(Close Window)
Topic: Burning Books
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 8, 2010 12:26AM)
People have long done this and people have long got upset about it.

I don't personally have any inclination to burn anyones book, or spit on any of them or perform any other degradation beyond mocking what I regard as silly, if sometimes well intentioned, superstition.

And I do believe it is the democratic right of people to do those things I choose not to.

But what is more important - the physical book - or the message it contains?
I would have assumed too high a regard for the actual book to be idolatry and that mocking the content - the sacred message - to be far more sacriligious than merely destroying the actual book.

I speak of no particular religion as they all cherish their own story and are all offended by attacks on it - some obviously more than others.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 8, 2010 12:59AM)
Yup....I think everyone in this case is nuts...the burnies and the gnashers.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 8, 2010 08:12AM)
Amusingly, the guy who's made the news with his upcoming book burning leads a religious flock of--wait for it--50 faithful. He's sucked millions into following his message one way or the other.

I'd like to say that as protests go, his is a barely articulate grunt. But I can't. It's a grunt that is being noticed by millions. And talked about. And understood. And that's probably good.

John
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 8, 2010 09:21AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 09:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Amusingly, the guy who's made the news with his upcoming book burning leads a religious flock of--wait for it--50 faithful. He's sucked millions into following his message one way or the other.

I'd like to say that as protests go, his is a barely articulate grunt. But I can't. It's a grunt that is being noticed by millions. And talked about. And understood. And that's probably good.

John
[/quote]

Some people can grunt pretty loud I guess.
Message: Posted by: crestfallenLyric (Sep 8, 2010 09:32AM)
People can do as they please, but I feel there is no better way to make one look more ignorant than to burn a book they disagree with. Same with banning a book. I still laugh at the idea that schools would find Catcher in the Rye offensive enough to ban. Or Harry Potter. Or the Bible, Koran, or any other religious text.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Sep 8, 2010 09:34AM)
I like the idea of taking that list floating around of "Books most often banned" and making it required reading for my son. When he's a little older, of course.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 8, 2010 09:44AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 09:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Amusingly, the guy who's made the news with his upcoming book burning ...
[/quote]
I'm not anti-gun by any means, but I was amused and surprised to read that this Pastor totes a handgun around with him.

I also read that the (Canadian!) bank that holds the mortgage on his church property has demanded full payment of the $140,000 still owed.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 8, 2010 09:51AM)
Book burning in general held more power when books were tougher to get and prior to the advent of the internet. Generally book burning has become more of a symbol than anything.

This is the precice problem that we run into here is that it is the "symbol" here that will cause most offense, not the "loss of knowlege". When the Spanish burnt all the Myan books we lost a whole civilization. It was tragic. If this guy does what he plans we have no such loss, but it is more of an attack on another faith.

John, you miss the point having only 50 now does not mean that he will not rally many to the cause, that is what makes it dangerous.

I happen to think he has the right, (which is obvious) but it is unnecessarily provocative.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 8, 2010 09:55AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 10:51, Dannydoyle wrote:


John, you miss the point having only 50 now does not mean that he will not rally many to the cause, that is what makes it dangerous.


[/quote]

That was my point.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Sep 8, 2010 10:08AM)
"The mouse that roared" is about a very small country that declared war on the US in hopes that they would loose, and qualify for aid.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 8, 2010 10:20AM)
He carries around a gun, and is a man of god. Total whackjob, no question about it. Regardless of the pastor thing, who carries a gun?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 8, 2010 10:33AM)
Regardless of paster or gun, who is that deliberatly provocative?
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 8, 2010 11:29AM)
I don't get what you are saying... What is up with the spelling?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 8, 2010 11:41AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 10:44, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 09:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Amusingly, the guy who's made the news with his upcoming book burning ...
[/quote]
I'm not anti-gun by any means, but I was amused and surprised to read that this Pastor totes a handgun around with him.

I also read that the (Canadian!) bank that holds the mortgage on his church property has demanded full payment of the $140,000 still owed.
[/quote]

Lol, that's awesome. Assuming they are allowed to do this per what ever agreement he made when he got the mortgage, I fully support this.

Don't like what' someone's doing, you don't have to lock them up, just bring your business/association with them to and end.


Now, how about instead of a book burning for things you disagree with, how about a book READING?
How about you go get a bunch of people who dislike the same books, and organize a reading group. Learn a bit more about what you apparently hate. Then, when you're done reading them, burn away.

I'm not saying they won't have dislike for the book when they are done, but at least they'll know what they are actually burning, not just what they've been told they are burning.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Sep 8, 2010 12:25PM)
This "Pastor" and his call for burning the Quran reminds of two different things said about similar issues.

I forgot how many years ago, five or six maybe, Georgia Secretary of Education Cathy Cox said in reference to a Georgia county burning books they considered bad,
"I saw and am very intimate with their test scores, they need to be reading those books rather than burning them.

Then there was Ozzy Osbourne who once quipped how he felt about religious groups burning hi albums, "Doesn't bother me, they have to but them first."

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 8, 2010 02:13PM)
I say burning it is his 15 minutes of fame... For that very reason, he might well go through with it imo...

The sad thing is that it helps nothing. Other than himself. If even that in the long run...

Think about it, what does it do other than harm?

Here's one to free speech...
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 8, 2010 02:19PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 15:13, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I say burning it is his 15 minutes of fame... For that very reason, he might well go through with it imo...

The sad thing is that it helps nothing. Other than himself. If even that in the long run...

Think about it, what does it do other than harm?

Here's one to free speech...
[/quote]

How does it even do harm?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 8, 2010 02:24PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 15:19, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 15:13, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I say burning it is his 15 minutes of fame... For that very reason, he might well go through with it imo...

The sad thing is that it helps nothing. Other than himself. If even that in the long run...

Think about it, what does it do other than harm?

Here's one to free speech...
[/quote]

How does it even do harm?
[/quote]

If it happens, just wait for the killing to start. I am serious. No joke.

They killed people for Cartoons, this is the Holy Book.

I hope I am wrong but history has shown otherwise... :(
Message: Posted by: muse (Sep 8, 2010 02:45PM)
Any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right.

And on the subject of names, could here be a more ironically titled organisation?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 8, 2010 02:51PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 15:24, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 15:19, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 15:13, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I say burning it is his 15 minutes of fame... For that very reason, he might well go through with it imo...

The sad thing is that it helps nothing. Other than himself. If even that in the long run...

Think about it, what does it do other than harm?

Here's one to free speech...
[/quote]

How does it even do harm?
[/quote]

If it happens, just wait for the killing to start. I am serious. No joke.

They killed people for Cartoons, this is the Holy Book.

I hope I am wrong but history has shown otherwise... :(
[/quote]

Oh, I will not be surprised, but the book burning is not the thing doing the harm then. You can't defer responsibility for he actions of those doing the killing.
I'm sure you don't, but to say that it will do harm shifts the burden, and is exactly the reasoning used to censor free speech.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 8, 2010 03:01PM)
I'm not advocating censoring it, I'm for Free Speech. I'm not American btw...

I am just pointing out what will happen which would not happen if they don't burn it.

If you say that they'll kill anyway, those are the ones already killing people.. I say no need to give the others a reason to justify it.

General Petraeus says as much... I agree with him.

Look at it this way, you are free to insult someone's dead parents, vehemently even... Free Speech.

If however you are surprised when the son punches you in the face, I say that's just you being unrealistic...

The sad thing here is that the Pastor will be fine, it's the people in Islamic countries that become targets...
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 8, 2010 03:27PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 16:01, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I'm not advocating censoring it, I'm for Free Speech. I'm not American btw...

I am just pointing out what will happen which would not happen if they don't burn it.

If you say that they'll kill anyway, those are the ones already killing people.. I say no need to give the others a reason to justify it.

General Petraeus says as much... I agree with him.

Look at it this way, you are free to insult someone's dead parents, vehemently even... Free Speech.

If however you are surprised when the son punches you in the face, I say that's just you being unrealistic...

The sad thing here is that the Pastor will be fine, it's the people in Islamic countries that become targets...
[/quote]

I wasn't saying they will kill anyways, I'm saying IF he burns the book(s) and IF they kill after that, they will STILL be the sole persons responsible for their actions.

I completely agree with what you are saying. Though, the guy punching me in the nose will still be the one responsible for punching me. I doubt many people will care though and say I deserved it ;) Does that really deserve a winking smilie? Any who.

I am also saying that this is the reasoning people do use to censor. I am not saying you are censoring, or even advocating censoring, just that the above is exactly what people try to use to justify censoring.

"I say no need to give the others a reason to justify it." And I say no one is. If someone is going to kill someone over burning a book, then they didn't need any additional reason to justify it, or to do it.

We should not let others control us with their threats.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 8, 2010 03:47PM)
Okay then, I get you, but this looks like a car crash just waiting to happen.

Everyone is screaming but the driver just won't stop...
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 8, 2010 04:07PM)
He'll get the $140,000 and then some to pay off the church.

Book burnings always bothered me for some reason, if you don't want to read a book don't, if others want to let 'em. I use to go to the library every Wednesday morning and there was a woman who came in every Wed as well and she would stomp up to the desk, put down a stack of books and demand they be banned because they were 'an outrage to God!'. They would tell her no, she would stomp out, and the next week do it all again. I didn't like her.

As for those threatening violence (do these people EVER not threaten violence? Even Castro thinks they need to mellow out) they are looking for any excuse.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 8, 2010 04:12PM)
He his more popular than John Lennon.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 8, 2010 04:19PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 17:12, tommy wrote:
He his more popular than John Lennon.
[/quote]

Imagine.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Sep 8, 2010 11:17PM)
I wonder what would have happened if, when he first said he was going to do it, nobody responded. Or if they just said, "Yeah, well, go ahead."

Take the hot air out of a balloon and it won't float.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 8, 2010 11:31PM)
Do people (here) perceive this as substantially different from flag burning?

+1 on just about all of gdw's comments, btw. And whatever else this will do, by definition, it certainly won't provoke any *moderates* to kill anyone.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 8, 2010 11:45PM)
Yep, by definition, they're no longer "moderate" if they kill for this yah?

Anyhow, I personally think that this goes beyond flag burning... This will hurt the feelings of 1.5 Billion Muslims across many different countries... Only a small percentage will get violent over it really, but even that is a lot with that number...

I hope he doesn't do it.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 8, 2010 11:58PM)
A lot of Muslims don't care about the feelings of billions of others so frankly they need to lump it and realize that this one guys action doesn't reflect everyone else in the US while at the same time the moderate Muslims expect everyone to accept that extremist Muslims do not reflect them. If the Muslims are so upset tell them to burn a Bible or a Hardy Boys book or something.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 8, 2010 11:59PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 00:58, MagicSanta wrote:
A lot of Muslims don't care about the feelings of billions of others so frankly they need to lump it and realize that this one guys action doesn't reflect everyone else in the US while at the same time the moderate Muslims expect everyone to accept that extremist Muslims do not reflect them. If the Muslims are so upset tell them to burn a Bible or a Hardy Boys book or something.
[/quote]

Santa, you know I respect you, but back off the Hardy Boys. Seriously.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 9, 2010 12:03AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 00:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Do people (here) perceive this as substantially different from flag burning?
[/quote]
In terms of the context and possible range of consequences, yes. Substantially different.

But similar, perhaps even identical, to flag burning if you only look at it in the sense of a freedom of speech issue.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 9, 2010 12:03AM)
No....they re wrote the Hardy Boys to make them politically correct and I refuse to read them and my mom gave my original sexist and racist copies away.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 9, 2010 12:16AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 01:03, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 00:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Do people (here) perceive this as substantially different from flag burning?
[/quote]
In terms of the context and possible range of consequences, yes. Substantially different.

But similar, perhaps even identical, to flag burning if you only look at it in the sense of a freedom of speech issue.
[/quote]

I mean as a matter of principle, divorced of all consequences and legal significance.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 9, 2010 12:30AM)
When you put it that way, I don't really understand the question. Don't consequences factor into / define matters of principle for us in some way?

Quote: "When someone does something out of principle, it means that they have a moral basis for what they are doing."

I haven't given this much thought, but don't morals come out of considerations of consequences? With no consequences to consider, even hypothetically, I think nothing really matters.

So I guess my answer then would be, burn is burn, no difference.
Message: Posted by: Happy Hank (Sep 9, 2010 12:46AM)
I say BURN BABY BURN!

BOTH my kids are lifers in the military - when I asked them if this demostraition would impare their saftey, they said yes, but you also know what they said that shocked and moved me? The said it's their job to defend our freedom, stupid book burning or not!

I'm not a kook at either end of the spectrum, but were does it end? banned cartoons, banning South Park episodes, squeemish about book burnings?

Let's not forget our history, the CHRISTIAN INQUISITIONS was a response to the Muslim crucades - I bet they don't teach that in public schools now a days. If other countries burn our flag and urinate on the bible, then what's a little quran burning.

If you think I'M uncivilized, then maybe you never attended an European 'soccer' game!

HH
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 9, 2010 12:49AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 01:30, balducci wrote:
When you put it that way, I don't really understand the question. Don't consequences factor into / define matters of principle for us in some way?

Quote: "When someone does something out of principle, it means that they have a moral basis for what they are doing."

I haven't given this much thought, but don't morals come out of considerations of consequences? With no consequences to consider, even hypothetically, I think nothing really matters.

So I guess my answer then would be, burn is burn, no difference.
[/quote]

It may mean what you mean by consequences. Let's say I have two neighbors, one of them is very forgiving, and one is very vengeful. If I were to steal from either of them, that one would be upset, but the first one would take no further action, and the second one might do anything from call the cops to poison my children.

By "principle" and "consequences," by way of this analogy, I mean to frame the discussion in such a way as that by which we might say that in principle, there is no difference between stealing from either of these neighbors, even though the consequences of stealing from one of them might be much worse than the consequences of stealing from the other.

By this illustration, I don't mean to imply that the initial question is rhetorical; I'm not saying that these two neighbors parallel any actors; I'm just using them to illustrate what I mean by the question. For instance, there might also be one neighbor who is very poor, living paycheck to paycheck, and another is a millionaire, and you might say (or you might not) that there IS a difference in principle between stealing from one vs. the other. So, by consequences, I mean that the distinction, if any, should not depend on consequences to ME, as the actor, but if you think that there's an important qualitative difference in the consequences to those being acted upon (e.g. the "patriot" in the flag burning example and the religious person in the holy book example), then by all means, that should be factored in, in the way that you might find a difference in stealing from someone who desperately needs the money vs. stealing from someone who doesn't notice it's gone.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 9, 2010 01:05AM)
Happy Hank! Good to see you my brother!
Message: Posted by: Happy Hank (Sep 9, 2010 01:12AM)
You too brother.

HH
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Sep 9, 2010 04:30AM)
Required viewing for any discussion concerning the Crusades: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHUHodzGOIY&p=C06485DECE420FC0&index=3&playnext=4]James Burke : The Day The Universe Changed: "In The Light Of The Above"[/url]
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 9, 2010 05:04AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 13:25, Dreadnought wrote:
This "Pastor" and his call for burning the Quran reminds of two different things said about similar issues.

I forgot how many years ago, five or six maybe, Georgia Secretary of Education Cathy Cox said in reference to a Georgia county burning books they considered bad,
"I saw and am very intimate with their test scores, they need to be reading those books rather than burning them.

Then there was Ozzy Osbourne who once quipped how he felt about religious groups burning hi albums, "Doesn't bother me, they have to but them first."

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

"People burned Rutle albums in protest. Some people were buying them, just to burn them. Rutle album sales soared. Ron apologized to God, Rod and America and the tour went on, but it was to be the Rutle's last."
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 9, 2010 07:13AM)
I have just recalled that I did once burn a bible. It was called The Green Thumb Bible, and rather than eternal life, promised me plump red tomatoes and a wonderland of flowers outside my front door. It was a false promise - as usual I proved better at killing what I would propogate. In a fit of anger I added the book to the fire when I burnt the garden stakes etc I'd invested in. I hope my life is not now in danger from enraged gardeners.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 09:50AM)
I may change my mind soon. I am given to understand that the burning may contribute to global climate change so in that case I am all for it.
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 9, 2010 10:24AM)
For me,I cut through all the "free speach" etc noise like this...

Its not illegal to pass gas in an elevator in this country, either.

But 99% of America would say that your an idiot for doing it.

Just because its not illegal doesn't make it a decent thing to do. Human relations run on respect.

'nuff said IMO.

(Now if you WANT to get down into the nasty legalities, fact of the mater is that free speech is not absolute by any means. There are laws against "hate speech", and if burning someone else's holy book is speech at all then it is certainly hate speech.)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 9, 2010 10:41AM)
I don't care so long as he don’t burn The Expert at the Card Table.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 11:04AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 11:24, Cyberqat wrote: . . .

(Now if you WANT to get down into the nasty legalities, fact of the mater is that free speech is not absolute by any means. There are laws against "hate speech", and if burning someone else's holy book is speech at all then it is certainly hate speech.)
[/quote]

See, this actually points out exactly the problem with trying to regulate "hate" speech.

Any speech of protest can be said to contain hate for that which they protest. If burning a holy book is considered hate speech, then why not burning a flag? What if you hate clothing? Personally, I REALLY hate wood. Especially dry small pieces piled up in a pit.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 9, 2010 11:32AM)
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/858519--cancellation-of-qur-an-burning-a-possibility-pastor-says?bn=1

The anti-Muslim pastor at the heart of a fiery debate about plans to burn the Muslim holy book acknowledged Thursday there's still a chance he'll call off his controversial attempt to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In an interview Thursday with a Toronto radio station, Rev. Terry Jones said he's well aware of pressure coming from around the world. Political and military leaders are decrying the Florida pastor's plans to burn Qur'ans on the ninth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

“We are of course taking all of those things into consideration, that is probably putting it lightly,” Jones, who heads up the 50-member Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., told radio station AM640.

“We are very much in prayer about it. There is the possibility, of course, that we will not do it.”
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 9, 2010 11:32AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 11:24, Cyberqat wrote:
For me,I cut through all the "free speach" etc noise like this...

Its not illegal to pass gas in an elevator in this country, either.

But 99% of America would say that your an idiot for doing it.

Just because its not illegal doesn't make it a decent thing to do. Human relations run on respect.

'nuff said IMO.

(Now if you WANT to get down into the nasty legalities, fact of the mater is that free speech is not absolute by any means. There are laws against "hate speech", and if burning someone else's holy book is speech at all then it is certainly hate speech.)
[/quote]

I strongly suspect that this will run afoul of any legally prohibited speech.

I like the elevator analogy. Hopefully the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans think this guy is a jackwagon will be publicized as much as the burning. While I don't agree with his actions, I think the whole situation sends two great an important messages -

1. Most of us think this is offensive and wrong.
2. Despite that, he's not going to be legally prevented from doing it, because that's not how we do things around here.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 9, 2010 11:33AM)
It's a pity. Terry Jones was such a great Python. ;)


John
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 9, 2010 11:34AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-08 11:20, kcg5 wrote:
Regardless of the pastor thing, who carries a gun?
[/quote]

I have my reasons.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 12:02PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 12:33, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
It's a pity. Terry Jones was such a great Python. ;)


John
[/quote]

An amazing one at that!

Lets be honest here guys, the real reason NOT to do it is that it is really just not a nice thing to do. You know, the same reason it is bad to build that thingie at ground zero? It is disrespectful to people who do not deserve it. In the case of the book burning it is disrespectful and unnessarily mean to millions who simply do not deserve such treatment.

I have no legal issue with it.
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 9, 2010 12:11PM)
Actually, that 'thingie" at Ground Zero is supported by 50% of polled New Yorkers, who consider it highly respectful. Its a way of showing that religious difference doesn't have to mean intolerance. That people can respect and live next to each other despite their differing religions.

