If moslems definitively condemn the extremists in their beliefs who carry out these terrible actions, as all others condemn the terrible extremists in their respective religions, then we have some common ground from which to move forward and build a framework for future unity that will be in trust.

Until then, mistrust will continue between one another.

@Evil Q: Quite honestly, I've never really cared how people perceive me.

Also, I believe that's the only time I've ever used a biased source.

The entire argument in NYC would be completely legitimate if it wasn't for

A) every other mosque protest;
B) the conclusion that every Muslim holds the same outlook as their comrades within a radical minority;
C) the portrayal of a sample population of an entire religion and its adherents as a monolithic bloc by using sweeping, vague terms;
D) the irrational fear of the subjugation of American civilization by said religion, akin to antisemitism and McCarthyism;
E) the view that the U.S. Constitution seems to make an exception with this religious group, questioning whether even natural-born citizens should be allowed to exercise their natural rights as taxpayers.

Regardless of reasons A-E, the case vs the mosque in NYC is less b/c it's a mosque and almost exclusively b/c of location (as well as legitimate questions....Mayor Bloomberg notwithstanding...about its financing). I don't see the US or various state govts forbidding the building of mosques in the US on principle alone. Nor, for that matter, do I see the govt cracking down on and closing mosques throughout the US. As to anti-semitism, non-sequitur b/c when's the last time a radical Jewish group simultaneously attacked the US at multiple targets? Pre-911, most Americans could've given a rat's ass about where muslims settled or worshipped in the US. Ditto on McCarthyism. He was actually right about the level of penetration of the US by communists (Venona Papers), but managed to alienate too many people in the process of trying to ferret them out.

The problem with the "muslim issue" is the same as with the "immigration issue"......that people concerned about the problem are painted as irrational racists and nativists. I rarely see anyone saying that ALL moslems or even ALL immigrants are "evil", but you wouldn't know that from a lot of media coverage that carelessly or purposely confuses the issues by conflating all muslims as being viewed as radicals and all immigrants as illegal by large sections of the population. Thus, anti-radical Islam is portrayed as anti-Islamic sentiment in general and anti-illegal aliens is labeled anti-immigrant. This only poisons the well.

As for the NYC Mosque-civic center, Gingrich and others have actually made a legitimate observation. If it's merely about healing, there's enough room in a proposed 15 story structure to have an interfaith setup. The building could have multiple religious "buildings" w/in. Temples, chapels, mosques, etc.. that would lend credence to the aforementioned claim. Otherwise, perhaps they could take a page from the Catholic church and not build a convent near a former concentration camp site b/c it's in dubiuous form to do so.

If moslems definitively condemn the extremists in their beliefs who carry out these terrible actions, as all others condemn the terrible extremists in their respective religions, then we have some common ground from which to move forward and build a framework for future unity that will be in trust.

Until then, mistrust will continue between one another.The thing is, that's been happening immediately after 9/11. Pretty much every Islamic society in the U.S. and even throughout the world immediately denounced al-Qaeda & Co. It wasn't just affluent, Western Muslims, though; even the most conservative and prestigious ulema have labeled bin Laden as a literal apostate. The problem is not why Muslims haven't denounced Islamic terrorism, the problem is no one in the media seems to listen, or they're simply conveniently ignoring it.

This brings up a whole other issue: why should mainstream, moderate Muslims have to apologize for heinous, sinful acts committed by other Muslims near and far? When an abortion doctor is murdered, or a gay bar is bombed, do we see an entire Christian community rise and vehemently apologize for the act, assuring citizens that the crime is not representative of their own religion, in an attempt to dispel and prevent any violent backlash or sentiments of hate? No, that's silly and irrational; just why would it be incumbent on every individual Christian in the world to sound an alarm for a tragedy related by a single thread? Transport that same sentiment, and you can very well see why it's also unreasonable to expect Muslims to repeatedly do the same thing.

As to anti-semitism, non-sequitur b/c when's the last time a radical Jewish group simultaneously attacked the US at multiple targets? Pre-911, most Americans could've given a rat's ass about where muslims settled or worshipped in the US.The contention is not the circumstance or the context, but the reaction to it. For the most part, it has not been singling out a specific minority within Islam, but Islam and Muslims as a whole. Given that; yes, there is a legitimate threat coming from radicalized Muslims, and yes, we Americans should try to combat it, both domestically, and when justified, internationally; this is also incumbent upon Muslims within the U.S.

What is happening is a massive overreaction to a surgical problem. Determining which Muslim is radical or not is difficult, simply put. Should we, however, assume that every Muslim is inherently radical? No, that's irrational; but that doesn't let fear and hysteria get in the way. See Japanese American internment, HUAC, and of course there's the motherload, but that's bringing up Godwin's, so... >_>
The problem with the "muslim issue" is the same as with the "immigration issue"......that people concerned about the problem are painted as irrational racists and nativists. I rarely see anyone saying that ALL moslems or even ALL immigrants are "evil", but you wouldn't know that from a lot of media coverage that carelessly or purposely confuses the issues by conflating all muslims as being viewed as radicals and all immigrants as illegal by large sections of the population. Thus, anti-radical Islam is portrayed as anti-Islamic sentiment in general and anti-illegal aliens is labeled anti-immigrant. This only poisons the well.I agree; it's just as destructive as, say, labeling all Muslims as inherently violent. In reality, only a few, vocal individuals who oppose the mosque in NYC are bona-fide Islamophobes; the rest are either neutral or indifferent, which is probably the same attitude that mainstream America shares. Does this make the opposition inherently Islamophobic? Nope; most have legitimate concerns, and I think that those need to be addressed. That being said, I think that we can leave it safely at that. :)
As for the NYC Mosque-civic center, Gingrich and others have actually made a legitimate observation. If it's merely about healing, there's enough room in a proposed 15 story structure to have an interfaith setup. The building could have multiple religious "buildings" w/in. Temples, chapels, mosques, etc.. that would lend credence to the aforementioned claim. Otherwise, perhaps they could take a page from the Catholic church and not build a convent near a former concentration camp site b/c it's in dubiuous form to do so.I also agree; the planning and PR from the Cordoba Initiative has been poor, to say the least, and much should have been considered and planned before the plans were finalized. So, yes, they're certainly at fault. However, I again feel that they're being criticized by many for completely different circumstances.

The contention is not the circumstance or the context, but the reaction to it. For the most part, it has not been singling out a specific minority within Islam, but Islam and Muslims as a whole. Given that; yes, there is a legitimate threat coming from radicalized Muslims, and yes, we Americans should try to combat it, both domestically, and when justified, internationally; this is also incumbent upon Muslims within the U.S.

I think there are people that are taking a "damn them all and batten down the hatches" approach, but I don't believe it's the majority. I do realize that elements of the media are doing their utmost to color it that way, however. I'd agree with you in general that it's not fair to lump all people in a group, w/o proof to the contrary, into the same pot.



