toldailytopic: How do you feel about building a mosque at ground zero?

[The Barbarian]

So the families are divided, so let's somewhat ignore the majority

If even the families of the victims can't agree that this building is a problem, why are you so frantically trying to stop it?

marginalize their suffering, as largely political.....there's some more compassion......

That's the point; you guys are trying to manipulate the victims as a way of attacking people you don't like. It's dispicable. And BTW, the right has repeatedly attacked the victim's families. Your sensitive compassion for them has converted them from "harpies" (Ann Coulter's description) to "suffering victims." You're a right wing Al Sharpton.

I have retained my sense of fairness and decency.

If "fairness" means "a different standards for people you don't like" and "decency" means "exploiting suffering for a political goal", I guess.

You have simply redefined "compassion" for unfairness and indecency.

It is neither fair nor decent to build a mosque within two blocks of the victims, of the terrorists who claimed their deeds in the name of Allah, and that their Allah is superior.

It is neither fair nor decent to tar the people building the structure with the motives of the terrorists. You care about the suffering of the people who happen to agree with you. The rest don't matter, because they don't serve your purposes.

Funny how you changed my word few, which is ambiguous, to a couple, which means two.

(bigots hate it when their ambiguity is stripped away)

Nevertheless, I would answer your question by saying no "nearer" than any other existing mosque? at the least. Ten blocks would assuage my personal sense of decency.

Fortunately, it's still America, so your personal prejudices, even if you can convince a majority of them, don't matter. Your clumsy attempt to tie all Muslims to the terrorists will ultimately fail.

Does two blocks appease your sense of fairness and decency?

Personally, I would disagree with building anything directly on ground zero. But I don't want the area cleared for ten blocks. The site itself is sufficient.

We differ mainly in that I don't have any fear of or hatred for Muslims; so it doesn't bother me if they build a community center a couple of blocks away.

 

[Uberpod1]

I'd love to see a mosque at ground zero, not just a learning center down the road.

 

[Nick_A]

I suppose the question boils down to this. If this particular group of Muslims, led by this Imam, is truly extending out its hand in an act of friendship and mutual understanding, can I reject that hand.

Yes I can. Must I feel badly about it. NO! There are plenty of people that Yeshua said to be wary of, and not associate with them. This particular group of Muslims and what they are proposing to do, raises a multitude of red flags. Are they a type of wolf in sheep's clothing. They certainly give many indications of being such. The prime example is their unwillingness to stop their project, as of yet, despite its creating outrage and hurt upon the survivors, and their unwillingness to move their site, despite kind and generous offers of help and support.

A true hand offered in friendship, would have already done so, IMO.
That is why I do not trust them.

Islam in any name has a lot to prove across America, and especially in the middle East and Africa. This group, has to cross a high threshhold, not the low one, based upon our American history and beliefs.

Americans and Christians have very little to prove, and practically nothing to gain by accepting this particular hand of friendship.

The burden is upon this Imam to show Islam as tolerant and compassionate. He made a mistake by choosing a site two blocks from ground zero, and he refuses to correct that mistake, in the present. That speaks volumes to me.

I won't accept cries of bias, from the biased.

Hi Todah

I suppose the question boils down to this. If this particular group of Muslims, led by this Imam, is truly extending out its hand in an act of friendship and mutual understanding, can I reject that hand.

I agree, That is it in a nutshell.

Yes I can. Must I feel badly about it. NO! There are plenty of people that Yeshua said to be wary of, and not associate with them. This particular group of Muslims and what they are proposing to do, raises a multitude of red flags. Are they a type of wolf in sheep's clothing. They certainly give many indications of being such. The prime example is their unwillingness to stop their project, as of yet, despite its creating outrage and hurt upon the survivors, and their unwillingness to move their site, despite kind and generous offers of help and support.

If we consider ourselves men, we defend ourselves, our families, our community, and our country if we value them and the ideals they are founded upon. We cannot sell them cheaply so as to be considered politically correct.

There was an attack on Ground Zero from Islamic terrorists. From Wiki:

Islamic terrorism is terrorism[1] committed by Muslims, and aimed at achieving varying political ends[2] and the advancement of Islamist goals; for example, Osama bin Laden's stated goal of ending American military presence in the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula,[3][4] overthrowing Arab regimes he considers corrupt and insufficiently religious,[3][4] and stopping American support for Israel.[5]
Observers have also argued that the attacks are aimed at propagating Islamic culture, society and values in opposition to perceived political, imperialistic, and/or cultural influences of non-Muslims, and the Western world in particular.[6][7]

It is only rational to assert that the purpose of the attack was in part to further Sharia law. It would be naive then for anyone to think a cultural center with the intent of furthering Sharia law is done with the purpose of assimilation and furthering American values.

