Anti-Mosque Hysteria Elsewhere, Too

[Guest American Woman]

I have pointed out in several threads that even hate spewing Imams should be shut as well. But to say hate speech is exclusive to Islam extremists, is not doing you any justice.

Since I've never said such any such thing, your accusation doesn't do you any justice.

We have homophobia within certain Christian sects, and (essentially sanctioned) pedophiles within the Catholic church. Some of these problems are more close to home and have a greater continuing affect on society compared to a terror attack.

I've been just as outspoken about homophobia within those certain sects, so you're preaching to the choir. But to say pedophilia is "essentially sanctioned" within the Catholic church is most definitely not doing you any justice. In fact, I can just imagine the outpouring of outrage that would be directed at me if I were to say terrorism is "essentially sanctioned" within Islam. Yet I'm sure you won't hear a peep about being a "bigot." That accusation is reserved for anyone who dares question even one move by Muslims, even though said person applies the same standards across the board.

Yes we have hate spewing Imams, and it is in our best interest to shut them up, but at the same time we have to shut all the extremists up to make any kind of progress. Once we are all on the same page, we can work together to make things better. We can't pick and chose which extremist to confront while ignoring others, you and I would be doing a disservice to that end.

I have no idea who you think I'm trying to "shut up." I've said over and over and over and over again that I think they have a right to build the mosque there, I just don't agree with the decision. I've said over and over and over again that it's the property that I'm objecting to.

Even as an agnostic/athiest I will defend Islam. I have never defended Jihad, and there is not one thing out there that you can find which would support that. (edit, there is nothing out there that says I support Jihad).

Good for you. Yet you not only don't defend Catholicism with the same fervor, you have no problem accusing the church of "essentially sanctioning" pedophiles. Says a lot about you, really.

Regardless of my dislike of religion, but I prefer to live let live. If the religion works for you then go for it.

HOWEVER:

Islam is not the problem. It's those who have hijacked the religion for their own specific means, those people are the problem. Which I have come out against every single time. Just like Christianity and Catholicism are not the problem, it's those who continue to spew the hate and abuse the children which are the problem.

I never said Islam was the problem. Again, you are preaching to the choir. It's people within the religion, acting on their religion, that are the problem. Therefore, in this instance, it's MUSLIMS who are the problem. To try to sugarcoat it any other way is to simply ignore the facts. What is religion, after all, other than the people who follow it? In and of itself, it's nothing but a concept. It's not a creation, something concrete, like a tree. It's nothing more than people's ideas of what the religion is.

No I just don't agree with singling out Islam for it's so called wrong doings when most of the other religions are just getting out of the diapers but still act like crying babies.

Who is singling it out?

Fight extremism across the board, or don't fight it at all.

So what, exactly, should we be fighting that isn't already being fought?

[dre]

Since I've never said such any such thing, your accusation doesn't do you any justice.

I've been just as outspoken about homophobia within those certain sects, so you're preaching to the choir. But to say pedophilia is "essentially sanctioned" within the Catholic church is most definitely not doing you any justice. In fact, I can just imagine the outpouring of outrage that would be directed at me if I were to say terrorism is "essentially sanctioned" within Islam. Yet I'm sure you won't hear a peep about being a "bigot." That accusation is reserved for anyone who dares question even one move by Muslims, even though said person applies the same standards across the board.

I have no idea who you think I'm trying to "shut up." I've said over and over and over and over again that I think they have a right to build the mosque there, I just don't agree with the decision. I've said over and over and over again that it's the property that I'm objecting to.

Good for you. Yet you not only don't defend Catholicism with the same fervor, you have no problem accusing the church of "essentially sanctioning" pedophiles. Says a lot about you, really.

I never said Islam was the problem. Again, you are preaching to the choir. It's people within the religion, acting on their religion, that are the problem. Therefore, in this instance, it's MUSLIMS who are the problem. To try to sugarcoat it any other way is to simply ignore the facts. What is religion, after all, other than the people who follow it? In and of itself, it's nothing but a concept. It's not a creation, something concrete, like a tree. It's nothing more than people's ideas of what the religion is.

