I'm not anti Islamist. Nor do I believe that all who are members of Islam are terrorists. BUT, I do find it interesting that many who are professed terrorists and get caught proudly proclaim their Islamic beliefs and a dedication to eliminate the Infidels (the rest of us) and will not stop until they acheive their goal. Now they are asking us for more accomodations too?
Anti_Islam protests victory for extremists?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Are you saying that the people who want to build this mosque are also dedicated to eliminating the Infidels and will not stop until they acheive their goal. Or are you talking about two distinctly different groups of people. One side which is religiously intolerant and violent. The other side peaceful and law abiding. If these are different groups of people, why do you support punishing the innocent as if they were guilty?
They forgot to mention the Muslims that have spoken out about it.
Can Muslims be Islamophobic?
They can be intimidated. Look, what does freedom of religion mean? What does freedom from hate, from fear? Are those becoming foreign values in the Americas?
By who?
You must mean by other Muslims right?
It means everyone is free to practice whatever religion they wish. Being of the opinion, that this Mosque is a fitna, is not preventing anyone from freedom of religion. Unless you're using your imagination to formulate a position, so you can justify calling people bits and intolerant, for thinking it's a fitna.
Which of course falls flat on its face, when even some Muslims feel it's a fitna.
Where's the hate? I say it's a fitna. I don't really have anything else to say. If gets completed, oh well.
Who's in fear? Raheel Raza? A Muslim women, fearing other Muslims?
Nope.
No mosque. No self deception. No surrender.
SALT IN THE WOUND written by Rita W. Jones
YouTube - SALT IN THE WOUND written by Rita W. Jones
Phobia is a fear, we do not fear anyone or anything, especially not other people.
SALT IN THE WOUND written by Rita W. Jones
YouTube - SALT IN THE WOUND written by Rita W. Jones
Phobia is a fear, we do not fear anyone or anything, especially not other people.
I concede, you are correct, Micheal Gross, sure did express a considerable amount of seething anger and hate didn't he.
You are aware he's on your side right?
LOL
Wow, I cannot believe the arm chair set up by the news guy. He first sets up the civil rights activist to look like a demon, and then cuts him off from a proper explanation of civil rights, with - ironically enough - 'enough said, enough said!'. Welcome to freedom of speech, folks.
Obviously CNN isn't the perfect news broadcast - but they've truly hit a new low in employing anchors that actually exhibit any semblance of critical thinking. I thought Tucker Carlson was bad...
Also, this is interesting. This came from an earlier link posted in the last page which housed an incredible amount of neat stats about American response to the community center.
--
"Beliefs about Obama’s religion are closely linked to political judgments about him. Those who say he is a Muslim overwhelmingly disapprove of his job performance, while a majority of those who think he is a Christian approve of the job Obama is doing."
Growing Number of Americans Say Obama is a Muslim: OVERVIEW - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
That Obama is muslim, atheist, christian, a homo, a tranny or possibly into ****ing goats - really is irrelevent. But the assumption that whatever his personal beliefs are should dictate policy just goes to show that the average American has truly lost touch with what politics is all about.
And that unwarranted ideology is also what's infusing this false belief that people who have nothing to do with a terrorist act should be be condemned for erecting a building that also has nothing to do with a terrorist act.
There is no link - absolutely none - that ties this building with terrorism. There is no hindrance on American freedom. The muslims erecting the building are themselves Americans so there should be no legitimate fear of condemning American freedom and there is no legitimate offence to 9/11 families as a result of this mosque/community center.
That the average American condemns the act in complete ignorance while deceptive, right-wing politicians are taking advantage of this ignorance is in and of itself a sad reflection of the death of American freedom.
Last edited:
Faux news knows no shame, lol.
You know what else gets lost in all the hyperbole?
The fact that most of the people that have spoken out about the Mosque in this thread, have said it isn't classy, and that they wouldn't put it there. Not that it was outright wrong and it should be banned.
Acknowledging that though, might interrupt some peoples perceptions of the opposing view.
You know what else gets lost in all the hyperbole?
The fact that most of the people that have spoken out about the Mosque in this thread, have said it isn't classy, and that they wouldn't put it there. Not that it was outright wrong and it should be banned.
Acknowledging that though, might interrupt some peoples perceptions of the opposing view.
When the justification for it not being 'classy' refers back to the terrorism of 9/11 or some conquest in Spain over 1000 years ago, then, no - it does not satisfy a tasteless or classless act either. So, on those grounds, the argument also does not hold up.
Like I said earlier, I can understand if people feel emotionally invested. But that emotion is founded upon ignorance and that must be exposed as well. It cannot just be - 'derp, dat's bad because it's tasteless, derp, derp.'
Last edited:
In your opinion. Even eao's failed attempt, in claiming there was a Japanese place of worship at Pearl Harbour, acknowledges the bad taste this has.
According to you. Especially if you make a concerted effort to ignore some of the founding Imam, and building owners statements.
I have to be onto something, when even fellow Muslims see it as a fitna.