If it were not the case then the builders of the mosque would bend over backwards to prove their good will. By refusing to move just proves they would consider it a defeat. If the aim is victory for sharia law then defeat is not tolerable. It is not surprising then that the builders refuse to move.

A true hand offered in friendship, would have already done so, IMO.
That is why I do not trust them.

You are quite right not to trust. If you read some of the translations of what Rauf has said for the Arabic papers, bridge building is not the goal. Furthering Sharia law is.

The burden is upon this Imam to show Islam as tolerant and compassionate. He made a mistake by choosing a site two blocks from ground zero, and he refuses to correct that mistake, in the present. That speaks volumes to me.

Of course. I would only disagree that it wasn't a mistake. It is an intentional effort to establish a symbol of victory for furthering Sharia Law.

Do the families that suffered the direct effects of the attack on Ground Zero have to have a symbol of its victory established on the site of a damaged building? Of course not. It may be legal though zoning regulations could deny it. But it isn't ethical and no amount of Interfaith BS can deny the obvious.

A cultural center furthering Sharia law at ground zero is not necessary for any religious needs of Muslims. There already are many mosques The builders do not want to move for political reasons. If they were ethical, moving it to a different location would be the right thing and a gesture of understanding and friendship. It isn't the case and all this bridge building is nothing but a con job.

The families and local residents not only have the right but the obligation to protest it if they value the American ideals the attack was directed against and the attempted establishment of a symbol of victory and a center for furthering Sharia law on the site of a national tragedy..

 

[Nick_A]

Different animal. I've answered on this point. Catholicism isn't a parallel to Islam. What's your reaction to the Japanese not raising a hue and cry when a Catholic center was built in the shadow of the horror of nuclear annihilation sponsored by a Christian nation?

That's silly. I didn't declare. I set out exactly why it is warmed over bigotry. Find a flaw in it or not, but don't pretend you've answered a single point of my objection or that you have reason on your side of it. You have sentiment and emotionalism and the inevitable end of that sort of distortion: an unreasonable demand on an innocent people.

It is. But it isn't a parallel.

I agree that people have the right in this country, subject to the restraint of the law, to utter whatever ignorance pleases them and theirs. I counsel against it though.

Rather, it's considered bigoted and/or ignorant by anyone who isn't.

Utter garbage from beginning to end. There's nothing justifiable in the sudden fervor and protest, it isn't at ground zero, it is a house of worship and the crowd roars its approval, so the "correct" sentiment is with the face of angry, unreasoned bias.

So do I. I'm glad they're building a memorial. That's not what we're talking about.

Ironic and funny, since only one side is profiting by this and it isn't the minority voice or reason.

You mean the louder, larger part? No, they aren't. And unlike you I've done more than declare and kept my distinctions honest. I'd say shame on you were I convinced you were capable of it.

Said the only one here to ever utter the term about anyone.

The Jews were a people unreasonably persecuted, dehumanized and eventually reviled, captured and massacred by the millions. Shame on you for approaching that memory given your position in this...

I omit your bizarre struggle with arguments other than my own.

Different animal. I've answered on this point. Catholicism isn't a parallel to Islam. What's your reaction to the Japanese not raising a hue and cry when a Catholic center was built in the shadow of the horror of nuclear annihilation sponsored by a Christian nation?

You seem to have this obsession with groups. Forget about Japan, Ethiopia, or anywhere else. Were the Carmelite nuns being considerate even though they had nothing to do with the Holocaust?

That's silly. I didn't declare. I set out exactly why it is warmed over bigotry. Find a flaw in it or not, but don't pretend you've answered a single point of my objection or that you have reason on your side of it. You have sentiment and emotionalism and the inevitable end of that sort of distortion: an unreasonable demand on an innocent people.

You are calling me a bigot because I object to a Sharia cultural center at ground zero. I differentiate between exponents of Sharia like Rauf and Muslims like Frithjof Schuon, For you they are all the same. It isn't that way for me.

Utter garbage from beginning to end. There's nothing justifiable in the sudden fervor and protest, it isn't at ground zero, it is a house of worship and the crowd roars its approval, so the "correct" sentiment is with the face of angry, unreasoned bias.

It isn't a house of worship. It is a political cultural center with the intent of furthering Sharia law. Furthering Sharia law was one of the goals of the attack.

Said the only one here to ever utter the term about anyone.

