|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 17, 2010 16:15:19 GMT -8
Is it against zoning rules, are they going to follow building codes? What exactly is the issue here? Symbolic? At what distance from that area should we allow a mosque? Aren't we the people that are throwing up another huge office building on a mass grave? Is the price of land on the Island and the need to perpetuate commerce that high and the first amendment that suspendable? no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there-of, freedom of speech, right to peacefully assemble - seems the building of the mosque is protected, there is no good taste clause. While I have no problem with the cultural center (it is not a mosque) being built there, I saw a lot of use permits for churches go down while I was working at County Planning because of community opposition. Of course, as always, the far right, led by Newty, want to turn this into a political issue. Hell, a year ago, on her radio show, Laura Ingraham said she had no problem with the cultural center, but yesterday she totally reversed that position because it serves her political purposes to do so (NPR was discussing it today and played a tape of her talking to the Iman's wife a year ago). My God, the right-wing has become so knee-jerk and so incredibly stupid they'll do anything and argue anything just to get back in power so they can continue the job Dubbya did of making sure our rights (other than the 2nd Amendment, of course) go down the tubes. And then they have to gall to claim Obama is a Fascist. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 17, 2010 16:27:59 GMT -8
The fact that we don't get a condemnation of Hamas from the NY Imam, that he wants some sort of Americanized Sharia Law Please tell us, outside of the Beirut attack on the Marines, any time Hamas has ever attacked this country - in particular, anywhere in this country? And who gives a $#!+ what some cleric wants in terms of religious law? Hell, if the fundamentalist Christians had their way, any doctor performing an abortion would face the death penalty. The sad part is, unless I'm mistaken, you claim to be an atheist (something I don't dispute) but you consistently side with the Christian fanatics because it suits your political agenda to do so. If you are so incapable of understand the dangers of fundamentalist religionists, no matter what their bogus theology happens to be, perhaps you need to do some introspection. If, as I recall you stating, you are an atheist, it would seem to me you should be just as concerned about Christian theocracy as you are about Islamic theocracy because both are dangerous to this country and that's something pretty much all atheists understand. In short, if you haven't figured it out, the Christian Reich hates you. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 17, 2010 16:29:18 GMT -8
Yeah... Those goddam bible thumping Christians who want to have you burned at the stake just because you might enjoy getting your tonsils whitewashed are the real enemy. As opposed to the fanatics who are more than willing to bomb family planning clinics with no concern at all who they kill? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 17, 2010 16:42:09 GMT -8
Islam rejects the separation of their religion from the political. As do Christian fundamentalists. Feel free to attempt to abuse me of that notion, but again, I find it rather sad that a self-proclaimed atheist would attempt to defend any fundamental religionists. Have you never read anything from the Christian Reich on Jews or Islam or, for that matter, Catholics? Do you not understand that they consider Catholicism to be a "cult"? Do you not understand the hatred behind Christian fundamentalism and the danger it poses to our democracy? All religions get corrupted by corruptible people - even Taoism has been corrupted now and then. I would suggest that you really don't understand much at all when it comes to religious philosophy because, if you did, you'd understand that every country is in danger of losing its democratic roots if fundamentalist religionists, of any strip, were to gain power. As an atheist, you should fear this more than most. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by joshjones1 on Aug 17, 2010 21:36:34 GMT -8
As do Christian fundamentalists. Feel free to attempt to abuse me of that notion, but again, I find it rather sad that a self-proclaimed atheist would attempt to defend any fundamental religionists. Have you never read anything from the Christian Reich on Jews or Islam or, for that matter, Catholics? Do you not understand that they consider Catholicism to be a "cult"? Do you not understand the hatred behind Christian fundamentalism and the danger it poses to our democracy? All religions get corrupted by corruptible people - even Taoism has been corrupted now and then. I would suggest that you really don't understand much at all when it comes to religious philosophy because, if you did, you'd understand that every country is in danger of losing its democratic roots if fundamentalist religionists, of any strip, were to gain power. As an atheist, you should fear this more than most. =Bob Bob, although I agree with most of what you say here, you realize I'm sure the difference between islamic terrorism (which is widespread and mainstream to their religion) and christian terrorism (which is rare and is generally confined to its very far fringes). You took the words out of my mouth. =Bob is so friggin liberal, it's scary. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 18, 2010 7:46:41 GMT -8
