Plan to Build Mosque Near Ground Zero Riles Families of 9/11 Victims

Who cares what show it was? He mentioned it later on his own show if that makes any difference to you. OhReally here is is the poster boy for the way these folks think. He didn't even think anything of saying "the Muslims killed us" before they jumped on his ass. That little slip, depsite him correcting himself after being jumped on, is the problem most of us have. It's the problem with his way of thinking and the thinking of many of these people.

It's no big deal to say the Muslims killed us. "Oh alright you bleeding hearts, they were "radicals" sheesh, whats the big deal?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']There is nothing wrong with people saying they don't want him to build it, just like there is nothing wrong with you guys urging him to build it[/QUOTE]

There is nothing wrong with his right to state his opinion. As in, there is nothing wrong with the first amendment.

There is something wrong with his viewpoint.

That's what you guys never get.
 
I agree with camoor. You guys keep saying that we think they shouldn't have any right to their opinion. That couldn't be further from the truth.

We just don't understand how you can sit there and say that the opinion isn't rooted in a deep seeded bigotry.

We don't understand how any attempt to get to the root of the opinion is met with cries of insensitivity and "First 'mendment says I can protest whatever I want even if I have zero direct involvement with anything other than being American and watching the towers come down on TV!"

I'll say it again. If you don't believe that Islam itself attacked the Twin Towers, then you should have zero problem with an Islamic community center being built NEAR Ground Zero. The problem is that many of these protesters equate Islam with terrorism.
 
But if his brain is wired in a weird way (obvious based on his clear insanity), can you really tell him that his viewpoint is wrong? Like if you have someone who is completely batshit insane, talking about squirells in their hair...
 
[quote name='Knoell']Im not sure what you want out of your post. You guys have already agreed people have a right to protest, and make their feelings known.[/QUOTE]

what's your opinion on Snyder v Phelps?

Sure, you have a right to protest, and I have a right to point out that you have no logic whatsoever to your arguments. I have a right to do so repeatedly; so if you want to get bent because I and others like to remind you that you're a bigoted blithering idiot, then go get fuckin' bent.
 
What OhReally said was factually correct. It just wasn't sensitive (read: PC) to say it that way. Not all Muslims were responsible for 9/11 but all those responsible were muslim, doing it for Islam.

And *I THINK part of why it's factually correct is that most non-Muslim Americans consider inaction, or non-response, a form of action.

*I THINK that most non-Muslim Americans feel that after 9/11 you didn't exactly have Muslims around the world expressing disgust and disapproval. This has done no favors for Muslim PR.

*I THINK most non-Muslim Americans believe when cornered about 9/11, most Muslims will eventually admit that they don't condone murder, but often followed up with a few "But you have to understand..." statements.

At least, *I THINK this stuff is the impression most non-Muslim Americans are left with, and if those impressions are false, it's hard to say that the Islamic community, as a whole, does much about it.



*Added as a preemptive measure for the otherwise inevitable "Prove it with scientific studies" responses.
 
Oh, of course. We wouldn't want to have to validate what we're saying, would we? Imagine the gall of someone to ask you to back up your claims!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What OhReally said was factually correct. It just wasn't sensitive (read: PC) to say it that way. Not all Muslims were responsible for 9/11 but all those responsible were muslim, doing it for Islam.

And *I THINK part of why it's factually correct is that most non-Muslim Americans consider inaction, or non-response, a form of action.

*I THINK that most non-Muslim Americans feel that after 9/11 you didn't exactly have Muslims around the world expressing disgust and disapproval. This has done no favors for Muslim PR.

*I THINK most non-Muslim Americans believe when cornered about 9/11, most Muslims will eventually admit that they don't condone murder, but often followed up with a few "But you have to understand..." statements.

At least, *I THINK this stuff is the impression most non-Muslim Americans are left with, and if those impressions are false, it's hard to say that the Islamic community, as a whole, does much about it.


*Added as a preemptive measure for the otherwise inevitable "Prove it with scientific studies" responses.[/QUOTE]

How bull***t is it to expect over a billion people to speak out any time a fringe group from within their party does something insane, stupid, or evil? Do you expect all Catholics to be apologetic over charges of molestation? All Jews to apologize for human rights violations committed by Israel? I would think the answer is no. I definitely don't expect that of those groups.