The term is quite common. I don't know who else uses it. Its meaning is obvious. Definitions of "The Great Unwashed."

multitude: the common people generally; "separate the warriors from the mass"; "power to the people"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Hoi polloi (οἱ πολλοί), an expression meaning "the many", or in the strictest sense, "the majority" in Greek, is used in English to denote "the masses" or "the people", usually in a derogatory sense. Synonyms for "hoi polloi" include "... ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Unwashed

A contemptuous term for the populace, particularly the working class
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/great_unwashed

The Jews were a people unreasonably persecuted, dehumanized and eventually reviled, captured and massacred by the millions. Shame on you for approaching that memory given your position in this...

So were the Armenians. Here, have a look.

http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide_Photos

"Never again" should concern all people. As you suggest, it doesn't, and is reserved only for certain people.

 

[Town Heretic]

You seem to have this obsession with groups.

Said the fellow whose whole argument is predicated on appeasing one.

Forget about Japan, Ethiopia, or anywhere else.

I didn't mention Ethiopia. And Japan is a better parallel with a remarkably different end game. I can understand your desire to set it aside, but why on earth should I? Flail, or rather fail away at the answer if you have the capacity for it.

Were the Carmelite nuns being considerate even though they had nothing to do with the Holocaust?

See, you only just suggested groups were a needless point of concentration and that we should forget about other places. Now here you go focusing on a group from another place. That's funny. And monumentally hypocritical, to say nothing of the desperate dodge at its heart.

But I already addressed the Carmelites and the Catholic church. You should try it (addressing counter arguments). It's quite invigorating.

You are calling me a bigot because I object to a Sharia cultural center at ground zero.

Rather, I've set out that your sensitivity argument, which you've used more frequently than the other, is at its root made of the same stuff. Any actual counter to the actual argument? I doubt it.

I differentiate between exponents of Sharia like Rauf and Muslims like Frithjof Schuon, For you they are all the same. It isn't that way for me.

Wrong, again and on every count, but that's really not what we're talking about and not what the popular sentiment against the mosque is, to say nothing of your larger argument. I suspect you jump back and forth between horses in an attempt to conflate them and draw support for your actual cause, which isn't the least concerned with public outrage.

It isn't a house of worship.

As with most of your declarations in lieu of argument and illustration, it's factually errant. It has been and will remain a house of worship. Services are regularly conducted there and have been for the last year. Get your facts straight. Read a newspaper. Do a little research before you start your Declare-A-Thon next time. oly:

It is a political cultural center with the intent of furthering Sharia law. Furthering Sharia law was one of the goals of the attack.

If anyone tries to invest our system of law with Sharia it will fail. But you haven't begun to make the case that's part of the agenda here. You've only declared it so.

The term is quite common. I don't know who else uses it. Its meaning is obvious. Definitions of "The Great Unwashed."

In the way "pshaw" is a common expression. lain: I understand how you aim it, but you're the only one here who does, which made your declaration funny and my response a point of clarification.

I was in a band once and we named ourselves the Hoi Polloi. :chuckle: Nothing worse than a garage band of budding intellectuals. You needed hip boots and a good reference section to survive it.

So were the Armenians. Here, have a look.

I don't need to. I was once an ardent student of history, both as part of my academic discipline and as a matter of personal interest. So? That still doesn't answer the embarrassing attempt by you to hijack the notion while defending the sort of practice that began most concerted efforts to dehumanize a class or group of people.

"Never again" should concern all people. As you suggest, it doesn't, and is reserved only for certain people.

I did nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that you shouldn't attempt to wrap yourself in a term your posit is at odds with.

Way to dodge every salient point and inquiry while raising hypocrisy to a near art form. :nono:

 

[Aletheia]

This is an interesting ad for this thread:

:chuckle:

And no mosque!

 

[Nick_A]

This is an interesting ad for this thread:

:chuckle:

And no mosque!

Don't knock it. Perhaps if the Sharia cultural center teaches a course for women as outlined in this following link, at least it could offer something beneficial for Interfaith.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/how_to_make_your_husband_happy.htm

With a wife like that, why kill yourself for forty slightly used virgins?

 

[Town Heretic]

Don't knock it. Perhaps if the Sharia cultural center teaches a course for women as outlined in this following link, at least it could offer something beneficial for Interfaith.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/how_to_make_your_husband_happy.htm

With a wife like that, why kill yourself for forty slightly used virgins?

Like I said, sometimes all you have to do is show up, folks, and the other side will make your point for you. lain:

 

[serpentdove]

If you build it they will come (1 Sam. 31:10; 1 Chr. 10:9, 10; Dan. 1:2).

 

[Nick_A]

Said the fellow whose whole argument is predicated on appeasing one.

I didn't mention Ethiopia. And Japan is a better parallel with a remarkably different end game. I can understand your desire to set it aside, but why on earth should I? Flail, or rather fail away at the answer if you have the capacity for it.