Who is singling it out?

So what, exactly, should we be fighting that isn't already being fought?

Therefore, in this instance, it's MUSLIMS who are the problem.

No it really isnt. The fact that the highjackers were muslims was not the defining factor that lead to 911. The defining factor was that they were ALQEADA MEMBERS... members of a terrorist organization that has a history of trying to eject foreigners from the middle east, starting with the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Its this political/terrorist organization that is the enemy. Not a religion. And if AlQaeda were the ones trying to build this church then I think more people would agree with you. But they arent.

[Shady]

But you and others rarely do speak out when a non-muslim is spewing any type of hate.

I'm less interested in people that speak and more interested in people that do. And anything of Democrats that I've posted hasn't been about them speaking hate. Usually it's politically stupid instances. But nothing close to what hate speech, and nothing close to suicide bombings and/or terrorist attacks.

It's sad that you can't seperate the two. But I guess after 300+ pages in multiple theads, I shouldn't be suprised.

[Shady]

We have homophobia within certain Christian sects, and (essentially sanctioned) pedophiles within the Catholic church.

Those aren't really Catholic preists. They're a bunch of people who've hijacked Christianity. They aren't real Christians or Catholics.

[DogOnPorch]

Those aren't really Catholic preists. They're a bunch of people who've hijacked Christianity. They aren't real Christians or Catholics.

Not bad...

[jbg]

No it really isnt. The fact that the highjackers were muslims was not the defining factor that lead to 911. The defining factor was that they were ALQEADA MEMBERS... members of a terrorist organization that has a history of trying to eject foreigners from the middle east, starting with the Soviets in Afghanistan.

There's one fact that really hasn't been discussed. The "community center" is largely a business, not a residential area. There is not a compelling need for a worship center there. This is all about the symbolism of constructing a symbol of victory near the site of the attack. Very similar to the Muslims' decision to construct the Al Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount. That decision has made it inconceivable that the Third Temple could ever be built (and personally for other reasons I think building the Third Temple would be a terrible idea).

Its this political/terrorist organization that is the enemy. Not a religion. And if AlQaeda were the ones trying to build this church then I think more people would agree with you. But they arent.

The trouble is you'll never hear the Imam come out unequivocally against Al Quaeda. Just won't happen. He'll decry "violence" or "terror" in "all its forms" and make sure that's understood to include Zionism and America's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[dre]

There's one fact that really hasn't been discussed. The "community center" is largely a business, not a residential area. There is not a compelling need for a worship center there. This is all about the symbolism of constructing a symbol of victory near the site of the attack. Very similar to the Muslims' decision to construct the Al Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount. That decision has made it inconceivable that the Third Temple could ever be built (and personally for other reasons I think building the Third Temple would be a terrible idea).

The trouble is you'll never hear the Imam come out unequivocally against Al Quaeda. Just won't happen. He'll decry "violence" or "terror" in "all its forms" and make sure that's understood to include Zionism and America's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thats not true. Lots of Islamic scholars and leaders have denounced AlQeada and their tactics.

[GostHacked]

Those aren't really Catholic preists. They're a bunch of people who've hijacked Christianity. They aren't real Christians or Catholics.

If a Catholic Priest abuses your kids, is he really a Catholic? No. It's not that hard to understand that people who violate the religion's laws (mostly to uphold those same laws) do not belong to the religion.

[GostHacked]

Thats not true. Lots of Islamic scholars and leaders have denounced AlQeada and their tactics.

Why are we not hearing more of it? Are they being sidelined? If so, why and how? I guess it does not sell the news the way a Muslim terrorist would. And when we hear about moderate muslims speaking out against it, why do many shut them out?

[Guest American Woman]

If a Catholic Priest abuses your kids, is he really a Catholic? No. It's not that hard to understand that people who violate the religion's laws (mostly to uphold those same laws) do not belong to the religion.