And it is religious intolerance that fuels suicide attacks like the 911 one.

The Imam in charge o that project has gone on record as saying he would welcome the participation of both Christian and Jewish organizations at the center.

Hitler was a Christian. He even used a warped form of Christianity to justify his atrocities (backed by a Christian bishop.) It doesn't mean that there should be no christian churches in Isreal.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 9, 2010 12:14PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 13:11, Cyberqat wrote:
Actually, that 'thingie" at Ground Zero is supported by 50% of polled New Yorkers, who consider it highly respectful. Its a way of showing that religious difference doesn't have to mean intolerance. That people can respect and live next to each other despite their differing religions.

And its is religious intolerance that fuels suicide attacks like the 911 one.
[/quote]

Which poll is that? The figured I've heard are roughly 1/2 opposed, 1/3 in favor, 1/6 no opinion.
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 9, 2010 12:16PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 13:14, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 13:11, Cyberqat wrote:
Actually, that 'thingie" at Ground Zero is supported by 50% of polled New Yorkers, who consider it highly respectful. Its a way of showing that religious difference doesn't have to mean intolerance. That people can respect and live next to each other despite their differing religions.

And its is religious intolerance that fuels suicide attacks like the 911 one.
[/quote]

Which poll is that? The figured I've heard are roughly 1/2 opposed, 1/3 in favor, 1/6 no opinion.
[/quote]

I'll need to look it up for you. This was something I heard as part of a reportwhen the thing first broke. I'll see what I can find.
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 9, 2010 12:21PM)
Bunch of info here... the demographics are too complex to sum up in a sound byte...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/nyregion/03poll.html

But of actual Manhattan residents, no more the 41% are opposed to it. That breaks down by income and education... the more educated and higher income bracket the respondent, the less likely they are to be against it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 9, 2010 12:23PM)
Thanks for the link.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 12:51PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 12:32, LobowolfXXX wrote:
. . .

I like the elevator analogy. Hopefully the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans think this guy is a jackwagon will be publicized as much as the burning. . . .
[/quote]

THIS is the key. The solution to BAD speech is always MORE speech. You don't like what someone does, you can speak with your own words and actions. Refuse to associate with, or support them, or support those that support them, and encourage others to do the same.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 9, 2010 01:45PM)
They wont end up burning the book.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 9, 2010 02:21PM)
http://www.cityofgainesville.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=d045MZi0PNg%3D&tabid=82&mid=403
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 9, 2010 02:57PM)
This whole story reminds me of a tale a Buddhist friend of mine told me.

A group of Buddhist monks was at a remote monastery, and they were caught in a huge snowstorm that rendered them unable to leave and dropped the temperature down to a horribly cold level. One of the novices observed that they should start a fire to warm up, and so they started one with a little straw, but it was a small fire in danger of not lasting long. Another novice observed that they needed more fuel to keep the fire going. The Master got a wooden statue of Buddha and added it to the fire, horrifying yet a third novice, who could not contain himself and said, "Master, how can you burn the statue? It is of the Buddha-nature!" The Master gestured to everything around them and said, "What would you have me find that is not of the Buddha-nature?"

That's not verbatim, and I'm not a Buddhist, but that's the gist, and it always struck me as a nice illustration of what I think is an obvious point - When the symbol becomes more important than that which is symbolized, there's a problem. Whether it's a flag, a statute of Buddha, or Koran, or a Bible. If a professed Christian killed a couple of thousand people and invoked the name of Christianity, and a second guy burned a Bible in response, I'd like to think that most of the Christians among us would be more offended by the first guy.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 9, 2010 03:02PM)
I figured it out. The preacher is Al Quada. They want to trigger violence so he is, as a closeted Muslim militant, giving them that trigger. It explains everything.
Message: Posted by: Natural Mystic (Sep 9, 2010 03:09PM)
Keith Ellison,a Muslim representative from Minnesota,was sworn into congress with one of America's oldest Qu'ran.

Guess whose library the Qu'ran was on loan from?

Ans. Thomas Jefferson

First Muslim in Congress to use historic Quran
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16455298/

Peace.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 03:27PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 16:09, Natural Mystic wrote:
Keith Ellison,a Muslim representative from Minnesota,was sworn into congress with one of America's oldest Qu'ran.

Guess whose library the Qu'ran was on loan from?

Ans. Thomas Jefferson

First Muslim in Congress to use historic Quran
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16455298/

Peace.
[/quote]

I'd love to see someone sworn in on the Jefferson Bible.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Sep 9, 2010 04:02PM)
*YAWN*

Call me when spokespeople for Democrats or Muslims get beyond, "I don't like that completely legal and constitutional behavior on your part, so I'm going to do XYZ and have a fit so that people will appease me and shut you down..."

I won't hold my breath.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Sep 9, 2010 04:11PM)
[url=http://www.wesh.com/news/24945529/detail.html]BREAKING: Gainesville Pastor Cancels Koran Burning[/url]
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 04:27PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:11, Scott Cram wrote:
[url=http://www.wesh.com/news/24945529/detail.html]BREAKING: Gainesville Pastor Cancels Koran Burning[/url]
[/quote]

That says he cancelled it because the planed "mosque" is being moved, but this says it is not being moved:

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ground-zero-mosque-staying-put-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-says/19626808

That also brings up a good point. How come when someone proposes burning a book, people claim it will provoke extremists and put the troops in danger, but when a whole BUNCH of people protest a "mosque" (cultural centre) there seems to be no outcry about the backlash from extremists citing it as further proof of the threat to islam.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 04:35PM)
WAIT A MINUTE!!!!! The troops are not in danger in the first place? Hmmm interesting position LOL.

Come on.

As I said it is certainly in bad taste to burn anything anyone feels a sacred attatchment to. Yes that is the way to put it I think. It is certainly not against the law to have bad taste. (I will simply reference most of the styles from the 1970's as proof.) The cultural center (which has a mosque) is probably in bad taste in that spacific location. (That is an opinion, but all "taste" is.)

The idea that the guy in Florida gets SO MUCH press is simply stupid. Hey him and his 50 followers could have burnt a book ten a day every day and nobody had to know about it right? Why all the hubbub bub? Let the 50 of them be as dumb as they like, but until someone sends a TV camera to cover it or acts outraged it would probably not have been that big an issue. I think it was a partly created issue.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 9, 2010 04:47PM)
I found Holder's and Obama's comments disturbing. As the AG, Holder's primary message should be in legal support of his First Amendment rights. I also profoundly disagree with the president's characterization that the burning would have gone against our American core values. Protected extremely unpopular free speech is on the short list of American core values. I wonder if we would have gotten the same comment from Obama if a Muslim group planned a flag burning. I get the impression that Obama's perspective is that American values including offending other Americans, but not offending others. "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" would have been a better message from the White House.

On the other hand, by the way, I found Hillary Clinton's public comments entirely appropriate, given her official capacity. Also, FWIW, though I'm not a flag burner (or a Koran burner), I also think that flag burning is an illustration of some of our core values.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 04:50PM)
I wish they would engage our enemies the way he engages and goes after pollitical advisaries. The would would be a much better place.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 04:52PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:35, Dannydoyle wrote:
WAIT A MINUTE!!!!! The troops are not in danger in the first place? Hmmm interesting position LOL.
[/quote]

Did I say that?
Not trying to be confrontational, just asking if it came across like that or if you are just pointing out the obvious that they are already in crap loads of danger?

[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:35, Dannydoyle wrote:
Come on.

As I said it is certainly in bad taste to burn anything anyone feels a sacred attatchment to. Yes that is the way to put it I think. It is certainly not against the law to have bad taste. (I will simply reference most of the styles from the 1970's as proof.) The cultural center (which has a mosque) is probably in bad taste in that spacific location. (That is an opinion, but all "taste" is.)
[/quote]

Yes, yes it does have a mosque. It also has a 9/11 memorial. I (personally) don't think it's in bad taste at all. In fact quite the opposite, to say it is in bad taste would be to implicate islam and muslims as a whole in 9/11. To be accepting of it being there is to show you are the bigger "people" and recognize the difference between freedom to believe, and extreme actions. Mind you, islam, as well as chritianity and many other religions do have explicit passages encouraging violence against those that don't share your belief.

[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:35, Dannydoyle wrote:
The idea that the guy in Florida gets SO MUCH press is simply stupid. Hey him and his 50 followers could have burnt a book ten a day every day and nobody had to know about it right? Why all the hubbub bub? Let the 50 of them be as dumb as they like, but until someone sends a TV camera to cover it or acts outraged it would probably not have been that big an issue. I think it was a partly created issue.
[/quote]

Well, that would be kind of the point of what he was doing. Isn't that the point of all (acts of) protests, to get attention? I do agree, however, that the "threat" idea, and the attention on that is inflated.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 04:56PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I found Holder's and Obama's comments disturbing. As the AG, Holder's primary message should be in legal support of his First Amendment rights. I also profoundly disagree with the president's characterization that the burning would have gone against our American core values. Protected extremely unpopular free speech is on the short list of American core values. I wonder if we would have gotten the same comment from Obama if a Muslim group planned a flag burning. I get the impression that Obama's perspective is that American values including offending other Americans, but not offending others. "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" would have been a better message from the White House.

On the other hand, by the way, I found Hillary Clinton's public comments entirely appropriate, given her official capacity. Also, FWIW, though I'm not a flag burner (or a Koran burner), I also think that flag burning is an illustration of some of our core values.
[/quote]

I agree, though not on a country having values, but in regards to Obama's comments, though I had not heard/read them yet.
Seems to go completely against what he said about the ground zero mosque/cultural centre, where he stuck stricly to defending their right to build it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 05:03PM)
The memorial is in bad taste. A pretty good percentage of people think so. Why not just move it? Why GIVE someone that sort of thing to complain about in the first place? If it really IS about "getting along" or whatever then why not just move it? With over 2000 of em in the country nobody cares. It is all about location, location, location.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Sep 9, 2010 05:09PM)
UPDATE: [url=http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/14609]2nd US Pastor Announces Plans to Burn Koran on September 11th[/url]
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 05:15PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 18:03, Dannydoyle wrote:
The memorial is in bad taste. A pretty good percentage of people think so. Why not just move it? Why GIVE someone that sort of thing to complain about in the first place? If it really IS about "getting along" or whatever then why not just move it? With over 2000 of em in the country nobody cares. It is all about location, location, location.
[/quote]

How is the memorial in bad taste? I may have missed something about the memorial.

As for the rest, well, if a good percentage of the people in my neighbourhood are against gay marriage and I want to live build a house with my same sex partner on property I own, I guess I should just do it elsewhere then?

Why should they be the one's to go elsewhere? It's the other people who have the problem, but guess what, they don't own that piece of property.

I guess we should just segregate the muslims away from the people in new york just so that we don't offend any one. Of course, all the crap people are doing complaining about the mosque probably offends the hesk out of a lot of muslims too. Who's offendedness gets priority?
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 9, 2010 05:19PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 18:03, Dannydoyle wrote:
The memorial is in bad taste.

[/quote]

What memorial are you referring to? I assume you are referring to the proposed Muslin community center which is NOT a memorial any more then your church is.

[quote]
A pretty good percentage of people think so.
[/quote]

Assuming I am correct in what you are referring to, it is the opinion of less then half of the people who live there. It is also not the opinion of the city planning commission who are elected by those people to make those decisions.

[quote]
Why not just move it?
[/quote]

Are you going to pony up the money to buy an equally suitable site?

[quote]
Why GIVE someone that sort of thing to complain about in the first place? '
[/quote]

Because there are bigoted ***s who will complain about a black guy moving onto their block. It doesn't mean the black guy should have to move, does it. This is america, isn't it? land of the free, and all, where everyone and everyone's religion is supposed to be equal?

[quote]
If it really IS about "getting along" or whatever then why not just move it?
[/quote]

Because WE should not be bigotted ***s. We should be better then that.
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 9, 2010 05:25PM)
Lobo:

I understand your comment about free speech being an american value. As the son of writers and journalists trust me., its close to my heart.

But ANOTHER american value is supposed to be religious freedom and tolerance. And purposefully and publicly doing something disrespectful of another's religion should be at least an eyebrow raiser. (See my earlier comment about farting in an elevator.)

To bring it closer to home, I think if a muslin group decided to get a crucifix and make a big show of publicly peeing on it, we'd be equally offended and say it was un-American behavior.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 05:40PM)
Yada yada yada. It is in bad taste to burn the book, but not bad taste to do this. Got it.
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 9, 2010 05:44PM)
Actually this is quite consistant. Its in bad taste to show disrespect for another persons religion.

Be that by publicly trashing their holy symbols OR by saying they cant pray in your neighborhood.

Thank you for drawing the line between these two bigoted things so clearly.

OR do you believe that, since Hitler was a christian and used Christianity to justify his crimes, that we should kick all the churches out of Isreal as being "in bad taste."?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 9, 2010 05:49PM)
Terry Jones is going to go to NYC and hang out with an Iman, which means after that he'll announce his conversion to Islam....

From now on the street slang for a marijuana cigarette is 'Koran', so when you dope smokers want to light up say "Let's go burn a koran" and then, like the term 'street magic' soon it will lose all meaning.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 05:53PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 18:44, Cyberqat wrote:
Actually this is quite consistant. Its in bad taste to show disrespect for another persons religion.

Be that by publicly trashing their holy symbols OR by saying they cant pray in your neighborhood.

Thank you for drawing the line between these two bigoted things so clearly.

OR do you believe that, since Hitler was a christian and used Christianity to justify his crimes, that we should kick all the churches out of Isreal as being "in bad taste."?
[/quote]

Do we look into the background of those who want to do the building? I can only imagine this answer LOL.

3
2
1
GO~!
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 9, 2010 07:52PM)
OK I can't keep silent any more.
I think the issue here is INTENT. The Muslims want to build their mosque as a peaceful gesture to say "Look, we are all Americans here and this is what our country was founded on and we really can get along." It's the people who AREN'T the Muslims who are proving that no we can't get along with anybody.
This preacher, on the other hand, is doing his burning specifically out of hatred and intolerance for a different religion. He said so specifically.
And if this is supposed to be about 9/11, then how come nobody is burning US Military training manuals? Makes as much sense, I mean we did train the militant muslims in guerrilla warfare during the cold war. Our military practically invented Muslim terrorism when you get right down to it.
But nobody blames our military. I love the troops and I get mad when anybody doesn't.
Do you see what I am driving at here?
And I wonder why we can call out violence done by Muslims but we aren't talking about the guy who stabbed the Muslim cab driver, or the Stryker team that is on trial for murdering Afghani civilians? Not accidentally, they went on unauthorized missions with intent.
Nobody is innocent. Every group has it's good seeds and bad seeds, be that group military, religious, or whatever.
This preacher is a bad seed.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 08:06PM)
I think if you look into the background of the guy in charge of the cultural center, he may not be the all loving peace nick you make him out to be.

And the preacher does seem to be on the wrong side of this idea no doubt.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 08:13PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 20:52, critter wrote:
OK I can't keep silent any more.
I think the issue here is INTENT. The Muslims want to build their mosque as a peaceful gesture to say "Look, we are all Americans here and this is what our country was founded on and we really can get along." It's the people who AREN'T the Muslims who are proving that no we can't get along with anybody.
This preacher, on the other hand, is doing his burning specifically out of hatred and intolerance for a different religion. He said so specifically.
And if this is supposed to be about 9/11, then how come nobody is burning US Military training manuals? Makes as much sense, I mean we did train the militant muslims in guerrilla warfare during the cold war. Our military practically invented Muslim terrorism when you get right down to it.
But nobody blames our military. I love the troops and I get mad when anybody doesn't.
Do you see what I am driving at here?
And I wonder why we can call out violence done by Muslims but we aren't talking about the guy who stabbed the Muslim cab driver, or the Stryker team that is on trial for murdering Afghani civilians? Not accidentally, they went on unauthorized missions with intent.
Nobody is innocent. Every group has it's good seeds and bad seeds, be that group military, religious, or whatever.
This preacher is a bad seed.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say nobody's blaming the military.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 9, 2010 08:24PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 21:06, Dannydoyle wrote:

I think if you look into the background of the guy in charge of the cultural center, he may not be the all loving peace nick you make him out to be.
[/quote]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100904/ts_csm/322561_1

New York – A week after 9/11, Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam of a mosque close to the still-smoldering World Trade Center ruins, invited other religious leaders to his regular prayer service. He was trying to show that Islam is a welcoming faith, not an angry one.

"It was his attempt to show hospitality to New York," recalls Matthew Weiner, who is Jewish and was at the service that day. "That vision is kind of what led to Cordoba House – the idea of creating a space for Muslims that showed hospitality to others," says Mr. Weiner, who is the director of programs at the Interfaith Center of New York.

...

After some stints teaching and working for a real estate investment company, he explored Sufism, a Muslim tradition known for mysticism. In 1983, he started leading prayer services at his mosque near the World Trade Center, in the TriBeCa neighborhood. Since then, he has been sought after by a number of national and global organizations to lend a reasoned Islamic voice on various issues.

Three times in the past three years, the US State Department has sent Rauf abroad to explain how Islam is viewed in America. Through part of September, he is on one of those tours and was unavailable to be interviewed.

"His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well known, and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.

...

To some people who know Rauf personally and have listened to his sermons, the depictions of him as a radical are almost laughable. One of these people is Rosemary Hicks, who just completed her doctorate in religion at Columbia University.

Ms. Hicks first heard Rauf at Manhattan's Riverside Church, where he described how the American Judeo-Christian heritage is actually a trifold Abrahamic one that includes Muslims. As part of her dissertation's exploration of this theme, she spent hours at his Friday prayer services and did a long interview with both him and his wife.

She describes him as very "pro-business, pro-development." And, she says, he is "constantly, constantly" describing to Muslims how they can live as Americans and "emphasizing that there are more freedoms here than anywhere else."

As further proof that America is good for Muslims, she says, he frequently brings up the Declaration of Independence, which he says echoes the themes of "right living under God's guidance."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 9, 2010 08:25PM)
The issue is whether or not the book is a witch.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 9, 2010 08:28PM)
Then we need to toss the book into a pond and if the book gets wet it is a witch and should be burned and if it stays dry it is not a witch and should not be burned.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 08:30PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 21:28, MagicSanta wrote:
Then we need to toss the book into a pond and if the book gets wet it is a witch and should be burned and if it stays dry it is not a witch and should not be burned.
[/quote]

No no no, we need a duck.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 9, 2010 08:53PM)
Does the alleged witch own any property? That is the first thing the court needs to know, for it is a waste of the courts time and money burning witches if it can’t seize the property of the said witch. Does the alleged witch own any oil fields for example?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 9, 2010 08:57PM)
Yes we definitely need a duck - and once we've talked in circles long enough we should shut the duck up.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 09:08PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 21:57, Destiny wrote:
Yes we definitely need a duck - and once we've talked in circles long enough we should shut the duck up.
[/quote]

No no no, we need to weight the book against the DUCK!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 9, 2010 09:12PM)
Trial by water. Might I suggest we surf board the book?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 9, 2010 09:39PM)
I guess in the middle of all this anti-Muslim bigotry, I find Petraeus' "defense" truly nauseating.

As if his killing innocent women and babies every day might not be provoking just a tad of anger.

But it's okay. The bombs only land on the "bad" Muslims.