See, you only just suggested groups were a needless point of concentration and that we should forget about other places. Now here you go focusing on a group from another place. That's funny. And monumentally hypocritical, to say nothing of the desperate dodge at its heart.

But I already addressed the Carmelites and the Catholic church. You should try it (addressing counter arguments). It's quite invigorating.

Rather, I've set out that your sensitivity argument, which you've used more frequently than the other, is at its root made of the same stuff. Any actual counter to the actual argument? I doubt it.

Wrong, again and on every count, but that's really not what we're talking about and not what the popular sentiment against the mosque is, to say nothing of your larger argument. I suspect you jump back and forth between horses in an attempt to conflate them and draw support for your actual cause, which isn't the least concerned with public outrage.

As with most of your declarations in lieu of argument and illustration, it's factually errant. It has been and will remain a house of worship. Services are regularly conducted there and have been for the last year. Get your facts straight. Read a newspaper. Do a little research before you start your Declare-A-Thon next time. oly:

If anyone tries to invest our system of law with Sharia it will fail. But you haven't begun to make the case that's part of the agenda here. You've only declared it so.

In the way "pshaw" is a common expression. lain: I understand how you aim it, but you're the only one here who does, which made your declaration funny and my response a point of clarification.

I was in a band once and we named ourselves the Hoi Polloi. :chuckle: Nothing worse than a garage band of budding intellectuals. You needed hip boots and a good reference section to survive it.

I don't need to. I was once an ardent student of history, both as part of my academic discipline and as a matter of personal interest. So? That still doesn't answer the embarrassing attempt by you to hijack the notion while defending the sort of practice that began most concerted efforts to dehumanize a class or group of people.

I did nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that you shouldn't attempt to wrap yourself in a term your posit is at odds with.

Way to dodge every salient point and inquiry while raising hypocrisy to a near art form. :nono:

See, you only just suggested groups were a needless point of concentration and that we should forget about other places. Now here you go focusing on a group from another place. That's funny. And monumentally hypocritical, to say nothing of the desperate dodge at its heart.

But I already addressed the Carmelites and the Catholic church. You should try it (addressing counter arguments). It's quite invigorating.

The Carmelite nuns referred to were just individuals.

This is disingenuous even for C.K., which is saying something. The Vatican was shamefully silent if not complicit in much of the horror that flowed from Hitler's rise to power. It's understandable that it would feel the need to make a gesture of this sort. Islam has no Pope nor the sort of singularity that Catholicism presents. To suggest the parallel is to reveal an ignorance regarding both the structure and history of the two faiths. But then, ignorant assumption/assertion is the meat of much of those who mistake stereotyping with sensitivity.

You don't want to see individuals but insist on seeing groups. Because you believe the Pope was complicit in the Holocaust the nuns are obligated not to build, You cannot see that it has nothing to do with it. Perhaps the nuns just wanted to be considerate.

The attack against the twin towers was partially motivated by furthering Sharia law. So rather than a pope, Sharia law is complicit in the attack. Imam Rauf can either do the right thing and move the Sharia mosque in the spirit of unity and dialogue or he can seek to establish his victory at the expense of human decency, unity, and dialogue.

Rather, I've set out that your sensitivity argument, which you've used more frequently than the other, is at its root made of the same stuff. Any actual counter to the actual argument? I doubt it.

What does this have to do with anything. If you insist that all those that protest the mosque at ground zero are bigots, then I am also a bigot.

Wrong, again and on every count, but that's really not what we're talking about and not what the popular sentiment against the mosque is, to say nothing of your larger argument. I suspect you jump back and forth between horses in an attempt to conflate them and draw support for your actual cause, which isn't the least concerned with public outrage.

The argument is simple. The fact that Imam Rauf insists on holding his ground is insensitive to the suffering of 911. That is basic. We can speculate as to the motives but the hypocrisy of defending insensitivity while preaching bridge building is so obvious that even the blindness of the intellectual elite should be able do see through it.

As with most of your declarations in lieu of argument and illustration, it's factually errant. It has been and will remain a house of worship. Services are regularly conducted there and have been for the last year. Get your facts straight. Read a newspaper. Do a little research before you start your Declare-A-Thon next time.

If people cannot tell if it is a mosque or a cultural center, then it is nothing more than a multi purpose secular building

http://headlines.blogs.starnewsonli...c-cultural-center-depends-on-the-news-source/

If anyone tries to invest our system of law with Sharia it will fail. But you haven't begun to make the case that's part of the agenda here. You've only declared it so.