Yes, they do belong to the religion. Believe it or not, it's not up to you to decide whether they are a member of that religion or not. It's up to their church. And unless they are excommunicated, they are indeed Catholics.

Just as the terrorists are Muslim, whether they be al Qaeda, Hamas, a member of some other group, or or no group at all. They are Muslims.

Just as a Canadian who had violated Canadian law is still a Canadian.

[Aleksandar Maksimovic]

I don't know if you heard about this.

I was watching the news this morning about this, people were saying pros and cons of making that building at that

place.

Then out of nowhere some man said.

''All muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims''

Sounds like Irish people are islamic.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_groups

People who will most likely be against this are more or less bad informed about the world.

But I agree that those Islamic people could make there Mosque somewhere else...

Anyway, that's my thought.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Aleksandar Maksimovic

[jbg]

Why are we not hearing more of it? Are they being sidelined? If so, why and how? I guess it does not sell the news the way a Muslim terrorist would. And when we hear about moderate muslims speaking out against it, why do many shut them out?

I don't think they're particularly eloquent or unequivocal in their pronouncements.

[dre]

I don't think they're particularly eloquent or unequivocal in their pronouncements.

Its not that, its that people preaching peace and tolerance DONT MAKE THE NEWS. Suicide bombers DO.

[Shady]

If a Catholic Priest abuses your kids, is he really a Catholic?

Just using your twisted logic. You could apply that standard to any definable group of people. It's ridiculous.

No. It's not that hard to understand that people who violate the religion's laws (mostly to uphold those same laws) do not belong to the religion.

Not really. According to Islam, there are only two major aspects to defining one as a Muslim. Believing in God(Allah). And believing that Muhammad was his last prophet.

[DogOnPorch]

Just using your twisted logic. You could apply that standard to any definable group of people. It's ridiculous.

Not really. According to Islam, there are only two major aspects to defining one as a Muslim. Believing in God(Allah). And believing that Muhammad was his last prophet.

Correct. There is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his messenger.

[BubberMiley]

Just using your twisted logic. You could apply that standard to any definable group of people. It's ridiculous.

Any definable group of people who, by definition, follow a moral code.

But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

[Shady]

Any definable group of people who, by definition, follow a moral code.

Like I've already said. Using that idiotic logic, almost every definable group could claim it doesn't have any undesirable members. It could be said of any or most countries, religions, clubs, businesses, races, political parties, etc, etc, etc. Use your brain.

[BubberMiley]

Use your brain.

You pretend you don't know what a moral code is, and tell me to use my brain?

Edited August 24, 2010 by BubberMiley

[GostHacked]

Yes, they do belong to the religion. Believe it or not, it's not up to you to decide whether they are a member of that religion or not. It's up to their church. And unless they are excommunicated, they are indeed Catholics.

And this is the reason I said that pedophilia was essentially sanctioned within the Catholic church system. Have any of those who did the abusing been reprimanded? Jailed? Fined? There was that huge controvery last year about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184828/Revealed-decades-ritual-child-abuse-Catholic-schools-orphanages-damned-report.html

Church leaders and government watchdogs covered up 'endemic' and 'ritualised' abuse of thousands of children in Roman Catholic schools and orphanages in the Irish Republic, a shocking report revealed yesterday.

Would you really consider those people catholics?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_catholic_league_downplays.php

Posted on: May 22, 2009 9:07 AM, by PZ Myers

Bill Donohue must be greatly distressed right now, since a commission has blown open the doors on a long history of child abuse by the Irish Catholic Church. He's scrambling to do damage control and making a pathetic spectacle of himself. He basically belittles the trauma that those kids experienced to salvage the reputation of his beloved Catholicism…it doesn't work.

No they should not be considered Catholics at all.

Just as the terrorists are Muslim, whether they be al Qaeda, Hamas, a member of some other group, or or no group at all. They are Muslims.

Were the Branch Davidians Christians or an oddball out of the mainstream Christian group? This comes down to different sects within a religion because not all of them interperet the religious text the same way. The different factions of Christianity prove it. Are they still Christians or a radical fringe element of Christianity?

