Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[ChristopherJB5]

There are already Jewish civil courts in the United States called Beth Din.

Last time I checked Beth Din was on a strictly voluntary basis.

 

[ChristopherJB5]

It is also in the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah, so why don’t you get a grip too!

Uh… no.

 

[ChristopherJB5]

Incorrect? I find that humorous.

They can build a mosque anywhere they please. It is their property and it is their freedom to assmemble and worship their religion. It seems you and like all other new-Conservatives use another wedge to divide Americans with fear and misunderstanding.

No, the world doesn’t work like that sorry. Maybe ideally, but regrettably public policies take into consideration the feelings of hostile mobs pretty quickly–Muslim or non-Muslim.

 

[tjm190]

Last time I checked Beth Din was on a strictly voluntary basis.

Just like those courts in Britain that will arbitrate based on Islamic law that everyone is so paranoid about.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

I see that, being unable to keep up with me and Truth, you’ve decided to just go on and dive into some surreal dystopian fantasy full of blacks and whites on buses. Congratulations, you’re now finally in your element!

 

[4elise]

Again you keep throwing up strawmen. Nobody denies that they have a right to build the mosque. Just as we have the right to criticize their decision to do so. The very fact that you and other mosque apologists only argument is to decry anyone he doesn’t agree with you as racist bigots shows the paucity of your arguments

I completely support your right to oppose the center.

And putting people into boxes ‘mosque apologists’ or ‘racist bigots’ does nothing to advance the discussion.

I would not call the need to embrace a founding tenant of our country - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM as inadequate - rather central to the discussion for the point of I as a so called ‘apologists’ am trying to make; if they are not free to practice their religion at ground zero (Wisconsin, Tenn, or Temecula, CA), neither am I - neither are you. We are all free or none of us are.

 

[tjm190]

No, the world doesn’t work like that sorry. Maybe ideally, but regrettably public policies take into consideration the feelings of hostile mobs pretty quickly–Muslim or non-Muslim.

Which is why when we backed off the decision to allow African Americans to go to white schools, rather than backing them up with the military… oh wait.

 

[4elise]

Incorrect? I find that humorous.

They can build a mosque anywhere they please. It is their property and it is their freedom to assmemble and worship their religion. It seems you and like all other new-Conservatives use another wedge to divide Americans with fear and misunderstanding.

Exactly.
Now, who was it who said at least 5 times in Matthew alone ‘Do not be afriad.’?

 

[estesbob]

I completely support your right to oppose the center.

And putting people into boxes ‘mosque apologists’ or ‘racist bigots’ does nothing to advance the discussion.

I would not call the need to embrace a founding tenant of our country - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM as inadequate - rather central to the discussion for the point of I as a so called ‘apologists’ am trying to make; if they are not free to practice their religion at ground zero (Wisconsin, Tenn, or Temecula, CA), neither am I - neither are you. We are all free or none of us are.

This has absolutely nothing to do with religious freedom. And the ones throwing around the term racist bigots is the mosque apologists. I suspect you have no idea what the term apologists means-perhaps you should go to the "ask an apologists "form whre you will find out that it is not a term of derision

 

[CatholicGerman]

if they are not free to practice their religion at ground zero (Wisconsin, Tenn, or Temecula, CA), neither am I - neither are you. We are all free or none of us are.

They are already free to practice their religion. There are no curbs on that. This is about the building (massive renovation) of a mosque in a politically-sensitive place, not the practice of their religion. They are already doing Friday prayers in the street there, and nobody has complained, despite the fact that they are then completely blocking the sidewalk. They seem to have been having some sort of trouble with their lease.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Um, they are free to practice their religion in the USA, that is the point.

That’s totally wrong.

We all agree that they have the right to build a mosque in this country. The point is the insensitivity and offensiveness of building a mega-massive mosque, in the dust of 3,000 killed Americans, and knowing that it offends and is opposed by the majority of Americans, but still trying to force it through. That’s the point. Islam - demanding all respect, but giving none. That’s the point. Islam - a history of building mosques on conquered ground. That’s the point.
.
PC has turned peoples’ brains to mush.

Wake up, people!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Pretty sure it is not being ‘constructed’ by Muslims. Please be clearer in your terms, then perhaps your reasoning would be less muddled.

To answer your question–and, yes, I’ve seen their site–if they were so concerned with tolerance and mutual-understanding they would understand the emotional impact of September 11th, and discretely, one might even say courteously decide to place it somewhere less inflammatory.

You don’t have to be Einstein to call a spade a spade, my friend.

So you’re saying that its offensive because of its proximity. Why is it offensive? (remember that one?) Because you see the Islam of the terrorists and the Islam of those planning the construction of the center as one and the same when they are fundamentally different. How do I know they are fundamentally different? The imam and his followers vocally condemn the beliefs of the terrorists. Now we have returned to the question: why don’t you believe them?

time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008432,00.html

park51.org/more.htm

 

[TC2]

I completely support your right to oppose the center.

And putting people into boxes ‘mosque apologists’ or ‘racist bigots’ does nothing to advance the discussion.