Why should it fail. It is already taking hold in France.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/August/Islamization-of-Paris-a-Warning-to-the-West/

In Denial or Fed Up

From the 1980s until recently, criticizing or opposing Islam was considered a social taboo, and so the government and media effectively helped Islam spread throughout France.

"We were expecting Islam to adapt to France and it is France adapting to Islam," Robin said.

About the burqa controversy, one French Muslim man told a reporter that Europeans should respect Muslim dress. One Parisian woman wearing a headscarf said "the veil is in the Koran" and "we only submit to God and nobody else."

But even if many government elites are in France are in denial over Islam, the people in the streets increasingly are not. Some have become fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France.

They've started staging pork and wine "aperitifs," or cocktail parties in the street. They're patriotic demonstrations meant to strike back against Islam. Another national demonstration is planned for Saturday, Sept. 4.

A Warning to the West

The French parliament is expected to debate the burqa law in September. Jean-Francois Cope, president of the Union for a Popular Movement political party, has a warning for the West and for America.

"We cannot accept the development of such practice because it's not compatible with the life in a modern society, you see," he said. "And this question is not only a French question. You will all have to face this challenge. "

I don't need to. I was once an ardent student of history, both as part of my academic discipline and as a matter of personal interest. So? That still doesn't answer the embarrassing attempt by you to hijack the notion while defending the sort of practice that began most concerted efforts to dehumanize a class or group of people.

As usual it is the opposite. The effort is to return to the values America was founded upon since it is only through them that freedom remains possible. It is not dehumanizing to ask immigrants to assimilate into what made America great rather than surrendering America to some sort of politically correct nightmare as the country slowly sinks into becoming just another mediocre socialist state.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't substantially disagree with your post. Because my comments were about this forum, not the world in general.What I note is that when given the opportunity to denounce Islam or Muslims, on this forum {this topic being a prime example} Where is the outrage, where are the nonbelievers? They are relatively silent and obscure.

Were this topic regarding sharia law then you'd find the denouncement you're looking for, except it isn't.

I have definitely noticed a couple of things, here on TOL: If a Christian denounces the Islam religion concerning its violent teachings and doctrines and Muslim terrorists who carry them out in the name of Allah. The most frequent retort of non believers on this forum is this. "Not all Muslims are terrorists, there are many fine decent peace loving ones."

And what's wrong with that? I'm yet to see an agnostic justify any form of terrorism and recognizing that the extremist element is a minority seems a pretty healthy and grounded view to me. The more reasonable accept that the Fred Phelps' of this world don't represent Christianity by the same token.

Have you ever said something like that? Would you say the same concerning Christians, if they were to commit a condemnable act of violence?

I condemn any act of violence perpetrated under the guise of any religion.

Secondly, if I say something like homosexuality is a sin and it ought to be recriminalized: Most non-believers will think I am crazy, and question my intelligence. However all I really want them to do, is go back in the closet. Muslims under Sharia Law want to behead them?

Several of your counterparts want the death penalty to be implemented for homosexual practice so you can't very well be surprised at an adverse reaction in general, and not just from the 'non believing' contingent but many Christians as well as it turns out. Those of you who share this mindset have a lot in common with sharia law on this point and it's telling that you try to distance yourself from it. You can't be surprised at the obvious comparison drawn regardless of what you *want*. Society has moved past being hung up on orientation.

Yet the outrage is reserved for Christians, and we are called homophobic and hateful.

Do you see what I mean?

Well frankly some of you are. Take a look at aSeattleConservative for example. Considering (as before) that this is predominantly a Christian web site the criticism is generally going to be hitting your side of the ball park for the reasons given prior. That isn't to say there's no condemnation for extremism and sharia law. If there were Muslim advocates for terrorism and stoning here do you think they'd be getting a free ride?

 

[The Barbarian]

In Denial or Fed Up

From the 1980s until recently, criticizing or opposing Islam was considered a social taboo, and so the government and media effectively helped Islam spread throughout France.

"We were expecting Islam to adapt to France and it is France adapting to Islam," Robin said.

About the burqa controversy, one French Muslim man told a reporter that Europeans should respect Muslim dress. One Parisian woman wearing a headscarf said "the veil is in the Koran" and "we only submit to God and nobody else."

But even if many government elites are in France are in denial over Islam, the people in the streets increasingly are not. Some have become fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France.

They've started staging pork and wine "aperitifs," or cocktail parties in the street. They're patriotic demonstrations meant to strike back against Islam. Another national demonstration is planned for Saturday, Sept. 4.

A Warning to the West

The French parliament is expected to debate the burqa law in September. Jean-Francois Cope, president of the Union for a Popular Movement political party, has a warning for the West and for America.

