Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 27891011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 423
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #221  
    Quote Originally Posted by Speebs View Post
    a. Fair enough. Still, this is just a prayer room for people to use, not a full mosque according to everything I've read.
    Ground Zero mosque gets go-ahead in New York | Mail Online

    Plan for mosque near World Trade Center site moves ahead
  2. Speebs's Avatar
    Posts
    297 Posts
    Global Posts
    403 Global Posts
    #222  
    Neither of those articles quote anyone involved as referring to it as a mosque. As of the last time I looked at the website for the project (PARK51) it said "prayer room" and not mosque. I just checked again, and it does indeed say mosque. So, we can put that to bed. Yes, there will be a mosque that will be run separately from all of the other facilities. I stand corrected.

    I stand by my opinion that the mosque can and should be built anywhere the organizers want to build it, whether that is adjacent to Ground Zero, next to the White House, in Jerusalem, etc.
  3. #223  
    Wow! for all the goof-ball threads that dbd makes, ( ) he really is making some reasonable points here in this thread.
  4. #224  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Wow! for all the goof-ball threads that dbd makes, ( ) he really is making some reasonable points here in this thread.
    Thanks, Berd.
    I know you know that i'm not the goofball i portray myself to be.
  5. #225  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    and I saw someone speculating that this planned community center and pool would benefit the entire community... Think they will allow women to swim in a bikini? Or in the same pool as the men?

    probably not.
    Ladies and gentlemen! I present to you, assumptions...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  6. #226  
    the first colonial settlers mass murdered the native americans, now should the natives not allow all americans on their land? Um ya probably
  7. #227  
    Quote Originally Posted by jimbohsp View Post
    the first colonial settlers mass murdered the native americans, now should the natives not allow all americans on their land? Um ya probably
    I think there are at least two key differences One is time. That was MANY generations ago that indians and settlers massacred each other (not the place to debate who was or wasn't justified for said massacres). There isn't a major city still mourning a recent act of indian massacre like there is a city mourning a recent act of cowardly terrorism. As I've said before, the timing of this is part of the problem. 50 years from now, I doubt it would be such an issue.

    The other thing is the nature of what is being proposed. This isn't about who is occupying land, it's about what each side considers sacred. NYC residents (and the majority of Americans) see ground zero as a sacred site, just as they would a cemetery. There is a big difference between putting a house of worship on the site as opposed to the Muslims that will no doubt occupy some of the Freedom Tower offices or walk across the plaza - and perhaps mourn those they lost in the attack. You don't generally see anyone building a church on top of a sacred indian burial ground, at least in the current era of political correctness.

    If you read up on Middle East culture, you will find that there is great symbolism to this. For example, there is a graveyard between the Mount of Olives and the Temple/Dome of the Rock Mosque in Jerusalem, blocking the gate that the Messiah is prophesied to return through. That graveyard was put there specifically to desecrate the ground so the Messiah couldn't walk through that gate. Forget about religious/doctrine views for a moment, and the fact that there have probably been similar acts of desecration from other religions.

    The point is that there are overt attempts to do this sort of thing through out history, and to those with heritage tied to the Middle East (like Islam) there is much greater meaning than we realize. The time and location appears to be another such attempt. If they are not trying to be provocative, they should choose a different time/place out of respect for those that see Ground Zero as a sacred place. And because it became sacred because of an attack in the name of Islam, please don't chime in that it should be sacred for Islam, too. You don't see a Shinto shrine next to the war memorials in Pearl Harbor, even though there were Japanese deaths during the attack on Pearl Harbor...

    I don't understand why this is so complicated. It's bad form to do what they are proposing. It's been said that "sometimes discretion is the better part of valor" and I think this is one of those times...

    dis·cre·tion/disˈkreSHən/Noun
    1. The quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid causing offense or revealing private information.
    Last edited by Workerb33; 08/18/2010 at 09:22 AM.
    Run your ad here... reach thousands daily...



