The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission denied the proposed site of the mosque "landmark" status, which would have stopped the construction of said mosque.
I smiled when I read that. Then I read the next tab over,learned that I'm only scheduled for two days at Gencon, and smiled even wider.
I don't really see how building a Mosque is "offending the victims of 9/11".
If it had been a radical sect of Christianity that had carried out 9/11, we wouldn't be protesting a Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Church being built there, we would just call the bombers coo-coo for cocoa puffs, say that not all Christians are like that, and be happy with our delicious, delicious double standards.
Good. I don't think the stereotyping of Muslims should continue in the USA, or anywhere else in the world. The negative light should be focusing on the extremists who carried out the attack, not the religion as a whole.
Pretty disgusting that anyone would even consider building a Mosque near the 9/11 site. The West needs to learn not to be the minorities bitch and just tell the non compatible aspects to GTFO (four capital letters, plated in gold. Make the girls sweat even more....)
Pipboy101 wrote:I have no problem with the building of a Mosque near the 9/11 site. You cannot blame 99.9% of a religon for what a radical element does. Enough said.
So passes the time of logic to western spinelessness.
Pipboy101 wrote:I have no problem with the building of a Mosque near the 9/11 site. You cannot blame 99.9% of a religon for what a radical element does. Enough said.
So passes the time of logic to western spinelessness.
Colossal Donkey wrote:So passes the time of logic to western spinelessness.
I defended my nation so the base concepts of freedom and equality could be enjoyed by all within our boarders. There are many examples of hate and bigotry that has robbed people of this basic right but by allowing the Mosque to be built shows that your point of view (which you have a right too) is in the minority. Also, if you want to comment on how the US handles this then come over her and become a voting citizen and let your vote speak for itself.
You're absolutely right CD!! America should've just declared war on muslims, including any Americans that happened to be muslims!! /sarcasm off
I would actually be interested to know how many muslims were killed in the 9/11 attacks, statistically there must have been quite a few that worked in the towers/were on the flights.
On another note, lets be honest; there would be people trying to stop mosques from being built even if 9/11 never happened, some people are like that...
I can't believe you would accept something that essentially contradicts western beliefs so readily at the site of one the greatest religious atrocities of our time
You may accept them at the moment, just wait until the boot is on the other foot. Bigotry will be the Wests salvation. We too readily accept incompatible countries/beliefs hoping to change them over time but nothing changes. The acceptance is nothing but negative reinforcement. Rewarding the act before it is complete is entirely futile.
Are you American? If not stfu and stop telling us how to run our country.
I do find it amusing that people bitch about them building a new mosque when the Muslim congregation has been meeting at that location for months. Apparently it's cool they're worshiping there but as soon as they try to renovate it's some kind of islamo-facist conspiracy.
Aren't they building the mosque like two blocks away from the WTC site anyway? I think they're just calling it the "Ground Zero Mosque" to grab headlines.
Personally I think it's awesome and am glad it got approved. We should be promoting and encouraging moderate Islam, instead of grouping regular Muslims with extremists like Al Qaeda. The fact that anyone thought it would be "offending to the victims of 9/11" is pretty sad. There were Muslims who died in the attacks too, and I'm not talking about the hijackers.
CD - I agree with you to the extent that cultures entering a new country should try to integrate with it, rather than the country changing its beliefs to accomodate, but you seem to be taking it a bit too far. History has shown that ultimately bigotry meets fierce resistance, and has caused more than one would be empire to crumble. In fact, throughout history I believe the most successful empires have been those that accepted new cultures and ideas over time.
avantgarde wrote:Are you American? If not stfu and stop telling us how to run our country.
I do find it amusing that people bitch about them building a new mosque when the Muslim congregation has been meeting at that location for months. Apparently it's cool they're worshiping there but as soon as they try to renovate it's some kind of islamo-facist conspiracy.
Wow an American telling somebody from another country how to do something or think. Who would have thought. Why can't you accept other peoples thoughts, name me a country with Islam as it's main religion that treats its people as well as the West.
Yeah it may be out of order to say all Americans are like this. However if other nations are not able to critique your nation then what the feth is the point. We may as well bend over and receive what we are told.
It was a religious atrocity? really? really and truely?
