Religion

[Konrad]

I interpret sacred canons - Old Testament, Bible, and Gospels which I have read well, and Qoran which I have not as much - as being internally inconsistent and many times even self-contradictory.  Almost any detail or any passage can be countered with another which essentially states the precise opposite.
 
So I remain unconvinced (and unimpressed) when accosted by those proselytizers who can't think but can only parrot passage after passage to support their view.  The bible is so full of errors that if it were a computer program it wouldn't even parse through the compiler.  I can expect little better from it's counterparts.
 
In any event, pulling random passages out of a holy book doesn't justify any particular message; any decent priest or lawyer will know that the books will condone any message you want if you read through them long enough.

[Rajagra]

I am merely pointing out that the Quran DOES contain non-tolerant, non-peaceful ORDERS to kill non-believers, allegedly from God via Muhammad. Sorry if you consider this to be an inability to think. It seems to me to be a quite pertinent fact when forming an opinion of the religion. And I never said the Christians and their Bible are any better.

[microsoft windows]

while I support (and have infamously already supported) MW's right to post just about as freely as he pleases*, I just want to say for the record that I disagree with his political views probably pretty much across the board

*[btw Konrad, it was "evil american propaganda" (!) that gave me those values ]

Well Welly, I got to say though that you're one of the very few liberals I've ever seen who actually puts thought and work into his arguments and says something other than "Oh I love Obama because he's the first black president, Oprah likes him, and he'll make healthcare better! Oh my god!". I actually find it interesting to read your posts, even though I do disagree with your viewpoint.

I remember when I was a kid I had a social studies teacher in high school that was like you with his political views. He was a liberal but was very knowledgeable and presented good arguments. My grandmother was similar, except she was conservative and not a fan of old Frank Roosevelt.

There's a lot of folks who take strong viewpoints, but you're one of the few who I actually read.

[EverythingIBM]

I am merely pointing out that the Quran DOES contain non-tolerant, non-peaceful ORDERS to kill non-believers, allegedly from God via Muhammad. Sorry if you consider this to be an inability to think. It seems to me to be a quite pertinent fact when forming an opinion of the religion. And I never said the Christians and their Bible are any better.

There's a lot of ties between religion (particularly Calvinism and Islam have a lot in common). However, archeology seems to point out that the Koran was simply recycled from Biblical texts after 500 years of Christ by a fellow named Muhammad. There is lots of violence contained inside it (and of course some peaceful elements); looking at the koran in full, it would be best to avoid in regards to freedom. There is no "superior race" (infidels are considered lesser; kind of like Hitler's Aryans), you will not get virgins and little boys by committing suicide, and pork/pig meats are perfectly fine to consume.
But that's just my opinion.

[quadibloc]

In any event, pulling random passages out of a holy book doesn't justify any particular message; any decent priest or lawyer will know that the books will condone any message you want if you read through them long enough.

This is true. However, Christians are not currently burning heretics at the stake. Jews are not currently invading towns of non-Jews, killing all the men and their wives, and taking the virgin women for wives for themselves.

Muslims, on the other hand, are executing people for apostasy. They are implementing parts of Islamic law that demand subservience from Christians and Jews who live in majority-Muslim areas.

So we're not talking about stuff that's buried in the dusty back pages of a holy book that nobody really reads or understands.

Now one could say that this is because Muhammad came along hundreds of years after Jesus, so the Muslims just need another few years to become tolerant. Or, perhaps more to the point, religious fanaticism is pretty common wherever people are poor and ignorant. Hindu militants in India - or the Buddhist Sinhalese in Sri Lanks - have misbehaved too.

The problem isn't whether Islam is somehow a "worse religion" than Christianity or Judaism. The problem is that, at the present time, the Muslim world has demonstrated that significant parts of it engage in various forms of aggressive violence.

Furthermore, stopping that violence where it occurs appears likely to offend other Muslims, such as by protecting Nigerian non-Muslims from encroachment, or intervening in the Sudan. Because there is significant popular support in much of the Muslim world for returning to Shari'a Law, including those provisions of it which discriminate against non-Muslims.

[wellington1869]

The problem isn't whether Islam is somehow a "worse religion" than Christianity or Judaism. The problem is that, at the present time, the Muslim world has demonstrated that significant parts of it engage in various forms of aggressive violence.

.

another way of putting it might be that at the present time the literalists dominate institutions of authority (mosques, clerical heirarchies, theocratic governments) in the muslim world, and use the power of those institutions to freely suppress their own populations (to the obvious benefit of the state-mosque) and freely entertain dreams of expansion (imperialism) worldwide (to the obvious benefit of the state-mosque).