    ...Now accepting orders for my upcoming iHandle™.
    Reserve yours today!
  8. #228  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Ladies and gentlemen! I present to you, assumptions...
    yep, hence the word "probably"... and remember, past behavior is always the best predictor of future actions. So show me a Muslim community center anywhere in the world that permits co-ed swimming with women wearing bikinis.

    I'm not saying that's wrong, i'm just saying it's not a way to reach "the entire community" as was stated.

    So, thanks for pointing out the obvious. I was absolutely making an assumption. And you are perhaps assuming my assumption is wrong?
    Run your ad here... reach thousands daily...



    ...Now accepting orders for my upcoming iHandle™.
    Reserve yours today!
  9. #229  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    You don't see a Shinto shrine next to the war memorials in Pearl Harbor, even though there were Japanese deaths during the attack on Pearl Harbor...

    I don't understand why this is so complicated. It's bad form to do what they are proposing. It's been said that "sometimes discretion is the better part of valor" and I think this is one of those times...
    There is a Shinto shrine a few miles from the USS Arizona site (and in fact, they are all over Hawaii as there is a very large Japanese population in the state). The Shinto religion didn't bomb pearl harbor, the Japanese did. This ISN'T insensitive.

    There is a baptist christian church right at ground zero for the atomic bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. The baptists didn't bomb Hiroshima, the Americans did. This ISN'T insensitive.

    America was founded on principals of freedom of religion, many of who's residents fled to this new world to AVOID state-level religious persecution for their beliefs. There are -billions- of Muslims worldwide today, and millions right here in our own country. The ridiculously vast majority of these people actively mourned our dead after 9/11 and were not part of the small radical sect that actually perpetrated the attack. There were even Muslims who worked and DIED in the world trade center on that day, who's families have every right to mourn in whatever way their religion dictates. If they want to throw a prayer carpet down right on top of the rubble pray for their dead that is their god given right as a human (and especially as an American).

    It's ridiculous to me that any American could be so flagrantly against the core principals our country was founded upon. Muslims have the right to build a mosque 4 blocks from ground zero just as Christians have a right to build one there. Our country has no state sponsored religion and thus our government and president have no say in the issue. And yes, at some point, some radical nutbag who thinks the 9/11 attacks were super-awesome is going to come worship at that mosque. He's going to praise allah for the success of the hijackers. That freedom he's going to express just four blocks from the WTC site (or 5 blocks away at any of a number of existing mosques, some of which predate the WTC itself) is the EXACT freedom those radicals wish to eradicate from our nation. People died at WTC and countless other places to protect that freedom.

    What you call "bad form" I call a fundamental human right protected by the founding documents of our nation. Do you really want to start throwing those rights away?
  10. Speebs's Avatar
    Posts
    297 Posts
    Global Posts
    403 Global Posts
    #230  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    I think there are at least two key differences One is time. That was MANY generations ago that indians and settlers massacred each other (not the place to debate who was or wasn't justified for said massacres). There isn't a major city still mourning a recent act of indian massacre like there is a city mourning a recent act of cowardly terrorism. As I've said before, the timing of this is part of the problem. 50 years from now, I doubt it would be such an issue.
    Again, you're drawing arbitrary lines. How long is long enough? Do we have to wait for everyone who knew someone who died in the 9/11 attack to die themselves? There's always going to be a group who are offended by something like this. This is the same logic as "how close is too close." If you want to wait until the opposition is in the minority, then I will argue that we're already at that point. I work only a few blocks away and every single person I have asked about this, whether they be coworkers or friends who live in NYC, has no problem with Park51 being where it is proposed. According to my poll, New Yorkers are 100% for it.

    If you read up on Middle East culture, you will find that there is great symbolism to this. For example, there is a graveyard between the Mount of Olives and the Temple/Dome of the Rock Mosque in Jerusalem, blocking the gate that the Messiah is prophesied to return through. That graveyard was put there specifically to desecrate the ground so the Messiah couldn't walk through that gate. Forget about religious/doctrine views for a moment, and the fact that there have probably been similar acts of desecration from other religions.