And when oh when will we get the Church to move out of Timmy McVeigh's Oklahoma. Not that they don't have a right to be there, but it is just in bad taste, and you know about the leaders of the people behind the Church don't you? I think it was on Fox News.
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 9, 2010 09:44PM)
Well, I'll mildly defend Petreus here. I don't know enough about the ground effort there to have an opinion that's worth anything. But its his job to be concerned for his men. And angering the enemy is never a good idea because it improves their morale for war. (Note how unified we were in this country on attacking Afghanistan right after 911.) A classic example was the Yom Kipur war in Israel. The attackers made some small headway through surprise by attacking on the high holy days... and then were pushed back mightily by a unified and *pissed* Israelie army.
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Sep 9, 2010 09:45PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 22:12, tommy wrote:
Trial by water. Might I suggest we surf board the book?
[/quote]

We could throw it in the water and if it floats, its a witch and then we burn it....
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 9, 2010 10:47PM)
I don't know, the residents in those countries have shown they are more than willing and able to kill their own women and children and not be bothered by it.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 9, 2010 10:59PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 23:47, MagicSanta wrote:
I don't know, the residents in those countries have shown they are more than willing and able to kill their own women and children and not be bothered by it.
[/quote]

I guess that means we don't have to worry about the bodies we add to the count then?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 11:02PM)
I am glad they are doing the mosque. It clears the way for my next project. I have the BEST idea, folks. Let's go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and let's build giant monuments in the shape of nuclear bombs and call it the Manhattan Project.

No you would NOT do that because it is disrespectful.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 11:03PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 22:44, Cyberqat wrote:
Well, I'll mildly defend Petreus here. I don't know enough about the ground effort there to have an opinion that's worth anything. But its his job to be concerned for his men. And angering the enemy is never a good idea because it improves their morale for war. (Note how unified we were in this country on attacking Afghanistan right after 911.) A classic example was the Yom Kipur war in Israel. The attackers made some small headway through surprise by attacking on the high holy days... and then were pushed back mightily by a unified and *pissed* Israelie army.
[/quote]

Right if we leave them alone they will leave us alone. Got it.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 9, 2010 11:06PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 00:02, Dannydoyle wrote:

I am glad they are doing the mosque. It clears the way for my next project. I have the BEST idea, folks. Let's go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and let's build giant monuments in the shape of nuclear bombs and call it the Manhattan Project.

No you would NOT do that because it is disrespectful.
[/quote]
The better comparison to the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be if someone built giant monuments of airplanes aimed at the new WTC buildings.

Building a mosque near the WTC site would be more like building a church or memorial in Hiroshima and Nagasaki near ground zero. Which I imagine was done a long time ago.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 11:24PM)
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/24/state-department-%E2%80%9Caware%E2%80%9D-ground-zero-mosque-imam%E2%80%99s-controversial-remarks

Just some of what the peace nick has said.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 9, 2010 11:34PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 00:24, Dannydoyle wrote:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/24/state-department-%E2%80%9Caware%E2%80%9D-ground-zero-mosque-imam%E2%80%99s-controversial-remarks

Just some of what the peace nick has said.
[/quote]
Did you miss my earlier post? It's hard to believe that he does not believe in religious dialogue (as your first link claims), considering his activities building bridges immediately after and since 9/11.

I think it is more likely Pajamas and FoxNews is misquoting or taking something out of context. As the article at your second link says,

"I would just caution any of you that choose to write on this that once again you have a case where a blogger has pulled out one passage from a very lengthy speech, if you read the entire speech, you will discover exactly why we think he is rightfully participating in this international speaking tour."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100904/ts_csm/322561_1

New York – A week after 9/11, Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam of a mosque close to the still-smoldering World Trade Center ruins, invited other religious leaders to his regular prayer service. He was trying to show that Islam is a welcoming faith, not an angry one.

"It was his attempt to show hospitality to New York," recalls Matthew Weiner, who is Jewish and was at the service that day. "That vision is kind of what led to Cordoba House “the idea of creating a space for Muslims that showed hospitality to others," says Mr. Weiner, who is the director of programs at the Interfaith Center of New York.

...

After some stints teaching and working for a real estate investment company, he explored Sufism, a Muslim tradition known for mysticism. In 1983, he started leading prayer services at his mosque near the World Trade Center, in the TriBeCa neighborhood. Since then, he has been sought after by a number of national and global organizations to lend a reasoned Islamic voice on various issues.

Three times in the past three years, the US State Department has sent Rauf abroad to explain how Islam is viewed in America. Through part of September, he is on one of those tours and was unavailable to be interviewed.

"His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well known, and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.

...

To some people who know Rauf personally and have listened to his sermons, the depictions of him as a radical are almost laughable. One of these people is Rosemary Hicks, who just completed her doctorate in religion at Columbia University.

Ms. Hicks first heard Rauf at Manhattan's Riverside Church, where he described how the American Judeo-Christian heritage is actually a trifold Abrahamic one that includes Muslims. As part of her dissertation's exploration of this theme, she spent hours at his Friday prayer services and did a long interview with both him and his wife.

She describes him as very "pro-business, pro-development." And, she says, he is "constantly, constantly" describing to Muslims how they can live as Americans and "emphasizing that there are more freedoms here than anywhere else."

As further proof that America is good for Muslims, she says, he frequently brings up the Declaration of Independence, which he says echoes the themes of "right living under God's guidance."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 9, 2010 11:36PM)
Yea only those who disagree with what YOU say take things out of context I keep forgetting.

Man I gotta remember that.

Oh and I was just posting it, I didn't say anything about it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 9, 2010 11:54PM)
Don't forget the Unabomber, now that McVeigh's been brought up.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 9, 2010 11:54PM)
Just posting. Got it.
Message: Posted by: pepka (Sep 9, 2010 11:56PM)
This country was founded on freedom of religion. Some, such as myself have chosen freedom FROM religion. I'm an atheist, and proud of it. I neither believe in, nor worship God, Allah, or Jehovah. But I certainly do not condone the buring of any text that is considered holy. The tragedies of Sept. 11, 2001 were carried out by wacko religious extremists. When your religion is right and they're wrong, and you want to get their attention by burning their holy book, you have become.....a wacko religious extremist.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 9, 2010 11:57PM)
Right Lobo. All men with beards should vacate the premises near the sites of Ted's victims' deaths, out of respect for those victims. Not that they should be forced to, by the law.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 10, 2010 12:07AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:11, Scott Cram wrote:
[url=http://www.wesh.com/news/24945529/detail.html]BREAKING: Gainesville Pastor Cancels Koran Burning[/url]
[/quote]

AS I PREDICTED!! Randi, where is my million bucks??
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 10, 2010 12:10AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 00:54, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Don't forget the Unabomber, now that McVeigh's been brought up.
[/quote]

Speaking of Timmy, I wonder if there is a church anywhere near the federal building in Oaklahoma?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 12:12AM)
Let's be honest...does anyone here doubt the extremist related to Islam need any motivation? There are people, a lot of them, that are ready, willing, and able to kill over cartoons and comics. Nothing anyone does who isn't in their club ain't going to make them happy. If we pulled every American out of the region they would just do a call to bring the battle here. So everyone mellow out, ain't no appeasing that gonna happen.

More quotes!

No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies. Dean Acheson

I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air. Margaret Thatcher

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Winston Churchill.

No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb. Franklin D Roosevelt

The idea of reasoning with terrorists without force or with appeasement is naive, and I think it's dangerous.
George Allen


Here are a bunch of way cool Churchill quotes....you can tell he was an American-British person


Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian. Heywood Broun

The one sure way to conciliate a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured. Konrad Adenauer

You may gain temporary appeasement by a policy of concession to violence, but you do not gain lasting peace that way. Anthony Eden


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/845063/posts
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 12:25AM)
Why do some people think a couple twisted guys like McVie (so) is the same as a few hundred thousand people ready to commit murder in the name of their twister perception of religion?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 01:05AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 00:56, pepka wrote:
This country was founded on freedom of religion. Some, such as myself have chosen freedom FROM religion. I'm an atheist, and proud of it. I neither believe in, nor worship God, Allah, or Jehovah. But I certainly do not condone the buring of any text that is considered holy. The tragedies of Sept. 11, 2001 were carried out by wacko religious extremists. When your religion is right and they're wrong, and you want to get their attention by burning their holy book, you have become.....a wacko religious extremist.
[/quote]

Personally, while categories may be broad, I'd probably use different terms to distinguish between someone who burns books and someone who intentionally flies airplanes into occupied buildings. But that's just me.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 01:08AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 00:57, landmark wrote:
Right Lobo. All men with beards should vacate the premises near the sites of Ted's victims' deaths, out of respect for those victims. Not that they should be forced to, by the law.
[/quote]

Or perhaps one of those close to Bin Laden should turn him in so he could be prosecuted by his countrymen, as Kaszynski's brother did.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 01:12AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 01:07, kcg5 wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-09 17:11, Scott Cram wrote:
[url=http://www.wesh.com/news/24945529/detail.html]BREAKING: Gainesville Pastor Cancels Koran Burning[/url]
[/quote]

AS I PREDICTED!! Randi, where is my million bucks??
[/quote]

Don't spend it yet, Kreskin.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/20109921337885578.html
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 10, 2010 01:27AM)
Fun fact:
The "evil madman" funding the mosque who Fox news has condemned for funding terrorism but refuses to name? Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal who (wait for it) owns more stock in Fox than anyone outside the Murdoch family. That's probably why they never actually said who he is.
Here he is with his business partner, Rupert Murdoch:
[img]http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/5MrqtkEe2ov/Abu+Dhabi+Media+Summit/ohzX-g4mfI-/Rupert+Murdoch[/img]

Also, the Hiroshima analogy doesn't make any sense. An American flag would be a more accurate comparison than a bomb. And since we built military bases and, you know, occupied Japan... we kind of did that.
Message: Posted by: Happy Hank (Sep 10, 2010 01:28AM)
The kicker story?

Bibles were BURNED by our own US troops:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/bibles-destroye.html

HH
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 01:30AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 02:28, Happy Hank wrote:
The kicker story?

Bibles were BURNED by our own US troops:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/bibles-destroye.html

HH
[/quote]

Well, why not? It's not like radical fundamentalist Christians were going to start beheading them.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 10, 2010 01:31AM)
Aw, my image didn't show up :(
Oh well,
[img]http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2010//20100707_97580070_w.jpg[/img]

[img]http://inlandz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Rupert-Murdoch-Saudis-150x150.jpg[/img]

And a little of this:

[img]http://www.mideast-times.com/photos/big/leftpanel_alwaleed.JPG[/img]
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 10, 2010 02:38AM)
Excerpts below (see link for full story).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner

News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner

The opponents of the proposed Cordoba Initiative Islamic center planned for Lower Manhattan are fond of suggesting, by way of lengthy and often confusing chains of causation and association, that its principal planner, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is connected to terrorism. "The imam has been tied to some shady characters," Fox Business Channel's Eric Bolling recently said, "so should we worry that terror dollars could be funding the project?"

On last night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart skewered these antics as a "dangerous game of guilt by association you can play with almost anybody," and proceeded to tie Fox News to al-Qaida by connecting Fox News parent News Corp's second-largest shareholder, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, to the Carlyle Group, which has done business with the bin Laden family, "one of whose sons — obviously I'm not going to say which one — may be anti-American."

But Stewart didn't need to take all those steps to make the connection: Al-Waleed has directly funded Rauf's projects to the tune of more than $300,000. If Fox newscasters can darkly suggest "terror dollars" are sluicing into the Islamic center's coffers via "shady characters," then are Al-Waleed, and News Corp. leader Rupert Murdoch, by the same logic, also terror stooges?

Indeed, as none other than Rupert Murdoch's New York Post reported last May, the Kingdom Foundation, al-Waleed's personal charity, has donated a total of $305,000 to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a leadership and networking project sponsored jointly by two of Rauf's organizations, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative. Al-Waleed owns a 7 percent, $2.3 billion stake in News Corporation. Likewise, News Corporation owns a 9 percent, $70 million stake — purchased in February — in Rotana, Al-Waleed's Saudi media conglomerate.

Put another way: Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are in business, to the tune of billions of dollars, with one of the "Terror Mosque Imam's" principal patrons.

Fox News had no comment.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Sep 10, 2010 02:56AM)
Corollary to Godwin's Law:

As the length of a political thread increases, the likelihood of FOX News being mentioned approaches 1.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Sep 10, 2010 03:14AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 03:38, balducci wrote:
Excerpts below (see link for full story).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner

News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner[/quote]

Well, now that we know FOX News is funding the Ground Zero Conquest Victory Mosque, it should lose support from democrats quickly.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 10, 2010 07:38AM)
If people were to try and just be nice and decent to each other - the Pastor would simply explain his feelings about Islam but certainly not burn their book, the mob in New York would think why does it matter where we build the mosque if it's going to upset people and all would be solved.

But at least while the religious are screaming at each other they are leaving us Godless heathens alone for a while. We only have to worry once the bombs start flying and we are collateral damage.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 10, 2010 08:38AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 03:56, Scott Cram wrote:
Corollary to Godwin's Law:

As the length of a political thread increases, the likelihood of FOX News being mentioned approaches 1.
[/quote]

And Hitler being a Christian. Can't forget that.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 10, 2010 08:41AM)
Destiny you just wait. We will get back to you "godless heathens" when finished with the fighting among ourselvs. Just wait sir!

I am dead on with you.

I wonder why PC is so prevelant except in this mosque case. Of course it is legal to do it. (Though the Constitution has nothing to do with it.) But it is just not that nice a thing to do.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 09:04AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 09:38, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 03:56, Scott Cram wrote:
Corollary to Godwin's Law:

As the length of a political thread increases, the likelihood of FOX News being mentioned approaches 1.
[/quote]

And Hitler being a Christian. Can't forget that.
[/quote]

Better than trying to blame atheism (not actually an "ism") for hitler's actions. He was funded by the catholic church you know . . .
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Sep 10, 2010 09:42AM)
ANYONE here remember what happened 9 years ago Saturday?


Everytime something "offends' muslims they get violent and kill people.

LAST YEAR the us govt burned BIBLES sent to afganastan by a church, so that the mere presence of a bible wouldn't 'offend' the locals. Why not just send them back?

The pastor has had DEATH THREATS and that is why he started carrying a gun. Never mind it is his right to do so.

Christian symbols are desicrated all the time and any protests are laughed at and the protesters mocked. Anyone here remember the cross in the jar of ****? the govt said it was art and gave the artist money. Someone should try that with a quran.

I think I will have the quran printed on a bunch of toilet paper and sell it. I already have a gun and know how to use it.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 09:44AM)
Anyone remember what happened 9 years ago TODAY?

Just curious.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 10, 2010 10:06AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 10:42, Big Jeff wrote:
ANYONE here remember what happened 9 years ago Saturday?


Everytime something "offends' muslims they get violent and kill people.

LAST YEAR the us govt burned BIBLES sent to afganastan by a church, so that the mere presence of a bible wouldn't 'offend' the locals. Why not just send them back?

The pastor has had DEATH THREATS and that is why he started carrying a gun. Never mind it is his right to do so.

Christian symbols are desicrated all the time and any protests are laughed at and the protesters mocked. Anyone here remember the cross in the jar of ****? the govt said it was art and gave the artist money. Someone should try that with a quran.

I think I will have the quran printed on a bunch of toilet paper and sell it. I already have a gun and know how to use it.
[/quote]

The big thing is in figuring out who "they" are.

The "they" who murder civilians are most certainly not any of the Muslims I know.

Terrorists should be sought and tried and if found guilty, punished. People who share incidental characteristics with them should not be persecuted.

John
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 10:15AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 10:42, Big Jeff wrote:
ANYONE here remember what happened 9 years ago Saturday?


Everytime something "offends' muslims they get violent and kill people.

LAST YEAR the us govt burned BIBLES sent to afganastan by a church, so that the mere presence of a bible wouldn't 'offend' the locals. Why not just send them back?

The pastor has had DEATH THREATS and that is why he started carrying a gun. Never mind it is his right to do so.

Christian symbols are desicrated all the time and any protests are laughed at and the protesters mocked. Anyone here remember the cross in the jar of ****? the govt said it was art and gave the artist money. Someone should try that with a quran.

I think I will have the quran printed on a bunch of toilet paper and sell it. I already have a gun and know how to use it.
[/quote]

"Everytime something "offends' muslims they get violent and kill people." That's, um, pretty much grouping all muslims in with extremists. Might as well say every time two men kiss, a catholic's head explodes.

[quote]
On 2010-09-10 11:06, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 10:42, Big Jeff wrote:
ANYONE here remember what happened 9 years ago Saturday?


Everytime something "offends' muslims they get violent and kill people.

LAST YEAR the us govt burned BIBLES sent to afganastan by a church, so that the mere presence of a bible wouldn't 'offend' the locals. Why not just send them back?

The pastor has had DEATH THREATS and that is why he started carrying a gun. Never mind it is his right to do so.

Christian symbols are desicrated all the time and any protests are laughed at and the protesters mocked. Anyone here remember the cross in the jar of ****? the govt said it was art and gave the artist money. Someone should try that with a quran.

I think I will have the quran printed on a bunch of toilet paper and sell it. I already have a gun and know how to use it.
[/quote]

The big thing is in figuring out who "they" are.

The "they" who murder civilians are most certainly not any of the Muslims I know.

Terrorists should be sought and tried and if found guilty, punished. People who share incidental characteristics with them should not be persecuted.

John
[/quote]

And pretty much most of those who did anything 9 years ago died when they did it.

And how about those ungrateful muslims, those men died so that muslims could live under sharia law and exercise the rights they have under it. Any muslim that doesn't respect the sacrifice of those troops is a disgrace.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Sep 10, 2010 10:21AM)
Something someone on the radio said concerning the ground zero mosque (that's not really a mosque and not at ground zero) sort of stuck with me. What he found really offensive, when he sat down and thought about it, was not the fact that the Muslim cultural center was being built near Ground Zero. What he was really angry about was the fact that despite all the talk of rebuilding, and putting a memorial in, and all that, Ground Zero is still pretty much a big hole, nine years later. And Park51 will probably be completed before 1 WTC is finished.

As for Terry Jones- he's a delusional nutjob. He can burn whatever he wants, but we shouldn't be giving him any attention for doing it.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 10:39AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 11:21, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Something someone on the radio said concerning the ground zero mosque (that's not really a mosque and not at ground zero) sort of stuck with me. What he found really offensive, when he sat down and thought about it, was not the fact that the Muslim cultural center was being built near Ground Zero. What he was really angry about was the fact that despite all the talk of rebuilding, and putting a memorial in, and all that, Ground Zero is still pretty much a big hole, nine years later. And Park51 will probably be completed before 1 WTC is finished.

As for Terry Jones- he's a delusional nutjob. He can burn whatever he wants, but we shouldn't be giving him any attention for doing it.
[/quote]

You know, I completely agree. Park 51 is being privately handled Now here's a question, who's in charge of getting things going at ground zero?
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 10, 2010 10:41AM)
"That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people also." -Heinrich Heine
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Sep 10, 2010 10:42AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 10:44, gdw wrote:
Anyone remember what happened 9 years ago TODAY?

Just curious.
[/quote]

About 3,000 people went to work and they had no idea that they would be murdered the next day.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 10:56AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 11:42, Big Jeff wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 10:44, gdw wrote:
Anyone remember what happened 9 years ago TODAY?

Just curious.
[/quote]

About 3,000 people went to work and they had no idea that they would be murdered the next day.
[/quote]

Yup, though, and in no way to take away from the tragedy of 9/11, I wonder how many people in afganistan and iraq went about their daily life with no idea they would be "collateral damage?"
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 10, 2010 10:59AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 10:44, gdw wrote:
Anyone remember what happened 9 years ago TODAY?

Just curious.
[/quote]
Lots of things. E.g., see http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/2001.html

I include a selection of some 9/10 incidents below. Which one are you thinking of?

September 10, 2001 - A group of top Pentagon officials cancel their travel plans for the next morning because of security concerns.

September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending.

September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warns of Iraq's pursuit of WMD's hours before US and British planes bomb Iraqi missile sites.

September 10, 2001 - The White House's battle plan to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban and Osama bin Laden awaits President Bush's approval.

