Islamic Cultural Center/Muslim Mosque near ground Zero [Archive]

Drake

08-17-2010, 07:06 AM

For years liberals have used the court system to attack religious prcatices, and now they suddenly are defending the rights of religious practicioners. They have sued to keep the 10 Commandments out of schools and out of courthouses. They have sent children home from public schools for wearing crosses, they sue to have nativity scenes removed from public places, etc. They have called the Bible a book of hate, but they defend the Koran. I'm also surprised the National Organization of Women isn't up in arms considering the horrible ways Muslims treat women.

But hey, if this is ok lets allow the Japanese to build a Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor. Let's also allow the Michigan Militia to build a church at the Oklahoma City bombing site.

What does separation of church and state have to do with this? If anything, it supports the logic that a mosque can be built. I'd oppose Islam in the school system the same as I would Christianity being there. Religion has no place in schools or government. If a town wants a church on every corner, then that's their right.

Are you working on a logical fallacy here? Sure sounds like it.

Drake

08-17-2010, 07:07 AM

The only problem is that "peaceably to assemble" part. It's been proven that terrorists are often recruited and meet to plan terroroist acts at mosques. We have arrested, tried, and convicted clerics/imams who were using their mosques for that very purpose. Omar Abdel-Rahman is a prime example. Were it not for the religion factor, you could argue that using RICO statutes against these nutjobs would be called for.

Islam itself is not a terrorist organization. If every muslim waged war on the US, it'd be a very bad day. Should we also say that all Christians are bad because of what McVeigh did?

BJJ-Blue

08-17-2010, 07:14 AM

Should we also say that all Christians are bad because of what McVeigh did?

No. But of course you can't show us pictures of Christians cheering in the streets when McVeigh bombed that building. Nor can you find Christians preaching that there will be more McVeighs and that he is a martyr who is enjoying 99 virgins in Paradise. We rightly called him a murderer, and we didn't send his family money like Muslims often do for the families of suicide bombers.

Drake

08-17-2010, 07:29 AM

No. But of course you can't show us pictures of Christians cheering in the streets when McVeigh bombed that building. Nor can you find Christians preaching that there will be more McVeighs and that he is a martyr who is enjoying 99 virgins in Paradise. We rightly called him a murderer, and we didn't send his family money like Muslims often do for the families of suicide bombers.

Some fringe groups believe he did the right thing. Again, you are blanketing ALL muslims based on the actions of a very remote few. There are millions of muslims in the US, and I don't recall hearing anything from condemnation from them regarding terrorist actions. Should they all be judged by the actions of others? Should we dare try to discriminate based off of a religion? What kind of precedent would THAT set?

MightyB

08-17-2010, 08:08 AM

For years liberals have used the court system to attack religious prcatices, and now they suddenly are defending the rights of religious practicioners. They have sued to keep the 10 Commandments out of schools and out of courthouses. They have sent children home from public schools for wearing crosses, they sue to have nativity scenes removed from public places, etc. They have called the Bible a book of hate, but they defend the Koran. I'm also surprised the National Organization of Women isn't up in arms considering the horrible ways Muslims treat women.

But hey, if this is ok lets allow the Japanese to build a Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor. Let's also allow the Michigan Militia to build a church at the Oklahoma City bombing site.

It's not the same - whether we like it or not, Islam is a religion. It's not terrorism. Every wannabe teabagger tries to equate these groups as being the same as the Mosque issue... building "a Nazi shrine next to the Holocaust museum" etc. Wrong logic. Here's an example: Most Nazis, Neo Nazis, KKK, Skinheads, etc claim to be Christian and have churches. Using tea bagger logic, the Jewish people should be protesting Churches near the Holocaust museum.

Now I'm not a liberal. They are for the most part - deuchebags! If they wanted to do some good, they should fight for the separation of business and state.

The right to choose and celebrate an organized religion is part of the fabric of America as expressed by the US Constitution.

BJJ-Blue

08-17-2010, 09:17 AM

Some fringe groups believe he did the right thing. Again, you are blanketing ALL muslims based on the actions of a very remote few. There are millions of muslims in the US, and I don't recall hearing anything from condemnation from them regarding terrorist actions. Should they all be judged by the actions of others? Should we dare try to discriminate based off of a religion? What kind of precedent would THAT set?

I'm blanketing no one. I just correctly pointed out that Muslims around the world were dancing in the streets while we were still digging out our dead and wounded. I also said you cant point to pictures of Christians all over the world doing the same thing when the Oklahoma City bombing happened. Facts are facts.

As for hearing only condemnation, there were indeed clerics/imams over here that cheered the murderers on. I actually named one in my earlier post.

Also, I was clear that they have every right to build their mosque there. I just feel it is in bad taste, and insensitive, to do so. Notice how even Obama won't comment on 'the wisdom of doing it', he has only said exactly what I said, that they do have that right.

MightyB

08-17-2010, 09:50 AM

Also, I was clear that they have every right to build their mosque there. I just feel it is in bad taste, and insensitive, to do so. Notice how even Obama won't comment on 'the wisdom of doing it', he has only said exactly what I said, that they do have that right.

Obama messed up and shouldn't have retracted, and retracted again. His original statement stood on its own as defined by the US Constitution. That shows wishy-washy character traits.

Maybe we should start limiting how much we integrate with the Muslim world. The bible states that we'll always be enemies ever since Abe nailed Hagar and then exiled her and Ishmael because Sarah was bitter and didn't want a rival for her son Isaac.

BJJ-Blue

08-17-2010, 10:32 AM

His original statement stood on its own as defined by the US Constitution. That shows wishy-washy character traits.

Actually it shows he picks and chooses. He took an oath to protect this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic, yet he refuses to halt illegal immigration. He actually sued a State for enforcing immigration law!

sanjuro_ronin

08-17-2010, 10:36 AM

I would allow this on one condition, the very public and very demonstrable show by the head of the Mosque in support of religious freedom for all and a very open and clear cut denouncing of the extremisst elements AND writings in Islam.

David Jamieson

08-17-2010, 10:40 AM

Actually it shows he picks and chooses. He took an oath to protect this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic, yet he refuses to halt illegal immigration. He actually sued a State for enforcing immigration law!

not one word of this is truth. All of it is obfuscation of the actual truth.

Do you not think there are measures in place for illegal immigration? For pete's sake, you nutters are building a wall israeli style down south and have lots of macho BS mustache wearing hicks running around calling themselves defenders of the country while taking potshots at hungry people in the rio grande.

Arizona was contested on whether or not their new laws were constitutional.
They are inclusive of racial profiling as far as the enforcement goes and so, they indeed are unconstitutional.

It is Arizonas right to patrol and manage it's borders. It is no ones right to single out a segment of the population and start demanding proof of citizenship when the only method they have is whether or not you are brown and speaking Spanish.

Meanwhile, some ex nazi could be living there but who would ever know because under arizona thinking, that guy would never be asked any questions about the legitimacy of his citizenship at all because he's white!

trouble with your kind of thinking is that you like to call a knife a spoon and as you cut the throat of one more person with it, you will still insist it is a spoon.

MightyB

08-17-2010, 11:00 AM

The whole immigration thing is another can of worms. I have no problem with Arizona. Is it profiling? Yes... but we're not talking about thousands of undocumented Dutch people in Arizona are we? We have a system for legal immigration. It isn't very good, but there is a system in place. If the federal government wants to weigh in on that issue and revamp the legal immigration policies, that's one thing... to stop a state from enforcing legal immigration policy - that's another. These people are illegal immigrants.

solo1

08-17-2010, 11:03 AM

The Muslims are using this as provocation. NY Governor Paterson has offered land upstate to build it but they insist it be built on this spot. Muslims build mosques on conquered territory and this is a deliberate provocation, its a victory mosque. Dont bother arguing religious freedom or property rights they have zero religious tolerance of anything or anyone, we are who are not Muslim are infidels and are to be converted or killed.
When they start allowing churchs and synagogues to be built in Tehran then and only then will a religious tolerance argument be valid. The Left is vapid, they believe we need to roll over and show how "sensitive" we are how "tolerant" we are. There are what, 30 mosques in NY? why this spot?
I have to ask because no one else will, has anyone considered the sensitivity of the families whose members were murdered at that site? Of course not. that might be provocative. However the interviews so far show shock, horror and dismay.
Who will finance the mosque? so far we know the Saudis, hardly a group that is pro American. How many synagouqes in riyadh? or churches? none. We dont have to display "tolerance" we have demonstrated our tolerance by welcoming every faith on the globe to our shores. We should be no more accepting of a mosque on this site then we would on the mall in Washington or god forbid Arlington Cemetary, but that is exactly what they are doing. Ground Zero is sacred ground, we were attacked, 3000 of us were murdered, are our memories that short? tolerance my ass, they are thumbing their collective noses at us. I havent forgotten the celebrations in the streets in the Middle East after 9/11.

KC Elbows

08-17-2010, 11:09 AM

to stop a state from enforcing legal immigration policy - that's another. These people are illegal immigrants.

The state law was not constitutional. So the policy proved unconsitutional, and thus, not legal. You cannot warrant messing with the rights of legal immigrants because they speak a certain language or are a certain race in any state.

solo1

08-17-2010, 11:14 AM

not one word of this is truth. All of it is obfuscation of the actual truth.

Do you not think there are measures in place for illegal immigration? For pete's sake, you nutters are building a wall israeli style down south and have lots of macho BS mustache wearing hicks running around calling themselves defenders of the country while taking potshots at hungry people in the rio grande.

Arizona was contested on whether or not their new laws were constitutional.
They are inclusive of racial profiling as far as the enforcement goes and so, they indeed are unconstitutional.

It is Arizonas right to patrol and manage it's borders. It is no ones right to single out a segment of the population and start demanding proof of citizenship when the only method they have is whether or not you are brown and speaking Spanish.

Meanwhile, some ex nazi could be living there but who would ever know because under arizona thinking, that guy would never be asked any questions about the legitimacy of his citizenship at all because he's white!

trouble with your kind of thinking is that you like to call a knife a spoon and as you cut the throat of one more person with it, you will still insist it is a spoon.

the southern border is porous and its not the best and brightest coming here illegally, its the trash. Canada has tough immigration laws AND they enforce them. A few years ago Canada had a massive flow from Taiwan and Hong Kong and the gov required them to have proof of no police record of any kind, a job waiting for them and proof of net worth before they would be considered for entry. Canada does not take in other nations refuse why should the US? Mexicos immigration laws are some of the strictest in the world, we should turn a blind eye to our own laws when every other country is forcefully enforcing theres? The US is not a dumping ground, we can niether support the numbers here nor should we be asked to.
To reduce this to a racial issue is the last vestige of losing the argument.

KC Elbows

08-17-2010, 11:19 AM

We are known for strict enforcement of our immigration laws.

Unless it means we can't have a large, cheap labor force.

solo1

08-17-2010, 11:19 AM

The state law was not constitutional. So the policy proved unconsitutional, and thus, not legal. You cannot warrant messing with the rights of legal immigrants because they speak a certain language or are a certain race in any state.

the state law is not unconstitutional, it mirrors the federal law. Even Virginias which is even tougher the Arizonas in not unconstitutional, the argument from the White House is that federal law trumps state law. the federal government is supposed to control immigration and they are not, the states have a right to protect themselves whether the feds like it or not. Arizona will prevail as will the other 29 states with similar bills in thier statehouses. Besides for Obama this is not about an immigration law, he couldnt care less about whats happening to the states dealing with illegals its about amensty and garnering the votes of millions of illegals, its about power. The law abiding, tax paying, voting public who have cried foul, be ****ed.

solo1

08-17-2010, 11:20 AM

We are known for strict enforcement of our immigration laws.

Unless it means we can't have a large, cheap labor force.

Scorch, Pow!!!

BJJ-Blue

08-17-2010, 12:05 PM

not one word of this is truth. All of it is obfuscation of the actual truth.

So the Justice Dept did not sue Arizona?

BJJ-Blue

08-17-2010, 12:08 PM

The state law was not constitutional.

That's not true. The judge issued an injunction barring Arizona from enforcing certain parts of the law while the constitutionality of the law is decided.

SanHeChuan

08-17-2010, 12:57 PM

When they start allowing churchs and synagogues to be built in Tehran then and only then will a religious tolerance argument be valid.

No churches in Tehran? (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=tehran&safe=active&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl) You don't bother to fact check anything do you. Did jesus tell you there were no churches in Tehran?

You got to love the argument, “but mom, they do it too.”

WTF we shouldn’t be tolerant because they aren’t tolerant? I thought we were supposed to be better than them. Guess not. :rolleyes:

Canada does not take in other nations refuse why should the US?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

David Jamieson

08-17-2010, 12:59 PM

the southern border is porous and its not the best and brightest coming here illegally, its the trash. Canada has tough immigration laws AND they enforce them. A few years ago Canada had a massive flow from Taiwan and Hong Kong and the gov required them to have proof of no police record of any kind, a job waiting for them and proof of net worth before they would be considered for entry. Canada does not take in other nations refuse why should the US? Mexicos immigration laws are some of the strictest in the world, we should turn a blind eye to our own laws when every other country is forcefully enforcing theres? The US is not a dumping ground, we can niether support the numbers here nor should we be asked to.
To reduce this to a racial issue is the last vestige of losing the argument.

What planet do you live on?

Canada is the ONLY nation in the world still open for refugees and we are dealing with about 500 of them right now. We've had boats show up filled with migrants and refugees every summer now for years.

We process them, and more often than not let them stay.

you know why? Because in the end it's a net gain!

Sure, we pay up front to get hem housed, clothed, fed, give them medical attention and some pocket money.

But within a year or so in most cases they have a job and are contributing tax payers.

The Chinese migrants are STILL in the process of making their refugee claims. If they don't meet the criteria they will be deported yes.

I personally am all for letting folks into our country that are coming from countries that are war torn, brutally impoverished. I don't mind paying the 1.3 cents in taxes per head to help them out. :p

It costs more to keep them at illegal status and to pursue them and all that crap.

You will gain more by letting them in, employing them and having them pay taxes.

The real problem is not the migrants, it's the people who exploit them in my opinion, or press them down.

A human, in my opinion should have the inalienable right to walk anywhere on this planet. Criminals aside of course, but what do they represent population wise? almost nothing?

yeah, it's mostly about fear, intolerance and trying to feel superior when you aren't.

Hardwork108

08-17-2010, 01:30 PM

No churches in Tehran? (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=tehran&safe=active&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl) You don't bother to fact check anything do you. Did jesus tell you there were no churches in Tehran? "

Yep, there are churches in Tehran, AND in other cities in Iran. There are christian (and other) populations that have been living on that land for centuries.

As far as Iran's politics are concerned then I would humbly suggest that most of the stuff people hear about in the media is misinformation and blatant lies, not unlike the ones that led to the firt two Gulf Wars. If you think that Iran' s President, Mahmood Ahmadinejad, is a mad man, then you have all fallen for the Western Intelligence agencies' propaganda.

I would suggest that those who want to see the Iranian President dead, or Iran bombed into oblivion, take the time and actually WATCH some of his speeches, and hear for yourselves what he is actually saying rather than be told by our corrupt politicians and their lapdog media, what to think, about the man and the country, that is Iran. After all it is the least one can do if he is condoning assassinations, mass murder.

Reality_Check

08-17-2010, 01:50 PM

For years liberals have used the court system to attack religious prcatices, and now they suddenly are defending the rights of religious practicioners. They have sued to keep the 10 Commandments out of schools and out of courthouses. They have sent children home from public schools for wearing crosses, they sue to have nativity scenes removed from public places, etc.

Actually doing those things is protecting religious practices. You many not realize this, but not everyone in this country is a Christian. :eek: Since the Government is forbidden from endorsing any religion (1st Amendment and all that) having Christian iconography in public institutions is a violation as it would confer/imply endorsement.

We have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Sikhs, etc in this country. Their religious traditions need to be protected too. We even have atheists and agnostics. Their lack of religious traditions need to be protected as well. In the situations you mentioned above, they all needed to be protected from Christians.

You may not like it, but the Constitution is pretty explicit on that score, as the courts have repeatedly said.

David Jamieson

08-17-2010, 01:55 PM

Reality_Check

08-17-2010, 02:01 PM

Actually it shows he picks and chooses. He took an oath to protect this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic, yet he refuses to halt illegal immigration. He actually sued a State for enforcing immigration law!

That's not true. The judge issued an injunction barring Arizona from enforcing certain parts of the law while the constitutionality of the law is decided.

Which is how it is supposed to work. The Executive Branch is tasked with enforcing the laws, and that includes the Constitution.

If a state law infringes on Federal powers or is unconstitutional, then it is the duty of the Department of Justice to challenge that law in court. Which is exactly what's happening. The system works. Yay!!! You should be happy.

He took an oath to protect this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic...

Please show me where in that oath it says to "protect this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic?" As a matter of fact, I would like you to show me that language in the Constitution.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

BJJ-Blue

08-17-2010, 02:52 PM

Which is how it is supposed to work. The Executive Branch is tasked with enforcing the laws, and that includes the Constitution.

If a state law infringes on Federal powers or is unconstitutional, then it is the duty of the Department of Justice to challenge that law in court. Which is exactly what's happening. The system works. Yay!!! You should be happy.

How does Arizona's law conflict/infringe with Federal Law? Please explain.

BJJ-Blue

08-17-2010, 02:59 PM

I find that the people who kick and scream and shout about the constitution are the ones who actually are wanting to in reality destroy it.

they use it when it suits them and then when confronted with the reality of it, well then it's just a piece of god&%$# paper at that point.

just an observation

Then I must be an exception.

IMO, it's one of the greatest documents ever written by man. If we had just read it and ran our country the way it intended this country to be ran, this nation would be even greater than it is now. It repeatedly calls for limited government, and we have abandoned that principle. Now we are gonna have to pay the piper, and it's not gonna be cheap.

Drake

08-17-2010, 06:56 PM

Then I must be an exception.

IMO, it's one of the greatest documents ever written by man. If we had just read it and ran our country the way it intended this country to be ran, this nation would be even greater than it is now. It repeatedly calls for limited government, and we have abandoned that principle. Now we are gonna have to pay the piper, and it's not gonna be cheap.

Then why do you support disregarding the first amendment?

If you want to take a cue from our forefathers, especially regarding state or government intervention, then maybe you should abide by the following quote.

"Those who are willing to give a bit of liberty to gain a bit of security deserve neither and will lose both."

Reality_Check

08-17-2010, 06:59 PM

How does Arizona's law conflict/infringe with Federal Law? Please explain.

Well...golly, that's for the courts to decide now isn't it? The courts have already ruled that immigration is the purview of the Federal Government. So...

Also, I'm waiting on the whole "protect this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic" language from the President's oath of office or the Constitution.

David Jamieson

08-17-2010, 07:00 PM

Reality_Check

08-17-2010, 07:12 PM

Also, there is already a mosque about 800 feet from where the center is proposed.

Worthy of consideration as well is all the ground zero sites that america has built near mosques in the last several years.

so, here's a neat link for all you haters: http://wonkette.com/417009/attention-bigots-there-is-already-a-mosque-near-the-wtc-site

It also seems that people from outside of NYC don't understand how things are here. I work on Broadway in midtown. I rarely go to 9th Avenue, which is two blocks away. It might as well be California.

Reality_Check

08-17-2010, 07:19 PM

Ground Zero is sacred ground, we were attacked, 3000 of us were murdered, are our memories that short? tolerance my ass, they are thumbing their collective noses at us. I havent forgotten the celebrations in the streets in the Middle East after 9/11.

And yet none of those hijackers were American Muslims. I wonder why. Maybe because of our religious freedoms, as espoused in the First Amendment.

Muslims build mosques on conquered territory

There are many mosques in the US, heck there is even one in the Pentagon (also attacked on 9/11). I guess we've already been conquered, right? :rolleyes:

Drake

08-17-2010, 09:30 PM

There are even Muslim chaplains in the Army! Enemies at the gate! Eeek! :rolleyes:

SoCo KungFu

08-17-2010, 10:51 PM

..sigh...this is why the world will be a better place when ALL religions are wiped from existence.

Hardwork108

08-17-2010, 11:07 PM

..sigh...this is why the world will be a better place when ALL religions are wiped from existence.

I hate to say it, but I agree with you. However, religions, just like politics, have been used by the people who have created them, to divide and rule the human race for thousands of years.

Some say that religions will eventually be phased out, by those in real control, and we will be fed with a new religion which will be the "worship the earth" religion, based on and as a "reaction" to the utter and complete scam called "Man-made Global Warming". At this stage of the game, this assumption is just a, dare I say, "Conspiracy Theory", but it will be interesting to see how things develop in the near future.

southernrock

08-18-2010, 03:42 AM

A couple of relatively high-profile Muslims weigh in on the controversy:

American Muslim organization says President Obama is wrong
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=6131

Arab TV Director: Ground Zero Mosque would be 'Monument' for Terrorists
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alana-goodman/2010/08/17/arab-tv-director-ground-zero-mosque-would-be-monument-terrorists

David Jamieson

08-18-2010, 04:30 AM

Having heard all sides of the argument, I think the protestation stems from mere bigotry and pettiness.