I can't believe you so readily think in a way that condradicts all concepts of humanity, democracy and rational thinking that is central to the western values you seem to wish to defend.
Bigotry will never solve anything.
Hang up the brown shirt and chill.
avantgarde wrote:Are you American? If not stfu and stop telling us how to run our country.
I do find it amusing that people bitch about them building a new mosque when the Muslim congregation has been meeting at that location for months. Apparently it's cool they're worshiping there but as soon as they try to renovate it's some kind of islamo-facist conspiracy.
Or we'll break out the farmers with pitchforks agian....
I see no problem with it being 2 blocks away. Now if it was built on the actual site.....
Wow an American telling somebody from another country how to do something or think. Who would have thought. Why can't you accept other peoples thoughts, name me a country with Islam as it's main religion that treats its people as well as the West.
Don't get me wrong, the group that planned and attacked the US on 9/11 were a group of criminals that should be hunted down and punished for what they did. But to I blame and wish to rob other innocent people of their human rights no. I lost two close friends of mine that I served with when the Pentagon was attacked and I am still not running around 9 years later screaming that the sky is falling because a Mosque being built. No. But your POV is your own POV and you have the right to voice it. However, do I comment on here on how your government is run or how it treats its citizens no. So before you go on your anti-west, anti-America soap box take a long deep look at yourself and see who is being the true biggot.
Colossal Donkey wrote:I can't believe you would accept something that essentially contradicts western beliefs so readily at the site of one the greatest religious atrocities of our time
You may accept them at the moment, just wait until the boot is on the other foot. Bigotry will be the Wests salvation. We too readily accept incompatible countries/beliefs hoping to change them over time but nothing changes. The acceptance is nothing but negative reinforcement. Rewarding the act before it is complete is entirely futile.
Islam as it's main religion that treats its people as well as the West.
Virtually all of the Emirates?
Granted, they bring over Pakistanis and treat them like dirt, but the average Arab living in the Emirates has a NICE life. They don't pay taxes, on the contrary, they collect a salary just for living.
Colossal Donkey wrote:I can't believe you would accept something that essentially contradicts western beliefs so readily at the site of one the greatest religious atrocities of our time
You may accept them at the moment, just wait until the boot is on the other foot. Bigotry will be the Wests salvation. We too readily accept incompatible countries/beliefs hoping to change them over time but nothing changes. The acceptance is nothing but negative reinforcement. Rewarding the act before it is complete is entirely futile.
Why hallo there, Hitler called
Aw man, now you dun an gon godwinned the thread :(
CD
really Avante Garde has a point.
You are complaining about a mosque being built in New York and not on the site of the London Bus Bombing
Then make sarcastic comments about Americans telling people what to do. Of pots and kettles with sooty arses.
There are plenty of contented Muslims in Muislim countries.
There are plenty of instances historically of religious and racial tolerance in Islamic countries taht was better than the West.
Pipboy101 wrote:I have no problem with the building of a Mosque near the 9/11 site. You cannot blame 99.9% of a religon for what a radical element does. Enough said.
Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.
Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.
That is interesting, I'm a little surprised the media hasnt jumped all over that to be honest.
Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.
That is interesting, I'm a little surprised the media hasnt jumped all over that to be honest.
Wait? You mean our Media?
They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.
Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.
That is interesting, I'm a little surprised the media hasnt jumped all over that to be honest.
Wait? You mean our Media?
They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.
Ah, that must be where the Aus media is getting it from...come to think of it, that pretty much sums up the current federal election campaign too
I have no problem with the Mosque but if the Imam begins insite and support domestic terrorism then it is fault of the Imam and those that commit and support the acts of violence against other citizens. Those few people that actively support and commit domestic terrorism are violating the law within the US and should be brought forward for justice but to go as far as CD in stripping the rights away from people strictly because of their religon is not only juvenile but down right dangerous for any government. That is why there has been and continue to be so many bloody, internal conflicts around the world. I was deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s and I have seen what can happen if intolerance is allowed to be the norm on both sides of the issue.
Pipboy101 wrote:I have no problem with the Mosque but if the Imam begins insite and support domestic terrorism then it is fault of the Imam and those that commit and support the acts of violence against other citizens. Those few people that actively support and commit domestic terrorism are violating the law within the US and should be brought forward for justice but to go as far as CD in stripping the rights away from people strictly because of their religon is not only juvenile but down right dangerous for any government. That is why there has been and continue to be so many bloody, internal conflicts around the world. I was deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s and I have seen what can happen if intolerance is allowed to be the norm on both sides of the issue.
