Burn a Qu'ran Day.

[Jack Weber]

Indeed. Clearly, no Muslim or Christian has ever taken a life in all of recorded history, since killing is expressly against the sacred literature. Likewise, no pro-lifer has ever shot an abortion doctor (since, obviously, that would be an anti-life thing to do.)

Clearly, every alleged Christian or Muslim who has taken a life must actually be a godless atheist. The homicides attributed to the pro-life movement are, clearly, the fault of pro-death people, and can not be blamed on the pro-life movement in the least. It's obvious, when you think about it.

-k

Kimmy

Here's a fairly deep question...And it's not just for you,but for others,as well...

I'll preface this by saying that I ask this question whenever I get the,"Do you know how many people have been killed by people invoking"In the name of God"" response from those who may not necessarily be of faith...

Do you think that it's God who kills people in the name of God,or,is it the humanistic machinations of mankind killing other people while erroneously use the cover of God and faith to justify murder?

Edited August 20, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Smallc]

It's (as its supporters continuously point out) not *just* a mosque. It's "Muslim outreach", it's "dawah", it's an invitation to non-Muslims to come acquaint themselves with Islam.

Oh, I'm shaking in my boots already.

[kimmy]

Do you think that it's God who kills people in the name of God,or,is it the humanistic machinations of mankind killing other people while erroneously use the cover of God and faith to justify murder?

Well, being an atheist, I don't believe God kills anybody. However, I don't see what that has to do with the point at hand.

Bubbles suggests that the 9/11 hijackers weren't real Muslims because real Muslims are forbidden from killing.

Is that actually true? I don't think it is. Considering prominent clerics in the religion have advocated death to those they perceive as enemies, and considering the prominence of capital punishment in the Muslim world, I think that's a highly doubtful claim. Additionally, I think there's probably plenty of justification in the scripture to suggest that killing is justified in certain circumstances anyway. (and the same goes for Christians, before anybody offers that tired old response.)

Oh, I'm shaking in my boots already.

Either read the whole message and respond to the point I was making, or don't respond at all.

-k

[Jack Weber]

Well, being an atheist, I don't believe God kills anybody. However, I don't see what that has to do with the point at hand.

Bubbles suggests that the 9/11 hijackers weren't real Muslims because real Muslims are forbidden from killing.

Is that actually true? I don't think it is. Considering prominent clerics in the religion have advocated death to those they perceive as enemies, and considering the prominence of capital punishment in the Muslim world, I think that's a highly doubtful claim. Additionally, I think there's probably plenty of justification in the scripture to suggest that killing is justified in certain circumstances anyway. (and the same goes for Christians, before anybody offers that tired old response.)

Either read the whole message and respond to the point I was making, or don't respond at all.

-k

Perhaps the question was'nt clear enough...

In a previous post you said that,"Clearly,no Muslim or Christian(or,for the purposes of this discussion,Jew)has ever taken a human life in recorded history,since killing is expressly against the sacred literature",which is a correct interpretation.

Now,I realize that you've said that you don't think that God kills anyone...You've also said you're an Atheist(interesting ...)

So the question to you,and anyone else,is...

If it's not God doing the killing,is'nt it the failed humans using God as a convenient cover to justify killing?And therefore,it's not faith at all that's being impugned,but the weakness of those who claim to be of faith that should rightly be impugned?

[DogOnPorch]

kimmy: Bubbles suggests that the 9/11 hijackers weren't real Muslims because real Muslims are forbidden from killing.

It is as TM mentioned, it's the 'No True Scotsman Fallacy'.

[DogOnPorch]

....or Arjuna's Dilemma?...the Cat Came Back? Coke vs Pepsi?

[Smallc]

Either read the whole message and respond to the point I was making, or don't respond at all.

-k

I read the message. The message was....to put it in a nice context....paranoid.

[BubberMiley]

Now, if some pro-life organization deliberately purchased the site of some pro-life massacre, and built their pro-life outreach center on the site, with lofty claims that they wanted to build bridges with pro-choice people and share understanding of the pro-life point of view, we both know they'd be pilloried for the move. And we both know that their claims that they weren't trying to capitalize on the notoriety of the massacre would be met with skepticism, and we both know that they'd be accused of insensitivity and cynicism and of attempting to exploit the massacre for political reasons.

I think it comes down to whether you look at other people first as individuals or as part of a larger group. If all you can think about pro-life supporters is an association with those who murder abortion providers, you're going to be opposed to such a move. So yes, we both know they would be accused of insensitivity, but unless those pro-life supporters took part in the murder, those making the accusations would be wrong.