September 10, 2001 - Ex. CIA-director, former President, and President Bush's Dad, George H.W. Bush, meets with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers at a Carlyle business conference in Washington D.C.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 11:05AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 11:59, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 10:44, gdw wrote:
Anyone remember what happened 9 years ago TODAY?

Just curious.
[/quote]
Lots of things. E.g., see http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/2001.html

I include a selection of some 9/10 incidents below. Which one are you thinking of?

September 10, 2001 - A group of top Pentagon officials cancel their travel plans for the next morning because of security concerns.

September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending.

September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warns of Iraq's pursuit of WMD's hours before US and British planes bomb Iraqi missile sites.

September 10, 2001 - The White House's battle plan to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban and Osama bin Laden awaits President Bush's approval.

September 10, 2001 - Ex. CIA-director, former President, and President Bush's Dad, George H.W. Bush, meets with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers at a Carlyle business conference in Washington D.C.
[/quote]
Lol, that's interesting. I was just being silly.
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Sep 10, 2010 11:37AM)
[/quote]
I wonder how many people in afganistan and iraq went about their daily life with no idea they would be "collateral damage?"
[/quote]

Wow, comparing military action, that everyone knew was coming, to a SURPRISE terrorist attack. I guess you don't think there is any differance.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 10, 2010 11:40AM)
"September 10, 2001 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending. "

I'm no fan, but I don't see how this is possible. A billion is a lot, a trillion is...... a lot more..

Seems like all that stuff came off a conspiracy site?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 10, 2010 11:46AM)
Here it is on [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml]CBS news[/url].
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Sep 10, 2010 12:01PM)
What's the petagons budget for a year?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 12:29PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 12:37, Big Jeff wrote:
[/quote]
I wonder how many people in afganistan and iraq went about their daily life with no idea they would be "collateral damage?"
[/quote]

Wow, comparing military action, that everyone knew was coming, to a SURPRISE terrorist attack. I guess you don't think there is any differance.
[/quote]

Um, I rather explicitly said "not to take away from 9/11" Also, I guess being told your being invaded makes it ok for innocent bystanders to become "collateral damage." Gotta love those euphemisms.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 10, 2010 12:38PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 09:41, Dannydoyle wrote:
Destiny you just wait. We will get back to you "godless heathens" when finished with the fighting among ourselvs. Just wait sir!

I am dead on with you.

I wonder why PC is so prevelant except in this mosque case. Of course it is legal to do it. (Though the Constitution has nothing to do with it.) But it is just not that nice a thing to do.
[/quote]

Only it's not legal because paper is on the banned list for burnable items in that jurisdiction.
Is that a silly loophole? "You betcha." But then, I'm not the one who brought legal semantics into it. This burning is literally a hate crime, even if it's just a hate misdemeanor.
On the other hand, the mosque has all of the proper permits.
I am all about freedom of expression and right to protest, but sometimes people need to think.
One time I was at the Couer d'Alene lake for the 4th of July and these Nazi skinheads were burning a flag on the beach. The cops wouldn't stop them because they didn't want to violate their constitutional rights. That's all well and good but... BIG, OPEN, UNCONTAINED FIRE ON A BEACH FULL OF KIDS! Kind of supercedes all else if you ask me.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 01:05PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 13:38, critter wrote:
BIG, OPEN, UNCONTAINED FIRE ON A BEACH FULL OF KIDS!
[/quote]

As one standup comic said re: beaches that don't permit campfires -

In the natural universe, two things put out fires - water and sand. Hmmmmmmmmmm
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 10, 2010 01:17PM)
Okay that's not really accurate is it? I mean, water doesn't work on all fires which is why fire hoses use foaming chemicals, because it's the lack of available oxygen that smothers a fire, not the substance. That's also why a highly flammable blanket can douse a small fire.
Do you know that sand often contains flammable organic materials and that even if you stamp out the flames on said sand the fire can continue to burn underground?
There was a fire like that at our local renaissance festival one year.
Although, what I was worried about was that it was burning nylon being waved around in a crowd full of kids. Does child flesh also put out fires?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 10, 2010 01:24PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 02:08, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 00:57, landmark wrote:
Right Lobo. All men with beards should vacate the premises near the sites of Ted's victims' deaths, out of respect for those victims. Not that they should be forced to, by the law.
[/quote]

Or perhaps one of those close to Bin Laden should turn him in so he could be prosecuted by his countrymen, as Kaszynski's brother did.
[/quote]

Perhaps. The US had several opportunities to catch him, but for one reason or other didn't. Maybe nostalgia for its former CIA asset. Who knows?

But you're avoiding the larger point, as I think you're well aware. Is one's religion--let's be specific--Islam--reason enough to be considered persona non grata at certain locations in New York City? And please, lets not hide behind the "it's legal, but it's bad taste" construction.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 10, 2010 01:24PM)
Yea lets get to the point we fact check a joke. Oh lord.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 10, 2010 01:28PM)
Meh.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Sep 10, 2010 01:47PM)
I believe they have the constitutional right to do it, but that they're a**holes if they actually go ahead and do it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 02:27PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 14:24, landmark wrote:


But you're avoiding the larger point, as I think you're well aware. Is one's religion--let's be specific--Islam--reason enough to be considered persona non grata at certain locations in New York City? And please, lets not hide behind the "it's legal, but it's bad taste" construction.
[/quote]

I think you're asking many questions in the guise of asking a single question, and I'm not sure why you characterize a very obvious and accurate position (albeit one that doesn't answer all of the implicated questions) as a "construction" to be hidden behind.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 10, 2010 03:31PM)
Because no one but the most deranged are contesting whether it is legal or not. It's a strawman.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 10, 2010 03:42PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 14:47, Scott Cram wrote:
I believe they have the constitutional right to do it, but that they're a**holes if they actually go ahead and do it.
[/quote]
Why? Is your assumption that American Muslims should feel guilty on some level for 9/11? Or is it your assumption that the anti-Muslim feelings of some should be given more recognition than the religious worship of Muslims? I really would like you to be clear about this.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 10, 2010 03:55PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 14:47, Scott Cram wrote:
I believe they have the constitutional right to do it, but that they're a**holes if they actually go ahead and do it.
[/quote]

To which "they" and which "it" do you refer?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 04:02PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 16:42, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 14:47, Scott Cram wrote:
I believe they have the constitutional right to do it, but that they're a**holes if they actually go ahead and do it.
[/quote]
Why? Is your assumption that American Muslims should feel guilty on some level for 9/11? Or is it your assumption that the anti-Muslim feelings of some should be given more recognition than the religious worship of Muslims? I really would like you to be clear about this.
[/quote]

While I am not in the camp of those who oppose the location of the mosque, I think the distinction isn't whether the feelings of Muslims or anti-Muslims is more important, but rather that the location itself is more relevant to those who are bothered by it. If you're a Muslim, and it's about your place of worship, it's probably not as important to you whether it's in place X, or a mile away from place X. In fact, if you're a Muslim in the vicinity, you undoubtedly already have a mosque of choice that you're attending. But moving it a mile probably makes a much larger difference to the feelings of those who oppose it. I realize, as has been pointed out, that there are also non-Muslims in NYC who don't have a problem with it, or even those who think it's great.

I might liken it to opening a local NRA office a block away from the high school in Columbine.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 04:04PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 16:31, landmark wrote:
Because no one but the most deranged are contesting whether it is legal or not. It's a strawman.
[/quote]

I think many are contesting whether it *should be* legal.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 04:05PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 16:31, landmark wrote:
Because no one but the most deranged are contesting whether it is legal or not. It's a strawman.
[/quote]

So what's your position...that people protesting the mosque shouldn't feel the way they do, or that they shouldn't express how they're feeling? Apologize if that's a false dichotomy; I'm not sure what third thing you might mean.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 10, 2010 04:28PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 17:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 16:31, landmark wrote:
Because no one but the most deranged are contesting whether it is legal or not. It's a strawman.
[/quote]

I think many are contesting whether it *should be* legal.
[/quote]I suppose you could look for someone who takes that position. Not a very interesting conversation to my mind. I suppose though there are those who can't get over the Emancipation Proclamation either.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 10, 2010 04:41PM)
In all Western democracies, free speech is legitimately curtailed to prevent harm. The differences from place to place turn on interpretations of "harm."

Most countries have some limitations on the expression of "hate speech" because it is believed to cause harm to some citizens beyond offense or discomfort.

I think that it would be difficult to make a convincing case that flag- or holy book-burning qualifies as harmful in this sense.

John
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 10, 2010 04:48PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 17:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 16:42, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 14:47, Scott Cram wrote:
I believe they have the constitutional right to do it, but that they're a**holes if they actually go ahead and do it.
[/quote]
Why? Is your assumption that American Muslims should feel guilty on some level for 9/11? Or is it your assumption that the anti-Muslim feelings of some should be given more recognition than the religious worship of Muslims? I really would like you to be clear about this.
[/quote]

While I am not in the camp of those who oppose the location of the mosque, I think the distinction isn't whether the feelings of Muslims or anti-Muslims is more important, but rather that the location itself is more relevant to those who are bothered by it. If you're a Muslim, and it's about your place of worship, it's probably not as important to you whether it's in place X, or a mile away from place X. In fact, if you're a Muslim in the vicinity, you undoubtedly already have a mosque of choice that you're attending. But moving it a mile probably makes a much larger difference to the feelings of those who oppose it. I realize, as has been pointed out, that there are also non-Muslims in NYC who don't have a problem with it, or even those who think it's great.

I might liken it to opening a local NRA office a block away from the high school in Columbine.
[/quote]
I have a real problem with this position. It takes the view that Muslims are unreasonable and insensitive, because [i]they don't choose to validate the bigoted opinions of others[/i]. And that's what it really comes down to. American Muslims had NOTHING to do with 9/11. They are, however, a convenient scapegoat. It makes as much sense as asking that no church or synagogue be built near Ground Zero.

The Columbine analogy is this: if you don't want the NRA to build an office near Columbine, it's because--rightly or wrongly--you believe that the NRA in some way has some responsibility for the killings (perhaps a glorification of gun culture, etc.)

In the same manner, if you don't want a mosque by ground zero it is because you believe--rightly or wrongly--that Muslims are in some way responsible for the 9/11 killings.

And I totally reject that notion. And it's more important to reject that notion than to mollify some people's feelings.

And why do you think some people's feelings should be privileged over other people's feelings?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 10, 2010 04:55PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 17:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 16:31, landmark wrote:
Because no one but the most deranged are contesting whether it is legal or not. It's a strawman.
[/quote]

So what's your position...that people protesting the mosque shouldn't feel the way they do, or that they shouldn't express how they're feeling? Apologize if that's a false dichotomy; I'm not sure what third thing you might mean.
[/quote]
I think the "it's legal, but" construction allows one not to have to examine his/her biases as closely. "I'm not prejudiced--see, I even said they have the legal right. . ." I don't think it's this crude for everyone, but I do think, it is another layer to dig through. Even for the most sincere, it discourages honest self-reflection.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 10, 2010 04:57PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 12:46, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Here it is on [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml]CBS news[/url].
[/quote]

I stand corrected.

But it was presented in an odd way, along with a bunch of other odd events. Rummy admitted that the pentagon could not track 2.3 trillion in transactions, different from missing.

and it was found out in 2000, so it has nothing to do with 9/11

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002hxm
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Sep 10, 2010 05:18PM)
I'm going to burn a [url=http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp]Chick Comic[/url] tract on Saturday, just to be obtuse...

PS- it is so awesome that his comics are all online these days!

[url=http://foo.ca/wp/chick-tract-satire/who-will-be-eaten-first/][img]http://foo.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/cthulhu01.jpg[/img][/url]
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 10, 2010 05:28PM)
It's rather amusing watching those so consumed by religion. Here in Australia most people who profess a religion merely pay lip service.

I am personally gratefull that these days the Christian religions are properly contained and most nominally Christian countries are in truth secular with the Churches limited in their ability to force others to live by their beliefs.

The same cannot be said for Islamic countries. The would be book burner appears to be just a publicity hungry attention seeker so I can't be bothered paying him much mind. As far as the mosque goes though, if it offends people and you mean it as a gesture for peace and reconciliation, just move it.

OR put some of the funds towards a multi-faith centre in Mecca! Now that is not going to happen is it?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 10, 2010 05:35PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 18:18, gaddy wrote:
I'm going to burn a [url=http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp]Chick Comic[/url] tract on Saturday, just to be obtuse...

PS- it is so awesome that his comics are all online these days!
[/quote]
Found one of those stuck in my mailbox about a year ago.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 10, 2010 05:52PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 18:28, Destiny wrote:
It's rather amusing watching those so consumed by religion. Here in Australia most people who profess a religion merely pay lip service.

I am personally gratefull that these days the Christian religions are properly contained and most nominally Christian countries are in truth secular with the Churches limited in their ability to force others to live by their beliefs.

The same cannot be said for Islamic countries. The would be book burner appears to be just a publicity hungry attention seeker so I can't be bothered paying him much mind. As far as the mosque goes though, if it offends people and you mean it as a gesture for peace and reconciliation, just move it.

OR put some of the funds towards a multi-faith centre in Mecca! Now that is not going to happen is it?
[/quote]

Sums it up nice if you ask me.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 07:38PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 17:48, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 17:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 16:42, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 14:47, Scott Cram wrote:
I believe they have the constitutional right to do it, but that they're a**holes if they actually go ahead and do it.
[/quote]
Why? Is your assumption that American Muslims should feel guilty on some level for 9/11? Or is it your assumption that the anti-Muslim feelings of some should be given more recognition than the religious worship of Muslims? I really would like you to be clear about this.
[/quote]

While I am not in the camp of those who oppose the location of the mosque, I think the distinction isn't whether the feelings of Muslims or anti-Muslims is more important, but rather that the location itself is more relevant to those who are bothered by it. If you're a Muslim, and it's about your place of worship, it's probably not as important to you whether it's in place X, or a mile away from place X. In fact, if you're a Muslim in the vicinity, you undoubtedly already have a mosque of choice that you're attending. But moving it a mile probably makes a much larger difference to the feelings of those who oppose it. I realize, as has been pointed out, that there are also non-Muslims in NYC who don't have a problem with it, or even those who think it's great.

I might liken it to opening a local NRA office a block away from the high school in Columbine.
[/quote]
I have a real problem with this position. It takes the view that Muslims are unreasonable and insensitive, because [i]they don't choose to validate the bigoted opinions of others[/i]. And that's what it really comes down to. American Muslims had NOTHING to do with 9/11. They are, however, a convenient scapegoat. It makes as much sense as asking that no church or synagogue be built near Ground Zero.

The Columbine analogy is this: if you don't want the NRA to build an office near Columbine, it's because--rightly or wrongly--you believe that the NRA in some way has some responsibility for the killings (perhaps a glorification of gun culture, etc.)

In the same manner, if you don't want a mosque by ground zero it is because you believe--rightly or wrongly--that Muslims are in some way responsible for the 9/11 killings.

And I totally reject that notion. And it's more important to reject that notion than to mollify some people's feelings.

And why do you think some people's feelings should be privileged over other people's feelings?
[/quote]

When I constructed the NRA example, to my mind, it wasn't about the victim(s) believing that the NRA was in any way responsible. It was about them being upset at an unpleasant reminder of the events of that day.

I'm not sure what you may by privileging some people's feelings over other people's feelings. Whose feelings am I supposed to be privileging, and how? Most generally, I think people have the right to hold and express their opinions, and to the extent that others' feelings get hurt, that's the price you pay for living in a relatively free country. People opposed to the Mosque can march and make their signs and tell anyone who wants to listen why it shouldn't be built, and if that hurts someone's feelings, that's too bad. People in favor of the Mosque can do the same thing and more - they can actually BUILD it, and if that hurts someone's feelings, that's too bad, too. You don't have a right to not have your feelings hurt.

I personally find the anti-Mosque rallies less offensive than the UC affirmative action rallies I saw. The anti-Mosquers are expressing their opinion and essentially acting as lobbyists to encourage a voluntary act; the affirmative actioners were trying to get the government to permit the exclusion of people (e.g. Asian Americans, for the most part, at the school I attended) from admissions they'd earned, solely on the basis of race.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 07:53PM)
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around John's support of the idea that the attacks on 9/11 were planned on 9/10.....

(I know you don't think that but idiots could think that is accurate)

You went to Berkeley Lobo? I didn't know you were lesbian.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 07:56PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 20:53, MagicSanta wrote:
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around John's support of the idea that the attacks on 9/11 were planned on 9/10.....

(I know you don't think that but idiots could think that is accurate)

You went to Berkeley Lobo? I didn't know you were lesbian.
[/quote]

lol wrong UC. I was a Bruin, for law school anyway.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 08:05PM)
Ohhhh....UCLA, I'm use to Cal being called the UC or just Cal....never thought of the lesser UC's. They are considering changing Cal's team names to the Cal Kill All Men.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 08:22PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 21:05, MagicSanta wrote:
Ohhhh....UCLA, I'm use to Cal being called the UC or just Cal....never thought of the lesser UC's. They are considering changing Cal's team names to the Cal Kill All Men.
[/quote]

Yeah, that must just be a northern California thing. Down here, it would just be straight white guys.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 10, 2010 08:34PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 20:53, MagicSanta wrote:
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around John's support of the idea that the attacks on 9/11 were planned on 9/10.....
[/quote]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the possibility that you believe that of me...

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 08:38PM)
Admit it John.....

My friends daughter went to UCLA. She graduates and walks up to her dad, who paid for the whole thing, and said "This degree is useless dad, I need to go to another school". She meant it...she also forgot to turn off her phone at school and left it for her friends to use.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 10, 2010 08:55PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 18:52, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 18:28, Destiny wrote:
It's rather amusing watching those so consumed by religion. Here in Australia most people who profess a religion merely pay lip service.

I am personally gratefull that these days the Christian religions are properly contained and most nominally Christian countries are in truth secular with the Churches limited in their ability to force others to live by their beliefs.

The same cannot be said for Islamic countries. The would be book burner appears to be just a publicity hungry attention seeker so I can't be bothered paying him much mind. As far as the mosque goes though, if it offends people and you mean it as a gesture for peace and reconciliation, just move it.

OR put some of the funds towards a multi-faith centre in Mecca! Now that is not going to happen is it?
[/quote]

Sums it up nice if you ask me.
[/quote]
Me too. Well said, Destiny.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 08:57PM)
Destiny is a beautiful person...and can wrastle a croc.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 10, 2010 09:07PM)
I agree, however, "if it offends people and you mean it as a gesture for peace and reconciliation," then I would say people are just being bigoted jerks.

They may as well protest building a soccer field near Ground Zero because all the terrorist that flew the plans liked soccer.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 10, 2010 09:18PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 20:38, LobowolfXXX wrote:

When I constructed the NRA example, to my mind, it wasn't about the victim(s) believing that the NRA was in any way responsible. It was about them being upset at an unpleasant reminder of the events of that day.


[/quote]
So if I understand your analogy correctly, good Muslims, sensitive Muslims, should keep away from ground zero because somehow they are a reminder to some (evidently more privileged) people, of the events of the day.

I think it might be important to imagine one's self in a New York Muslim's shoes for a few days.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 10, 2010 09:27PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:07, gdw wrote:
I agree, however, "if it offends people and you mean it as a gesture for peace and reconciliation," then I would say people are just being bigoted jerks.

They may as well protest building a soccer field near Ground Zero because all the terrorist that flew the plans liked soccer.
[/quote]

I absolutely LOVE it when someone "agrees" but then adds however.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 09:28PM)
My views:
1. I just don't like book burning.