To be fair, it is almost time for a DaemonHunters/Daemons of Chaos Box Set to come out (2012, I mean).....
As I understand it Pip, it is against the teachings of the Prophet to incite or commit violence by acts of terrorism.
Islam is a religion. Like all religions, it's possible to make arguments that it says virtually anything.
Religions are more like languages for morality than actual dictates for morality. They provide the language, the anecdotes, the framework for the understanding of morality. They don't actually force any specific conclusion, or at least don't do so as strongly as people like to believe.
As I understand it Pip, it is against the teachings of the Prophet to incite or commit violence by acts of terrorism.
Islam is a religion. Like all religions, it's possible to make arguments that it says virtually anything.
Religions are more like languages for morality than actual dictates for morality. They provide the language, the anecdotes, the framework for the understanding of morality. They don't actually force any specific conclusion, or at least don't do so as strongly as people like to believe.
Religion: A perfect thing twisted to imperfect meanings by imperfect men who(m?) think they are perfect.
Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.
That is interesting, I'm a little surprised the media hasnt jumped all over that to be honest.
Wait? You mean our Media?
They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.
It would be plastered all over the media. Y'know, if it were actually true. But then I have yet to see any of you actually site a link, article, or even a name to suggest you aren't making gak up.
No matter the religon, it's teachings can be twisted to suit any agenda of a group to give weight to their POV. A person on a street corner screaming "kill!" would be seen as a homocidal nut case. But a person scream that because a supreme being or a because religous text states that the other person is going against the holy word and should be killed for it then it lends weight to the agenda. There is so many historical examples but a modern one is Rev Phelps out of Kansas or the ultra-violent anti-abortionist. They use their own skewed version of religon to sell their POVs to others. So if do what CD is asking then we would have to close all places of worship for all religons no matter the creed because no religon or its followers could be trusted. So by banning or restricting one religon in the US or the rest of the West would undo all that has been strived for countless generation in their efforts for freedom and equality. While there will never be a pure utopia of respect and freedom because we are only human we can try to strive for the goal of equlity and respect without having to utilize the jackboot to force that utopia on others. Future history might prove that this was just an impossible dream of an idealistic people but it is worth a try.
Colossal Donkey wrote:I can't believe you would accept something that essentially contradicts western beliefs so readily at the site of one the greatest religious atrocities of our time
What is it exactly about the presence of this Mosque that runs counter to 'Western beliefs'?
Colossal Donkey wrote:
You may accept them at the moment, just wait until the boot is on the other foot. Bigotry will be the Wests salvation. We too readily accept incompatible countries/beliefs hoping to change them over time but nothing changes. The acceptance is nothing but negative reinforcement. Rewarding the act before it is complete is entirely futile.
What is being rewarded? Some Muslims destroyed the WTC, and now some other Muslims are building a Mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero. The people involved in each event had no connection beyond their faith.
Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.
That is interesting, I'm a little surprised the media hasnt jumped all over that to be honest.
Wait? You mean our Media?
They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.
It would be plastered all over the media. Y'know, if it were actually true. But then I have yet to see any of you actually site a link, article, or even a name to suggest you aren't making gak up.
Which you probably are.
I think he's referring to Feisal Abdul Rauf, but confusing Rauf's refusal to comment on whether Hamas is a terrorist organization with "big supporter".
Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.
That is interesting, I'm a little surprised the media hasnt jumped all over that to be honest.
Wait? You mean our Media?
They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.
It would be plastered all over the media. Y'know, if it were actually true. But then I have yet to see any of you actually site a link, article, or even a name to suggest you aren't making gak up.
Which you probably are.
Why would I make that up? I really dont care where they put thier mosque, it has no effect on me whatsoever, so what would my motive be for lying about the cleric? Find your own link.
Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.
Rauf is neither a supporter of Hamas (he simply does not refer to them, collectively, as a terrorist organization) nor a proponent of Sharia. This is a guy who wrote a book entitled What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America.
