Quote :

"That fact that a polling of a population that claims to be 70% Christian don’t want another religion building a house of worship isn’t surprising. it has no bearing on the issue of whether this mosque should be built, because if they own the land, they can do whatever is legally allowed with it. The people opposing this are religious bigots, but religion often demands this kind of bigotry, so who is surprised by this?"

this is ridiculous and you have nothing to base this on. the people opposing this are bigots and they come in all shapes, sizes, nationalities, and religions. there is no ground to pin this on christianity.

8/16/2010 10:55:05 PM

Huh?

I’m pinning it on religion, and last I checked, Christianity was a religion...

8/16/2010 10:59:54 PM

bigots exist regardless of religion. there are going to be plenty of people opposed to this who are not religious and plenty of people who think that those who are opposed are bigots who are religious. there are plenty of misguided reasons for this to bother people that have nothing to do with religion.

8/16/2010 11:05:26 PM

He was asked a direct question about the terrorist group Hamas and he deliberately declined to condemn them.

That's not moderate.

8/16/2010 11:35:37 PM

^ Holy shit... how terrible!

Contrast that with a group of people of a certain religion who have your politicians, lawmakers, and presidents in their pockets and they roam the corridors of power in the US and force laws and opinions, but they would never condemn the sometimes terrorist actions of the Israeli government and forces, which happen to be of the same religion as they are!

[AIPAC]

8/17/2010 8:20:37 AM

Yes, and I am sure that if aipac tried to build a huge community center on Palestinian land that a lot of people would be pissed off

8/17/2010 8:45:59 AM

i think being a power-maker is a lot worse than making a community centre.

your whole argument revolves around him not condemning hamas. that makes him not a moderate. and so, he shouldn't make a mosque there.

well, aipac members would never condemn the several documented terrorist actions of the idf (known cases where civilians have been purposefully targeted and the idf has acknowledged so) and documented racist actions of the israeli government. that makes them not moderates. so why should they be allowed to direct american policy?

i thought the US was against extremists of all colors and backgrounds?

8/17/2010 8:56:40 AM

^^ Then its a good thing these guys are trying to build their community center on their own land.

8/17/2010 9:27:08 AM

^^ Can you point to a specific transcript showing them declining the opportunity to condemn a known terrorist organization? Because I can do this for imam rauf.

So... yea, waiting on that transcript

8/17/2010 9:28:37 AM

Quote :

"Huh? I’m pinning it on religion, and last I checked, Christianity was a religion..."

I can name two entirely non-religious bigots in this thread who are against the building of this mosque.

8/17/2010 9:37:06 AM

In order to be a bigot, wouldn't you have to be against a particular religion as opposed to another?

8/17/2010 9:46:30 AM

^ fuck bigots, i am a trigot polygot

(and a polyglot)

8/17/2010 10:48:13 AM

polygloid amirite

8/17/2010 10:55:34 AM

I was just assuming Lumex was referring to me, so I'd be curious how I could be considered a religious bigot. Unless you're considering atheism a religion in which case you are mistaken.

8/17/2010 11:33:13 AM

Tongue in cheek Disco

8/17/2010 11:37:48 AM

A CNN anchor expresses the crux of "mosque" opposition

Quote :

" Lemon: Don't you think it's a bit different considering what happened on 9/11? And the people have said there's a need for it in Lower Manhattan, so that's why it's being built there. What about 10, 20 blocks . . . Midtown Manhattan, considering the circumstances behind this? That's not understandable? Patel: In America, we don't tell people based on their race or religion or ethnicity that they are free in this place, but not in that place -- Lemon: [interrupting] I understand that, but there's always context, Mr. Patel . . . this is an extraordinary circumstance. You understand that this is very heated. Many people lost their loved ones on 9/11 -- Patel: Including Muslim Americans who lost their loved ones. . . . Lemon: Consider the context here. That's what I'm talking about. Patel: I have to tell you that this seems a little like telling black people 50 years ago: you can sit anywhere on the bus you like - just not in the front. Lemon: I think that's apples and oranges - I don't think that black people were behind a Terrorist plot to kill people and drive planes into a building. That's a completely different circumstance. Patel: And American Muslims were not behind the terrorist plot either. "

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/16/cnn

[Edited on August 17, 2010 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2010 1:30:30 PM

that's not the crux of the argument.

The whole, "make it illegal for muslims to build mosques" is a false argument. A straw man, as it were.

Something can be legal, yet still offensive.

In this case, it is offensive that an Imam who goes out of his way to avoid condemning a known islamic terrorist organization would choose to build a mosque at the site of the worst islamic terrorist attack on the U.S.

