Mosque going up in NYC building

[bush_cheney2004]

This is what she said.

Nope....that is what you said....we know better.

She's explicitly tying peacful muslims to 9/11. Try again.

Nope...AW specifically identified "murderous actions of other members"....same as any murdering Christian terrorist. Your liberal arts education has failed you...at the hands of my lowly engineering degrees.

[nicky10013]

Nope....that is what you said....we know better.

No, no it isn't. Where do you get this stuff?

Nope...AW specifically identified "murderous actions of other members"....same as any murdering Christian terrorist. Your liberal arts education has failed you...at the hands of my lowly engineering degrees.

When you say Muslims shouldn't have a mosque because Muslims took down the towers, where is the distinction? She didn't make any. Saying there shouldn't be a mosque because what a couple stupid people did 10 years ago is is blaming the entire religion for one event. My education is just fine thanks.

[Bonam]

My education is just fine thanks.

Evidently not.

Your liberal arts education has failed you...at the hands of my lowly engineering degrees.

Isn't that always the case?

[Machjo]

The only real logical one that I've heard deals with fear of retribution by bigots.

Precisely.

[nicky10013]

Evidently not.

So where is it you went to school and what years and what degrees do you hold?

Isn't that always the case?

In my experience with my friends who are in engineering, it's never the case.

[Machjo]

No arguement here. I think it's a bad idea and the motives for its construction suspect. But as Bloomberg says, freedom of religion is what America is about. No matter his Middle-East banking interests which may or may not colour his opinion re: the project.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4cxX-Z1Sec

That's very difficult to understand for some:

"We're not saying they shouldn't be allowed to build a mosque there, but merely that the government should tell them to build it elsewhere:.

Or this gem:

"We're not telling the government to tell the Muslims to move their mosque elsewhere; we just want to harass the hell out of the local Muslims until they get sick and tired of us and finally do move it elsewhere."

If I'm missing some third category, let me know.

[Guest American Woman]

Not all, but A LOT of them are. You can't deny that.

Ummm. Yeah. I actually can, and do, deny that.

So you're saying these people are fanatics?

Ummmm. No. I'm saying that not all of the fanatics live across the ocean. As you indicated they do. You really couldn't understand that?

You're playing semantics. In this case, I think both can mean the same thing. My answer before stands.

Ummm. No. I'm not playing semantics. I'm stating a fact. "Exploiting" and "doing something for profit" are two very different things. I'm not surprised that your answer before stands, though, as responding to what's actually said has been pretty rare on the part of the Park 51 supporters in this thread. Seems all you can do is change the issue that was raised and then respond to that, as if it really were the issue. Which it's not.

In this case, the issue is "exploitation," not "making a profit." So evidently you can't/refuse to address it.

ahahahah so how many people did Burlington Coat Factory murder?

ahahahah I didn't say the people in the Burlington Coat Factory murdered anyone. I said the people who damaged the Burlington Coat Factory, making it available for Park 51, murdered thousands of people. Again. You cannot/refuse to address what was actually said. So again, you change what was said, make it about something else, and respond to that. Most likely because what I said is true, and there's really nothing you can say.

In all honesty, this is a pretty much disgusting pile of trash right here.

Then you'll have to take issue with yourself, since you're the one who posted the "pretty much disgusting pile of trash."

You're assigning blame on all of muslims what happened on 9/11. We live in a society of individual responsibility, not communal blame. The people who are going to be worshipping there had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks. You're playing a game of guilt by association, even though they aren't even associated.

I already said that I don't blame all Muslims for 9-11. Not by a long shot. I'm not going to waste any more time to argue/refute/discuss views you've assigned to me. But this -- The people who are going to be worshipping there had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks -- is one of the most ignorant arguments I've seen yet, as you have absolutely no idea who's going to be worshiping there. Did you have any idea that one of the terrorists involved in the first WTC bombing was not only worshiping, but leading prayers, in a mosque in New Jersey before he was convicted? Because if you have this kind of information, you could be very helpful indeed. But I'll just assume that you don't.

So. Fact is, you are wrong. "Attending mosques in the U.S." and "terrorists" and "acts of terror" have been associated. And what bigger draw to such a mindset than worshiping on the property where they see "victory" has been achieved?

What have the people who want a place to pray have done? That was my point.

No one is denying "the people who want to pray" the means to pray. They can pray elsewhere. Where were they praying when the Burlington Coat Factory was operating? What about the other 100 mosques in NYC? And last, but not least, they can't pray on other property, if the project were moved? It has to be this property, or they can't pray?