One reason why it's not only impractical, but also ridiculous to expect an official "muslim position" on everything is because there is not a hierarchy in place like there is with some other religions. There's not one central body or leader that is considered the head of the group and in charge of issuing edicts. Average, "day to day Muslims" seem to be held to a higher standard with respect to being expected to be apologetic for whackjobs who happen to also face Makkah when they pray. I'm not apologizing for sh**. I didn't do anything wrong. If that rubs somebody the wrong way, they can piss off.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What OhReally said was factually correct. It just wasn't sensitive (read: PC) to say it that way. Not all Muslims were responsible for 9/11 but all those responsible were muslim, doing it for Islam.


*Added as a preemptive measure for the otherwise inevitable "Prove it with scientific studies" responses.[/QUOTE]Should have added that disclaimer to the first bit too. You think they were Muslim, I'm sure they thought they were Muslim, but if you have two Muslims, one violent and one not, who is the real Muslim? That, you'll find, is up to how someone defines what a Muslim is. Now I know we've had someone here ranting about how Islam is a religion of violence, but most peaceful Muslims would not agree with that.

I mean you have all different types of people who call themselves Christians, both violent and peaceful, who is the real Christian? Again, depends on what you think a Christian is supposed to be. To most people a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim, but you find rather frequently Christians accuse other Christians of not being real Christians. So why don't we make that distinction for other faiths?
 
thrust's three awesome * points made me think of Stephen Colbert.

I don't tell the truth to you, I feel the truth at you.
 
It's McCarthyism at it's worst. We can't hunt Communists so we hunt Muslims. In 20 years, everyone will forget about this and start hunting some other minority group that makes them feel insecure.

Basically, it's human (not just American) nature to say different = enemy. No matter how far we progress as a society, there will always be conservatives that rail against some new group that's fighting for equality and/or attention.
 
[quote name='IRHari']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11D36OkesVw

"Americans have a right to look @ Moderate Muslims and say 'show me you're not one of THEM'"

"What I want to say sir, is prove to me you're not working with our enemies" - Glenn Beck to first Muslim member of Congress[/QUOTE]
What the hell, did everyone forget the fucking European terrorist like the Red Army Faction? The ability of people to forget and generally be out of touch with world history is really sad.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Not taking the bait.

More like biased in favor of reason.[/QUOTE]

There's no bait to be taken. You see your view as rational and someone else's as irrational without having the full facts of the situation or understanding what they've gone through and their current state of mind.

Can an opposer and supporter be rational... of course. Can they both be irrational... of course. Notice I did not say your view is irrational...

Biased in favor of reason - that comes from your own mind. And no that's not the same as saying you're being irrational.

[quote name='IRHari']I didn't mean to concede anything here, apologies if you think that's what I did. I'm saying, YOU are making the argument that associating all of Islam with terrorism means they hate Islam, which I never said.

You assumed that you were right and associating Islam with terrorism = hatred of Islam. You then took that assumption and said 'look at what IRHari said' to try to prove your point.

Again, explain why you think those quotes of mine you grabbed mean I imply that those people hate Islam. This is a contention you have repeatedly made and I have refuted that contention because I actually said I don't believe all the people against the mosque hate Islam. Explain away.[/QUOTE]
I have explained it but I don't think you read it without giving it more than a minute of your time. I will explain again in a more direct fashion.

I know you were accusing me of doing that, but people don't always say things to mean one thing.

You started this thread by asking, "Should we say all Muslims are just like the 9/11 Muslims?" That is a good question, but "should we say all opposers are just like the prejudiced opposers? Throughout the thread you gave the position that all who oppose the mosque are just like the intolerant people who oppose for the wrong reasons. Yes those opposers hate Islam. You grouped anyone opposing in here as opposing for the same reasons they do. Your equation was, Person A hates Islam, Person B opposes the same thing, Person B hates Islam.

If you genuinely believe that I am wrong for thinking that your viewpoint, in the past, was those who oppose the mosque because they associate it with terrorism hate Islam, then... you should also realize that people being insensitive based on associating Islam itself with terrorism is not the same as families being conditioned by the terrorists to fear reminders of the attack. You've conditioned opposers within this thread to think that is what your viewpoint was. If that was not your viewpoint then you should see that the families who were conditioned are not associating Islam itself with terrorism.