What is happening is a massive overreaction to a surgical problem. Determining which Muslim is radical or not is difficult, simply put. Should we, however, assume that every Muslim is inherently radical? No, that's irrational; but that doesn't let fear and hysteria get in the way. See Japanese American internment, HUAC, and of course there's the motherload, but that's bringing up Godwin's, so... >_>

I do wonder how much of the internment wasn't also motivated in part by a fear of how the civillian population at large would react to those Americans of Japanese and even Italian and German descent. I'd say that, in the case of the Japanese (nisei, sansei, etc..), the combat record of the 442nd Cbt Rgmt should have put to rest any suspicions about loyalty. Not to mention the fact that many of the Japanese in Hawaii were not sent to internment camps either.

The thing is, that's been happening immediately after 9/11. Pretty much every Islamic society in the U.S. and even throughout the world immediately denounced al-Qaeda & Co. It wasn't just affluent, Western Muslims, though; even the most conservative and prestigious ulema have labeled bin Laden as a literal apostate. The problem is not why Muslims haven't denounced Islamic terrorism, the problem is no one in the media seems to listen, or they're simply conveniently ignoring it. Well, now that is true. I do have a 67 year old friend (Persian Moslem) who immigrated here 30+ years ago. He and his mother came here so that they could enjoy liberty, and so that his mother could basically have a nicer place to spend her final years without stigma of being old and single, etc. where they used to live. (To the best of my understanding.)

He is like any other person I know and in fact would probably surprise people with his stances on many issues. Which, yes, would never get coverage.

This brings up a whole other issue: why should mainstream, moderate Muslims have to apologize for heinous, sinful acts committed by other Muslims near and far? When an abortion doctor is murdered, or a gay bar is bombed, do we see an entire Christian community rise and vehemently apologize for the act, assuring citizens that the crime is not representative of their own religion, in an attempt to dispel and prevent any violent backlash or sentiments of hate? No, that's silly and irrational; just why would it be incumbent on every individual Christian in the world to sound an alarm for a tragedy related by a single thread? Transport that same sentiment, and you can very well see why it's also unreasonable to expect Muslims to repeatedly do the same thing.
Very well.

As a whole, they shouldn't have to, unless as a collective whole group they are trying to go forward with something. Then at which point they would need to clarify. Otherwise, it should just be hinged upon the individual when asked of him/her in passing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100814/ts_afp/uspoliticsreligionattacksobama_20100814172344)

While the subject of the article is about Obama's support, the one thing that shocked me was the fact that a Church is going to hold a "Koran-burning."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100814/ts_afp/uspoliticsreligionattacksobama_20100814172344)

While the subject of the article is about Obama's support, the one thing that shocked me was the fact that a Church is going to hold a "Koran-burning."I gotta give the guy credit; he brings forth a good argument. Basically, if you're Christian, you should burn the Qur'an. Islam is of the devil, because, well, Islam is of the devil. He's made some awesome lectures on YouTube, though:

3Tf9M9HRMWk

SoxQp5E41s4

Step aside, Fred Phelps; there's an new sheriff in town...

It's not only the location of the proposed mosque but also the religious leader for the center - Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf has been in print and on video as of late and believes the United States Foreign Policy was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Rauf also refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

What about some of the surviving family members of those who died in the 9-11 attacks? Are they racist or bigoted because they oppose? We have the freedom to practice any religion in this country. We do not have the freedom to place our respective religious centers anywhere we want.

I, too, am opposed to the location of this proposed center. Someone here mentioned location, location, location and I found it to be ironic. Let's say a white supremacist group decided they needed a new center for their members. They decide to build the new center in the immediate area of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. Would you all be in support of it? Remember, not all white supremacist group members have engaged in violence against blacks, jews or homosexuals. In fact, the majority of their members are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who just so happen to believe that the white race is superior to all others.

It's not only the location of the proposed mosque but also the religious leader for the center - Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf has been in print and on video as of late and believes the United States Foreign Policy was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Rauf also refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

What about some of the surviving family members of those who died in the 9-11 attacks? Are they racist or bigoted because they oppose? We have the freedom to practice any religion in this country. We do not have the freedom to place our respective religious centers anywhere we want.

I, too, am opposed to the location of this proposed center. Someone here mentioned location, location, location and I found it to be ironic. Let's say a white supremacist group decided they needed a new center for their members. They decide to build the new center in the immediate area of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. Would you all be in support of it? Remember, not all white supremacist group members have engaged in violence against blacks, jews or homosexuals. In fact, the majority of their members are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who just so happen to believe that the white race is superior to all others.

It sounds as if you think white supremecists are better than Muslims, quite frankly. The way I see it, that's pretty much a different case; Islam is not a religion of hate, but white supremecists do hate everyone who isn't white. To me, it appears as if you think all Muslims have been terrorists or broken the law.

Also, you're going to have to back-up the first part of your argument. I personally don't mind people's opinions on Hamas; yeah, they've done pretty questionable things, to put it mildly, though they pale in comparison to al-Qaeda. I have never seen an article saying the guy believed the U.S. State Dept. was behind 9/11.

I never inferred that white supremacists are better than muslims. I gave an example. As far as white supremacy being based on hate, just ask and they'll tell you they do not hate - they believe themselves to be superior to all other races, per se. Nowhere in my post did I allude that all muslims are terrorists nor did I mention the U.S. State Department. However, all of the recent terrorist attacks or plots against the United States have been carried out or attempted by muslims with the exception of Timothy McVeigh. As far as islam not being a religion of hate, we will have to agree to disagree. There are other posts on these boards where I make my opinion known about the islamic faith.

Here is just one article about Feisal Abdul Rauf. (http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/08/13/the-blindness-of-the-establishment/)

Here is another. (http://www.examiner.com/religion-social-issues-in-newark/have-we-been-told-the-truth-about-the-9-11-mosque)

It's not only the location of the proposed mosque but also the religious leader for the center - Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf has been in print and on video as of late and believes the United States Foreign Policy was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Rauf also refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization.Yeah, I've heard that, too. Do I think that he was explicit in citing 9/11 as an inside job? No; I think he's trying to say that U.S. foreign policy has served as a catalyst for Islamic terrorism. When looking at the history of the Middle East in the 20th century, that isn't really a far-fetched claim, to say the least.

He phrased it in a completely horrible manner, but his point still stands.

However, all of the recent terrorist attacks or plots against the United States have been carried out or attempted by muslims with the exception of Timothy McVeigh.Terrorism isn't exclusive to any particular age or ideal; it's a perennial phenomenon. Fifty years ago it was communist sympathizers and white supremacists; a hundred years ago it was federal anarchists; 150 years ago it was radical abolitionists and southern nationalists. Twenty years from now, it might be firearms activists, or PETA militias; stating "Well, we don't see terrorists coming from " is fallacious, because chances are that we have seen or we will see terrorists produced by some ideology.

As far as islam not being a religion of hate, we will have to agree to disagree. There are other posts on these boards where I make my opinion known about the islamic faith. If this debate [i]is going to be about the mosque and the mosque alone, then any conceptions, right or wrong, about Islam should be addressed here before we move any further. :)

He phrased it in a completely horrible manner, but his point still stands.

I'm confused - are you saying you agree with Rauf that United States foreign policy was a catalyst for the 9-11 attacks; ie. we brought this on ourselves?