That mentality begs the question: what's so special about that property that they have to pray there?

I said this before in another thread, I'll say it again. If you're going to blame "muslims" for 9/11, you might as well blame all men.

And I've already refuted that nonsense. The fact that they are all men isn't what tied them together any more than the fact that they all had beards tied them together. They are tied together by Islam. The fact that you try to deny that is mind boggling.

The people who committed those acts are people who are using the religion for political gain and for absolutely nothing religious. To paint with THAT broad of a brush is just wrong.

I will most definitely paint the terrorists as Muslims since that's what they are/were.

As for the Imam, what politicisation? This mosque and this project have been on the books for a WHILE. No members or the Imam himself never made a deal of it in the national press.

Ummm. Yes, he has. Still is.

It was picked up by Sarah Palin and Fox News and the tea party ran with it.

I don't ever listen to Sarah Palin or Fox News. When I started this thread, it was in response to the Imam's announcement of the project. Hadn't heard a word about it until I read about it and then started this thread.

Nice attempt to pin it on Sarah Palin and Fox News, but it doesn't fly. Someone else tried to blame some blogger that I'd never heard of, whose name escapes me now. That's how much weight I put on what she's had to say.

Even since then, how many times have you seen the Imam on tv? I've been following this issue pretty closely and I've still yet to hear him speak on the issue.

If you've been following it pretty closely, then you should know that he's been out of the country. In fact, some moderate Muslims have been angry about that. They feel as if he should have been here addressing the issue, taking responsibility for the reaction, rather than leaving the country, telling the Muslim world how he wants to Americanize Islam. That did a lot to raise their opinion of Americans, I'm sure. I can practically feel the love.

Indeed, all I've seen are angry people claiming that all terrorists are Muslim.

Ummmm. No. You really need to do something about that tunnel vision.

So, how can their side try to politicise the issue when they haven't been attempting to politicise the issue? This argument makes absolutely no sense.

Because they have been politicizing the issue.

Yes, you blatantly are tying all muslims to terrorism. I'm sorry, but you are.

Not as sorry as I am that you can't see outside your narrow mindset, because I'm not. And in case you're truly unaware of it, what I'm actually doing trumps what you claim I'm doing. ¿Comprende?

[kimmy]

The people building mosques aren't the one raising the tension. It's the ones who are accusing them of terrorism.

The furor surrounding Park 51 was entirely predictable. Had Imam Rauf opted for a low-key mosque like the site has been operating, and like others not far away continue to operate, none of this would have happened. His decision to make a grand political statement-- and he himself stated that that's what this is-- is at the heart of the controversy.

So? Let them claim victory. Why do peaceful muslims in North America have to live and die by what makes fanatics overseas happy or sad?

They're allowed to build it, but nobody has to like it. They can do as they wish, but what they choose to do will affect how they are viewed. I can't imagine why Americans (or Canadians) are expected to be happy to see the construction of a project that will be hailed by our sworn enemies as a monument to Islamic victory.

If Imam Rauf is as understanding and respectful of the sensitivity of this issue as he says he is, he should understand that giving Islamists a big symbol of triumph is offensive to many people.

No, it seems to me that with the title of the book isn't an attempt to profit off of 9/11 but to portray Islam as the peaceful religion it is in the face of ignorant morons who believe otherwise.

Referencing a heinous act of terror is an attempt to remind people that it's a religion of peace?

Spend a moment and reflect on why they decided not to use that title in the english-speaking world, and let me know if you come up with anything.

Holy assumption, Batman! If Saudi money is good in every other aspect of society,

Hey, I know a Catholic who donates to his church every week, and he also owns shares in Microsoft. So Bill Gates must be the Pope, right?

If Saudis use their money to buy real-estate in North America, they're buying an asset that will probably appreciate in value over time. If Saudis use their money to invest in some private enterprise, they're buying something they anticipate will generate revenue or appreciate in value over time. If Saudis use their money to build mosques in North America, they're not expecting a return on investment, they're doing so out of a religious duty to spread their faith. In the case of Saudis, that probably means the mosque gets a library full of stone-age Wahhabi ideology. It likely also means some Saudi "scholar" is coming to educate the people about his stone-age theology.

Personally I have no idea why you guys are so excited about the whole-sale import of regressive ideas to "educate" future generations.

and the person actually preaching is pluralistic and not radical at all (which he is, the state department sent him to preach liberal islam in the middle east), then what influence do "wahhabis" really have? Yet another scare tactic with absolutely no base in reality.