As do Christian fundamentalists. Feel free to attempt to abuse me of that notion, but again, I find it rather sad that a self-proclaimed atheist would attempt to defend any fundamental religionists. Have you never read anything from the Christian Reich on Jews or Islam or, for that matter, Catholics? Do you not understand that they consider Catholicism to be a "cult"? Do you not understand the hatred behind Christian fundamentalism and the danger it poses to our democracy? All religions get corrupted by corruptible people - even Taoism has been corrupted now and then. I would suggest that you really don't understand much at all when it comes to religious philosophy because, if you did, you'd understand that every country is in danger of losing its democratic roots if fundamentalist religionists, of any strip, were to gain power. As an atheist, you should fear this more than most. =Bob Bob, although I agree with most of what you say here, you realize I'm sure the difference between islamic terrorism (which is widespread and mainstream to their religion) and christian terrorism (which is rare and is generally confined to its very far fringes). I'm not so sure that he does. He goes to great lengths to argue otherwise. Just like the clueless leadership in Saudi Arabia. Their favorite dodge, when asked about the hatred espoused in their educational system, is to spout off, in essence, "Tim McVeigh and the Unibomber are as out of step with American ideals as the 15 who attacked the World Trade Center are out of step with our culture". That position is simply a symptom of the denial they live in. In an interview with the Associated Press on October 21, 2002, 'Adel al-Jubeir, foreign policy advisor to Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Adbullah, urged Americans not to fault the Saudi education system for producing 15 of the September 11 hijackers by saying, "the Unabomber went to Harvard" and "can you tell me that Timothy McVeigh represents America?" The false moral equivalencies between the prevailing and tolerated mindset espoused by radial Islamists and the resultant violent actions that is left in their wake versus the actions of a few odd-ball Christians (or eco-terrorist or anti-G8 anarchist or Black Panthers or White Supremacists, etc) are called out all the time (but to no effect in his case). Christian fundamentalists are not regularly launching Katyusha rockets into peaceful neighborhoods killing innocent civilians. Hamas is. And the NY Imam supports Hamas - as does most mainstream Muslims it would seem. The NY Imam and the other interested Muslims can push for the Mosque and that is their right that I would defend. But for the reasons cited above and other reasons noted (like the Imam's push for unconstitutional Sharia law and that the Mosque is likely being funded by Saudi Arabians), I would oppose the Victory Mosque using any constitutionally viable methods available. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Aug 18, 2010 8:08:37 GMT -8
The most potentially violent home-grown religious group we have here are the FLDS enclaves in Utah, Arizona and so. British Columbia. One of the towns has close to 40,000. They are well armed and have really rigid views that cannot be compromised....like placing 13 and 14 year old girls in forced marriage / sexual bondage. They freely practice polygamy and they also believe in death for sexual relations with African Americans and for homosexuals (within their group). They have also been ripping off our Government for welfare and food stamps for over 50 years. If our Government decided to squeeze these groups it would be like a Waco x 1000. Not to compare with Islamic terrorists.... but to say we don't have large groups of home grown religious extremists here is not true.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 18, 2010 11:14:38 GMT -8
Conversation and debate have drifted so far off subject you would never know what the thread was about without the title or going back and reading from the top.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 18, 2010 16:16:15 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2010 11:46:51 GMT -8
Islam rejects the separation of their religion from the political. As do Christian fundamentalists. Feel free to attempt to abuse me of that notion, but again, I find it rather sad that a self-proclaimed atheist would attempt to defend any fundamental religionists. Have you never read anything from the Christian Reich on Jews or Islam or, for that matter, Catholics? Do you not understand that they consider Catholicism to be a "cult"? Do you not understand the hatred behind Christian fundamentalism and the danger it poses to our democracy? All religions get corrupted by corruptible people - even Taoism has been corrupted now and then. I would suggest that you really don't understand much at all when it comes to religious philosophy because, if you did, you'd understand that every country is in danger of losing its democratic roots if fundamentalist religionists, of any strip, were to gain power. As an atheist, you should fear this more than most. =Bob So I take it you and all the newly minted religiously tolerant lefty's here would have no problem with building a mosque directly on top of Ground Zero so long as the NY city council and Mayor Bloomberg give the OK? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 22, 2010 12:15:52 GMT -8
As do Christian fundamentalists. Feel free to attempt to abuse me of that notion, but again, I find it rather sad that a self-proclaimed atheist would attempt to defend any fundamental religionists. Have you never read anything from the Christian Reich on Jews or Islam or, for that matter, Catholics? Do you not understand that they consider Catholicism to be a "cult"? Do you not understand the hatred behind Christian fundamentalism and the danger it poses to our democracy? All religions get corrupted by corruptible people - even Taoism has been corrupted now and then. I would suggest that you really don't understand much at all when it comes to religious philosophy because, if you did, you'd understand that every country is in danger of losing its democratic roots if fundamentalist religionists, of any strip, were to gain power. As an atheist, you should fear this more than most. =Bob So I take it you and all the newly minted religiously tolerant lefty's here would have no problem with building a mosque directly on top of Ground Zero so long as the NY city council and Mayor Bloomberg give the OK? The building in question is not on ground zero. If it were it would not be a building.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2010 14:59:37 GMT -8
