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Your view on muslims is obviously clouding your judgment on this issue, and I'm not the only one who sees it. It's not my fault if you can't see it. It has been shown over and over again that your statements are contradictory and point in only one possible direction. Again, it isn't my fault if you don't see it.

Go ahead though, and try to deflect by accusing me of being against equal rights for women.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Smallc

[msj]

And of course you get to decide that.

No, I have argued that. And you have argued otherwise.

It doesn't get any more moronic than this. Deny that YOU think I think/believe? Vs. what I actually DO think/believe? Yeah, I think I'll keep denying it.

The reasons Muslims don't want it built are the reasons they SAY they don't agree with it being built there. Talk about opening your eyes. Open your frickin' ears and listen to what people actually say. And then realize that they think/believe what THEY say they think/believe, not what YOU say they think/believe.

Are you saying that there are no Muslims who would prefer to avoid this controversy and, therefore, disagree with the building of the mosque for that reason?

Others seem to think that is a reasonable POV and have presented it as such.

As for Muslims who share your POV - I have already stated that they, like any human, can share faulty logic.

Just because they agree with you and happen to be Muslim just means that they share your faulty logic.

And your logic is faulty for reasons that I have already laid out and for which you prefer to not address directly.

Instead, you will continue to summarize what you think I think you think that I think you think (I think I have that right).

If I'm not comprehending you then I apologize.

Please, by all means, spell it out for me slowly and clearly again.

My argument is coherent for anyone with the ability to comprehend a viewpoint different from their own.

If it was coherent then why am I not the only one scratching his "moronic" head?

Is there something seriously wrong with you?? I think they should be ALLOWED to build it; I think they should choose not to. Are you not able to comprehend at the Dick and Jane level? Because I can't make it more clear than that.

Fair enough.

As stated above by myself and others, you have made many assertions and these may have muddied what I thought your POV was.

Also, I have been arguing with other posters further muddying the waters.

No need to be so rude about it.

No. For the bajillionith time. We are NOT discussing whether or not they should be allowed to. Read that over as many times as you need to for it to sink in.

Perhaps that's your problem. You've never gotten past the "101" level of thought.

One. More. Time. It's not "the shadow of 9-11," it's property that's only available because it was destroyed on 9-11. Again, read that as many times as it takes to sink in.

So you don't like my use of figurative language? Go figure!

No, it would not. It wouldn't come up if it were built anywhere else in NYC, either. Is it starting to sink in yet?

Kinda funny how, for both of us, this is exactly the point. But then, you would have to comprehend my POV to appreciate that.

My God. Have you been paying attention at all, or are you seriously this mentally deficient??

It's coming up because the property they are building on was damaged by other Muslims on 9-11. But for the actions of 9-11, they would have to build elsewhere.

No, it's not "ground zero and all that," it's exactly what I said it is. But of course you are totally ignoring what's said. Over and over again.

As I already stated, I most definitely will. Next time a bunch of extremists from another religion are responsible for death and destruction and the said religion wants to build in the destruction, I'll be sure to question it. I'm saying that for about the fiftyith time, so did it sink in this time? One can only hope.

So you will apply faulty logic again to the same circumstance except with a different religous group?

How magnanimous of you.

Oh, well, there you go. You and smallc and dre agree. So you must be right. What WAS I thinking?

Nice way to take it out of context.

No, it doesn't change the fact that you and smallc and dre and others can't accept or comprehend or respond to what people actually say/think.

But of course you all are the tolerant/intelligent/correct ones. We all believe what YOU say we do. Not what we actually believe. Question one thing Muslims do and the writing is on the wall. We are Bigots. With a capital B. And you all are all so tolerant.

Never claimed to be tolerant.

Only claimed that you and Bonham and others in this thread have displayed faulty logic (and/or logic based on bigotry).

I'm not the only one to have put down reasons for thinking so.

-----------------------------

As for you post in its entirety - I honestly think that it is shameful.

Sure, you may be frustrated, and, sure, I may be "mentally deficient", but your tone is deplorable and unbecoming.

Edited August 9, 2010 by msj

[Sir Bandelot]

Perhaps you have missed a thread quite awhile ago where I was calling him, tongue in cheek, granted, SID.

As in Sir Intellectually Dishonest.