I've seen nothing to suggest that Imam Rauf is a "liberal" in terms that North Americans would consider liberal. He's been sent to promote the message that we don't need to be enemies, which is highly noble, but hardly evidence that he's a "liberal".

-k

[Machjo]

The furor surrounding Park 51 was entirely predictable. Had Imam Rauf opted for a low-key mosque like the site has been operating, and like others not far away continue to operate, none of this would have happened. His decision to make a grand political statement-- and he himself stated that that's what this is-- is at the heart of the controversy.

How was it predictable? At first, the local Muslim community consulted with the local government, the local Jewish, Christian, and other religious communities, and the'd all given them their blessing. Then they'd finally announced it publicly, and the media reaction, even from Fox! was overwhelming support or at worst indifference.

It's only later, once conspiracy theorist Pam Geller, owner of the blog Atlas Shrugs and founder of 'Stop Islamization of America', with funding from Jihad Watch, finally raised a movement surrounding it, that it really became a major media issue.

So until Pam Geller came onto the scene, after the decision had already been presented favourably by even Fox News of all possible supporters, how the hell could that local Muslim community have seen this coming? Well, then again, they should have known the country is full of Gellers.

[Guest American Woman]

It's only later, once conspiracy theorist Pam Geller ........

So until Pam Geller came onto the scene....

*Sigh*

So we're back to blaming Pam Geller again.

link

....they should have known the country is full of Gellers.

Yes, of course. Because everyone who opposes the project on that property is a Geller clone; everyone thinks like her, is her. All opposing for the same reasons. All agreeing with everything everyone else says/thinks.

Talk about a "lemming mentality." Which may explain a lot .........

[nicky10013]

Ummm. Yeah. I actually can, and do, deny that.

Fine, then what's the argument against it?

Ummmm. No. I'm saying that not all of the fanatics live across the ocean. As you indicated they do. You really couldn't understand that?

Considering a big issue is foreign funding of the mosque, and the people who are responsible for the attacks were based in Afghanistan, I would imagine the people who would be seeing this mosque as a victory of Islam over America would be mostly located over there.

Ummm. No. I'm not playing semantics. I'm stating a fact. "Exploiting" and "doing something for profit" are two very different things. I'm not surprised that your answer before stands, though, as responding to what's actually said has been pretty rare on the part of the Park 51 supporters in this thread. Seems all you can do is change the issue that was raised and then respond to that, as if it really were the issue. Which it's not.

In this case, the issue is "exploitation," not "making a profit." So evidently you can't/refuse to address it.

In this issue, both are the same thing, so you really are playing semantics. Furthermore, I did address the issue. I see it as someone trying to profess what's right with Islam in the face of torrents of Islamaphobia after 9/11.

ahahahah I didn't say the people in the Burlington Coat Factory murdered anyone. I said the people who damaged the Burlington Coat Factory, making it available for Park 51, murdered thousands of people. Again. You cannot/refuse to address what was actually said. So again, you change what was said, make it about something else, and respond to that. Most likely because what I said is true, and there's really nothing you can say.

I didn't make it about anything else. I've said and always said that the people who simply want a neighbourhood mosque had nothing to do with the attacks and shouldn't be punished for it. By continuing to link Islam to the attacks and why this site shouldn't be built, you're tying in all Islam. If these people aren't responsible for what happened, why should they be punished? Why shouldn't they be able to build a mosque wherever they want if it isn't Islam as a whole you have a problem with?

Your arguments simply don't make sense.

Then you'll have to take issue with yourself, since you're the one who posted the "pretty much disgusting pile of trash."

I'm not the one against letting peaceful people praying.

I already said that I don't blame all Muslims for 9-11. Not by a long shot. I'm not going to waste any more time to argue/refute/discuss views you've assigned to me. But this -- The people who are going to be worshipping there had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks -- is one of the most ignorant arguments I've seen yet, as you have absolutely no idea who's going to be worshiping there. Did you have any idea that one of the terrorists involved in the first WTC bombing was not only worshiping, but leading prayers, in a mosque in New Jersey before he was convicted? Because if you have this kind of information, you could be very helpful indeed. But I'll just assume that you don't.

IT HAPPENED IN NEW JERSEY! SHUT ALL THE MOSQUES DOWN!

You can say you don't blame Islam, but the simple fact is, if all of Islam isn't responsible, then what's the argument against the mosque that actually goes hand in hand with that statement? There isn't one.