Good to see he is a Sunni, his answer about Hamas still troubles me though. They are a legitimate party in Lebanon and they are also a terrorist group. I think his answer was cowardly, but not inflamatory. I will have to do some more looking about his "Sharia law" comments, I can't right now as I am on an Android phone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Why would I make that up?
I can't answer a question that you should be asking yourself.
I really dont care where they put thier mosque, it has no effect on me whatsoever, so what would my motive be for lying about the cleric?
Like I said, I really can't know the motivations that would cause you to lie about something.
Find your own link.
Thats not how it works.
Do you ever answer something without being snide? Is it your problem with people in general or just you?
Do you ever answer something without being snide? Is it your problem with people in general or just you?
You made an outlandish and inflammatory statement then decried the media as sensationalist despite (apparently) not wanting to carry your story. Your statements were factually incorrect, self conflicting, and slightly egocentric. I responded snidely, I feel I made the correct decision.
@ Stormrider: Shuma is just trying to get under your skinn, as he always in a arguemnt he did not start.
avantgarde wrote:Are you American? If not stfu and stop telling us how to run our country.
I do find it amusing that people bitch about them building a new mosque when the Muslim congregation has been meeting at that location for months. Apparently it's cool they're worshiping there but as soon as they try to renovate it's some kind of islamo-facist conspiracy.
Wow an American telling somebody from another country how to do something or think. Who would have thought. Why can't you accept other peoples thoughts, name me a country with Islam as it's main religion that treats its people as well as the West.
Yeah it may be out of order to say all Americans are like this. However if other nations are not able to critique your nation then what the feth is the point. We may as well bend over and receive what we are told.
There are always going to be people mentally scarred by the attack that cannot accept it, but their induced disorder is not their fault. Just like it's not the average American's fault that he thinks he has anything to do with running his country either. What do all of those psychiatrists do, anyway?
That said, I think it is thoughtless of the Muslims involved to lobby for this when they know fully well just how emotional a place this is for a lot of peoples. It's a lot more than 0.01% of Muslims I know personally that think that this is funny in a purely spiteful way. What proportion of those mentally affected enough to want to build this also consider it, in some small way, a testament to victory? Even if not, it's just insensitive because there are a large number of people who absolutely cannot be expected to accept it. This is different to referendum or what is good for society. We are dealing with mentally ill people on both sides.
If you can't see how building a mosque can't offend a victim of 9/11, then you're not being reasonable. I know perfectly well that Islam is not extremist in and of itself any more than Christianity taken down to fundamentals. I could care less about the decade old dead who had nothing to do with me on the other side of the world. This is still a dumb idea.
Fortunately, we live in a world where everyone doesn't have to be right. Understanding and acceptance is far more important. From both sides.
Regardless, this should be considered in terms of what is going to be best for the society involved. If it all goes ahead, hopefully it will be for the best and help people to understand.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:That said, I think it is thoughtless of the Muslims involved to lobby for this when they know fully well just how emotional a place this is for a lot of peoples.
They didn't really lobby for it. They inquired about acquiring the building, it was possibly going to be classified as a historical building which wouldn't allow for that, but in the end it was not deemed as such and they acquired it. If anyone did the lobbying it was the people on the other side of the argument. As to the location, as has been stated several times, it is not ground zero nor was it part of it, it just happens to be not that far from it.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:That said, I think it is thoughtless of the Muslims involved to lobby for this when they know fully well just how emotional a place this is for a lot of peoples.
They didn't really lobby for it. They inquired about acquiring the building, it was possibly going to be classified as a historical building which wouldn't allow for that, but in the end it was not deemed as such and they acquired it. If anyone did the lobbying it was the people on the other side of the argument. As to the location, as has been stated several times, it is not ground zero nor was it part of it, it just happens to be not that far from it.
In that case, I have been misled by a media buzzword and stand corrected.
ChrisCP wrote:Well, really, if we didn't build religious structures next to the sites they attacked - most of europe would be empty.
One analogy that I can think of is black people lobbying against the construction of any churches in the south of america because the Klu Klux Klan was a radical cristian sect.
Yawn.... BFHD. Its cool to plop a "christian church" in any old strip mall or empty storefront. Even seen one inside a regular mall. They pop up next to liquer stores, chinese take out, cell phone centers, and game stores. More than half are not or barely affiliated with whatever branch of "christianity", usually some form of Baptist, they associate their name with. Most are more likely cults or cult like.... Westboro Baptist ring a bell?