"We cannot accept the development of such practice because it's not compatible with the life in a modern society, you see," he said. "And this question is not only a French question. You will all have to face this challenge. "

It's no coincidence that "chauvinism" is named for a Frenchman, um? But the paranoia aside, it's not working out the way he thinks.
Islam is losing adherents to Christianity.

Muslims are converting to Christianity in their thousands in France but face exclusion from their families and even death threats.

I think one of the factors that has contributed hugely to the exodus is the eerie silence against heinous acts of radical islamic groups.

Radical Islamists sends only one message to the world,that of violence,intolerance,and vindictivity.The sooner majority of Muslims realise this the better for their numbers.

Magdi Allam, the popular Italian journalist and former Muslim,who converted to catholism and was baptised by the pope once said I finally saw the light, by divine grace. On my first Easter as a Christian I not only discovered Jesus, I discovered for the first time the face of the true and only God, who is the God of faith and reason."

Magdi Allam chooses to be very public about this encounter with the true and only God.He does this knowing full well that he is placing his life at risk. He has received numerous death threats since his Baptism into Christ.
http://www.mashada.com/forums/relig...converting-christianity-thousands-france.html

As usual it is the opposite. The effort is to return to the values America was founded upon since it is only through them that freedom remains possible.

Which is why Christian jihadists are no more popular here or anywhere else in America than Muslim jihadists. Sorry about that.

It is not dehumanizing to ask immigrants to assimilate into what made America great

When's the last time you had pizza? Kung pao? Nachos? Chocolate? America isn't about squeezing immigrants into our mold, it's about enlarging America by assimilating what they have to offer into our culture.

 

[Town Heretic]

The Carmelite nuns referred to were just individuals.

Everyone is...but that's not the point you made or how you addressed it.

You don't want to see individuals but insist on seeing groups. Because you believe the Pope was complicit in the Holocaust the nuns are obligated not to build, You cannot see that it has nothing to do with it. Perhaps the nuns just wanted to be considerate.

I think the Catholic Church failed miserably in WWII. So do a great many Catholics. And it's appropriate that the head of that Church make conciliatory gestures if he feels compelled to. I'm not trying to hang my Catholic brothers out to dry, only recognizing the reality that doesn't parallel Islam and this mosque.

The attack against the twin towers was partially motivated by furthering Sharia law.

Your attempts to refocus history as it suits you notwithstanding, the point of attempting to destroy the White House, Pentagon, and World Trade Center was about other things to al-Qaeda, most pressingly the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and our close ties with Israel. If you want a broader understanding of that madness read Osama's "Letter to America."

So rather than a pope, Sharia law is complicit in the attack.

You're full of horse feathers, don't appear to understand what motivated 9/11's insanity and haven't begun to make the tenuous connection more than a declaration to suit your purpose. On the upside you appear to be moving away from the more understandable but no more reasonable sensitivity to madness argument.

What does this have to do with anything.

Pointing out the unreasoning bias at the heart of the argument you initially hung your hat on? A great deal.

If you insist that all those that protest the mosque at ground zero are bigots, then I am also a bigot.

Quote me. I made the point about the irrationality of the bias and where it leads, what it dovetails nicely into. Whether it makes you under-thought, overly emotional to the point of impairing your reason or a thinly veiled racist isn't something I can say or have. It's something for the individual marching with the mob to stop and consider.

The argument is simple. The fact that Imam Rauf insists on holding his ground is insensitive to the suffering of 911.

It's not an argument. It's a position. And I've set out why it makes no more sense to be offended by this mosque than a Baptist Youth Center. You've done literally nothing to address any part of the counter, running instead to a new emphasis (no more factually sound than the last) and making additional broad and inaccurate claims.

That is basic. We can speculate as to the motives but the hypocrisy of defending insensitivity while preaching bridge building is so obvious that even the blindness of the intellectual elite should be able do see through it.

Sensitivity to a an ignorant position, capitulating to the inference that any Muslim is rightly suspect and a mosque founded by people with no ties to al-Qaeda should be moved as though that suspicion deserves to be honored is intellectually bankrupt and morally deficient. The goal of the mosque should not be building bridges from prejudice to satisfaction.

If people cannot tell if it is a mosque or a cultural center, then it is nothing more than a multi purpose secular building

Do you have any idea how many Americans can't identify where the nation's capital is on a map? Perception is only reflective of truth when it's informed.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'd love to see a mosque at ground zero, not just a learning center down the road.

You would.

 

[Nick_A]

It's no coincidence that "chauvinism" is named for a Frenchman, um? But the paranoia aside, it's not working out the way he thinks.
Islam is losing adherents to Christianity.