2. I personally have no issues with them building a Muslim community center (I will when I find out they are using govt funds to build it) but there will be a mosque in there but the simple fact is we are not an oppressive country like Cuba or Canada and they have a right to build it if they can pay for it. I do think that the appearance of insensativity to the non Muslim community is is understandable but I also think the real reason they selected that spot is because it is a place they can build in Manhatten and I would think real estate is hard to come by. I have no doubt anti US discussions will be a daily occurance there but we will put tracking devices on their cars while they are in there so f'em.

3. In reference to number 2 my dad and his girlfriend are natives of NYC and not socialist lefties. My dads girlfriends daughter worked for a company with corporate offices in the WTC and she was in there all the time and both the girlfriend and her daughter knew a lot of people killed in the attacks. The press is full of daily stories of attacks carried out in the name of Islam, mostly on others in that faith. Both of these things make me have some sensativity to those who are against building the community center. There is no basis, however, to stop the building and frankly I doubt the builders give a crap what others think and it will be a lil' victory in many of their minds.

4. If they allow a call to prayer to be amplified then the people who run NYC should be flogged and then stoned to death by Iran.

PS: I was kidding about Cuba, they are at least showing some indication of improvement there.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 10, 2010 09:28PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:18, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 20:38, LobowolfXXX wrote:

When I constructed the NRA example, to my mind, it wasn't about the victim(s) believing that the NRA was in any way responsible. It was about them being upset at an unpleasant reminder of the events of that day.


[/quote]
So if I understand your analogy correctly, good Muslims, sensitive Muslims, should keep away from ground zero because somehow they are a reminder to some (evidently more privileged) people, of the events of the day.

I think it might be important to imagine one's self in a New York Muslim's shoes for a few days.
[/quote]

Yea that is far more important than trying to imagine you are the family of one of the victims for a few days. Good point as always.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 09:31PM)
I'm imagining myself in a NYC Muslims shoes....and I'm selling stereos cheap.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 10, 2010 10:06PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea that is far more important than trying to imagine you are the family of one of the victims for a few days. Good point as always.
[/quote]
Just not one of the families that happens to support Park51, though, right?

Hey, here's another one for you all.

Where Flight 93 went down, apparently another "mosque" is being built on that site.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/911-hero-family-member-ground-zero-mosque-is-the-second-mosque-being-built-on-a-911-site-.html

http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2009/10/construction-drawings-released-flight.html

At least, that's what the people above say. Never mind that the 9/11 Flight 93 families like the design and support it:

http://www.nps.gov/flni/parkmgmt/upload/FF93TASKFORCERELEASE.pdf

---
Flight 93 family members held a news conference in Pittsburgh May 1 to dismiss claims that the Flight 93 National memorial glorifies Islam and the terrorists who took over the plane on September 11th.

“We said then and continue to say, ‘Enough’,” commented Patrick White, whose cousin, Louis “Joey Nacke II, was one of the Flight 93 passengers. White also serves as Task Force Co-Chair, as well as Vice President of the Families of Flight 93.

White said the Family of Flight 93 organization’s board of directors unanimously voted its support for the chosen Memorial design in 2007. “This design will not be changed based upon the idea that someone sees crescents everywhere,” he added.
---

Anyway, if there is so much "excitement" going on because of the 9th anniversary, I can't wait to see what controversies will arise in advance of the 10th.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 10:26PM)
Balducci....what mosque? I'm missing something. I am not convinced that the internet is useless after reading that tripe. People are complaining about a bunch of trees? I bet the druids are behind it.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 10, 2010 10:41PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 23:26, MagicSanta wrote:
Balducci....what mosque? I'm missing something.
[/quote]
Nah. You're just smarter than those people at the Atlass Shrugged website.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 10:52PM)
Those are the same idiots harrassing Hindu's and Sikhs thinking they are Muslims. Hey, harrassers, Sikhs don't have a 'turn the other cheek' approach to life and might just take you out back for a whoopin'.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 10, 2010 11:16PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 23:06, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea that is far more important than trying to imagine you are the family of one of the victims for a few days. Good point as always.
[/quote]
Just not one of the families that happens to support Park51, though, right?
[/quote]

Thank you for taking the time to think for me and put words in my mouth as I am nowhere near smart enough to do that for myself. But to take that burdon off of you how about you simply let me do that and while I am at it I will try to speak for myself as well ok?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 11:21PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 21:38, MagicSanta wrote:
Admit it John.....

My friends daughter went to UCLA. She graduates and walks up to her dad, who paid for the whole thing, and said "This degree is useless dad, I need to go to another school". She meant it...she also forgot to turn off her phone at school and left it for her friends to use.
[/quote]

Probably a function of her chosen major, if true. Wacko political place (not by Berkeley standards, but still), but very well respected in a number of fields.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 11:25PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:18, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 20:38, LobowolfXXX wrote:

When I constructed the NRA example, to my mind, it wasn't about the victim(s) believing that the NRA was in any way responsible. It was about them being upset at an unpleasant reminder of the events of that day.


[/quote]
So if I understand your analogy correctly, good Muslims, sensitive Muslims, should keep away from ground zero because somehow they are a reminder to some (evidently more privileged) people, of the events of the day.

I think it might be important to imagine one's self in a New York Muslim's shoes for a few days.
[/quote]

I'm not saying they "should" or "shouldn't" do anything. I'm saying that clearly, the proposed placement of the mosque upsets a lot of people; with that information, they can put it anywhere they like. Similar, the protests against the proposed placement upsets a lot of people; with that information, they can protest or not protest, as they see fit.

I'm not sure why you're construing me as "privileging" one group's feelings over the other; it appears to me that's what you're doing, however. Apparently, you think the mosque builders should do whatever they like, and anyone offended, hurt, or upset by it should just shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 11:37PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 23:06, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea that is far more important than trying to imagine you are the family of one of the victims for a few days. Good point as always.
[/quote]
Just not one of the families that happens to support Park51, though, right?

Hey, here's another one for you all.

Where Flight 93 went down, apparently another "mosque" is being built on that site.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/911-hero-family-member-ground-zero-mosque-is-the-second-mosque-being-built-on-a-911-site-.html

http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2009/10/construction-drawings-released-flight.html

At least, that's what the people above say. Never mind that the 9/11 Flight 93 families like the design and support it:

http://www.nps.gov/flni/parkmgmt/upload/FF93TASKFORCERELEASE.pdf

---
Flight 93 family members held a news conference in Pittsburgh May 1 to dismiss claims that the Flight 93 National memorial glorifies Islam and the terrorists who took over the plane on September 11th.

“We said then and continue to say, ‘Enough’,” commented Patrick White, whose cousin, Louis “Joey Nacke II, was one of the Flight 93 passengers. White also serves as Task Force Co-Chair, as well as Vice President of the Families of Flight 93.

White said the Family of Flight 93 organization’s board of directors unanimously voted its support for the chosen Memorial design in 2007. “This design will not be changed based upon the idea that someone sees crescents everywhere,” he added.
---

Anyway, if there is so much "excitement" going on because of the 9th anniversary, I can't wait to see what controversies will arise in advance of the 10th.
[/quote]


...unless you're Tom Burnett Sr., whose son was killed in the crash, and who said he made an impassioned speech to his fellow jurors about what he felt the crescent represented, "I explained this goes back centuries as an old-time Islamic symbol," Burnett said. "I told them we'd be a laughing stock if we did this."
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 10, 2010 11:38PM)
Her degree was in American Literature. She didn't want to be a teacher, didn't want to be a librarian, nothing to do with her degree. Her dad (CFO at my company so well off) sent her to diplomat school in DC, whatever that really is, and she went to work in embassies in some capacity, not sure what she did with them.

(note her degree wasn't useless, it just wasn't something she wanted to use)

Hey! I bet she would know books worth burning.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 10, 2010 11:51PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 00:38, MagicSanta wrote:
Her degree was in American Literature. She didn't want to be a teacher, didn't want to be a librarian, nothing to do with her degree. Her dad (CFO at my company so well off) sent her to diplomat school in DC, whatever that really is, and she went to work in embassies in some capacity, not sure what she did with them.

(note her degree wasn't useless, it just wasn't something she wanted to use)

Hey! I bet she would know books worth burning.
[/quote]

At CSU Fullerton, my major was English, and most of my professors' Ph.Ds were from UCLA. Had some great professors there (including the original guitarist from the alternative rock band Berlin).
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 11, 2010 12:03AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 23:06, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea that is far more important than trying to imagine you are the family of one of the victims for a few days. Good point as always.
[/quote]
Just not one of the families that happens to support Park51, though, right?

Hey, here's another one for you all.

Where Flight 93 went down, apparently another "mosque" is being built on that site.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/911-hero-family-member-ground-zero-mosque-is-the-second-mosque-being-built-on-a-911-site-.html

http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2009/10/construction-drawings-released-flight.html

At least, that's what the people above say. Never mind that the 9/11 Flight 93 families like the design and support it:

http://www.nps.gov/flni/parkmgmt/upload/FF93TASKFORCERELEASE.pdf

---
Flight 93 family members held a news conference in Pittsburgh May 1 to dismiss claims that the Flight 93 National memorial glorifies Islam and the terrorists who took over the plane on September 11th.

“We said then and continue to say, ‘Enough’,” commented Patrick White, whose cousin, Louis “Joey Nacke II, was one of the Flight 93 passengers. White also serves as Task Force Co-Chair, as well as Vice President of the Families of Flight 93.

White said the Family of Flight 93 organization’s board of directors unanimously voted its support for the chosen Memorial design in 2007. “This design will not be changed based upon the idea that someone sees crescents everywhere,” he added.
---

Anyway, if there is so much "excitement" going on because of the 9th anniversary, I can't wait to see what controversies will arise in advance of the 10th.
[/quote]

Again, maybe its me.. But this is total BS conspiracy stuff. If any research is done, all the sites that pull up lead to this "atlasshrugged" site, at least the links from that site. When searching for any flight 93 mosque, mentions are found of outrage going back as far as 07', about a "planned" memorial that in some way points to mecca.. in no way is it a mosque.

Generally, and maybe I'm to trusting of the media, but I really only trust actual news sites. Not just stuff written by some guy.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 11, 2010 12:34AM)
Ewww! Ewwwww! Berlin! Great band, Terri Nunn did it for me baby....man, she is still stunning. That lil' ugly girl from Missing Persons had nuttin' on Terri.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 11, 2010 12:37AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 01:34, MagicSanta wrote:
Ewww! Ewwwww! Berlin! Great band, Terri Nunn did it for me baby....man, she is still stunning. That lil' ugly girl from Missing Persons had nuttin' on Terri.
[/quote]

Yeah, they don't get much sexier.

But for sexy in the voice, neither one of them had anything on Rindy Ross from Quarterflash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaSHtnLvdks
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 11, 2010 01:29AM)
[img]http://www.adamzyglis.com/images/cartoon258.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: muse (Sep 11, 2010 02:20AM)
Interesting article in today's 'Independent' at http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-nine-years-two-wars-hundreds-of-thousands-dead-ndash-and-nothing-learnt-2076450.html
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Sep 11, 2010 02:47AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 16:55, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 14:47, Scott Cram wrote:
I believe they have the constitutional right to do it, but that they're a**holes if they actually go ahead and do it.
[/quote]

To which "they" and which "it" do you refer?
[/quote]

Congratulations, Magnus. In the 3 pages since that post, you're the only one who questioned my pronouns, instead of assigning a desired meaning to them.

Thank you for that.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 11, 2010 09:15AM)
[quote]
Generally, and maybe I'm to trusting of the media, but I really only trust actual news sites. Not just stuff written by some guy.
[/quote]

Is MSNBC a "news" site? New York Times? Really? Are you telling me those are not biased in one way or the other?

Sorry brother but if you trust the media you are simply listening to one viewpoint. Which is cool. Just like everyone else you read and listen to what you agree with to affirm your opinion. Nothing more. You choose "mainstream media" sites to do it. Congradulations.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 11, 2010 11:29AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 00:16, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 23:06, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea that is far more important than trying to imagine you are the family of one of the victims for a few days. Good point as always.
[/quote]
Just not one of the families that happens to support Park51, though, right?
[/quote]

Thank you for taking the time to think for me and put words in my mouth as I am nowhere near smart enough to do that for myself. But to take that burdon off of you how about you simply let me do that and while I am at it I will try to speak for myself as well ok?
[/quote]

Did you not do EXACTLY the same thing when you said "that is far more important than trying to imagine you are the family of one of the victims for a few days"?

[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:27, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:07, gdw wrote:
I agree, however, "if it offends people and you mean it as a gesture for peace and reconciliation," then I would say people are just being bigoted jerks.

They may as well protest building a soccer field near Ground Zero because all the terrorist that flew the plans liked soccer.
[/quote]

I absolutely LOVE it when someone "agrees" but then adds however.
[/quote]

So terribly sorry I should have said I MOSTLY agree, or I agree with the majority of what was said.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 11, 2010 11:49AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 10:15, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
Generally, and maybe I'm to trusting of the media, but I really only trust actual news sites. Not just stuff written by some guy.
[/quote]

Is MSNBC a "news" site? New York Times? Really? Are you telling me those are not biased in one way or the other?
Sorry brother but if you trust the media you are simply listening to one viewpoint. Which is cool. Just like everyone else you read and listen to what you agree with to affirm your opinion. Nothing more. You choose "mainstream media" sites to do it. Congradulations.
[/quote]


I agree. If you read baladuccis threads, you will see what o mean about "someguy". Crazy fringe stuff. Crazy.
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Sep 11, 2010 11:59AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 10:15, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
Generally, and maybe I'm to trusting of the media, but I really only trust actual news sites. Not just stuff written by some guy.
[/quote]

Is MSNBC a "news" site? New York Times? Really? Are you telling me those are not biased in one way or the other?

Sorry brother but if you trust the media you are simply listening to one viewpoint. Which is cool. Just like everyone else you read and listen to what you agree with to affirm your opinion. Nothing more. You choose "mainstream media" sites to do it. Congradulations.
[/quote]

Danny, that's BS. [i]MANY[/i] people look at media with a critical and discerning eye. [i]Many[/i] people attempt to integrate dissenting opinions into their own worldview.

If you're not one of them, I can understand how you might think that "everyone" is just like you, in how they look at news and the media, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

I'll be the first to admit that not as many people have this critical thinking skill as they should, these days, but to say "everyone does it" -that paints a very different picture.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 11, 2010 12:05PM)
To say "everyone" as an absolute and a dumb mistake on my part.

But don't act as if nobody does it either. VERY FEW do.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 11, 2010 02:46PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 13:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
To say "everyone" as an absolute and a dumb mistake on my part.

But don't act as if nobody does it either. VERY FEW do.
[/quote]

I have to agree with Danny here. A good majority here do. =Even those who advocate not doing it. And to just be critical of what you watch isn't enough, if you're only watching cnn and the like (or anything bunch of like minded media outlets, of any kind). You are still only being critical of what they show you, and what they show you is far from the whole story, and far from unbiased.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 11, 2010 03:38PM)
I think that trend is reversing in the internet age. A lot fewer people rely strictly on television for their news.
I can only speak for myself but I look at everything from Michael Moore to Fox.
I even listen to Sean Hannity's radio show.
I've always believed in the saying "Know your enemy."
Something similar was even in Sun Tzu, "He who knows both his enemy and himself will never in a thousand battles be at risk," the concluding statement in my favorite passage.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 11, 2010 03:43PM)
Rindy Ross wouldn't burn a book....just sayin'
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 11, 2010 04:07PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 16:38, critter wrote:
I think that trend is reversing in the internet age. A lot fewer people rely strictly on television for their news.
I can only speak for myself but I look at everything from Michael Moore to Fox.
I even listen to Sean Hannity's radio show.
I've always believed in the saying "Know your enemy."
Something similar was even in Sun Tzu, "He who knows both his enemy and himself will never in a thousand battles be at risk," the concluding statement in my favorite passage.
[/quote]

Out of curiosity have you ever read the whole book in context or just exerpts? If you reaad it all which translation?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 11, 2010 05:16PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

[quote]
landmark wrote:
So if I understand your analogy correctly, good Muslims, sensitive Muslims, should keep away from ground zero because somehow they are a reminder to some (evidently more privileged) people, of the events of the day.

I think it might be important to imagine one's self in a New York Muslim's shoes for a few days.
[/quote]

Yea that is far more important than trying to imagine you are the family of one of the victims for a few days. Good point as always.
[/quote]
If you'd turn off the TV for a moment, you might realize that I [i] was[/i] talking about the families of the victims.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 11, 2010 05:24PM)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68942Q20100910

(Reuters) - The estranged daughter of a U.S. pastor who has threatened to burn copies of the Koran believes he has gone mad and needs help, she said in a German media interview conducted on Friday.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 11, 2010 05:34PM)
Once upon a time I thought the word would have been spelled "eutopia" and it was quite a while before I understood the difference between that and "utopia". Which led to a better perspective on the song "nowhere man".

This episode of our recent history is pretty good fodder for psych experiments about burning pages from books or entire books when the subject does not know where the page is from or you show them a book but later show then that it was a different book with a dustjacket on it etc. Seems much more provocative than just burning a flag or telling folks their coffee is really decaff.

As a diagnostic tool for hysteria and psychosis ... also likely good work to be done there.

Okay back to whether or not it's okay to burn a copy of Salaman Rushdie's Satanic Verses when it's got the dustjacket of a King James Bible on it - or the dustjacket of some Lovecraft book.

We already have kids playing the "depends on what you mean by 'is' game" - now are we gonna have ones threatening to burn a Holy Qur'an if they don't get what they want?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 11, 2010 06:16PM)
Holy Qu'ran but not Holy Bible. Muslims ever burn a Holy Toran? Holy Bible? A couple security guys on a bridge?
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 11, 2010 06:28PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 17:07, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 16:38, critter wrote:
I think that trend is reversing in the internet age. A lot fewer people rely strictly on television for their news.
I can only speak for myself but I look at everything from Michael Moore to Fox.
I even listen to Sean Hannity's radio show.
I've always believed in the saying "Know your enemy."
Something similar was even in Sun Tzu, "He who knows both his enemy and himself will never in a thousand battles be at risk," the concluding statement in my favorite passage.
[/quote]

Out of curiosity have you ever read the whole book in context or just exerpts? If you reaad it all which translation?
[/quote]

I've read several translations. One was by Thomas(?) Cleary. I'm bad with names.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 11, 2010 06:31PM)
I enjoy reading Sun Tzu in the original Hebrew.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 11, 2010 06:52PM)
I never read The Art of War (except for a summary, and excerpted bits here and there), but I recently picked up a copy of "The 33 Strategies of War" by Robert Greene. It lists 33 strategies of war sourced from various texts, including Sun Tzu's, and illustrates / discusses / critiques each with examples from history.

I very much enjoyed one of Greene's earlier books, "The 48 Laws of Power". Hopefully, "War" is just as good.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 11, 2010 07:00PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 12:29, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 00:16, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 23:06, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-10 22:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Yea that is far more important than trying to imagine you are the family of one of the victims for a few days. Good point as always.
[/quote]

Just not one of the families that happens to support Park51, though, right?
[/quote]

Thank you for taking the time to think for me and put words in my mouth as I am nowhere near smart enough to do that for myself. But to take that burdon off of you how about you simply let me do that and while I am at it I will try to speak for myself as well ok?
[/quote]

Did you not do EXACTLY the same thing when you said "that is far more important than trying to imagine you are the family of one of the victims for a few days"?
[/quote]
Besides which, I never actually put words into Danny's mouth. I did question his statement, and implied / suggested what I believed Danny likely specifically meant. I notice that he never bothered to confirm or deny my conjecture.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 11, 2010 07:02PM)
It’s all pathetic.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 11, 2010 08:20PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 19:31, MagicSanta wrote:
I enjoy reading Sun Tzu in the original Hebrew.
[/quote]

Now THAT is frickin' hilarious.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 11, 2010 08:23PM)
Yet it will be missed by so many.....
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 11, 2010 08:57PM)
Been wondering about that one - is there something about the strategies or implicit assumptions of the book which seems founded in Israeli history going back to when that book was written?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 11, 2010 09:05PM)
Simple stratagy really. In Hebrew it is æøå÷ ñìò, øàù îëä, ð÷åãä åöç÷. Very profound as you'll note.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 11, 2010 09:10PM)
Wait, this site doesn't accept Hebrew..... in Norwegian, which we all know is the language all Hebrew is first translated into, it is

Kast stein og slo dem I hodet så peke og le. Hvis de kommer tilbake opp traff igjen.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 11, 2010 10:41PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-11 18:34, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Once upon a time I thought the word would have been spelled "eutopia" and it was quite a while before I understood the difference between that and "utopia". Which led to a better perspective on the song "nowhere man".
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 12, 2010 02:31AM)
I bet most people here did not know this, but the 2 World Trade Center building contained a Muslim prayer room. Which really shouldn't be all that surprising (as there are a lot of prayer rooms out there, all over) ... but unless you are Muslim, you don't think about prayer rooms much.