You did not say you don't believe all the people against the mosque hate Islam until you were called out on it a number of times. If you were completely innocent you would have answered the question the first time because you would have nothing to worry about by answering it.

[quote name='Clak']Good news protesters, Bill O'Reilly agrees with you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKxjLPKt7fk

Notice that only after being called out on his bullshit does he get specific about which "Muslims killed us".

I also want to remind everyone against this place being built that this is not the government, it doesn't matter who does or doesn't want this place built, you can't say it's against the will of the people. So long as they aren't breaking laws they can build it regardless of who does or doesn't want it built. None of you would bow to pressure from some liberal group about building something so I don't see how any of you can say these people should bow to pressure from protesters.[/QUOTE]

Because yes we clearly made our viewpoint the same way he did and for the same reasons too... So group us with him because we must feel the same things he does. I never said it's against the will of the American people. Never said the govt should decide. Never said law should decide this mosque. How do you know I wouldn't bow to pressure about building something? You can't read minds. I certainly would not IF I grouped every opposer as being some confused prejudiced person, but I probably would change my plans if I recognized genuine people giving genuine reasons.

[quote name='camoor']There is nothing wrong with his right to state his opinion. As in, there is nothing wrong with the first amendment.

There is something wrong with his viewpoint.

That's what you guys never get.[/QUOTE]

Really. Because I disagree with his viewpoint. The only thing you could tie that he said to anything I have said is that if the mosque was further away it would be better and even then I did not say permanently. However, his reason for wanting that and mine are completely different and his attitude is completely different. There is something wrong with being grouped with the same viewpoint as someone else because you both have a similar objection to something for different reasons and you go about that in complete opposite ways.

[quote name='depascal22']I agree with camoor. You guys keep saying that we think they shouldn't have any right to their opinion. That couldn't be further from the truth.

We just don't understand how you can sit there and say that the opinion isn't rooted in a deep seeded bigotry.

We don't understand how any attempt to get to the root of the opinion is met with cries of insensitivity and "First 'mendment says I can protest whatever I want even if I have zero direct involvement with anything other than being American and watching the towers come down on TV!"

I'll say it again. If you don't believe that Islam itself attacked the Twin Towers, then you should have zero problem with an Islamic community center being built NEAR Ground Zero. The problem is that many of these protesters equate Islam with terrorism.[/QUOTE]
Don't say guys if it doesn't include every opposer here, unless you want to just group every opposer into having the same view and same reasons for it i.e. stereotyping. I never said anything about anyone being able to give their opinion on the matter for either side. I don't understand why you group me with people being prejudiced when all I've done is advocate for the families, tried to come up with a solution that has both sides interest, and left it up to the builders to make the decision.
 
[quote name='J7.']You did not say you don't believe all the people against the mosque hate Islam until you were called out on it a number of times. If you were completely innocent you would have answered the question the first time because you would have nothing to worry about by answering it.[/QUOTE]

Oh so because I didn't answer fast enough I must have something to hide. Because I didn't straight up say 'not all mosque opposers are bigots' I must believe that all mosque opponents are bigots. /badlogic

[quote name='J7.']people being insensitive based on associating Islam itself with terrorism is not the same as families being conditioned by the terrorists to fear reminders of the attack.[/QUOTE]

explain why you believe this is true, in GREAT detail, please.
 
[quote name='Msut77']What in the fucking hell are they supposed to "do much about it"?[/QUOTE]
Speak up. Say something. Denounce it. How about have more Imams in the world denounce jihadism it in their mosques than soft-support it? That would be nice, at least.

[quote name='Clak']Should have added that disclaimer to the first bit too. You think they were Muslim, I'm sure they thought they were Muslim, but if you have two Muslims, one violent and one not, who is the real Muslim? That, you'll find, is up to how someone defines what a Muslim is. Now I know we've had someone here ranting about how Islam is a religion of violence, but most peaceful Muslims would not agree with that. [/quote]
All I am saying is that if most Muslims 1) Are peaceful and 2) Don't agree with violent Jihad then where are they?