Next.

[kimmy]

I read the message. The message was....to put it in a nice context....paranoid.

The point was not that "outreach", "dawah", and "inviting westerners to explore Islam" are in and of themselves scary.

The point was that (as we all agree) the project is not strictly a mosque, but an outreach project, and that the site for this outreach project has been chosen to capitalize on the 9/11 attacks.

I think it comes down to whether you look at other people first as individuals or as part of a larger group. If all you can think about pro-life supporters is an association with those who murder abortion providers, you're going to be opposed to such a move. So yes, we both know they would be accused of insensitivity, but unless those pro-life supporters took part in the murder, those making the accusations would be wrong.

Next.

If the pro-lifers building the site chose the site as a means of capitalizing on the notoriety of some anti-abortion massacre, then no, it would not be wrong to accuse them of insensitivity in this decision.

-k

[kimmy]

Perhaps the question was'nt clear enough...

In a previous post you said that,"Clearly,no Muslim or Christian(or,for the purposes of this discussion,Jew)has ever taken a human life in recorded history,since killing is expressly against the sacred literature",which is a correct interpretation.

I don't think it's the correct interpretation. I think it might be one interpretation, but considering the number of followers of all of these religions that have been able to justify taking lives in certain contexts, it's clearly not the only interpretation.

Now,I realize that you've said that you don't think that God kills anyone...You've also said you're an Atheist(interesting ...)

Why is it interesting?

So the question to you,and anyone else,is...

If it's not God doing the killing,is'nt it the failed humans using God as a convenient cover to justify killing?And therefore,it's not faith at all that's being impugned,but the weakness of those who claim to be of faith that should rightly be impugned?

Obviously it's a matter of the interpretation of the scripture that's the issue. But considering the history of Christianity, and considering the current state of much of the Muslim world (and arguably some Christian places as well...) it's obvious that many many followers of both faiths have interpreted their faith as allowing killing in some circumstances. How is it possible to claim that such people weren't real Christians or Muslims when at many times in history that interpretation was the predominant view?

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Do you think that it's God who kills people in the name of God,or,is it the humanistic machinations of mankind killing other people while erroneously use the cover of God and faith to justify murder?

People kill other people for a variety of reasons, including using the cover of God and faith to justify murder.

As for kimmy's response, as an atheist, how could she think it's God that kills people when she doesn't believe in God? Her answer makes perfect sense to me.

[Guest American Woman]

If it's not God doing the killing,is'nt it the failed humans using God as a convenient cover to justify killing?And therefore,it's not faith at all that's being impugned,but the weakness of those who claim to be of faith that should rightly be impugned?

God doesn't equal faith. Faith/religions are man-made; gospels/beliefs written by man. God/Allah didn't write the Bible/Koran. So of course it can be faith that's being impugned. Faith/religion isn't in and of itself pure just because it's based on a belief in a god.

Edited August 20, 2010 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

Exactly. I can't get any more worked up about this than I have about Muslims burning bibles in the past. And I don't recall any threads about that.

Quite likely that some moderate muslims would have disagreed with burning a bible, just as some here disagree with burning a koran. But that won't stop anybody from doing it, so any those of you who get your jollies, go ahead. You're free to do so, and moderate people are free to frown upon you for it.

[bloodyminded]

I think part of this strain of the religion debate stems from a certain...bloodymindedness, if you will...on the part of the current crop of somewhat active atheists (notably Hitchens and Dawkins). They didn't come up with the Religion-as-Poison idea, of course; it's been around for a long time, and probably has its genesis in the self-criticism of people of Faith themselves. But I think there's a type of atheist--who get all the attention--who are too simplistic in their criticism.

At any rate, the notion that something called "religion" is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths (among other atrocities) seems too much a simplification. Religion can be harmful, neutral, or helpful in various ways. But ultimately, both blame and credit can't be easily laid solely at the feet of Religious thought, for a couple of reasons:

First, if we're going to talk about religious violence (or religious beneficence, for that matter), there are always political components to it. Socio-economic factors, cultural displays and tendencies which are not strictly based on religious interpretation, even if they colour them and are coloured by them. That's why Islam is so different in practice between, say, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, and so on; or how Canadian Anglicans have increasingly liberalized, while their African counterparts (with some exceptions, notably the Bishop Tutu) have moved further into arch-conservatism. There are different Scriptural readings, but these aren't "religion" stark and simple, with no added context. There are murderous, hardcorew fundamentalist Hindus, and strict, draconian Buddhist sects which are anything but "compassionate and peaceful." There are Muslims--a lot more than many seem to think--for whom peace and tolerance are taken as literal commandments from God. The Christian Quakers even have a very large component of atheists and agnostics in their ranks!