It also perpetuates the idea that it is ok to hate on an entire religion as it keeps using the keywords.

Hypocrisy, bigotry and a mental disconnect.

It's a talking point for republicans to spread their weird bigot message and it's provided a window of opportunity for all the bigots to get up an roar again.

whatever. People see it for what it is.

There's a mosque 800 feet from the proposed centre, which in and of itself is not a mosque and it is further evidence of ignorance and bigotry that it keeps getting held out as such by those who are in opposition.

southernrock

08-18-2010, 04:51 AM

Having heard all sides of the argument, I think the protestation stems from mere bigotry and pettiness.

It also perpetuates the idea that it is ok to hate on an entire religion as it keeps using the keywords.

.

Do you think the Muslims who oppose it, are engaging in bigotry, and/or pettiness, and that they hate their own religion?

southernrock

08-18-2010, 04:57 AM

And is there bigotry involved in NYC officials rolling out the red carpet for the Islamic center, while the Port Authority seems to be dragging it's feet (at best) regarding St. Nicholas Orthodox Church? See: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38462&s=rcmp

David Jamieson

08-18-2010, 05:13 AM

Do you think the Muslims who oppose it, are engaging in bigotry, and/or pettiness, and that they hate their own religion?

First off, I question the reasoning behind the opposition to the set up of the islamic centre. Why is it opposed? Really, look deep as to why you oppose it.

If you actually think that having a place of worship of god, a few blocks away from where a tragedy occured because 19 mostly saudi arabian wahabists in a criminal act of terror against the USA caused deaths, then you are suffering from a mental disconnect.

Why do you hate the religion of Islam? Because that is what you are doing. You are blanketing a billion people with your bigotted view in this little example.

You do realize there is already a mosque down the street? 800 feet away in fact. But because it's called a "majid" you are ignorant of it and therefore have no problem with it?

Are you going to start shouting about the other 20 or 30 mosques in manhattan as well?

I think people are engaging in political opportunism and the bigots and petty minded who cling to their hate are having a field day with it and on top of that are revealing what a huiuge lack of character and compassion they have.

For so long the right wingers of america have detested new york. They come down on it frequently as a den of infestation of gays and jews and then as soon as this came up, well hey, all of sudden right wing america now loves new york and is going to defend her from Islamization. :rolleyes:

Oy Vey!

It is astoundingly petty, narrow, dumb, bigoted and the opponents are merely political opportunists and shills for the right wingers.

But hey, thanks for showing your colours. Good to know who the glenn beck ditto heads are.

Oh and hey, if you are well informed and not just a ditto head, then let me tell you that the Burlington Coat Factory hates your freedom.

southernrock

08-18-2010, 05:32 AM

First off, I question the reasoning behind the opposition to the set up of the islamic centre. Why is it opposed? Really, look deep as to why you oppose it.

If you actually think that having a place of worship of god, a few blocks away from where a tragedy occured because 19 mostly saudi arabian wahabists in a criminal act of terror against the USA caused deaths, then you are suffering from a mental disconnect.

Why do you hate the religion of Islam? Because that is what you are doing. You are blanketing a billion people with your bigotted view in this little example.

You do realize there is already a mosque down the street? 800 feet away in fact. But because it's called a "majid" you are ignorant of it and therefore have no problem with it?

Are you going to start shouting about the other 20 or 30 mosques in manhattan as well?

I think people are engaging in political opportunism and the bigots and petty minded who cling to their hate are having a field day with it and on top of that are revealing what a huiuge lack of character and compassion they have.

For so long the right wingers of america have detested new york. They come down on it frequently as a den of infestation of gays and jews and then as soon as this came up, well hey, all of sudden right wing america now loves new york and is going to defend her from Islamization. :rolleyes:

Oy Vey!

It is astoundingly petty, narrow, dumb, bigoted and the opponents are merely political opportunists and shills for the right wingers.

But hey, thanks for showing your colours. Good to know who the glenn beck ditto heads are.

Oh and hey, if you are well informed and not just a ditto head, then let me tell you that the Burlington Coat Factory hates your freedom.

Not going to answer the questions I posed to you David? :)

Why do you assume I hate the religion of Islam, David? Are you so politically correct, that you automatically come to that conclusion?

Do you have psychic abilities, that allow you to discern who does or doesn't detest New York?

Your ad hominem frothing at the mouth, shows your true colors, and when it comes to bigotry, you take a back seat to no one.. ;)

David Jamieson

08-18-2010, 05:57 AM

Not going to answer the questions I posed to you David? :)

Why do you assume I hate the religion of Islam, David? Are you so politically correct, that you automatically come to that conclusion?

Do you have psychic abilities, that allow you to discern who does or doesn't detest New York?

Your ad hominem frothing at the mouth, shows your true colors, and when it comes to bigotry, you take a back seat to no one.. ;)

I did answer your question. They are political opportunists. That's what I think.

I assume you hate the religion of Islam because you are opposed to letting a group of muslims from setting up a cultural center simply because it is in manhattan.

How many blocks away should it be before it's ok with you for these people to set up a place to reach out, make bridges and worship? How far should they be in your opinion?

Dude, I am the least politically correct person here next to Ross I think...but then, I don't think many of the people who post here are politically correct.
Besides, being outspoken or non politicaly correct doesn't grant you wisdom over anyone. lol

My bigotry? lol, you're the one whining about some people meeting up and praying and eating together. get over yourself MIA badge BS poster who can only be bothere to weigh in on political hot topics which denotes you as a Fraud.

i come here for the kungfu, but i cometo the off topic to see folks like you try to backpedal out of their fear and hatred and bigotry when they have it thrown back in their faces.

such as I am doing now.

so Bigot, why do you think they shouldn't be allowed to live their lives, pray and eat in their place to do so like anyone else? Care to answer that? Or do you want to attack me personally because of my point of view. Maybe you could call me a psychic and try to diminsih my points again.

You will fail, because you are a bigot and that shines right though. YOu're not the only one though, there's lots of you, but that doesn't make your position logical, reasonable, rational or even sane.

speaking of frothing at the mouth. lol

you're so sensitive to new york aren't you"southern" rock. :rolleyes:

please, crawl back under the sanke belly you dragged your sorry ass out from under to come here and stir crap.

southernrock

08-18-2010, 06:26 AM

I did answer your question. They are political opportunists. That's what I think.

I assume you hate the religion of Islam because you are opposed to letting a group of muslims from setting up a cultural center simply because it is in manhattan.

How many blocks away should it be before it's ok with you for these people to set up a place to reach out, make bridges and worship? How far should they be in your opinion?

Dude, I am the least politically correct person here next to Ross I think...but then, I don't think many of the people who post here are politically correct.
Besides, being outspoken or non politicaly correct doesn't grant you wisdom over anyone. lol

My bigotry? lol, you're the one whining about some people meeting up and praying and eating together. get over yourself MIA badge BS poster who can only be bothere to weigh in on political hot topics which denotes you as a Fraud.

i come here for the kungfu, but i cometo the off topic to see folks like you try to backpedal out of their fear and hatred and bigotry when they have it thrown back in their faces.

such as I am doing now.

so Bigot, why do you think they shouldn't be allowed to live their lives, pray and eat in their place to do so like anyone else? Care to answer that? Or do you want to attack me personally because of my point of view. Maybe you could call me a psychic and try to diminsih my points again.

You will fail, because you are a bigot and that shines right though. YOu're not the only one though, there's lots of you, but that doesn't make your position logical, reasonable, rational or even sane.

speaking of frothing at the mouth. lol

you're so sensitive to new york aren't you"southern" rock. :rolleyes:

please, crawl back under the sanke belly you dragged your sorry ass out from under to come here and stir crap.

Do you think bigotry is involved with the St. Nicholas Church? You are jumping to a conclusion based on you own bigotry, concerning whether or not I oppose the building of the Islamic center near Ground Zero. I think it is a matter for New Yorkers to decide - I just found your bigoted, hysterical characerization of anyone opposed to it, as pompous and childish.

I'll be posting elsewhere besides political hot topics, but I think a demagogue and a bully like you, should be confronted.

You don't need anyone else to try to diminish your points, Davey, you do a bang-up job of that all on your own.

David Jamieson

08-18-2010, 06:52 AM

Do you think bigotry is involved with the St. Nicholas Church? You are jumping to a conclusion based on you own bigotry, concerning whether or not I oppose the building of the Islamic center near Ground Zero. I think it is a matter for New Yorkers to decide - I just found your bigoted, hysterical characerization of anyone opposed to it, as pompous and childish.

I'll be posting elsewhere besides political hot topics, but I think a demagogue and a bully like you, should be confronted.

You don't need anyone else to try to diminish your points, Davey, you do a bang-up job of that all on your own.

Let's try to stay on topic there anonymous guy.

Try not to get to familiar with me because i am upfront and use my own name here and don't cower in anonymity like so many of you folks that like to spew your bile and vitriol do. lol

I'll be surprised to see any informative kung fu topics coming from you. You joined this site just to pipe in on this one subject.

You make really weak attempts at obfuscation and try to curtail into other subjects instead of dealing with what you have just been confronted with.

Go ahead an confront me. I will deal with you and your ilk as need be. You're a coward and a bigot. A dime a dozen these days. Your ideology is hate and intolerance and for me, I don't have any issues kicking that junk to the curb.

BJJ-Blue

08-18-2010, 06:57 AM

Then why do you support disregarding the first amendment?

If you want to take a cue from our forefathers, especially regarding state or government intervention, then maybe you should abide by the following quote.

"Those who are willing to give a bit of liberty to gain a bit of security deserve neither and will lose both."

Please read my earlier posts. I clearly stated they have every right to build the mosque. I did say I felt it was in bad taste and insensitive, however. But to say it again; the Governemt cannot, and should not, ban the mosque.

southernrock

08-18-2010, 06:58 AM

Let's try to stay on topic there anonymous guy.

Try not to get to familiar with me because i am upfront and use my own name here and don't cower in anonymity like so many of you folks that like to spew your bile and vitriol do. lol

I'll be surprised to see any informative kung fu topics coming from you. You joined this site just to pipe in on this one subject.

You make really weak attempts at obfuscation and try to curtail into other subjects instead of dealing with what you have just been confronted with.

Go ahead an confront me. I will deal with you and your ilk as need be. You're a coward and a bigot. A dime a dozen these days. Your ideology is hate and intolerance and for me, I don't have any issues kicking that junk to the curb.

Anonymous guy? My name is Tim Egan.

The only thing I've been confronted with, is your biased certainty that anyone who even asks questions of your positions on this thread, hates all of Islam, and like assumptions on your part.

How is my ideology 'hate and intolerance", specifically, that is?

BJJ-Blue

08-18-2010, 07:04 AM

Well...golly, that's for the courts to decide now isn't it? The courts have already ruled that immigration is the purview of the Federal Government. So...

You said Arizona's law "infringes on Federal powers". I asked for you to explain that. Please explain that. I even posted your quote below where you said just that:

If a state law infringes on Federal powers or is unconstitutional, then it is the duty of the Department of Justice to challenge that law in court. Which is exactly what's happening. The system works. Yay!!! You should be happy.

Also, I'm waiting on the whole "protect this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic" language from the President's oath of office or the Constitution.

I was mistaken. However, it is our Government's duty to enforce the very laws they themselves passed. And they passed the laws relating to illegal immigration, and now this President is all but refusing to enforce those laws. Actually suing a State for enforcing the law is a very dangerous precedent.

Drake

08-18-2010, 07:12 AM

Please read my earlier posts. I clearly stated they have every right to build the mosque. I did say I felt it was in bad taste and insensitive, however. But to say it again; the Governemt cannot, and should not, ban the mosque.

Well, then we're in agreement. I don't think the mosque should be built, because Muslims SHOULD be sensitive to what happened there. However, if they absolutely wish to, who is to say they can't?

Reality_Check

08-18-2010, 07:27 AM

You said Arizona's law "infringes on Federal powers". I asked for you to explain that. Please explain that. I even posted your quote below where you said just that:

If a state law infringes on Federal powers or is unconstitutional, then it is the duty of the Department of Justice to challenge that law in court. Which is exactly what's happening. The system works. Yay!!! You should be happy.

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit (kind of reminds me of another poster...). Clearly the Department of Justice feels that the SB1070 infringes on powers reserved to the Federal Government (i.e. immigration). Hence the challenge. The courts will resolve the dispute. Which is the way things are supposed to work.

David Jamieson

08-18-2010, 07:27 AM

Anonymous guy? My name is Tim Egan.

The only thing I've been confronted with, is your biased certainty that anyone who even asks questions of your positions on this thread, hates all of Islam, and like assumptions on your part.

How is my ideology 'hate and intolerance", specifically, that is?

Very good!

Tim, prior to your announcement you were indeed just some anon voice.

So, please tell us all how denying this centre, across and down the street from an already established mosque is an affront to the sensitivity of americans?

If you don't despise Islam, what's the problem? Why can't they have their centre wherever they bloody well please? Is it insensitive to say stop discriminating based on religion? It is completely discriminatory to deny these people their right to build their centre.

What are you basing teh denial on? Sensitivity? Gimme a break, that is laughable.

Be sensitive and join us in denying the rights we afford everyone else to Muslims.

And yes, I am down on folks who are against this position because I see it as wrong. That is how points of view work.

so, tell me Tim, why should these people be denied their right to build their center?

who is it insensitive to to reach out , pray and meet other muslims?

do tell, I'm all ears.

Plenty of Muslims died in the WTC on 9/11/01 too, as well as Canadians, Germans, French, and so on. It certainly wasn't exclusively and American tragedy and it certainly wasn't an Islamic attack.

It was an act of criminal terrorism apparently carried out by criminals.

You cannot kill in the name of Islam anymore than you can kill in the name of Christ.

people kill in the name of hatred, profit, fear, intolerance, and occasionally in self defense. The latter being the least common of the way of killing.

anyway, why do you want these people to be denied their right as americans?

Reality_Check

08-18-2010, 07:36 AM

Do you think bigotry is involved with the St. Nicholas Church?

Bigotry? Hardly. For starters there is one major difference between the potential Islamic Cultural center and St. Nicholas Church. The latter is actually at Ground Zero and the former isn't. The negotiations between the church and the Port Authority were just that...negotiations. They fell through. It happens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19church.html

The fate of the church, a narrow whitewashed building that was crushed in the attack on the World Trade Center, was supposed to have been settled eight months ago, with a tentative agreement in which the church would swap its land for a grander church building on a larger parcel nearby, with a $20 million subsidy from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. This would have allowed work to begin at the south end of the site.

But the two sides never came to final terms. After months of negotiations, the Port Authority, which is overseeing reconstruction at ground zero, ended its talks with the church on Monday, saying that the church had sought increasingly costly concessions.

Complaints, of course, abound on both sides.

The authority now says that St. Nicholas is free to rebuild the church on its own parcel at 155 Cedar Street, just east of West Street. The authority will, in turn, use eminent domain to get control of the land beneath that parcel so it can move ahead with building foundation walls and a bomb-screening center for trucks, buses and cars entering the area.

“We made an extraordinarily generous offer to resolve this issue and spent eight months trying to finalize that offer, and the church wanted even more on top of that,” said Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the Port Authority. “They have now given us no choice but to move on to ensure the site is not delayed. The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building.”

The church officials also want to build a larger church, one the won't actually fit on the parcel of land where the destroyed one was.

St. Nicholas officials had hoped to build an impressive structure, with a traditional Greek Orthodox dome, and a nondenominational center for visitors to ground zero. That will not be possible on the church’s original 1,200-square-foot lot, although church officials say they hope for reconciliation.

That was the negotiation, to get a larger piece of land. It hasn't worked out. Fairly simple, no?

BJJ-Blue

08-18-2010, 08:09 AM

Well, then we're in agreement. I don't think the mosque should be built, because Muslims SHOULD be sensitive to what happened there. However, if they absolutely wish to, who is to say they can't?

Yes, we are in complete agreement on this one.

BJJ-Blue

08-18-2010, 08:12 AM

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit (kind of reminds me of another poster...). Clearly the Department of Justice feels that the SB1070 infringes on powers reserved to the Federal Government (i.e. immigration). Hence the challenge. The courts will resolve the dispute. Which is the way things are supposed to work.

I still want to hear why YOU say Arizona's law infringes on the Federal Government's powers. I'm discussing this topic with YOU, not Gov't lawyers, not judges, not Jan Brewer, YOU. So I want to hear YOUR take on it.

Drake

08-18-2010, 08:24 AM

I still want to hear why YOU say Arizona's law infringes on the Federal Government's powers. I'm discussing this topic with YOU, not Gov't lawyers, not judges, not Jan Brewer, YOU. So I want to hear YOUR take on it.

Border control is specifically the right of the federal government. States have zero rights here. It's specifically stated in the Constitution.

Reality_Check

08-18-2010, 08:43 AM

I still want to hear why YOU say Arizona's law infringes on the Federal Government's powers. I'm discussing this topic with YOU, not Gov't lawyers, not judges, not Jan Brewer, YOU. So I want to hear YOUR take on it.

YOU should work on your reading comprehension. Note the word in bold...

The courts have already ruled that immigration is the purview of the Federal Government. So...

Clearly the Department of Justice feels that the SB1070 infringes on powers reserved to the Federal Government (i.e. immigration).

If immigration is the purview of the Federal Government (as has been adjudicated), and SB1070 infringes on that...I think one can reach a reasonable conclusion regarding the merits of the Department of Justice's case.

BJJ-Blue

08-18-2010, 09:43 AM

So are you two saying that a State does not have a right to enforce Federal law?

BJJ-Blue

08-18-2010, 09:49 AM

YOU should work on your reading comprehension. Note the word in bold...

You should do the same.

I simply asked YOU to explain YOUR stance on why YOU say Arizona is overstepping it's bounds. It's a simple request. YOU took a stance, I just want YOU to explain, in YOUR own words, why YOU took that stance.

David Jamieson

08-18-2010, 10:15 AM

The State has a duty to adhere to federal law and enforce state laws.
They do not have the right to amend federal law as far as I know.

Federal law is enforced by federal agencies, not by states.

US customs is federal not state, the FBI is federal and not state, Immigration and naturalization is federal not state.

Arizona does not have the right to enforce federal law.
Arizona is entitled to lodge complaints about the feds failure to do so and to ask for them to enforce the laws they expect them to adhere to.

Vigilante citizens only make matters worse all the way round because they are acting out of emotional exasperation and generally in ignorance of the law themselves. they are certainly not within their rights to enforce the border security, that's for sure.

MightyB

08-18-2010, 11:32 AM

Arizona does not have the right to enforce federal law.
Arizona is entitled to lodge complaints about the feds failure to do so and to ask for them to enforce the laws they expect them to adhere to.

(Cough) Ahem...

"While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

BJJ-Blue

08-18-2010, 11:32 AM

Your statement is laughable on so many levels.

The State has a duty to adhere to federal law and enforce state laws.
They do not have the right to amend federal law as far as I know.

Arizona's law in no way amends Federal law. The part of the law the DOJ sued over was where Arizona was requiring law enforcement to determine individuals immigration status when there was law enforcement contact. They did not in any way ammend Federal immigration law.

If you disagree, please explain how Arizona's law amends Federal law in this instance.

Federal law is enforced by federal agencies, not by states.

So if local or State police see a carjacking, they cannot enforce the law? :confused: Remember, carjacking is a FEDERAL crime now. So if a local police dept sees a person carrying fully automatic rifle they can't arrest him? Possessing automatic weapons is against FEDERAL law as well. So are you really telling us that any non-Federal law enforcement agency would not be allowed to enforce that law (ie, arrest the guy with the gun), but would have to call ATF and let them do it? Are you really saying this????

Vigilante citizens only make matters worse all the way round because they are acting out of emotional exasperation and generally in ignorance of the law themselves. they are certainly not within their rights to enforce the border security, that's for sure.

We are not talking about vigilante citizens. We are talking about a bill that was justly passed by a lawfully elected State Legislature and signed into law by that State's lawfully elected Governor.

MightyB

08-18-2010, 11:42 AM

The Federal Law: http://www.theodora.com/ina_96_title_2.html

211 DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 211. [8 U.S.C. 1181]

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (c) no immigrant shall be admitted into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the issuance of such visa of the accompanying parent, and (2) presents a valid unexpired passport or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality, if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General. With respect to immigrants to be admitted under quotas of quota areas prior to June 30, 1968, no immigrant visa shall be deemed valid unless the immigrant is properly chargeable to the quota area under the quota of which the visa is issued.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 212(a)(7)(A) of this Act in such cases or in such classes of cases and under such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed, returning resident immigrants, defined in section 101(a)(27)(A), who are otherwise admissible may be readmitted to the United States by the Attorney General in his discretion without being required to obtain a passport, immigrant visa, reentry permit or other documentation.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to an alien whom the Attorney General admits to the United States under section 207.