It's possible that the media may be partially to blame for not giving them a "voice", but that can't be the whole excuse.

(BTW - I happen to agree that most Muslims ARE peaceful and DON'T condone violence - but I think they are scared of speaking out - which in the long run hurts all of them).

I mean you have all different types of people who call themselves Christians, both violent and peaceful, who is the real Christian? Again, depends on what you think a Christian is supposed to be. To most people a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim, but you find rather frequently Christians accuse other Christians of not being real Christians. So why don't we make that distinction for other faiths?
Click to expand...
Pretty much every modernized country in the world has major concerns and worries about a very specific terrorist movement, which they spend billions on intelligence to try and stop. These terrorists all have one single common trait, and it isn't that they are members of Boyscouts, Shriners, or Super Mario fans.

[quote name='depascal22']It's McCarthyism at it's worst. We can't hunt Communists so we hunt Muslims. In 20 years, everyone will forget about this and start hunting some other minority group that makes them feel insecure.

Basically, it's human (not just American) nature to say different = enemy. No matter how far we progress as a society, there will always be conservatives that rail against some new group that's fighting for equality and/or attention.[/QUOTE]

Who here is advocating targeting all Muslims or labeling them all bad?

What you just said is the most common blinder to reality that liberals love to hand out, even more than condoms.
To try and write reality off as some "road to Japanese internment camps" is pretty far off the mark, and doing a disservice to those that try to keep us safe.

In your perfect world, everyone would be required to either look the same or have their eyes put out, just so we'd have to wait for a violent act before doing anything about it - because that would be the progressive and "fair" thing to do.

Nothing personal, but you'd make a horrible intelligence officer, because you'd refuse to accept most field intelligence as valid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, of course. We wouldn't want to have to validate what we're saying, would we? Imagine the gall of someone to ask you to back up your claims![/QUOTE]

The only claims I made are what I think most Americans feel (being one and knowing a few) that lead to the poll results we see, and it isn't because most Americans are racist bigots.

However, you have really stabbed at the heart of this matter. Much of the last three pages of this thread are people arguing that we should ignore statistical evidence and patterns in crime fighting, and stick with what's fair and sensitive first.
 
In the current climate I'm not sure if they would be listened to if they did speak out. Seems like a lot of folks have already made up their minds. "Jihad" does not necessarily mean "holy war" either, rather a fight or struggle. I know that is the definition most in the west know and it really isn't accurate.
 
[quote name='Clak']In the current climate I'm not sure if they would be listened to if they did speak out. Seems like a lot of folks have already made up their minds. "Jihad" does not necessarily mean "holy war" either, rather a fight or struggle. I know that is the definition most in the west know and it really isn't accurate.[/QUOTE]

I can recall quite a few do speak out, quite a few times. Apparently it is isn't enough unless every single Muslim apologizes personally to thrust every single day.

Way I figure it, most Muslims don't feel the weight of responsibility for someone tenuously connected to them anymore than you expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to apologize for the IRA's actions.
 
Yeah I really don't understand why any not involved need to speak about it much. When you're the head of a religion/sect it's one thing, the Pope needed to speak about the child abuse in Catholic churches, but there isn't a head of worldwide Islam. they shouldn't all have to apologize for people they didn't agree with or or even know.
 
[quote name='Clak']Yeah I really don't understand why any not involved need to speak about it much. When you're the head of a religion/sect it's one thing, the Pope needed to speak about the child abuse in Catholic churches, but there isn't a head of worldwide Islam. they shouldn't all have to apologize for people they didn't agree with or or even know.[/QUOTE]

They are affected because attacks take place all over the world near alot of mosques. Not just attacking Americans, but people of many other countries, and primarily other muslims.

You saw the list of attacks I posted awhile back I think of the last two months. There is clearly an issue in the world with islamic extremism, which is why people urge the peaceful muslims to denounce the extremists. (not to just make them feel guilty, like you guys are implying.)

What happens when particular areas do denounce the extremists though?

islamic extremism is not some minor thing going on. I wish you guys would stop playing it off as minor in order to keep it in line with the false logic of "all religions are equally violent".