    The point is that there are overt attempts to do this sort of thing through out history, and to those with heritage tied to the Middle East (like Islam) there is much greater meaning than we realize. The time and location appears to be another such attempt. If they are not trying to be provocative, they should choose a different time/place out of respect for those that see Ground Zero as a sacred place. And because it became sacred because of an attack in the name of Islam, please don't chime in that it should be sacred for Islam, too. You don't see a Shinto shrine next to the war memorials in Pearl Harbor, even though there were Japanese deaths during the attack on Pearl Harbor...
    I'm trying to use your logic here:

    1) It's easy for them to build wherever they want (ie. "They should build it somewhere else")
    2) Proximity to Ground Zero is symbolically important.

    If it's so easy for them to just build wherever they want and it's so meaningful to desecrate Ground Zero, why wouldn't they just build it across the street instead of hiding it a few blocks away in the middle of a bunch of big buildings?

    [quote]
    I don't understand why this is so complicated. It's bad form to do what they are proposing. It's been said that "sometimes discretion is the better part of valor" and I think this is one of those times...



    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    yep, hence the word "probably"... and remember, past behavior is always the best predictor of future actions. So show me a Muslim community center anywhere in the world that permits co-ed swimming with women wearing bikinis.
    Show me one that is open to everyone of all faiths that doesn't...?

    I'm not saying that's wrong, i'm just saying it's not a way to reach "the entire community" as was stated.
    Maybe the community center itself (not the controversy surrounding it) will reach the entire community, if people give it a chance. It it doesn't work out then everyone can have a ****fit to have it shut down. Nobody seems to want to address that. These people don't even deserve a CHANCE to make good on their promises? Way to go, tolerant, "innocent before proven guilty" USA.

    So, thanks for pointing out the obvious. I was absolutely making an assumption. And you are perhaps assuming my assumption is wrong?
    That isn't how debate works :-/ If you make a claim you need to support it. Burden of proof, and all.
  11. #231  
    If we change our ways because of the senseless attack, the terrorists win. Freedom doesn't stop for some people because people of the same religion/ethnicity/color/sex committed a heinous crime. While it maybe tasteless, some think so is Granny's in Panties magazine.

    We let that get published because they have the right to do so under our constitution. If they build this and we all seem to agree that they have the right, what then? Should some Christian blow it up? Would that settle the score?
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  12. #232  
    Quote Originally Posted by ncinerate View Post
    There is a Shinto shrine a few miles from the USS Arizona site (and in fact, they are all over Hawaii as there is a very large Japanese population in the state). The Shinto religion didn't bomb pearl harbor, the Japanese did. This ISN'T insensitive.

    There is a baptist christian church right at ground zero for the atomic bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. The baptists didn't bomb Hiroshima, the Americans did. This ISN'T insensitive.

    ...
    It's ridiculous to me that any American could be so flagrantly against the core principals our country was founded upon. Muslims have the right to build a mosque 4 blocks from ground zero just as Christians have a right to build one there. Our country has no state sponsored religion and thus our government and president have no say in the issue. And yes, at some point, some radical nutbag who thinks the 9/11 attacks were super-awesome is going to come worship at that mosque.
    ...
    What you call "bad form" I call a fundamental human right protected by the founding documents of our nation. Do you really want to start throwing those rights away?
    Those are excellent points. The perspective of history changes how things look, and it may well change mine.

    However, please be clear on two points.

    1. At no time have I suggested they should be prevented from building Park51. Assuming it is zoned properly, it is absolutely their right to build whatever they want. This isn't just an issue of religious freedom, but also an issue of property rights (although not an issue of human rights which are about humane treatment, etc). Please don't say I am against the core principles of this country. Is that clear enough?

    2. I am offering my opinion that this is "bad form", not neighborly, insensitive, etc. In the age of political correctness, those words are used often. I generally can't stand the whole thing of "political correctness" so I find it odd when I use those words. But please be clear, it is my OPINION. You can disagree about the substance of my opinion, but it is definitely my OPINION. Not a constitutional ruling or statement of fact. Your next door neighbor could probably paint his house flaming pink and fly a Russian flag out front. Chances are you wouldn't appreciate it, and hope a good neighbor wouldn't do that.