Literal readings, especially with an instrument like sharia law which demands absolute obedience with promise of extremely brutal punishments, obviously suits these regimes (both clerical and governmental) just fine.

"Reading literally" is at the core of their method.  And therefore the inability to see the quran as a historical document, cultural artifact, aesthetically as a work of art or fiction, etc, all of which would be "non-literal readings".  And would open up the text to legitimate selective readings by muslims, who might then be allowed to take some parts and discard the violent parts as historical artifacts rather than as ordained law.

We can do that kind of selective/rational reading to every other religious text in the world, except the quran. Why? because instant brutal punishment is promised if we do it to the quran. Usually delivered through the clerical (fatwa) and theocratic-governmental instruments currently in place.

Thats what differentiates contemporary islam from every other major religion today.  Every religion has its right wingers and literalists -- But no other religion has its literalists in charge of so many mosques and governments, in such a position to enforce their literal readings so completely within their countries and project that terror on such a scale worldwide externally. Its a question of the institutional power that these literalists currently wield freely.

If any other religion (or ideology) had taken over so many institutions and practiced its power so brutally worldwide, I have no doubt what the liberal response would be (and should be). Well it should be the same in the case of islam, obviously.

[wellington1869]

Konrad:  Hi!

Riiiiiiiight. Nice try ripper.

P.S. Konrad - you forgot Welly calling you a Baptist.  I won't mention who he meant.

nice to know you're still reading my "walls of text", rippy. Clearly every word there continues to interest you deeply. Good to know  Frankly i'm flattered

[wellington1869]

It appears that we are unable to maintain any meaningful "dialog" on this topic.

Indeed. You presented a caricature of the US (lets see: crusading imperialist bigots!) along with a remarkably demeaning caricature of Muslims (incapable of coexistence, nor desiring it, uniformly all actually believing in sharia law), then declared that the two are in a religious, racist, and nationalist war (wow. makes sense since you dont think muslims have any diversity of opinion on this point), in which you hope the muslims win.

wonderful.  I especially like your symmetry of thought: americans are all alike, muslims are all alike. At least you're consistent with your caricatures.

and yea, no 'dialogue' is possible between us  

I will continue to think whatever I like

i dont doubt that for a moment

[wellington1869]

NY's Archbishop weighs in on the mosque.

Archbishop Dolan invoked the example of Pope John Paul II, who in 1993 ordered Catholic nuns to move from their convent at the former Auschwitz death camp after protests from Jewish leaders.

“He’s the one who said, ‘Let’s keep the idea, and maybe move the address,’ ” the archbishop said. “It worked there; might work here.”

Archbishop Dolan is the most prominent New York religious leader to weigh in on the Islamic center
...
“Those who wonder about the wisdom of the situation of the mosque, near such a wounded site, ask what I think are some legitimate questions that I think deserve attention,” he said
...
The center continues to divide Americans. A poll released Wednesday by Siena College showed that 63 percent of New York State voters surveyed opposed the project

And wow, Howard Dean (who is about as liberal as liberals can get) just came out against the mosque.

Here's something even more interesting: the general manager of Al-Arabiya television comes out against the mosque.  Some interesting and telling quotes (which, incidentally, put konrad's theory of "race-war between east and west" into a bit of confusion):

I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime. At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district.
...
I do not know whether the building applicant wants a mosque whose aim is reconciliation, or he is an investor who wants quick profits. This is because the idea of the mosque specifically next to the destruction is not at all a clever deed. The last thing Muslims want today is to build just a religious center out of defiance to the others, or a symbolic mosque that people visit as a museum next to a cemetery.
...
What the US citizens do not understand is that the battle against the 11 September terrorists is a Muslim battle, and not theirs, and this battle still is ablaze in more than 20 Muslim countries. Some Muslims will consider that building a mosque on this site immortalizes and commemorates what was done by the terrorists who committed their crime in the name of Islam. I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a worship place that tomorrow might become a place about which the terrorists and their Muslim followers boast, and which will become a shrine for Islam haters whose aim is to turn the public opinion against Islam. This is what has started to happen now; they claim that there is a mosque being built over the corpses of 3,000 killed US citizens, who were buried alive by people chanting God is great, which is the same call that will be heard from the mosque.

[Lanx]

"At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district."
what does this mean? Muslims don't work in the commercial area? BS

[wellington1869]

"At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district."
what does this mean? Muslims don't work in the commercial area? BS

I dont think he's saying they dont work there; he seems to be saying they dont need a mosque to be located in area that has been zoned as a commercial district (ie, they can put the mosque elsewhere).

but drop him an email and ask him if you want.  He's a journalist and a muslim.