Terrorism isn't exclusive to any particular age or ideal; it's a perennial phenomenon. Fifty years ago it was communist sympathizers and white supremacists; a hundred years ago it was federal anarchists; 150 years ago it was radical abolitionists and southern nationalists. Twenty years from now, it might be firearms activists, or PETA militias; stating "Well, we don't see terrorists coming from " is fallacious, because chances are that we have seen or we will see terrorists produced by some ideology.

The difference is white supremacists, PETA and environmental groups aren't attempting to bring about the destruction and downfall of the United States. Those groups do not hold the United States as the purveyor of all ills in the world. Call them extremists or radicalized, they get their start in islam.


If this debate [i]is going to be about the mosque and the mosque alone, then any conceptions, right or wrong, about Islam should be addressed here before we move any further. :)

This debate isn't about the mosque, it's about the location of the mosque. I'm sure there are numerous places in Manhattan where they could build this new mosque.

Therein lies the problem. How can someone convince someone else that their view of a particular subject is right or wrong? I'm sure my view of islam differs from yours. It doesn't make my views right or wrong because there's a consensus on the subject.

My posts in the Fort Hood Shooting Thread. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=201379)

I'm confused - are you saying you agree with Rauf that United States foreign policy was a catalyst for the 9-11 attacks; ie. we brought this on ourselves?No; I am not in any way implying that the U.S. contributed to the 9/11 attack directly, nor Islamic terrorism as a whole. What does factor into the terrorism equation is the development of the narrative behind it; i.e. perceived Western aggression towards Islam, imperialism in the Middle East, etc. All of this propaganda is founded upon the influence of Western powers in the Middle East during the 20th century, which is an undeniable fact.

Take T.E. Lawrence; why do you think the British sent him to Arabia to spur a revolt? To weaken the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed, and was partitioned by the Allies. The nations formed by various Allied powers were eventually installed with Western-friendly governments, like Iran, Iraq, etc. During the Cold War, those reigning were staunchly anti-communist, and those that had presumed communist sympathies were usually overthrown by Western-backed coups; see the re-installment of the Shah. The anti-communist leaders usually weren't better; see Saddam Hussein, and the former example.

I'd go on, but here's the point: America has indirectly contributed to the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 20th century and beyond, and by extension, could be considered a factor to 9/11. This notion does not mean "The U.S. allowed 9/11 to happen" or "It was an inside job", but it does state that the U.S. is very loosely responsible. Now, terrorist organizations have used U.S. influence in the Middle East as propaganda, and the implications of the U.S. have been exaggerated beyond belief, but all propaganda is based on some truth, no matter what.

The difference is white supremacists, PETA and environmental groups aren't attempting to bring about the destruction and downfall of the United States. Those groups do not hold the United States as the purveyor of all ills in the world. Call them extremists or radicalized, they get their start in islam. That's too coddling; many neo-Nazi groups have advocated anarchy on a national level; see The Turner Diaries. Even then, this is a bad argument; totalism like this abstractly redefines "terrorism", and saying that some groups are or are not "terrorist" enough to be considered bona-fide terrorists is rather dangerous. Assassinating a head of state due to political beliefs is as "terrorist" as plotting to detonate a nuke in D.C.; there is no room for subjectivity.

This debate isn't about the mosque, it's about the location of the mosque. I'm sure there are numerous places in Manhattan where they could build this new mosque.Maybe, but there might be other factors considering the location, as others have noticed. Personally, they should've been much more wary of the proximity to the WTC, but that's a dead point. Even if it was built three blocks away, or six blocks away, or nine blocks away, there would probably still be a controversy.

There's a strip club three blocks away from the WTC. I ask you, would that also be seen as an affront to the victims of 9/11?

Therein lies the problem. How can someone convince someone else that there view of a particular subject is right or wrong? I'm sure my view of islam differs from yours. It doesn't make my views right or wrong because there's a consensus on the subject. I will look for the posts I made and provide a link to them when I get a chance.Subjectivity is not equal to objectivity. If you'd noticed when researching Islam, it shares many parallels with Judaism and Christianity, including the "violent" parts. Now, if Islam is considered a "violent religion", then by extension, would this also be applicable to the former two faiths?

And before you respond "Well, in the context of...___... it's OK", then would this not be the same for Islam? if you've read a reliable and objective biography of Muhammad, you'd realize that early Islam has much in common with the perennial plights of the Israelites, or the life of Abraham, or the Exodus. Yes, there's violence, but the adherents of all of these faiths have dutifully denounced these allegations with theological and physical arguments. This is the just same for Islam.

The difference is white supremacists, PETA and environmental groups aren't attempting to bring about the destruction and downfall of the United States. Those groups do not hold the United States as the purveyor of all ills in the world. Call them extremists or radicalized, they get their start in islam.


By this comment, I'm inferring that you believe all Muslims want the U.S. to be destroyed. That's a narrow-minded view, to put it politely (now, I normally don't sugarcoat things, but I'm doing it to stay on the moderator's good side). Have you even met a Muslim before? They're normal people like you and me. The terrorists are the ones who want to destroy the U.S., not the religion. If you can't or refuse to see that - I'm sorry, but there's no nice way to say this - then that's just plain stupidity on your part.

No; I am not in any way implying that the U.S. contributed to the 9/11 attack directly, nor Islamic terrorism as a whole. What does factor into the terrorism equation is the development of the narrative behind it; i.e. perceived Western aggression towards Islam, imperialism in the Middle East, etc. All of this propaganda is founded upon the influence of Western powers in the Middle East during the 20th century, which is an undeniable fact.

I'd go on, but here's the point: America has indirectly contributed to the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 20th century and beyond, and by extension, could be considered a factor to 9/11.

I may be reading you wrong, but to me; you sound as if you think we're partly responsible for 9-11. I don't mean the "inside job" or "allowing the attacks to happen" - I mean you sound as if you believe our way of life and the things we do here made us a target for terrorism.


That's too coddling; many neo-Nazi groups have advocated anarchy on a national level; see The Turner Diaries. Even then, this is a bad argument; totalism like this abstractly redefines "terrorism", and saying that some groups are or are not "terrorist" enough to be considered bona-fide terrorists is rather dangerous. Assassinating a head of state due to political beliefs is as "terrorist" as plotting to detonate a nuke in D.C.; there is no room for subjectivity.

Those groups target single individuals and corporations, not an entire nation.


Maybe, but there might be other factors considering the location, as others have noticed. Personally, they should've been much more wary of the proximity to the WTC, but that's a dead point. Even if it was built three blocks away, or six blocks away, or nine blocks away, there would probably still be a controversy.
There's a strip club three blocks away from the WTC. I ask you, would that also be seen as an affront to the victims of 9/11?

Was the strip club already there and did the strippers and management happen to have killed about 3000 people beforehand?


Subjectivity is not equal to objectivity. If you'd noticed when researching Islam, it shares many parallels with Judaism and Christianity, including the "violent" parts. Now, if Islam is considered a "violent religion", then by extension, would this also be applicable to the former two faiths?