    And don't fall into the trap of picking at the details of my example. None of my examples are perfect (as you showed in my Pearl Harbor example). Of course examples are flawed. It's hard to find an exact analogy. I'm just trying to find ways for you to see what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot. Not sure how to do that, or if it's even important. But, it could help you understand how I arrived at my OPINION.

    Clear? I fully support their property and religious rights, but I think it's bad PRPRPR. I fully recognize that I am offering an opinion on what is good form or courtesy. I formed the opinion based on whatever examples I could think of that put me in the shoes of another viewpoint. I may not have succeeded, but you can at least see that my opinion came from thought, and not someone's talking points. I didn't think this issue was a big deal until I actually pulled out a map a few weeks ago.

    Are we clear?
    Run your ad here... reach thousands daily...



    ...Now accepting orders for my upcoming iHandle™.
    Reserve yours today!
  13. #233  
    [QUOTE=Speebs;2613931]Again, you're drawing arbitrary lines. How long is long enough? Do we have to wait for everyone who knew someone who died in the 9/11 attack to die themselves? There's always going to be a group who are offended by something like this. This is the same logic as "how close is too close." If you want to wait until the opposition is in the minority, then I will argue that we're already at that point. I work only a few blocks away and every single person I have asked about this, whether they be coworkers or friends who live in NYC, has no problem with Park51 being where it is proposed. According to my poll, New Yorkers are 100% for it.

    I don't know the answer. You ask a good question and make valid points. Since we are talking about "sacred" or "sensitivity" rather than objective facts, only time will answer that for me. That makes sense because I don't live there and didn't lose anyone. None the less, I know that IF I were a leader in that mosque (or if I were a leader of any church) I would advise against doing something that created division in the community unless it was an issue of morality - which this isn't. It's my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions...



    I'm trying to use your logic here:

    1) It's easy for them to build wherever they want (ie. "They should build it somewhere else")
    2) Proximity to Ground Zero is symbolically important.

    If it's so easy for them to just build wherever they want and it's so meaningful to desecrate Ground Zero, why wouldn't they just build it across the street instead of hiding it a few blocks away in the middle of a bunch of big buildings?

    Never did I say "it is easy". In fact, it may be hard or even expensive. As I continue to say, it is their right to do so but I wouldn't do it if I were in their shoes. That's easy for me to say because I'm NOT in their shoes. I'm not a leader, I haven't been categorized (rightly or wrongly) with the horrid actions of others, and I don't live there. I know that when I walk past ground zero when I am in NYC, I experience some really big emotions similar to when I walk by the Vietnam memorial in washington. I know that anything that reminds me of anything outside of those being memorialized would be distracting and disrespectful to me. That would include advertising and playbills. But, that's just me and how I experienced 9/11, etc.

    You make lots of valid points, but you have to stop putting words in my mouth.







    Show me one that is open to everyone of all faiths that doesn't...?

    Of course they don't. You would see the same control being applied at most protestant church camps. The difference is they will tell you that up front (no bikinis allowed or whatever) and wouldn't say "it's for the entire community" when it clearly isn't. You love to grab tangents and miss the point. The point was that they are saying something that sounds good, but it isn't really accurate which speaks to the credibility of other things they say. That's all.



    Maybe the community center itself (not the controversy surrounding it) will reach the entire community, if people give it a chance. It it doesn't work out then everyone can have a ****fit to have it shut down. Nobody seems to want to address that. These people don't even deserve a CHANCE to make good on their promises? Way to go, tolerant, "innocent before proven guilty" USA.

    I would be VERY much against trying to "shut it down" once it's zoned and built. My OPINION is that would fly in the face of my previously stated support for religious freedom and property rights. If people do bad things, they get arrested. You certainly don't go back and tear a building down for what some whacko says/does inside the building. But, if you know the whacko is likely to show up, maybe you don't make it easy for him. I wouldn't want to be a part of giving him a place to practice insanity. I would just try to "avoid even the appearance" of being an accessory to it. I'm not casting stones at the community. If I were them (and I'm not) I wouldn't want to do that.

