OwleyMedic Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 EVERYONE, remember Oklahoma City, Not a Muslim a "Home Grown AMERICIAN" Maybe American's are the terrorists.
Just Plain Ruff Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 EVERYONE, remember Oklahoma City, Not a Muslim a "Home Grown AMERICIAN" Maybe American's are the terrorists. No it's the druids and wiccans who are the terrorists
HERBIE1 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 I almost hate to say it considering that it's the Nazis at Skokie, but so what? Sure, it's easy to say ban the Nazis because they did X and seeing them reminds you of X. Ban the Muslims because of Al Qaeda. But how far should we go and who's opinion of "offensiveness" is important enough to give them veto power? The Catholic church gets a lot of criticism over hiding pedofile priests, so should we no longer allow Catholic Churches to be built within sight of schools? It's the same damn thing, the only thing that's disconcerting is that it's a lot harder to distance ourselves from Christian groups than Muslim groups. Pedophile priests are not a subset of Catholicism- they are an aberrant group of individuals who engage in a deviant and criminal behavior. As far as I know, they do not unite under a common title, nor do they justify their actions with a biblical passage. They do not claim they are justified in their actions- they are simply sick, twisted, and criminal. Radical Muslims use a bastardized version of Islam, they unite under a common cause, and justify their actions in the name of Allah. You have a problem with a more modern issue, like the priest sex abuse issue? I did not understand the reference. I didn't realize that to take an issue and transpose it on similar groups at home is considered a straw man now. You set up a separate issue, attributed it to someone, and then attack it. That is building a strawman. You're saying that Islam, as a whole (hence the no mosque argument) is at fault for Islamic terrorists. As such, then why isn't it fair to blame all of Christianity when ever someone does something evil in the name of Christianity? You say that this is about Jihadists, yet seek to punish people that are, unless you have proof to the other wise, Jihadists. It's like saying no churches within sight of cemetaries because of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, the vast majority of Christians don't agree with his beliefs, but almost 100% of the protests at US military funerals are because of him. Therefore, it's insensitive and insulting to build a church near a cemetery. This isn't about PUNISHING anyone, it's about reciprocating the tolerance and understanding we are all supposed to practice in regards to the Muslim religion. We are not supposed to condemn an entire group for the actions of a "small" group among them. Agreed. So, where is this tolerance and understanding from that mosque? Nobody is denying them the right to build this "shrine", just questioning their choice of locations. It's not WHAT they want to do, it's WHERE they want to do it. Is that so unreasonable? Again- comparing pedophile priests to this situation is crazy. Do I see something wrong with it? Yes. Do I think it's the governments job to step in? No. Sorry, but just because I disagree with a group doesn't mean I get to take away their rights. If someone wants to go stand on a street corner handing out racist fliers, then so be it. That's his right. I don't have to agree with the fliers and I retain the right to denounce the fliers and protest against him, but I do not support the government stepping in and silencing any group short of them advocating open rebellion or an actual material threats that would meet the requirments of, say, attempted murder or conspiracy (i.e. "I want ____ to die" isn't enough). If the Neo-Nazis want to go build a shrine outside of Auschwicz, so be it. The opposite (government censorship) is much worse. Silenced lunatics become martyrs and more rational (although not always completely rational) people see conspiracy theories. Additionally, where does it end? As I've maintained, it's easy to sit here and kick down small groups, but these restrictions have a tendency to grow out of hand and start impacting the mainstream. That's why it's "Congress shall make no law regarding..." (extended to the states through the 14th amendment, and incorporated through the doctrine of selective incorporation under Cantwell v Connecticut) and not Congress shall make no laws regarding... unless we don't like them." I NEVER said it was the government's role to step in and stop this. NEVER. I said just because something is LEGAL, does not make it wise. My opinion, but it makes perfect sense- If this Muslim group is truly concerned about encouraging tolerance, honoring those who died on 9/11, then there is NO way in the world they would be proposing this idea in the shadow of the WTC's. Personally, I don't buy it for a moment. Every religious group- and every nation for that matter- have "sacred" places that denote historic moments in their histories. We have monuments like the USS Arizona, Catholics, Muslims, Catholics, etc all have places they consider vital to their history. They can be places of great joy and triumph, or of great sadness. Why can't this Muslim group respect this? As for the racist flyers- bad analogy. If you commit a crime against a minority, whatever offense you are charged with can be escalated simply because of the hate crime laws. What actions have consequences? A