See this story: "Muslims and Islam Were Part of Twin Towers’ Life"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/nyregion/11religion.html

While reading the NYTimes site, I also came across this opinion / editorial, which I thought was quite good:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12kristof.html?hp

It concludes as follows:

Hats off to a rabbinical student in Massachusetts, Rachel Barenblat, who raised money to replace prayer rugs that a drunken intruder had urinated on at a mosque. She told me that she quickly raised more than $1,100 from Jews and Christians alike.

Above all, bravo to those Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders who jointly denounced what they called “the anti-Muslim frenzy.”

“We know what it is like when people have attacked us physically, have attacked us verbally, and others have remained silent,” said Rabbi David Saperstein. “It cannot happen here in America in 2010.”

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick put it this way: “This is not America. America was not built on hate.”

“Shame on you,” the Rev. Richard Cizik, a leading evangelical Christian, said to those castigating Islam. “You bring dishonor to the name of Jesus Christ. You directly disobey his commandment to love your neighbor.”

Amen.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2010 09:24AM)
Just curious balducci do you even have a religious faith you believe in?

ANYONE who claims this is some sort of "anti Muslim" anything is being untruthful. EVERYONE I have seen has simply said it is radical Muslims and nothing more.

Common sense tells us not to burn holy books, or to buld things that will cause offense. Now Rauf gives not so veiled threats about if he has to move the mosque. Wow. Man of peace I see. The same guy who said that America is an accessory to 9/11 and will not condemn Hamas as a terrorist group, and is not quite as transparant about how he is funding the thing. (Yea I got the Daily Show report of Murdock spending money.)

You put up one article about how ONE family seems to think it is ok to do this mosque here. So would you simply let a poll of those families rule the day? They are the ones most hurt by this, why not let that be the case?

By the way I do agree with our president on an issue here. He said that we can not let the terror issue consume our forign policy. (I summed it up.) He is dead on right. I think that allowing ourselvs to be consumed by these things both at home and abroad we do ourselvs no favors. I say it again, I think the president is right.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 12, 2010 10:57AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 10:24, Dannydoyle wrote:

Just curious balducci do you even have a religious faith you believe in?
[/quote]
Yes, Christian, as I've mentioned many times before.

[quote]
On 2010-09-12 10:24, Dannydoyle wrote:

ANYONE who claims this is some sort of "anti Muslim" anything is being untruthful. EVERYONE I have seen has simply said it is radical Muslims and nothing more.
[/quote]
Your second statement does not prove the first. I would disagree with your first statement, because I have heard from people who look at this as an "anti-Muslim" thing. I'm not saying many or most feel that way, but such people do exist. If you are saying they do not, then you are being untruthful. Or else you have not been paying attention.

[quote]
On 2010-09-12 10:24, Dannydoyle wrote:

You put up one article about how ONE family seems to think it is ok to do this mosque here.
[/quote]
I'm not sure which ONE article you are talking about, as I've actually posted several. Danny, there are lots of 9/11 families who support Park51 if you pay attention. They are easy to miss, otherwise, as they are not as "loud" as the protesters. Here are some more for you:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/41580/

Donna O’Conner, who lost her pregnant daughter in the 9/11 attacks and is the spokeswoman for September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, said in a press statement, “We cannot bring back the family members we lost on 9/11 but we can try to recoup what is best about America. We are firm in our commitment to civil liberties and religious freedom.”

At the rally, she reaffirmed her support for Park51: “We [9/11 families] 100 percent fully support the Islamic cultural center in New York City.”

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100826/some-9-11-families-show-support-for-mosque-near-ground-zero/index.html

A group of religious and civil rights groups and family members of 9/11 victims announced on Wednesday the formation of a new coalition in support of an Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero.

Talat Hamdani lost a 23-year-old son, a paramedic, in the 2001 terrorist attacks. But she said supporting the Islamic center and mosque "has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with standing up for our human rights, including freedom of religion," as reported by The Associated Press.

http://www.chasingevil.org/2010/08/911-families-who-support-park51.html

Herb Ouida, whose son Todd died in the attacks, says he supports the Cordoba Initiative's project.
'To call it a mosque is not right. It's a community center that includes a prayer center,' Ouida told AOL News today.

The 68-year-old father from River Edge, N.J., says he is deeply concerned about the tone of some of the opposition to the project.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 12, 2010 11:36AM)
[quote]
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 10:24, Dannydoyle wrote:

ANYONE who claims this is some sort of "anti Muslim" anything is being untruthful. EVERYONE I have seen has simply said it is radical Muslims and nothing more.
[/quote]
Your second statement does not prove the first. I would disagree with your first statement, because I have heard from people who look at this as an "anti-Muslim" thing. I'm not saying many or most feel that way, but such people do exist. If you are saying they do not, then you are being untruthful. Or else you have not been paying attention.
[/quote]
There is a valid argument that even many of those who do not intend this to be an anti-Muslim thing are inevitably making it so. Did you read this article?

"Muslims and Islam Were Part of Twin Towers’ Life"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/nyregion/11religion.html

It notes that even pre-9/11 there were not enough mosques in the area to serve the number of Muslims who work near the ground zero site. The nearest one was too far away for people working at the WTC to get to during the day at prayer times (which is why there were prayer rooms set up in the WTC). Now the attitude of many Park51 protesters seems to be, too bad, suck it up, we will never allow you to address this problem.

Maybe they do not mean this in an "anti-Muslim" way, but if you imagine yourself as a Muslim I think the message being sent by the protesters comes across that way.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 12, 2010 12:01PM)
Do you have a reply to my posts? (about ppsting links from fringe site, and passing it off as fact or even truth?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2010 12:03PM)
So lets leave it up to those offended shall we? You guys love to quote those family members who seem to be agreeing with you but how about a simply poll of who is offended. If it is more than 50% they move.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 12, 2010 12:07PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 13:01, kcg5 wrote:
Do you have a reply to my posts? (about ppsting links from fringe site, and passing it off as fact or even truth?
[/quote]
Who are you addressing? If you are referring to when I linked to something about a second mosque at AtlasShrugged, I think you misread / misinterpreted my post.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 12, 2010 12:18PM)
For f's sakes people! If you polled people in the 50's about the "red menace" and whether all communists should be driven out of the country I'm sure you would have gotten over 50% affirmative too. That doesn't make McCarthyism right!
What we are doing to the Muslims right now is the same thing we did to the Japanese in World War II. Hey, maybe we could just round up all of the Muslims and experiment on them with gas showers and unnecessary surgery! After all, they are responsible for all of the world's problems. Or is that the black South Africans? No? Jews?
Have we learned nothing from history's lessons? Wholesale persecution=BAD!
Common Sense? Anyone? Hello? Table for Common Sense!
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 12, 2010 12:33PM)
"If you would like Republican press 1. If you would like Democrat press 2. If you would like to repeat this menu press 2012."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2010 01:19PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 13:18, critter wrote:
For f's sakes people! If you polled people in the 50's about the "red menace" and whether all communists should be driven out of the country I'm sure you would have gotten over 50% affirmative too. That doesn't make McCarthyism right!
What we are doing to the Muslims right now is the same thing we did to the Japanese in World War II. Hey, maybe we could just round up all of the Muslims and experiment on them with gas showers and unnecessary surgery! After all, they are responsible for all of the world's problems. Or is that the black South Africans? No? Jews?
Have we learned nothing from history's lessons? Wholesale persecution=BAD!
Common Sense? Anyone? Hello? Table for Common Sense!
[/quote]

Yep there it is. Pain the others in the extreme so you seem more mainstream. That ought to do the trick.

Tell you why I suggested it. They want to post a single viewpoint as if it is the norm. It is not. So lets stop the oh this one family member said this is ok stuff. Otherwise by logical extension we just poll all of them and live with the results.

It is offensive and it is wrong and that really is the point. Much like burning any holy book of any sort.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 12, 2010 01:29PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 14:19, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 13:18, critter wrote:
For f's sakes people! If you polled people in the 50's about the "red menace" and whether all communists should be driven out of the country I'm sure you would have gotten over 50% affirmative too. That doesn't make McCarthyism right!
What we are doing to the Muslims right now is the same thing we did to the Japanese in World War II. Hey, maybe we could just round up all of the Muslims and experiment on them with gas showers and unnecessary surgery! After all, they are responsible for all of the world's problems. Or is that the black South Africans? No? Jews?
Have we learned nothing from history's lessons? Wholesale persecution=BAD!
Common Sense? Anyone? Hello? Table for Common Sense!
[/quote]

Yep there it is. Pain the others in the extreme so you seem more mainstream. That ought to do the trick.

Tell you why I suggested it. They want to post a single viewpoint as if it is the norm. It is not. So lets stop the oh this one family member said this is ok stuff. Otherwise by logical extension we just poll all of them and live with the results.

It is offensive and it is wrong and that really is the point. Much like burning any holy book of any sort.
[/quote]

Wow, that's not bigoted at all.
Better to let the majority decide and force the minority to go with the results?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 12, 2010 02:52PM)
McCarthy was right.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 03:06PM)
When did the Islamic Community Center become Park51? Sounds so cosmo. I have no problem with them building the thing but I do have problems with people blowing PR bs up my shorts.

I also love the 'well they had a Muslim prayer room....' stuff. Yeah, they had it to shut people the hell up and avoid a lawsuit. Is that suppose to imply something? Is there anyone out there that does not believe that Muslims are willing to kill Muslims?

There is nothing wrong with Arabs or Muslims as long as they behave in a civilized manner. If they do not they can be carted off to a freakin' island and left their in orange suits. In fact if someone is an extremist Christian who wants to conduct violence the same thing, if they are a militant Budhist, break it up, if the are violent athiest, stop them too. EXTREMIST are the issue. I noticed no one cared with that idiot Kansas preacher burned the Koran, that is because that type of crap is expected from him.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2010 03:32PM)
[quote] Wow, that's not bigoted at all.
Better to let the majority decide and force the minority to go with the results?
[/quote]

Ummmm I hate to break this to you but...http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/opinion/republic.html

You make it very hard to take you seriously.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2010 03:35PM)
There is nothing wrong with ANYONE if we ALL behave in a civilized manner. Yes the issue is behavior, and the idea that the violators seem to control the dialogue is what is wrong. I am not allowed to do things that are radical either.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 03:39PM)
I agree. If they want to sit in the desert and gnash there teeth and leave others alone let them. When they decide to leave the village and just be murdering scum then they need to be stopped by who ever has the ability and guts to do so.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 12, 2010 04:26PM)
Anyway since the conspiracy theory that it was the Muslims that did it has now been debunked, I don’t see the problem. Its not as though the Muslims are members of Skull and Bones. Shouldn’t the pastor rightly be burning the Jolly Rodger. In the land of the blind the one eyed pirate is king.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 12, 2010 04:52PM)
Interesting that to the same people who are offended by the mosque at ground zero, it's perfectly alright to have a Christian gathering outside of a Planned Parenthood.
I've read the Bible too, and Jesus really didn't care for hypocrites.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 05:08PM)
You know, I was pondering this last night and I can relate to the ones who think it is disrespectful. I had a friend killed in a drunk driving accident at Christmas of 1979. About six years ago they tore out the intersection to build a highway ramp and to be honest with you I was kind of upset because that location was where I would go past and remember her. I can see why family and friends might be upset. As for the idiots who are just anti Muslim....fya.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Sep 12, 2010 05:11PM)
By the way, if you attempt to bring a Bible into Saudi Arabia, it will be confiscated and destroyed.

And if you attempt to bring a Koran into Saudi Arabia, that does not meet with the standards of Saudi Islam, it will also be confiscated and destroyed.

The Saudis have destroyed more Muslim monuments than any other nation - no kidding. They feared that the tombs of the saints and other places associated with them would become idolatrous places of worship, and therefore destroyed them. They have also destroyed just about every evidence of Ottoman rule over Arabia.

And if a non-Muslim sets foot in Mecca, he will be executed.

Non-Muslim worship is strictly forbidden in Saudi Arabia, even privately. The idea that the Saudis would allow a Church to be built even in a non-Holy city like Riyadh is absurd. Much less that they would allow a memorial to be built near Khaybar to the Jewish Arabs whom the Prophet Muhummad PBUH had slaughtered in a mass beheading before seizing a 17-year-old widow, Safiyah, as his share of the booty, and making her one of his wives.

The fact that a self-ordained pastor of a tiny congregation can get news coverage by threatening to do something that the Saudi government does every day, does not prove that America is an intolerant country.

Let's keep it real.

Woland
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 12, 2010 05:13PM)
Well yeah, I get upset when places of historical or sentimental value are destroyed too. I still don't think that the mosque has anything to do with 9/11 though. What, just because the bombers happened to profess the same religion it's supposed be the same thing? That doesn't compute to me.
Heck, the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland both profess to be Christians, but they obviously have a difference of opinion somewhere.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 05:24PM)
I say we build a Christian Jewish Friendship center in Mecca, they'll let us, they are a peaceful people.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2010 05:26PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 17:52, critter wrote:
Interesting that to the same people who are offended by the mosque at ground zero, it's perfectly alright to have a Christian gathering outside of a Planned Parenthood.
I've read the Bible too, and Jesus really didn't care for hypocrites.
[/quote]

Out of curiosity who are these people you just try to lump all into one ball to denegrate? I hope you did not mean me with this malitious lie.

How about we all READ the planned book for burning? Then we can talk about it. Read it, not what others say it says.
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Sep 12, 2010 05:26PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 13:03, Dannydoyle wrote:
So lets leave it up to those offended shall we? You guys love to quote those family members who seem to be agreeing with you but how about a simply poll of who is offended. If it is more than 50% they move.
[/quote]

Didn't you hear? the imom said he wouldn't have proposed putting the mosque there if he "had known" it was going to cause such a problem.

BUT, He CAN"T move it now, because the headlines in the muslam world would be that America is "attacking" islam and THAT would cause a "national security issue".
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 12, 2010 05:30PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:26, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 17:52, critter wrote:
Interesting that to the same people who are offended by the mosque at ground zero, it's perfectly alright to have a Christian gathering outside of a Planned Parenthood.
I've read the Bible too, and Jesus really didn't care for hypocrites.
[/quote]

Out of curiosity who are these people you just try to lump all into one ball to denegrate? I hope you did not mean me with this malitious lie.

How about we all READ the planned book for burning? Then we can talk about it. Read it, not what others say it says.
[/quote]

Who said I was talking about anyone on here? I'm talking about people I've seen on the news whining about it. A little defensive, aren't we?
Malicious. With a "K."
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Sep 12, 2010 05:31PM)
2 differant people burned qorans yesterday,to "protest" what muslims did on 9/11. No one in the crowd chanted anything.

Meanwhile, in the peacefull muslum world, they burned American Flags and chanted " DEATH TO CHRISTIANS".

AND in London, muslums burned American flags and said we got what we deserved.

But, those were just the "radicals" right?
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 12, 2010 05:32PM)
MuslUms?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 12, 2010 05:54PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:32, critter wrote:
MuslUms?
[/quote]

Distraction.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 12, 2010 05:59PM)
Wrong.
If you can't even spell the NAME of the group right then you probably don't know enough about them to have an informed opinion.
The Crusades, Planned Parenthood Bombings, Hitler, Unionist bombings and torture of Catholics in Northern Ireland, Cromwell, IRA bombings, the list goes on, these are just the "extreme" Christians, right?
Well, yes that is right. Those ARE only the extremists. Funny how certain people can't apply the same criteria to "other" religions that they do their own.
Like I said, Jesus did not like hypocrites.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Sep 12, 2010 06:01PM)
Let's keep it real.

There are more than 40 mosques in New York City. There is one in upper Manhattan that is practically a square city block in size.

The only reason Imam Rauf wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero is to do a sack dance in the end zone. This is a victory monument.

The title of his book in Arabic is "Dawa (i.e. proselytizing for Islam) at Ground Zero." He's trying to make a gigantic point.

And his proposal is nothing but a provocation -- he thinks that we will lose either way. If we let him build a triumphant victory mosque at Ground Zero, he shows the world that we are on our way to being defeated. And if he doesn't get to build it, he uses that to inflame the Muslim world against it.

He is not a "moderate." He is playing the moderate role in a game of good cop/bad cop. He recently threatened in an interview, that if he doesn't build a mosque at Ground Zero, Islamist extremists around the world will be excited to every greater heights of hatred against the USA. That threat reveals his game.

Let's be tolerant. But let's be tolerant of what is really out there. It isn't tolerance to tolerate your own fantasy of what the other guy is really about. If you can face up to what he is really planning, and still tolerate him, then you are tolerant.

But being tolerant doesn't men you have to approve, condone, or facilitate the imposition of sharia law on the United States, or on Muslims living in the United States. We have had too many honor killings here already.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 12, 2010 06:03PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:26, Dannydoyle wrote:...
How about we all READ the planned book for burning? Then we can talk about it. Read it, not what others say it says.
[/quote]

If you're an American you may recall some mention of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause]elastic clause[/url] in our constitution. By analogy - regardless of what words might be in 'the book' - it's all about the interpretation. Sort of a built in elastic clause for the faithful.

Writing as an American, I'm still astonished by the "all men" language that sits beside laws which enforced both racism and sexism. This kind of argument about [i]"depending on what you mean by 'is'"[/i] continues to this day here - currently hot topics include the meaning of the word theory and whether or not one person's lack of faith can condone another person's use of force.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 12, 2010 06:09PM)
I read every word until I got here:

[quote]
On 2010-09-12 19:01, Woland wrote:
...or on Muslims living in the United States...
[/quote]

That's just an infuriatingly awful thing to say.
Let's get one thing straight, I am NOT a lefty. I oppose abortion and I support the rights of gun owners.
What I am against here is one law for me and another for you. I am opposed to America becoming the next Nazi Germany or South Africa. And this statement proves without question that there are people whose mindset is heading that way.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 12, 2010 06:16PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 11:57, balducci wrote:


At the rally, she reaffirmed her support for Park51: “We [9/11 families] 100 percent fully support the Islamic cultural center in New York City.”


[/quote]

I heard this quotation. I'd be willing to bet A LOT of money that I could find a close family member of a 9/11 victim who opposes it. Any takers?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 06:19PM)
I think Woland is very accurate.

Kevin, I think you are a bit off point by trying to compare a religion that has at its base the violent spread of its belief system to political movements that happen to use religious names (such as in Northern Ireland and also in Lebanon). Of all the things you listed the only one that is an example of extremist Christian belief is the bombing of planned parenthood locations and murder of doctors associated with abortions. The IRA was a socialist movement and while they took advantage of Catholics they were not extremist Christians but extremist socialist. Cromwell, while religious, was politically motivated and moved against the Irish, who were mostly catholic, because they were seen as potential royalist, he was not an extreme Christian. Hitler was more of an enviromentalist and the fact he was neither Jewish, Muslim, or Budhist does not make him in any fashion even a befuddled Christian let alone extremist. He, as many others have, used distrust of some religions to his benefit but the boy wasn't hanging out in church.