So. Fact is, you are wrong. "Attending mosques in the U.S." and "terrorists" and "acts of terror" have been associated. And what bigger draw to such a mindset than worshiping on the property where they see "victory" has been achieved?

There are quite a few Christian Warriors yet how much backlash is there against the construction of churches? Funny enough, in the exact last paragraph you're trying to make the argument that Islam doesn't = terrorism but you're doing the exact opposite here. You may think I'm wrong but hypocrisy doesn't help your argument.

No one is denying "the people who want to pray" the means to pray. They can pray elsewhere. Where were they praying when the Burlington Coat Factory was operating? What about the other 100 mosques in NYC? And last, but not least, they can't pray on other property, if the project were moved? It has to be this property, or they can't pray?

From what I've heard there's more demand for a mosque than supply. Furthermore, "go elsewhere" isn't exactly the American response.

That mentality begs the question: what's so special about that property that they have to pray there?

It isn't about the property, it's about the right of people to be able to worship wherever they want without fear.

And I've already refuted that nonsense. The fact that they are all men isn't what tied them together any more than the fact that they all had beards tied them together. They are tied together by Islam. The fact that you try to deny that is mind boggling.

No, they weren't. They were carrying out a political mission, not an Islamic one. Demands like having the US evacuate Saudi Arabia isn't so much a religious goal as a political one.

I will most definitely paint the terrorists as Muslims since that's what they are/were.

There you have it.

Ummm. Yes, he has. Still is.

Ok, let's see what he's written. Link please.

I don't ever listen to Sarah Palin or Fox News. When I started this thread, it was in response to the Imam's announcement of the project. Hadn't heard a word about it until I read about it and then started this thread.

Nice attempt to pin it on Sarah Palin and Fox News, but it doesn't fly. Someone else tried to blame some blogger that I'd never heard of, whose name escapes me now. That's how much weight I put on what she's had to say.

The controversy started because Palin tweeted about it. It was especially funny because it took her 4 times to get the statement right apparently.

If you've been following it pretty closely, then you should know that he's been out of the country. In fact, some moderate Muslims have been angry about that. They feel as if he should have been here addressing the issue, taking responsibility for the reaction, rather than leaving the country, telling the Muslim world how he wants to Americanize Islam. That did a lot to raise their opinion of Americans, I'm sure. I can practically feel the love.

Ah, so he's NOT politicising the issue. He HASN'T taken a stand. Interesting. He's just a guy who wants to build a mosque. Oh wait, the act of building a mosque itself of politicisation. FOR SHAME on these people. How dare they want to pray in their own neighbourhood.

Ummmm. No. You really need to do something about that tunnel vision.

What tunnel vision?

Because they have been politicizing the issue.

Where? When has merely upholding constitutional rights politicising the issue?

Not as sorry as I am that you can't see outside your narrow mindset, because I'm not. And in case you're truly unaware of it, what I'm actually doing trumps what you claim I'm doing. ¿Comprende?

How? You haven't done anything from where I'm sitting.

[nicky10013]

The furor surrounding Park 51 was entirely predictable. Had Imam Rauf opted for a low-key mosque like the site has been operating, and like others not far away continue to operate, none of this would have happened. His decision to make a grand political statement-- and he himself stated that that's what this is-- is at the heart of the controversy.

The Imam knew there would be people who hated Islam protesting the building of the site. Therefore, he shouldn't build it because of the hatred from the other side? Wow. I have to admit, it takes a lot of balls to stand on an argument as flimsy as this one.

They're allowed to build it, but nobody has to like it. They can do as they wish, but what they choose to do will affect how they are viewed. I can't imagine why Americans (or Canadians) are expected to be happy to see the construction of a project that will be hailed by our sworn enemies as a monument to Islamic victory.

If Imam Rauf is as understanding and respectful of the sensitivity of this issue as he says he is, he should understand that giving Islamists a big symbol of triumph is offensive to many people.

Ah, so it's all their fault when we hate them? Makes Islamaphobia that much easier! They're not responsibile for what we do. We're responsible for what we do. Anything else is just an excuse for what people were going to do anyway.

Referencing a heinous act of terror is an attempt to remind people that it's a religion of peace?

Spend a moment and reflect on why they decided not to use that title in the english-speaking world, and let me know if you come up with anything.

Nope. Books are routinely published under different names in different languages for the sake of many things, the biggest one being translation. Furthermore, writing a book which reflects on the direction of Islam after 9/11 in the United States, and calling it essentially that, isn't some conspiracy to make money off the victims of 9/11. If you want to look for people who exploited 9/11, look at the makers of the movies Flight 93 and World Trade Centre.