Second, related and much more fundamentally, is the fact of human nature. Just as human beings are innately disposed (with faith as fundamentally irrelevant) to fear, love, violence and compassion, these are going to play out, and all are co-opted into religion. This is as inevitable as needing food to survive.

If there were no religion, none at all, I don't think it's a given at all that we'd be more inclined towards peace and tolerance and understanding. I suppose ultimately it's unknowable, because people are what they are. But I see no evidence at all that religion causes cruelty and monstrosities where none would occur otherwise. On the contrary--and this fits in fine with my atheist position--religion naturally takes the already-existing human weaknesses (and, yes, strengths) and grows into them. Religion is not the cause. It might move things in a different direction than they'd go otherwise; but I think it's self-indulgent (and based on a "faith" in secular decency) to think that we'd naturally behave better without religion.

[Jack Weber]

I think part of this strain of the religion debate stems from a certain...bloodymindedness, if you will...on the part of the current crop of somewhat active atheists (notably Hitchens and Dawkins). They didn't come up with the Religion-as-Poison idea, of course; it's been around for a long time, and probably has its genesis in the self-criticism of people of Faith themselves. But I think there's a type of atheist--who get all the attention--who are too simplistic in their criticism.

At any rate, the notion that something called "religion" is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths (among other atrocities) seems too much a simplification. Religion can be harmful, neutral, or helpful in various ways. But ultimately, both blame and credit can't be easily laid solely at the feet of Religious thought, for a couple of reasons:

First, if we're going to talk about religious violence (or religious beneficence, for that matter), there are always political components to it. Socio-economic factors, cultural displays and tendencies which are not strictly based on religious interpretation, even if they colour them and are coloured by them. That's why Islam is so different in practice between, say, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, and so on; or how Canadian Anglicans have increasingly liberalized, while their African counterparts (with some exceptions, notably the Bishop Tutu) have moved further into arch-conservatism. There are different Scriptural readings, but these aren't "religion" stark and simple, with no added context. There are murderous, hardcorew fundamentalist Hindus, and strict, draconian Buddhist sects which are anything but "compassionate and peaceful." There are Muslims--a lot more than many seem to think--for whom peace and tolerance are taken as literal commandments from God. The Christian Quakers even have a very large component of atheists and agnostics in their ranks!

Second, related and much more fundamentally, is the fact of human nature. Just as human beings are innately disposed (with faith as fundamentally irrelevant) to fear, love, violence and compassion, these are going to play out, and all are co-opted into religion. This is as inevitable as needing food to survive.

If there were no religion, none at all, I don't think it's a given at all that we'd be more inclined towards peace and tolerance and understanding. I suppose ultimately it's unknowable, because people are what they are. But I see no evidence at all that religion causes cruelty and monstrosities where none would occur otherwise. On the contrary--and this fits in fine with my atheist position--religion naturally takes the already-existing human weaknesses (and, yes, strengths) and grows into them. Religion is not the cause. It might move things in a different direction than they'd go otherwise; but I think it's self-indulgent (and based on a "faith" in secular decency) to think that we'd naturally behave better without religion.

Interesting...

See,I don't think God intends to kill anyone.

Isaiah states "They will beat their swords into ploughshares,and their spears into pruning hooks...And they will learn war no more."

Note that that is Old Testament.

As Christians,we've not only The Law,but the New Covenent of the New Testament where Jesus certainly does not condone indiscriminant killing..And certainly NOT in the name of God.

Another example that's sort of aroungd what you're talking about.To me,There is a huge difference between personal faith and religion.In fact,religion is only spoken of positively in one instance and the rest of the time it is portrayed negatively.

Example?

The Pharisees were definately religious,but were they faithful?

The answer to that is fairly clear...

Faith is the more personal realtionship with The Creator,by whatever name one wants to call him(Hashem,Jehovah,Yahweh,Allah)...

Religion,at least to me,are the machinations and traditions and rituals that man puts upon people of faith.And that's where the problem lies...Namely Mankinds almost always failed interpretation of what he thinks God wants for Mankind

[Shady]

Now, if some pro-life organization deliberately purchased the site of some pro-life massacre, and built their pro-life outreach center on the site, with lofty claims that they wanted to build bridges with pro-choice people and share understanding of the pro-life point of view, we both know they'd be pilloried for the move.