The Muslims working for this mosque will most likely have a dedication and blessing ceremony, making it their 'holy ground'. Many of those strip mall "churches" don't even go that far.
Let them build their temple..... at least they are being somewhat honest with their intentions.
Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.
It's under reported because it's complete bs sold by the worst elements of the right wing garbage press. Feisal Abdul Rauf is part of the sufi element of Islam, the most spiritual and peaceful element of Islam. He's an American born citizen who believes strongly in the commonality of US and Islamic beliefs - he wrote a book called "What's Right with Islam is What's Right the US". His entire political cause is to improve relations between Islam and the West.
The idea that he's a radical is under-reported because it's complete gak. Stop listening to media sources that lie to you.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:I'm willing to bet on three. Frazzled hasn't been around lately to troll OT into submission and the other mods have been getting jumpy.
Plus KK likes posting 'correct' and then closing threads. A window opens...
Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.
Very true.
Why is it named Cordoba?
I think the important question we have to ask ourselves is, how is Batman going to handle this situation?
Remember, be sure to account for the Batdrift angle!
EDIT: You're right though. This is a serious topic. So we should approach it seriously. A serious topic approached seriously needs serious WEINER DOG!
Islam is a religion. Like all religions, it's possible to make arguments that it says virtually anything.
Religions are more like languages for morality than actual dictates for morality. They provide the language, the anecdotes, the framework for the understanding of morality. They don't actually force any specific conclusion, or at least don't do so as strongly as people like to believe.
The "anecdotes" I have seen are quotes from the Quran.
The Quran is the Word of God for Muslims as you probably know.
If someone is a fundamentalist, they take what is written literally.
If they take what is written about not using violence literally then they won't commit acts of terroism.
Sadly this doesn't happen. Words are misappropriated for political ends.
The problem is not religion, but the cultural and political context of the religion.
Take the word Jihad. It is not about waging war on others.
It is a holy war that is effected within oneself.
I am not so niave as to suppose there is a single interpretation of holy texts.
On the other hand there are those that misinterperate the Word of God to fulfil their political ends.
In the West Islam get portrayed only from that distorted perspective.
My point is that there exist Muslims who interpret the Quran in a way that facilitates co-existence with non-believers in a peaceful way.
Colossal Donkey wrote:I can't believe you would accept something that essentially contradicts western beliefs so readily at the site of one the greatest religious atrocities of our time
You may accept them at the moment, just wait until the boot is on the other foot. Bigotry will be the Wests salvation. We too readily accept incompatible countries/beliefs hoping to change them over time but nothing changes. The acceptance is nothing but negative reinforcement. Rewarding the act before it is complete is entirely futile.
Brother Donkey is correct, by the Emperor we must eliminate the foul Xenos before they have a chance to propagate and threaten our perfect Imperium!
Heh, and there I was thinking we enjoyed those sentiments in 40k because we considered it ironic.
They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.
You mean like this?
In those day, they DREW pictures of what they wanted rather than snap photos and photoshop them.
They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.
You mean like this?
In those day, they DREW pictures of what they wanted rather than snap photos and photoshop them.
Its a tough one to be sure, you cant punish all muslims for the acts of a few, and yet... i cant help but be annoyed about it.
Islam has always been an aggressive religion, and people that claim otherwise are not aware of the facts, indeed, people who arent even muslim themselves are the ones that seem to take great offence to any and all miniscule criticisms of Islam.
Christian difficulties with the Arab world did not commence with the crusades but with the birth of Islam itself, Muhammads faith has always rejected other faiths. The prophets followers preached that "people of the book" (Jews and Christians) could be tolerated as second class Dhimmis, but they have never been granted total equality as we seem so constantly eager to do here in the west.
While Christian communities in the arab world continue to disapear (The Christian population of Bethlehem has gone from 90% to less than 25%, and Lebanon 60% to 27%) the only place in the middle east where Christian communities have expanded is Israel, where since 1949 the number of Arab Christians has gone up by 345%!