Hey, I know a Catholic who donates to his church every week, and he also owns shares in Microsoft. So Bill Gates must be the Pope, right?

If Saudis use their money to buy real-estate in North America, they're buying an asset that will probably appreciate in value over time. If Saudis use their money to invest in some private enterprise, they're buying something they anticipate will generate revenue or appreciate in value over time. If Saudis use their money to build mosques in North America, they're not expecting a return on investment, they're doing so out of a religious duty to spread their faith. In the case of Saudis, that probably means the mosque gets a library full of stone-age Wahhabi ideology. It likely also means some Saudi "scholar" is coming to educate the people about his stone-age theology.

Personally I have no idea why you guys are so excited about the whole-sale import of regressive ideas to "educate" future generations.

Whoah, look at you. And here I thought I was the one who only wanted ideas that I support. Hypocrisy is a bitch, no?

I've seen nothing to suggest that Imam Rauf is a "liberal" in terms that North Americans would consider liberal. He's been sent to promote the message that we don't need to be enemies, which is highly noble, but hardly evidence that he's a "liberal".

-k

Edited September 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[Machjo]

*Sigh*

So we're back to blaming Pam Geller again.

link

Yes, of course. Because everyone who opposes the project on that property is a Geller clone; everyone thinks like her, is her. All opposing for the same reasons. All agreeing with everything everyone else says/thinks.

Talk about a "lemming mentality." Which may explain a lot .........

Just look at the ralies in NYC. In nearly all videos, you'll see Geller, or a sing of SIOA (Stop Islamization of America), with all the loudspeakers and such likely being paid by the funding Jihad Watch provides. Sure there is an independent internet movement, and sure there are some who've likely just tagged along at the rallies. But let's face it, on the media Geller is the one who managed to get this thing off the ground. She's the 'brains' (I know it makes me giggle too) behind the operation, at least at the organizational level.

[bush_cheney2004]

....But let's face it, on the media Geller is the one who managed to get this thing off the ground. She's the 'brains' (I know it makes me giggle too) behind the operation, at least at the organizational level.

What operation? As AW indicated before, Geller was and still remains largely unknown to all but the few interested in following this narrative. Her profile remains quite low compared to an Anne Coulter or Al Sharpton.

Americans are far more interested in the start of college and professional football.

Edited September 5, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Machjo]

What operation? As AW indicated before, Geller was and still remains largely unknown to all but the few interested in following this narrative. Her profile remains quite low compared to an Anne Coulter or Al Sharpton.

She might not be well known herself, but she is the one who organized the public protests initially, and the protests are what have motivated many to join in on the bandwagon.

It's like saying that because a person might not know William Blake, there is no way he could have come across his famous poem 'the Tyger' or been influenced by it. Lack of knowledge of Blake as a person does not prevent a person from being influenced by his poems. The same applies here. One needs not know Geller to have been influenced by her. Let me ask, how many here would have been aware of all the opposition had it not been for the media having picked up on Geller's blog, bringing her on show, thus getting her known by Jihad Watch, willing to fund her so she could establish 'Stop Islamization of America' which she could then use to finance public protests, provide loud-speaker equipment, advertise, etc.? Let's not forget, even Fox News was supportive of the mosque until they brought Geller on to be interviewed (and even then they sometimes criticized her. Yikes!).

You might not know Geller, but you do know her organized protests in NYC, just as one might not know Blake but still know 'The Tyger'.

[Guest American Woman]

What operation? As AW indicated before, Geller was and still remains largely unknown to all but the few interested in following this narrative. Her profile remains quite low compared to an Anne Coulter or Al Sharpton.

According to nicky10013, Sarah Palin and Fox News are to blame. While I have heard of them, I listen to neither. Ever.

I don't know where this idea that those who oppose the property are being driven by some sort of movement, like lemmings all jumping off a cliff. "Follow the leader!" I don't know why it's so difficult to understand that people feel the way they do because it's the way they feel. No one is telling them to feel that way; they just do. And it's understandable.

It makes me wonder if they are being driven by some outside force to think the way they do. If not, why would they assume others are?

[nicky10013]

According to nicky10013, Sarah Palin and Fox News are to blame. While I have heard of them, I listen to neither. Ever.

I don't know where this idea that those who oppose the property are being driven by some sort of movement, like lemmings all jumping off a cliff. "Follow the leader!" I don't know why it's so difficult to understand that people feel the way they do because it's the way they feel. No one is telling them to feel that way; they just do. And it's understandable.