Right now islamic extremism is very active and violent, it is a fact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll ask J7 the same thing I asked of Knoell since they apparently co-chair the sensitivity board.

What is an acceptable amount of blocks for the center to be away from Ground Zero?
 
[quote name='Msut77']I'll ask J7 the same thing I asked of Knoell since they apparently co-chair the sensitivity board.

What is an acceptable amount of blocks for the center to be away from Ground Zero?[/QUOTE]

Far enough as to where the victims of 9/11 do not have to walk past a symbol of the religion that was perverted and turned into a weapon that killed, or maimed their friends and family, or even themselves.

Now this does not mean the muslims building this mosque should feel responsible, nor does it mean that they are terrorists. It means there is a link between Islam and 9/11, and if the Imam building it has any sense of improving muslim/non-muslim relations he would take the feelings of the victims of the tragedy into consideration instead of as an attack on his faith.

Distance does not matter so much, like o'reilly said there are a 100 other mosques in NYC, why aren't they getting the same problems? Is it because of distance? Or is it because of the reasons the mosque is being built?
 
Let's say a church is about to be built near Al Snyder's house. They have the legal right to do it, but it is insensitive and douchy to do it, because it will remind him of the Fred Phelps protestors. It will be a sand kick in the stab in the eye to Al Snyder. They should consider moving it further away in consideration of Al Snyder's feelings.
Click to expand...

Anyone agree with the above?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Anyone agree with the above?[/QUOTE]

Certainly.

Remember the big protest about the strudel stand two blocks from Holocaust Museum?
 
[quote name='Knoell']They are affected because attacks take place all over the world near alot of mosques. Not just attacking Americans, but people of many other countries, and primarily other muslims.

You saw the list of attacks I posted awhile back I think of the last two months. There is clearly an issue in the world with islamic extremism, which is why people urge the peaceful muslims to denounce the extremists. (not to just make them feel guilty, like you guys are implying.)

What happens when particular areas do denounce the extremists though?

islamic extremism is not some minor thing going on. I wish you guys would stop playing it off as minor in order to keep it in line with the false logic of "all religions are equally violent".

Right now islamic extremism is very active and violent, it is a fact.[/QUOTE]

I agree, and that is why we do see a lot of muslims denouncing extremism. It's still kind of rude to ask them to denounce it though.

Calling it "very active" is like you're trying to say that things related to Islam are inherently dangerous and we should be wary around them. I assume you didn't mean to word it like that though.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Far enough as to where the victims of 9/11 do not have to walk past a symbol of the religion that was perverted and turned into a weapon that killed, or maimed their friends and family, or even themselves.

Now this does not mean the muslims building this mosque should feel responsible, nor does it mean that they are terrorists. It means there is a link between Islam and 9/11, and if the Imam building it has any sense of improving muslim/non-muslim relations he would take the feelings of the victims of the tragedy into consideration instead of as an attack on his faith.

Distance does not matter so much, like o'reilly said there are a 100 other mosques in NYC, why aren't they getting the same problems? Is it because of distance? Or is it because of the reasons the mosque is being built?[/QUOTE]


What if the attack was caused by christian, and they wanted to build a church? would we be having this same argument? NO.
 
[quote name='51jack']What if the attack was caused by christian, and they wanted to build a church? would we be having this same argument? NO.[/QUOTE]

If a christian purposely murdered people because he claimed his religion told him to, and then christians wanted to build a church next to the victims because it is the place it happened and they wanted to show these non christians that christians aren't violent, then I most certainly would ask the christian church to reconsider. It is insensitive.

I don't think the argument that "we wouldnt be hearing this if it was a christian church" is valid because it cuts both ways. How many churches have been burned in texas in the past year? How much coverage has been dedicated to the burning of equipment in one mosque? How much coverage has been dedicated to the burning of the churches?

I don't think you can disqualify a situation because the bias in the media will air whatever gives them the highest ratings, and hate towards muslims is a hot topic right now.
 
[quote name='Knoell']They are affected because attacks take place all over the world near alot of mosques. Not just attacking Americans, but people of many other countries, and primarily other muslims.

You saw the list of attacks I posted awhile back I think of the last two months. There is clearly an issue in the world with islamic extremism, which is why people urge the peaceful muslims to denounce the extremists. (not to just make them feel guilty, like you guys are implying.)