Muslims are converting to Christianity in their thousands in France but face exclusion from their families and even death threats.

I think one of the factors that has contributed hugely to the exodus is the eerie silence against heinous acts of radical islamic groups.

Radical Islamists sends only one message to the world,that of violence,intolerance,and vindictivity.The sooner majority of Muslims realise this the better for their numbers.

Magdi Allam, the popular Italian journalist and former Muslim,who converted to catholism and was baptised by the pope once said I finally saw the light, by divine grace. On my first Easter as a Christian I not only discovered Jesus, I discovered for the first time the face of the true and only God, who is the God of faith and reason."

Magdi Allam chooses to be very public about this encounter with the true and only God.He does this knowing full well that he is placing his life at risk. He has received numerous death threats since his Baptism into Christ.
http://www.mashada.com/forums/relig...converting-christianity-thousands-france.html



Which is why Christian jihadists are no more popular here or anywhere else in America than Muslim jihadists. Sorry about that.



When's the last time you had pizza? Kung pao? Nachos? Chocolate? America isn't about squeezing immigrants into our mold, it's about enlarging America by assimilating what they have to offer into our culture.

When's the last time you had pizza? Kung pao? Nachos? Chocolate? America isn't about squeezing immigrants into our mold, it's about enlarging America by assimilating what they have to offer into our culture.

Big mistake. Culture should not diminish American ideals. Rather American ideals, or the ideas America was founded upon, should determine culture.

 

[Nick_A]

Everyone is...but that's not the point you made or how you addressed it.

I think the Catholic Church failed miserably in WWII. So do a great many Catholics. And it's appropriate that the head of that Church make conciliatory gestures if he feels compelled to. I'm not trying to hang my Catholic brothers out to dry, only recognizing the reality that doesn't parallel Islam and this mosque.

Your attempts to refocus history as it suits you notwithstanding, the point of attempting to destroy the White House, Pentagon, and World Trade Center was about other things to al-Qaeda, most pressingly the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and our close ties with Israel. If you want a broader understanding of that madness read Osama's "Letter to America."

You're full of horse feathers, don't appear to understand what motivated 9/11's insanity and haven't begun to make the tenuous connection more than a declaration to suit your purpose. On the upside you appear to be moving away from the more understandable but no more reasonable sensitivity to madness argument.

Pointing out the unreasoning bias at the heart of the argument you initially hung your hat on? A great deal.

Quote me. I made the point about the irrationality of the bias and where it leads, what it dovetails nicely into. Whether it makes you under-thought, overly emotional to the point of impairing your reason or a thinly veiled racist isn't something I can say or have. It's something for the individual marching with the mob to stop and consider.

It's not an argument. It's a position. And I've set out why it makes no more sense to be offended by this mosque than a Baptist Youth Center. You've done literally nothing to address any part of the counter, running instead to a new emphasis (no more factually sound than the last) and making additional broad and inaccurate claims.

Sensitivity to a an ignorant position, capitulating to the inference that any Muslim is rightly suspect and a mosque founded by people with no ties to al-Qaeda should be moved as though that suspicion deserves to be honored is intellectually bankrupt and morally deficient. The goal of the mosque should not be building bridges from prejudice to satisfaction.

Do you have any idea how many Americans can't identify where the nation's capital is on a map? Perception is only reflective of truth when it's informed.

Everyone is...but that's not the point you made or how you addressed it.

I think the Catholic Church failed miserably in WWII. So do a great many Catholics. And it's appropriate that the head of that Church make conciliatory gestures if he feels compelled to. I'm not trying to hang my Catholic brothers out to dry, only recognizing the reality that doesn't parallel Islam and this mosque.

No. You cannot perceive some Carmelite nuns being capable of thinking for themselves and concluding that it would be insensitive to build on that site. You have to drag in the Pope and God knows what else into it.

Your attempts to refocus history as it suits you notwithstanding, the point of attempting to destroy the White House, Pentagon, and World Trade Center was about other things to al-Qaeda, most pressingly the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and our close ties with Israel. If you want a broader understanding of that madness read Osama's "Letter to America."

You're full of horse feathers, don't appear to understand what motivated 9/11's insanity and haven't begun to make the tenuous connection more than a declaration to suit your purpose. On the upside you appear to be moving away from the more understandable but no more reasonable sensitivity to madness argument.

Do al Qaeda and Imam Rauf wish to further Sharia law in America or not.?

Pointing out the unreasoning bias at the heart of the argument you initially hung your hat on? A great deal.

My hat is still there. People spouting all this Interfaith BS either are sensitive to the needs of others or they are not. Imam Rauf clearly is not and has a political goal in mind that features sensitivity only to advocates of Sharia Law.