I don't have any "friends" on these forums because I don't know any of you well enough to call friends.

As for Sir B's attitude: well, many people, black and white included, thought what Rosa Parks did was controversial and troublemaker material.

Sometimes controversy is necessary and there are those who shun it and those who embrace it.

To each their own.

I now believe the mosque should not be built, only because of the amount of angry opposition to the mosque. I don't agree with this opposition. Ideally the mosque could have been a symbol of hope for reconciliation. But sadly various factions are not ready for that. Compunding the problem are the real bigots, who jump on this situation and use it as a platform to revile all muslims. They hate them now, and they hated them even before 9-11. It does not help the cause of those who have legitimate concerns about reforming islam.

People like Rosa Parks make the conscous decision to fight, and are willing to take the hits. If they build the mosque, it will create a backlash against muslims who go there. As a community they have to ask if they're willing to take the hits, and if doing that is beneficial to muslim/ western relations. Sadly it isn't. So best thing now is to not build the mosque there, but move it slightly out of the way. Doing so would only show how ridiculous the oppositions stance truly is.

[Wilber]

Yes, I'm sure some people said the same thing about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr as well....

Not that I'm equating this issue with an entire civil rights movement; but, there are certainly similarities, however small.

It has nothing to do with civil rights. No one disputes they have the right and I don't think anyone would want to take that right away. There is no similarity at all. People have every right to do something stupid but they are still stupid. This is stupid.

[msj]

Let me put it this way. You have made numerous statements that point to you bigoted against muslims. You accusing me of somehow being against equal rights because I support freedom of religion has nothing to do with this. I support equal rights, but I also support freedom of religion. Further, equality rights have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Your view on muslims is obviously clouding your judgment on this issue, and I'm not the only one who sees it. It's not my fault if you can't see it. It has been shown over and over again that your statements are contradictory and point in only one possible direction. Again, it isn't my fault if you don't see it.

Go ahead though, and try to deflect by accusing me of being against equal rights for women. I won't be able to see it from now on.

Smallc, you and I are of similar mind on this topic.

Unlike you, however, I admit that I am troubled by the conflicts between freedom of religion and equal rights.

It does bother me that a woman can't be a Catholic priest because she is a woman. And it also bothers me how women are treated by various religious organizations and cultures.

Having said that, I think I agree with you in that Canada and the US has got it mostly right.

Sometimes fundamental rights do clash and precedent is given moreso to one than the other.

[msj]

People like Rosa Parks make the conscous decision to fight, and are willing to take the hits. If they build the mosque, it will create a backlash against muslims who go there. As a community they have to ask if they're willing to take the hits, and if doing that is beneficial to muslim/ western relations. Sadly it isn't. So best thing now is to not build the mosque there, but move it slightly out of the way. Doing so would only show how ridiculous the oppositions stance truly is.

A fair and reasonable argument Sir B.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[msj]

Again, if they can discriminate based on sex, they best not expect to be included as a "charity." What other charity do you know of that gets away with ignoring equal rights set by the government?

I have to ask: is the Catholic Church not considered a charitable organization in the US?

Are women allowed to be priests in the Catholic Church in the US?

[Smallc]

Unlike you, however, I admit that I am troubled by the conflicts between freedom of religion and equal rights.

I am definitely troubled by it...it's just that court case after court case in both of our countries uphold the rights of freedom of religion first. I don't agree with inequality...but I do recognize that it exists and is protected by law.

It does bother me that a woman can't be a Catholic priest because she is a woman. And it also bothers me how women are treated by various religious organizations and cultures.

I completely agree with that. I dislike religion in general, but I still respect it and its strange nature.

[Sir Bandelot]

I dislike religion in general, but I still respect it and its strange nature.

Religion is like Irish whiskey. Not a bad thing, taken in moderation...

[Wilber]

People like Rosa Parks make the conscous decision to fight, and are willing to take the hits. If they build the mosque, it will create a backlash against muslims who go there. As a community they have to ask if they're willing to take the hits, and if doing that is beneficial to muslim/ western relations. Sadly it isn't. So best thing now is to not build the mosque there, but move it slightly out of the way. Doing so would only show how ridiculous the oppositions stance truly is.