What happens when particular areas do denounce the extremists though?

islamic extremism is not some minor thing going on. I wish you guys would stop playing it off as minor in order to keep it in line with the false logic of "all religions are equally violent".

Right now islamic extremism is very active and violent, it is a fact.[/QUOTE]
All religions have been violent at one time or another, you know many areas in Southwest Asia were more tolerant of different religions than Europe at one time. The Persians were actually quite tolerant of other religions for example. The point is that now it's radical Muslims, later who knows what it will be, maybe the Scientologists will get sick of the jokes and start getting violent.

Did we ask all Christians to denounce the Catholics abusing children? No, the pope said some stuff, a few bishops said some stuff, but people didn't go around demanding that every Christian apologize for it.

As another example, I don't particularly like the actions of the Israeli government, but do I go around demanding that every Jew in the world apologize for it? Of course not, it's ridiculous to ask people who had nothing to do with something to apologize for it.
 
[quote name='Clak']All religions have been violent at one time or another, you know many areas in Southwest Asia were more tolerant of different religions than Europe at one time. The Persians were actually quite tolerant of other religions for example. The point is that now it's radical Muslims, later who knows what it will be, maybe the Scientologists will get sick of the jokes and start getting violent.

Did we ask all Christians to denounce the Catholics abusing children? No, the pope said some stuff, a few bishops said some stuff, but people didn't go around demanding that every Christian apologize for it.

As another example, I don't particularly like the actions of the Israeli government, but do I go around demanding that every Jew in the world apologize for it? Of course not, it's ridiculous to ask people who had nothing to do with something to apologize for it.[/QUOTE]

Who is asking for anyone to apologize?

Speaking out against extremism as a peaceful muslim is much more different than apologizing for extremists.

Secondly, sure violence in other religions have come and gone, and come again over time, but do you think people back then said "Wow look it all this chaos those (insert religion here) are creating! Let's ignore it because the (insert a different religion here) did it last century, so its normal."
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Speak up. Say something. Denounce it. How about have more Imams in the world denounce jihadism it in their mosques than soft-support it? That would be nice, at least.


All I am saying is that if most Muslims 1) Are peaceful and 2) Don't agree with violent Jihad then where are they?

It's possible that the media may be partially to blame for not giving them a "voice", but that can't be the whole excuse.

(BTW - I happen to agree that most Muslims ARE peaceful and DON'T condone violence - but I think they are scared of speaking out - which in the long run hurts all of them).


Pretty much every modernized country in the world has major concerns and worries about a very specific terrorist movement, which they spend billions on intelligence to try and stop. These terrorists all have one single common trait, and it isn't that they are members of Boyscouts, Shriners, or Super Mario fans.



Who here is advocating targeting all Muslims or labeling them all bad?

What you just said is the most common blinder to reality that liberals love to hand out, even more than condoms.
To try and write reality off as some "road to Japanese internment camps" is pretty far off the mark, and doing a disservice to those that try to keep us safe.

In your perfect world, everyone would be required to either look the same or have their eyes put out, just so we'd have to wait for a violent act before doing anything about it - because that would be the progressive and "fair" thing to do.

Nothing personal, but you'd make a horrible intelligence officer, because you'd refuse to accept most field intelligence as valid.[/QUOTE]

That makes no sense. All I'm saying is that Muslims are the new Communists. Americans don't trust them. Anything Muslims want to do to promote peace and harmony will be looked at with distrust until there's a new group to hate. Can you really deny that? You say I don't claim field intelligence is valid but you refute everything you see.

In my perfect world? People could be left the hell alone to worship how they see fit. In this country, only certain religions get that right. Islam right now is persona non grata for the sole reason that 19 men of dubious Islamic faith did a terrible thing.

And you have no idea what an intelligence officer actually does so I don't really take your shitty little insult to heart. You have no idea what the hell is going on but you'd rather err on the side that Muslims are all dangerous instead of treating any American like, well you know, an American. It's much easier to profile in the name of security instead of allowing intelligence officers to do their job.
 
I dare any of you to contact your local mosque and ask what they've done to speak out against extremism.