[Edited on August 17, 2010 at 1:43 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2010 1:41:55 PM

your summary of what they are calling "the crux" is inaccurate. i mean christ it shouldn't take you that long to read the link.

8/17/2010 1:49:27 PM

I read the bolded, hooksaw style, elements of your quote.

8/17/2010 2:07:35 PM

Haha Solinari still at it

Solinari and hooksaw: founding members of the TSB Anti-American Club

8/17/2010 3:02:31 PM

Quote :

"In order to be a bigot, wouldn't you have to be against a particular religion as opposed to another?"

I dunno, your core position of "Everybody who disagrees with me on this issue is an asshole who wants to ruin the world" is kinda bigot-y. Certainly you've accused me on several occasions of colluding with a grand conspiracy to halt scientific progress, based on my membership in a group you don't like. It's not that different from someone accusing American Muslims of complicity in 9/11 based on their affiliation.

Quote :

"Something can be legal, yet still offensive."

And it can be incredibly stupid to protest something just because it offends you. I think people who protest South Park are stupid, and I think people who protest this are stupid -- although in this case, for a much more serious reason. Every time an image of Americans protesting a Mosque gets shown in the Muslim world I guarantee you will help sway another person to start working against us.

We're Americans, for fuck's sake. Offending people is practically a way of life over here. Let's suck it up and quit producing free propaganda for al Qaeda.

8/17/2010 3:15:28 PM

I don't think the government has any place to govern civility, but society as a whole sure as shit does.



P.S. Al Qaeda can suck it... I am not going to determine what I stand for or against based on what they say.

[Edited on August 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2010 3:19:36 PM

Quote :

"I dunno, your core position of "Everybody who disagrees with me on this issue is an asshole who wants to ruin the world" is kinda bigot-y. Certainly you've accused me on several occasions of colluding with a grand conspiracy to halt scientific progress, based on my membership in a group you don't like. It's not that different from someone accusing American Muslims of complicity in 9/11 based on their affiliation."

In a very broad sense, I do blame all religious people (American Muslims included) of enabling shit like 9/11 to happen. Parents teach their children that believing in shit that has no proof is a virtue and bam, people are ramming planes into buildings with the belief that they'll be rewarded in the afterlife. If we valued skepticism over faith instead of the other way around, we'd be in much better shape.

Bigotry has a very specific denotation to me, however, and that's the hatred of a specific group opposed to another. Opposing all religions is not bigotry. Anyone that opposes this mosque on the grounds that "it's a mosque and not some other religious buliding" and "it's not in the right place" is a bigot, though.

8/17/2010 3:59:07 PM

Quote :

"Al Qaeda can suck it... I am not going to determine what I stand for or against based on what they say."

Some day an American is going to die because people like you protested the perfectly legal construction of a religious building blocks away from Ground Zero.

When we finally get a new tower built there, are you going to demand that every employee who goes there to work condemns Hamas?

Quote :

"Bigotry has a very specific denotation to me, however, and that's the hatred of a specific group opposed to another."

So a white person who hates all nonwhites isn't a bigot?

[Edited on August 17, 2010 at 4:01 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2010 4:00:33 PM

Quote :

"Some day an American is going to die because people like you protested the perfectly legal construction of a religious building blocks away from Ground Zero."

What in the hell, dawg? Sorry, I don't subscribe to the victim-is-to-blame mentality.

8/17/2010 4:02:36 PM

It isn't "victim is to blame," it's "idiot bigot is to blame."

You being an asshole is giving other people an excuse to be assholes.

8/17/2010 4:03:43 PM

Quote :

"So a white person who hates all nonwhites isn't a bigot?"

No, a white person that hates all non-whites is definitely a bigot. A white person that hates all people, including whites, would not be a bigot.

Comparing religion to something like skin color, ancestry, sexuality, or anything like that is pretty dumb. You're born with certain traits. You're not born with unfounded beliefs. You have to be indoctrinated first. If I created my own religion, you'd be quick to point out how absurd it was. I have no problem doing the same to yours.

8/17/2010 4:16:55 PM

^^ ok

[Edited on August 17, 2010 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2010 4:16:59 PM

Thanks destroyer, that distinction was in my mind but didn't come out when typing.

8/17/2010 4:21:35 PM

Quote :

"You're born with certain traits. You're not born with unfounded beliefs."

To me this implies that it is impossible to be bigoted against any set of beliefs, be they religious or political, ethical, what have you. Nobody's born with any beliefs.