I would not call the need to embrace a founding tenant of our country - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM as inadequate - rather central to the discussion for the point of I as a so called ‘apologists’ am trying to make; if they are not free to practice their religion at ground zero (Wisconsin, Tenn, or Temecula, CA), neither am I - neither are you. We are all free or none of us are.

All, or none. Very well put.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

For those not willing to look back, here is a summary of this discussion:
Mr Skeptic started with this statement:

Here’s what I think …

From a variety of different surveys, we know that a large majority of Americans and New Yorkers are against the building of the Mosque on that particular site. Count me in with that group. There are several different lines of inquiry, all pointing to a majority in opposition to the Mosque. If the Imam’s intentions were benevolent, altruistic and pure, he’d say something along the lines of, “Hey, guys. I didn’t realize how this would be so controversial, offensive and insulting.That wasn’t my intentions. You are right. I’ll build elsewhere.”. If he were to do something like that, I’d have a hell of a lot more respect for him, and have a more positive view of Islam.

But, no. He is driving this thing through, regardless of the consent of the citizenry. That tells me a different story about his true intentions.

Which I decided to show was invalid by replacing all references to Muslims and mosques with black people on buses. In this way I would show that the line of reasoning must be incorrect as it can be used to defend racism:

From a variety of different surveys, we know that a large majority of Americans and New Yorkers are against blacks sitting in the front of a bus. Count me in with that group. There are several different lines of inquiry, all pointing to a majority in opposition to blacks sitting in the front of a bus. If the black’s intentions were benevolent, altruistic and pure, he’d say something along the lines of, “Hey, guys. I didn’t realize how this would be so controversial, offensive and insulting.That wasn’t my intentions. You are right. I’ll sit elsewhere.”. If he were to do something like that, I’d have a hell of a lot more respect for him, and have a more positive view of black people.

But, no. He is driving this thing through, regardless of the consent of the citizenry. That tells me a different story about his true intentions.

Some squabbling ensued, and a major objection came from CatholicGerman:

TheTrue Centrist,
Also a nice try. Race is not the same thing as a political ideology or religion, which are freely chosen.

This is more comparable to someone donning a KKK outfit and greeting the people exiting a majority-black Southern Baptist church with a burning cross. Does he have a legal right to be there, on public property? Yes. Should he be there? No. Should the black people exiting the church take his action as an affront, or just assume that he just happened to feel the urge to stand on that particular spot? You decide. Are the black people who claim that the KKK is anti-republican, racist, and inherently violent just a bunch of hate-mongers, or might they have some sort of point?

To which I responded in the same manner, by replacing the KKK with white people and churches with buses, etc. I came up with this:

Lets see if they are so different:

This is more comparable to a black person sitting in the front of a bus when white people want to sit there. Does he have a legal right to be there, on public property? Yes. Should he be there? No. Should the white people looking for a seat take his action as an affront, or just assume that he just happened to feel the urge to sit in that particular seat? You decide. Are the white people who claim that black people are anti-republican, racist, and inherently violent just a bunch of hate-mongers, or might they have some sort of point?

edit so if someone invented surgery that could effectively change skin color, it would be acceptable to frown on people being black, because it is now a choice?

I believe I have shown that Mr Skeptics original line of reasoning must be flawed because in addition to an argument against the Islamic center, it could also be an argument for popular racial discrimination. CatholiGerman’s reformulation has the same flaw. And while he is correct in pointing out the voluntary/involuntary between religion and race, discrimination based on either of those two factors is equally wrong.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

"A Catholic man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of terrorists. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Muslim, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to a mosque, but when the Catholic saw where they were going he said “put me down this instant, I don’t want to go into your mosque so you may gloat about how your comrades the terrorists nearly killed me. You’re being insensitive for taking me to a mosque, the terrorists who beat me may have attended this very mosque!” but the Muslim was concerned for the man’s well being and told the imam at the mosque to care for the man. Once the Catholic had recovered, he sued the Muslim and the mosque.

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Just doesn’t have the same punch.

edit, i extended the analogy to include more ideas expressed in this thread

 

[bbarrick8383]

I would think that it would be fairly easy to call any argument flawed if you completely change the the objects of which you are arguing about to something that is not even arguable.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I would think that it would be fairly easy to call any argument flawed if you completely change the the objects of which you are arguing about to something that is not even arguable.

I simply showed that using the exact same logic I could create a case for racial discrimination.

 

[pnewton]

Barak Hussein Obama backs a mosque. What a shocker!

I hope they name it in his honor. It can take its place among other Islamic holy sites like the Dome of the Rock and mark the place where the Islamic Jihad struck a blow at the American infidels.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I simply showed that using the exact same logic I could create a case for racial discrimination.

I reckon a fella could make a case for beastiality by switchin the words of someone elses argument around like that if he wanted to.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Barak Hussein Obama backs a mosque. What a shocker!

I hope they name it in his honor. It can take its place among other Islamic holy sites like the Dome of the Rock and mark the place where the Islamic Jihad struck a blow at the American infidels.

There you go, and they will finally have a place to put that statue of em.