So I take it you and all the newly minted religiously tolerant lefty's here would have no problem with building a mosque directly on top of Ground Zero so long as the NY city council and Mayor Bloomberg give the OK? The building in question is not on ground zero. If it were it would not be a building. you still haven't answered the question. would you think it's alright to build a mosque at Ground zero so long as the city council and mayor approve? I know this is a tough one what with being so open minded and all.... |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 22, 2010 17:45:24 GMT -8
The building in question is not on ground zero. If it were it would not be a building. you still haven't answered the question. would you think it's alright to build a mosque at Ground zero so long as the city council and mayor approve? I know this is a tough one what with being so open minded and all.... You have still not acknowledged that the building is not "directly on top of ground zero". You being so interested in facts, not fiction. Oh, wait, you are conservative. Fiction is what you like. How could I forget. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 22, 2010 17:50:43 GMT -8
BTW, afan, I have not forgotten your amazing gaffe on the Lula thread. Why don't you try to explain that? Embarrassed? Having read your drivel for years I would guess you are beyond that. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2010 18:49:11 GMT -8
you still haven't answered the question. would you think it's alright to build a mosque at Ground zero so long as the city council and mayor approve? I know this is a tough one what with being so open minded and all.... You have still not acknowledged that the building is not "directly on top of ground zero". You being so interested in facts, not fiction. Oh, wait, you are conservative. Fiction is what you like. How could I forget. The question is a thought exercise to determine if you and those that think like you are truly committed to "religious tolerance". I don't understand why this is so hard for you. If you think the denying Muslims the right to build a mosque anywhere it's legal to do so, then Ground Zero should be OK with you. After all, wouldn't a mosque and ground Zero be the ultimate sign of our religious tolerance? Keep dancing. It's kind of fun watching hypocrites squirm. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2010 18:54:32 GMT -8
BTW, afan, I have not forgotten your amazing gaffe on the Lula thread. Why don't you try to explain that? Embarrassed? Having read your drivel for years I would guess you are beyond that. ;D Not embarrassed about anything I wrote. You use Lola as a successful example of lefty/socialist economic policy and I presented an academic paper that says his policies are anything but socialist. The Left wing Lola fetish is pathetic and laughable. I f you want to justify Socialism, you should reference Chavez, the Barry Obama of South America. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 22, 2010 19:01:04 GMT -8
You have still not acknowledged that the building is not "directly on top of ground zero". You being so interested in facts, not fiction. Oh, wait, you are conservative. Fiction is what you like. How could I forget. The question is a thought exercise to determine if you and those that think like you are truly committed to "religious tolerance". I don't understand why this is so hard for you. If you think the denying Muslims the right to build a mosque anywhere it's legal to do so, then Ground Zero should be OK with you. After all, wouldn't a mosque and ground Zero be the ultimate sign of our religious tolerance? Keep dancing. It's kind of fun watching hypocrites squirm. Oh, sorry. I thought you were asking about reality, not a hypothetical question. If that is the case I think it could be useful as a tool in getting morderate Muslims turned against AQ. Putting mosque on ground zero as a gesture of good will and tolerance would undercut the AQ and the other nutcases in the Middle East who preach hatred. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 22, 2010 19:06:56 GMT -8
BTW, afan, I have not forgotten your amazing gaffe on the Lula thread. Why don't you try to explain that? Embarrassed? Having read your drivel for years I would guess you are beyond that. ;D Not embarrassed about anything I wrote. You use Lola as a successful example of lefty/socialist economic policy and I presented an academic paper that says his policies are anything but socialist. The Left wing Lola fetish is pathetic and laughable. I f you want to justify Socialism, you should reference Chavez, the Barry Obama of South America. Oh, I get it. Since Brazil is a economic success he can't be a socialist. LOL You think Obama can be compared to Chavez? LOL afan, you should do stand up! ROFL |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2010 21:10:21 GMT -8
Not embarrassed about anything I wrote. You use Lola as a successful example of lefty/socialist economic policy and I presented an academic paper that says his policies are anything but socialist. The Left wing Lola fetish is pathetic and laughable. I f you want to justify Socialism, you should reference Chavez, the Barry Obama of South America. Oh, I get it. Since Brazil is a economic success he can't be a socialist. LOL You think Obama can be compared to Chavez? LOL afan, you should do stand up! ROFL Wow! such insight! |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 22, 2010 22:21:13 GMT -8
|
|