[Lanx]

So your saying this guy is saying mosques don't belong in commercial areas, but the churches that are in commercial areas (and the 1 room mosque 4 blocks away from ground zero) get a grandfather rule of they were there first so it's ok.
Thats already an argument of not making sense.
so by his assumption it'd be ok to open a mosque by the south st seaport, cuz while i don't know if that is a residential area or not, i know there are a lot of high rise apt's there and i've been in 2 of em cuz of friends, and thats like 8 blocks away.

[wellington1869]

So your saying this guy is saying mosques don't belong in commercial areas, but the churches that are in commercial areas (and the 1 room mosque 4 blocks away from ground zero) get a grandfather rule of they were there first so it's ok.
Thats already an argument of not making sense.
so by his assumption it'd be ok to open a mosque by the south st seaport, cuz while i don't know if that is a residential area or not, i know there are a lot of high rise apt's there and i've been in 2 of em cuz of friends, and thats like 8 blocks away.

i assume thats what he's saying cuz it fits in with the rest of his article in which he's saying there's no overwhelming reason for muslims to have a mosque on that particular site. Thats kind of the theme of the whole article, where he runs down several reasons why that particular site should be of no overwhelming importance to muslims, and that choosing that site can actually be detrimental to muslims.  
As he says, "muslims shouldnt want to build a mosque just to be defiant". Read the whole article and you'll see his overall argument.
And as he says, muslims have much bigger things to fight for, including their own civil war against their own terrorists.
Its that overall larger point that I found interesting, especially since it was being made by the general manager of a dubai-based television with programming aimed at muslims as their main target audience.  And since it contradicts konrads view of an east/west, christianity/islam conflict so neatly, and here is a muslim who speaks daily through his muslim television company to muslims, saying the opposite of konrad.
If you want to parse an individual sentence by all means ask the guy and let us know what he says.

[quadibloc]

So your saying this guy is saying mosques don't belong in commercial areas, but the churches that are in commercial areas (and the 1 room mosque 4 blocks away from ground zero) get a grandfather rule of they were there first so it's ok.
Thats already an argument of not making sense.

The problem with the mosque is that it could be considered a monument to a victory for Islam over the infidels - down came the WTC, up came a mosque in its place. This certainly can't be said of a Christian church that had been in the area before September 11, 2001.

[wellington1869]

Simple solution: prevent the building of any new religious gathering points (any religion at all).

That is not, before I'm accused of it, the same as saying "outlaw religion" (which is not what I'm trying to say).

the alternative solution: allow any new religious gathering point so long as those individuals and religions are appropriate for a national memorial cemetary (which the 9/11 site essentially is). That includes christian or muslim or etc gathering places so long as the particular sect/funding/imam/priest isnt someone "creepy" (in christopher hitchens words) who wont repudiate extremists. Because that would be inappropriate near a national memorial cemetary. In the same way they could disallow the KKK from building there, or hindu militants from building there, and etc, but allow ordinary (non-violence-seeking) churches, mosques, temples, or shrines.
Because the problem isnt that the gathering place is muslim; the problem is imam rauf wont repudiate hamas, wont confront directly the kinds of religious imperial ambitions and hate that caused 9/11, wont reject iranian and saudi funding, etc.  Thats what makes his mosque a mockery of 9/11, not the fact that he's muslim.  And i cant accept that we couldnt find a genuine moderate imam - who has an actual track record of rejecting extremism - who i'd be happy to see him have a mosque there, and would send the right message to everyone, would directly send a message to the terrorists too, and be entirely appropriate for a national memorial cemetary.
Until we stop thinking of this as 'islam vs chty', and instead start seeing it for what it is -- a values fight, regardless of religion -- all we're doing is throwing logs on the fire (like konrad).  Imam rauf isnt appropriate because of his own track record, because of things he has said and things he promises he's going to do. Not because he's 'muslim'.
If we can differentiate so readily between the values of christian pacifists and christian rationalists versus the values of christian imperialists and exclusivists, approve of the former and mock and decry the latter, we should be able to do the exact same thing for islam too.

[wellington1869]

The problem with the mosque is that it could be considered a monument to a victory for Islam over the infidels - down came the WTC, up came a mosque in its place. This certainly can't be said of a Christian church that had been in the area before September 11, 2001.

thats right, and even the al arabiya manager mentions that.  Thats why its all the more important that if there's going to be a muslim gathering place there, next to a national memorial cemetary and site of a specifically muslim attack, that its message against terrorsm be crystal clear, not in the least bit ambiguous. Unfortunately imam rauf has made a career out of being ambiguous.