Wahhabism is the dominant sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia and is worldwide and has millions of members. They also are attributed with wanting to destroy anything not related to their version of Islam and is the foundation of much of the problems between Muslims and the rest of the world and also within Islam itself. The philosophy itself is a problem and they do not consider themselves extremist, they consider themselves correct and also willing to die for that belief in fact there are benefits of dying in battle or what they perceive to be battle against idolotry and non Islamic beliefs. If every none Muslim died right now the Wahhabi Muslims would then turn on other sects...though they don't consider themselves to be a sect, they just think they alone are right.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 12, 2010 06:20PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 19:09, critter wrote:
I read every word until I got here:

[quote]
On 2010-09-12 19:01, Woland wrote:
...or on Muslims living in the United States...
[/quote]

That's just an infuriatingly awful thing to say.
Let's get one thing straight, I am NOT a lefty. I oppose abortion and I support the rights of gun owners.
What I am against here is one law for me and another for you. I am opposed to America becoming the next Nazi Germany or South Africa. And this statement proves without question that there are people whose mindset is heading that way.
[/quote]

I think either you misread the post, or I did. Woland said that we shouldn't condone the imposition of Sharia law on Muslims living in the United States, which doesn't strike me as infuriating or awful.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 12, 2010 06:27PM)
Lobo, regarding your earlier reply to my post, I'm sure you could. It is plainly obvious to all by now (I hope) that there are 9/11 victim family members on both sides of the issue. One side can take offense, whatever gets decided regarding where the Park51 complex is located.

The only "fair" compromise I can think up is to have absolutely NO religious faith buildings / churches / mosques / temples / synagogues / etc. anywhere near ground zero.

The fact is, the old WTC had facilities for Muslim worship ... I bet the new one does, too. I can't wait for the protest against that, in 3 or 4 years.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 06:42PM)
Balducci, virtually any large office building has a room for Muslims to pray in because they do this mystic thing called 'asking for one'. While I don't agree with the protesters and think it is NYC's business you not understanding WHY some might have an issue with the Islamic center shows stubborness that is beyond the norm. I think you are too intelligent to say you are just ignorant, thus it is intentional. There is a distinct difference between a prayer room (not WORSHIP) and a giant building that IS an Islamic center and mosque. Do you think that the Islamic Center and Mosque will have a Christian Room? How about a Synogogue? (sp).

They are going to build the *** thing regardless but some of the arguments are too dumb and should be ambarrassing to those bringing them up.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 12, 2010 06:55PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 19:42, MagicSanta wrote:

you not understanding WHY some might have an issue with the Islamic center shows stubborness that is beyond the norm.
[/quote]
How do you figure I do not understand WHY some might have an issue with the Islamic center? I totally understand why. I thought I'd made that clear earlier.

[quote]
On 2010-09-12 19:42, MagicSanta wrote:

There is a distinct difference between a prayer room (not WORSHIP) and a giant building that IS an Islamic center and mosque.
[/quote]
Okay. So, would a smaller mosque located within a reasonable walking distance, say 10 minutes, of ground zero and that is led by a different Imam be reasonable? I'd be all for that as a compromise. Do you think this would be acceptable to the protesters?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 07:24PM)
Let's be honest, who cares what the protesters want? The building is legal in use, I'm assuming if the contractor is legit it will be passing code, and if NYC licenses it then they will build it. Just cut the bull @$R@#. I don't care if it is a Christian Science Reading Room, an Islamic center, a Hindu Temple, a Baptist Church, or an Agnostic Center. Means nothing to me. They all have a right to build and operate it if zoned.

Don't give me that 'Muslims' are great nonsense either. There are many who, just like in any religion, just have their faith thing going on and they don't let it run or ruin their lives. Hell, I ate pork sausage in Israel, no one freaked out. It is very much in their culture to be anti other cultures, of course since the PC people accept anti gentile leanings and anti Jewish leanings it is called ethnocentristic rather than racist or bigotry. I attended a church that was virtually ALL Arabs. I sat there and listened to CHRISTIAN Arabs say some things about and against the US. They had fund raisers for the PLO! The philosophy in the Mid East, and my main man Cyberquat brought this up, is that the local Jewish people are their cousins. That is correct, but the real statement is that the different groups of Arabs and other tribes that are considered Arab such as the palestinians consider themselves to be brothers. They would tell me 'We are brothers (meaning Christian and Muslim Arabic people) and if someone attacks my brother I will join him in the fight, if someone attacks my cousins (Jews) I will join my cousins, but if my cousin attacks my brother I will fight my cousin'. So yes, they are cousins to the Palestinians, not Arabs, but they make it clear they are willing to destroy them. Quit fooling yourselves about the people in that region, I've been there and seen how they operate.

So they are going to build the mosque, idiots will vandalize it, they will refuse to fly an American flag, that will upset people (same thing happened at the mosque and Islamic school in Santa Clara next to my building), there will be someone arrested for planning a terror attack who attended something there, and it all won't mean squat.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Sep 12, 2010 07:27PM)
Critter,

I'm not sure exactly what you objected to in my comments. But I think that there are more than a few Muslim immigrants here in the USA, who came here precisely to escape the oppressiveness of shariah law. They did not expect to find an atmosphere in which the perpetrators of shariah law with all its excesses would be tolerated much less encouraged.

America is a country that in its founding documents explicitly placed itself under God's law. But not shariah law.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 12, 2010 07:28PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 19:01, Woland wrote:
Let's keep it real.
... being tolerant doesn't men you have to approve, condone, or facilitate the imposition of sharia law on the United States, or on Muslims living in the United States. We have had too many honor killings here already.

Woland
[/quote]

Agreed. If some folks want to worship a giant squid in a pool - I'm accepting that's their faith. I just don't see it as okay if they act on the belief that their squid can have my dog as an offering.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Sep 12, 2010 07:29PM)
Lobowolf,

Thanks, you understood my point. I agree with you that it is not infuriating, awful, or extremist to expect that everyone who comes to this country should live under the laws of this country, and that within this country, we should not allow the forcible imposition of foreign laws.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 07:37PM)
I knew a woman who moved here from Lebannon specifically to get away from the oppression she felt, as a woman, in that part of the world. She married an American, became Eastern Orthidox.....and her daughter married a Muslim who started treating her like property. Well, to be fair that isn't just a Muslim thing. My brother in law is Christian and we use to joke that the difference between his wife and a cow is if it rained the cow would be let into the barn. Another family friend, an Iraqi Muslim who held a very good position in the US Govt, now retired, upon his last child leaving the home stopped conversing with his American wife except to instruct her what he expected of her for the day. It has been about 15 years since he really has spoken to her. Cat Stevens upon his conversion said in interviews he would not speak to a woman who was not his wife and rarely to her. He mellowed out after 9/11 as they thought it good to have him represent Islam in a hopefully positive light.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Sep 12, 2010 08:40PM)
Jonathan,

It's not only that they act on the belief that their squid can have your dog as an offering, but that they demand that you turn over your dog to them to be devoured by their giant squid, and if you don't do it, then you are an intolerant tyrant.

Woland
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 12, 2010 08:46PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:11, Woland wrote:


And if a non-Muslim sets foot in Mecca, he will be executed.



Let's keep it real.

Woland
[/quote]


Nope, just deported or prosecuted. Keep it real homie
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 12, 2010 08:51PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:11, Woland wrote:
By the way, if you attempt to bring a Bible into Saudi Arabia, it will be confiscated and destroyed.

Let's keep it real.

Woland
[/quote]

It appears, once again, this is not true. It seems that bibles are mostly fine, as long as they are not brought in with the intent of converting people.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 12, 2010 08:54PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 16:32, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote] Wow, that's not bigoted at all.
Better to let the majority decide and force the minority to go with the results?
[/quote]

Ummmm I hate to break this to you but...http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/opinion/republic.html

You make it very hard to take you seriously.
[/quote]

I am well aware of that. I was referring to your flat assertion that it was "wrong." Given you were dismissing the "minority" opinion, and then asserting that what was happening was "wrong" you appeared to be implying that was the majority opinion.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 12, 2010 08:55PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:31, Big Jeff wrote:
2 differant people burned qorans yesterday,to "protest" what muslims did on 9/11. No one in the crowd chanted anything.

Meanwhile, in the peacefull muslum world, they burned American Flags and chanted " DEATH TO CHRISTIANS".

AND in London, muslums burned American flags and said we got what we deserved.

But, those were just the "radicals" right?
[/quote]

Links to this stuff?

And, yes, maybe they were the radicals. They are things on google back in 07' about burning the flag in London. We have radicals here in the US also, check out the KKK, or raider fans.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 12, 2010 09:05PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:26, Dannydoyle wrote: . . .

How about we all READ the planned book for burning? Then we can talk about it. Read it, not what others say it says.
[/quote]

Absolutely. I think I said exactly this in one of my earlier posts in this thread. Why is it I always end up with much more in common, than one would first have thought, with the ones I argue the most with?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 12, 2010 09:05PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:59, critter wrote:
Wrong.
If you can't even spell the NAME of the group right then you probably don't know enough about them to have an informed opinion.
The Crusades, Planned Parenthood Bombings, Hitler, Unionist bombings and torture of Catholics in Northern Ireland, Cromwell, IRA bombings, the list goes on, these are just the "extreme" Christians, right?
Well, yes that is right. Those ARE only the extremists. Funny how certain people can't apply the same criteria to "other" religions that they do their own.
Like I said, Jesus did not like hypocrites.
[/quote]
Then he would probably have you mention the torture and murder of tens of thousands of Christians at the hands of the catholic church. Just sayin.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 12, 2010 09:20PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 22:05, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:26, Dannydoyle wrote: . . .

How about we all READ the planned book for burning? Then we can talk about it. Read it, not what others say it says.
[/quote]

Absolutely. I think I said exactly this in one of my earlier posts in this thread. Why is it I always end up with much more in common, than one would first have thought, with the ones I argue the most with?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, or so it has often been said, even many of the best translations of the Qur'an are lacking.

http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran

"[H]how accurate are the Qur'an's renderings into English? The record is mixed. Some are simply poor translations. Others adopt sectarian biases, and those that are funded by Saudi Arabia often insert political annotation."

The "conclusion" section at the link above is worth reading, if you are interested in this sort of thing.

I don't doubt that there are also problems with English translations of the Bible, but that we're mostly just unaware of these (either willfully, or through what might be called cultural indoctrination). Obviously, I am not a Biblical literalist.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Sep 12, 2010 09:28PM)
Danny...how about using that plea to Congress to read the BILLS before passing them. THAT might be useful to everybody no matter what imaginary friend they suffer for.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2010 09:28PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:59, critter wrote:
Wrong.
If you can't even spell the NAME of the group right then you probably don't know enough about them to have an informed opinion.
The Crusades, Planned Parenthood Bombings, Hitler, Unionist bombings and torture of Catholics in Northern Ireland, Cromwell, IRA bombings, the list goes on, these are just the "extreme" Christians, right?
Well, yes that is right. Those ARE only the extremists. Funny how certain people can't apply the same criteria to "other" religions that they do their own.
Like I said, Jesus did not like hypocrites.
[/quote]

Now because he can not spell the name in one post, you claim he knows nothing about whatever. I thought GDW said we were not going to nit pick that stuff as it meant nothing? Now you have to simply throw around Nazi, and spellcheck problems? Lord.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 12, 2010 09:29PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 22:20, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 22:05, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:26, Dannydoyle wrote: . . .

How about we all READ the planned book for burning? Then we can talk about it. Read it, not what others say it says.
[/quote]

Absolutely. I think I said exactly this in one of my earlier posts in this thread. Why is it I always end up with much more in common, than one would first have thought, with the ones I argue the most with?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, or so it has often been said, even many of the best translations of the Qur'an are lacking.

http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran

"[H]how accurate are the Qur'an's renderings into English? The record is mixed. Some are simply poor translations. Others adopt sectarian biases, and those that are funded by Saudi Arabia often insert political annotation."

The "conclusion" section at the link above is worth reading, if you are interested in this sort of thing.

I don't doubt that there are also problems with English translations of the Bible, but that we're mostly just unaware of these (either willfully, or through what might be called cultural indoctrination). Obviously, I am not a Biblical literalist.
[/quote]

And, of course, no matter the written translation, there is always the translation that comes from the reader.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 12, 2010 09:38PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 22:29, gdw wrote:


And, of course, no matter the written translation, there is always the translation that comes from the reader.
[/quote]

Indeed. As a great poetry professor of mine used to say, "All language is translation."
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 12, 2010 09:39PM)
Ta Da! Doug is back, with a brand new pic
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 12, 2010 09:41PM)
Now the Quaran is being translated wrong where it is stated to use violence, maybe someone should tell the Muslims that read it that way they are wrong rather than telling those of us not performing violent acts.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 13, 2010 07:42AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 22:41, MagicSanta wrote:
Now the Quaran is being translated wrong where it is stated to use violence, maybe someone should tell the Muslims that read it that way they are wrong rather than telling those of us not performing violent acts.
[/quote]

I don't think we said that. But any who, let's not forget the bible also advocates putting people to death plenty. If we are going to pick on "violent" religions, well, that may very well be redundant.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 13, 2010 09:25AM)
It keeps bothering me that someone said Hitler was a Christian - I'm too lazy to Google but while I'm always eager to slander the Christians I prefer to have facts on my side and I don't recall that Hitler was of a religious bent.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 13, 2010 09:54AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 10:25, Destiny wrote:
It keeps bothering me that someone said Hitler was a Christian - I'm too lazy to Google but while I'm always eager to slander the Christians I prefer to have facts on my side and I don't recall that Hitler was of a religious bent.
[/quote]

Yea I was tempted to jump on that bandwagon myself Destiny but it just has gotten to the point when someone brings up Hitler, McCarthy, and the Crusades to make a point about Christians, I just want them to buy a book from later than say 1960 or so. I figure that when you have to go that far back you are being lazy in the first place and just want to use any point in history to prove what you believe in the presant.

Any time anyone brings up Hitler, it really proves the willful lack of time and effort they are willing to put into an opinion and will just use anything they can grab onto in order to believe what they want.

SO here Destiny I did us both a favor.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

Turns out he was a Christian and an athiest and more LOL. Turns out he did believe in God, it is just that as far as I can tell HE was god.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 13, 2010 10:08AM)
Three points:

1. People's views tend to change over their lifetimes.
2. You can't generalize from a sample of one.
3. Hitler, the Crusades, Ayatollah Khomeini, etc. are nonetheless useful counter-examples to foolish generalizations.

John
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Sep 13, 2010 10:11AM)
Here's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views]something[/url] about Hitler's religious views. A bit weasely, as you'd expect. I've always found the of-course-Hitler-was-an-atheist-only-a-godless-heathen-could etc argument weak tea. Even if he was an atheist with a capital A, it does not excuse or explain away the acts thousands of German believers who took part in the execution of Jews,homosexuals,Roma,the disabled,Slavs and anybody else that were marked for extermination.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 13, 2010 10:44AM)
I wish we could all just agree that by any standard you care to apply he was a nutjob and religion is not his major malfunction whether he knew God or not.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 13, 2010 10:45AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 11:08, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Three points:

1. People's views tend to change over their lifetimes.
2. You can't generalize from a sample of one.
3. Hitler, the Crusades, Ayatollah Khomeini, etc. are nonetheless useful counter-examples to foolish generalizations.

John
[/quote]

I am not sure I understand number 3 on the list. Could you elaborate as to if you think it is a good idea to constantly liken things people do not agree with to Hitler or the others?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 13, 2010 10:51AM)
Let me pick a silly example. Suppose somebody says "Fine art and high culture lead to the development of higher ethical standards"; the easy counter-example is the Nazi embrace of Wagner's music.

Without fanning any flames, generalizations about Christianity and Islam are often countered with the other two.

As the old joke goes, all generalizations are worthless.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2010 11:06AM)
Inductive logic argues from specific examples to generalizations based on these examples. For instance, when our parents tell us to look both ways before we cross the road, and we see examples of what can happen when people don’t follow this advice, we generalize that it is best to look both ways before we cross the road. We do not investigate every instance of people crossing the road to see if it is, indeed, wise to look both ways. Instead, we form a general rule- an inductive generalization- based on a handful of examples. As another example, we believe that it is good to brush our teeth several times a day because our parents and our dentist tell us it’s a good idea, and we see what happens to people who don’t brush their teeth. They suffer from tooth and gum decay. That is, we generalize from people’s advice and general life examples that it is wise to brush our teeth. Once again, we have not investigated every instance of people brushing or not brushing their teeth to see if this is a wise practice. We make an inductive generalization based on the patterns we see in examples we have examined. Because inductive arguments rest on generalizations, they are not 100% certain. They are merely “likely” or “probable.” A good example of inductive logic in real life is the scientific method. Scientists observe and test natural phenomena. Then, they make laws based on generalizations from what they have seen and tested. For example, scientists did not test every possible scenario in which gravity could operate in order to establish the law of gravity. Instead, they generalized from a variety of examples and tests which demonstrated the law of gravity.......And so on.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 13, 2010 11:16AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 11:51, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Let me pick a silly example. Suppose somebody says "Fine art and high culture lead to the development of higher ethical standards"; the easy counter-example is the Nazi embrace of Wagner's music.

Without fanning any flames, generalizations about Christianity and Islam are often countered with the other two.

As the old joke goes, all generalizations are worthless.

John
[/quote]

Thank you for the clarification John.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 13, 2010 11:30AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 11:51, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

As the old joke goes, all generalizations are worthless.

John
[/quote]

Which was exactly my point in bringing the counter's up. Someone else used a couple of Muslim protesters to generalize all Muslims and my point is "Look, we can play this stupid game all day."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 13, 2010 11:37AM)
I am not sure that anyone here has tried to charectorise ALL Muslims. I know for a fact I have not. Could you post for me where someone did that? I really must have missed it.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 13, 2010 11:46AM)
Man, Danny...
"I know it wasn't me," "I hope you weren't talking about me..." I've never been talking about you except when you've asked me a question.
The example I'm talking about was about one or two posts above my response to it. Pretty sure it was Big John, but I'll double check because I'd hate to credit the wrong person with such a weak argument. My post was basically identical only in my response I replaced Muslim extremist examples with Christian ones to point out how stupid it all is.
I'll find it for you and copy the whole thing.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 13, 2010 11:57AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 22:28, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 18:59, critter wrote:
Wrong.
If you can't even spell the NAME of the group right then you probably don't know enough about them to have an informed opinion.
The Crusades, Planned Parenthood Bombings, Hitler, Unionist bombings and torture of Catholics in Northern Ireland, Cromwell, IRA bombings, the list goes on, these are just the "extreme" Christians, right?
Well, yes that is right. Those ARE only the extremists. Funny how certain people can't apply the same criteria to "other" religions that they do their own.
Like I said, Jesus did not like hypocrites.
[/quote]

Now because he can not spell the name in one post, you claim he knows nothing about whatever. I thought GDW said we were not going to nit pick that stuff as it meant nothing? Now you have to simply throw around Nazi, and spellcheck problems? Lord.
[/quote]

A couple of wrong spellings is one thing, but when you misspell the NAME OF THE GROUP then it is a valid point to bring up. It's either ignorance or disrespect.
And how ironic that you bring up "nit picking" when you've taken the Nazi example out of it's original context in the exact same sentence.
Of course that's a tactic commonly used by Sean Hannity as well. He knows his audience will take his word for it without actually verifying.
You do remember me saying I listen to his show regularly in my car?
The problem here is that most of us here on the Café are capable of intelligent reasoning over blind devotion to the false prophets of the profits. We will fact check.
"Logic and Reason are the enemies of Faith." -Martin Luther, author of "On the Jewes and their lies," founder of the Protestant religion, extremist.