Ergo, i know it is wrong to penalise all Muslims for the behaviour of terrorists, but do Muslims not penalise Christians? Look into it a tad (i got the figures above from a cop of National Geographic) and you will find that they absolutely do. It smacks of double standards to me that we seem so eager to bloody please when they dont give us the same treatment back.
I really dont have a logical answer to this conundrum as i think you can make a convincing argument both for and against.
I also now await KK to delete all of my text due to this post possibly registering above 10% of the not-politically correct-o-meter. Im pretty sure it passes on the actual fact-o-meter however, and that is the one that should concern people.
mattyrm wrote:
While Christian communities in the arab world continue to disapear (The Christian population of Bethlehem has gone from 90% to less than 25%, and Lebanon 60% to 27%) the only place in the middle east where Christian communities have expanded is Israel, where since 1949 the number of Arab Christians has gone up by 345%!
My partner's Arab Christian family was forced out of Bethlehem by Israelis, along with the majority of of non-Jews at the time. Their property and agricultural assets were seized, burned or destroyed, and despite support from the PLO getting a long way towards reaching a peaceful resolution, foreign interference guaranteed that they were utterly deprived of justice by empowering the Israeli regime and their completely racist policies.
Irony isn't always funny, but like ignorance, it's always there to slap you in the face.
The thing is, Islam is no more or less violent than Christianity.
The only thing is that the two "sides" have reversed since the Dark Ages.
In the Dark Ages, Western Europe was a Backwards, heavily Theocratic and intolerant of non-Christians and had the sole achievement of inventing a better kind of horse collar, while the Arab world were at the forefront of scientific, mathematic and technological achievement, had a largely secular way of governance and tolerated non-Muslims. A great example is the Ottoman Empire.
Gwar! wrote:The thing is, Islam is no more or less violent than Christianity.
The only thing is that the two "sides" have reversed since the Dark Ages.
In the Dark Ages, Western Europe was a Backwards, heavily Theocratic and intolerant of non-Christians, while the Arab world were at the forefront of scientific, mathematic and technological achievement, had a largely secular way of governance and tolerated non-Muslims. A great example is the Ottoman Empire.
In Modern times, it sadly is the reverse.
And the worst part is, as to my knowledge, much of the "barbaricism" that we associate with the Middle East, happened relatively recently. The militant, rigid, murderous, cultish groups that have essentially taken over in many parts, are IMHO, the root of the problem, not the religion it self.
Arctik_Firangi wrote: Their property and agricultural assets were seized, burned or destroyed, and despite support from the PLO getting a long way towards reaching a peaceful resolution, foreign interference guaranteed that they were utterly deprived of justice by empowering the Israeli regime and their completely racist policies.
Irony isn't always funny, but like ignorance, it's always there to slap you in the face.
I find it funny that people are allowed to be aggresively anti-jew but as soon as i throw anything in the Muslims direction i get the ban hammer.
Anyway, theres always going to be exceptions to the rule, whats your point? You cant hide the statistics.
Israel has a better record with regards to womens equality and gay rights than almost all of their neighbours, im not saying the Israelis arent needlessly harsh sometimes, but you might think you need to be in their shoes.
I also seriously doubt your partner is fair minded and impartial with regards to the Israeli regime if she lived in that neck of the woods.
mattyrm wrote:
I find it funny that people are allowed to be aggresively anti-jew but as soon as i throw anything in the Muslims direction i get the ban hammer.
Anti-policies of Israel != Anti-Jew. Don't do that.
Anyway, theres always going to be exceptions to the rule, whats your point? You cant hide the statistics.
You can't hide the statistics but you can interpret them correctly.
Israel has a better record with regards to womens equality and gay rights than almost all of their neighbours, im not saying the Israelis arent needlessly harsh sometimes, but you might think you need to be in their shoes.
I also seriously doubt your partner is fair minded and impartial with regards to the Israeli regime if she lived in that neck of the woods.
Obviously it's much easier to be fair minded and impartial when your information comes from various biased news sources instead of experience. After all, the news is never misleading about ANYTHING.
Good point raised about the "acceptable radius" a mosque would be allowed in. If someone wanted to build an anti-american monument near Ground Zero, I'd be really angry. As it is, accepting religious views seems to be one of the things America is GOOD at, so why not let it go?