    That isn't how debate works :-/ If you make a claim you need to support it. Burden of proof, and all.

    This isn't a debate. These are my opinions. There is some thought behind them, but they are only opinions. Fortunately I am not on the zoning commission, nor a leader anywhere that could impact the outcome. Just someone trying to see both sides.
    Sorry, I haven't figured out "multi-quotes" yet.
  14. #234  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    If we change our ways because of the senseless attack, the terrorists win. Freedom doesn't stop for some people because people of the same religion/ethnicity/color/sex committed a heinous crime.

    I agree with you.

    While it maybe tasteless, some think so is Granny's in Panties magazine.

    Eewww, thanks for the visual.

    We let that get published because they have the right to do so under our constitution. If they build this and we all seem to agree that they have the right, what then? Should some Christian blow it up? Would that settle the score?

    Of course not. I don't think anyone on this thread thinks this is about "settling" a score. It certainly isn't for me.
    ok, I have to get back to work...
  15. Speebs's Avatar
    Posts
    297 Posts
    Global Posts
    403 Global Posts
    #235  
    [QUOTE=Workerb33;2614008]
    Quote Originally Posted by Speebs View Post
    Again, you're drawing arbitrary lines. How long is long enough? Do we have to wait for everyone who knew someone who died in the 9/11 attack to die themselves? There's always going to be a group who are offended by something like this. This is the same logic as "how close is too close." If you want to wait until the opposition is in the minority, then I will argue that we're already at that point. I work only a few blocks away and every single person I have asked about this, whether they be coworkers or friends who live in NYC, has no problem with Park51 being where it is proposed. According to my poll, New Yorkers are 100% for it.

    I don't know the answer. You ask a good question and make valid points. Since we are talking about "sacred" or "sensitivity" rather than objective facts, only time will answer that for me. That makes sense because I don't live there and didn't lose anyone. None the less, I know that IF I were a leader in that mosque (or if I were a leader of any church) I would advise against doing something that created division in the community unless it was an issue of morality - which this isn't. It's my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions...



    I'm trying to use your logic here:

    1) It's easy for them to build wherever they want (ie. "They should build it somewhere else")
    2) Proximity to Ground Zero is symbolically important.

    If it's so easy for them to just build wherever they want and it's so meaningful to desecrate Ground Zero, why wouldn't they just build it across the street instead of hiding it a few blocks away in the middle of a bunch of big buildings?

    Never did I say "it is easy". In fact, it may be hard or even expensive. As I continue to say, it is their right to do so but I wouldn't do it if I were in their shoes. That's easy for me to say because I'm NOT in their shoes. I'm not a leader, I haven't been categorized (rightly or wrongly) with the horrid actions of others, and I don't live there. I know that when I walk past ground zero when I am in NYC, I experience some really big emotions similar to when I walk by the Vietnam memorial in washington. I know that anything that reminds me of anything outside of those being memorialized would be distracting and disrespectful to me. That would include advertising and playbills. But, that's just me and how I experienced 9/11, etc.

    You make lots of valid points, but you have to stop putting words in my mouth.



    Sorry, I haven't figured out "multi-quotes" yet.
    I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth- I'm just making what I think are reasonable inferences from things you've said. If their choice is to spend millions MORE dollars just to move it farther away from the community they wish to serve or scrap the project because some people find it offensive, what do people want them to do??

    Regarding the bikinis, you really are going to have to provide some reasoning other than "of course they will ban bikinis." You're essentially labeling them as liars without backing it up at all.

    If this isn't a debate, then there really isn't any reason to have the discussion, is there? We all acknowledge the others' viewpoints already.
  16. #236  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    This isn't just an issue of religious freedom, but also an issue of property rights[/B] (although not an issue of human rights which are about humane treatment, etc). Please don't say I am against the core principles of this country. Is that clear enough?