You're not paying attention to the world around you and yet you're making demands of it, and subsequently not paying attention to those who are fulfilling your demands.

Buncha goddamned Mr Creosote wannabes.
 
I don't get how treating religions equally = ignoring anything. Just because we aren't stocking up on ammo and digging out bunkers doesn't mean we aren't aware of things happening in the world.
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't get how treating religions equally = ignoring anything. Just because we aren't stocking up on ammo and digging out bunkers doesn't mean we aren't aware of things happening in the world.[/QUOTE]

You are criticizing the world for urging peaceful muslims to talk down the extremists followers of their faith. I mean come on.
 
Are you Christian? How often do you have to say that you aren't apart of the crazy people who cult up or blow up Abortion clinics in the name of Christ? How often do you publicly condemn them or try to contact them in the hopes of stopping them?

Let me answer that for everybody. Never. And nor should you have to since the only you have in common is that you are the same race and practice the same religion, in name only.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Are you Christian? How often do you have to say that you aren't apart of the crazy people who cult up or blow up Abortion clinics in the name of Christ? How often do you publicly condemn them or try to contact them in the hopes of stopping them?

Let me answer that for everybody. Never. And nor should you have to since the only you have in common is that you are the same race and practice the same religion, in name only.[/QUOTE]

Although bombing abortion clinics are of the same rephrensible nature, that does not make them equal. islamic extremism is an ongoing problem all over the world. If you can give me some proof that abortion clinic bombing has shed more blood, or has been more devastating than islamic extremism they may be comparable.

I listed a list of a few hundred attacks by islamic extremists in the last two months, even if we cut that list in half, we are talking about more devastation. It is not just about numbers either, islamic extremism simply has a tighter hold on the world with terrorism than clinic bombers.

Although it isn't a bad idea for christians to denounce such bombings, as I am sure christian leaders do when they preach. (how many even denounced burning the koran, and read from it in their service?).

Stop trying to extract guilt out of asking muslims to do this, moreover people aren't asking them to simply denounce the terrorism, but to appeal to their people that terrorism is not the answer. There is nothing wrong with that.

Do you really think the world is simply trying to ensure that peaceful muslims think terrorism is bad? I mean come on.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Are you Christian? How often do you have to say that you aren't apart of the crazy people who cult up or blow up Abortion clinics in the name of Christ? How often do you publicly condemn them or try to contact them in the hopes of stopping them?

Let me answer that for everybody. Never. And nor should you have to since the only you have in common is that you are the same race and practice the same religion, in name only.[/QUOTE]
Or for every time that Pat Robertson or Franklin Graham say something stupid, which is pretty damn often.

edit- Holy fucking double standards. From now on I'm going to demand that every Christian the world over denounce stupid shit that other Christians say or do.
 
The Vatican still isn't doing enough to denounce or reduce the very real kid-fucking going on within it.

Knoell just wants to hate the religions that aren't hegemonic in his part of the world.

Additionally, for the five billion pages that you've spent hemming and hawing about how you aren't bigoted against Muslims, Knoell, you've successfully managed to completely smash that paper-thin charade via your claims from today that you insist the entire Muslim community atone for the sins of 19 extremists. You are a bigot, and you've demonstrated that quite handily today. Thanks for coming out of the closet, finally.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The Vatican still isn't doing enough to denounce or reduce the very real kid-fucking going on within it.

Knoell just wants to hate the religions that aren't hegemonic in his part of the world.

Additionally, for the five billion pages that you've spent hemming and hawing about how you aren't bigoted against Muslims, Knoell, you've successfully managed to completely smash that paper-thin charade via your claims from today that you insist the entire Muslim community atone for the sins of 19 extremists. You are a bigot, and you've demonstrated that quite handily today. Thanks for coming out of the closet, finally.[/QUOTE]

Haha, I am a bigot? Care to explain how you came to this conclusion?
You wont.
I would fucking love to know how any of those views are fucking bigoted, my fucking god you are ridiculous.
How is muslims teaching extremists that their religion is not meant to be understood that way, a bad thing?

You guys are the real bigots.
Also there is pressure on the catholic church to do the same thing the world is asking muslim leaders to do. Why aren't you criticizing this?
 