I suppose I could grant that perhaps "bigot" may not be the best term when discussing things we aren't born with, though it seems like a pretty lame semantics game. If I said, "Everybody who is not a Republican is an enemy to the United States and the advancement of the human race!" I'd be a pretty big asshole, even if "bigot" in its strictest sense did not apply.

On the other hand, "bigot" could refer to the lumping of all individuals in a group together with the worst possible examples of that group. This is what most bigots do, after all. A hardened white supremacist may concede the example of an upstanding, intelligent, productive black guy, but always with some caveat -- "He's one of the few good ones," "He must have a lot of white blood," what have you. Likewise, I don't think disco_stu holds me personally responsible for standing in the way of scientific progress, but he's perfectly willing to throw me under the bus with the asshole religious people who do so. And Solinari, who I don't think despises all Muslims to a man, opposes the construction of a Mosque because its kinda near where some really shitty Muslims did a bad thing.

Quote :

"^^ ok"

Let me put it another way. If a guy pulls a knife on you on the street in NC, you can shoot him. If you punch the guy in the balls and he pulls a knife on you, you don't just get to shoot him. In other words, when you instigate shit you damn well are accountable, in part, for what happens to you.

8/17/2010 5:38:17 PM

this is really a semantics argument at this point, i think the point was pretty clear

8/17/2010 6:18:56 PM

ITT grumpygop pretends that posting comments on the Internet and holding up a sign is the equivalent of stabbing someone......


But wait, I thought we were supposed to be cool with all kinds of rudeness.... Why is he acting so butt hurt about my opposition to this radical imam's plans to build a mosque at gz?

Maybe he wants everyone else to tolerate him and his chosen philosophies regardless of any offense they might cause. Howeve, anyone that might offend him or anyone he has an interest in should promptly stfu

Well played sir

[Edited on August 17, 2010 at 6:49 PM. Reason : Excellent strategy]

8/17/2010 6:48:04 PM

^troll post

8/17/2010 6:55:43 PM

Just a quick look at some of the other stuff around the general vicinity of the propose community center.

http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

8/17/2010 7:20:15 PM

Quote :

"plans to build a mosque at gz"

its not at GZ, its two blocks away. it's "near", and you still haven't established what "near enough" is.

8/17/2010 7:28:15 PM

Quote :

"On the other hand, "bigot" could refer to the lumping of all individuals in a group together with the worst possible examples of that group. This is what most bigots do, after all. A hardened white supremacist may concede the example of an upstanding, intelligent, productive black guy, but always with some caveat -- "He's one of the few good ones," "He must have a lot of white blood," what have you. Likewise, I don't think disco_stu holds me personally responsible for standing in the way of scientific progress, but he's perfectly willing to throw me under the bus with the asshole religious people who do so. And Solinari, who I don't think despises all Muslims to a man, opposes the construction of a Mosque because its kinda near where some really shitty Muslims did a bad thing."

I agree. My problem with this whole controversy is that, somehow, certain mainstream conservatives have managed to connect the religion that this mosque represents with the religion that inspired the 9-11 attacks. They've come to the conclusion that, because both are associated with that same religion, that they should not build it near "ground zero."

The conclusion drawn there is dubious at best. There have been Christian terrorists, but we don't go around saying where you should and should not build a church based on its proposed proximity to the sites where those terrorist attacks occurred. Any rational person will tell you that people have done good and bad things in the name of all religions.

As for anyone's willingness to throw you under the bus for what other believers have done, I'm not willing to do that. I'll only hold you responsible for what you do, and what you say. At the very least, though, you are responsible for perpetuating a belief that does lead people to do bad things, whether it's waste money on tithes, vote for politicians based on religious motivations (i.e. vote for pro-life and anti-gay candidates, with no regard for any other issues), show disrespect for people that don't fit specific biblical criteria, or any other negative behavior. You may not exhibit any of that behavior yourself, but at the end of the day, you are purporting to believe in a book inspired by a god that, I think, has a warped sense of morality, and I don't think that religion could continue if there were not good people out there accepting it on a day to day basis and arguing for its validity.

8/17/2010 7:57:34 PM

Quote :

"P.S. Al Qaeda can suck it... I am not going to determine what I stand for or against based on what they say."

LOL

You are already playing the part of al-qaeda’s rent-boy quite well in this thread, by hating this mosque and muslims because of Al-Q’s actions and statements.

8/17/2010 11:50:53 PM

^ The great source of religious tolerance known as moron.

Christians are insane

message_topic.aspx?topic=364442

8/18/2010 1:09:24 AM

^troll post

8/18/2010 1:12:10 AM

Quote :

"^ Nobody cares. Just shut the fuck up."