And before you respond "Well, in the context of...___... it's OK", then would this not be the same for Islam? if you've read a reliable and objective biography of Muhammad, you'd realize that early Islam has much in common with the perennial plights of the Israelites, or the life of Abraham, or the Exodus. Yes, there's violence, but the adherents of all of these faiths have dutifully denounced these allegations with theological and physical arguments. This is the just same for Islam.

There are numerous references to violence in the Bible. Most are either directed by God or carried out by God. Conversely, the qur'an has even more references to violence directed at those who are not islam believers.

Muhammed married an 8 year old child. I'll leave this discussion with a few questions: If islam is a religion of peace, where are the extremists getting their ideas? Are they getting their ideas from a person or group of persons who have corrupted the tenents? Or, are they getting their ideas directly from the qur'an?

It's obvious to me that the majority here still believe islam to be a religion of peace as I used to believe. I know I won't change anyone's opinion of islam but I've had my say and thank you all for haring me out.

@Ten-96: You fail to realize that the Koran actually says to show tolerance to Christians and Jews.

And you're just giving up? That's telling me you know you can't win, from my point of view. It's tempting to say because of that, you're in denial.

Was the strip club already there and did the strippers and management happen to have killed about 3000 people beforehand?Please list the future members of the Mosque that killed 3000 people?

I may be reading you wrong, but to me; you sound as if you think we're partly responsible for 9-11. I don't mean the "inside job" or "allowing the attacks to happen" - I mean you sound as if you believe our way of life and the things we do here made us a target for terrorism.U.S. foreign policy has inadvertadly earned the ire of would-be terrorists. Does this mean that America has erred, and should be held responsible for it? No, because few foresaw the consequences, and the intentions weren't "evil" to begin with. You're reading far too much into this.

Those groups target single individuals and corporations, not an entire nation.You're dodging the point. Violence is violence and murder is murder and terrorism is terrorism; ideology doesn't matter, the depravity does. It's like comparing Fatah and Hamas, and arriving at the conclusion that Hamas is "more terrorist" just because A) they're more active and more powerful currently; and B) they're Islamic-based while Fatah is nationalist. That's dangerous way to think, because in the end, they're both terrorists.

Was the strip club already there and did the strippers and management happen to have killed about 3000 people beforehand?By that analogy, you're implying that Muslims as a whole are directly responsible for 9/11?

There are numerous references to violence in the Bible. Most are either directed by God or carried out by God. Conversely, the qur'an has even more references to violence directed at those who are not islam believers.That's debatable, and is possibly reliant on misinformation. Besides, that's exceptionist; is it more morally acceptable for, say, the Israelites to massacre the city of Jericho than for the Muslim equivalent of the massacre of the tribe of Banu Qurayza? On what grounds, then; context? The pretty much the same.

Muhammed married an 8 year old child.Ah yes, the hedonist clause. Are you unaware that polygamy and young marriages were common among affluent Israelites, and even by patriarchs?

I'll leave this discussion with a few questions: If islam is a religion of peace, where are the extremists getting their ideas? Are they getting their ideas from a person or group of persons who have corrupted the tenents? Or, are they getting their ideas directly from the qur'an?I'd say it's both. Terrorists like bin Laden and Hasan have been directly influenced by the teachings of radical clerics. These clerics have based their views on the already multi-faceted doctrine of jihad. As your studies of jihad have pointed out, it has been divided upon "lesser" and "greater" jihad, one of which is based on physical defense of Islam and Muslims, and the other representing the daily struggle of temptation and evil, respectively.

You'd also understand that the context of jihad within the Qur'an is based on purely self-defense and defense of others; it explicitly mentions that any wanton slaughter or excessive combat is a grievous sin, as it makes the defender just as sinful as the invader. The period of self-defense must also be in proportion to offense, and if the attacks cease, then so should the defenders declare armistice. This contradicts Islamic terrorism directly, and exposes the illegality of al-Qaeda & Co. within Islamic jurisprudence.

I'll leave this discussion with a few questions: If islam is a religion of peace, where are the extremists getting their ideas? Are they getting their ideas from a person or group of persons who have corrupted the tenents? Or, are they getting their ideas directly from the qur'an?
Actually, this is one area you really don't want to go. They get their extremist ideas from the same place that Extremist Christian groups get their ideas. Misinterpretations of select passages. They make up their own rules based on how they want to interpret it.

I mean you sound as if you believe our way of life and the things we do here made us a target for terrorism.

With respect, you missed the point here.

It's not the American way of life he was refering to, it was American involvement in Middle-Eastern affairs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0&feature=player_embedded)
Usually I avoid 24 hour propaganda channels but this was actually decent, and compared to glenn becks response to it, it makes Keith Olbermann look like a god of debate.

Yeah, one more example of a far left lib pundit trying to cast opposition to the proposed location of an Islamic Mosque/Center as mob mentality. Way to go Keith. Seems to me that many of the public figures rallying to the defense of this building are intent to mischarachterize the opposition as to it's being built at all rather than where it's being built. While there are those that would like to see Islam thrown out of America on its backside, most Americans seem to be merely asking for a little sensitivity on WHERE rather than if. Had the Japanese decided to build a Shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor in the 1950s, I'm sure people would have been equally offended. The main questions I've heard from serious people is why the developer is tone deaf on the location issue and where the sources of $$ for the building will be coming from in the end.

All right since Islam in not the majority religion in the US, lets use a hypothetical situation and tell me what the country's reaction would be to it. A high percentage of those involved with drug cartels in Mexico are Christian. Hundreds to thousands of people are killed in Mexico, the boarder and the boarder states every month. What if people started demanding that churches not be built because their funding was coming from Mexico and possibly sources with vague connections to cartels in the 90s and because its a victory monument to for the Christian cartel monuments. After all, how is this different? So the 9/11 attacks happened 1 day, the drug war has been going on for years. Probably a lot more dead from the drug wars. Isnt it a little insensitive to build churches that cartel fighters and leaders could worship in, even after killing American citizens?

Perhaps if the drug cartels were committing their violence in the name of Jesus or somesuch you might be better able to make your case. Here, you're merely reaching. ;) I should also add that the majority of the US population IS Christian, so does that mean by extension that all (future?)Christian (or perhaps, more specifically, Catholic) Churches should somehow be banned in the border states under your scenario? I'd agree that in cases where any funding of a church could be linked to specific criminal enterprises that such funding be refused or the project be abandonned (much like the question of where the Park51...ie Cordoba... project funding is coming from). Besides, as an aside, the intransigence that the developers are putting up belies any claims of wanting to "heal" anything.

Jon Stewart for President. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-august-19-2010-jennifer-aniston)

Covers the subject pretty well in the first segment

Really like him pointing out that the Pentagon was hit 9/11/2001, hmmmm the Pentagon has a Mosque in it. Not down the block….IN IT!

Jon Stewart for President. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-august-19-2010-jennifer-aniston)

Covers the subject pretty well in the first segment

Really like him pointing out that the Pentagon was hit 9/11/2001, hmmmm the Pentagon has a Mosque in it. Not down the block….IN IT!

Haha, saw that earlier.

Now that I think about it, we'd probably be better off with him in office.

As is his comedic forte, he had a few good one liners in his bit. He blindsided me with the Heston choice, as I was set to kill the clip if he cited someone like Obama (but then it wouldn't have been funny had he done so). John can be clever, but I doubt even he would want to be president....I'm sure he'd rather be the poker than the pokee when it comes to comedy. :xp:

John can be clever, but I doubt even he would want to be president....I'm sure he'd rather be the poker than the pokee when it comes to comedy. :xp: Agreed, but seriously who in their right mind would want to be President. It is a job where no matter what you do ½ the country is going to hate you sooner or later. :D

Agreed, but seriously who in their right mind would want to be President. It is a job where no matter what you do Ѕ the country is going to hate you sooner or later. :D

Yeah, and by the time midterms roll around the haters are more like 60-70%, especially if you've managed to extend your stay at "the asylum" to 2 terms. :p My guess, though, is the perks are too good to pass up, esp now that the prez makes $400K + assorted perks/annum in addition to how well they can clean up as an ex-prez. ;) But, yeah, you've almost got to have a rhino's hide to enter politics in the first place.

Are you implying that there's no such thing as extremist Christians or Jews or really anything else?
No I am not. But those are not the issue at hand. The issue presently presented is Islamic extremism, which is one of the most prominent sources of religion-themed terrorism and currently the strongest threat to USA National Security.
No... thats the goal of some Muslim extremists. Some want other religions out of their Holy Land. Some could care less about a world caliphate and would be fine if Russia stopped bombing them. Some would be fine with just their own country as a caliphate, undisturbed by the west. Some of them want to kill the Sunnis. Some want to kill the Shiites I know the media makes terrorism seem really simple, but terrorists are not in an international league of EVVVVIIIILLLLLLLL. They dont all share the same goals.
The ideology of Islamic Extremism is based upon the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate and the elimination of its competitors. Ethic and local problems are usually excuses to recruit for a larger cause.

But yes, they are not all the same camp. Rather, they are mostly two large camps with the same general goal but two versions of the same religion: Shia and Sunni. Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their supporters are Sunni-based extremists and function more commonly as terrorist and crime groups, thus being the more immediate threat. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, and Hamas are examples of the more unified, yet slightly more diplomatic Shia factions that are based out of Iran (admittedly Hamas is Sunni but receives funding from Iran). These groups are closer to semi-legal militias and have a greater sense of integrity. However, the basic intent is the same.
Youre completely right. Us God fearing Christians are the only ones fighting the terrorists. Its a good thing Christian Pakistan is aiding us. And thank goodness Christian Kuwait let us hang out there before we invaded Iraq. And our military, good thing its 100% non Muslims.
-Pakistan harbored the majority of the Taliban outside of Afghanistan and has allowed them to build an illegal state within their borders. Only recently have they begun to address this issue.
-We helped secure Kuwait's independence and security from Saddam Hussein. Allowing us to stage some troops there basically makes us about even.
-I did not say that there are no Muslim moderates opposing Islamic extremism. However, they are a considerable minority.
I mean you're lumping all the muslims in one sack and calling them extremists.
Which I am not doing. Inaction does not mean evil action, though it indirectly serves to remove the obstacles for evil action.
Kind of hard to do when they are at gunpoint. Or when the State does not exist or reach a certain places and all that passes for law, social and healthcare are those extrimists. Too much to ask for, say, a tribal community which has ony known war against the same targets the extremists claim to fight against.

So:

Dunno how you reached that conclusion.
So you know for a fact that this is the situation in every single Islamic community? Taliban Afghanistan is not the example that sets the rule.
Conversely, the prohibition of the construction of the mosque would serve as an example of perceived Western oppression and upheaval of Islam. Propaganda is propaganda, regardless of the reason, and in this case, it wouldn't be incredibly inaccurate, although highly embellished.That's too general; al-Qaeda's present aim is to rid the Muslim world of Western influence, of any form. Whether that means the direct upheaval of the West itself, and the propagation of Islam thereafter, is something entirely different. Right now, al-Qaeda's motive are molded as a defensive one; world domination isn't exactly an explicit goal. I suppose that Hamas and Hezbollah could also be lumped into the same, villainous cubby, no?
Hamas and Hezbollah are similar but not equivalent to Al-Qaeda.

But yes, either way propaganda is propaganda. However, in this situation I'd prefer pro-US propaganda. This country honestly doesn't believe in itself enough, and the only way that the extremist elements of Islam will ever be satisfied is if we convert to Islam. If the moderate elements are moderate, they will not take offense...no?
Secondly, would it not be unreasonable to say that this controversy is all rooted in coincidental real estate, and not idealistic capital? Even if the construction is where it is for a specific reason, would it not be a better way to turn a new leaf than to do so at the figurehead of all misunderstanding of Islam? It's not too different than establishing St. Peter's Basilica over a Roman necropolis, or the reestablishment of the then-polytheist Kaa'ba as a site of worship to God.
Building a religious building of any type would just be a problem for somebody (this is coming from a religious person mind you ;) ), so I'd personally support a ban on any such construction there for at least ten years.

No I am not. But those are not the issue at hand. The issue presently presented is Islamic extremism, which is one of the most prominent sources of religion-themed terrorism and currently the strongest threat to USA National Security.

So if extremist Christians were the greatest threat you would fully support not building churches?

The ideology of Islamic Extremism is based upon the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate and the elimination of its competitors. Ethic and local problems are usually excuses to recruit for a larger cause.

But yes, they are not all the same camp. Rather, they are mostly two large camps with the same general goal but two versions of the same religion: Shia and Sunni. Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their supporters are Sunni-based extremists and function more commonly as terrorist and crime groups, thus being the more immediate threat. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, and Hamas are examples of the more unified, yet slightly more diplomatic Shia factions that are based out of Iran (admittedly Hamas is Sunni but receives funding from Iran). These groups are closer to semi-legal militias and have a greater sense of integrity. However, the basic intent is the same.

No. They're not just split into Sunni and Shia. Once again you're making extremely simplified statements. Are Americans divided into strictly Republicans and democrats? Or are there conservative democrats and liberal republicans(hint, there are). And then there's parties like the green party and libertarian party. And then there's the parties that In areas like the failed state of Somalia, I can assure you that if you walked in assuming you could group everyone into to categories, you might be shot by someone who wants to institute an Islamic caliphate, you might be shot by someone who wants their neighbor to be supreme ruler of Mogadishu and you might be shot by someone who is upset that Americans and just want to defend their home. This isnt the 30 year war here, and if you treat it like it then you wont understand it.

-I did not say that there are no Muslim moderates opposing Islamic extremism. However, they are a considerable minority.

I stopped reading after you said this. I have to ask you, have you ever even met a Muslim? Have you ever seen a mosque in the US? I know quite a few Muslims, a lot who were from the former Yugoslavia. Strange, how despite being subject to ethnic cleansing by CHRISTIANS, they never showed up to school to kill them some Christians. Maaayybe its because the vast majority of Muslims are against extremism. In the book Inside the Jihad, about a French secret service agent sent to infiltrate terrorist training camps, one of his first major obstacles was trying to find a way to be connected to the violent jihad movement. This is in Afghanistan. Not some midwest mosque. That place where supposedly Bin Laden and Cobra Commander and Lex Luthor conspire to create the Muslim caliphate with every other Muslim. No, he didnt find people waving recruitment flags, he found Imams who encouraged peaceful jihad by helping others. Wow, helping others. Strange, I guess the league of Evil better find a better religion to support it.

So if extremist Christians were the greatest threat you would fully support not building churches?
I would not support building a church ON THE SITE OF A RELIGION-BASED TERRORIST ATTACK.

Dear God, I swear at times that people NEED to turn their opponents arguments into broad statements rather than accept the fact that individuals can have situational views independent of a political ideology. :raise:
No. They're not just split into Sunni and Shia. Once again you're making extremely simplified statements. Are Americans divided into strictly Republicans and democrats? Or are there conservative democrats and liberal republicans(hint, there are). And then there's parties like the green party and libertarian party. And then there's the parties that In areas like the failed state of Somalia, I can assure you that if you walked in assuming you could group everyone into to categories, you might be shot by someone who wants to institute an Islamic caliphate, you might be shot by someone who wants their neighbor to be supreme ruler of Mogadishu and you might be shot by someone who is upset that Americans and just want to defend their home. This isnt the 30 year war here, and if you treat it like it then you wont understand it.
Again, I am not saying it is impossible for exceptions to exist. I am saying that these are the more prominent issues in relation to national security. Each group has its own view, but when it comes down to it there are two overarching camps within Muslim extremism based on a fundamental divide of the faith. The Shia-Sunni battle is at the core of Islamic history, usually centering around the inheritance of their prophet's authority. The Shia believe in inheritance based on a series of Imams descended from Muhammad, while the Sunni prefer a sort of election system for their religious authorities.

And yes there are a variety of views in America, but considering that people ACT in a way that only those TWO parties matter, then I think there's little point in discussing those small differences until people begin acting upon them and show some thought independent of the parasites in the DNC and GOP.
I stopped reading after you said this. I have to ask you, have you ever even met a Muslim?
Yes. Why do you assume I haven't? Guess what: I live in Oregon, one of this country's most liberal states. I also happen to be pro-gay marriage, a Catholic who is well-read in Darwin's theory of evolution, neutral on economic ideology, and hawkish on military policy.
*snipped*
1) Do not assume that because I disagree with you that I am somehow ignorant. I can easily bring up some story as well and have it support my point. Furthermore, I can easily cite this story as if it is inherently unbiased and not based by limited sources of information.

2) Stop acting as if the fact that I am opposed to Muslim extremism means that I don't have a problem with Christian extremism. I oppose ANY and ALL acts of evil, from all religions and secular ideologies alike. However, it is important to note that the people who blew up the Twin Towers were not Christians. They were Muslims. Right now, America's enemy is Muslim extremism. If it was a terrorist attack by "The Lord's Army" in Africa (a genocidal militia group of Christian extremists), then Christian extremists would be the enemy. The logic here is not hard.

3) Tell me, if what that French service agent found was the case in every camp, do you honestly think that we would even have this problem of Muslim extremism?

Here's a book for you to read: A Thousand Splendid Suns. It shows that this issue is not a case of "the Muslims are evil" or "the Americans are ignorant". The war we are fighting is not easy, but nor is being a mother and wife in Kabul during three wars and three totalitarian states with their own challenged ideologies.

I would not support building a church ON THE SITE OF A RELIGION-BASED TERRORIST ATTACK.I would like to know what would be considered a safe radius from Ground Zero to build a Mosque? 2 blocks, 4 miles, 1000 miles? I really would like to know, since the thread as already shown that some consider Tennessee and California too close to Ground Zero.


I would not support building anything at Ground Zero and since the Mosque is not being built at Ground Zero, I have no problem with it. Surprised no one has post pic of site with sign saying "Future home of Ground Zero Mosque."

The land was for sale, they bought it. As long as they proscribe to zoning and ordinance regulations they should be allowed to build whatever that darn well please on their own land. If people did not want them to build, then they should have bought the land themselves.

I would like to know what would be considered a safe radius from Ground Zero to build a Mosque? 2 blocks, 4 miles, 1000 miles? I really would like to know, since the thread as already shown that some consider Tennessee and California too close to Ground Zero.


I would not support building anything at Ground Zero and since the Mosque is not being built at Ground Zero, I have no problem with it. Surprised no one has post pic of site with sign saying "Future home of Ground Zero Mosque."

The land was for sale, they bought it. As long as they proscribe to zoning and ordinance regulations they should be allowed to build whatever that darn well please on their own land. If people did not want them to build, then they should have bought the land themselves.

To be fair, this building actually had debris hit it from the attacks on 9/11. I believe it was one of the aircraft's landing gear.

As said enough times in this thread. It's not about mosques, as there are other mosques within 4 blocks of ground zero. However it is about the mosque within 2 blocks.

Legally, there is no justification for them NOT to build there. The land was for sale. They bought it. It's a good location. The building being demolished is not a historical building. It's just merely poor taste to do so.

To be fair, this building actually had debris hit it from the attacks on 9/11. I believe it was one of the aircraft's landing gear.

No bodies? Anyone killed there because of the terrorist attack?

If not, I see no reason to honor or respect a piece of the plane used as a weapon to kill thousands of people. It was evidence nothing more. (should not have to point this out, but...IMO).

To be fair, this building actually had debris hit it from the attacks on 9/11. I believe it was one of the aircraft's landing gear.By that logic, the entire lower half of Manhattan Island should also be "landmarked" due to all of the ash and fire from the fallout when the towers collapsed.As said enough times in this thread. It's not about mosques, as there are other mosques within 4 blocks of ground zero. However it is about the mosque within 2 blocks.So what's the specific range of the designated "Muslim-free" buffer zone, then? I'd warrant that even if this same building was a block or two farther from the WTC, we'd still be seeing the same controversy. Even if it wasn't built on Manhattan proper, but say Long Island or New Jersey, it'd still be named "a towering ziggurat to Muslim conquest" or some other reactionary ilk.Legally, there is no justification for them NOT to build there. The land was for sale. They bought it. It's a good location. The building being demolished is not a historical building. It's just merely poor taste to do so.If it's not historical... then how is it morally reprehensible to use it as anyone may please? :confused: If any other organization or corporation bought and demolished this same Burlington Coat Factory, would this also be considered a disgrace, or is this veil of sanctity just applicable to one specific organization?

I would like to know what would be considered a safe radius from Ground Zero to build a Mosque? 2 blocks, 4 miles, 1000 miles? I really would like to know, since the thread as already shown that some consider Tennessee and California too close to Ground Zero.
About 4 miles away would be acceptable in my book. At that distance, there's really no connection to Ground Zero other than sharing the same city.

So yeah, as long as it is at least 4 miles away from Ground Zero, they can build all the Mosques they want and enjoy religious freedom to their hearts' content.
I would not support building anything at Ground Zero and since the Mosque is not being built at Ground Zero, I have no problem with it. Surprised no one has post pic of site with sign saying "Future home of Ground Zero Mosque."

The land was for sale, they bought it. As long as they proscribe to zoning and ordinance regulations they should be allowed to build whatever that darn well please on their own land. If people did not want them to build, then they should have bought the land themselves.
I kind of agree with this. The local population should have at least taken the time to make their stance clear to the city government. However, it's still tactless in my view to build a Mosque there.

About 4 miles away would be acceptable in my book. At that distance, there's really no connection to Ground Zero other than sharing the same city.How did you arrive at the "4 mile buffer zone" then? How is "too close to Ground Zero" even quantified; this isn't Three Mile Island here. If "4 miles" is appropriate, then shouldn't this be applied to every mosque within the 4-mile-radius of any federal or national building, seeing as they're all under threat from this same Islamic terrorism being propagated through the Ground Zero Mosque?
So yeah, as long as it is at least 4 miles away from Ground Zero, they can build all the Mosques they want and enjoy religious freedom to their hearts' content.Now, it's "You have to be this tall to go on this ride"; what will be the next contention of debate? If it's not a mosque near the WTC, then it's one in Temecula, an ocean away, or Tennessee. This argument of "There, but not here" is borderline xenophobia; it's indirectly discriminating a minority due to the sensibilities of others. The "not in our backyard" mentality has been the most pervasive anti-immigrant sentiment throughout American history, to say the least, and now that it is being reignited is predictably embarrassing. The democratic system in America shouldn't, and never has, operate(d) upon the principle of "unanimous agreement or nothing", and this most certainly applies here.

Now, it's "You have to be this tall to go on this ride"; what will be the next contention of debate? If it's not a mosque near the WTC, then it's one in Temecula, an ocean away, or Tennessee. This argument of "There, but not here" is borderline xenophobia; it's indirectly discriminating a minority due to the sensibilities of others. The "not in our backyard" mentality has been the most pervasive anti-immigrant sentiment throughout American history, to say the least, and now that it is being reignited is predictably embarrassing. The democratic system in America shouldn't, and never has, operate(d) upon the principle of "unanimous agreement or nothing", and this most certainly applies here.

So, how do you view the opposition of other Muslims (like the head of Al Aribiya, reportedly) to the location? It's not as if all Muslims are monolithic on this issue. Why, when the governor of NY was willing to donate land elsewhere for the mosque/center, do its adherents still try to peddle the racism charge to opposition in general? Most Americans don't seem to be of the mind that Muslims can't be allowed their own places of worship, w/in the confines of the law (zoning, etc..). But that doesn't invalidate opposition to the proposed location of the GZM. I recall similiar fears of "rampant racism" in the wake of the Towers coming down, but it largely didn't happen then either. Besides, it's interesting that Bloomberg and company are content to deny a Greek Orthodox church the right to rebuild for almost 9 years, but are falling all over themselves to accomodate Rauf. Maybe it's just the mayor's fine business sense that's getting in the way.. http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081029/BUSINESS/302158245/1005)

So, how do you view the opposition of other Muslims (like the head of Al Aribiya, reportedly) to the location? It's not as if all Muslims are monolithic on this issue.Yes, I understand that. I'm not talking about opposition to the mosque due to location and location alone, though; it's the hysteria that has been propagated by the few who have used the mosque as a rallying cry for paranoia, portraying Islam and all Muslims as a creeping national threat. This is an undeniable fact. The sentiment has influenced the opinion of others in the opposition, who have masqueraded the fear and hate as a political issue... some aren't afraid to show their true colors, though.
Why, when the governor of NY was willing to donate land elsewhere for the mosque/center, do its adherents still try to peddle the racism charge to opposition in general?I don't believe that the opposition as a whole are racist, but you must admit that a sizable portion is racist, either explicitly and or implicitly. Feel free to watch many of the protests for evidence.
Besides, it's interesting that Bloomberg and company are content to deny a Greek Orthodox church the right to rebuild for almost 9 years, but are falling all over themselves to accomodate Rauf. Maybe it's just the mayor's fine business sense that's getting in the way.. http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081029/BUSINESS/302158245/1005I) don't see anything in the link that seems to even allude to your point... :confused:

Hate to point this out again, but...

Did this proposed donated land have easy access to 6 subway line and the South Ferry?

If not, then it is hardly comparing apples to apples.

If it does, then it is still too close to Ground Zero for many of the opponents, because beside being close to Ground Zero the real major attraction to this piece of property is it convenience to major public transportation.

Yes, I understand that. I'm not talking about opposition to the mosque due to location and location alone, though; it's the hysteria that has been propagated by the few who have used the mosque as a rallying cry for paranoia, portraying Islam and all Muslims as a creeping national threat. This is an undeniable fact. The sentiment has influenced the opinion of others in the opposition, who have masqueraded the fear and hate as a political issue... some aren't afraid to show their true colors, though.
I don't believe that the opposition as a whole are racist, but you must admit that a sizable portion is racist, either explicitly and or implicitly. Feel free to watch many of the protests for evidence.

Yeah, I referenced earlier that there are people who are opposed on principle to Islam that are protesting the GZM (and perhaps in CA and TN). What you mean by sizable is another matter entirely. I think that there are people on both sides that are resorting to all manner of politicizing the issue. Whether it is aholes like Ed Shultz on MSNBC pulling the nazi card or the guy wanting to celebrate "burn a Koran day", there are people exploiting this issue for their own ends. Problem w/protests is that they often only involve a microcosm of society at large and the coverage is usually cherry picked by the national media.

I don't see anything in the link that seems to even allude to your point... :confused:

Was implying that it's possible that Bloomberg's stance may have been influenced by his expansion into Dubai. Perhaps he doesn't want to offend his new hosts. May be unlikely, but we'll probably never really know... Still, it brings to mind the old saying, "follow the money".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7966533/Campaigners-say-Ground-Zero-mosque-plans-led-to-taxi-driver-murder-attempt.html)

I'm calling BS on the claims made by people on both sides of this argument. Both pro and anti "Ground Zero" mosque people are claiming that this attack was motivated by the mosque. Mainly because it happened to happen in the same city.

Let's look at the facts:
1. Enright was actually a supporter of the "Ground Zero" mosque, at least publicly.
2.Sharif, the stabbed cabbie, was actually against the construction of the mosque.
3.Enright, before stabbing the cabbie, started spouting all sorts of crazy stuff "This is a checkpoint... I need to put you down! (something about the king of Saudi Arabia as well)"
4. At film school, Enright did a lot of projects about PTSD.
5. Enright went to Afghanistan to video a USMC unit, but didn't ever witness attacks, firefights, etc.

This seems much less an attack based on Mosque-related hate, and more the work of an insane person who wishes they had real PTSD for god knows what reason, and decided to pretend.

Just thought I'd lay out the facts behind the situation before someone posted it as anything to do with the Mosque, either for or against. (My personal opinion has not changed since my last post on the topic.)

5. Enright went to Iraq to video a USMC unit, but didn't ever witness attacks, firefights, etc.The article you linked said Afghanistan. Did he go to Iraq too?

Anyone that has ridden in a New York City cab could just as easily claim temporary insanity. First off you have to be out of your mind just to get into a cab there (same goes for New Orleans and Raleigh, NC of all places).

The article you linked said Afghanistan. Did he go to Iraq too?

Anyone that has ridden in a New York City cab could just as easily claim temporary insanity. First off you have to be out of your mind just to get into a cab there (same goes for New Orleans and Raleigh, NC of all places).

Thanks for pointing that out, I forgot which one, and my memory lied to me. The rest of the post is fact though, and I've edited it to eliminate confusion.

Agreed on the topic of the cabs. I try to walk or take the subway as much as possible, I know too many people who've been ripped off by cabbies.

How did you arrive at the "4 mile buffer zone" then? How is "too close to Ground Zero" even quantified; this isn't Three Mile Island here. If "4 miles" is appropriate, then shouldn't this be applied to every mosque within the 4-mile-radius of any federal or national building, seeing as they're all under threat from this same Islamic terrorism being propagated through the Ground Zero Mosque?
Now, it's "You have to be this tall to go on this ride"; what will be the next contention of debate? If it's not a mosque near the WTC, then it's one in Temecula, an ocean away, or Tennessee. This argument of "There, but not here" is borderline xenophobia; it's indirectly discriminating a minority due to the sensibilities of others. The "not in our backyard" mentality has been the most pervasive anti-immigrant sentiment throughout American history, to say the least, and now that it is being reignited is predictably embarrassing. The democratic system in America shouldn't, and never has, operate(d) upon the principle of "unanimous agreement or nothing", and this most certainly applies here.
You know, I keep hearing the phrase "minority". I'm guessing that if anything is in favor of a "minority", it's okay? But if the majority does not like it, they are racists.

Guess what: Discrimination in some form will always be present when some group wants something and another group is opposed to it. We can have civil liberties and such, but the fact is that LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

So why is it that every time America has a cultural debate the majority must be the ones in the wrong?

The democratic system itself is based on majority rule, but is established to be fair on a basic level to the minority. That doesn't mean that the minority must always be in the right.

I am starting sick and tired of hearing how minorities are being wronged. There is a majority here and now that is being wronged too. Where are their civil rights? Where are the activist groups? Where are the lawyers to sue on their behalf?

I'll tell you why this is the case: It's how the press keeps themselves alive at this point. They're loosing their financial basis, so all they can do is make up this false image of "bigoted Americans" and hope it sells well enough.

When every single group in existence points fingers at the "bigoted Americans", you gotta wonder who the bigots really are.

I for one refuse to believe that all of those people are bigots. I believe that they are normal people who feel betrayed and are then being told they aren't allowed to express that hatred because of laws that are meant to serve THEM.

At the end of the day, I'm guessing that people who were never bigots before probably became bigots after being told over and over again about how bigoted they are.

@LOH: Life may not be fair, but discrimination is intolerable. To pretty much say "get over it" is rude and disrespectful. Have you ever been the victim of racism? Try saying "get over it" again after you've been ostracized based on your ethnicity, creed, religion, etc.

Also, nobody said the majority were bigots. Yes, some of the people opposing the mosque are bigoted, but nobody said ever one of them was.

You know, I keep hearing the phrase "minority". I'm guessing that if anything is in favor of a "minority", it's okay? But if the majority does not like it, they are racists.

Guess what: Discrimination in some form will always be present when some group wants something and another group is opposed to it. We can have civil liberties and such, but the fact is that LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

So why is it that every time America has a cultural debate the majority must be the ones in the wrong?Well... they usually are? If you don't believe me, then research every new religious movement and immigration wave, and nine times out of ten, the minority is persecuted. This is the same issue; no more, no less.
I am starting sick and tired of hearing how minorities are being wronged. There is a majority here and now that is being wronged too. Where are their civil rights? Where are the activist groups? Where are the lawyers to sue on their behalf?The "majority" has been irrevocably vocal, activist. You seem to think that this is the "liberal elite prodding the masses" spiel again; clearly, certain members of the opposition have manipulated others indifferent to or slightly sympathetic to their views and have stoked the flames of hysteria. This is compounded by the fact that the leaders of these groups are hailed as "experts" on Islam and are featured on nearly every major news outlet as guest panelists. When groups like Stop the Islamization of America (http://sioaonline.com/) and the English Defence League (www.englishdefenceleague.org) are touted as "civil activist groups" then the original argument has been delegitimized as a wholesale of fear and intrigue.

I'll tell you why this is the case: It's how the press keeps themselves alive at this point. They're loosing their financial basis, so all they can do is make up this false image of "bigoted Americans" and hope it sells well enough.If the "liberal media" can be blamed for covering this, then so can Fox News & Co. be chastised for promoting a narrow outlook.
I for one refuse to believe that all of those people are bigots.Agreed.
I believe that they are normal people who feel betrayed and are then being told they aren't allowed to express that hatred because of laws that are meant to serve THEM.If you by "normal" you mean the majority of the opposition who actually opposes the location and the location alone, then I'm plenty comfortable with that. What troubles me are the ones who wave posters proclaiming "SHARIA" in a diabolic typeface.

@LOH: Life may not be fair, but discrimination is intolerable. To pretty much say "get over it" is rude and disrespectful. Have you ever been the victim of racism?
Yes, I happen to belong to an ethnic minority myself, and have been the subject of several racist remarks.
Also, nobody said the majority were bigots. Yes, some of the people opposing the mosque are bigoted, but nobody said ever one of them was.
Except that is more or less the current cultural message of this country.
Well... they usually are? If you don't believe me, then research every new religious movement and immigration wave, and nine times out of ten, the minority is persecuted. This is the same issue; no more, no less.
I'm not talking about the past. I am talking about the present.
The "majority" has been irrevocably vocal, activist. You seem to think that this is the "liberal elite prodding the masses" spiel again; clearly, certain members of the opposition have manipulated others indifferent to or slightly sympathetic to their views and have stoked the flames of hysteria. This is compounded by the fact that the leaders of these groups are hailed as "experts" on Islam and are featured on nearly every major news outlet as guest panelists. When groups like Stop the Islamization of America (http://sioaonline.com/) and the English Defence League (www.englishdefenceleague.org) are touted as "civil activist groups" then the original argument has been delegitimized as a wholesale of fear and intrigue.
These groups exist when a cultural agenda is being opposed upon the masses. Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that there is no demonization of America's cultural and ethnic majority?
If the "liberal media" can be blamed for covering this, then so can Fox News & Co. be chastised for promoting a narrow outlook.
Fox News is one news corporation out of many major networks, and is the only network that actually represents the political right of the country. They also at least make their agenda known, unlike any other network. Though I do agree that their message has become unnecessarily extremist recently.
If you by "normal" you mean the majority of the opposition who actually opposes the location and the location alone, then I'm plenty comfortable with that. What troubles me are the ones who wave posters proclaiming "SHARIA" in a diabolic typeface.
I don't entirely blame them for those posters. Sharia law as it has been interpreted in the past two centuries has been responsible for countless acts of brutality and evil. Yes, I know such thing occurred under Christianity too, but there are no Christian extremist groups at war with the US right now and Islamic extremism is currently the biggest threat. Where Christianity had the violent Crusades in the Medieval Era, Islam is now having its violent Jihad in the Modern Era.

And at this point, there is only so morally superior we can get at this point.