Great point kimmy.

Not only that, we all saw the uproar Tim Tebow's pro-life superbowl commerical caused. And that had nothing to do with building a shrine near any kind of massacre. It's all part of reilgious freedom and tolerance being a one-way street to certain people.

[BubberMiley]

If the pro-lifers building the site chose the site as a means of capitalizing on the notoriety of some anti-abortion massacre, then no, it would not be wrong to accuse them of insensitivity in this decision.

Excellent point, indeed. Now if only the people building the mosque "capitalized" on 9/11, it would be correct to accuse them of insensitivity too.

Unfortunately, you fail to explain how that is the case.

But I agree with Shady that the pro-life people should certainly be allowed to advertise during the Superbowl. Unlike Shady, I don't adjust my positions on freedom to suit my ideology.

Jon Stewart had an excellent clip yesterday of Charlton Heston responding to criticism of the NRA having their meeting near Columbine. He said, to paraphrase, that to change their plans in light of Columbine would be like admitting they are on the side of the perpetrators.

Heston was right. You're still wrong.

[nicky10013]

Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen

[Guest American Woman]

So if there were a proposal for a christian church to be built near the site of an abortionist homicide, you would sympathize with the pro-choice people objecting and argue the church should not be built?

Me, I would say the pro-choice people shouldn't label all christians as abortionist murderers.

There's no comparison between your scenario and 9-11.

First of all, you are comparing a single homicide to the massacre of thousands. There is no comparison, so your scenario is irrelevant on that point alone.

Secondly, the Christians who have killed abortion doctors aren't part of a group of Christians who have declared the desire to kill as many abortion doctors as possible. They also weren't funded in their mission by a group of Christians hoping to accomplish that very thing.

And they single out abortion doctors because they are angry over the doctor's actions. They aren't going around killing five year olds on their way to Disney World because they are angry over pro-choice.

Furthermore, the property in this scenario would have nothing to do the the homicide, and there would be no memorial erected at the site of the homicide, as there is at the WTC.

If the Burlington Coat Factory had decided to close its doors in 1995, and put the property on the market, and if it was purchased/leased for the purpose of building a Mosque, I'm sure no one would have batted an eye. No one would have opposed it for being too close to the WTC even though extremist Muslims had set off a bomb there, killing six people, in 1993.

[nicky10013]

There's no comparison between your scenario and 9-11.

First of all, you are comparing a single homicide to the massacre of thousands. There is no comparison, so your scenario is irrelevant on that point alone.

Secondly, the Christians who have killed abortion doctors aren't part of a group of Christians who have declared the desire to kill as many abortion doctors as possible. They also weren't funded in their mission by a group of Christians hoping to accomplish that very thing.

And they single out abortion doctors because they are angry over the doctor's actions. They aren't going around killing five year olds on their way to Disney World because they are angry over pro-choice.

Furthermore, the property in this scenario would have nothing to do the the homicide, and there would be no memorial erected at the site of the homicide, as there is at the WTC.

If the Burlington Coat Factory had decided to close its doors in 1995, and put the property on the market, and if it was purchased/leased for the purpose of building a Mosque, I'm sure no one would have batted an eye. No one would have opposed it for being too close to the WTC even though extremist Muslims had set off a bomb there, killing six people, in 1993.

Maybe. What is certain is that the people who want the property, bought it and are entitled to pray where they please. People seem to be forgetting that the war isn't with Islam, but an extremely small group of people using the religion for political gain.

The US constitution is an anti-democratic government. The reason why the bill of rights was created was to make certain priveleges valuable to democratic society are sacrosanct within it despite what popular opinion deems right at a certain time. The framers of the US constitution chose freedom of speech and religion as the first of those rights. No matter who has what opinion on this issue, fomented either from fact or propaganda, can get around the fact that no matter what, constitutionally, these people can have a mosque wherever they want. Protest it? Go ahead, but attempting to stop it is against everything the founders of the US ever stood for.

Edited August 21, 2010 by nicky10013

[Guest American Woman]

You're late to the topic, and I don't expect you to have read through hundreds of posts in the original thread about this mosque, but I've made it clear that it's not about attempting to stop it. It's about their choosing not to build it on that property out of empathy for those who lost family member/loved ones, for those who grieve over 9-11, for those whose lives were changed forever. It's about the fact that but for the actions of 9-11, the property wouldn't even have been available. It's about empathy, understanding, and sensitivity to others; about these feelings being a two-way street.