[wellington1869]

The problem with the mosque is that it could be considered a monument to a victory for Islam over the infidels - down came the WTC, up came a mosque in its place. This certainly can't be said of a Christian church that had been in the area before September 11, 2001.

thats right, and even the al arabiya manager mentions the 'victory mosque' perception problem.  Thats why its all the more important that if there's going to be a muslim gathering place there, next to a national memorial cemetary and site of a specifically muslim hate attack, that its message against terrorsm be crystal clear, not in the least bit ambiguous. Unfortunately imam rauf has made a career out of being ambiguous.

[microsoft windows]

exactly what the tea partiers and far right says.
[Konrad] is far more conservative than you want to admit.

I wouldn't say that. He's just ignorant.

As a Tea Partier myself, I can tell you all for a fact that the Tea Party groups are simply a nonviolent, loosly-organized, band of people excersising their First Amendment rights. Even though organizations such as the NAACP condemned them (The NAACP oughta go or be reformed anyways; they had a valid point in the beginning but have now grown into basically a white-hating nuisance). Compare the Tea Party with extreme liberal organizations and animal rights groups such as PETA who go around and vandalize others' property and you'll see that the Tea Partiers aren't the ones truly deserving all the negative media coverage.

[Konrad]

How is that possible for chance to make order of disorder? To defy entropy?
If you look at the probability of it, its beyond the possibility. I really don't see how you can think that the universe could come to be by chance. Would you care to elaborate?

I actually agree with welly's response. A study of higher math, physics, chemistry, biology, information theory or any other serious scientific discipline will plainly demonstrate the principle of self-ordering, emergent systems, and complexity built from simplicity. Humanities and social sciences use different methods to provide similar demonstrations; and of course many theologies provide rigourous explanations as well.
 
The universe is impossible? That seems like a patently false assertion; your conclusion seems flawed (since you exist), valid only if your premises are all true, complete, and accurate.
The universe is improbable? Maybe. It seems to depend a lot on your definitions and point of view. The Anthropic Principle suggests that our universe is actually exactly what we should expect it to be. The link briefly mentions some of other theoretical models used to explain the universe, and some of them make our particular universe quite improbable indeed, but the AP has a lot going for it (primarily because we're here to figure it out). You can learn more by lurking here or just reading up on Big Bang stuff.
 
Although I have more "faith" in the validity of what we know from science over what religion teaches us, I recognize that even the "best" and most sophisticated scientific models which attempt to explain the origin and nature of our universe are still fundamentally unprovable. In a technical sense, the explanations presented by most religions (creation myths) can be accepted as no less valid. Both approaches about origins are equally fantastic and perhaps equally incomprehensible.
 
God (or whatever) creating the universe by bringing order into a void is an interestion notion. This cosmic void wouldn't have space, matter, or time. It would simply exist as-is, unchanging. I would think that having God inject Chaos into Order would be a more accurate description. Just quibbling over semantics.
 

Consider the parasite that causes River Blindness ... If that organism was the result of intelligent design, God must have a very strange sense of humour...

That question has been asked before, many times, even by the revered Thomas Aquinas. It was all the rage for radical renaissance philosophers. I could probably list a dozen assorted bishops and cardinals who explored it. It is a central theme in many exegetical writings. Even old Aristotle and Plato tossed the question around.
 
I've said it before: Science explains that the purpose of humans in the universe is incidental while religion explains that humans are central. If you accept a scientific explanation then cruel parasites and nasty predators which cause human suffering are inevitable, in fact the utter absence of such things would be very unusual. If you accept religious explanations then I suppose everybody has to find their own answer. "God works in mysterious ways", "God is testing us", "It's the work of the Devil" are just easily digested oversimplifications. Believe what you will, of course.

[noctua]

The question doesn't arise. (see #656)

[Konrad]

I thought you were going to continue letting Welly talk to himself?

You'll notice that I wasn't talking to welly.  Sort of the online equivalent of being at the same party and talking to the same people without seeking direct contact.

[Lanx]

the alternative solution: allow any new religious gathering point so long as those individuals and religions are appropriate for a national memorial cemetary (which the 9/11 site essentially is). That includes christian or muslim or etc gathering places so long as the particular sect/funding/imam/priest isnt someone "creepy" (in christopher hitchens words) who wont repudiate extremists. Because that would be inappropriate near a national memorial cemetary. In the same way they could disallow the KKK from building there, or hindu militants from building there, and etc, but allow ordinary (non-violence-seeking) churches, mosques, temples, or shrines.
Because the problem isnt that the gathering place is muslim; the problem is imam rauf wont repudiate hamas, wont confront directly the kinds of religious imperial ambitions and hate that caused 9/11, wont reject iranian and saudi funding, etc.  Thats what makes his mosque a mockery of 9/11, not the fact that he's muslim.  And i cant accept that we couldnt find a genuine moderate imam - who has an actual track record of rejecting extremism - who i'd be happy to see him have a mosque there, and would send the right message to everyone, would directly send a message to the terrorists too, and be entirely appropriate for a national memorial cemetary.
Until we stop thinking of this as 'islam vs chty', and instead start seeing it for what it is -- a values fight, regardless of religion -- all we're doing is throwing logs on the fire (like konrad).  Imam rauf isnt appropriate because of his own track record, because of things he has said and things he promises he's going to do. Not because he's 'muslim'.
If we can differentiate so readily between the values of christian pacifists and christian rationalists versus the values of christian imperialists and exclusivists, approve of the former and mock and decry the latter, we should be able to do the exact same thing for islam too.

I really think this mosque issue is simplier than this.

The ppl for the mosque seem like they are just keeping the peace by allowing it to happen in the veil of using the constitution for freedom of religion when ppl just see it as another way to hand out 6th place awards, just let everybody win.

While the ppl against it are incorrectly associating
muslim=islam=terrorist=wtc destruction
=a monument to victory for the other side.

the problem w/ the ppl who are for the mosque for lack of a better term just seem like wimps and letting everything and anything walk all over them.
while the ppl against it seem like prejudice racists who think a turban and a beard=ak47 in one hand and bomb in the other. Much like an asian always is buck toothed w/ glasses and a calculator and a black guy is wearing a do-rag with a gat in one hand pointed at you sideways and a bucket of the colonel in the other.

[quadibloc]

I've said it before: Science explains that the purpose of humans in the universe is incidental while religion explains that humans are central.

That does sum up a major difference between science and religion very succinctly.

But it's strange, though: I've never found it at all difficult to accept that while from the point of view of the Universe and physical reality, humans are incidental, from the point of view of humans themselves, and of law and morality, of justice and of right and wrong, humans (and other thinking and feeling beings, be they little and green and driving flying saucers) are also quite properly regarded as central.

I see not the least bit of contradiction in this. We find ourselves adrift in a Universe that wasn't made for us, but that's no reason not to regard ourselves as special and important, not to treat one another with respect, not to fight for our survival.

So the notion that the success of the theory of evolution by natural selection implies that I should eschew the wearing of fur, even to cover my nakedness... is one syllogism that to me is a great big non sequitur.

[wellington1869]

I really think this mosque issue is simplier than this.
...
While the ppl against it are incorrectly associating
muslim=islam=terrorist=wtc destruction
=a monument to victory for the other side.

actually, this is excatly what is not happening.  virtually everyone who matters (major democrats, major religious figures, major politicians on both sides, and even the organizers of the protests) who is against the mosque is in fact talking about a) imam rauf specifically, and his ambiguous (or 'double-talking') past b) the question of transparency of funding, c) the question of the feelings of the victims families including the muslim victims, and the need to at least address that question before forging defiantly ahead; d) the internal debate between muslims themselves which is heating up.  All quite legitimate points of debate, having nothing to do with cheap stereotypes.

I'd argue if anyone is stereotyping, its you, by refusing to see muslims as individuals who might have their own minds, including feelings about the inappropriateness of the site location.  Like konrad you keep trying to make this about "us" against "muslims" as if either group is homogenous. And that involves massive stereotyping. Shame on you.

It also plays directly into the hands of the extremists who want nothing more than to paint this as "world against (allegedly homogenous) islam". Congrats for not helping the situation at all.

[ch_123]

Oh dear God, they never give up...

What I found both quite amusing and somewhat worrying was the official response - that this is a fabricated smear campaign to damage Obama's reputation. Now, surely if being a Muslim is all cool, then surely the possibility that Obama is a Muslim would not be a bad thing, and therefore not damage his reputation? If someone said, for example, that Obama has three heads, no one would say that it was politically motivated, because it's just obviously someone being a retard.

It's tragic how, in the 'land of the free', being a god-fearing Christian is a job requirement for leadership.

[Lanx]

I'd argue if anyone is stereotyping, its you, by refusing to see muslims as individuals who might have their own minds, including feelings about the inappropriateness of the site location.  Like konrad you keep trying to make this about "us" against "muslims" as if either group is homogenous. And that involves massive stereotyping. Shame on you.

It also plays directly into the hands of the extremists who want nothing more than to paint this as "world against (allegedly homogenous) islam". Congrats for not helping the situation at all.

It's true i don't see all the intricacies and the different sects of the muslim ppl, islam religion you seem to know about and have nice convo's w/ konrad about, this is also true about the christian right and left and evangelical god hates ***s(their words not mine) soldiers should die ppl.
you just seem to want to attack and provoke, idk why, but i guess thats your modus operandi. I was just presenting a view that i observed just like you from watching media/news/articles. I won't be "defending" myself tho but i guess i'll add a smiley face so that it enforces the ability to seem non combative.

[Konrad]

Why should it matter if it's not a religious war?

[wellington1869]

It's tragic how, in the 'land of the free', being a god-fearing Christian is a job requirement for leadership.

its not. remember, the whole muslim thing was in full force in the first campaign too. it didnt change anything.
they still voted him in last time, and i'll gaurantee you they'll vote him in again. The whole 'obama is a muslim' thing aint gonna fly very far.  

Now, surely if being a Muslim is all cool, then surely the possibility that Obama is a Muslim would not be a bad thing, and therefore not damage his reputation?

What the fear mongers are saying tho isnt that he's a muslim - but that he's a /radical/ muslim. Saying he's a muslim isnt really enough (except for the far fringe who will hate anything). Tying him to radical muslims is what they have to attempt. And yea, if he were a radical muslim, i wouldnt vote for him either, would you? Obviously he's not a radical (actually he's a centrist) and that was clear enough once before and will be again once he's back on the campaign trail. Like i said, they already voted for him once.


no doubt, as in any large and diverse nation, america has its share of racists and religious lunatics - that should be no surprise and is /hardly/ unique to america.

The important thing is keeping them off of the reins of power, or having a mechanism for self correcting if they do grab the reins, and in that america actually has /excelled/ where most of the world has horribly failed.

[wellington1869]

you just seem to want to attack and provoke, idk why, but i guess thats your modus operandi.

no worries dude, just having fun. this whole thread is intended to be provocative, isnt it? and yea i do basically believe in the content of what i'm saying, but sure, i present it in provocative language here sometimes because, well, thats kind of the point of the thred. this thread would die if it werent for people tweaking each ohters feelings for 40 pages. Its not like a keyboard review thread. (oh wait, its exactly like a keyboard review thread! ;-D

its also true that i have an emotional investment in the outcome of the situation, being a new yorker, and [you really want to hear my 9/11 story? do you? i dont tell it normally, i dont volunteer it normally, because i dont like the way a lot of people tell their 9/11 stories to get a moment of selfish attention, and for me its too sacred a memory for me to voluntarily do that], but yea, i'm invested, and yea, that part of my response, is indeed slightly emotional, but mostly i dont mind being provocative in this thread specifically cuz, well, its been kind of fun for 40 pages.

 I was just presenting a view that i observed just like you from watching media/news/articles. I won't be "defending" myself tho but i guess i'll add a smiley face so that it enforces the ability to seem non combative.

i appreciate your non-combativeness and will go easy on you henceforth.

[ricercar]

Well, were there extremist Christains blowing up the Twin Towers?

In the crusades.

[wellington1869]

Why should it matter if it's not a religious war?

[speaking to no one in particular...] it should matter because the last thing grieving victims families want there is a stupid controversy, and it is common courtesy to give grieving people their space, especially on the site of an earth-shattering hate-crime like this. Thats why their feelings matter and is an entirely legitimate question to look at what kind individuals (imam rauf's background for instance) are getting involved as that national memorial area is re-developed.

The al-arabiya guy said it well, if you read his article.

Courtesy is the same reason the pope removed the controversial nunnery from the auschwitz site. His removing it in no means indicated a 'religious war' had broken out between catholics and jews. (as much as /some/ *coughkonradcough* people here seem to desperately wish for that to happen. talk about fear mongering).

But again, the issue of courtesy is only one part of the overall argument which has many quite legitimate elements, all of which could be asked of any religion or proposed religious gathering place to go up near or on the site.
Christopher hitchens in his recent Slate article for instance disregards the courtesy argument (but upholds the "creepiness" of imam rauf, the question of non-transparency about funding, etc, as reasons to bring the mosque under "serious scrutiny").

no, dear war-mongering konrad, its not a religious war. You want to find religious war? Hamas has declared it, go read their manifesto.

but i have a feeling you wont utter a peep against them.

[Lanx]

no worries dude, just having fun.

I'd have more fun arguing the points of vegetarian vs. regular person. I find in your face vegetarians deplorable and drop association with them from the moment of impact. Which is different than any religious view presented to me, i've never been called a heathen (for not believing in that person's religious view) or even persuaded to convert, i have been presented w/ insights and information but nothing close to what a in your face veg person will do to you if you do not agree that everyone should follow their lifestyle (not even just see their viewpoint, you have to follow them or your disgusting in their eyes). Stick up for vegetarians then we'll have a conversation.

[quadibloc]

It's tragic how, in the 'land of the free', being a god-fearing Christian is a job requirement for leadership.

Being some sort of a Christian does seem to be a requirement for the Presidency, given that most Americans are Christians.

Certainly one can be a God-fearing Christian and become President. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan come to mind. But I would still not characterize that as a requirement. Mike Huckabee didn't become President, and Sarah Palin didn't even become Vice-President.

[wellington1869]

Being some sort of a Christian does seem to be a requirement for the Presidency, given that most Americans are Christians.

Certainly one can be a God-fearing Christian and become President. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan come to mind. But I would still not characterize that as a requirement. Mike Huckabee didn't become President, and Sarah Palin didn't even become Vice-President.

there was a time when americans thought it shocking for a catholic to run for office. Then JFK was elected and is one of our most beloved. Since then we've had women, jews, etc, running for the top office, with a black winning.

I had the distinct pleasure not long ago of watching a japanese pitcher pitching to a japanese batter in american major league baseball.  With the crowd on its feet, cheering.

All these obstacles will fall, because this is america and our constitution provides the strongest backbone yet invented against even the most intransigent of prejudices.

For a society to have prejudices is nothing new, just take a gander at any random country on the map.

For a society to commit itself to a rule of law that promises to break the back of every single one of those prejudices, in time, no matter how difficult that change will be - is, well, america.

[ch_123]

Being some sort of a Christian does seem to be a requirement for the Presidency, given that most Americans are Christians.

Certainly one can be a God-fearing Christian and become President. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan come to mind. But I would still not characterize that as a requirement. Mike Huckabee didn't become President, and Sarah Palin didn't even become Vice-President.

The point I'm making here is that religion seems to be a huge issue in US politics whereas in Europe it was rather irrelevant... Even during the height of "Catholic Ireland" we had a few Protestant presidents, including our very first one.

[Konrad]

[speaking to no one in particular...] ... *coughkonradcough* ... no, dear war-mongering konrad, its not a religious war.

You actually made me laugh. :fencing:
But sorry, I'm not going for the bait again.  I'll stick with my Voltaire: no matter how much I might happen to not agree with your ****ing idiotic opinions I'll still champion your right to voice them.

[wellington1869]

You actually made me laugh. :fencing:
But sorry, I'm not going for the bait again.  I'll stick with my Voltaire: no matter how much I might happen to not agree with your ****ing idiotic opinions I'll still champion your right to voice them.

riiiiiight. And declaring this to be a religious/race/civilizational war is soooo not idiotic.

you quote voltaire - if you ever ran a regime, voltaire would be the first person you'd torture and execute.

You want to find religious war? Hamas has declared it, go read their manifesto.
but i have a feeling you wont utter a peep against them.

[Konrad]

lol, well, I suppose I could squeeze a few special people on the list before Voltaire ...
 
Seriously man, give it up.  You were right, I was wrong, I love you too.

[wellington1869]

lol, well, I suppose I could squeeze a few special people on the list before Voltaire ...
 
Seriously man, give it up.  You were right, I was wrong, I love you too.

you cant give up that easily. your "its a racial/religious/national war!" post was an absolute classic. Clearly you have some seriously strong feelings about the need for global war. And now you're just gonna walk away? ;-D

[wellington1869]

The point I'm making here is that religion seems to be a huge issue in US politics whereas in Europe it was rather irrelevant... Even during the height of "Catholic Ireland" we had a few Protestant presidents, including our very first one.

well you're right that atheism is much more 'accepted' or non-controversial in europe than in america. But then you guys fought over religion for a good thousand years (and were tearing each other apart as recently as 50 years ago) before deciding to chill about it all. America doesnt have that kind of baggage (and even if we did our memory retention is only like 3 years anyway so maybe thats one source of the difference.

i do think an openly atheist president in america will be the last major barrier that will fall; i think we'd have an openly gay president before an openly atheist president!

[itlnstln]

I feel like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.  I have had the power to close this thread the whole time.  All I need to do is click my mouse 3 times...

That said, I want to see if Welly will be the first person to wear out a mechanical switch in normal use.  I'll just keep it open.

[itlnstln]

Even the sun shines on a dog's ass some days.  To use a local colloquialism, you know.

[wellington1869]

seriously, if i were the thread starter, i'd be pretty proud. Intl should get some kind of medal.

there've been a ton of participants in this thread, you know you can always skip over my posts. Tho rippy for instance apparently likes to read every single word i write That's a pretty sincere form of flattery, eh ripper?

[Rajagra]

I feel like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.  I have had the power to close this thread the whole time.

[wellington1869]

new york's muslims speak... and once again - shocker! - they all have different opinions about it.  (so much for "world vs islam!").

quotes from the nyt article interviewing new york muslims:

“If they want to put it 10 blocks away, that’s fine,” Mr. Akhtar said. “I believe in compromise, too.”
...
Malik Nadeem Abid, an insurance agent whose storefront window on Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn framed a steady stream of men walking to pray at the mosque next door, said he was “not a big fan” of the decision by the Cordoba Initiative, a Muslim group that promotes interfaith cooperation, to build the center near ground zero.

“It was not a politically smart move, from my perspective,” said Mr. Abid, 45. “No one wants a center in downtown Manhattan that stands as a permanent fixture of this terrible tension.”

Yet the decision has been made, he said, “and we can’t let the loudest voices dictate what happens.” Still, he added, if the center were built 5 or 10 blocks away, as some people have proposed, “I don’t think it would matter very much.”

That kind of ambivalence over the downtown project, some said, was partly the point: Muslims in America embody the same diversity as everyone else.

sorry to bust your "civilizational war" theory once again, konrad.  Muslims themselves are ambivalent and very diverse in their views. Shocker!

and many of them think this mosque in that location is a stupid idea. They're as divided as the rest of the country.

[Lanx]

imo-build the church whatever, practice faith.

However, i do not agree with the tacking on of the cultural center or the fitness area, that stuff is just superfluous and well, tacky.

just build a mosque, no need to build a super tower of islam.

(taken from park51 website)
    * outstanding recreation spaces and fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court)
    * a 500-seat auditorium
    * a restaurant and culinary school
    * cultural amenities including exhibitions
    * education programs
    * a library, reading room and art studios
    * childcare services
    * a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
    * a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all
everything but the mosque is stupid!(there is already a memorial 1 block away)
and a culinary school? wtf?

[Konrad]

Time to feed the troll, I suppose. Here's a couple of tasty welly treats.
 
Asimov once commented that the ultimate triumph of science over religion was sometime in the 18th century when churches started installing lightning rods. It seems they finally realized that churches (usually the largest building in town) were being blasted and burned by lightning far more often than even the local brothels.
 
I wonder why churches would purchase insurance against fire, flood, lightning and other "acts of God". Seems like a conflict of interest. Or at least a waste of money.
 
[Edit]
I can accept that fires and even floods can be the work of idiots, er I mean misguided souls.
I've never heard of anyone zorching lightning around or bowling with tornados*, seems like a pretty unambiguous sign of divine displeasure to me. If you piss off the almighty bearded one then you eat high-voltage retribution.
 
* except of course in the fantasy genre, where there's no real question of faith because gods bestow their followers with magical powers and also tend to have a mailing address.

[quadibloc]

I wonder why churches would purchase insurance against fire, flood, lightning and other "acts of God". Seems like a conflict of interest. Or at least a waste of money.

It is written in Holy Scripture that the rain falls on the just and on the unjust.

Therefore, accepting that meteorological phenomena generally follow the laws of physics in the absence of Divine intervention, and that Divine intervention happens only rarely, when the Lord chooses, is entirely compatible with the beliefs of many Christian denominations.

[Konrad]

Why then no divine intervention to reward/protect the worthy from being struck by perfectly natural "unsupervised" random blasts of lightning?
 
How to prove that anyone - say myself (lmao) - isn't spiritually worthy on the simple basis of never having been blasted?
 
What does that say to a group of believers when a "natural" event levels their sacred building into a pile of ashes and ruin?
 
Insurance money is enough to overlook your temple being blasted even though your god was (at best) indifferent, unattentive, or impotent, or (at worst) actively punishing you?

[wellington1869]

thats hilarious konrad. you post that this is a race war, a religious war, and a nationalist war, and all americans are bigots and all muslims love sharia.... and i'm the troll?