I think Quebec had the right idea with REASONABLE ACCOMODATION
This is in french.... AccommodementsRaisonnables.pps - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage
This is in french.... AccommodementsRaisonnables.pps - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage
While giving special rights to some.
;-)
I think this will be the year my boys go to school with a traditional Deer jaw bone knife, hung around their necks.
I wonder how that will go over.
PC only seems to work one way.
The non-existence of a Japanese place of worship does not justify this erection in bad taste. It simply fails to show a similar act of the exhibition of freedom of religious expression. That he couldn't show a Japanese place of worship does not strengthen any argument other than to simply show that there wasn't a Japanese place of worship. That's pretty much it.
If you'd like to use that to fuel some false belief that this is in bad taste, go right ahead.
Imam can say what he wants. His statements may be tasteless and even he himself may harbour ill intentions, but that does not prove the act of erecting this building is tasteless as we know that it will simply be used as a place of worship, and even then it can be considered 'worship-lite'.
What you are onto is that a group of 1.57 billion people - that is the muslim population - are not brainwashed and cannot all think exactly the same thing at the same time. The members of the muslim community have varying beliefs within their religious doctrine just like any other religious doctrine.
Your nose is not leading you to anything tangible that proves the erection of this building is tasteless or classless.
Last edited:
That wasn't my point. The point is he tried to. He tried to show that it was OK in the past. In so doing recognizing, and acknowledging a lack of taste in the act.
You can pass that on to eao yourself.
To you.
Some of which also disagree with you. Go figure. But again, you might want to tell Spade that, he's under the impression that a Muslim, only has an issue with this Mosque, because of intimidation.
I take it he believes Muslims don't have free will or free thought.
Becuase you don't want to see it from my perspective, so be it. I can fully grasp where you're coming from. But I tend to think about the broader picture, well outside the box.
When it comes to what someone finds tasteful, tasteless, we get into arguing minutia. There are as many tastes as there are people.
And at no time would I condemn you for your tastes on this matter, with stifling name calling, the likes that has been tossed at the opposition.
I understand that what is 'tasteless' is a subjective assertion, but even a subjective assertion can be shown to be have no factual basis.
The subjective assertion is that 'erecting this building is tasteless'. If it ends there, then we can leave it as a subjective assertion. If it continues to 'erecting this building is tasteless because...' then those details must be justified in order to exemplify the tangibility of this tastelessness.
So, there is reason for quibbling over what defines tasteless in this event.
As I mentioned before, that some other forum poster tried to find a similar event and failed, does not justify this as a tasteless act. Your argument implies that simply because no similar event has existed in the past, then clearly no similar case can be justified now. That is a slippery slope and doesn't work. Even courts that rely on precedent to aid their judgments can find that former cases could still be tossed in favour of a new judgment.
Secondly, the owner making whatever statements he wants to put forth about his creation does not put that creation in bad taste if we actually know what that creation will be used for. The community center will not be used in any matter that reflects bad taste. If you would like to argue this point, then go for it. But if you think that Imam's comments are enough to show that, then you are mistaken, since what he may say and what will actually happen are two different things. And what you are arguing is that the true purpose of this building is tasteless, not Imam's vision.
You need to prove why it is tasteless. And that something else which supposedly did exist but doesn't now as one argument does not act as proof. Similarly, that the guy who is erecting this building said something you don't like also does not act as proof.
The subjective assertion is that 'erecting this building is tasteless'. If it ends there, then we can leave it as a subjective assertion. If it continues to 'erecting this building is tasteless because...' then those details must be justified in order to exemplify the tangibility of this tastelessness.
So, there is reason for quibbling over what defines tasteless in this event.
As I mentioned before, that some other forum poster tried to find a similar event and failed, does not justify this as a tasteless act. Your argument implies that simply because no similar event has existed in the past, then clearly no similar case can be justified now. That is a slippery slope and doesn't work. Even courts that rely on precedent to aid their judgments can find that former cases could still be tossed in favour of a new judgment.
Secondly, the owner making whatever statements he wants to put forth about his creation does not put that creation in bad taste if we actually know what that creation will be used for. The community center will not be used in any matter that reflects bad taste. If you would like to argue this point, then go for it. But if you think that Imam's comments are enough to show that, then you are mistaken, since what he may say and what will actually happen are two different things. And what you are arguing is that the true purpose of this building is tasteless, not Imam's vision.
You need to prove why it is tasteless. And that something else which supposedly did exist but doesn't now as one argument does not act as proof. Similarly, that the guy who is erecting this building said something you don't like also does not act as proof.
Last edited:
I thought there were many people here claiming it won't be a 'place of worship', only a community center / education center?
I know that you refuse to see any reason that people might not like this place being built where it is proposed. That's your perspective, and you're welcome to it. That's based on your emotions, and that's perfectly acceptable.
I heard there were a couple of floors dedicated to normal, everyday worship. I could be wrong. Regardless, it doesn't change the argument unless you can show that whatever activities take place are worth significant concern or are 'tasteless'.
That is the crux of the argument, whatever you believe.