It makes me wonder if they are being driven by some outside force to think the way they do. If not, why would they assume others are?

I think the force is Islamophobia. You don't have to be influenced by Palin and Beck to feel that way, but a lot of people do.

My outside force is the fact is that Toronto is filled with peaceful, moderate muslim families. I have quite a few muslim friends who are incredibly smart and their families are the same way. I've eaten dinner in their houses, I've been to their mosques.

Why should they suffer the slings and arrows of such a divisive campaign because you just don't like the fact that there's going to be a mosque near ground zero? They're fearful of what's going to happen, they're upset because they feel people are attempting to take their rights away and it's THEIR fault? These people had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. To paint the situation as otherwise is not only one dimensional thinking but incredibly wrong. They deserve their rights, too.

[bush_cheney2004]

According to nicky10013, Sarah Palin and Fox News are to blame. While I have heard of them, I listen to neither. Ever.

Like I said earlier, you have highlighted that not only do some of these folks learn about America through a media soda straw, but they keep going for the same drink! So a Palin or Beck become their easiest obsession, and views are devoid of any other input or perspective. One member here actually posted that there is no mainstream liberal media...amazing!

I don't know where this idea that those who oppose the property are being driven by some sort of movement, like lemmings all jumping off a cliff. "Follow the leader!" I don't know why it's so difficult to understand that people feel the way they do because it's the way they feel. No one is telling them to feel that way; they just do. And it's understandable.

They are thinking the same way they did when George Bush was re-elected, despite the fact that nearly 50% of voters chose a different candidate. Americans have the right to feel as they do. Can you imagine the outcry if Americans injected themselves into a controversy in Canada?

It makes me wonder if they are being driven by some outside force to think the way they do. If not, why would they assume others are?

Some of them are working with an idealized version of America that doesn't match reality...today...or many yesterdays. They cannot reconcile the differences and are frustrated with how they think the political narrative should go from a Canadian perspective. Their world is not validated unless what they see in American media is congruent (e.g California and same gender marriage).

[Shady]

I think the force is Islamophobia.

I think much of Islam is to blame as well. Did anyone see Fareed Zakaria today? Yikes!

Video

Watch the 3rd interview. It's fascinating, but very scary.

[jbg]

Oh, I've heard that one over and over again. And of course it's ok to hate America as that's not the same as hating Americans. But boy, oh, boy. If you have one negative thing to say about Islam, you hate Muslims. You are a bigot. Pure and simple. No two ways about it.

It's interesting how these left wingers are so into gay and womens' rights except when it comes to a culture that won't let them drive, vote or hold office.

[nicky10013]

I think much of Islam is to blame as well. Did anyone see Fareed Zakaria today? Yikes!

Video

Watch the 3rd interview. It's fascinating, but very scary.

Yeah, and Zakaria picked him apart. Not just for his beliefs but for his claims that this version of Islam is popular. It isn't.

[nicky10013]

It's interesting how these left wingers are so into gay and womens' rights except when it comes to a culture that won't let them drive, vote or hold office.

Well, considering muslim women here are certainly allowed to drive here (and they do), I don't see your point. We live in a pluralist society which believes in individual freedoms. People can generally do what they want as long as they don't harm others. That includes the practice of whatever religion you chose or expressing your love for any person you'd like regardless of sexual orientation. The two things fit perfectly.

Funny, when you really think about it, the recurring narrative that lefties hate freedom is absolutely topsey turvey. On issues such as gay rights, the rights for muslims, abortion; each time the "left" sides with individual liberty while it's right wing reactionaries that want those rights taken away. Back to the constitution? My ass the constitution.

Edited September 6, 2010 by nicky10013

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, considering muslim women here are certainly allowed to drive here (and they do), I don't see your point. We live in a pluralist society which believes in individual freedoms. People can generally do what they want as long as they don't harm others. That includes the practice of whatever religion you chose or expressing your love for any person you'd like regardless of sexual orientation. The two things fit perfectly.

No, in fact there are many restrictions to your free-for-all description, from vice laws against prostituion, drug trafficking, gambling, pagan animal sacrifice, polygamy, incest, machine guns, etc., etc.

[Tawasakm]

I thought this looked like an interesting topic but 147 pages? Thats too much to catch up on...

[Guest American Woman]

I thought this looked like an interesting topic but 147 pages? Thats too much to catch up on...

Do you have any thoughts on it that you'd like to share?