    2.But please be clear, it is my OPINION. You can disagree about the substance of my opinion, but it is definitely my OPINION. Not a constitutional ruling or statement of fact.

    I fully support their property and religious rights, but I think it's bad PRPRPR.

    Are we clear?
    Please don't take my post as a direct attack on you, I was being a bit more broad in my stroke because I was in disbelief at all of the anti-freedom-of-religion posts in this thread. Your post just happened to be the most recent catalyst for my words.

    First off, I absolutely believe freedom of religion is and should be a fundamental human right. Holding this right in lower regard simply breeds intolerance. Whatever religion you choose to follow (or even if you are an absolute atheist) you have to agree that anyone infringing on your right to worship or not worship as you choose is taking away your freedom of mind. I can't think of anything more fundamental or inhumane then that. Religious intolerance has led to the death of millions of human beings, the WTC attacks being just one of the many religiously fueled attacks in history (and a relatively minor one if you consider historical precedents and their massive death tolls).

    Perhaps some perspective could help here.

    Muslims and their beliefs mirror Christianity and even Judaism. These three religions came from the same region on earth along similar timescales, with extremely similar backgrounds and a belief in what many believe to be the same god. Their religious texts describe many of the same events and contain many of the same stories told from different perspectives. Muslims for example hold Jesus in high regard as a major prophet god sent to humanity via a virgin birth. In their beliefs, Jesus is held in almost as high regard as Mohammad. In short, they believe god created Jesus, and thus, you can then assume that the Muslim god and the Christian god are one and the same. There is of course some intolerance between the religions and fundamentalists on all sides that feel their book and their practices are the "correct" way to worship. That said, all three of these religions are virtually identical when you peel back the skin. I feel perhaps much of the intolerance spent toward the Muslim religion is simple ignorance of their religion and the focus on their most fundamentalist and radical sects rather then their moderate majority who look act and worship in ways much like you or me. Take a moment and imagine what Christianity would look like if you focused JUST on it's most radical sects. The vast majority of Muslim's aren't running around blowing themselves up or wearing burkas and cutting off noses of family members who disrespect them, just as the vast majority of Christians aren't bombing abortion clinics or living without electricity in amish enclaves, or taking multiple wives.

    Moving on from religious discussion, I respect that what you are expressing is your opinion. We all have opinions, and yes, I understand your example of how I might hold in distaste a neighbor painting their house pink and flying a Russian flag. In fact, the idea of an extremist Muslim at ground zero thanking Allah for the success of the terrorist attacks is absolutely reprehensible to me. What separates me from you is I don't extend this distaste to the entire Muslim religion or it's many followers. Muslims worshiping four blocks from ground zero is absolutely not wrong or distasteful, and although we -may- have to suffer the occasional nutbag going in there to worship those crazy fundamentalist attackers, I'm willing to suffer this because to curb the freedom of one is to take freedom from everyone.

    Consider as our nation moves into the future just how stupid the arguments against this Mosque are going to look. Think for a moment how ignorant our forefathers appear in history when we read their words regarding white supremacy and and subhuman status of African slaves. How stupid do the perpetrators of the Salem witch trials look in retrospect? Hell, take a minute and look into the history of Christianity - it wasn't exactly a happy road to acceptance. Christ wasn't nailed to a cross for our sins, he was nailed to a cross because of religious intolerance against budding Christianity.

    This mosque is a clear example of the freedoms we enjoy in this country. Open your mind a bit and see that the vast majority of people who will worship there are every bit as much a free American as you are. These are not the people who attacked our country, and it is fundamentally wrong to act as if they are disrespecting your "graveyard" by their mere presence. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that countless Muslim New York citizens will go to this mosque to worship and mourn the victims of the 9/11 attacks, just as many New York citizens flock to the christian churches nearby to do the same. As I said, there were many Muslim workers inside those two towers and among the first responding rescuers who died there. Why should your insensitivity and perceived "distastefulness" stamp upon their memory and their loved one's ability to mourn and worship nearby should they so choose?
  17. #237  
    [QUOTE=Speebs;2614069]
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post

    I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth- I'm just making what I think are reasonable inferences from things you've said. If their choice is to spend millions MORE dollars just to move it farther away from the community they wish to serve or scrap the project because some people find it offensive, what do people want them to do??