SanHeChuan

08-18-2010, 11:48 AM

If you disagree, please explain how Arizona's law amends Federal law in this instance.
Well for one,

Because according to Federal Law, State and Local law enforcement have to be specifically trained by ICE to enforce Immigration law.

The Arizona law required ALL State Law enforcement to enforce Immigration law without regard of their qualifications to do so.

26 law enforcement officers trained by ICE to enforce immigration law
Graduates join more than 1,200 287(g) trained officers nationwide (http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1007/100723charleston.htm)

BJJ-Blue

08-18-2010, 12:26 PM

Well for one,

Because according to Federal Law, State and Local law enforcement have to be specifically trained by ICE to enforce Immigration law.

The Arizona law required ALL State Law enforcement to enforce Immigration law without regard of their qualifications to do so.

26 law enforcement officers trained by ICE to enforce immigration law
Graduates join more than 1,200 287(g) trained officers nationwide (http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1007/100723charleston.htm)

Why is the Federal Gov't training State and local LE to enforce immigration law when David clearly stated "Federal law is enforced by federal agencies, not by states"?

Also, I do not believe Arizona's law made Arizona LE enforce the law themselves. It just stated they had to determine a person's immigration status when there was LE contact. I believe that if Arizona LE had found someone here illegally they were required that person over to Federal LE so the Feds could enforce the law. It did not call for Arizona LE to deport the person (ie, enforce the law) themselves. Am I wrong?

And again, the DOJ sued Arizona under the provision that REQUIRED Arizona LE to determine a person's immigration status. Virginia recently passed a similar law to Arizona's, but with one major difference; their law states that law enforcement CAN CHOOSE to determine a person's immigration status, but it does not REQUIRE them to do so. And the DOJ has yet to sue Virginia. That should tell you something.

MightyB

08-18-2010, 12:38 PM

David Jamieson

08-18-2010, 01:35 PM

(Cough) Ahem...

"While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

Yeah, that's not up to Arizona. that's up to the Customs officers AT the border.
You can't randomly go around stopping people because they are brown which is the only clue they would have don't you think? I mean the work around is not even in the least bit clever at all.

What Arizona should be doing is demanding that the federal government do it's job to protect it's borders by beefing up their own patrols and customs officials and beefing up their own presence and operations in the state.

Arizona can also make it a prosecutable offense to hire anyone who is not legitimate. That's where they can do the most, but I doubt they'll do that because then they'll not get to chase mexicans and have to chase down americans for breaking the laws.

as for the car jacking thing, a citizen can make an arrest can they not? a crime in progress is obvious.

SanHeChuan

08-18-2010, 01:49 PM

How can you tell an AMERICAN who like all Americans is NOT required to carry ANY ID from a Illegal Immigrant who doesn't have ID, OR a Legal Immigrant who is required to have ID but doesn't have it on them?

Don't you think it would be a violation of the completely law abiding AMERICAN's rights to be detained for an indeterminate length of time in order to establish their Identity?

MightyB

08-18-2010, 01:54 PM

Yeah, that's not up to Arizona. that's up to the Customs officers AT the border.
You can't randomly go around stopping people because they are brown which is the only clue they would have don't you think? I mean the work around is not even in the least bit clever at all.

What Arizona should be doing is demanding that the federal government do it's job to protect it's borders by beefing up their own patrols and customs officials and beefing up their own presence and operations in the state.

They did all of that - even to the extent of begging the federal govt. to mobilize the national guard to help stem the inflow of illegal immigrants.

The federal law does state that they have a right to ask for proof of citizenship, and the right to deport those that are not legally here as defined by section 112 of the act which I previously posted a link to. The attorney general can override a deportation order only under certain conditions - they're also in that link. They're also laws regulating fines for illegally employing illegal immigrants in that link.

See- I think you're missing the key term in all of this discussion - the word is "illegal" immigrants. There are ways to enter this country legally.

MightyB

08-18-2010, 01:56 PM

BJJ-Blue

08-18-2010, 02:00 PM

So I've posted the actual law and I started to read over Arizona's. They are in-fact enforcing US Federal Law. If a person is detained and can't prove legal immigration status as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act, then they can deport them. 'Nuff Said.

Thank you.

You can't randomly go around stopping people because they are brown which is the only clue they would have don't you think?

Correct. Which is why Arizona's law did not give LE the right to "go around randomly stopping people". It stated they had to determine a person's status when they were arrested or detained. It did not allow for random searches.

Arizona can also make it a prosecutable offense to hire anyone who is not legitimate. That's where they can do the most, but I doubt they'll do that because then they'll not get to chase mexicans and have to chase down americans for breaking the laws.

I believe it is already a crime to hire undocumented workers. I know that for every job I've ever had I've had to bring my SS card and Driver License so they can keep a copy for their records, and I have to fill out tax forms (a 1099?) so the federal Government can take my income taxes out. I believe they do that so that can show they are only hiring those eligible to work in the US since it's the law.

as for the car jacking thing, a citizen can make an arrest can they not? a crime in progress is obvious.

That's not what I asked about. I asked about State and local LE, not citizens, in relation to enforcing other Federal laws.

But now that you put it that way, weren't you the one that said "vigilante citizens" couldn't enforce immigration law? I guess they can enforce carjacking laws though.

BJJ-Blue

08-18-2010, 02:02 PM

BJJ-Blue

08-18-2010, 02:04 PM

Don't you think it would be a violation of the completely law abiding AMERICAN's rights to be detained for an indeterminate length of time in order to establish their Identity?

And therin lies your problem. Arizona's law did not allow for LE to ask about a person's immigration status unless they were arrested or detained by LE. They did not write a law that gave LE the right to randomely go around asking people to produce their papers. And if you believe that it did, you are dead wrong.

Reality_Check

08-18-2010, 02:30 PM

to take it a bit further -

They really aren't entitled to any of the rights and provisions granted by the US Constitution since they are not citizens of the United States... so there is no protection for them against search and seizure, etc.

Incorrect.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note the distinction between persons and citizens.

This is pretty straight forward "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "Persons" would encompass foreigners (legally or illegally here). It specifically says "persons" are entitled to due process and equal protection, not just "citizens."

David Jamieson

08-18-2010, 03:25 PM

*snip*
But now that you put it that way, weren't you the one that said "vigilante citizens" couldn't enforce immigration law? I guess they can enforce carjacking laws though.

lol. nay, a citizens arrest, or the reporting of a car jacking to police is not vigilanteism.

vigilanteism is intentionally heading out to do the job that ain't yours that no one asked you to or deputized you too.

but helping someone out that is in an immedite dire situation as you indicated and then twisting it into what you did is akin to saying that stealing a chocolate bar is the same as stealing 10 lbs of uranium 235 because both of them are stealing.

If you can't see the spectrum and can only see the ends, then you can't see the full picture and certainly can't make an accurate assesment. :)

So if there are no l;egal grounds to challenge what the State fo Arizona has attempted to do, then why is it before the courts?

southernrock

08-18-2010, 03:57 PM

Very good!

Tim, prior to your announcement you were indeed just some anon voice.

So, please tell us all how denying this centre, across and down the street from an already established mosque is an affront to the sensitivity of americans?

If you don't despise Islam, what's the problem? Why can't they have their centre wherever they bloody well please? Is it insensitive to say stop discriminating based on religion? It is completely discriminatory to deny these people their right to build their centre.

What are you basing teh denial on? Sensitivity? Gimme a break, that is laughable.

Be sensitive and join us in denying the rights we afford everyone else to Muslims.

And yes, I am down on folks who are against this position because I see it as wrong. That is how points of view work.

so, tell me Tim, why should these people be denied their right to build their center?

who is it insensitive to to reach out , pray and meet other muslims?

do tell, I'm all ears.

Plenty of Muslims died in the WTC on 9/11/01 too, as well as Canadians, Germans, French, and so on. It certainly wasn't exclusively and American tragedy and it certainly wasn't an Islamic attack.

It was an act of criminal terrorism apparently carried out by criminals.

You cannot kill in the name of Islam anymore than you can kill in the name of Christ.

people kill in the name of hatred, profit, fear, intolerance, and occasionally in self defense. The latter being the least common of the way of killing.

anyway, why do you want these people to be denied their right as americans?

Again, David you are making assumptions based upon your prejudices, and preconceived notions of not only people who voice disagreement with you on the issue, but of people who merely ask questions regarding your assertions.

The people who attacked the Twin Towers, were criminals, who were motivated by their brand of Isalm. There is approximately 10% (IMO) 0f Muslims worldwide who approve of terrorism, towards the West, or towards "infidels". From what I can discern, the Imam involved with the proposed Islamic center, isn't a terrorist, and eschews violence. In the final analysis, I think New Yorkers should hash this issue it.

When you ask why I want these people denied their rights as Americans, you are setting up a straw man and knocking it down. To use the same tactic, when did you stop beating your wife?

Do you think bigotry is invovlved with the Port Authortiy, regarding the St. Nicholas Church, when the proposed reconstruction of that church, is apparently being held to a different standard, than the proposed Islamic center is?

David Jamieson

08-18-2010, 06:53 PM

Again, David you are making assumptions based upon your prejudices, and preconceived notions of not only people who voice disagreement with you on the issue, but of people who merely ask questions regarding your assertions.

The people who attacked the Twin Towers, were criminals, who were motivated by their brand of Isalm. There is approximately 10% (IMO) 0f Muslims worldwide who approve of terrorism, towards the West, or towards "infidels". From what I can discern, the Imam involved with the proposed Islamic center, isn't a terrorist, and eschews violence. In the final analysis, I think New Yorkers should hash this issue it.

When you ask why I want these people denied their rights as Americans, you are setting up a straw man and knocking it down. To use the same tactic, when did you stop beating your wife?

Do you think bigotry is invovlved with the Port Authortiy, regarding the St. Nicholas Church, when the proposed reconstruction of that church, is apparently being held to a different standard, than the proposed Islamic center is?

I guess you are in the 10% of whoever that supports the destruction of islam then?

where are you getting these numbers besides pulling them out of glenn becks ass. lol

dude, telling someone it's their constitutional right, but don't do it is crap and you know it.

Another fella mentioned that to say that is akin to saying:

"well yeah, she can vote, but she shouldn't because it will make waves with her husband, he's old fashioned"

or

"yeah black people can vote, but they shouldn't because it will cause trouble"

It's their constitutional right, they are gonna build it and what are you gonna do about it?

why do you keep going on about the church? You had it explained to you already about that, they still own their land they can still build their church. they wanted to build a bigger church but didn't own the land. what is the problem with your understanding there?

Those who want to build the cultural centre own their land, they aren't asking for special consideratinos and they can build it if they like and with the blessings of everyone.

How is it bigoted? Do you think the city of new york should give the land to the church so tehy can have a church right on top of ground zero? But the mosque, several blocks away is insensitive?

Do you think America is a Christian country or something?

MightyB

08-19-2010, 05:32 AM

Incorrect.

Note the distinction between persons and citizens.

This is pretty straight forward "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "Persons" would encompass foreigners (legally or illegally here). It specifically says "persons" are entitled to due process and equal protection, not just "citizens."

You're argument is sound- but that still doesn't omit that there is a law which I've already posted that states that without proof of citizenship or a legal Visa, a person can and will be deported. So- since persons are subject to law...

Look- the point is the "undocumented" part. You can't have such a massive and uncontrolled inflow of foreign people and not do something. If we have to create a new system to allow for easier documentation, that's for the people as a whole to decide. As it stands, I do believe that 95% of the people who are coming across the border are probably good people looking to start a new life in a wonderful country... but- there has to be a process because there are some really bad people coming in, and there are some really bad people already here looking to take advantage of these immigrants. Having documentation, getting them paying taxes, giving protection against exploitation and keeping the criminals out are all legitimate goals. But We Are Not There Yet in terms of our ability to control the border. So- Arizona is doing what they have to do... and, it's working.

David Jamieson

08-19-2010, 05:45 AM

Oh there is something we can do about it.

we can party!

foreign style!

yeah!

solo1

08-19-2010, 08:02 AM

Incorrect.

Note the distinction between persons and citizens.

This is pretty straight forward "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "Persons" would encompass foreigners (legally or illegally here). It specifically says "persons" are entitled to due process and equal protection, not just "citizens."

thats quite a stretch saying PERSONS can be extrapolated into illegals. Illegals are not covered the equal protection clause. they are not citizens and are not entitled to constitutional protection. interesting how WE are expected to twist the constitution but every other country with immigration issues has made it very clear that illegals are not citizens and are not enitilted to the same protections. Watching western countries handle this are demonstrating great restraint and are running illegals thru thier legal systems, however is the same held true in middle eastern or even central and south america? the answer is no. the mexican laws are very clear and the laws regarding illegals are "Extra-Constitutional" defining it in clear terms, illegals are handled under a completely differant set of rules and very harshly. Even naturalized citizens in Mexico are held to a differant standerd. Not alllowed to protest, cannot openly mock the government, are not allowed to hold certain types of property and are not allowed to vote, cannot be on any type of public assistance, medical and otherwise, can be imprisoned and deported at the whim of even the local governments and forfiet any and all property acquired in Mexico. But the same mexican government sues our government if the illegals they ship over the border or detained questioned, arrested or deported. Taking advantage of Americans tolernat nature, id say hell yes they are.

KC Elbows

08-19-2010, 08:03 AM

solo1

08-19-2010, 08:24 AM

You're argument is sound- but that still doesn't omit that there is a law which I've already posted that states that without proof of citizenship or a legal Visa, a person can and will be deported. So- since persons are subject to law...

Look- the point is the "undocumented" part. You can't have such a massive and uncontrolled inflow of foreign people and not do something. If we have to create a new system to allow for easier documentation, that's for the people as a whole to decide. As it stands, I do believe that 95% of the people who are coming across the border are probably good people looking to start a new life in a wonderful country... but- there has to be a process because there are some really bad people coming in, and there are some really bad people already here looking to take advantage of these immigrants. Having documentation, getting them paying taxes, giving protection against exploitation and keeping the criminals out are all legitimate goals. But We Are Not There Yet in terms of our ability to control the border. So- Arizona is doing what they have to do... and, it's working.

all do respect but if you honestly feel that 95% of the people coming into this country are decent hard working, looking for a better life we are kidding ourselves. The biggest inflow of bodies are illegals, by illegal their first act in this country was the commision of a felony, dont lose sight of that. Being here or Canada or Germany or Mexico if you are there without the proper documentation your a felon. The illegals here are here to game the system, to exploit "the anchor baby" paradox. The bulk have no intention of becoming American they insist on maintaining their lives as they were just in another location. This is a sticking point for a lot of folks. We are lving in an age where we are supposed to be accepting of other cultures and are asked to consider our own culture as no better then any ones elses,were we as Americans are expected to bend over in any way to accomadate immigrants, we are all equal. No sir. we are not. We are exceptional and it is time to re embrace that. Coming here we expect you to become American, learn the language, assimilate into the culture, you leave your old life at the border, your are expected, by your citizenship oath to be prepard to take up arms in defense of the US even if it is againest your home country.
This is not to say dont be italian, chinese, or middle eastern, but when your in rome do as the romans.

John Howard former PM of australia said it best because our "leaders or coawrdly gutless turds:

Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia." "However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand."

"This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others. "This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here So accept the country YOU accepted."

HELL YES!

SanHeChuan

08-19-2010, 08:30 AM

Watching western countries handle this are demonstrating great restraint and are running illegals thru thier legal systems, however is the same held true in middle eastern or even central and south america? the answer is no.

So, you'd rather be like the middle east and south america?:confused:

You keep saying that if the Middle East doesn't have to respect people and treat them with civility we shouldn't either. Should we adopt Sharia law too, hey that’s what the Middle East is doing. You might be a Muslim if.. :rolleyes:

Reality_Check

08-19-2010, 08:34 AM

thats quite a stretch saying PERSONS can be extrapolated into illegals. Illegals are not covered the equal protection clause. they are not citizens and are not entitled to constitutional protection. interesting how WE are expected to twist the constitution but every other country with immigration issues has made it very clear that illegals are not citizens and are not enitilted to the same protections. Watching western countries handle this are demonstrating great restraint and are running illegals thru thier legal systems, however is the same held true in middle eastern or even central and south america? the answer is no. the mexican laws are very clear and the laws regarding illegals are "Extra-Constitutional" defining it in clear terms, illegals are handled under a completely differant set of rules and very harshly. Even naturalized citizens in Mexico are held to a differant standerd. Not alllowed to protest, cannot openly mock the government, are not allowed to hold certain types of property and are not allowed to vote, cannot be on any type of public assistance, medical and otherwise, can be imprisoned and deported at the whim of even the local governments and forfiet any and all property acquired in Mexico. But the same mexican government sues our government if the illegals they ship over the border or detained questioned, arrested or deported. Taking advantage of Americans tolernat nature, id say hell yes they are.

It's hardly a stretch. The 14 Amendment to the Constitution lists only two classes of people: citizens and persons. Since citizens are, by definition, here legally, persons must include all others (foreign and domestic, legal and illegal). Nice strawman attempt, just because other countries handle their immigration differently does not rewrite the Constitution; specifically the due process and equal protection clauses.

MightyB

08-19-2010, 08:46 AM

As already stated, the rules as they apply to law enforcement are specific about what is required for a LEO to undertake the process. They are required to undergo certain training, else they simply cannot do this. And there's a reason: laws like this can easily turn into warrantless searches DESPITE the wording of the law.

Are you not asked for your driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration when you're pulled over?

What's so F'n wrong about asking for your state ID and or Green card?

Wake up. The border is out of freak'n control.

KC Elbows

08-19-2010, 09:37 AM

Are you not asked for your driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration when you're pulled over?

What's so F'n wrong about asking for your state ID and or Green card?

Wake up. The border is out of freak'n control.

I don't think I was disrespectful to you.

Asking for any of those others is difficult to turn into an unwarranted search situation.

Finding reasons to ask for any of them because someone is Mexican is nearly impossible to prove.

Thus the reason that there are standards LEOs must follow is that things like checking people because they are Mexican, while obviously based in a real problem, without standards, can complicate matters further instead of solving them.

Impliment a standard too lax, and every illegal caught will be able to legally point out "hey, you just handed a lot of power to racists in the police department with no standards whatsoever to establish guidelines", and deportation probably won't happen.

Why should LEO's in Arizona be allowed to carry out these laws without additional training when the laws themselves, and the regulations associated them, require that immigration's people have to have a certain level of training to do so?

Do you seriously not see the need for associated regulation in the sad case that a law be carried out based on race? Do you seriously think there's not a lot of historical backing for the assertion that, when there is no standards and guidelines above and beyond other laws that don't carry this same racial content, that rampant abuse has almost always followed implementation of such laws?

Do you know nothing of the history laws in the U.S. whose content was largely focused on one race? And you're proposing you've got a good solution, and everyone else should wake up? Really?

KC Elbows

08-19-2010, 10:04 AM

So, let's see this solution. Enforce immigration by deportation of illegals.

Largely backed by the pro-business Repubs, with a few pro-business Dems on board.

From there, the businesses paying the money the illegals want continue to pay that money, the illegals just cross back over, meanwhile, it costs us the cost of deportation proceedings, deportations, law enforcement training, lawsuits(both fair and unfair ones).

From there, the same pro-business folk who push for arresting the illegals will not be passing similar legislation to shut down the sizable farms that work them, the many large companies that implement them. At best, they'll make a few token arrests of mom and pop contractors.

The people who screamed and screamed for the borders to be protected are mostly not gonna start finding out where to buy fruit not picked by potential illegals, not pay higher for the guarantee that illegals are not working construction, etc. The people will fork money right into the process that inspires the illegals to cross the border.

At which point, if the Repubs are back in office, they'll start talking about the g@y issue.

MightyB

08-19-2010, 10:59 AM

And you're proposing you've got a good solution, and everyone else should wake up? Really?

I'm proposing there won't be a solution unless we have a debate like we're having because of Arizona. Just because it was status quo didn't make it good - this is the same thing I argue with Health Care. Nothing happens unless measures (good or bad) are made with actions to back them up. If you've been reading and watching the news, there have been serious population declines in Arizona communities (this happened very recently because of Summer break). This tells me that Arizona's tough stance is having an effect and undocumented illegal immigration is on a decline. We don't know how this is going to play out in the long run, but for years the people on the border states have been asking the federal government to do something... anything to stem the tide of illegals.

I'm all for lessening the restrictions and opening things up for people who are willing to be a part of our system. We just need the system in place to make it fair and equitable to everyone who is involved.

MightyB

08-19-2010, 11:01 AM

by decline - I mean the population of illegals in Arizona is declining. They're probably just moving to other states.

KC Elbows

08-19-2010, 11:33 AM

by decline - I mean the population of illegals in Arizona is declining. They're probably just moving to other states.

Doesn't this then mean that illegal immigration is probably not declining, they're just passing through Arizona instead of staying? As most experts are saying?