fringe group of a religion committing acts of terrorism is now justification for group punishment or are you going to claim that these Muslims are members or supporters of Al Qaeda? EVERY action has consequences- whether they be tangible or implied. We don't know what may happen, but does it take a psychic to figure out that a whole bunch of people would be majorly PO'd if this mosque/shrine was built. Everything from protests to vandalism, to much worse is entirely possible, and even likely. This isn't about punishment, it's about being sensitive to a country's feelings regarding a pivotal point in their history. Think of the thousands of years of battles being fought over places that one religion feels is their "sacred" grounds, or a vital part of their history. Can you honestly tell me that these folks do not understand objections folks have over this? Since you seek to deny them of their rights because of their religion, I completely disagree that it is immaterial in how it is looked at. I hate to bring out a cliche, but if our political and ideological beliefs includes belief in the freedom to practice a religion of ones own choice, banning a mosque for no better reason than its a mosque would mean abandoning our beliefs. The terrorists have won. Another strawman. I NEVER said anything about denying rights. NEVER. I NEVER said they should not build this structure, I questioned the wisdom (and their reasons) for the LOCATION they chose. If we are to believe their stated intentions, then what is the problem with erecting this shrine somewhere else? Why is it so important to build this within the shadow of a place where 3000 people were murdered? The terrorists are winning battles all the time, but not the war. We still do not abide by Sharia law here, Islam is still not the required religion, and women are still not considered property or second class citizens. THAT is their stated goal- to destroy our society and all infidels. The war rages on, and I see no end in sight. 1
HERBIE1 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 No it's the druids and wiccans who are the terrorists As an aside- Ever been to a Druid type wedding? I have- VERY strange.
DartmouthDave Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 As an aside- Ever been to a Druid type wedding? I have- VERY strange. Hello, Not trying to derail a serious discussion......but what is so strange about a Druid-style wedding? Cheers
HERBIE1 Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 Hello, Not trying to derail a serious discussion......but what is so strange about a Druid-style wedding? Cheers Maybe strange is too strong of a word. The whole vibe was quite different than any ceremony I had been to. The celebrant/pastor/vicar(whatever they are called) wore a dark flowing robe, reminiscent of a high priestess. The music was old Celtic. I recall the couple even had a program that explained the ceremony and symbolism used- I wish I had saved it. It actually was quite serene and spiritual in it's own way. I worked with both of these folks- she is 110% Irish(hence the Celtic Druid roots) and was always a rebel. She grew up Catholic, but as an adult, she did her own thing. This was the groom's 2nd marriage, he was also different. He had a mulitcultural background, believed in a lot of fringe ideas. Both very good friends. Sadly, he and his son were killed a few years later in a horrible accident on Christmas day- major irony there. A few years after that, the bride remarried and came back to her traditional Irish Catholic roots. I'm not denigrating the idea- it was actually very cool and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Just VERY different.
aussiephil Posted June 9, 2010 Posted June 9, 2010 EVERYONE, remember Oklahoma City, Not a Muslim a "Home Grown AMERICIAN" Maybe American's are the terrorists. Owley, I think you will find if we stop, then look at this whole issue from a different perspective you will find this is perceptually true. I do not agree with the former rulers of certain countries believed, but, they believe that America & its allies, the infidels,are the terrorists for sending their armed forces into their countries to force their beliefs onto them. Just a thought.
medic82942003 Posted June 10, 2010 Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) I was in the middle east for a bit, I would just like to point out that back in the day- the difference was Muslims say submit, Jesus said decide.Bit of a conflict there in itself. My 2 cents. So basically if the muslim invaders conquered your city, you had to covert, or they would kill you. I could be wrong though, but thats the gist of it. from what i read in and about the middle east they have trhe regious freedoms we have. A pamplet i read about a job at the middle east said you cannot practice your christian religion while you live in certain parts of the middle east. Edited June 10, 2010 by medic82942003
OwleyMedic Posted June 10, 2010 Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) I would just like to point out that back in the day- the difference was Muslims say submit, Jesus said decide. Bit of a conflict there in itself. My 2 cents. So basically if the muslim invaders conquered your city, you had to covert, or they would kill you. I suggest that America and by default it allies (including my country of Canada) are doing the same thing as you suggest the Muslims did. Submit to OUR definition of "democracy" or we kill you. Edited June 10, 2010 by OwleyMedic
Recommended Posts