Rosa Parks actually broke a law that discriminated and that is what makes her different. In this case, no such law exists and that is why it is not a question of civil rights. Sometimes it is stupid to stand on your rights. Kind of like a pedestrian stepping out in front of a car that can't stop. They may be in a crosswalk and they may be in the right but they are just as dead.

[DogOnPorch]

Sure you can.

Since I'm an atheist I agree with you although I'm sure the flying spaghetti monster will be in touch with you soon.

Well he/she/it sure takes their sweet time as I've being saying religion...particularly Islam...really and truely sucks for years now. From the age of Big Ms child bride to the tendency of its male members to react violently at the drop of a hat...or cartoon...or Israeli tennis players...or film...or (insert your own).

Edited August 9, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[msj]

Well he/she/it sure takes their sweet time as I've being saying religion...particularly Islam...really and truely sucks for years now. From the age of Big Ms child bride to the tendency of its male members to react violently at the drop of a hat...or cartoon...or Israeli tennis players...or film...or (insert your own).

Well good for you.

One's thoughts towards religion are relevant to this discussion in that those who dislike religion, Islam in particular, will tend to be biased in certain ways, while those who like Islam will tend to be biased in different ways.

Then there are those who don't let this bias get in the way.

For me, my dislike of religion isn't the point of the discussion - the point is why some people have a bias against this mosque being built on/near 9/11 soil.

It's an interesting question regardless of one's feelings towards religion.

[DogOnPorch]

msj: For me, my dislike of religion isn't the point of the discussion - the point is why some people have a bias against this mosque being built on/near 9/11 soil.

Just a huntch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fH7c8H6SNw

[DogOnPorch]

...that is to say you answered your own question.

[DogOnPorch]

Well good for you.

One's thoughts towards religion are relevant to this discussion in that those who dislike religion, Islam in particular, will tend to be biased in certain ways, while those who like Islam will tend to be biased in different ways.

Then there are those who don't let this bias get in the way.

Ummmm...like yourself?

[msj]

Ummmm...like yourself?

If I let my anti-religion bias get in the way then I would be against all temples being erected. (Ummmm, maybe I shouldn't use that word for the small minded crowd?).

The reasons as have already been put forth are that to equate extremist Muslims with ..... ah forget about it, we've been over this dozens of times and I'm not wasting my time on restating the obvious.

[Shady]

Great piece from The Ottawa Citizen today.

Mischief in Manhattan

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

...

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

...

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Ottawa Citizen

I think the last paragraph is the most significant. Especially when applied to many posters in this forum. Who's stand is absolutely based on not so much ignorance, but definitely guilt. Who will never have to face the tyranny of Islamism. This Islamism that's using liberal democratic societies as a tool, with many on the left as useful idiots in the process.

Attention useful idiots! You still have time to make things right. Stop being puppets of radical Islam! :angry:

[dre]

Great piece from The Ottawa Citizen today.

I think the last paragraph is the most significant. Especially when applied to many posters in this forum. Who's stand is absolutely based on not so much ignorance, but definitely guilt. Who will never have to face the tyranny of Islamism. This Islamism that's using liberal democratic societies as a tool, with many on the left as useful idiots in the process.

Attention useful idiots! You still have time to make things right. Stop being puppets of radical Islam! :angry:

Yeah! Because just flat out not giving a fuckin rats ass where someone builds a dumb-ass church definately makes you a puppet of radical islam!

[Michael Hardner]

Just a huntch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fH7c8H6SNw

I don't know why you posted this YouTube video - but it's not rare, at least not the first few minutes.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't know why you posted this YouTube video - but it's not rare, at least not the first few minutes.

9-11? You might have heard of it.

[Michael Hardner]

Great piece from The Ottawa Citizen today.

I think the last paragraph is the most significant. Especially when applied to many posters in this forum. Who's stand is absolutely based on not so much ignorance, but definitely guilt. Who will never have to face the tyranny of Islamism. This Islamism that's using liberal democratic societies as a tool, with many on the left as useful idiots in the process.

Attention useful idiots! You still have time to make things right. Stop being puppets of radical Islam! :angry:

I concur with what they wrote, and I respect their perspective.

Be advised, though, that you're siding with Muslims against provocations by other Muslims so you're tacitly accepting the idea of moderate Islam.

[Michael Hardner]

9-11? You might have heard of it.

Not answering the question...