    Regarding the bikinis, you really are going to have to provide some reasoning other than "of course they will ban bikinis." You're essentially labeling them as liars without backing it up at all.

    If this isn't a debate, then there really isn't any reason to have the discussion, is there? We all acknowledge the others' viewpoints already.
    I'm not labeling them liars. This is hyperbole just as you would get from any politician. I just want you to recognize that as hyperbole, and not some solemn contract with the public. More importantly is that I don't really think their purpose is important to the discussion, I brought it up to refute someone using it as an argument FOR the site. I was simply pointing out that their argument was flawed. I don't want my daughters in bikinis, so I respect anyone that values modesty (although not to the extreme of a berka).

    And no, by making very inaccurate "inferences" much of this thread is spent clearing up those inferences, which is also not a debate. Less time on inferences would allow for a debate. It could be, but now I need to get back to work.
    Run your ad here... reach thousands daily...



    ...Now accepting orders for my upcoming iHandle™.
    Reserve yours today!
  18. #238  
    Quote Originally Posted by ncinerate View Post
    Please don't take my post as a direct attack on you, I was being a bit more broad in my stroke because I was in disbelief at all of the anti-freedom-of-religion posts in this thread. Your post just happened to be the most recent catalyst for my words.
    hard to not see it as directed to me when you quote me. I don't see anyone else trying to stifle religious freedom in here, so I don't know what other quote you would use. The public discourse in NYC my be like that, but here I haven't seen anyone here saying we should curtail religious freedoms.

    I see there being two sides in this thread:

    1. They should built right there, right now, it because it is their right.

    2. They should consider some other place or time out of respect to the people and events surrounding this.

    I haven't seen anything here (other than possibly a couple of trolls that are on my blocked list so I don't see their posts) calling for government preventing this building or curtailing freedom. Maybe I'm just trying to give everyone respect and the benefit of the doubt. More of that good neighbor thing I'm so fond of.

    I'm not suggesting any violation of right or govt mandate. Anything the owners/builders decide to do would be voluntary and motivated by good will. That isn't to say that building it would be motivated by ill-will. But, if I were them I'd think about what it looks like to others.

    I would still like to hear your response to what I said about location and desecration actually carrying more meaning in the middle east. That's what's interesting about our country - people can insult us and we don't even know it. I'm NOT saying that's what they are trying to do, so don't chase that red herring. I'm just saying it's got a historical basis and might be something worth adding to the conversation.
    Last edited by Workerb33; 08/18/2010 at 11:34 AM.
  19. #239  
    Quote Originally Posted by ncinerate View Post
    What separates me from you is I don't extend this distaste to the entire Muslim religion or it's many followers. Muslims worshiping four blocks from ground zero is absolutely not wrong or distasteful, and although we -may- have to suffer the occasional nutbag going in there to worship those crazy fundamentalist attackers, I'm willing to suffer this because to curb the freedom of one is to take freedom from everyone.
    We must be in total agreement because I don't extend distaste to an entire religion. Cool, we can close the thread now!
  20. #240  
    Quote Originally Posted by Workerb33 View Post
    Maybe I'm just trying to give everyone respect and the benefit of the doubt. More of that good neighbor thing I'm so fond of.
    Maybe .

    I understand your thinking on this workerb33, I'm just trying to point out that the reality of this mosque is likely going to be very different then the narrative they are pushing on TV to oppose it (a narrative you were parroting a bit when you discussed the difference between a mosque at ground zero and a shinto shrine at pearl harbor, for example).

    The vast majority of people who will worship at this mosque will be American citizens who in no way support the actions or perpetrators of 9/11.

    I highly doubt it's going to be filled with death-to-america extremists. Even if it was, our country protects that speech, distasteful as it may be, even four blocks from the former WTC. I believe that is the right decision as a nation.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions