I know your age. I know I am twice your age. That alone is sufficient qualification for making some of these judgments, as you will someday understand. You may have had incredible life experiences... I don't doubt you have... but you haven't had that many of them. You have only been "doing your own thing" for a couple of years. I don't need to know you to know the average accumulated life experience of a 19yo.
You are still equivocating your experience to mine, then claiming the supremacy of your experience based on sheer amount. I am not saying that I am more intelligent, equally intelligent, or less intelligent than you. I don't believe that should be an issue. The only thing that matters in this thread is the quality of the arguments presented.
Also, why does it matter to you personally? You are not my parent or guardian, or in anyway responsible for policing my ability to post.
Right, that is why you have some of the smartest minds in the forum plugging away at your arguments, really quite effectively shredding them, yet you come back for more, and always with your smarmy condescension. You are either a troll, or you are irresistible troll-bait.
That's what you perceive. Granted, the people I have debated in this thread are obviously individuals of high intellect, but that does not mean that they are correct about everything. Once you assume that arguments are only measurable by status, then there is no point in having such a debate anyway.
And if you perceive me to be condescending, then I am sorry if I have created that perception. I am, however, no troll and have attempted to make my arguments as intelligent and respectful as possible. However, since you and several others INSIST that I am somehow an ignorant troll then I will make this my last post in this thread.
Nah... just quoting the constitution, the basis of U.S. society. The constitution has spoken for me long ago on this matter, to the point that until yesterday, this thread held no interest to me.... it is a moot point.
Incorrect. You quoted an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, specifically a part of the Bill of Rights. And yes, there is an importance in the distinction. The base Constitution is the direct intent of the Founding Fathers, whereas the Bill of Rights are augmentations made to address concerns by several other members. Also, these civil rights are not actual civil rights so much as limitations on the Federal Government's ability to suspend them. That does NOT mean I support any suspension of civil rights, but it is very important to actually be aware of the distinction.
@Toten: I was not implying anything. I did, however, mean "some," not "all." There's no need to take things out of proportion simply because I left a word out.
You are still equivocating your experience to mine, then claiming the supremacy of your experience based on sheer amount. I am not saying that I am more intelligent, equally intelligent, or less intelligent than you. I don't believe that should be an issue. The only thing that matters in this thread is the quality of the arguments presented.Are you sure you know what equivocation means? I can say without any argument from any party that I have more life experience than you. That is a totally different argument than your equivocation of experience to intelligence.Also, why does it matter to you personally? You are not my parent or guardian, or in anyway responsible for policing my ability to post.Correct. I am free to point out that you are on overly self-impressed young mind who's intelligence has outlasted any sense of humility, and to dismiss your arguments as foolish when they are, loudly if I feel like it.Incorrect. You quoted an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, specifically a part of the Bill of Rights. And yes, there is an importance in the distinction. The base Constitution is the direct intent of the Founding Fathers, whereas the Bill of Rights are augmentations made to address concerns by several other members. Also, these civil rights are not actual civil rights so much as limitations on the Federal Government's ability to suspend them. That does NOT mean I support any suspension of civil rights, but it is very important to actually be aware of the distinction.Is it a part of the constitution or not? Simple question, simple answer. Making distinctions of detail does not help your point.
Incorrect. You quoted an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, specifically a part of the Bill of Rights. And yes, there is an importance in the distinction. The base Constitution is the direct intent of the Founding Fathers, whereas the Bill of Rights are augmentations made to address concerns by several other members. Also, these civil rights are not actual civil rights so much as limitations on the Federal Government's ability to suspend them. That does NOT mean I support any suspension of civil rights, but it is very important to actually be aware of the distinction.
Amendments to the constitution become a part of the constitution. An amendment is something added to. The first 10 amendments were agreed to be added to secure ratification of the Constitution. To trivialize them as not part of the Constitution(though as an amendment it IS by its very nature part of the Constitution) shows a lack of knowledge on your part. Without them, the Constitution would have needed to be rewritten.
@Toten: I was not implying anything. I did, however, mean "some," not "all." ....
I keep forgetting not to take you literally. ;)
National security? Nope, there is no way to prove allowing the Mosque to be built will impact National Security anymore than illegally violating our own rule of law and not allowing it to be built.
Avoiding civil unrest? Nope, again as your buddy likes to point out when a liberal states something like this, this is merely speculation on your part. There is no proof that this will happen and if history is any indication of future events (which it isn’t) then it is highly unlikely the building of the Mosque will lead to civil unrest.
Respecting the dead?I’d give you this one, but as JediAthos pointed out earlier, our military swears an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States. So by saying we should violate the Constitution, just this once, you are advocating dishonoring all those that have served in the United States military (both living and dead) in an effort to honor those that died on 09/11/2001.
The mosque--Legal? Of course. Tacky and rather 'in-your-face'?--if you listen to some people, yes, if you listen to a few others, they're trying to make amends. I go with the former rather than the latter on this one given the personalities of those who are actually involved in the mosque. However, being tacky or arrogant isn't illegal.
Should Obama have stayed out of it? Probably, but I think he's trying to prevent anti-Muslim violence from increasing from its smoldering state to outright firestorm, and he knows he has a lot of influence with New Yorkers. I think he honestly fears violence in NYC on this and that may be why he decided to speak out on it.
I know 2 blocks isn't huge in terms of distance from WTC, but where the heck are they going to put the mosque where it won't be viewable from the new WTC? You'd have to get rid of mosques for miles in that case.
If we want to have Constitutional freedoms, then we're stuck dealing with some aspects that we aren't going to like about it sometimes in the name of defending that freedom. We don't get to pick and choose when we ignore the Constitution just because we don't "like" some of the logical outcomes, like a mosque being built within a certain distance of a major attack site.
@LOH--Amendments to the Constitution make them a part of the Constitution. They are for all legal purposes the exact same thing, and the original sections of the Constitution make provisions for these Amendments. Saying that the Amendments do not carry the same weight as the Constitution is entirely in error.
I laughed when the Mosque protesters harassed two Middle Eastern looking gentlemen who happened to be in the neighborhood, it turns out they were Coptic Christians on their way to protest the Mosque. This hateful bull**** is getting old fast.
Let's see what happens on 09/11/2010, families of 09/11/2001 victims have asked both the protestors and the counter-protestors, of the planned Mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, to honor the dead and not hold their rallies on the anniversary.
Story (
http://dnainfo.com/20100903/downtown/911-families-ask-mosque-protesters-stop-rallies-on-attack-anniversary)
Let's see what happens on 09/11/2010, families of 09/11/2001 victims have asked both the protestors and the counter-protestors, of the planned Mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, to honor the dead and not hold their rallies on the anniversary.
Story (
http://dnainfo.com/20100903/downtown/911-families-ask-mosque-protesters-stop-rallies-on-attack-anniversary)
Do the words "not bloody likely" ring a bell? :p Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.
Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.
A harder time for US and allied troops. The pastor who started that bs is going to be responsible for more than a few deaths.
Edit: Also, both sides are far too stubborn to give the protesting a break on 9/11, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong.
Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.Terry Jones makes me proud to be a Christian. Those warm Christian feeling shared around a roaring fire while singing Kumbaya is just what Christianity is all about. :rolleyes: Stuff like this make me lean more and more towards Achilles way of thinking. ;)
Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.
Well that might bring the whole thing to a final boiling point, along with the protesting. And even if there wasn't protesting involved elsewhere, I'd imagine that would bring some tempers to really flare.
Terry Jones makes me proud to be a Christian. Those warm Christian feeling shared around a roaring fire while singing Kumbaya is just what Christianity is all about. :rolleyes: Stuff like this make me lean more and more towards Achilles way of thinking. ;)
Fortunately for Christians this is the extreme end of it(just as terrorists are the extreme for Muslims). And all of a religion shouldn't be judged by the extremists within(gosh... where have I heard that before).
A harder time for US and allied troops. The pastor who started that bs is going to be responsible for more than a few deaths.
Edit: Also, both sides are far too stubborn to give the protesting a break on 9/11, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong.
Yeah, I heard that he added a disclaimer to his expanded reasons for the burning (15 now, apparently) that stipulated he/his protest was in no way responsible for any violent reactions worldwide to his form of protest.
@mim---yeah, a good thing that most christians, like most muslims, don't necessarily tend to support the acts from their extremes. Like you, I view this protest as unduly provocative. However, the cynical part of me is waiting for the annoited one to rush to the defense of Jone's Constitutional right of free expression. :xp:
@purifier---true enough.
@TC--oh, the irony. :p
Fortunately for Christians this is the extreme end of it(just as terrorists are the extreme for Muslims). And all of a religion shouldn't be judged by the extremists within(gosh... where have I heard that before).
@mim---yeah, a good thing that most christians, like most muslims, don't necessarily tend to support the acts from their extremes. Like you, I view this protest as unduly provocative.Thanks you two. I did not know that. I thought that all Christians had to do it. I’m really glad I could not get the BIC to work before reading this. :xp:
Thanks you two. I did not know that. I thought that all Christians had to do it. I’m really glad I could not get the BIC to work before reading this. :xp:
I'd lend you mine, but I need it for the next witch/heretic burning. :p
Two things. First, in a city the size of NY, 2 blocks easily rates as "close". To say that it is "nowhere near" begs a definition of how elasticly terms are being used..
Merely clarifying that the proposed site is not technically on the WTC site and I keep hearing people say that it is. Of course as you say it depends on the elasticity of such terms. In my opinion though, it is not on the site of the WTC site and even a street map will show you otherwise.
The mosque--Legal? Of course. Tacky and rather 'in-your-face'?--if you listen to some people, yes, if you listen to a few others, they're trying to make amends. I go with the former rather than the latter on this one given the personalities of those who are actually involved in the mosque. However, being tacky or arrogant isn't illegal.
You know my father was talking about this. Well actually I brought it up since it seems he has his head in the sand as far as watching the news goes. Doesn't help when you know his TV program schedule is a marathon of Law and Order. Anyway he said something along the lines that it was tacky and of course I countered that but something sparked out at me. He said that it was not the right time and then took the opportunity to go into the "You're Catholic and American speech." The thing that went through my head was his saying that it wasn't the right time. The tragedies that occurred in 2001 on Sept 11 will be nine years ago this September. The question that came to mind was How much time is enough time?
My answer though in my usually on the fence position is that it is subjective. Heck we still have people who are still sore about Pearl Harbor and Vietnam and Korea and those have had much longer time periods. This actually brings me to a Metrolink incident that occurred where the Metrolink derailed and people died. After that day the number or people taking the Metrolink dropped. Thing was I took the Metrolink to LA, the same line that derailed about a week after the incident. My philosophy is that yes there is a time to be said and morn, etc but then you have to get right back on that horse. I don't mean to sound mean or callous but people who have lost people at the WTC have the right to be sad but if they let hang inside, all it does is bring them closer to despair. I don't mean to sound cliche on this but I think it was best said in a movie that it is not about how hard you are hit but how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.
The proposed mosque, maybe people see it as a thumb in the eye but frankly in the end this mosque that is proposed to be built is a symbol of what our nation stands for, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Thanks you two. I did not know that. I thought that all Christians had to do it. I’m really glad I could not get the BIC to work before reading this. :xp:
I use a Zippo. Works better in windy environments. Like those around the windbags some church leaders happen to be. :D
Fortunately for Christians this is the extreme end of it(just as terrorists are the extreme for Muslims). And all of a religion shouldn't be judged by the extremists within(gosh... where have I heard that before).
No, the more extreme end is ****ers like Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, and James Kopp. Wow, Christians can be terrorists too, who'd have thunk it?
Yeah, I heard that he added a disclaimer to his expanded reasons for the burning (15 now, apparently) that stipulated he/his protest was in no way responsible for any violent reactions worldwide to his form of protest.
I'm so very glad that he's able to rationalize away all his guilt. I wouldn't want him to have trouble sleeping while our soldiers are getting killed.
Perhaps any discussion of the Burn a Quran protest should be in its own thread, instead of us dragging this off-topic. I'd create one, but I don't really have anything else to say on the matter at the moment.
No, the more extreme end is ****ers like Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, and James Kopp. Wow, Christians can be terrorists too, who'd have thunk it?
I've never said otherwise. Quite frankly those pro-lifers blowing up abortion clinics are the easiest example of Christian terrorists. Granted I DID make it sound like there was a differ by degree disparity. BUT I was simply stating that views like those on the extremes should not be used to judge the whole of the religion. I personally don't go to church anymore because of many of the "Christian" leaders. Gosh you'd think that the people who's job it is to teach people about Jesus Christ would have actually read his teachings.... "Turn the other cheek" ring any friggin bells? Forgiveness is at the forefront of Jesus's teachings. Yet many of these buggers preach intolerance. Yeah... Way to follow in His footsteps.
Perhaps any discussion of the Burn a Quran protest should be in its own thread, instead of us dragging this off-topic.I'm not so sure, seems to me that they are different sides of the same issue. There is no legal reason to stop the Mosque from being built, but some people see it as an insult to those that died on 09/11/2001. On the other side, Terry Jones is a hate preacher and a complete idiot. He is attempting to purposely enrage an entire group of people for no other reason than his 15 minutes of fame. However, there is no legal reason for the Federal Government to stop him. Both are local matters and both are protected by the Constitution.
On a moderators note, since I have excessively participated in this discussion, I will let the decision of if the idiot factor known as burn a book day should be moved be handled by another moderator.
Seems that Monty Python Star Pastor Terry Jones has made sure the two are related.
He has apparently cancelled his Koran burning, claiming he has done so because he has made an agreement with those behind the Park 51 faith centre, whereby they will move the location of the faith centre.
Apparently.
If true, this will no doubt be seen as a victory by gun-toting, supposedly Christian extremists.
Trump to possibly buy lots: His hair piece is more of an offense to mankind than the Mosque. I will set up a burning of Lincoln Logs until he agrees not to buy the land.
Really hope most of this is true, but I hope the idiot from Florida 15 minutes are up and he does not get credit for the decision to move the Mosque further away from Ground Zero.
Well, this is fun. So to appease an extremist from doing something disgraceful and ridiculous, the blueprints for a faith-based community center gets pigeonholed? :indif: I'm all for playing peacemaker, but this is just pushing any chance of a greater and more autonomous Muslim community down, really.
Christian far-right: +1; Moderate Muslims: 0
There's also probably a good Hitler-Chamberlain analogy out there that I could bring up, but whatever...
EDIT: Forget everything I said; the story that the Islamic center is being relocated is an implicated lie, by none other than Dr. Jones. Imam Rauf hasn't even spoken to the guy, let alone brokered a compromise. Great guy, aye?
If true, this will no doubt be seen as a victory by gun-toting, supposedly Christian extremists.
Gun ownership has nothing to do with this. I don't know why you felt the need to bring it up.
-----------------------
I hope no one gives Terry Jones any of the dubious credit for this. It would anger me to no end if a religious extremist got praised for semi-blackmailing (not in the legal sense, but in a moral sense) non-extremists because of something extremists did.
Of course, that's not even why he did it. He says "Islam is the religion of evil", I hear "hey guys, look at me! look at me! me me me me! Am I famous yet?".
Gun ownership has nothing to do with this. I don't know why you felt the need to bring it up.
I of course realise that this issue has little or nothing to do with firearm ownership - I apologise if that seemed to be my intent.
I only mentioned it because most of the footage and reports that I have seen have mentioned (or made an issue of) the fact that the Pastor and his 'flock' are visibly armed, and clearly not afraid of the potential for armed disagreement. Their armed, associate Pastor even escorted the visiting Imam in to meet with Jones - which clearly seems to be an unecessary act of intimidation on their part.
Again, apologies if it seemed like I was trying to make this about something it wasn't.
Their armed, associate Pastor even escorted the visiting Imam in to meet with Jones - which clearly seems to be an unecessary act of intimidation on their part.
Clearly Astor knows nothing of the American South. That isn’t intimidation that is Southern Hospitality. What if the Imam would have been attacked by a gator or a panther on the way to meet Jones? I bet the world media would be singing a different tune then. Thankful it did not happen and even had a pack of vicious gators attacked, Jones and company were prepared. Intimidation? It is called being a gracious and conscientious host.
To be honest I doubt they even thought about the implications of having weapons. It really isn't that big of a deal here. If someone I knew was packing, I'd ask why-- but if they said just because they could, I wouldn't bat an eye, and death threats are a better reason than that. Not sure if I agree with mim that they were interested in protecting the imam, but I really don't think they were interested in intimidating him. It's likely they have no idea what to do with the publicity they've been getting.
<insert pic here>
You just won the game. This argument is over. :joy:
As a gun-toting right-wing Holly-Roller backwoods-redneck hick Christian, I'm not really opposed to this mosque in New York.
I practice my religious freedom here. I have no problem with them doing it.
With all the hubbub about the extremist groups declaring it a victory on their part, who cares? If this mosque plan is canceled they'd just use it in their anti-America "The Great Satan hates us all!" propaganda. Pick the lesser of two evils and let'em build it. Or even better, drop the publicity stop feeding the extremist trolls. :¬:
Plus, preventing this mosque from being built would just open a doorway for the Federal and State Gov. to restrict freedoms for more religions. And that would be hell for just about everybody.
God bless 'Mericuh! :patriot:
Christian far-right: +1; Moderate Muslims: 0
I've heard this imam is not a moderate at all, but rather radical. I'm unclear on the degree of 'radical', however. I also heard the plans are still on to build (which you noted in your edit also).
I've heard this imam is not a moderate at all, but rather radical.That's rather subjective; frankly, I think he hasn't been given a real opportunity to voice his opinion. Everyone seems to have written him off as a "radical" over two, contextually-constrained statements, which express very little of his true demeanor. It's like labeling the Pope as a "homophobe" because he doesn't approve of homosexuality.
I'm unclear on the degree of 'radical', however.Does Jerry Falwell count as a "radical"?
I've heard this imam is not a moderate at all, but rather radical. I've heard that too, but I have yet to see any evidence of such. Same type of hearsay as saying Obama is not an American.
Does Jerry Falwell count as a "radical"?
Let me think for a moment
"I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.....And I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen."
"Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses, and I think Muhammad set an opposite example."
"Who will the Antichrist be? I don't know. Nobody else knows. Is he alive and here today? Probably. Because when he appears during the Tribulation period he will be a full-grown counterfeit of Christ. Of course, he'll be Jewish. Of course, he'll pretend to be Christ. And if in fact the Lord is coming soon, and he'll [the Antichrist] be an adult at the presentation of himself, he must be alive somewhere today."
"I do not believe that God answers the prayer of any unredeemed Gentile or Jew"
"I hope to live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"
Does Jerry Falwell count as a "radical"?
Yes
60 minutes did a piece on this recently, I dont know if this has been mentioned yet, but the mosque part of the community center is built and has been in use for a while. Like before this debate began. Its not going away. Basically, people are now arguing against having a community center, built to be much like the Jewish community center that the developer used to be a member of while growing up. And community centers for those who dont know, aren't weapons training and bomb making factories. They're like swimming pools and stuff. For the whole community around them. Not just Muslims. Anyone can join.
I don't know if this will succeed in building bridges but it sure smoked out all the racists.
It stupid the government even considered it and the Muslims are stupid too for considering it. All the Muslims are doing is disgracing the people that died there and American. If the government did let them build there their would be a huge protest and it may lead to violence. All the government has to do is seize that land as eniemnt domain and declare it a national landmark. Problem solved
How about building a totally epic mosque there, and then declaring it a national landmark? Everyone walks away happy.
I don't think that is a good solution because it was the Muslims that destroyed it in the first place (not saying all Muslims just saying they were Muslims.) so if we declare a Mosque a national landmark there would be a national uprising. The Muslim is just showing America disrespect. The reason behind this their are plenty of places where they could build a Mosque, but they tried to build it there where thousands of Americans died because of muslim suicide bombers.
You mean near where thousands of Americans died.
You mean near where thousands of Americans died.
Where, if I'm not mistaken, there happens to already be a mosque anyway. If I understand the situation correctly, all they want to do is make a larger community centre that they would then open to everyone, instead of just having a mosque.
Would anyone have a problem if the YMCA wanted to build a centre in the same place? What about if a Jew wanted to open up a movie theatre that happened to also contain a small synagogue? What about a Buddhist operated tennis club with a little meditation room in the back? And people are really going to bitch because some Muslims want to put in a pool and some multi-purpose meeting rooms? :raise:
Where, if I'm not mistaken, there happens to already be a mosque anyway. If I understand the situation correctly, all they want to do is make a larger community centre that they would then open to everyone, instead of just having a mosque.
Actually, Wiki (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Zero_Mosque) shows that the place is not even a mosque - just a community center with a prayer room. And it looks awesome, too.
Actually, Wiki (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Zero_Mosque) shows that the place is not even a mosque - just a community center with a prayer room. And it looks awesome, too.
Wow, that makes this whole thing even more ridiculous. A centre expressly intended to promote interfaith peace is being given **** because it happened to be proposed by a Muslim.
It looks like you just can't ****ing win in the States if you're Muslim, can you?
Wow, that makes this whole thing even more ridiculous. A centre expressly intended to promote interfaith peace is being given **** because it happened to be proposed by a Muslim.
It looks like you just can't ****ing win in the States if you're Muslim, can you?
I mean no offense about what im about to say, but your a canadian so its different for you. If Muslims destroyed a National Landmark in Canada and then wanted to expanded their Church's community center (the community that people from their relegion destroyed.) you would be a unset about it too.
I mean no offense about what im about to say, but your a canadian so its different for you. If Muslims destroyed a National Landmark in Canada and then wanted to expanded their Church's community center (the community that people from their relegion destroyed.) you would be a unset about it too.
No, I bloody well wouldn't. Because I, like many of your own fellow Americans, am actually aware of the difference between a proper Muslim and a fundamentalist/extremist. It wasn't Islam that destroyed the World Trade Centre. It wasn't Islam that killed ~3000 people - not all of whom, I feel compelled to point out, where Americans. It wasn't Islam that destroyed the community, the buildings, the sidewalks, or anything at all. It was extremists. Painting the entire faith with the same brush as Al Qaeda is an insult, kid, no two ways about it.
These people don't want to "expand their Church's community center". And people from their religion did not destroy the community. A group of people used their religion as an excuse to lash out against people they hated. And now these true Muslims want to build an inter-faith building of peace and respectful tolerance that would be open to everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. If that isn't a slap in the face of Islamic extremism, I don't bloody well know what is.
I'd also like to just say that, whether you meant offence or not, I am in fact offended by the implication that I can't mourn the loss of American lives because I'm Canadian. The events of September 11th shook the whole world, not just your little corner of it.
Last I checked, I am an American and I have no problem with a Community Center being built a couple blocks from Ground Zero.