Yeah here it is, Big Jeff said,
[quote]
Meanwhile, in the peacefull muslum world, they burned American Flags and chanted " DEATH TO CHRISTIANS".

AND in London, muslums burned American flags and said we got what we deserved.

But, those were just the "radicals" right?
[/quote]

Pretty clear to me. Maybe I'm nitpicking.

My response?

[quote]The Crusades, Planned Parenthood Bombings, Hitler, Unionist bombings and torture of Catholics in Northern Ireland, Cromwell, IRA bombings, the list goes on, these are just the "extreme" Christians, right?[/quote]

Oh and right after I said it, I POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS A STUPID THING TO SAY! which was exactly the point:

[quote]Well, yes that is right. Those ARE only the extremists. Funny how certain people can't apply the same criteria to "other" religions that they do their own.
Like I said, Jesus did not like hypocrites. [/quote]

If you are going to argue with me, try reading what I actually said first.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 13, 2010 01:46PM)
It should be pointed out that Christianity went through a reformation that Islam has yet to experience. Anyone attempting to live to the letter of the Bible is clearly identified as a whack job, in Islam attempting to live to the letter of the Koran is considered devout. Most people in the world tend to notice it isn't the year 987.
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 13, 2010 02:01PM)
I can see that.
Then again, I get a lot of my philosophy from metal songs ;)

I think this one is relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8fm3Z7jgWM&ob=av2e
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Sep 13, 2010 02:35PM)
Joseph Stalin killed MILLIONS of Russians, Stalin was a athiest.

You people who are pointing out that hilter(supposedly), IRA, Abortion Bombings, etc as examples of what 'christians' have done. Using those as examples to justify what muslim terrorists have done. There is one big difference.... Christian leaders denounce the abortion bombings, and christians don't celebratein the streets.

Muslims do, mass demostrations NEVER happen when a abortion clinic is bombed.


By the way, the mosque near ground zero is set to open on 9/11 2012.

Why THAT day? why not in march, april or may? just askin.


(if I spelled any words wong I apologize, TRY to answer my point)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 13, 2010 03:04PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 15:01, critter wrote:
I can see that.
Then again, I get a lot of my philosophy from metal songs ;)

[/quote]

We'll know for the first time
If we're evil or divine;
We're the last in line
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 13, 2010 03:08PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 15:35, Big Jeff wrote:

You people who are pointing out that hilter(supposedly), IRA, Abortion Bombings, etc as examples of what 'christians' have done. Using those as examples to justify what muslim terrorists have done. There is one big difference.... Christian leaders denounce the abortion bombings, and christians don't celebratein the streets.
[/quote]
I don't see where anyone here has ever tried to JUSTIFY what Muslim terrorists have done. Most Muslims appear to oppose those terrorist actions. And Muslim leaders have denounced the 9/11 terrorist actions. This has all been documented in previous threads. And in the news, if you read a good cross section of the reporting.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 13, 2010 03:11PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 15:35, Big Jeff wrote:

By the way, the mosque near ground zero is set to open on 9/11 2012.

Why THAT day? why not in march, april or may? just askin.

[/quote]

Apparently THAT day is just made up. According to [url=http://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/questions-about-the-ground-zero-mosque/]factcheck.org[/url]

[quote]
Is the center scheduled to open on Sept. 11, 2011?

Organizers say no. As best we can determine, the idea that the cultural center and mosque would open that day is unfounded speculation. Project organizers say that no official date has been set for the opening of the proposed center. Imam Rauf told Newsday back in May that it could take anywhere from 18 months to three years to raise the money to complete the project, and added that the center wouldn’t open on the anniversary of Sept. 11. Project organizers took to the social networking site Twitter as recently as Aug. 20 to knock down the claim, saying: "Reports that we will open on 9/11 or begin construction on 9/11 are false and inflammatory. Our timeline to build is 18 - 38 months."

The idea that the center and mosque would open on Sept. 11, 2011 — the 10-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks in 2001 — has been bandied about on blogs and discussion boards. The American Freedom Defense Initiative sponsored advertisements that may have also contributed to that thought. The initiative’s ads appeared on New York City buses and asked, "Why There?," with an image of a plane flying into a burning World Trade Center, next to a rendering of the proposed building with the words "September 11, 2011, WTC Mega Mosque."
[/quote]

John
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 13, 2010 03:16PM)
Jeff, Man... I think we are having two different conversations.
I am absolutely not defending terrorist attacks in any form. Whether the Christians do it, Muslims do it, Hindu's do it in the name of Kali, An atheist does it, I don't care. The religious orientation of the person doing it doesn't make it any better or worse. It's wrong to target civilians.
It's also wrong to judge somebody based solely on their religion.
There are doctors who have been mass murderers, I'll still take my chances if I have an infected wound.

Other than that, what Balducci said.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2010 03:22PM)
"Most Muslims appear to oppose those terrorist actions."

:)
Message: Posted by: critter (Sep 13, 2010 03:37PM)
This is kind of beyond the scope of this topic and I really don't want to argue the finer points, but I think this guy has some interesting things to say:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0922-21.htm
Some of this is related to something I said earlier.
Again, just food for thought, I don't want to get into a long discussion of this article.
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Sep 13, 2010 07:22PM)
After 9/11 there were candlelight vigils in Tehran,condemnation of the attacks from the leaders of Muslim countries, Muslim political,religious and scholarly groups around the world.

Yet the footage that was replayed over and over again on CNN and Fox of a couple of small celebratory groups of Palestinians and Hussein's pronouncement has led to the 'received knowledge' that the entire Muslim world danced a jig after 9/11.

For the most part, apart from a few loons of different varieties, I'd like to think that all of humanity decries the death of innocents - it's part of what makes us human after all.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 13, 2010 08:24PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 12:30, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 11:51, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

As the old joke goes, all generalizations are worthless.

John
[/quote]

Which was exactly my point in bringing the counter's up. Someone else used a couple of Muslim protesters to generalize all Muslims and my point is "Look, we can play this stupid game all day."
[/quote]

Which is exactly why it is best to skip all the games and argue from first principles. From the ground up.


[quote]
On 2010-09-13 14:46, MagicSanta wrote:
It should be pointed out that Christianity went through a reformation that Islam has yet to experience. Anyone attempting to live to the letter of the Bible is clearly identified as a whack job, in Islam attempting to live to the letter of the Koran is considered devout. Most people in the world tend to notice it isn't the year 987.
[/quote]

Not dismissing what you said at all, but I think it should be noted what most probably ignore with this.

That being, the "reformation" would involve saying "we shouldn't really be taking this literally." Now, if only now, or however long ago for christianity, they are thinking this, then would those that wrote the book so much earlier than that, and would have been the one's establishing how to "take" it, literally or not, have intended it to be taken the way they do now (post reformation?)

In other words, if you aren't going to put that much weight in the book, then what exactly are you basing your religion on? Yes, the book(s) was(were) written by flawed men, but said book(s) is (are) the only source for your religion. In other words, the only source from which to know your religion is/are these books. If they aren't "accurate" or reliable, then why continue with the religion once you realize that?

In other words, once you realize the foundation is so flawed, why keep living in the building?

If you actually read the books, you should realize that you can't just pick and choose. If you take the creation story, and Adam and Eve as metaphorical, or allegorical, then you have removed the main purpose for the coming of jesus. The later is completely built upon the former. To take one as mythical is to remove all reality (from the dying for your sins part at least) from the other.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 13, 2010 08:53PM)
You are correct GWD and your point is valid and one I am aware of. I have my own view of Christianity which I think makes far more sense than those with believe, and note I said 'believe', that they take the Bible literally. That being said the issue at hand is there has to be a point where a belief system has to be altered in action to represent the reality of the world situation. Lets face it, an eye for an eye? Stoning a woman you don't consider proper? Enslaving others? Treating a wife as property? Those are wrong approaches and while I know there are sickos out there that believe some of those are fine and good and LIVE it they are the great minority, thank goodness.

There are people who really and trully believe that it is fine to kill another person who does not share their beliefs. I have been to countries where that belief exist and have seen bodies just laying in the streets. The simple fact is Islam has followers that are both very sophesticated and living in modern cities and those that live in a manner very much the same as it was a thousand years ago. No one has the guts, and I can see why, to stand up and say "This is flat out wrong, those statements in the Koran are flat out wrong, we do not have the right or obligation to kill those who believe differently, we do not want our young men to die as martyrs, we need to accept that other beliefs are just as valid or invalid as ours and it is just a question of faith"' The problem is if someone does take a stand like that there are thousands who are willing to kill that person and realllllly believe it is a great thing and they will be rewarded.

Yes, Islam needs to realize that they can exist without that chain of hate but the simple fact is those chains are fanstastic forms of power for Imans and political leaders. It also is a great way for those without any power to feel good about themselves. They live in a hut with a dirt floor and poop into a pot but, by golly, THEY are right with their version of God and they are thus better than everyone who ISN'T a believer in fact they have, in their minds, the power of death over those in their towers and marble floors. Islam just happens to be the widest example of this extreme belief without consideration of others being taked into account. This is because other religions that are also based on fundimental beliefs that have not changed for centuries are not prostelizing and of the belief that doing so by the sword is the way to go.

Muslims are not a bad people and many, most in fact, either realize they shouldn't act on the doctrine or they realize that they have a pretty good life in the states, Canada, or Wisconsin and don't want to blow it. The fact remains that there are hundreds of thousands of them that not only would kill you or me but their own religion followers who are not, in their minds, at their level of religions faith. Those people are like comparing a modern soldier to those guys who use to line up for God and Country and walked in a straight line up to each other and blow each others brains out while their leaders stood on a hill and watched. Want to be a Muslim? Cool, they are as misguided as anyone else, but as long as they don't hassle me I won't hassle them and if they want to be friends and we have things in common then we be pals. It is wrong, though, to hassle them just because of how they look, believe, or dress. I will react to their actions though.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 13, 2010 09:35PM)
At several points in this thread, the topic of free speech was raised. Below is something I read today in an article about the financial crisis in Greece. I thought it was an interesting quote about freedoms, that's all:

“Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.”

- Isocrates

[url]http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010[/url]
Message: Posted by: Woland (Sep 13, 2010 10:06PM)
Balducci,

That's why those who crafted the Constitution of the United States ensured that it would not be a pure democracy, but a democracy tempered by (1) a division of powers, so that the powers of the government would be divided among three branches, no one of which could dominate, and (2) the decidedly undemocratic Senate, whose rules permit wiser and cooler heads to temper the audacity, lawlessness, and anarchy of the demos.

Unfortunately, we perverted the original plan by opting for direct election of Senators, and by allowing the executive branch to become overweeningly powerful.

But the limitation of federal powers to those delineated powers defined by the Constitution, with the more general powers of government inherited from the English common law maintained by the States, also served as a check on the abuses of unfettered democracy.

The problem being of course, that once 51% of the people realize they can live off the taxes of the other 49%, there is no stopping them.

Woland
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 14, 2010 08:04AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 15:35, Big Jeff wrote:
Joseph Stalin killed MILLIONS of Russians, Stalin was a athiest.

You people who are pointing out that hilter(supposedly), IRA, Abortion Bombings, etc as examples of what 'christians' have done. Using those as examples to justify what muslim terrorists have done. There is one big difference.... Christian leaders denounce the abortion bombings, and christians don't celebratein the streets.

Muslims do, mass demostrations NEVER happen when a abortion clinic is bombed.


By the way, the mosque near ground zero is set to open on 9/11 2012.

Why THAT day? why not in march, april or may? just askin.


(if I spelled any words wong I apologize, TRY to answer my point)
[/quote]

The difference with stalin is that atheism (not an ism) says nothing, has no edicts or commandments, nothing to tell anyone what to do, where as religion has plenty, often including encouragement of violence, and even killing those that disagree with you. So, ironically, the "leaders" denouncing those things are often the one's NOT being "christian."
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Sep 14, 2010 01:44PM)
They really schedule to open 9-11-12? If so that kind of adds a clear messege and it isn't good.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 14, 2010 01:51PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-14 14:44, MagicSanta wrote:
They really schedule to open 9-11-12? If so that kind of adds a clear messege and it isn't good.
[/quote]
See below.

[quote]
On 2010-09-13 16:11, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 15:35, Big Jeff wrote:

By the way, the mosque near ground zero is set to open on 9/11 2012.

Why THAT day? why not in march, april or may? just askin.

[/quote]

Apparently THAT day is just made up. According to [url=http://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/questions-about-the-ground-zero-mosque/]factcheck.org[/url]

[quote]
Is the center scheduled to open on Sept. 11, 2011?

Organizers say no. As best we can determine, the idea that the cultural center and mosque would open that day is unfounded speculation. Project organizers say that no official date has been set for the opening of the proposed center. Imam Rauf told Newsday back in May that it could take anywhere from 18 months to three years to raise the money to complete the project, and added that the center wouldn’t open on the anniversary of Sept. 11. Project organizers took to the social networking site Twitter as recently as Aug. 20 to knock down the claim, saying: "Reports that we will open on 9/11 or begin construction on 9/11 are false and inflammatory. Our timeline to build is 18 - 38 months."

The idea that the center and mosque would open on Sept. 11, 2011 — the 10-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks in 2001 — has been bandied about on blogs and discussion boards. The American Freedom Defense Initiative sponsored advertisements that may have also contributed to that thought. The initiative’s ads appeared on New York City buses and asked, "Why There?," with an image of a plane flying into a burning World Trade Center, next to a rendering of the proposed building with the words "September 11, 2011, WTC Mega Mosque."
[/quote]

John
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 14, 2010 01:51PM)
Read my previous post, Santa. They don't even have the funding secured to begin building, let alone set a date. The spokesman, Iman Rauf emphatically denies that they will open on 9/11 of any year. Yet their opponents have placed ads, put billboards on buses, etc.

JOhn
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 14, 2010 02:06PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-13 21:53, MagicSanta wrote:
You are correct GWD and your point is valid and one I am aware of. I have my own view of Christianity which I think makes far more sense than those with believe, and note I said 'believe', that they take the Bible literally. That being said the issue at hand is there has to be a point where a belief system has to be altered in action to represent the reality of the world situation. Lets face it, an eye for an eye? Stoning a woman you don't consider proper? Enslaving others? Treating a wife as property? Those are wrong approaches and while I know there are sickos out there that believe some of those are fine and good and LIVE it they are the great minority, thank goodness.

There are people who really and trully believe that it is fine to kill another person who does not share their beliefs. I have been to countries where that belief exist and have seen bodies just laying in the streets. The simple fact is Islam has followers that are both very sophesticated and living in modern cities and those that live in a manner very much the same as it was a thousand years ago. No one has the guts, and I can see why, to stand up and say "This is flat out wrong, those statements in the Koran are flat out wrong, we do not have the right or obligation to kill those who believe differently, we do not want our young men to die as martyrs, we need to accept that other beliefs are just as valid or invalid as ours and it is just a question of faith"' The problem is if someone does take a stand like that there are thousands who are willing to kill that person and realllllly believe it is a great thing and they will be rewarded.

Yes, Islam needs to realize that they can exist without that chain of hate but the simple fact is those chains are fanstastic forms of power for Imans and political leaders. It also is a great way for those without any power to feel good about themselves. They live in a hut with a dirt floor and poop into a pot but, by golly, THEY are right with their version of God and they are thus better than everyone who ISN'T a believer in fact they have, in their minds, the power of death over those in their towers and marble floors. Islam just happens to be the widest example of this extreme belief without consideration of others being taked into account. This is because other religions that are also based on fundimental beliefs that have not changed for centuries are not prostelizing and of the belief that doing so by the sword is the way to go.

Muslims are not a bad people and many, most in fact, either realize they shouldn't act on the doctrine or they realize that they have a pretty good life in the states, Canada, or Wisconsin and don't want to blow it. The fact remains that there are hundreds of thousands of them that not only would kill you or me but their own religion followers who are not, in their minds, at their level of religions faith. Those people are like comparing a modern soldier to those guys who use to line up for God and Country and walked in a straight line up to each other and blow each others brains out while their leaders stood on a hill and watched. Want to be a Muslim? Cool, they are as misguided as anyone else, but as long as they don't hassle me I won't hassle them and if they want to be friends and we have things in common then we be pals. It is wrong, though, to hassle them just because of how they look, believe, or dress. I will react to their actions though.
[/quote]

:applause:
Message: Posted by: Natural Mystic (Sep 14, 2010 04:55PM)
I seen this bumper sticker in North Carolina in 2009.


"Homeland Security: Fighting terrorism since 1492."


I guess terrorism is in the eyes of beholder.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 14, 2010 05:22PM)
Alex Breaks Down The Bizarre CIA Ties to Ground Zero Mosque

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKzMbjB5hdY
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 14, 2010 09:18PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-14 18:22, tommy wrote:
Alex Breaks Down The Bizarre CIA Ties to Ground Zero Mosque

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKzMbjB5hdY
[/quote]

That man makes my pia mater crawl. Do you know how long it took me to remember/find what that was called? Too long as I left that video playing in the back ground while I did it.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 15, 2010 03:53AM)
The show goes on. Please take your places to play your accustomed roles in the drama.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 15, 2010 06:35AM)
Smoke another one Tommy.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 15, 2010 08:23AM)
Put this one in your pipe and smoke it Magicfish: The Project for the New American Century. In The Project for the New American Century, well before it all happened they wrote; they needed something on the scale of a Pearl Harbour event to motivate the American people and the world into action. And at the start of the new century 2001 BINGO, 9/11 comes along right on queue to kick off the New American Century, they get their wish. I mean these guys, I guarantee you, would go for a scratch-and-win, and every card would be bingo, they'd win. They've got so much luck, don't they? Talk about an act of magic! These guys are the best in the business. As my pal Alan Watt said more or less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

Smoking guns
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Sep 15, 2010 10:28AM)
Maybe the 'elite' had the buildings rigged with explosives when they were built, so that someday they could blow them and start the NWO.

Maybe those weren't really firemen, maybe they set the explosives after the planes hit.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 15, 2010 10:32AM)
Belief. Faith. Conviction.

These can and have been dangerous.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 15, 2010 11:31AM)
Firemen book burning.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v15E8XGWl5Y
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 17, 2010 10:43PM)
You're truly a sick individual, tommy.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Sep 22, 2010 05:48PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 20:27, Woland wrote:
Critter,

I'm not sure exactly what you objected to in my comments. But I think that there are more than a few Muslim immigrants here in the USA, who came here precisely to escape the oppressiveness of shariah law. They did not expect to find an atmosphere in which the perpetrators of shariah law with all its excesses would be tolerated much less encouraged.

America is a country that in its founding documents explicitly placed itself under God's law. But not shariah law.

Woland
[/quote]

Um, no it did not. It was explicitly placed separate from ANY religious law.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 22, 2010 08:42PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-22 18:48, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-09-12 20:27, Woland wrote:
Critter,

I'm not sure exactly what you objected to in my comments. But I think that there are more than a few Muslim immigrants here in the USA, who came here precisely to escape the oppressiveness of shariah law. They did not expect to find an atmosphere in which the perpetrators of shariah law with all its excesses would be tolerated much less encouraged.

America is a country that in its founding documents explicitly placed itself under God's law. But not shariah law.

Woland
[/quote]

Um, no it did not. It was explicitly placed separate from ANY religious law.
[/quote]

Strongly concur with gdw here, particularly evidenced by the fact that (if you're discussing the Christian perspective) the First Amendment (Have any God you want, or none) is in direct conflict with the First Commandment (thou shalt have no other Gods before me).