Just as a Canadian who had violated Canadian law is still a Canadian.

And if we break the law we are dealt with. Jail time. Many who have violated church laws (at the same time they are breaking civil laws), while telling everyone else to uphold them should not be considered a member of that religion. If the church and followers are not willing to do anything about it, then guess what, the abuse will continue.

[DogOnPorch]

Were the Branch Davidians Christians or an oddball out of the mainstream Christian group? This comes down to different sects within a religion because not all of them interperet the religious text the same way. The different factions of Christianity prove it. Are they still Christians or a radical fringe element of Christianity?

The BD are indeed Christian. They tend towards wackiness as they are convinced they are living in the End Times and the Second Coming is just around the corner.

[Shady]

The BD are indeed Christian.

Exactly. Of course they were Christian. Unfortunately, there are a million times more radical Muslims than BDs. Possibly even a hundred million times more now. That's why it's hilarious to listen to so many people in this forum try to draw some type of equivilance between the two. As if a dozen or so people, who want to be left alone, poses the same threat as tens of millions of people, who seek out others to do harm in any way they can.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes, societies in most cases created by Christians.

Uh no, Societies created through secularism. Societies where Christian influence, and all other religious influence, was kept out of Government.

I define it by people willing to commit very violent acts. Even if it's just 1% of Muslims. Thats still 150 million people.

So what? It's still just one percent. This is why percentage is used instead of raw numbers when comparing different sized populations. If 1% of Christians are radical, and 1% of Muslims are radical that's the same amount, even if the population sizes are different, and it shows that a Muslim is no more likely to be radical than a Christian. IE you take a group of 100 Christians, and 100 Muslims and only one of each will be of the bat sh!t crazy variety.

just as the terrorists are Muslims. They aren't part of some oddball out of the mainstream Muslim group.

Uh yes actually they are, just like the Westboro Baptists are an oddball non-mainstream group. While the Muslims that are building are moderates belonging to a moderate Muslim group, which is something even fox said before all this started up. So for years now I've heard people asking "Where are the moderate Muslims?" And what happens when they show up? People sh!t all over them, accusing them of being terrorists sympathizers and radicals. If I was a Muslim I would keep my head down to.

[DogOnPorch]

Exactly. Of course they were Christian. Unfortunately, there are a million times more radical Muslims than BDs. Possibly even a hundred million times more now. That's why it's hilarious to listen to so many people in this forum try to draw some type of equivilance between the two. As if a dozen or so people, who want to be left alone, poses the same threat as tens of millions of people, who seek out others to do harm in any way they can.

It's the relativism I speak of. As in:

DOP: Good gosh! That Taliban fellow just cut that other fellow's head off with a sword!

Relativist #1: The dead guy must have really pissed that fellow with the sword off.

Relativist #2: Sword murders are common in our society as well.

Relativist #3: Some of my best friends own swords.

[Jack Weber]

The BD are indeed Christian. They tend towards wackiness as they are convinced they are living in the End Times and the Second Coming is just around the corner.

Not just around the corner....Almost immediately.

However,if anyone has an even rudimentary knowledge of End Time prophecy,they would have known that the Prophetical Timeline was way off the mark.

David Koresh was a leader through the cult of his personality and the poor knowledge of his followers.They were easily duped by what amounts to a megalomaniacal charlatan...

[ToadBrother]

I don't know if you heard about this.

I was watching the news this morning about this, people were saying pros and cons of making that building at that

place.

Then out of nowhere some man said.

''All muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims''

Sounds like Irish people are islamic.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_groups

People who will most likely be against this are more or less bad informed about the world.

But I agree that those Islamic people could make there Mosque somewhere else...

Anyway, that's my thought.

The Basques in ETA will be shocked to hear of their new affiliation. As will the FLQ, the Shining Path guerrillas and the Sikh extremists. I'm fairly certain Timothy McVay would have been profoundly disturbed to find out he was a Muslim.