8/18/2010 1:13:52 AM

^troll post

8/18/2010 1:17:41 AM

Quote :

"^ I have one username. How many do you have?"

8/18/2010 1:28:57 AM

^troll post

8/18/2010 1:30:29 AM

Quote :

"^ Answer the question or GTFO."

8/18/2010 1:31:21 AM

Some Republican leaders urge candidates not to focus on Ground Zero mosque issue
By Karen Tumulty
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Quote :

"As Republican candidates across the country seize on the proposed construction of a mosque near New York's Ground Zero as a campaign issue, some influential figures in the GOP are growing concerned that it could backfire. Although public opinion is running overwhelmingly against the construction of the Islamic center, Republican strategists said there are dangers in pushing the issue too forcefully. Pollster David Winston, who advises GOP congressional leaders, worries that the mosque controversy could overshadow the issues voters care about most. "While this is certainly an issue that has generated a lot of emotion, when it comes to voting, the election is going to be about the economy and jobs," he said. Others fear that the party risks appearing intolerant of religious differences. "One of the biggest dangers in politics is to overplay an issue," said former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, who warned that voters could conclude that Republicans who oppose the New York mosque are taking a stand against Islam in general. "It's very important that, as Republicans talk about this issue, we be thoughtful and careful about making those distinctions," he said. Yet some of the party's most visible figures have taken the opposite approach in reaction to President Obama's declaration that Muslim Americans have a right to build the center. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) told the Fox News Channel that building a mosque so close to where terrorists killed thousands of Americans would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Memorial Museum. On the same network, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin warned: "This is an insensitive move on the part of those Muslims who want to build that mosque in this location. It feels like a stab in the heart to, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9/11." In congressional districts nationwide, hundreds of miles away from Ground Zero, Republican candidates have demanded that their Democratic opponents declare their positions on the mosque. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) -- under pressure from his GOP opponent, Sharron Angle -- issued a statement on Monday saying he opposes the project. Not all Republicans see an advantage in exploiting the controversy. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a rising star in the party, declined to give his opinion. He said that Obama and some members of the GOP are "playing politics with this issue, and I simply am not going to do it." "We have to bring people together," Christie added. "And what offends me the most about all this is that it's being used as a political football by both parties." It was not all that long ago that Republicans considered Arab and Muslim Americans to be a potentially important voting bloc. In his 2000 campaign for president, Texas Gov. George W. Bush paid particularly close attention to their concerns. In his second debate with Vice President Al Gore, Bush criticized racial profiling of Arab Americans. He ultimately won the endorsements of various Muslim American organizations. Bush was also the first U.S. president to use the word "mosque" in his inaugural address. Even in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, Bush made a point of visiting the ornate mosque on Washington's Embassy Row. But after the passage of the USA Patriot Act and other measures that heightened Muslim American concerns about civil liberties, their political support for him evaporated. And with his departure, the Republican Party's Muslim outreach effort gave way to assertions that Obama was too solicitous of the Arab world's opinion. Strategists in both parties say that they think the issue will be all but forgotten by November. "The support for criticizing a mosque is half a mile wide and an inch deep," conservative activist Grover Norquist warned. "And at the end of the process, the only people who will remember it are the people who feel threatened by this -- not just Muslims, but Sikhs, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Mormons." Although there may be short-term political gain now from criticizing the mosque project, he said, the subsequent backlash and perception of religious intolerance may last a long time. Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081705860.html?hpid=topnews

8/18/2010 1:34:21 AM

Quote :

"^ Answer the question or GTFO."

8/18/2010 1:35:32 AM

u mad?

8/18/2010 2:00:00 AM

he's so worked up right now he can't even stand it

8/18/2010 2:01:53 AM

Quote :

"The great source of religious tolerance known as moron. "

LOL

I don’t recall claiming to be championing religious tolerance.

Did you miss my posts supporting burqa bans too?

That doesn’t mean it’s not completely idiotic for people to be against this mosque being built, or for Newt Gingrich saying the gov. should stop it.

8/18/2010 2:16:32 AM

great short article that echoes the argument of protecting rights and questioning the wisdom of certain actions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/greta-van-susteren-glenn-_n_685437.html

Quote :

"Beck has been criticized by civil rights leaders for his choice of date and venue. And now Van Susteren is joining the chorus of critics. "Yes he has a First Amendment right to do it...but what about the wisdom of it?" she wrote on her blog. "Glenn should move his event. It does not help heal the country on so many fronts if we poke a stick in eyes.""

8/18/2010 3:01:52 AM