[quote name='Knoell']You are criticizing the world for urging peaceful muslims to talk down the extremists followers of their faith. I mean come on.[/QUOTE]

Do you protest outside Catholic Churches? Do you allow blowhards to go off about big guv'mint and all the darkies in backwoods little fundamentalist churches? Then why should they have to spend all their time doing the same?

The fundamentalists are all crazy and just want attention. Why are you giving it to them?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Do you protest outside Catholic Churches? Do you allow blowhards to go off about big guv'mint and all the darkies in backwoods little fundamentalist churches? Then why should they have to spend all their time doing the same?

The fundamentalists are all crazy and just want attention. Why are you giving it to them?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it's because the examples you give are not a clear and present threat to every modern country's security on the planet?

Nah. Hate is hate is hate, right? No difference. At least, that seems to be what your sellin.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Perhaps it's because the examples you give are not a clear and present threat to every modern country's security on the planet?

Nah. Hate is hate is hate, right? No difference. At least, that seems to be what your sellin.[/QUOTE]

I don't see Islam as a threat to anyone's security. I see radical Islam, radical Christianity, and any other radical religions as threats and thus the differences in our philosophies.

No one religion has taken over the planet. It will be extremely hard in the age of the internet. Don't worry. Sharia isn't coming to America.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Haha, I am a bigot? Care to explain how you came to this conclusion?[/QUOTE]

The logic is pristine and really bloody simple.

You've spent this entire thread (up until yesterday) saying that you aren't holding the entire religion responsible for the attacks of 9/11 - you claim you know it's extremism and thus not indicative of the religion on the whole.

Today, you're saying you want the entire religion to condemn the very same extremism you spent a lot of time saying doesn't represent their interests, their belief system, or their religion. Therefore, you necessarily *do* harbor resentment, and wish to treat differently, all Muslim things and all Muslim people.

QED - you're bigoted against Islam.

You then compound your fuck-baggery (i.e., being bigoted) by letting Catholicism off the hook for ignoring and failing to prosecute the kid-fuckers in its ranks. You demonstrate that, like a true bigot, your set your sights selectively on one target (Islam). You want to be a vanguard who protects society from the dangers of *one* religion, but not *another*. The reason for your selection process is very clearly gleaned from the content of your posts. Return to QED.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The logic is pristine and really bloody simple.

You've spent this entire thread (up until yesterday) saying that you aren't holding the entire religion responsible for the attacks of 9/11 - you claim you know it's extremism and thus not indicative of the religion on the whole.

Today, you're saying you want the entire religion to condemn the very same extremism you spent a lot of time saying doesn't represent their interests, their belief system, or their religion. Therefore, you necessarily *do* harbor resentment, and wish to treat differently, all Muslim things and all Muslim people.

QED - you're bigoted against Islam.

You then compound your fuck-baggery (i.e., being bigoted) by letting Catholicism off the hook for ignoring and failing to prosecute the kid-fuckers in its ranks. You demonstrate that, like a true bigot, your set your sights selectively on one target (Islam). You want to be a vanguard who protects society from the dangers of *one* religion, but not *another*. The reason for your selection process is very clearly gleaned from the content of your posts. Return to QED.[/QUOTE]

Two short paragraphs that I hope you actually read. You are trying so hard to attack me, and yet you come up with your own version of what I said, with a few additions.

1. It is retarded to say that islamic extremism is completely separate from the true muslim believers. It is not black and white, column a, column b, as you so easily suggest. Daily, muslim believers are persauded NOT to take the extremist path, or to FOLLOW through with the extremist path. The world is simply asking muslim leaders to urge muslims to not take the path of extremism. If that makes a bigot out of people, then so be it.

2. I did not say to let catholics off the hook, I said that people ask catholic leaders to do the same thing other people ask muslim leaders to do. Where is your outrage then for catholics?

I agree that if catholic leaders have any knowledge of wrongdoing they should put it forward, and also teach their believers that that is not a path they should follow. They should be outspoken about such things, and not go on like they do not exist.

On one hand you are flipping out about people asking muslim leaders to do something, and on the other hand you were incorrectly flipping out that I thought catholic leaders should be let off the hook. So which is it? All,
nothing, or one of each?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top