Yes, they have the right to build there. Most people who oppose the Mosque respect that right. It's not about the right, but rather about doing the right thing.

And, as I've pointed out, there are Muslims who feel this way, too. They too are angry over the idea of building a Mosque on that property.

No one is denying them this mosque; they just want it built on different property, not in the ruins of 9-11, where a memorial to thousands killed by other Muslims stands at the site of the WTC.

Edited August 21, 2010 by American Woman

[nicky10013]

You're late to the thread, and I don't expect you to have read through hundreds of posts, but I've made it clear that it's not about attempting to stop it. It's about their choosing not to build it on that property out of empathy for those who lost family member/loved ones, for those who grieve over 9-11, for those whose lives were changed forever. It's about the fact that but for the actions of 9-11, the property wouldn't even have been available. It's about empathy, understanding, and sensitivity to others; about these feelings being a two-way street.

Yes, they have the right to build there. Most people who oppose the Mosque respect that right. It's not about the right, but rather about doing the right thing.

And, as I've pointed out, there are Muslims who feel this way, too. They too are angry over the idea of building a Mosque on that property.

No one is denying them this mosque; they just want it built on different property, not in the ruins of 9-11, where a memorial to thousands killed by other Muslims stands at the site of the WTC.

I can understand the feeling, but linking a mosque to the general events of 9/11 is incredibly dangerous act. It presupposes truth where there isn't any. That somehow all of the Islamic religion is responsible for the attack and that all of it's supporters are somehow terrorists. It also presupposes that Muslims can't be angry at the attacks that happened; that they're somehow not good enough to honour the people that died there which we absolutely 100% know isn't the case. If you ask me, not letting them have the site or trying to persuade them to move would be far more damaging to the legacy of the victims of 9/11 than if the group got the site.

[Moonlight Graham]

Christian nut-jobs calling attention to the dangers of Islam is like vipers trying to point out the dangers of scorpions.

-k

{or Paulie Shore complaining about how annoying Gilbert Gottfried is.}

Sums it up nicely kimmy.

[Guest American Woman]

I can understand the feeling, but linking a mosque to the general events of 9/11 is incredibly dangerous act. It presupposes truth where there isn't any. That somehow all of the Islamic religion is responsible for the attack and that all of it's supporters are somehow terrorists.

It doesn't presuppose that at all. It just respects that fact that thousands of people did die at the hands of Muslims that day. That's undeniable. Just because it wasn't "all" Muslims doesn't mean that people aren't sensitive to the fact that it was Muslims. We remember the clips of some Muslims dancing in the streets on 9-11, so it's not a stretch to imagine some Muslims seeing this as another victory, and helping to finance it.

It also presupposes that Muslims can't be angry at the attacks that happened; that they're somehow not good enough to honour the people that died there which we absolutely 100% know isn't the case.

Muslims are angry that the attacks happened. As I already pointed out, I've quoted other Muslims in regards to their feelings about this mosque; Muslims who feel exactly the way I and many others do.

Muslims can honor the people who died there without a mosque on that property; that isn't any more necessary for them to honor the people who died there than a church or synagogue or temple is necessary for people of those faiths to honor the dead.

If you ask me, not letting them have the site or trying to persuade them to move would be far more damaging to the legacy of the victims of 9/11 than if the group got the site.

Again, not letting them have this site isn't really part of this issue as most people totally respect their right.

And if you ask me, and the majority of New Yorkers and Americans, including many Muslims, not moving the project to another site will do the opposite of the stated intention of the people in charge of this project. It's already evident that it's creating hard feelings; that it's upsetting too many people. Rather than improving relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, it seems to be pushing those relations further back. It's doing the opposite of the stated intention, and I think that alone would be reason enough for those in charge of the project to want to build it elsewhere -- if building bridges really is their intention. That one act on the part of Muslims would do more to build good will than any other that I can think of post 9-11.

So it's not a matter of denying them the mosque; it's a matter of believing they should choose to build elsewhere. That they should be empathetic and sensitive to those whose lives were changed forever on 9-11.

[BubberMiley]

Secondly, the Christians who have killed abortion doctors aren't part of a group of Christians who have declared the desire to kill as many abortion doctors as possible. They also weren't funded in their mission by a group of Christians hoping to accomplish that very thing.

I didn't realize the muslims who put forward the plan to build this mosque declared their desire to kill as many Americans as possible and funded that mission. I was under the impression they were moderates. Thanks for clarifying that.

I wonder why they aren't in Guantanamo or something.