As long as the money is there, the illegals will be there. As long as the people pushing legislature to round up the illegals are also reflexively pro-business, the money will still be there. As long as the voters are moved by token measures and panicky responses, the reflexively pro-business legislators who garner votes by easy solutions that cost money in the long run will be there, ad infinitum.

Giving votes to the GOP and social conservatives, who, in eight years of power talked a lot about this issue and did zero, only gives them the same free ride. Give them your vote, and when push comes to shove and they're in, g@y marriage debate will be what your vote will win AGAIN.

Debate doesn't actually solve things, especially empty debate that is not intended to solve anything. Our debate on this topic in the forum is as empty of possibility of change as what the politicians who passed the Arizona bill and those that oppose it are engaging in right now.

The economic situation will have to get a lot worse before Americans are actually going to do the work we NEED illegals to do.

The Arizona bill should've been called the "free votes in exchange for huge costs on all of us bill", because that's what it breaks down to. The only group who will benefit from it will be the politicians who got votes from it, period.

The problem with passing silly laws is that the people have to pay for their implementation.

southernrock

08-19-2010, 03:24 PM

I guess you are in the 10% of whoever that supports the destruction of islam then?

where are you getting these numbers besides pulling them out of glenn becks ass. lol

dude, telling someone it's their constitutional right, but don't do it is crap and you know it.

Another fella mentioned that to say that is akin to saying:

"well yeah, she can vote, but she shouldn't because it will make waves with her husband, he's old fashioned"

or

"yeah black people can vote, but they shouldn't because it will cause trouble"

It's their constitutional right, they are gonna build it and what are you gonna do about it?

why do you keep going on about the church? You had it explained to you already about that, they still own their land they can still build their church. they wanted to build a bigger church but didn't own the land. what is the problem with your understanding there?

Those who want to build the cultural centre own their land, they aren't asking for special consideratinos and they can build it if they like and with the blessings of everyone.

How is it bigoted? Do you think the city of new york should give the land to the church so tehy can have a church right on top of ground zero? But the mosque, several blocks away is insensitive?

Do you think America is a Christian country or something?

I support the destruction of al Qaeda. How about you?

A Poll that references the percentage of Muslims who do or don't support al Qaeda, etc. Is "Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism, al Qaeda and U.S. Policies" from 2/25/09, published by the University of Maryland. You can find it on the Web.

The church in question was told their construction plans wouldn't be allowed because of height requirements, although the proposed Islamic center will be taller.

If the Islamic center is built, then it's built, but your contention that any and all who oppose it are haters and intolerant, or opportunists, is infantile.

Drake

08-19-2010, 05:59 PM

Actually, I was stationed near the border for several years. Really, they ARE just people trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.

The big threat is the drug runners, who have no problem shooting us, police, or illegal immigrants if it means keeping their operation safe.

The illegals were just trying to get up to Tucson and Phoenix. Jan Miller already got called out for accusing them of being drug mules. That isn't true, and never has been.

pmosiun

08-19-2010, 08:50 PM

..........

Drake

08-19-2010, 09:31 PM

I think it is tasteless to build a mosque near ground zero. They can build anywhere in america but not ground zero.

Are you aware that Muslims pray every day at the Pentagon chapel? Not far from where the plane hit. What does it say when the military is more tolerant than the civilians?

mawali

08-19-2010, 10:44 PM

I think it is tasteless to build a mosque near ground zero. They can build anywhere in america but not ground zero.

Citizens of USA have a right to petition to be part of the social and political process and that mean all citizens and not some. The people who seek to build a mosque have done nothing wrong so they shouldl not be penalized.
That is like saying that reparations must be paid by those who were not around and did not particiapte against oppression against a particular group.

Let us follow the Constitution in all facets and not those that favour ourselves!

Drake

08-20-2010, 10:50 AM

My own personal opinions about the timing and judgment of those wishing to build the mosque notwithstanding, have the ones who actually want to build the mosque committed a single crime? Have they displayed any sort of anti-American sentiment?

I read a few references to WWII and Pearl Harbor. It should go without saying that we DID persecute Japanese Americans without just cause during that timeframe, with our own concentration camps being erected, and forcving them to give up their property. Is this how we want to be reflected as Americans?

My two cents. Inform them that the mosque may be considered bad taste and encourage them to seek alternative locations. If they persist, there is not a single reason we can legally bar it from being "built". You can't say they are terrorists if they haven't committed any terrorist acts. You can't accuse them of supporting terrorism if they haven't done so. And you certainly can't ASSUME someone is committing criminal acts or sedition simply based on your own paranoia and because "you think it's going on".

The USSR worked like that. China works like that. Venezuela works like that. MY COUNTRY doesn't work like that.

SanHeChuan

08-20-2010, 11:30 AM

What is “insensitive” is not building a Mosque that has no real connection to 9/11 near ground zero.
What is “insensitive” is painting Muslims as villains and saying that their religion is “offensive”.

If you want to hold Islam and Muslims in general accountable for what happened on 9/11, you are just plain WRONG.

Nigerian Christians accused of 'genocide' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nigerian-christians-accused-of-genocide-562414.html)

“They have to know that there are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo … it will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die, They will disappear. That people will disappear from the face of the earth.” - Radovan Karadzic (http://www.nytimes.com/info/radovan-karadzic/)

If America is any more tolerant toward various religions it's not because of Christian values, it's because of Humanist values.

Mosque near ground zero divides Sept. 11 relatives (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100820/ap_on_re_us/us_nyc_mosque_families)
As Americans take sides over plans to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque blocks away, Hamdani says it feels personal. "Why are we paying the price? Why are we being ostracized? Our loved ones died," she said at her Lake Grove, N.Y., home. "America was founded on the grounds of religious freedom," and opposition to the cultural center "is un-American. It's unethical. And it is wrong."

Drake

08-20-2010, 11:51 AM

I'm not saying the anti-muslim sentiment is right. I'm saying it's the reality. Again, if I were a muslim wanting to build a mosque there, I don't think I'd go through with it. Not out of fear... just because I'm aware of the perception.

SanHeChuan

08-20-2010, 12:05 PM

Meh, when it stops being expedient political fodder, it will be forgotten.

A “Real American™" ;) would do it anyway, just because ignorant bullies we're trying to tell them they couldn't or shouldn't. Let that freedom flag wave! :D

Lucas

08-20-2010, 01:15 PM

people should look up the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, and understand that every fanatic group of religious zealots do crazy ass ****. its just ONE example. seriously, how quickly we forget the truth of reality.

"The massacre was interpreted as an act of divine retribution; Coligny was considered a threat to Christendom and thus the pope designated 11 September 1572 as a joint commemoration of the Battle of Lepanto and the massacre of the Huguenots."

E. Howe: Architecture in Vasari's "Massacre of the Huguenots" (Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 39, 1976 (1976), pp. 258-261)

i may be wrong but isnt the muslim faith the second largest world religion? thats pretty big, and a lot of people may not realize that they likely interact with muslims on a daily basis. seriously, some people are friends with muslims and dont even know it because many muslims dont openly admit their faith unless probed because they know that they will ultimately be judged based on the actions of others that are in no way related to them.

by this mindset, isnt it a tad offensive (and highly hypocritical) that you find christian houses of worship spread all over the world, many times in places that have in the past been victims of christian persecution.

i am not part of any religious party, if you are wondering, my sig has nothing to do with my beliefs. I have nothing against either religion.

RenDaHai

08-21-2010, 10:02 PM

How close to ground zero are we actually talking about here? How big is the prayer centre? What are the facts?

Drake

08-23-2010, 06:24 AM

How close to ground zero are we actually talking about here? How big is the prayer centre? What are the facts?

Google it, dude.

solo1

08-23-2010, 07:49 AM

Drake

08-23-2010, 08:06 AM

SanHeChuan

08-23-2010, 08:35 AM

there is freedom of religion there are mosques all over the country. there is no problem with freedom of religion. the issue is why do you have to build a mosque on this site at this time? there is overwhleming outcry over this site. no one is denying Muslims freedom of relgion but there is NO freedom of location. By the way how is it that Mayor bloomberg is denying tax free status to a Christian church but is using the same tax free status to help muslims build a mosque? Christianity under assault in the US , yes sir.

Yes, it's ONLY about location. :rolleyes:

Fla. City, Church in Standoff Over 9/11 Koran Burning (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/19/fla-city-church-standoff-koran-burning/)

Temecula mosque plan sparks protest (http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_mosque31.6d6be41.html)

Angry-protesters-descend-on-mosque (http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Angry-protesters-descend-on-mosque-606515.php)

Reality_Check

08-23-2010, 08:41 AM

RenDaHai

08-23-2010, 10:03 AM

Reality_Check

08-23-2010, 10:10 AM

From everyone's favorite true conservative Republican... (http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/)

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

RenDaHai

08-23-2010, 10:37 AM

QUOTE: 'The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.'

This argument is incorrect. If the people who flew the planes were football hooligans then banning a soccer field would make sense. Not all Soccer fans are hooligans, but some are. Just as not all muslims are extremists, but some are. The fact the bombers were religiously brainwashed is significant, even if it was not the reason behind the attacks it was the mechanism used. Therefore a mosque is a reminder of the attack.
ALthough let me add I think they should build the mosque. It doesn't offend me, but I can see how to some people it would be a reminder.

The rest of the stuff he said had a good point though.

David Jamieson

08-23-2010, 10:42 AM

The suicide bombers were not muslims.

that's like saying because a murdering criminal went to church and listened to his pastor that all christians are murderers at heart.

the connection to islam is false.

those guys weren't muslim, they weren't even following Islam any more than the murdering christian example follows the word of jesus.

If we are to be so stupid as to make those bridges because someone else does through their own lack of mind, then so be it, accept your self as stupid for doing so.

I don't associate the 9/11 attacks with Islam just because wahabist freaks did that. Wahabism isn't Islam, it is corruption.

I know that is a big thought fr some to digest, but in my opinion, that's the truth.

Bin Laden isn't a muslim either. He's a ****ing criminal lowlife. Period.

Drake

08-23-2010, 10:43 AM

Its easy to see both sides of the coin here. The mechanism used in the 911 attack was 'holy suicide' and therefore Islam is a reminder of the attack. As such an Obvious mosque visible from ground zero would incite painful memories for some people. But the fact is its two blocks away and behind some buildings.... so whats the problem?

Personally I think organised religion is a step backward, whatever religion it is. I don't think we should allow anyone to build any new religious temples or schools. We should take all money away from religious follies and invest it in places where people can go to learn science and discuss spiritual philosophy without any rules... but thats just me.

You can't tell people where to spend their money. If they want to dump it all into a church, you can't do anything about that. You also can't stop religious buildings from being built. This a fundamental right, and you have absolutely no right to tell them they can't do so.

Do I think organized religion is bad? Yes. However, I also am aware that if they want to worship a giant pink bunny, and have the money available to build a temple for said pink bunny, then I have absolutely no say in that decision.

RenDaHai

08-23-2010, 11:09 AM

that's like saying because a murdering criminal went to church and listened to his pastor that all christians are murderers at heart.
.

No its not at all, not even slightly. I agree with everything else you said though.

I don't beleive the attacks real reason are connected to islam at all.

But you can't say that the concept of the muslim faith is not connected to 911 and the current wars. I'm not saying it should be, but it is. In the public mind it is. And it was the mechanism used to brainwash the attackers. So obviously something like this would be inflammitory.

But when we look at the facts, its not a problem. I don't think it should be a problem. But it is very easy to see why some people would get angry, and it would be foolish not to see why.

When we look at the facts its an easy decision. Off course they should be allowed. But people are stupid, they don't look at the facts, they think it will be a massive really eastern looking mosque with a huge gold dome overlooking ground zero. In reality its two blocks back and will be hidden from view..... I don't think anyone should have a problem with that.

@Drake,

Your right, people should spend their money on what they want, and people can worship any way they please. Never the less Public money should never be spent on such things. ANd we have a responsibility to stop children being brought up brainwashed.

The responsibility to make people free within their own minds is above the responsibility to make them free with their own actions.

So stopping brainwashing comes above allowing freedom to build temples.

RenDaHai

08-23-2010, 11:29 AM

I think it is the SYMBOLISM that is the issue here.

We all know the muslim faith is not responsible for 911 and the resulting Wars. But the symbolism of islam is the symbolism of the middle east, and that is associated with 911 and the current wars.

So even an inconspicuos muslim prayer room inside ground zero would be fine, but for example having a gigantic gold domed mosque nearby would be unacceptable. I don't think its the faith people have a problem with, i think it is the stigma associated with it and the symbolism of the middle east.

I mean, there is a stigma attached to things. Would you allow 'american airlines' to build their headquarters opposite ground zero? They are innocent of everything but never the less their name is still attached to the attack.

taai gihk yahn

08-23-2010, 05:27 PM

the issue is why do you have to build a mosque on this site at this time?

1) it is NOT a mosque - it is an Islamic / Inter-faith Cultural Center w/a prayer area and it is NOT "on site" or "at" Ground Zero - it's a two minute + walk more than two-blocks away and around a corner and is not even visible from Ground Zero (which, in context of NYC cultural geography, it may as well be on the other end of the city);
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque

2) an ACTUAL mosque exists on Warren St., "stone's throw" (~4 blocks) from Ground Zero that has been there for ~40 years and attracts ~1,000 worshipers every Friday; also, the Center is further away than two strip clubs, which, apparently, do not offend the sensibilities of those labeling Ground Zero as "hallowed ground"; also, no one seems to object to the actual mosque INSIDE THE PENTAGON; does that not constitute "hallowed ground" as well?
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/12/2010-08-12_defeat_mosque_demagogues_why_arent_they_bothere d_by_the_nearby_stripclub.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/opinion/18dowd.html

3) the individual running the center is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who has a long history of speaking out against the use of violence in any form and is hardly a "radical islamist" as portrayed by Gingrich & Co.; incidently, the inter-faith aspect of the Center would actually be opposed vehemently by the supposed "radical" islamists who Gingrich & Co. are claiming to be behind it's construction
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imamfacts.html?ref=park51

4) the Center is being defended by, among others, Donna Marsh O'Connor, "a spokeswoman for September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows who lost her daughter Vanessa Lang Langer in the World Trade Center attacks - but she and her group support the Park51 project.
'Whatever this experiment [called] America ever was, the most important thing is that we test our ability to keep our liberties in times of difficulty and conflict," O'Connor told me. "We're all happy to be free when it's easy. This is not easy.'"
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/12/2010-08-12_defeat_mosque_demagogues_why_arent_they_bothere d_by_the_nearby_stripclub.html?page=1

this whole debacle is nothing more than a conservative-right mountain-out-of-a-mole-hill designed to polarize the electorate prior to mid-terms; the rest is just an embarrassment (almost as bad as the 1/5 Americans who think Obama is a Muslim and 25% of those thinks he "talks too much about his faith" :confused:)

taai gihk yahn

08-23-2010, 05:39 PM

I think it is tasteless to build a mosque near ground zero. They can build anywhere in america but not ground zero.
so, how close is "too close"? how far, exactly, should it be before it becomes "tasteful"? your "logic" is predicated on an inherently arbitrary, subjective and ultimately indefinable criterion (physical distance);

if it was up to me, they would build an Atheist Cultural Center right in the middle of Ground Zero and teach classes about how the institutions of organized religion as a whole has contributed more to mankind's suffering than any other social structure in the history of the species...unfortunately, people are still too busy arguing about whose imaginary friend is the best...

goju

08-23-2010, 07:28 PM

f it was up to me, they would build an Atheist Cultural Center right in the middle of Ground Zero and teach classes about how the institutions of organized religion as a whole has contributed more to mankind's suffering than any other social structure in the history of the species...unfortunately, people are still too busy arguing about whose imaginary friend is the best...

Would this athiest center mention how some of their noteable fellow athiests like Mao or Stalin for example butchered countless people as well?

In reality religion is just an excuse for people to do stupid things. If it was taken away ( or didnt exist) it would simply be replaced with something else and we would continue on with our war mongering nature.:D

goju

08-23-2010, 07:40 PM

David Jamieson

08-24-2010, 05:33 AM

Personally i find the idea of the mosque distasteful.

I believe there are altier motives behind the building. Hell the very name points to it by calling it the Cordoba house. If one remembers history the muslim conquest of Cordoba, Spain ushered in the golden age of Islam and its strangle hold it had in parts of Europe so it's more than bit fishy to name this new building after an area where muslims killed countless people and built a mosque to celebrate their victory.

someone is filling your wheatiues with hate propaganda.

Mind you, reading some of these other replies, it is clear to me that people are hating on a religion because they have connected it in their minds that terror and islam go hand and hand.

People do this because everytime they turn on a tv to an american channel that is the meme they are being fed.

You have been told that it was "radical islam" that attacked america when in fact it 19 mostly allied saudi arabians who were wahabists who are not recognized by mainstream Islam at all.

You have been told about a shadowy enemy that apparently despite all your efforts the leadership of this shadowy enemy cannot be found anywhere! This is a lie of course, but it will be repeated over and over again to ensure that you will repeat it as well.

Now you have people who actually believe this cultural center is going to be built at ground zero and it's not. It's not even a mosque.

The bigotry and lack of independent thought is startling but I guess this is what has come of America after all these years of being lied to and misdirected about what is really going on.

If you can't break the connection between criminal actions and religion, well God help you because you are apparently unable to penetrate truth and that, in the end only hurts You.

Drake

08-24-2010, 05:40 AM

Ron Paul's statement:

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

SanHeChuan

08-24-2010, 06:59 AM

News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner)

Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal -- the second-largest shareholder of Fox News’ parent company News Corp. -- has deep funding ties to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the “principal planner” of the Islamic community center in lower Manhattan.

HA!:rolleyes:

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Feisal_Abdul_Rauf)

Al-Waleed bin Talal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal#World_Trade_Center_attacks)

Park51 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordoba_House)

Drake

08-24-2010, 07:09 AM

"terror mosque"?

Seriously... when the Zerg come down from the skies and decimate us, I won't shed a tear.

David Jamieson

08-24-2010, 07:15 AM

Al-Waleed bin Talal is also partners with Bill Gates and Izzy Sharp in the ownership of teh four seasons hotels empire.

He has a lot of vested interests in literally hundreds of businesses and obviously, some of those will be related to his cultures business reqs as well.

He's not some shadowy dude.

Again, so what if someone is funding a Mosque.

Billionaires and Millionaires send money to Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson regularly.

The guy who started Dominoes pizza went into crazy religious mode and built an entire roman catholic town in Florida complete with Roman Catholic university and housing!

So, if an American funds a Roman Catholic venture, knowing full well that the dogma and doctrine of the current RC church negatively effects the world in regards to disease prevention and acceptance of all human beings (I'm talking condoms and gays and women here) I fail to see how that is deemed acceptable, but if a muslim funds a cultural centre intended to bridge gaps and waylay unfounded fears it's not.

Therein is the critical error in thinking of those who are so vehemently opposed to this building.

...and yes, you bet your ass it's a huge distraction from the realities of the crap life that all americans who aren't financially independent are going to be facing as the steadily unfolding death of the economy continues.

goju

08-24-2010, 08:35 AM

someone is filling your wheatiues with hate propaganda.

Mind you, reading some of these other replies, it is clear to me that people are hating on a religion because they have connected it in their minds that terror and islam go hand and hand.

People do this because everytime they turn on a tv to an american channel that is the meme they are being fed.

You have been told that it was "radical islam" that attacked america when in fact it 19 mostly allied saudi arabians who were wahabists who are not recognized by mainstream Islam at all.

You have been told about a shadowy enemy that apparently despite all your efforts the leadership of this shadowy enemy cannot be found anywhere! This is a lie of course, but it will be repeated over and over again to ensure that you will repeat it as well.

Now you have people who actually believe this cultural center is going to be built at ground zero and it's not. It's not even a mosque.

The bigotry and lack of independent thought is startling but I guess this is what has come of America after all these years of being lied to and misdirected about what is really going on.

If you can't break the connection between criminal actions and religion, well God help you because you are apparently unable to penetrate truth and that, in the end only hurts You.

Yes you're right its just a coinky dink it was named that. Thanks for clearing that up even though your post did nothing to provide a reasonable arguement for why its named what it's named. You just rambled on about conspiracy and this apparent hate people are being fed by the news :rolleyes:

Please don't insult my intelligence with such nonsense.For one i'm not some corn fed hick living in the bible belt who is preparing for the islam induced apocalypse with the rest of my militia.Two your subtle, actually not so subtle rude generalizing of American people is ridiculous . Leave your inferiority complex with the country off the forum please if you expect to be taken seriously.It's more than ironic you can bang on about hate and misguided views people are being taught when youre doing the exact same thing yourself. At the same time too LOL:p:rolleyes:

David Jamieson

08-24-2010, 09:27 AM

Yes you're right its just a coinky dink it was named that. Thanks for clearing that up even though your post did nothing to provide a reasonable arguement for why its named what it's named. You just rambled on about conspiracy and this apparent hate people are being fed by the news :rolleyes:

Please don't insult my intelligence with such nonsense.For one i'm not some corn fed hick living in the bible belt who is preparing for the islam induced apocalypse with the rest of my militia.Two your subtle, actually not so subtle rude generalizing of American people is ridiculous . Leave your inferiority complex with the country off the forum please if you expect to be taken seriously.It's more than ironic you can bang on about hate and misguided views people are being taught when youre doing the exact same thing yourself. At the same time too LOL:p:rolleyes:

you're insulting your own intelligence for thinking that an islamic cultural centre blocks away from ground zero is some sort of affront to you as an american.