Quote me. I made the point about the irrationality of the bias and where it leads, what it dovetails nicely into. Whether it makes you under-thought, overly emotional to the point of impairing your reason or a thinly veiled racist isn't something I can say or have. It's something for the individual marching with the mob to stop and consider.

We know where irrationality and bias leads. It leads to building a Sharia cultural center on a site where a building was brought down during an attack by those in support of Sharia law.

It's not an argument. It's a position. And I've set out why it makes no more sense to be offended by this mosque than a Baptist Youth Center. You've done literally nothing to address any part of the counter, running instead to a new emphasis (no more factually sound than the last) and making additional broad and inaccurate claims.

The Golden Rule is a position from which the rest is argued from. There is no rational counter argument to the Golden rule. You either feel its value or you don't and prefer Alinsky's contention that the end justifies the means. Those are your choices. I side with the golden rule and you side with the ends justifying the means.

Sensitivity to a an ignorant position, capitulating to the inference that any Muslim is rightly suspect and a mosque founded by people with no ties to al-Qaeda should be moved as though that suspicion deserves to be honored is intellectually bankrupt and morally deficient. The goal of the mosque should not be building bridges from prejudice to satisfaction.

It is insensitive to the needs of others that suffered the direct results of 911. Al-Quaeda supports Sharia Law. It is a Sharia cultural center. the Carmelite nuns could understand sensitivity. You can't and prefer platitudes,

 

[Granite]

It's not a Sharia center, you epic dope.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
When's the last time you had pizza? Kung pao? Nachos? Chocolate? America isn't about squeezing immigrants into our mold, it's about enlarging America by assimilating what they have to offer into our culture.

Big mistake. Culture should not diminish American ideals.

Adding from other cultures is an American ideal. Food, dress, language, architecture, all of these show the American ideal of adopting culture from immigrants and making it our own.

Rather American ideals, or the ideas America was founded upon, should determine culture.

That's the French model. Have you checked how that's working right now?

The problem is that American culture profoundly disturbs you.

 

[Granite]

The ideas we were founded on included genocide, slavery, and misogyny.

 

[Town Heretic]

No. You cannot perceive some Carmelite nuns being capable of thinking for themselves and concluding that it would be insensitive to build on that site. You have to drag in the Pope and God knows what else into it.

Your lack of grasp of the facts undergirding your own attempts at illustration is nearly as amazing as your footwork dancing away from points you can't answer.

Here's a link. The Pope ordered the nuns to leave. As per your normal MO, you don't know what you're talking about. :sigh:

Do al Qaeda and Imam Rauf wish to further Sharia law in America or not.?

Would both support a free and independent Palestine homeland? And how do they feel about disco? It doesn't matter. That's not what this is about and the one doesn't lead to the other.

My hat is still there. People spouting all this Interfaith BS either are sensitive to the needs of others or they are not. Imam Rauf clearly is not and has a political goal in mind that features sensitivity only to advocates of Sharia Law.

Right. You can't answer my challenge on point so you repeat yourself. Got it. I think everyone does.

We know where irrationality and bias leads. It leads to building a Sharia cultural center on a site where a building was brought down during an attack by those in support of Sharia law.

No. It leads to defending people who would taint an entire religion based on the actions of a minority of fanatics. It argues that people who don't support and who have condemned that sort of practice should be considered part of the problem and the reasonable source of conflated grief. It's without rational support.

Another irrational ploy, finding a commonality (which you haven't actually done beyond the vague sense of what "further" might entail) and then suggesting the one infers any other without arguing the why or connecting it. You're a second rate rationalist hurling emotion laden nonsense that would have you bounced from a survey course in applied reason at a state college. lain:

The Golden Rule is a position from which the rest is argued from. There is no rational counter argument to the Golden rule.

Of course there is, but no one is making it because this isn't about the Golden rule.

You either feel its value or you don't and prefer Alinsky's contention that the end justifies the means. Those are your choices. I side with the golden rule and you side with the ends justifying the means.

That's puerile, self celebratory horse feathers. I set out why kowtowing to a bigoted sensibility isn't an act of compassion. This is all you have? A lie wrapped around a disconnected bit of information you can't apply or defend beyond declaration.

:yawn:

It is insensitive to the needs of others that suffered the direct results of 911.

A blatant, irrational, oft repeated lie. I set out the counter. You're an empty, waving suit.

You can't and prefer platitudes,

Said the fellow who has nothing else to offer...you remain here, as elsewhere, a complete and utter fraud--under thought, ill prepared, and lacking the ability to distinguish fertilizer from a good can of hair creme.

lain: