Religion

[d4rkst4r]

Simple solution. Local ordinance. Declare WTC site and 2 block perimeter a national monument or historical site. Do not allow mosques, controversial establishments, etc. That way, it's up to the people, not politicians. I've seen communities use similar tactics to prevent strip joints too close to elementary schools and to prevent WalMart from setting up shop in a town. There's likely some technicality that would stand in the way of the local ordinance and if the people did pass something, Obama would just sue NYC and force a mosque down their throats.

[Lanx]

Simple solution. Local ordinance. Declare WTC site and 2 block perimeter a national monument or historical site. Do not allow mosques, controversial establishments, etc. That way, it's up to the people, not politicians. I've seen communities use similar tactics to prevent strip joints too close to elementary schools and to prevent WalMart from setting up shop in a town. There's likely some technicality that would stand in the way of the local ordinance and if the people did pass something, Obama would just sue NYC and force a mosque down their throats.

again you cannot enforce this w/o tearing down and destroying the st paul's which is 2 blocks away. unless your gonna say the st. pauls is grandfathered and is a historic landmark, but it is first a church if anything.

[itlnstln]

Welly, I think you missed this part:

I don't; mainly because there is no irony here from a purely religious aspect.

This particular Imam's mosque might be an issue, but not a mosque in and of itself.

[itlnstln]

I liked Imam Rauf better when he was called Cat Stevens.

I knew that name sounded familiar.

[Lanx]

But why else would people be building a mosque near Ground Zero? It's a mockery of 9/11 and we shouldn't tolerate it at all. I wouldn't mind a mosque someplace else in New York City, but why does it have to be right there?

I'm thinking about this from a purely convienient area, lots of muslims work downtown and they want a mosque closer to them so they can take a quick break/on their lunchbreak go out pray come back and work. For reference i was able to walk to Chinatown have dim-sum and come back within the hour.

[wellington1869]

I'm thinking about this from a purely convienient area, lots of muslims work downtown and they want a mosque closer to them so they can take a quick break/on their lunchbreak go out pray come back and work. For reference i was able to walk to Chinatown have dim-sum and come back within the hour.

ya but according to NYT there are already several mosques in downtown area... even this one wouldnt have raised eyebrows (despite the imam's history) but for imam rauf's insistence on that particular location.  Governor patterson has already offered to relocate it with state money, and so far imam rauf has refused.

[quadibloc]

I liked Imam Rauf better when he was called Cat Stevens.

Huh? He changed his name again from Yusuf Islam?

[itlnstln]

No, it was just a joke.  It would have been a hell of a lot cooler if they were the same guy.

[Lanx]

ya but according to NYT there are already several mosques in downtown area... even this one wouldnt have raised eyebrows (despite the imam's history) but for imam rauf's insistence on that particular location.  Governor patterson has already offered to relocate it with state money, and so far imam rauf has refused.

Masjid Manhattan 4 blocks Warren Street (i put this in google maps and this is 2blocks north of where 51park is gonna be built, [burlington mosque factory])
Masjid al-Farah 12 blocks West Broadway (which is basically 10 blocks north of burlington mosque factory)

i only found 2 googling so maybe there's more? but from reviews these places are 1 room places where ppl do their thing, and they are overcrowded and lots o ppl who used to go here now goto the burlington mosque factory cuz it's much bigger and roomier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion/14mosque.html

the pics look pretty dinky, those ppl have to pray in that? thats a regular ny apt lol.

Hey again i don't care if they pray or don't or whatever, but if the community is growing and they ain't go no play to pray cuz they have no physical floor space to let ppl pray then the natural move is to expand.

why near ground zero? idk maybe b/c the burlington coat factory has been closed for years and they said hey it's a good deal lets go buy it up. (i mean how does burlington expect to compete w/ century 21 2 blocks away? [this is a big clothing store], not alone counting all the clothing stores that were in the WTC b4 the attacks)

[Konrad]

... the ultimate irony here is that, the kinds of muslims who we'd want to have a mosque there - are the kind who are in fact considerate enough to realize that dividing the community and refusing to condemn violence is not the way to start a 'dialogue'

Not trying to warp your message out of context, partly because I happen to agree with what you're saying.
 
But you seem to be implying that "we" don't include "those" muslims who fail to live up to some social standard. Is it so strange that "they" would discriminate against "us" in similar terms?  Perhaps the best way to achieve a "dialogue" would be to allow the "acceptable" muslims make their own decisions about the site of their temple regardless of our opinions on the matter?

[wellington1869]

Not trying to warp your message out of context, partly because I happen to agree with what you're saying.
 
But you seem to be implying that "we" don't include "those" muslims who fail to live up to some social standard. Is it so strange that "they" would discriminate against "us" in similar terms?  Perhaps the best way to achieve a "dialogue" would be to allow the "acceptable" muslims make their own decisions about the site of their temple regardless of our opinions on the matter?

its a nice thought, what you're saying, but the problem is that a certain standard of rules is required for co-existence. Wouldnt you say? So what happens when a "group" decides that its personal law-giver has told them not to live up to that standard (or even destroy it wherever its found)? Do we still 'tolerate' them? To the point of self destruction?

its a legitimate question i'm sure you'll recognize, partly because that is precisely what is happening with religious law in the hands of religious extremists, isnt it? And then they cry "intolerance!". Its like quadibloc said, at what point does one have the "right" to resist a rapist? To take a stark example.

At some point the 'nativist' argument that you're putting forward reaches its limits, particularly if some form of co-existence is the goal, and in a fast shrinking world, I dont see how every mainstream institution can escape incorporating various laws and guidlelines of co-existence into their world views.

Against this recognition of the need (and moral value) of coexistence, your question implies that pure nativism and pure relativity of perspective should reign supreme. But take the rapist example, because something like that example will come up time and again, whenever you suggest that there are no shared ground rules on which human beings must interact.

[wellington1869]

But you seem to be implying that "we" don't include "those" muslims who fail to live up to some social standard.

i'm also saying that we already do this; this isnt something new. "we" dont include, say, racists, in the range of "legitimate" positions to hold in society or in government. "we" dont include theocracy, generally speaking, in that range. "we" dont include nazis. "we" dont include those who want to bring back feudalism. "we" dont include violent murderers or the mafia.

So why does that position seem to surprise you when the same standard is applied to those who are violent in the name of exclusivist and imperialist islam? We apply it to those who are violent in the name of exclusivist and imperialist christianity or any other exclusivist and imperialist idea, dont we? And for good reason.

[wellington1869]

Not trying to warp your message out of context, partly because I happen to agree with what you're saying.
 
But you seem to be implying that "we" don't include "those" muslims who fail to live up to some social standard. Is it so strange that "they" would discriminate against "us" in similar terms?  Perhaps the best way to achieve a "dialogue" would be to allow the "acceptable" muslims make their own decisions about the site of their temple regardless of our opinions on the matter?

and lastly, you're implying that some muslims themselves may not confront and reject radical islam?  Seems a strange thing to say.

ie, is such a "standard" only applied to islam "from the outside" by "americans"? You really cant imagine muslims themselves holding themselves to a standard of coexistence?

cuz isnt that what you're truly implying with your question? Making it seem like the idea of coexistence could only be a radical innovation from the 'outside' of islam?  Seems a dangerous (and inaccurate) thing to say or imply in this way.

this is what i mean that you keep bringing the discussion back to some kind of implied 'civilizational' or 'religious' confrontation. Its not. This is first and foremost a civil war within islam, before it is anything else. Second, moderates of any religion, in any nation, do in fact have an investment in the outcome of this.  its not a clash of civilizations; its a clash of values which cuts across religions and national boundaries.  But oh yes, its a clash. make no mistake about it.  The only question is which side are you going to have helped in the end. Those fighting for policies of coexistence, or those fighting for exclusivist murder as state and religious policy.

I've said this elsewhere above: Tolerance isnt inaction. Its a very definite action that requires incredible strength to grasp and hold. For some reason, the left today seems very confused about this. This is why a leftist today can easily say that resisting a rapist, for example, is "unfair to the rapist."  

Its not just islam that is in crisis, liberalism is in crisis too.

[maclover]

As far as I am concerned as long as they don't close down any of my favourite places of worship(Apple stores) and my favourite community centres(Starbucks) they can build as many churches, mosques as they want.

[maclover]

As far as I am concerned as long as they don't close down any of my favourite places of worship(Apple stores) and my favourite community centres(Starbucks) they can build as many churches or mosques as they want.

[Konrad]

(I do confess that it's hard to debate against such an snooty-looking puppet, but that's irrelevant and avatars can deceive, it's just amusing)
 
Your first post largely accuses me of favouring a utopian but unrealistic vision about human society.  They will always be some groups - rapists are cited as an example - whose actions are intolerable in any meaningful social structure.  Your second post adds racists and Nazi's to the list.  I agree, rapists, racists, and Nazi's (at least the racist Nazi's) are scum barely worthy of contempt.  (I also personally feel sex offenders should be castrated, capital punishment guarantees no repeat offenders, and prison sentences should focus on punishment instead of rehabilitation.  But those opinions have little to do with this discussion, beyond mentioning the fact that I "tolerate" social norms which force me to coexist with these sickos instead of shooting them.)
 
Moving on ... we seem to be debating our definitions.  So to clarify our stances:
 
1) Do you think this is a religious conflict, specifically, an essentially Christian-vs-Islam one?  I do, though I think American media/government are marketing it in a way that denies this truth while they simultaneously encourage it on a nearly subconscious level.  It seems pretty obvious where Jihad fanatics (and US military commanders) stand on these issues, and though I think it may be exaggerated, I think most moderate muslims outside of America bear no love for America but are largely uninterested in the prospect of war with America.  Yes, they too can generalize, and they equate "Americans" as being invading infidels simply because they are rarely exposed to anything else from America.
 
2) Do you think this is a national conflict, specifically, is this America-vs-Middle East?  I do.  I see America has built up the worlds largest standing military force, with superior technology to boot, and like a big game of RISK they've played their cards and are now stomping around the middle east.  It's much like Vietnam in the sense that Americans "don't belong" there, are viewed as invaders, and are actively opposed by the very populations of people they're attempting to liberate from tyrrany and oppression.
 
3) Do you think this is a racist conflict?  I do.  It seems fairly obvious that muslims, arabs, indians, really pretty much anyone caught wearing a turban or speaking arabic or just having the wrong skin colour suffers discrimination.  They are the ones who are stopped every time during "random" security checks, they are the ones who have trouble moving through airports, they are certainly under scrutiny and suspicion until they can prove their innocence.  It's not hollywood, it's not paranoia, it's the truth.  At least you can take comfort in the fact that Homeland Security is ever vigilant.
 
4) Do you think the hatred is rational?  I do, but not in a good way.  Every news or media scene I see or read or hear about always portrays (or at least strongly hints at) the stereotypical AK-toting turban-wearing badass terrorist.  One look at this guy instantly confirms that he lives only to threaten and kill Americans.  No doubt there's some truth to this stereotype, he's a perfect villain for any video game.  But he's iconic, he's a form of propaganda, he's a face for the enemy, a focus to hate.
 
So where do we stand on "tolerance" once you answer these questions and we compare opinions?  I suspect there's a good chance that we're both stubborn-assed about what we each know that we'll probably never manage to come down to a universal agreement.  Multiply by hundreds of millions and we see why the peoples the world can't agree either.  Where do we draw the line?  I don't know, but I can tell you now that it's already self-evident (to me) that muslims are being grouped with rapists, nazis, and racists; and the last group in particular strikes me as a hypocritical definition.
 
So it seems to me that generalizations, statements like "Americans are waging war", etc being made by muslims - moderate and extremist alike - are not a particularly unfair or unexpected response.  As inaccurate as any other generalization, but like you've pointed out - we don't live in a perfect world.

[Konrad]

I'd even go so far as to say that if GZ is an officially dedicated memorial site then the construction of any kind of temple for any religion should be prohibited.
 
The boldest and most gallant gesture the US government could make, to open "dialog" with a gesture of trust, would be to *give* the property to foreign nations for the purpose of establishing national embassies. In my mind GZ would be a powerfully symbolic location to headquarter international relations. I seriously doubt it'll ever happen, but such is my opinion.
 
People (as a group) are followers, too lazy to think.  We automatically believe what we see and hear, it requires effort to question and even more effort to take action.  All glory to the hypnotoad.

[quadibloc]

I'll try and clarify my stand.

Is Christianity at war with Islam right now? I think that's the wrong question. The question is, is Islam at war with Christianity?

In some places, like the Sudan or Nigeria, it seems that way.

We are not trying to prevent Muslims from praying five times a day or from fasting during Ramadan. We have no desire to deny them their freedom of worship.

If Islam means something more than a different way of worship to some Muslims - if it means a license to abuse non-Muslims, and to react to resistance to this abuse as though it is aggression and oppression of Muslims - then those Muslims have chosen to be at war with us, we haven't chosen to be at war with them.

Since most of the recruits that al-Qaeda has available are people from the part of the world that is largely Muslim, it's not racist, even though it is discriminatory in its effects, to make things more difficult for al-Qaeda to stage another 9/11 by ensuring that its most likely operatives have no opportunity to hijack another airplane.

It may not be fair that Arabs have more trouble getting on an airplane, but it wasn't fair for thousands of people going to work on the morning of September 11, 2001 not to be returning home to their loved ones that evening. That must not happen again, and beside that monumental unfairness, this other unfairness is trifling.

The overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims are not terrorists. But you can look at Egypt, where Coptic Christians are discriminated against because popular pressure outweighs international disapproval, to see that a significant fraction, perhaps a majority, of the world's Muslims do share certain critical elements of the terrorist mind-set.

Because of that, if we were to say "No!" to the discrimination against Coptic Christians in Egypt, or to the attacks on Maronite Christians in Lebanon, by partitioning the countries involved - so that the non-Muslim groups would have their own countries, safe behind well-defended national borders from any Muslims who would think to abuse them... well, we know what would happen.

Because it already did, on May 14, 1948. How dare non-Muslims in the Dar al-Islam try to cut a chunk out of it for themselves? Drive them into the sea!

So, until the Islamic world accepts that they were in the wrong by engaging in conflict with Israel, until they accept full responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem, they are proving that they think like the terrorists, even if they wouldn't quite pick a fight with the same people that the terrorists would.

Now, it may well be true that there are real injustices taking place in the occupied territories; there is much in the news that makes it appear so. But none of this is the result of Israelis hating Muslims and Arabs and therefore making them miserable - it is all the result of what Israelis have had to do to protect the lives of their families from terrorist groups like Hamas.

Without Hamas, the Camp David peace accords would have been implemented long ago.

Israel is a liberal democracy, a part of the same community that includes Europe and North America and Australia - the modern Western world. For someone to be at war with Israel is as outrageous and intolerable as for them to be at war with France or with Canada. Life in Israel, and in every other part of the Western developed world, should be as peaceful as life in the United States was thought to be before 9/11.

The real instigators of terror, of course, are just the terrorists themselves. But there are terrorists in Iraq, there are terrorists in Somalia. And - perhaps for understandable reasons - Pakistan has been resistant to allowing the U.S. army to move freely in its terrain to pursue any al-Qaeda and Taliban forces which may be located there.

[Konrad]

Ah, well, in light of such overwhelming evidence of muslim barbarism, we are truly fortunate to enjoy the freedoms of our enlightened, open society. Regardless of how intolerant it may be to outsiders.
 
Damn all those arabs for their uncivilized ways. Constantly being the aggressor, constantly building monstrous arsenals and dispensing death in their mission of endless territorial conquest. In the name of Allah, in the name of oil, in the name of vengeance, retribution, justice, whatever. Too bad for them that somebody else happens to do it better.
 
Damn all those nations who dare to defy allowing foreign armies occupy their cities or move freely within their borders. What right do they have to resist the proper order of things?

[quadibloc]

Damn all those nations who dare to defy allowing foreign armies occupy their cities or move freely within their borders. What right do they have to resist the proper order of things?

The ordinary people of Afghanistan and Iraq are not defying U.S. troops. Instead, they're being murdered by the terrorists who are doing that.

And despite its strong desire to get its hands on Osama bin Laden, the U.S. has shown the forbearance not to invade Pakistan, so far.

This does not mean, though, that the United States has not failed them. The level of violence in those countries is unacceptable, and the United States has refused to place sufficient men under arms to give the ordinary people of Afghanistan and Iraq peace and safety.

After Vietnam, a draft apparently was just too politically unacceptable for even the Bush administration to consider it. In fact, in the present legal climate, I wouldn't be surprised if they're scared that they might be forced (by the courts, in the name of equal rights) to draft women for combat duty.

[Konrad]

Ah, well I remember a time when the United Nations, not the United States, policed such international crises. Seems to me that there weren't as many terrorists back then, in fact the few who were around mostly happened to be US citizens.
 
Why on earth would anybody intelligent from another country let a megalomaniacal idiot like Bush (who was quite unpopular in his own country) dictate the way their nation should work? Assuming they're not held at gunpoint while deciding, of course.

[microsoft windows]

Ah, well I remember a time when the United Nations, not the United States, policed such international crises. Seems to me that there weren't as many terrorists back then, in fact the few who were around mostly happened to be US citizens.
 
Why on earth would anybody intelligent from another country let a megalomaniacal idiot like Bush (who was quite unpopular in his own country) dictate the way their nation should work? Assuming they're not held at gunpoint while deciding, of course.

But there's one problem. The UN can't really do anything about terrorists but write them angry-sounding letters.

And Bush definitely isn't an idiot compared to the trash that's in White House right now. Let's see:

"Obama is the first articulate black man I've ever met." -Joe Biden
"This is the first time I've been proud of my country" -Michelle Obama at Obama's victory

And judging by what you say, you're in no place to call anybody an idiot.

[Konrad]

lmgtfy
 
Although his public image (on the internet at least) has been cleaned up a bit, W still doesn't inspire great confidence.
 
I'll admit that my feelings about him are probably biased (I don't like inbred aristocracy). Gore was a terrible alternative, but he couldn't possibly have done much worse.

[wellington1869]

Is that "and lastly" part a promise?

EDIT:  Whoops, forgot the smiley.  :smiley:

EDIT2: :smile:

time for another funny pic, isnt it?

[microsoft windows]

I don't like inbred aristocracy

So I guess at least there's one good thing about your political opinions: You don't like the Kennedy's.

[Konrad]

I wasn't indoctrinated in US history/patriotism as a child, so even though I've seen all the same Kennedy documentaries and footage everyone else did I probably don't have an opinion of the Kennedy's you would recognize as civilized.
 
Or the British Royals.  Bloody living museum, a tourist attraction, scandalously littered all over eBay and the paparazzi.  Another relic from the medieval ages, not even a cool one with armored plating.
 
Celebrity doesn't hold much appeal for me.  Sure, I oggle the hot chicks like any other guy, but celebrating (ie: worshipping) these people because of their lineage or so-called accomplishments just isn't my gig.

[microsoft windows]

I wasn't indoctrinated in US history/patriotism as a child, so even though I've seen all the same Kennedy documentaries and footage

John F. Kennedy was a decent president, but the Kennedy's were like a Thanksgiving dinner--They took forever to digest. It took over 45 years to finally get them out of our government.

[wellington1869]

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 ]

[vils]

LOL - I don't think Newt has been to Hawaii or watched this episode of LOST.  The Byodo-In Buddhist Temple in Oahu.

Or visited the Japanese cultural centre in Honolulu.

[wellington1869]

Why on earth would anybody intelligent from another country let a megalomaniacal idiot like Bush (who was quite unpopular in his own country) dictate the way their nation should work? Assuming they're not held at gunpoint while deciding, of course.

bush was voted in, due to a dem process which, despite its imperfections, did not result in bloodshed. He was also elected out, again with no bloodshed. Compare to taliban. who forced their way in, stayed by "gunpoint" as you say, until were forced out.
I take it you do not see any difference, let alone a meaningful difference, between the two systems of governance/social/civic life (or the values behind them).
I also take it you think its fine for the taliban to use "gunpoint", since you think the bushes did (in fact, they didnt).
I share your dislike of the bushes, but to suggest they are on par with the taliban (or, that the two systems of govt are on par), i'm sorry, says volumes about your own political ideals and ideas. And then in fact go after bush (whlie giving the taliban a free pass), i'm sorry, says volumes about your own political ideals and ideas.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you are far more conservative than you'd like to admit.

[wellington1869]

1) Do you think this is a religious conflict, specifically, an essentially Christian-vs-Islam one?  I do

if you think this is a religious conflict, then you just agreed with the taliban and alqueda who also think it is, and you agreed with the far right tea partyers and christian evangelicals, who also think it is.
As I say, you're far more conservative than you want to admit.

, though I think American media/government are marketing it in a way that denies this truth

exactly what the tea partiers and far right says.
You're far more conservative than you want to admit.

while they simultaneously encourage it on a nearly subconscious level.

would love to hear your conspiracy theory on that. Seems like you want to have it both ways tho. (they deny it - liars! they "subtly" encourage it - hate mongers!)

 It seems pretty obvious where Jihad fanatics (and US military commanders) stand on these issues, and though I think it may be exaggerated, I think most moderate muslims outside of America bear no love for America but are largely uninterested in the prospect of war with America.

"what middle class muslims think" is highly debateable; according to one of my fav nyt articles where they interview middle class folks in karachi, it seemed most middle class pakistanis actually are prettty clueless as to whats going on in their own country, let alone in a position to make a measured analysis about it. And are only now waking up to the internal dangers.
If they're own views are so mixed, its a little presumptuous for you to declare you know what "they" want, based on your extremely selective views of politcs and history. If you were to ask "middle class muslims" about their views I suspect you'll get a different answer depending on who you ask.  Because Muslims are as internally diverse as any other group - a fact that you seem to want to deny at every opportunity. (and again for that you're far more conservative than you want to admit)

2) Do you think this is a national conflict, specifically, is this America-vs-Middle East?  I do.

again, that says it all, as far as where you're coming from, what your values are. Extraordinarily conservative.

 I see America has built up the worlds largest standing military force, with superior technology to boot, and like a big game of RISK they've played their cards and are now stomping around the middle east.  It's much like Vietnam in the sense that Americans "don't belong" there, are viewed as invaders, and are actively opposed by the very populations of people they're attempting to liberate from tyrrany and oppression.

this is the most simplistic view of the current conflict that i've yet read on this site. I honestly wouldnt even know where to begin, because i'd have to take every 3 words in that paragraph and post a hundred opposing links, and a serious step by step educational process would have to begin, for which a) i obviously dont have the time, b) you obviously have no interest in information that might complicate your view. c) no one here wants to read even longer posts from me on this topic.  SO it would be a waste of time for all, and so you'll forgive me if I just move on to the next paragraph.

3) Do you think this is a racist conflict?  I do.

wow, you've just hit the trifecta of conservatism. Congratulations.

this also makes you extraordinarily racist, by the way.

 

4) Do you think the hatred is rational?  I do

...and we get to the gist of your argument, which is a validation of terrorism as a method. But at this point is it any surprise?

it's already self-evident (to me) that muslims are being grouped with rapists, nazis, and racists

what this shows is that you've not actually read anything on this thread.
why? because you just said "muslims" are grouped with those people. Actually not a single person in this entire thread ever said that - except you.  what was said was far more subtle and intelligent, but you did not read it. We can at best lead you to water, no one can make you drink. Until you read it and understand what was said and are able to re-articulate what was said in your own words, there's not much more point in trying to engage you, seriously.

You actually remind me a lot of the baptist who declared 2/3 of humanity is going to hell - the one who launched this Religion Thread on the super career that it has had (40 pages and counting).  He was run out of town for being an exclusivist and an imperialist. I nominate you as his successor. You're every bit as exclusivist, war-mongering, stereo-type filled, as that conservative was.  But you know what? everything that needed to be said against such conservatism has already been said in the 40 pages above. It gets a little tiring to constantly repeat ourselves. If you have any genuine interest in investigating your own hate-filled conservatism, i suggest you wade thru the 40 pages above. But speaking for myself i'm not going to engage you personally in the next 40 pages; been there, done that. Its all in print in the 40 pages so far, already.

[wellington1869]

That was built on the Honolulu internment camp site.

the US is lucky to have people like ripster around to keep us on the right path, with his protected rights of speech and expression and critique.
I share his criticisms here; and since i believe in what he is doing, and do it myself, and i believe in the values that protect what he is doing here -- thats why I wish the same protections could have protected the internal critics of the japanese imperial empire during wwii, and current muslim critics of the taliban and al queda, so they too can do the work that we leftists do in our own country. We get to be protected in very large measure while we criticize our governments and work for positive and more humanistic change. They -- those critics of the japanese in wwii, and current critics of the taliban and alqueda - get to be slaughtered for being critical, often in public and by stoning, in the latters case.  Its a real pity. I wish a thousand ripsters could bloom under the taliban, i wish a thousand ripsters could have bloomed in japan during wwii. I wish issues like the mosque could be as openly debated around church building in saudi arabia, around genocides of christians, jews, and hindus, in the middle east and pakistan and central asia. I wish the muslim left can criticize islamist imperial history with the same energy, reach, and volume with which we leftists get to critiicize european colonialism.  I wish all these things.  More power to you ripster - hopefully your freedom to criticize your govt will be a beacon for all people everywhere to crtiicize their own govenrments freely. I hope one day they will be able to, too.

[wellington1869]

It's Ripster with a capital R.  Even MW's sig gets it right.

sorry, i dont even capitalize "god", so you dont have a chance there

[Konrad]

Well, sorry, wellington.  It appears that we are unable to maintain any meaningful "dialog" on this topic.  Perhaps it might be due to my apparently conservative, conspiracy-laden, simplistic, racist, uninformed, and plain incorrect thoughts on the issues - or perhaps it's your thoughts - or more probably some measure of both.
 
We obviously aren't even speaking the same language and can't seem to agree on asserting fundamental definitions, let alone any premises or conclusions formed from them.  Misquoting half-out-of-context snippets of each other's arguments doesn't accomplish anything productive except apparently piss you off.
 
I will continue to think whatever I like, just as you will do the same.  I don't care to waste time flaming or trolling, so just consider me withdrawn from this thread.

[quadibloc]

I would suspect that any Buddhist temples or Japanese cultural centers in Hawaii were built either well before Pearl Harbor, or after V-J Day. Hence, the question of them being symbols of the Japanese victory at Pearl Harbor does not arise.

I mean, we might criticize the Japanese for their treatment of their Korean minority, or their failure to properly instruct their schoolchildren on the evils and crimes of their aggression leading to that part of World War II - but outside Japan itself, there does not appear to be any continued support for the policies that led Japan to disaster and defeat once.

The war against terror has not yet ended in a resounding victory of the kind achieved against Japan. It is still being waged.

[itlnstln]

It's Ripster with a capital R.  Even MW's sig gets it right.

Apparently, you got it wrong.

[noctua]

Time that the sponsor's register the name Žipster, one may think ripper is meant.
(Jack?) On the other side no one has more profane statments emitted (current
17,272)

[Lanx]

That was built on the Honolulu internment camp site.

How disrespectful!  Newt should look into that.

Show Image

Luckily I don't think the US Government would do that to Muslims.  Or ban their places of worship.  That would violate our principles of freedom.

This Japanese cultural center can't even compare to what is being proposed at ground zero, this center is 1hr away by bus(cuz i've been there like 5months ago) from pearl harbor.

speaking of making fun of foreign victories over america, when i was at pearl harbor about 30% of the visitors were japanese tourists, when american rednecks and japanese tourists can both look at the arizona memorial in peace, that's pretty cool.

[Lanx]

I cannot comprehend the conversational exchange going on between wellington and konrad, can someone give me the tldr version? I think it is just way beyond my scope.

[noctua]

I cannot comprehend the conversational exchange going on between wellington and konrad, can someone give me the tldr version? I think it is just way beyond my scope.

Konrad is an sponsor..

[Konrad]

Konrad has purchased Noctua cooling fans, but is otherwise not a sponsor of any sort on this forum.

[mike]

1) Do you think this is a religious conflict, specifically, an essentially Christian-vs-Islam one?  I do

Perhaps you should take a look at just how many muslims there are in the world ... do you really think that over 1.5 billion people are all at work with Christians ? There would be a 9/11 every other day if they were.

I think most moderate muslims outside of America bear no love for America but are largely uninterested in the prospect of war with America.

Now raising your own counter arguments ?
 

2) Do you think this is a national conflict, specifically, is this America-vs-Middle East?  I do.

National? A national conflict is a war between two nations. With the exception of the allied war against the Iraqi government, this is a fight against terrorists ... who almost by definition have no nation. And BTW, some people would find the notion that it's only America fighting this WoT exceptionally insulting ... a considerable number of British soldiers (and others) have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[noctua]

Back to Newt there is a LegoLand near Hitler's Fuhrerbunker.  I just looked it up on Google Earth...

I don't play with Lego.. you?

[vils]

If the Cordoba institute had really taken their  talk about respect, understanding and interfaith dialouge serious I think they should have accepted governor Pattersons offer of an alternative building site. The reluctancy to discuss the matter sheds bad light over their stated purposes.

[Voixdelion]

I don't have anything pertinent to add here; It was just disturbing me seeing the red-orange number 666 next to the Religion thread.

[Konrad]

It's just as bad to be called a Dawkin as a baptist.
 
Tarot card:
(side A) - picture of a sheep, "The Believer - one who blindly accepts ideas"
(side B) - picture of a dragon, "The Cynic - one who blindly rejects ideas"

[quadibloc]

Tarot card:
(side A) - picture of a sheep, "The Believer - one who blindly accepts ideas"
(side B) - picture of a dragon, "The Cynic - one who blindly rejects ideas"/QUOTE]I have some issues with what some of Dawkins has to say.

While I accept some of the things religions teach - that consciousness is a real phenomenon, and so other people are real, important, and valuable in a way that things are not, and how we treat them matters; and that right and wrong are real concepts: abstract, but no less valid than mathematics - I will assume, without strong evidence to the contrary, that a claim that God or an angel spoke to someone and gave him rules we must obey is false, and just an attempt to hoodwink and manipulate people.

I don't think that's blind rejection, just sound common sense.

[vils]

The beliver will not be disturbed by the most solid refutation, a sceptic will accept new arguments and proofs and abandon previously held positions.

[Konrad]

Uncommon sense.
 
Your opinion is just as valid as mine or welly's.  Why I happen to agree with you I just as easily could not (and in true Voltaire spirit) I would still respect your right to have and express the opinion.

The tarot card I threw into conversation was an attempt to demonstrate that absolutely extremes aren't realistic.  They also make bad labels, the world isn't black and white (or black vs white), because we're all shades of grey.

[Rajagra]

Some reassurances from a page that explains how "Islam only supports peace and tolerance":

... whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew entire mankind; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept entire mankind alive; ... (Quran 5:32)

He commanded Muslims to slay down those 'infidels' from amongst the polytheists. The Jews and Christians, on the other hand, because they belonged to monotheistic faith, were to be fought against until they became politically subservient to Muslims. This was done after providing both the idolaters and the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) sufficient time to understand whether Muhammad (pbuh) was a real messenger of God and the message he brought forward was actually the message from God.

This is God's law specific to messengers as I have explained above. Since a messenger of God is not living with us anymore, and we do not know that which is in the hearts of people, we cannot call them 'infidels' and commit such acts.

Who finds these quotes reassuring?

The first is saying that it is (relatively) OK to slay a soul for being mischievous. That's a direct quote the author took from the Quran.

The second is saying that Muslims have been ordered by God to slay or fight into submission people who refuse to accept the message of Islam.

The author of the page makes a nice effort to interpret the order as no longer being valid, as no messengers of God are still around. But that is his interpretation. Neither God nor Mohammed retracted the order. (Did they? Correct me if that's wrong by quoting the part of the Quran where it is retracted.) So what does the Quran actually say? Kill or defeat those who do not accept Islam.

Personally ... I don't like that message. Don't ask me to respect it because it's a religious belief. I have the utmost contempt for it.