That's the real buullsh*t right there brother.

recognize.

but don't look at me to fix on, look at yourself and your countrymen who are perpetuating this lie.

Lucas

08-24-2010, 09:39 AM

"terror mosque"?

Seriously... when the Zerg come down from the skies and decimate us, I won't shed a tear.

just make sure to have all your resources and your bunkers fully manned!!! :D

SanHeChuan

08-24-2010, 10:46 AM

I believe there are altier motives behind the building. Hell the very name points to it by calling it the Cordoba house. If one remembers history the muslim conquest of Cordoba, Spain ushered in the golden age of Islam and its strangle hold it had in parts of Europe so it's more than bit fishy to name this new building after an area where muslims killed countless people and built a mosque to celebrate their victory.

Is there any Nation that does not have skeletons in their closet? When you think of America do you imagine it a great and noble nation, or do you revile it for the slaughter of Native Americans, Slavery, Conquering Mexico under the preview of Manifest Destiny, etc...

If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf chooses to evoke the shining (If naive) image of Cordoba…:rolleyes:..so what.

“interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.”
www.cordobainitiative.org

Caliphate of Córdoba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate_of_C%C3%B3rdoba#Culture)
Córdoba was the intellectual centre of al-Andalus, with translations of ancient Greek texts to Arabic, Latin and Hebrew. Appreciable advances in science, history, geography, philosophy and grammar occurred during the Caliphate.[13] Al-Andalus became susceptible to eastern cultural influences as well. Ziryab is credited on bringing hair and clothing styles to the Iberian peninsula (as well as toothpaste and deodorant).

History rarely tells the truth. We don't teach what Columbus really did in the Americas after discovering it. Is celebration of Columbus Day a celebration of our victory and genocide of the Native Americans, or something less truthfully and more palatable?;)

David Jamieson

08-24-2010, 11:07 AM

Is celebration of Columbus Day a celebration of our victory and genocide of the Native Americans, or something less truthfully and more palatable?;)

This question is in and of itself very telling of American perceptions.

For one thing, the Spaniards never really got a foothold anywhere near the continental USA as it is now. Except for the old spanish areas like the southern border states.

Columbus was never connected to the USA in any way shape or form and was a Spanish explorer/trader/thief working for the Spanish monarchy some two hundred years plus and long dead before the very Idea of the united states of America.

The Spanish killed many. It's recorded in many journals from several of the early Spaniards that they have hacked away all day at the indians and still they keep coming. Of course they killed the Indians on the commands of the church for their being heathens and all but that's how it was in those days.

Ultimately, Christopher Columbus is more relevant to the Latin Americas than he ever will be or is to the USA and Canada.

In Canada, we don't really give him much time and talk more about explorers who made treaties and discovered the vastness of the country etc.

anyway...

SanHeChuan

08-24-2010, 01:02 PM

Ultimately, Christopher Columbus is more relevant to the Latin Americas than he ever will be or is to the USA and Canada.

Nah, he is the same for all of the Americas. Maybe more so for the Caribbean :p

Canada is the only odd one out when it comes to Columbus day in the Americas. :mad:

goju

08-24-2010, 01:49 PM

you're insulting your own intelligence for thinking that an islamic cultural centre blocks away from ground zero is some sort of affront to you as an american.

That's the real buullsh*t right there brother.

recognize.

but don't look at me to fix on, look at yourself and your countrymen who are perpetuating this lie.

First of all i was born in Ireland brother.

Second the people in this country arent doing anything. Your backwards assumptions of Americans based on your loathing /inferiority complex with the country is clouding your rational judgement.

Drake

08-24-2010, 01:53 PM

first of all i was born in ireland brother.

Second the people in this country arent doing anything. Your backwards assumptions of americans based on your loathing /inferiority complex with the country is clouding your rational judgement.

zing!

.......

Wayfaring

08-24-2010, 01:55 PM

also, the Center is further away than two strip clubs, which, apparently, do not offend the sensibilities of those labeling Ground Zero as "hallowed ground"

ah yes, the one central location where religions of all sorts and politics can meet on common ground. :D:D:D

goju

08-24-2010, 02:04 PM

Is there any Nation that does not have skeletons in their closet? When you think of America do you imagine it a great and noble nation, or do you revile it for the slaughter of Native Americans, Slavery, Conquering Mexico under the preview of Manifest Destiny, etc...

If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf chooses to evoke the shining (If naive) image of Cordoba…:rolleyes:..so what.

Lol you honestly believe that crock?The peaceful coexsistence in Spain is a revisionist history.The muslims were hardly tolerant ( Knocking over churches to build your own house of worship doesn't exactly ring lets smoke em peace pipe.) and there is evidence the native spaniards went as far as abandoning entire towns and villages to stay away from invaders.

Why is its wrong to name it the Cordoba house? Well lets see, it's commonly known radical islamists still bemoan the fate of their defeat and expulsion from Spain to the point where they wish to reconquer it again. Further as i noted Cordoba was hailed as the center of muslim control and conquest over europe where they killed countless innocent people. So lets construct a building with a name referencing a conquered city near a place where again people of their faith killed innocents for their god. Aaaaaaaaad that isnt sending a bad message hooooow exactly?

Either the genius who came up with the name of this building is incredibly stupid and ignorant of history OR there is a reason why it is being named that. Why do i have the feeling its the latter?

David Jamieson

08-24-2010, 02:06 PM

Nah, he is the same for all of the Americas. Maybe more so for the Caribbean :p

Canada is the only odd one out when it comes to Columbus day in the Americas. :mad:

because we had vikings on our land 1000 years before he showed up and that's why we don't care.

Our europeans were here first and they weren't spaniards. They were Norse and they worshipped ODIN!

and THOR.

take that ya latin mafas. lol

David Jamieson

08-24-2010, 02:11 PM

First of all i was born in Ireland brother.

Second the people in this country arent doing anything. Your backwards assumptions of Americans based on your loathing /inferiority complex with the country is clouding your rational judgement.

Your assumptions are revelatory of your own ignorance.

Half my family are from the U, S of A.

I have no inferiority complex, in fact, I think it's the other way around with all teh Canada bashing that takes place amongst yanks.

I don't loathe the states, I don't think much of the politics or the culture, but meh, I don't think much of Israeli politics or Arab culture, what can I say.

Being born in Ireland doesn't mean anything in context here does it? If you grew up in the american experience then you are american. If you're a recent immigrant, then how is your viewpoiint any better or more relevant than mine?

and finally, when confronted with a truth, why do many americans fall back on, "if you're not american you have nothing to say nyah nyah bu blah blah"?

if there is anyself doubt or inferiority leaking through, it's in statements like that. :)

Drake

08-24-2010, 02:11 PM

because we had vikings on our land 1000 years before he showed up and that's why we don't care.

Our europeans were here first and they weren't spaniards. They were Norse and they worshipped ODIN!

and THOR.

take that ya latin mafas. lol

Actually, the native people were here first. Nobody "discovered" anything.

David Jamieson

08-24-2010, 02:16 PM

Actually, the native people were here first. Nobody "discovered" anything.

actually no they weren't.
They came from asia according to the prevalent thinking.

also, they weren't free from the practices of wiping out their enemies and taking their stuff and property.

why do people cling to the peaceful butterfly and flowers bull about natives.

just as tribal, just as violent, just as backwards as anyone else, except more so because they never industrialized and despite having access could not repel an enemy within their lands even after hundreds of years of occupation.

these "gardeners" and "keepers of the land" :rolleyes:

yeah I guess great spirit gitchi manitou that guided them was into casinos and band cheques and land claims and free rides based on being here "first". lol

that crap is coming to an end soon because it is the cause of their social failure.

anyway, i digress...

taai gihk yahn

08-24-2010, 02:17 PM

Yes you're right its just a coinky dink it was named that. Thanks for clearing that up even though your post did nothing to provide a reasonable arguement for why its named what it's named.

"The project's sponsors explained that the original name of the center was meant to invoke 8th–11th century Córdoba, which they call a model of peaceful coexistence between Muslims, Christians, and Jews."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Córdoba,_Spain

also, as far as using Cordoba as an example of Islamic conquest, bear in mind that prior to their conquering it, it had been under the ruership of Carthage, was conquered by Romans, and then the Visigoths; and after exchanging hands a few more times, by the Spaniards; hardly an example of lasting Islamic hegemony, lol;

and btw, the islamic presence in Spain was probably one of the most important contributing factors to ANY sort of culture, learning, science, mathematics, medicine etc. coming into Europe during the middle ages - I mean, you do realize that to a large extent, so-called "western" culture is predicated on Arabic learning, right?

"Córdoba reached its peak in the 10th century, under three great rulers: the first Caliph, Abd-ar-rahman III ("al-Nasir," 912–61), his son al-Hakam II (961–76) and the dictator Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir, more familiar as Almansor, "the Victorious," (981–1002). The 10th century Caliphate of Córdoba was the largest, culturally the most sophisticated polity in all Europe. Contemporary chroniclers, all of them Arabic, like the geographer Ibn Hawkal in 948, marveled, "The amount of coins in circulation! The variety of crops grown! The people!" — Córdoba may have had a quarter of a million people — "the textiles! the gardens! the mosques!" — there were more than 1,000 mosques and 600 public baths."
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/spain/cordoba-history.htm

so to paint the history of Islam as a bunch of radical sheep-herders is somewhat disingenuous...

given the history, selecting the name is hardly inconsistent with the stated message of the center;

of course, that said, you can certainly find it offensive and insensitive; personally, I think that it lacks a degree of political astuteness choosing this location - I can understand why people are going to react the way they do - but that in and of itself is not sufficient to bar the center: the legal structure of a republic is, in principle, not beholden to whims of popularity - when the laws become inconvenient because of popular sentiment, that's just too bad - either you build a nation on principe or not - despite the emotional reactivity, those opposed need to take a deep breath and take a step back and realize that if they want America to exist such as the Founding Fathers intended, then being offended from time to time is something that they, and you, are just going to have to live with;

Drake

08-24-2010, 02:24 PM

actually no they weren't.
They came from asia according to the prevalent thinking.

also, they weren't free from the practices of wiping out their enemies and taking their stuff and property.

why do people cling to the peaceful butterfly and flowers bull about natives.

just as tribal, just as violent, just as backwards as anyone else, except more so because they never industrialized and despite having access could not repel an enemy within their lands even after hundreds of years of occupation.

these "gardeners" and "keepers of the land" :rolleyes:

yeah I guess great spirit gitchi manitou that guided them was into casinos and band cheques and land claims and free rides based on being here "first". lol

that crap is coming to an end soon because it is the cause of their social failure.

anyway, i digress...

Point is, they beat your silly Vikings by about 10,000 years, and there's no record or hint at anyone else living here before them. Are you playing semantics or are you just dense?

Second point, Native warfare is not remotely like ours, and they weren't big on wiping each other out. Most of it was skirmishes, and it was actually rare that people died in these conflicts. Don't know what history book you are reading.

goju

08-24-2010, 02:25 PM

I have no inferiority complex, in fact, I think it's the other way around with all teh Canada bashing that takes place amongst yanks.

Of course you do . The minute you saw an oppurtunity you jumped on the America bashing. Hell you did it when it wasn't even relevent to my post.

Well I'm surrounded by yanks and i havent heard Canadians brought up at all in any discussions i've had with them.

I don't loathe the states, I don't think much of the politics or the culture, but meh, I don't think much of Israeli politics or Arab culture, what can I say.

Canadian politics can fall under criticism just as easily.As far as the culture goes i can say from an outsiders perspective both of the countries have a very indentical culture hence it's amusing to see either side bash each other since the people are quite similar.

Being born in Ireland doesn't mean anything in context here does it? [/QUOTE]

Well yes since you assume i was an American and proceded to bang on with your mocking of the country.

If you grew up in the american experience then you are american. If you're a recent immigrant, then how is your viewpoiint any better or more relevant than mine?

What exactly is this American experience? let me guess more of your innacuarate assumptions of how Americans are educated and rasied?

If and finally, when confronted with a truth, why do many americans fall back on, "if you're not american you have nothing to say nyah nyah bu blah blah"?

Yes thats exactly what Americans do and you can't mention America in a conversation with a Canadian or they go into a foaming at the mouth rage over the mere mention of the country. :rolleyes:

goju

08-24-2010, 02:37 PM

[INDENT]"The project's sponsors explained that the original name of the center was meant to invoke 8th–11th century Córdoba, which they call a model of peaceful coexistence between Muslims, Christians, and Jews."

Again that is revisionist history:rolleyes:

also, as far as using Cordoba as an example of Islamic conquest, bear in mind that prior to their conquering it, it had been under the ruership of Carthage, was conquered by Romans, and then the Visigoths; and after exchanging hands a few more times, by the Spaniards; hardly an example of lasting Islamic hegemony, lol;

Yes i know my Spanish history. ( My moms side of the fam was from castille originally. :) ) the Romans or Visigoths are irrelvent, whats important is that the site was an important part of the muslim conquest of Europe and many very scary nutters still want it back. Because of that is gives a understanbly bad impression even if that is not the intent,

That's not giving enough credit to the peoples who built substantial civilizations In
Spain before the arrival of the muslims.

Recall how many orignally thought the Romans for example gave various people all this culture and advancements in civilzation when the people already had it prior to their interactions with rome?

keep in mind Spain experienced its golden age after it expelled the muslims which points to the natives being oppressed and the invaders being a pest by large.

[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1034384]so to paint the history of Islam as a bunch of radical sheep-herders is somewhat disingenuous...

of course it is and im fully aware muslim countries produced impressive civilzations

David Jamieson

08-24-2010, 03:20 PM

Point is, they beat your silly Vikings by about 10,000 years, and there's no record or hint at anyone else living here before them. Are you playing semantics or are you just dense?

Second point, Native warfare is not remotely like ours, and they weren't big on wiping each other out. Most of it was skirmishes, and it was actually rare that people died in these conflicts. Don't know what history book you are reading.

so, i guess you watched dances with wolves? lol

native warfare was different modality wise than euro wars, but wars take lives and the native americans were no strangers to warring and yes they did kill each other and steal from each other and wipe each other out in some instances.

in the south especially.

on the plains. a little more peaceful and in the woodlands not so bad tro each other either.

But there was plenty of violence meted out against each other and it was also the natives who were used by europeans to contribute to their own demise with the simple query of : "Hey, your enemy, we're gonna do them in, wanna help?" to which they would frequently reply yes!

this process was repeated over and over again until the euros were the great power here.

there is not a lot of love lost over that.

but, I would question what history books you are reading to think that natives in american were these peaceful ewok types. they had pretty fierce warrior cultures everywhere.

the mayans would kill off plenty of people if it failed to rain! yeah, that's peaceful.

never mind the mixtec, toltec, olmec, zapotec et al who were constantly raiding each others villages, enslaving women and children and killing off everyone else.

anyway....

taai gihk yahn

08-24-2010, 05:43 PM

Yes i know my Spanish history. ( My moms side of the fam was from castille originally. :) )
don't you mean Cathtille? ;)

the Romans or Visigoths are irrelvent, whats important is that the site was an important part of the muslim conquest of Europe and many very scary nutters still want it back. Because of that is gives a understanbly bad impression even if that is not the intent,
the romans and visigoths are not irrelevant: the site of the Great Mosque in Cordoba sat ontop of the ruins of a church built to St Vincent by the visgoths; but guess what? it was originally a Roman temple that the visigoths tore down and bulit their chuch on the ruins of! so why is it ok for the visigoths to do that but not the muslims to do the same; and incidently, when the muslims were booted out, the spanish built a cathedral on the grounds of the mosque (athough without tearing it down, because they were so awed by the beauty of the structure - they just re-puposed it, lol) so painting muslims as having the exclusive purview on tearing down someone else's place of worship to build their own is a bit misleading

That's not giving enough credit to the peoples who built substantial civilizations In Spain before the arrival of the muslims.
the point is that to associate the radical islam of today, which is very anti-educational, anti-scientific and anti-intelectual with the 8th - 11th century calliphate is ridiculous - to hear Gingrich preach it, the 9/11 masterminds are the same people "behind" the building of Park541

Recall how many orignally thought the Romans for example gave various people all this culture and advancements in civilzation when the people already had it prior to their interactions with rome?
of course, because understanding was limited (I blame Gibbon, myself ;)); of course, as new information has come to light, history gets reorganized accordingly; however, the history of islamic contribtions is well known - like the term al-gebra - no confusion there, lol...

keep in mind Spain experienced its golden age after it expelled the muslims which points to the natives being oppressed and the invaders being a pest by large.
oh yeah, you mean like Spain under the Inqusition? yeah, a real high point in indigenous Spanish culture there...

the part I find hysterical is that these guys are talking about Islam like it's some monolithic, hom0genous (can't believe the censor doesn't allow that word, lol) organization that dictates from the top down and is coordinated in its function (that would be the RCC actually, LOL) - in fact, it's a highly fractuous, diverse and at times almost non-associated panoply of cultures, degrees of orthodoxy, etc. - I mean, look at the Sunni vs. SHiite history: nowhere in contemporary culture do you have that sort of divisiveness in any other faith - I mean, if they can't keep from blowing each other up, how concerted can they be to orchestrate something as linear as what Gingrich and co are proposing?

look, I am not trying to absolve the segments of islam that give it its violent history per se (a history shared no less by certain Christians, Hebrews and other faiths), but the overly simplistic associations drawn by the neo-cons like Palin and Gingrich are nothing more than flash-point sound bites used to inflame a generally uneducated populace that has limited capacity for nuanced thought; and I am NOT suggesting that people who lost loved ones on 9/11 pretend that they don't feel some sort of iniquity - emotions are emotions, people will feel as they feel - but as an argument against the cultural center, hurt feelings is woefully inadequate (not to mention invalidated, given that many 9/11 families support the project - so obviously the feelings of insensitivity are not uniform across that population, which essentially negates it as an argument);
as I said before, welcome to the Republic - a place where individual feelings or even those of a group at times need to be subsumed to the fundamental ideology that makes said Republic possible;

everyone should be a sufi; sufis rule...

goju

08-24-2010, 07:03 PM

don't you mean Cathtille? ;)

or Castilia or Castilla

so why is it ok for the visigoths to do that but not the muslims to do the same; and incidently, [/QUOTE]

Well the Visgoths kind of aren't around anymore and there are not fanatical groups of them that want to do non visigoths harm lol

when the muslims were booted out, the spanish built a cathedral on the grounds of the mosque (athough without tearing it down, because they were so awed by the beauty of the structure - they just re-puposed it, lol) so painting muslims as having the exclusive purview on tearing down someone else's place of worship to build their own is a bit misleading

The difference is as Spaniards, it's their country therefore they had the right to do it. The invaders had all rights to be slaughtered and driven out from a foreign land they attacked .

the point is that to associate the radical islam of today, which is very anti-educational, anti-scientific and anti-intelectual with the 8th - 11th century calliphate is ridiculous - to hear Gingrich preach it, the 9/11 masterminds are the same people "behind" the building of Park541

Of course not but their are delusional groups today who would like to see the muslim empire rebuilt and thats wrong.

of course, because understanding was limited (I blame Gibbon, myself ;)); of course, as new information has come to light, history gets reorganized accordingly; however, the history of islamic contribtions is well known - like the term al-gebra - no confusion there, lol...

Certainly but being that the Spanish were made up of people like the Iberians ( one of the oldest known European civilzations. ) and the Celts ( Who have been called the "fathers of Europe.") i think its safe to say we had a highly sophisticated and rich civilization and culture long before the muslim invasion. Was there influences from outsiders like the muslims? Sure but to suggest Iberian civilization was in the dark ages pre muslim rule is stretching the truth a tad much.

oh yeah, you mean like Spain under the Inqusition? yeah, a real high point in indigenous Spanish culture there...

No i mean the time period where Spanish arts and literature flourished,
the first univeristy in Europe was established and spain sailed to the new world and help lay the foundation for the New Americas.

QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;1034422]the part I find hysterical is that these guys are talking about Islam like it's some monolithic, hom0genous (can't believe the censor doesn't allow that word, lol) organization that dictates from the top down and is coordinated in its function (that would be the RCC actually, LOL) - in fact, it's a highly fractuous, diverse and at times almost non-associated panoply of cultures, degrees of orthodoxy, etc. - I mean, look at the Sunni vs. SHiite history: nowhere in contemporary culture do you have that sort of divisiveness in any other faith - I mean, if they can't keep from blowing each other up, how concerted can they be to orchestrate something as linear as what Gingrich and co are proposing?[/QUOTE]

Hell you cant even say f@rt on here LOL.

Hey i don't agree with Gingrich either. People like him blow things out of proportion waaaay too much, which is unfortunate as when it comes to this topic people are often on very strange polar opposites of each other rather than a more logical middle ground

look, I am not trying to absolve the segments of islam that give it its violent history per se (a history shared no less by certain Christians, Hebrews and other faiths), but the overly simplistic associations drawn by the neo-cons like Palin and Gingrich are nothing more than flash-point sound bites used to inflame a generally uneducated populace that has limited capacity for nuanced thought; and I am NOT suggesting that people who lost loved ones on 9/11 pretend that they don't feel some sort of iniquity - emotions are emotions, people will feel as they feel - but as an argument against the cultural center, hurt feelings is woefully inadequate (not to mention invalidated, given that many 9/11 families support the project - so obviously the feelings of insensitivity are not uniform across that population, which essentially negates it as an argument);
as I said before, welcome to the Republic - a place where individual feelings or even those of a group at times need to be subsumed to the fundamental ideology that makes said Republic possible;

everyone should be a sufi; sufis rule...

Well being from a country where there has been a huge amount of religious tension i can say how the littlest thing can set a big **** storm in motion and thats one of the reasons im against the building.

goju

08-24-2010, 09:00 PM

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=4205...id

taai gihk yahn

08-25-2010, 05:11 AM

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=4205...id

he seems a bit agenda-oriented; however, some of his points are worth considering (although no sources / footnotes provided for many of his statements); tellingly, he draws a distinction between the Damascus-based ruling class (which was more tolerant, apparently) and the arab-berber factions who were not; making the point that, like all systems of belief, there are internal political schisms; and therefore to fail to discern this when lumping together "islam" as a single entity is indicative either as a lack of forthrightness or a lack of intelligence (or both); that, and there appears to be a distinction between what Cordoba was like versus other parts of muslim-dominated spain

but thanks for posting that; that said, this appears to be a somewhat more balanced perspective between both extremes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml#h2

SanHeChuan

08-25-2010, 06:39 AM

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=4205...id

The point being that if Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf chooses to evoke the Myth of a Golden Age of peace and tolerance between the Abrahamic faiths, revealing the truths behind the Myth doesn't not reveal a sinister hidden agenda.

A symbol only has meaning when we give it meaning. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has told us what it means to him. If people with ulterior motives, like Extremist, Conservatives, or you, chooses to subvert that meaning for your own purposes… should that paint Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his symbol in a bad light?

The answer is no, just incase you were having trouble. ;)

David Jamieson

08-25-2010, 01:34 PM

Oh, this doesn't look too good either.

America may start collectively pulling on it's collar while repeating the "uh" or "hoiven glaven" sounds.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CIA_Red_Cell_Memorandum_on_United_States_%22export ing_terrorism%22,_2_Feb_2010

yikes, that's not good at all....

goju

08-25-2010, 01:40 PM

The point being that if Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf chooses to evoke the Myth of a Golden Age of peace and tolerance between the Abrahamic faiths, revealing the truths behind the Myth doesn't not reveal a sinister hidden agenda.

Anyone who is fully aware of of the muslim conquest of Spain knows very well that it wasn't a time of tolerance. Being that it was a very important era in musim history i seriously doubt many muslims ( who are well versed in the past) would make that huge of a misstake.:rolleyes:

he seems a bit agenda-oriented;
Yes outside of the agenda bits he had to slide in there the rest was good stuff for the most part.

David Jamieson

08-25-2010, 01:54 PM

Anyone who is fully aware of of the muslim conquest of Spain knows very well that it wasn't a time of tolerance. Being that it was a very important era in musim history i seriously doubt many muslims ( who are well versed in the past) would make that huge of a misstake.:rolleyes:

Yes outside of the agenda bits he had to slide in there the rest was good stuff for the most part.

Tell me Goju, if a huge Mohawk and Iroquois army rose up and obliterated every single euro in the americas, would that be ok?

You do realize the Moors had Iberia for 5 or 6 centuries right?

But euros have barely been here in the americas for 500 years.

so, would it be ok if they started taking action to get rid of us? Or is it only ok if it's so far back in history as to serve as nothing more than a reference point to weigh in with a continued argument that is erroneous at best in content?

I am trying very hard to understand why these people and yourself are so insulted by the idea of a cultural centre. It seems really weird to me that's all.

I have nothing against you or anyone personally, but I do regard the view as bigoted.

fwiw I loved my Grandparents but they were bigots. I love my mom, but she is also a bigot and a racist.

I see all this stemming from fear and I am trying to understand what it is that people are afraid of. I don't care what they are mad about. I wonder why they are afraid of Muslims?

goju

08-25-2010, 02:18 PM

Tell me Goju, if a huge Mohawk and Iroquois army rose up and obliterated every single euro in the americas, would that be ok?

You do realize the Moors had Iberia for 5 or 6 centuries right?

But euros have barely been here in the americas for 500 years.

so, would it be ok if they started taking action to get rid of us? Or is it only ok if it's so far back in history as to serve as nothing more than a reference point to weigh in with a continued argument that is erroneous at best in content?

What a sloppy comparison.I don't believe in getting rid of muslims so your point is moot. Nor is the European and Native conflict relevent or anything like the turmoil the world has experienced with radical islam so again your point is moot.

I am trying very hard to understand why these people and yourself are so insulted by the idea of a cultural centre. It seems really weird to me that's all.

I don't view it as any sort of logical attempt to mend fences and show tolerance. You want to show how tolerant you are and accepting of tohers? Theb assimilate into the country your in smoothly not build a gigantic building celebrating your crap.

I have nothing against you or anyone personally, but I do regard the view as bigoted.

fwiw I loved my Grandparents but they were bigots. I love my mom, but she is also a bigot and a racist.

I see all this stemming from fear and I am trying to understand what it is that people are afraid of. I don't care what they are mad about. I wonder why they are afraid of Muslims?

Well that explains alot. Due to the views of some of your family members you are quick to assume ( understanably ) anything thats slightly un p.c. is bigoted.

Syn7

08-25-2010, 02:55 PM

uh yeah... freedom of expression and all that is cool... tolerance is cool... but you need to be smart about things too... and sometimes the right thing will go against the grain... the simple truth is that historically muslim conquerors have built mosques on the sites of old churches etc in lands they have conquered as a sign of islamic strength and righteousness... not a few times but EVERY TIME a muslim group takes over an area the first order of biz is to put a mosque at the very center of the "old religion" of the regime they have conquered...

america doesnt have a religious center but it does have an economic center and the wtc was the heart of that economic center... i dont believe the mosque is a sign of respect and tolerance in this case... i believe its a "foothold" maneuver... the symbolism here is whats important, not anyones rights... and in this case i believe its a symbol of victory... i dont think any religeous buildings should be built here...

Drake

08-25-2010, 03:09 PM

Again...there are NO legal grounds to punish those who had nothing to do with 9/11, nor are there legal grounds to punish anyone for having a particular region. That is, without a doubt, unconstitutional, illegal, and disciminatory based on ASSUMPTIONS.

It's funny... conservatives ***** and moan about the government being socialist and prying into private business, and here they are...whining like little girls because they won't bring the iron fist down on freedom of religion. VERY unamerican. Spare me the excuses... friggin communists.

Syn7

08-25-2010, 03:26 PM

yeah, i dont feel that any religion should be represented on that site... as far as im concerned, organized dogma causes more problems than it fixes... esspecially when it concerns creationists, they seem to be the least accepting of others...

i really do believe the world would be a better place without any of it... to me, moral value isnt synonymous with religion... religion isnt needed to have a good handle on right and wrong... infact i will go as far as saying that it blurs the lines... preach absolutes only to make exeptions and compromise later...

Drake

08-25-2010, 03:29 PM

Syn7

08-25-2010, 03:41 PM

who said ban religion in the us? if i could maybe i would but thats not what i was saying... just keep ground zero religious free... now that would be a symbol of respect and understanding... if a coalition of all the religious orders in the area came together and agreed not to build there, anyone who decided to go against that would be transparent in their motives...

it wont happen, but it should... it would be the moral thing to do... just back off that site, go build anywhere else you want...

this is an unprecedented sitiuation... and the constitution isnt perfect...

Reality_Check

08-25-2010, 03:49 PM

Reality_Check

08-25-2010, 03:59 PM

I don't view it as any sort of logical attempt to mend fences and show tolerance. You want to show how tolerant you are and accepting of tohers? Theb assimilate into the country your in smoothly not build a gigantic building celebrating your crap.

So, Muslims need to give up their faith (or conceal it) in order to assimilate? Do any other faiths need to do that too? Or are Muslims the only ones?

I guess we can get rid of churches, temples, synagogues, etc. as those can be giant buildings celebrating their "crap" too. Especially all the churches built after the Native Americans were converted to Christianity by the sword.

Why is it just mosques that are being singled out in Staten Island, Tennessee & California (the building in Manhattan is not a mosque, it is a planned cultural center in a similar vein to the 92nd Street Y)? Should we be biased against all Catholics because the IRA terrorists set off bombs in England and Northern Ireland? Or all Protestants based on the acitons of the Unionists/Loyalists as well? Should we be biased against all Jews based on the actions of the zionist settlers in Israel? Or because Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, in a terrorist act?

Or maybe terrorists use the trappings of religion in order to give their criminal acts legitimacy. And using the acts of criminals to tarnish an entire faith is playing right into their hands by lending them that legitimacy.

SanHeChuan

08-25-2010, 04:44 PM

Nor is the European and Native conflict relevent or anything like the turmoil the world has experienced with radical islam so again your point is moot.

You’re right Radical Islam doesn’t even compare to the genocide of Native Americans. It is relevant because you said that because we know the dark side of the history of Cordoba it cannot serve as a symbol for good. By your logic since we know the dark side of the history of the USA it also cannot serve as a symbol for good.

_________________________________

@Syn7

It’s N:mad:T at the WTC site. Educate yo’self, fool! ;)

_________________________________

NY filmmaker charged with stabbing cab driver for being Muslim (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-08-25-cabbie-stabbing-muslim_N.htm)

Syn7

08-25-2010, 04:50 PM

Then we should not rebuild St. Nicholas Church? It was at the WTC site and was crushed when the towers fell.

if it was restorable because a good portion was leftover... then yes... but if its been completely obliterated, then no... find a new site... its a small price to pay for the greater good and if they truly care about all in general and not just themselves then i have to believe they would gladly relocate... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... individual rights are great, but sometimes we should willingly pass these up for the good of everyone in general... and i honestly believe that everyone in general will be better off if that site has no religious buildings... but esspecially not new ones...

Syn7

08-25-2010, 04:52 PM

@Syn7

It’s N:mad:T at the WTC site. Educate yo’self, fool! ;)

_________________________________

yeah i know, but its real close... like REAL close...

Syn7

08-25-2010, 04:55 PM

yeah, i do have a problem with muslims... iyts the same problem i have with christians... i just dont believe they are more helpful than they are harmful... so its not a hate for muslims... i dont really hate anyone because of their religion... but i do feel they are limiting their potential by leaning on that crutch... im not gonna tell you not to believe something, but i will tell you what i feel about those beliefs... to me its just not worth all the fuss... anyone that finds strength in religion could have found it elsewhere, preferably from within themselves... i believe that with all that i am...

Syn7

08-25-2010, 05:00 PM

also, i do not subscribe to the whole PC everyone is equal junk... clearly some individuals are better than others and some schools of thought are better than others... i cant sum up what i think and how i feel on a forum, or atleast i dont want to type that much... but needless to say i disagree with the actions of creationists... i couldnt care less about their words... i judge by how they act... and claims of being saved, sure maybe it did, but it couldve been anything else if the desire to change is true...

Drake

08-25-2010, 05:06 PM

Syn7

08-25-2010, 05:55 PM

Point is...just because you personally don't like religion, you can't go against their freedoms and tell them they can't worship there.

You can't just make up laws in direct opposition to the Constitution. The government has no more right to ban a church from being built than it does posting the ten commandments in a courthouse. It works both ways. There are countries that do control and ban religions. Those countries suck.

yeah you mentioned that once or 40 times... gotcha ;)

i never said they should make a law prohibitting anyone from doing anything...

i would think that those truly interested in creating cultural bonds and understanding between factions would voluntarily opt out of building in the area... ofcourse they are all self servingf in my opinion and would never do that... its unfortunate and it speaks volumes... anyone building anything religious in that area has an socio-political agenda contrary to what i would consider good sense, in this case...

goju

08-25-2010, 09:05 PM

So, Muslims need to give up their faith (or conceal it) in order to assimilate? Do any other faiths need to do that too? Or are Muslims the only ones?

Your faith no matter what ever is should never come into conflict with assimilating into a society nor should you use it to isolate yourself from the rest of the community.

I guess we can get rid of churches, temples, synagogues, etc. as those can be giant buildings celebrating their "crap" too. Especially all the churches built after the Native Americans were converted to Christianity by the sword.

I wouldn't have a problem with this. If faith was kept as a personal thing it would solve a lot of problems in this world.

goju

08-25-2010, 09:12 PM

You’re right Radical Islam doesn’t even compare to the genocide of Native Americans. It is relevant because you said that because we know the dark side of the history of Cordoba it cannot serve as a symbol for good. By your logic since we know the dark side of the history of the USA it also cannot serve as a symbol for good.

(face palm)

There was also a bright side to American history. Numerous things in fact. What was there of cordboba?Nothing so again the comparsion is ridiculous.:p

Dragonzbane76

08-26-2010, 04:07 AM

If faith was kept as a personal thing it would solve a lot of problems in this world.
__________________

This should be stamped on the forehead of every single person in the world. I strongly feel this is the answer to a lot of the problems in the world.

David Jamieson

08-26-2010, 06:01 AM

This should be stamped on the forehead of every single person in the world. I strongly feel this is the answer to a lot of the problems in the world.

You and Jesus both man. :p

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.~ Matthew 6:6

Go check the surrounding passages for context. The context around that remark is very important.

SanHeChuan

08-26-2010, 06:18 AM

(face palm)

There was also a bright side to American history. Numerous things in fact. What was there of cordboba?Nothing so again the comparsion is ridiculous.:p

From whose perspective? From the Native American perspective what's good about America? From a Muslim perspective Cordoba was the shiz.

You’re taking the conquerors perspective of American and saying its great, and then you’re taking the conquered perspective of Cordoba and saying it was terrible.

You're not being objective at all.

David Jamieson

08-26-2010, 06:42 AM

From whose perspective? From the Native American perspective what's good about America? From a Muslim perspective Cordoba was the shiz.

You’re taking the conquerors perspective of American and saying its great, and then you’re taking the conquered perspective of Cordoba and saying it was terrible.

You're not being objective at all.

Not to be a jerk to Goju, because I'm sure he's a regular dude like most of the rest of us. But I do think he is having difficulty realizing that.

Most people have difficulty absorbing the ideas about the horrors their ancestors have inflicted on others for no good reason other than to destroy them or assimilate them.

It's easy to look at others and see their faults, it's hard to see our own.

I like how I am now a bigot for not accepting the viewpoint of bigots though. That's a really silly attempt to diffuse any responsibility and accountability for their bigotry.

Bottom line is that it's gonna get built. suck it up.

David Jamieson

08-26-2010, 06:48 AM

also, wtf is wrong with people?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/25/new.york.muslim.stabbed/index.html?hpt=T2

SanHeChuan

08-26-2010, 07:00 AM

Not to be a jerk to Goju, because I'm sure he's a regular dude like most of the rest of us. But I do think he is having difficulty realizing that.

Our history books a written to promote Nationalism and minimize any accountability. Even in Texas kids who take Texas history come away thinking Texas is the best state in the whole union, to the dismay of long time residents that missed 4th & 7th grade Texas History.

goju

08-26-2010, 02:01 PM

From whose perspective? From the Native American perspective what's good about America? From a Muslim perspective Cordoba was the shiz.

You’re taking the conquerors perspective of American and saying its great, and then you’re taking the conquered perspective of Cordoba and saying it was terrible.

You're not being objective at all.

im not having a hard time reading this im noting the comparison is off.

Though America was built on slaughter and subjugatiom it managed to move beyond that. The muslim kingdom in spain did not . Get it?

Though built on similar on similar principles America evolved through time and though for all its faults and wrong doings in the past ( or currently)alot of good has come from this country Muslim spain cant say the same thing thus the comparison isnt logical

David Jamieson

08-26-2010, 07:25 PM

im not having a hard time reading this im noting the comparison is off.

Though America was built on slaughter and subjugatiom it managed to move beyond that. The muslim kingdom in spain did not . Get it?

Though built on similar on similar principles America evolved through time and though for all its faults and wrong doings in the past ( or currently)alot of good has come from this country Muslim spain cant say the same thing thus the comparison isnt logical

dude, your country is involved in two huge wars of occupation. Prior to that it's been involved in wars for resources to political control through slaughter and subjugation all along the milestones of it's history with relatively few periods where it wasn't involved in a war on someone or something.

America evolved? Yeah, it got more distance between itself and it's enemy so it could kill him with neato tech!

dude... come on here. Truly.

Syn7

08-26-2010, 07:34 PM

dude, your country is involved in two huge wars of occupation. Prior to that it's been involved in wars for resources to political control through slaughter and subjugation all along the milestones of it's history with relatively few periods where it wasn't involved in a war on someone or something.

America evolved? Yeah, it got more distance between itself and it's enemy so it could kill him with neato tech!

dude... come on here. Truly.

you know, its funny, ok not funny, but sad, i was reading the other day that up until the advance on the middle east after 9/11 the USA hadnt been in a state of war since korea...

apparently vietnam was a "conflict" or some bull**** like that...

not too sure but i think afgahnistan isnt classified as a war either...

yeah its amazing how americans dont really seem to understand how the rest of the world sees them... like how people say, "nobody hates the american people, its the government they hate"... i just dont see many americans that truly understand the hate and animosity directed towards them from the outside looking in... i would say about half of the people my age, 32, that i talk to here in canada dont like american culture beyond any sort of superficial level... its hypocritical forsure,but thats how it is none the less...

goju

08-26-2010, 08:45 PM

dude, your country is involved in two huge wars of occupation. Prior to that it's been involved in wars for resources to political control through slaughter and subjugation all along the milestones of it's history with relatively few periods where it wasn't involved in a war on someone or something.

America evolved? Yeah, it got more distance between itself and it's enemy so it could kill him with neato tech!

dude... come on here. Truly.

No you come on brother and get down off of your biased bollocks you've been brought up on by who ever raised or educated you.:rolleyes:

In addition to being a huge point of migration for many immigrants looking to escape whatever troubles they were facing in their homeland America also beern a center of countless inventions and exceleration in technology. development of medicines, donated trillions to foreign aide, lead the way in space exploration, helped start the united nations, and was a model for almost every modern representative democracies.

Lets not forget how much flesh was thrown into a few world wars that would have changed the course of world history if the US didnt get involved and the counter balanmce the country helped play in the cold war.

Now lets look at the Cordoba, a people invaded a country and butchered countless people Like the Europeans did in America, set up their own place of power where they treated eveyone who wasnt part of their faith as second class citizens until they were finally pushed out by the Natives.

Yes you're right the comparison is so strikingly similar it's incredible! :rolleyes:

goju

08-26-2010, 08:59 PM

yeah its amazing how americans dont really seem to understand how the rest of the world sees them... like how people say, "nobody hates the american people, its the government they hate"... i just dont see many americans that truly understand the hate and animosity directed towards them from the outside looking in... i would say about half of the people my age, 32, that i talk to here in canada dont like american culture beyond any sort of superficial level... its hypocritical forsure,but thats how it is none the less...

I recall a poll that was done a while back on peoples views of America and of course many werent favorable but when asked if they would move to america if they had the chance the same people who voiced their dislike of the country said they would immigrate lol.

I don't understand the hate because its ridiculous due to the fact many of the criticisms of America could easily be directed at so many countries as well.

Racism, corrupt government full of imcompetent politicians, war mongering, etc etc are so intertwined into so many countries fabric its hyopcritical to bash America based on some thing almost every country is guilty of.

But of course many people will try to twist reality and claim places like canada for example are more tolerant and educated and welcoming while in America there are clan members on every corner waiting wating to chase you with torches and pitch forks. lol

I'm aware of the hate but its largely directed by people who are either ignorant of history or willingly distort fact to suit there own views, and id like to stay faaaar away from that group as i don't dislike any country.

The culture bashing is funny as well since America is made up of so many ethnic groups it's abit hard to define american culture well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_North_America

Syn7

08-26-2010, 09:37 PM

I recall a poll that was done a while back on peoples views of America and of course many werent favorable but when asked if they would move to america if they had the chance the same people who voicxed their dislike of the country said they would lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_North_America

ironic, i know... but alot of those same people would choose australia or canada over the states in a heartbeat... also, it better than living in some 3rd world ****hole, and no matter what their lives will be better if they follow the money... and the US is where the money is at... and some intend on going back home after they get a peice, find out its no peice of cake and never make it back home...

I don't understand the hate because its ridiculous due to the fact many of the criticisms of America could easily be directed at so many countries as well.

I agree.... yeah, but if youre gonna hate a s s h o l e s you may as well hate the biggest one on the block... the attrocities committed around the world in US interest doesnt usually benefit the people who are paying for it or getting their land and culture raped... so you cant blame them for choosing to ignore all the wonderful things america stands for when they just got a s s r a p e d by some soldier or even worse, by some spook show created to get their own people do give it to em raw...

Racism, corrupt government full of imcompetent politicians, war mongering, etc etc are so intertwined into so many countries fabric its hyopcritical to bash America based on some thing almost every country is guilty of.

yeah but like i said, americans get fat off it, others starve... they eat less than you throw away and you cant blame them for being royally p i s s e d off about it... you wouldnt be any different if the right circumstances made your life suck... but ofcourse some are just jealous and others hate everything that isnt them... but for the most part i think the animosity is justified... americans dont always see it but they have their own brand of arrogance, like the french, or german, or british, or mexican or whatever, its annoying as f u c k and just becoz others do it too, doesnt make it any less offensive... esspecially when the majority of people in this world are simple hardworking people... not haters for the sake of being haters...

But of course many people will try to twist reality and claim places like canada for example are more tolerant and educated and welcoming while in america there are clan members on every corner waiting wating to chase you with torches and pitch forks.

nah, canada isnt as bad, but we'll catch up soon enough... but then our history hasnt even approached being as violent as the USs history has been... but regardless, canadians profit from american atrocities... after americans, we're next in line... we exploit and we exploit well and it shows in our lifestyles... why wouldnt somebody want to come here... and we get british crumbs too... of course we give more than we get, but thats the price of doing business... we all do pretty well... and we have all the crap we could ever want made cheap in whogivesacrap and sold at reasonable prices...

I'm aware of the hate but its largely directed by people who are either ignorant of history or willingly distort fact to suit there own views, and id liek to stay faaaar away from that group.

no i strongly disagree... if you had to look at blackwater guards in your hood and had a hilliburton pipeline going through your town you'd be ****ed... no local labor would benefit and any payouts wouldve been hoarded by their leaders... and they usually hate their leaders too... unleess its real desperate, then people believe rediculous s h i t and can be easilly mislead by j e r k o f f s...

The culture bashing is funny as well sinceAmerica is made up of so many ethnic groups it's abit hard to define american culture.

no doubt.... but the top 5% are nowhere near as diverse... esspecially of those actually born there... i could even say top 25% and that would still hold true...

David Jamieson

08-27-2010, 06:29 AM

sanjuro_ronin

08-27-2010, 07:22 AM

*cues Ricardo Monteban accent*
Cordoba...with rich Corinthian leather....

goju

08-27-2010, 03:12 PM

wait...are you trying to get back to Cordoba? I give you a huge example of where you are wrong and you want to go on about something that was ended more than 500 years ago. It was gone before your nation was even established. The Moors were out of control in Iberia for centuries before the forefathers of the USA started their campaigns to conquer and assimilate or genocide the people of North America.

And you go on about immigrant songs? wow.

wtf?

ok, forget it, you either just don't want to see, are desperate to save face or...the other option. lol

Goju, I do not share your view by one iota.

LOL Can you at least try to follow along? I'm beginning to think the the only one who is having a hard time understanding the dicussion is you. I was simply noting how innacurate it is to compare Cordoba to America and i went into detail why in my previous post since some of you were continually trying to wail on about they were similar. Clearly by the what i listed above that is not remotely true.

Thus far all you've done is continue on with your bigotted propaganda about America you've picked up from god knows where as means of reason.:rolleyes:

David Jamieson

08-28-2010, 08:40 AM

LOL Can you at least try to follow along? I'm beginning to think the the only one who is having a hard time understanding the dicussion is you. I was simply noting how innacurate it is to compare Cordoba to America and i went into detail why in my previous post since some of you were continually trying to wail on about they were similar. Clearly by the what i listed above that is not remotely true.

Thus far all you've done is continue on with your bigotted propaganda about America you've picked up from god knows where as means of reason.:rolleyes:

I am saying, directly that in context one genocidal movement and usurping other peoples lands is no different from any other. Wars of commerce and resource theft exist throughout he timeline of America's history.

you make your distinctions based on minutia, which are lost when you look at the forest. It's all trees man, but if you can't see it, you can't see it.

Drake

08-28-2010, 08:53 AM

You both have ruined this thread.

David Jamieson

08-28-2010, 10:25 AM

You both have ruined this thread.

call the wahmbulance. :p

goju

08-28-2010, 02:33 PM

I am saying, directly that in context one genocidal movement and usurping other peoples lands is no different from any other. Wars of commerce and resource theft exist throughout he timeline of America's history.

you make your distinctions based on minutia, which are lost when you look at the forest. It's all trees man, but if you can't see it, you can't see it.

A kingdom consisting of only subjugation and religious intolerance is not the same as one that has grown into an important country that has doen many important things for the world.

If the kingdom in Muslim Spain grew like North America did then i could understand why the cultural center is being named whats it is going to be named. I would be niether odd or offensive, but history, or at least accurate history shows a clearly different picture thus naming the mosque Cordoba brings up alot of much needed questions about the motives behind the building.

Syn7

08-28-2010, 02:42 PM

thus naming the mosque Cordoba brings up alot of much needed questions about the motives behind the building.

word.......

Kansuke

08-28-2010, 02:47 PM

A kingdom consisting of only subjugation and religious intolerance is not the same as one that has grown into an important country that has doen many important things for the world.

If the kingdom in Muslim Spain grew like North America did then i could understand why the cultural center is being named whats it is going to be named. I would be niether odd or offensive, but history, or at least accurate history shows a clearly different picture thus naming the mosque Cordoba brings up alot of much needed questions about the motives behind the building.

Good point.

SanHeChuan

08-28-2010, 04:34 PM

A kingdom consisting of only subjugation and religious intolerance is not the same as one that has grown into an important country that has doen many important things for the world.

It is your failure, if that is all you see in Cordoba.

Christians were treated like second class citizens by Muslims, how did the Muslims fair under Christian rule? Who were the intolerant ones again?

THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04359b.htm)
In 786 the Arab caliph, Abd-er Rahman I, began the construction of the great mosque of Cordova, now the cathedral, and compelled many Christians to take part in the preparation of the site and foundations. Though they suffered many vexations, the Christians continued to enjoy freedom of worship, and this tolerant attitude of the ameers seduced not a few Christians from their original allegiance. Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe.

goju

08-28-2010, 05:18 PM

It is your failure, if that is all you see in Cordoba.
I see it for it what it clearly was not through a revisionist's eyes or mind set. Trying to argue it was anything other than what i noted is glossing over recorded history

Christians were treated like second class citizens by Muslims, how did the Muslims fair under Christian rule? Who were the intolerant ones again?

Rule where? If you are referring to the situation in Spain then the christian natives had all the right to treat the invaders poorly as they well... invaded someones elses country and attacked it's denizens. I can't be expected to feel sorry for any invaders if the tables are turned on them.

SanHeChuan

08-28-2010, 05:59 PM

Rule where?

All of Christendom contemporary to Cordoba, who allowed Muslims to live, work, and pray?

It's not revisionist to see the good with the bad.

Islamic Golden Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age)

goju

08-28-2010, 06:04 PM

All of Christendom contemporary to Cordoba, who allowed Muslims to live, work, and pray?

It's not revisionist to see the good with the bad.

Islamic Golden Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age)

and i care why exactly? Both religous groups are known for their intolerance of others through out history .How other christians chose to rule in other lands has nothing to do with cordoba or the cultural center.

Its revisionist to play it out as a center of tolerance and sure there was a few cultural exchanges that bettered both peoples but even that was exaggerated as that link i posted noted so the bad largely looms heavily over it.

Syn7

08-28-2010, 07:03 PM

It is your failure, if that is all you see in Cordoba.

Christians were treated like second class citizens by Muslims, how did the Muslims fair under Christian rule? Who were the intolerant ones again?

historically, christians have shown just as much intolerance as muslims, and christianity has over half a millenium on islam, so the amounts would surely add up to alot more incidents... just because western christians are usually moderate, or atleast pretent to be more liberal, doesnt take away from their pasts.. both islam and christianity are crusading religions that have core principles that insist everyone should convert... just because its not done at a tip of a sword around here anymore doesnt change the history... both religions have long and harsh intolerant histories full of attrocities commited in the name of their faith... as far as im concerned, with a foundation of such hate and lack of fundamental understanding of others, i dont want anything to do with either of em... f u c k em all, anything i can learn from them i can get elsewhere wiuthpout all the prejudice and hate attached to their roots...

also it must be said the christianity became more "peaceful" after it was the most powerful religion on earth with ties to the countries with the biggest guns... force, might and intolerance built them their luxury to be "nice" to pagans and the like...

also, a good chunk of americans christians would either hang everyone who isnt like them in a heartbeat, or turn a blind eye to it if it was happening... and did turn a blind eye when it WAS happening...

SanHeChuan

08-29-2010, 06:23 AM

and i care why exactly? Both religous groups are known for their intolerance of others through out history .How other christians chose to rule in other lands has nothing to do with cordoba or the cultural center.

Its revisionist to play it out as a center of tolerance and sure there was a few cultural exchanges that bettered both peoples but even that was exaggerated as that link i posted noted so the bad largely looms heavily over it.

If Cordoba was more tolerant than the other nations of the day, then it can be used as a symbol of tolerance. It's relative. We use many old cultures as symbols for things that by today’s standard would be weak but at the time compared to their contemporaries, stood out.

People use Spartans as a symbol of military might, but it is relative because by today’s standards they’d get their asses kicked, but at the time they were decent, just like for their time Cordoba was decent.

So if you can't name any other places contemporary to Cordoba that were more tolerant of both Christian and Muslim faith, then that means for its day it was the most tolerant and therefore a valid symbol of tolerance.

goju

08-29-2010, 02:24 PM

If Cordoba was more tolerant than the other nations of the day, then it can be used as a symbol of tolerance. It's relative. We use many old cultures as symbols for things that by today’s standard would be weak but at the time compared to their contemporaries, stood out.

People use Spartans as a symbol of military might, but it is relative because by today’s standards they’d get their asses kicked, but at the time they were decent, just like for their time Cordoba was decent.

So if you can't name any other places contemporary to Cordoba that were more tolerant of both Christian and Muslim faith, then that means for its day it was the most tolerant and therefore a valid symbol of tolerance.

Non muslims had to pay a tax for worshiping what they did, they couldn't display any ornamnets of their faith publically, couldnt build houses of worship, couldnt convert muslims, and if they were viewed to have over stepped the laws of dhimmi
(Which were strict.)the muslims so kindly granted on THE NATIVES then they could be killed or sold into slavery.

Soooooo this is tolerance how exactly? Just because the muslims didnt outright kill non muslims in Spain for no reason ( Usually not always. Lets not forget the angry muslim mob that up and killed countless jews in Granada.) means we should hail this as an example of tolerance? ahahah what bullsh!t

SanHeChuan

08-29-2010, 07:08 PM

Non muslims had to pay a tax for worshiping what they did, they couldn't display any ornamnets of their faith publically, couldnt build houses of worship, couldnt convert muslims, and if they were viewed to have over stepped the laws of dhimmi
(Which were strict.)the muslims so kindly granted on THE NATIVES then they could be killed or sold into slavery.

Soooooo this is tolerance how exactly? Just because the muslims didnt outright kill non muslims in Spain for no reason ( Usually not always. Lets not forget the angry muslim mob that up and killed countless jews in Granada.) means we should hail this as an example of tolerance? ahahah what bullsh!t

Great show me one contemporary Christian Nation in Europe who treated Muslims as well. If you can't then by comparison Cordoba was tolerant. They were allowed to worship and to live. Which Christian Nation was so tolerant?

Taxes
No converting Muslims
No wearing Crosses

Oh the Horror. :rolleyes:

goju

08-29-2010, 10:15 PM

Great show me one contemporary Christian Nation in Europe who treated Muslims as well.
Why do you keep asking for this ?I never argued there was anywhere in this thread so you banging on about this is pointless and makes you look like your arguement is so poor youre creating a new one out of thin air.

Last i checked plenty of christians ( Like the muslims in southern Spain.) invaded countries, killed the natives and allowed people to live as long as they abided by their faith and laws so what i know you are trying to get at holds very little weight my friend.

If you can't then by comparison Cordoba was tolerant. They were allowed to worship and to live. Which Christian Nation was so tolerant?

Taxes
No converting Muslims
No wearing Crosses

Oh the Horror. :rolleyes:

Yes you're right it isnt horrible. You just had a foreign people come into a land that WASNT THEIRS and virtually ENSLAVE the NATIVE populace AFTER KILLING THOUSANDS and impose their faith and government on the people. Then of course the Natives had to pay taxes in their own land, couldnt build and jewish or christian houses of worship in their own land or display any christian or jewish symbols of faith again in their own land.

lets not forget ( though you convienently avoided this) that Christian or Jews couldnt over step these foregin laws even though it was their own land or they would be killed or imprisoned as christian AND muslim records have shown.Lets not forget either the risk of a random muslim mob rioting and attacking jews here and there.

But of course you are still willing to some how twist history around and argue it was still some form of religious tolerance in order to create this innacurate revisionist history you wish to see that paints muslims in a better light for the sake of being "politically correct"

But again you're right having your land invaded, your people killed, then having a foreign people set up a governing body that treated you as second class citizens was tolerant.They just SOME TIMES didnt out right kill you for no reason and that alone was enough to label it as a tolerant society to a few people who want to ignore history by burying their heads in the sand. Apparently just granting someone life though be it one of toil and enslavement is being kind. Oh those silly christians and jews should have thanked the muslim invaders for that, How rude of them.http://www.webhostchat.co.uk/images/smilies/extra/emote_rofl3.gif

David Jamieson

08-30-2010, 05:22 AM

Yes you're right it isnt horrible. You just had a foreign people come into a land that WASNT THEIRS and virtually ENSLAVE the NATIVE populace AFTER KILLING THOUSANDS and impose their faith and government on the people. Then of course the Natives had to pay taxes in their own land, couldnt build and jewish or christian houses of worship in their own land or display any christian or jewish symbols of faith again in their own land. Hey this is what happened to the Natives of America. They weren't allowed to worship their gods, speak in their tongue, were slaughtered on mass, forced to convert and genocide with prejudice. phew, good thing they were not Christians or Jews or they might have had merit in the argument here!

lets not forget ( though you convienently avoided this) that Christian or Jews couldnt over step these foregin laws even though it was their own land or they would be killed or imprisoned as christian AND muslim records have shown.Lets not forget either the risk of a random muslim mob rioting and attacking jews here and there. replace Jew and Christian with Mandan, Dorset, Sioux, Cree, Ojibwa, Cheyenne etc, etc. Yep, that fits.

But of course you are still willing to some how twist history around and argue it was still some form of religious tolerance in order to create this innacurate revisionist history you wish to see that paints muslims in a better light for the sake of being "politically correct" Yeah, and Americans who committed acts of genocide and virtually wiped out an entire civilization in ordre to forward their own, some 5 or 6 hundred years after the Muslim empire was gone from Spain, well they don't fit into this observation of inequity and injustice of one peoples towards another because well it doesn't suit the argument for xenophobia or saying that Islam is a doctrine of violence and hate or so it seems.

But again you're right having your land invaded, your people killed, then having a foreign people set up a governing body that treated you as second class citizens was tolerant.They just SOME TIMES didnt out right kill you for no reason and that alone was enough to label it as a tolerant society to a few people who want to ignore history by burying their heads in the sand. Apparently just granting someone life though be it one of toil and enslavement is being kind. Oh those silly christians and jews should have thanked the muslim invaders for that, How rude of them Wait, are you talking about eh invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? no bin laden, no wmds, hand over the principle witness to the dogs to cover up anything else and so on.

I think it's remarkable that you can so readily see these faults in an empire and caliphate that fell hundreds of years before your country even existed and yet you almost belligerently fail to see the parallels and even argue against any parallels with your own country, your own people and apparently your own belief system.

Drake

08-30-2010, 06:55 AM

Canadians are some insecure motherf&*^ers...

SanHeChuan

08-30-2010, 08:57 AM

Why do you keep asking for this ?I never argued there was anywhere in this thread so you banging on about this is pointless and makes you look like your arguement is so poor youre creating a new one out of thin air.

My point is the evoking the name of Cordoba does not imply any kind of Nefarious agenda, any more that Rome or any other civilization. If you can't see past your own bias, to see that Cordoba was no worse than any of its contemporaries, fine. :rolleyes:

David Jamieson

08-30-2010, 09:21 AM

Canadians are some insecure motherf&*^ers...

why am I insecure for pointing out the fallacy of Gojus argument regarding Cordoba and his apparent refusal or inability to see the paralells that make his argument moot.

He apparently wants to go on about how evil Muslims and Islam are and he's getting called on it.

goju

08-30-2010, 03:24 PM

Hey this is what happened to the Natives of America. They weren't allowed to worship their gods, speak in their tongue, were slaughtered on mass, forced to convert and genocide with prejudice. phew, good thing they were not Christians or Jews or they might have had merit in the argument here!

replace Jew and Christian with Mandan, Dorset, Sioux, Cree, Ojibwa, Cheyenne etc, etc. Yep, that fits.

Yeah, and Americans who committed acts of genocide and virtually wiped out an entire civilization in ordre to forward their own, some 5 or 6 hundred years after the Muslim empire was gone from Spain, well they don't fit into this observation of inequity and injustice of one peoples towards another because well it doesn't suit the argument for xenophobia or saying that Islam is a doctrine of violence and hate or so it seems.

The difference is a native today can worship a flying noodle moster if he or she wishes . They can build a flying noodle monster house of worship and can convert people to the church of flying noodle moster. he can even walk around freely wearing a symbol of his noodle god. Such a luxury was ever granted in muslims spain so again you comparison is illogical and is only based on YOUR biggotry against yanks

Wait, are you talking about eh invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? no bin laden, no wmds, hand over the principle witness to the dogs to cover up anything else and so on.

Wtf? no i wasn't.

I think it's remarkable that you can so readily see these faults in an empire and caliphate that fell hundreds of years before your country even existed and yet you almost belligerently fail to see the parallels and even argue against any parallels with your own country, your own people and apparently your own belief system.

I already reasoned why and you havent provided a reasonable counter to it you just banded on about how bad America is:rolleyes:

my belief system?

goju

08-30-2010, 03:28 PM

My point is the evoking the name of Cordoba does not imply any kind of Nefarious agenda,
it was just a kingdom of oppression and violence that never evolved even the slightest into a postive direction. Yes nothing nefarious about that.

If you can't see past your own bias, to see that Cordoba was no worse than any of its contemporaries, fine. :rolleyes:

There was never any evolution or progress in it. to compare it to many other nations that mananged to succeed in human rights and tolerance is ridiculous:p

goju

08-30-2010, 03:36 PM

.

He apparently wants to go on about how evil Muslims and Islam are and he's getting called on it.
Pardon me?. Really now its come to the point where you cant so much as utter a single cricism of islam with out some overly liberal wackadoo screaming racist or bigot.?:rolleyes:

But its okay for you to generalize a whole country and people,something no one here in this thread outside of you has done and yet you come out looking how exactly?

I never said i hated islam or its worshippers as a whole. I have the same problem with it as syn said he did.There are some of its followers who want to push it down peoples throats and have it worm its way into every aspect of society much like christianty has done and i dont care to have another faith impose itself on numerous nations again.

its funny you mentioned people being brain washed by the media or falling into the pack mentality when you are a shining example of that exact thing.:p

Syn7

08-30-2010, 04:16 PM

poison fruit doesnt mean poison roots BUT poison roots does make poison fruit... poison trunk makes poison fruit... poison branch makes poison fruit... a history so full of, for lack of better words, EVIL makes the whole tree poison... no matter how sweet smelling and tasty the fruit may seem, its still poison... and just because some of the fruit seems ok doesnt mean its ok as a whole... does that make sense??? im trying to think of other ways to explain my thoughts...

im not a biggot or a racist but i see many flaws with creationism in general... but aside from my disagreements with the fundamental aspects of creationism, thats not what i base my judgements on... i dont care what people say, i watch what they do... and what these two religions have DONE is horrible horrible things...

i love the starvin marvin in space episode of south park...

freakin missionaries think they are such great people...

"no no no, we dont eat the bibles, we read them"

"remember, reading bible plus accepting jesus equals fooood"

"no marvin, in gods language, english"

sort of reminds me of stories my native friends mom told us about the residential schools... my friend was raped by a priest as a young child, and talking about this brought up all these stories of christianity and the residential schools... it was some seriously evil **** maan... EVIL!!! not, mostly bad... but EVIL... these people did some horrible s h i t ... you were beaten for speaking your own tongue in the presence of a priest... they were told it was a godless language... they were beaten for questioning anything... and then they were looked at as trash when they self medicated with drugs and alcahol... her stories werent unique either... ive heard the same stories over and over from all around the world... christian missionaries "helping other cultures to be righteous by accepting jesus by any means necessary"... now that im studying islam i am seeing alot of paralells... they are both crusading religions and they both exercise intolerance as a rule... despite what they say... its their actions that speak the loudest...

Dragonzbane76

08-30-2010, 04:30 PM

like i said the world would be a better place without both IMO. to much hate and violence, both preach perspectives of peace but in the end the "interpretation" of said literatures condemn both to "crusades" to change everyone else towards their thought patterns.

but that's my opinion...hopefully we have enough "middle" ground people to even the hate and violence out that they spread.

David Jamieson

08-31-2010, 05:32 AM

The difference is a native today can worship a flying noodle moster if he or she wishes . They can build a flying noodle monster house of worship and can convert people to the church of flying noodle moster. he can even walk around freely wearing a symbol of his noodle god. Such a luxury was ever granted in muslims spain so again you comparison is illogical and is only based on YOUR biggotry against yanks

dude, a christian can worship in saudi arabia, syria , jordan, Turkey, indonesia and pretty much any other arab or "islamic" country. Why do you think there is persecution of these peoples where there isn't? YOu are trying to compare a modern native with what was happening then? That is the logic of a brick dude. Cordoba was centuries BEFORE America even existed and you want to go there? OUTSTANDING!

Wtf? no i wasn't. By my observation yes you were.

I already reasoned why and you havent provided a reasonable counter to it you just banded on about how bad America is:rolleyes: YOu've reasoned nothing, in fact you have failed to reason at all in regadr to the paralell. You don't want to see it or something.

my belief system? whatever that is, it's a weird one from where I sit.

Pardon me?. Really now its come to the point where you cant so much as utter a single cricism of islam with out some overly liberal wackadoo screaming racist or bigot.?:rolleyes: You should refrain from criticizing what you don't understand is my point. You are clearly biased and incapable of even recognizing your own unfounded vitriol towards a religion that you have nothing to do with, have never practiced and have been apparently brainwashed into hating in a take it for granted kind of way.

But its okay for you to generalize a whole country and people,something no one here in this thread outside of you has done and yet you come out looking how exactly? You are wanting it to be that way, but what I was pointing out was mere historical fact. nothing generalized about it. look it up, it happened and you're having the audacity to call this America bashing? That crazy dude.

I never said i hated islam or its worshippers as a whole. I have the same problem with it as syn said he did.There are some of its followers who want to push it down peoples throats and have it worm its way into every aspect of society much like christianty has done and i dont care to have another faith impose itself on numerous nations again. You're inferance and implication says different by your own words. What the hell do you know about religion? You talk about it like it's some kind of simple commodity that can be pulled from a shelf and known completely by reading the label on the back.

its funny you mentioned people being brain washed by the media or falling into the pack mentality when you are a shining example of that exact thing.:p Yeah, it's funny how you can't see your own self. Real funny. You think it's ok to bash on others but oh, if anything is drawn as a parallel or indicates what a HUGE hypocrite you're being.

No way buddy, you have to wear your fear and prejudice, you have to wear your ignorance. Not me.

:rolleyes: <por vous

SanHeChuan

08-31-2010, 06:43 AM

it was just a kingdom of oppression and violence that never evolved even the slightest into a postive direction. Yes nothing nefarious about that.

Your assessment is wrong as has been shown. Choose to ignore that at the risk of your own ignorance.

There was never any evolution or progress in it. to compare it to many other nations that mananged to succeed in human rights and tolerance is ridiculous:p

You mean nations that survive in name only and only progressed hundreds of years later? Yeah that's a fair logical argument. :rolleyes:

SnowDog

08-31-2010, 11:41 AM

Goju,

I think what you are missing is that this Muslim period in Spain was progressive and tollerant by the standards of that time period. Not today's standards.

Let's be honest no culture in this time-period (712AD-1492AD) would be considered tolerant or progressive by today's standards, but the laws in Spain at that time were much more tollerant than the reset of the Middle East and Europe at that period of time.

Remember in that time period the world was experiancing the Black Plauge, the Viking invasions, the Crusades, the two Great Schisms, multitude of religious conflicts and the persicution of the Pagan religions of both Europe and the Middle East. So by the standards of that time period Muslim Spain was very tolerant and progressive when compaired to their neighbors.

Faruq

08-31-2010, 12:18 PM

"...47. Wherever the religious neurosis has appeared on the earth so
far, we find it connected with three dangerous prescriptions as
to regimen: solitude, fasting, and sexual abstinence--but without
its being possible to determine with certainty which is cause and
which is effect, or IF any relation at all of cause and effect
exists there. This latter doubt is justified by the fact that one
of the most regular symptoms among savage as well as among
civilized peoples is the most sudden and excessive sensuality,
which then with equal suddenness transforms into penitential
paroxysms, world-renunciation, and will-renunciation, both
symptoms perhaps explainable as disguised epilepsy? But nowhere
is it MORE obligatory to put aside explanations around no other
type has there grown such a mass of absurdity and superstition,
no other type seems to have been more interesting to men and even
to philosophers--perhaps it is time to become just a little
indifferent here, to learn caution, or, better still, to look
AWAY, TO GO AWAY--Yet in the background of the most recent
philosophy, that of Schopenhauer, we find almost as the problem
in itself, this terrible note of interrogation of the religious
crisis and awakening. How is the negation of will POSSIBLE? how
is the saint possible?--that seems to have been the very question
with which Schopenhauer made a start and became a philosopher.
And thus it was a genuine Schopenhauerian consequence, that his
most convinced adherent (perhaps also his last, as far as Germany
is concerned), namely, Richard Wagner, should bring his own life-
work to an end just here, and should finally put that terrible
and eternal type upon the stage as Kundry, type vecu, and as it
loved and lived, at the very time that the mad-doctors in almost
all European countries had an opportunity to study the type close
at hand, wherever the religious neurosis--or as I call it, "the
religious mood"--made its latest epidemical outbreak and display
as the "Salvation Army"--If it be a question, however, as to what
has been so extremely interesting to men of all sorts in all
ages, and even to philosophers, in the whole phenomenon of the
saint, it is undoubtedly the appearance of the miraculous
therein--namely, the immediate SUCCESSION OF OPPOSITES, of states
of the soul regarded as morally antithetical: it was believed
here to be self-evident that a "bad man" was all at once turned
into a "saint," a good man. The hitherto existing psychology was
wrecked at this point, is it not possible it may have happened
principally because psychology had placed itself under the
dominion of morals, because it BELIEVED in oppositions of moral
values, and saw, read, and INTERPRETED these oppositions into the
text and facts of the case? What? "Miracle" only an error of
interpretation? A lack of philology?..."

Beyond Good and Evil, by Friedrich Nietzsche

goju

08-31-2010, 12:32 PM

dude, a christian can worship in saudi arabia, syria , jordan, Turkey, indonesia and pretty much any other arab or "islamic" country. Why do you think there is persecution of these peoples where there isn't? YOu are trying to compare a modern native with what was happening then? That is the logic of a brick dude. Cordoba was centuries BEFORE America even existed and you want to go there? OUTSTANDING!

I wanted to go there?Last i checked i wasnt the one who was trying to compare the two lol.

By my observation yes you were. you obervastion was waaaaaaay off

You should refrain from criticizing what you don't understand is my point. You are clearly biased and incapable of even recognizing your own unfounded vitriol towards a religion that you have nothing to do with, have never practiced and have been apparently brainwashed into hating in a take it for granted kind of way.

Riiight, Ill make sure not to ever mention obama in negative light either so the off chance doesnt occur you say i hate blacks.

You are wanting it to be that way, but what I was pointing out was mere historical fact. nothing generalized about it. look it up, it happened and you're having the audacity to call this America bashing? That crazy dude.

Why should i not? You brought up America IMMEDIATELY even when the subject had absolutely nothing to do with it.

You're inferance and implication says different by your own words. What the hell do you know about religion? You talk about it like it's some kind of simple commodity that can be pulled from a shelf and known completely by reading the label on the back.

Well lets see i just come from a country thats experienced an immense amount of turmoil involving religion but you're right a canadian has more perspective on it than me.

Yeah, it's funny how you can't see your own self. Real funny. You think it's ok to bash on others but oh, if anything is drawn as a parallel or indicates what a HUGE hypocrite you're being.

As i said the only one who is generalizing a whole group of people here is you dave.

goju

08-31-2010, 12:35 PM

Goju,

I think what you are missing is that this Muslim period in Spain was progressive and tollerant by the standards of that time period. Not today's standards.

I see that period more as typical of the age. An invading people swept in, slaughtered alot of people and gave the rest a choice. Follow their rules or die.

Thats just the basic game plan of war fare more so than any form of tolerance in my opinion.

goju

08-31-2010, 12:38 PM

Your assessment is wrong as has been shown. Choose to ignore that at the risk of your own ignorance.
i gave specific examples of my point. You just kept saying oh it wasnt like that over and over again.Thats hardly proof of anything.

YYou mean nations that survive in name only and only progressed hundreds of years later? Yeah that's a fair logical argument. :rolleyes:

As i said i wasnt the one who started to compare the two.

David Jamieson

08-31-2010, 02:56 PM

I wanted to go there?Last i checked i wasnt the one who was trying to compare the two lol. you still refuse to see it too.

you obervastion was waaaaaaay off nay man. it wasn't.

Riiight, Ill make sure not to ever mention obama in negative light either so the off chance doesnt occur you say i hate blacks. ad hominem adhominem ad hominem

Why should i not? You brought up America IMMEDIATELY even when the subject had absolutely nothing to do with it. the line you were taking is completely related. I could use another country, But I figured you may be a step towards understanding if you country and it's paralells to what you were up in arms about would be clearer to you. I guess not. You are blind, willfully so as well.

Well lets see i just come from a country thats experienced an immense amount of turmoil involving religion but you're right a canadian has more perspective on it than me. You're an insular ass hole for making this statement, just wanted to point it out.

As i said the only one who is generalizing a whole group of people here is you dave. nay, tis you with your rants and skewed views of what muslims are or are not and what islam is or is not. You are arguing from deep ignorance. I guess what's funny is you're the only one who ain't recognizing it, but then, with deep ignorance like yours, that would stand to reason.

and still, you'll go on about how your life has been altered by religious feuding etc etc. what a load of sh*t.

goju

08-31-2010, 03:16 PM

you still refuse to see it too.

Wait i thought it was illogical now it isnt? Only when it suits your views right?

nay man. it wasn't.
No seriously i wasnt referring to that at all.

the line you were taking is completely related. I could use another country, But I figured you may be a step towards understanding if you country and it's paralells to what you were up in arms about would be clearer to you. I guess not. You are blind, willfully so as well..

It was more like you immediately assumed i was american and you went into a rage the second you had a chance.

You're an insular ass hole for making this statement, just wanted to point it out.

How does pointing out my country has gone through more religous conflict than yours make me an *******?Keep in mind im not just talking about something way way back hundreds of years ago this stuff still was happening for my generation to see, hell it still is to a lesser degree so i think you saying i know nothing of religion is a bit much.

nay, tis you with your rants and skewed views of what muslims are or are not and what islam is or is not. You are arguing from deep ignorance. I guess what's funny is you're the only one who ain't recognizing it, but then, with deep ignorance like yours, that would stand to reason.

and still, you'll go on about how your life has been altered by religious feuding etc etc. what a load of sh*t.
No its me reasonably criticizing certain groups of muslims for their actions and you exploding with "WHAT YOU HATEMSULISMWHATSWRONG WITHYOU!OHBOYMANYOU REALLYSHODULTNE SAYINGTHAT YOUBIGOTAMERICAN OH MAN OH MAN!"

lol where did i say my life has been altered by religous feuding?

:rolleyes:

David Jamieson

09-01-2010, 01:19 PM

*snip*
lol where did i say my life has been altered by religous feuding?

:rolleyes:

you said:

Well lets see i just come from a country thats experienced an immense amount of turmoil involving religion but you're right a canadian has more perspective on it than me.

so, you gonna backpedal on that too?

also, is this you?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

:p

David Jamieson

09-01-2010, 01:41 PM

this about sums up the teabaggers education:

http://www.truth-out.org/files/images/Tom%20Tomorrow%209-01.png?

lol

Syn7

09-01-2010, 01:57 PM

in accordance with sharia law, dhimmis have fewer legal and social rights than muslims... thats a fact... one that isnt hard to research either...

Syn7

09-01-2010, 02:06 PM

you said:

so, you gonna backpedal on that too?

also, is this you?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

:p

"I almost gave in and listened to that guy defend Islam with words I didn't want to hear," Gentries said. "But then I remembered how much easier it is to live in a world of black-and-white in which I can assign the label of 'other' to someone and use him as a vessel for all my fears and insecurities."

atleast he aknowledged that fact... alot of people hate and are blind to that fact...

David Jamieson

09-01-2010, 03:13 PM

atleast he aknowledged that fact... alot of people hate and are blind to that fact...

for the sake of clarity, theonion.com is a parody news site the likes of jon stewart...but harsher. lol

goju

09-01-2010, 11:29 PM

you said:

so, you gonna backpedal on that too?

also, is this you?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

:p

Sooooo saying i am from a country that had experienced a wealth of religious conflict somehow means in your mind that i said my own life was radically altered by religion.

Yeaaaaah you really need to work on your reading comprehension bud. Between this and your conclusion i was talking about the invasion of Iraq when i clearly wasn't it's quite apparent you struggle with basic English.:p

David Jamieson

09-02-2010, 06:08 AM

Sooooo saying i am from a country that had experienced a wealth of religious conflict somehow means in your mind that i said my own life was radically altered by religion.

Yeaaaaah you really need to work on your reading comprehension bud. Between this and your conclusion i was talking about the invasion of Iraq when i clearly wasn't it's quite apparent you struggle with basic English.:p

dude, now you're just ****ing.

saving face with goofy semantics and saying one thing but in the same breath saying it means something else. You are teh one painting Islam and Muslims as this evil intolerant religion even though it's 1.6 billion people around the world who practice it in all sorts of different ways.

whatever man, you keep your stuff and hang onto it I guess. You are wrong about this from step 1 and all the way through to your last comments.

Now you are just being greasy and trying to save face.

You keep that **** I guess. It's all yours.

goju

09-02-2010, 03:41 PM

Trying to save face? Sorry to burst your bubble dave but your immediate American bashing combined with your shouts of "BIGOT! BIGOT!" have hardly made me lose face. If anything its only making you look ridiculous.

Now of course you are showng you are prone to rattling off in new direction the minute you miusunderstand someone and then refusing to admit you were misstaken when it's clearly pointed out.:rolleyes:

Good luck with that.

Zenshiite

09-02-2010, 04:35 PM

Man, I'm so stoked for the building of Victory Mosque NYC! You guys are poo-pooing it now, but you are absolutely going to love it!

Hope you come over for a swim sometime, and then we can play some hoops and learn to cook!

Pacman

09-07-2010, 01:43 PM

dude, a christian can worship in saudi arabia, syria , jordan, Turkey, indonesia and pretty much any other arab or "islamic" country.

im not christian and not religious at all but seriously are you nuts?

go to one of those countries (except for maybe indonesia) and displaying your faith in public. see what happens.

in saudi arabia, proselytizing by non muslims is illegal. religious symbols such as crosses are also illegal.

David Jamieson

09-07-2010, 01:59 PM

im not christian and not religious at all but seriously are you nuts?

go to one of those countries (except for maybe indonesia) and displaying your faith in public. see what happens.

in saudi arabia, proselytizing by non muslims is illegal. religious symbols such as crosses are also illegal.

saudi arabia is almost entirely muslim, so, it's really moot, but really?

where are you getting your info?

you know, if the tags at the top of the wiki page have "disputed" and "questionable" in them that you can't really put some rice in that bowl on that particular subject.

you honestly think a christian can't bop around most islamic countries?

and what does proselytizing have to do with anything. evangelists are annoying no matter where you go. lol

BJJ-Blue

09-07-2010, 02:01 PM

You are teh one painting Islam and Muslims as this evil intolerant religion even though it's 1.6 billion people around the world who practice it in all sorts of different ways.

Well, he has a valid point.

There are approximately 2 billion Christians worldwide http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0010.html. When was the last time a group of them crashed a couple of planes into some buildings and killed thousands of people? When was the last time they beheaded someone on TV? When is the last time they stoned some rape victims to death?

BJJ-Blue

09-07-2010, 02:05 PM

you honestly think a christian can't bop around most islamic countries?

This may be news to you, but a group of Christians were just recently slaughtered in Afghanistan for the sole reason that they were Christians.

http://samshaw.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/ten-christian-workers-killed-in-afghanistan/

And they were not there doing missionary work, ie preaching. They were there giving humanitarian medical care.

KC Elbows

09-07-2010, 02:22 PM

No one can walk around Afghanistan safely, irrespective of religion. That's why it's called Afghanistan.

Syn7

09-07-2010, 02:32 PM

This may be news to you, but a group of Christians were just recently slaughtered in Afghanistan for the sole reason that they were Christians.

http://samshaw.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/ten-christian-workers-killed-in-afghanistan/

And they were not there doing missionary work, ie preaching. They were there giving humanitarian medical care.

aslong as christians crusade in muslim territory they will be in danger... they should but out and let these people sort out their problems without making new problems... this whole "convert and we'll feed you" thing you see in africa alot is absolutely disrespectful and arrogant... all crusading expansionist religions suck, as far as im concerned... tryna save me and s h i t... save yourselves.... and knowself, dont involve yourselves in other peoples disputes when you werent invited...

also... on the subject again... i think the islamic center is disrespectful at best, nafarious even, for some... not everyone involved has the same motives... the money is suspect... its just too soon to try and force yourself a seat in the ground zero landscape... to do it because you can legally do it doesnt make it right, or wise... there will be problems... this is forsure... violence will happen there... people will go there to be hateful towards the muslims for sure... regardless of their motives for being there... american christian fundamentalists are freakin crazy, they will do things similar to what their muslim counterparts do... exept with better resources, and thats scary... lets not wake that beast, i mean come on... its too soon... no mosque at ground zero...

Zenshiite

09-07-2010, 02:36 PM

Well, he has a valid point.

There are approximately 2 billion Christians worldwide http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0010.html. When was the last time a group of them crashed a couple of planes into some buildings and killed thousands of people? When was the last time they beheaded someone on TV? When is the last time they stoned some rape victims to death?

There have certainly been Christian witch hunts in Africa of late. By a Christian minister that Sarah Palin enthusiastically supported in her church in Alaska some years back.

I'll also contend that Christians haven't tended to resort to terrorism primarily because they've had a privileged relationship with power and authority for the last 500 years throughout most of the world coinciding with the spread of European colonialism and imperialism. Most of the horrors committed against indigenous peoples in this world have been perpetrated by Christians in the name of Christ. Christianity and Christian missionaries have been used as tools of colonialism as well. I don't think it's out of bounds to suggest that Christians, especially those in traditionally Christian dominated lands, have felt no need to engage in that sort of political violence(that which is not sanctioned by a state or ruling power) because they've had more than enough access to state-sanctioned violence and terror.

So-called "fundamentalist" Muslims are a politically dis-empowered and disenfranchised bunch of people, often without any hope that things will get any better for them or their people, so they are reacting like caged beasts. More often than not their primary victims are their fellow Muslims, and their justifications for their actions have tended to fly in the face of the actual science behind the Shariah. That includes their applications of death penalties and other harsher punishments found in the Shariah and cited as evidence of how "evil" the Shariah is. Never mind that 99.9% of the Shariah is concerned primarily with personal ethical conduct in accordance with the Word of God and the intricacies of fasting, prayer, and ritual ablution.

The al-Qa'ida sorts of "fundamentalists" tend not to have access to a state apparatus, organize in opposition to specific states, and engage in violence that is not sanctioned by any state and a misguided attempt to wield power or reclaim power that they perceive lost to them. Christians haven't had that sort of situation, but we do see some fringe Christians reacting in similar ways on smaller scales. Flying small 2 or 3 person prop planes into IRS buildings, pipe-bombing the Olympics, terrorizing people of color in white sheets, organizing neo-Nazi street gangs, killing abortion doctors, forming militias and plotting to kill police officers and then expand that into a Christian revolution(the Hutaree).

It is simply not a case that Christianity hasn't produced similarly diseased minds, it's that they have happened in lower numbers primarily because Christians wield a great deal of political power, especially in America. Most of the US Armed Forces are down home good ole boy Christians. And very far right Christians, I might add. They have access to state violence and all the justifications they need for violence against those that don't believe like them. Even if there is a pretense of separation between church and state on the governmental level... in the minds of many right wing Christians that distinction does not exist, and in many ways it does not exist in practice anyway.