As i said Boss, i think you can make a case for both sides of the argument, we (both the US/UK specificially seeing as they are the main combatants in the "war on terror") like to harp on about our fairness and our freedoms and such, so its a plus point to take the moral high ground.
But at the same time, we allow muslims and all religions 100% freedom anyway, there is no such thing as Dhimmi status in America or Britain for example, certain faiths dont have to pay more taxes and people are free to worship whatever the hell they like, so why oh why MUST they have a mosque at ground zero?
I see both sides of the debate, and i admit no easy answers, all it boils down to is individual tastes, and knowing people like i do, im willing to bet that a majority of New Yorkers would oppose it. I listend to them discuss this for an hour on "the frosty heidi and frank show" yesterday and out of maybe 20 callers i think one guy was happy with it. (although that show goes out in California and not NYC)
Religious freedom was one is the reasons the Pilgrims left for the New World in the first place. That said...
I can see why some people would be upset, and I think mattyrm made a few good points there. Having actually read some of the Quran, I'd say that calling Islam a "Religion of Peace" is a bit misguided.
Haddi wrote: The militant, rigid, murderous, cultish groups that have essentially taken over in many parts, are IMHO, the root of the problem, not the religion it self.
This sums up my thoughts quite succinctly really. I don't really anything that special or different between any of the worlds religions as such, it's which..hmm.. denomination ? Philosophy ? Bunch of old guys with beards anyway normally, happens to be the dominant faction at the time that causes the problems.
mattyrm wrote:
I find it funny that people are allowed to be aggresively anti-jew but as soon as i throw anything in the Muslims direction i get the ban hammer.
Anti-policies of Israel != Anti-Jew. Don't do that.
Anyway, theres always going to be exceptions to the rule, whats your point? You cant hide the statistics.
You can't hide the statistics but you can interpret them correctly.
Israel has a better record with regards to womens equality and gay rights than almost all of their neighbours, im not saying the Israelis arent needlessly harsh sometimes, but you might think you need to be in their shoes.
I also seriously doubt your partner is fair minded and impartial with regards to the Israeli regime if she lived in that neck of the woods.
Obviously it's much easier to be fair minded and impartial when your information comes from various biased news sources instead of experience. After all, the news is never misleading about ANYTHING.
Good point raised about the "acceptable radius" a mosque would be allowed in. If someone wanted to build an anti-american monument near Ground Zero, I'd be really angry. As it is, accepting religious views seems to be one of the things America is GOOD at, so why not let it go?
This whole thing reminds me of those stories you see in the tabloids that are along the lines of 'RELEASED PAEDO GIVEN FLAT 5 MINS WALK FROM KIDDIES PLAYGROUND!!!'
It's not like they're building it from WTC debris in the middle of 'Ground Zero' - it's down the road. As someone pointed out, it's a non-story.
No, it wasn't true. It was bs, as I pointed out above. But you ignored that. Because it's more fun to rant than to be right.
Stormrider wrote:Good old Yellow Journalism.
Yeah, that was yellow journalism. The rubbish about the creator of the mosque being an extremist is also yellow journalism. When it was pointed out to you above that the accusations were bs you didn't reconsider your answer or address the issue in any way.
The basic method of yellow journalism, that you apparently dislike, is to throw baseless accusations out there, and ignore or talk around any rebuttal that points out how crap those accusations are. You're doing what you were claiming the media were so bad at.
Yellow journalism works because most people are not that honest with themselves. If they hear something they like they'll accept it an repeat it, and ignore any subsequent reports that it wasn't true. If you don't like yellow journalism, man up and be honest enough to recognise that accusations against the creator of the mosque were yellow journalism.
mattyrm wrote:Ergo, i know it is wrong to penalise all Muslims for the behaviour of terrorists, but do Muslims not penalise Christians?
Yes, they do. The treatment of religious minorities of all stripes in many countries around the world is poor.
It smacks of double standards to me that we seem so eager to bloody please when they dont give us the same treatment back.
Only if you consider the 'sides' to be Christians and Muslims. Which is the kind of thinking that leads to all the religious conflict and persecution you and most of the rest of us are opposed to. The actual sides that really matter are 'people who don't target someone because of their religion' and 'people who do'.
Im pretty sure it passes on the actual fact-o-meter however, and that is the one that should concern people.
Nah, it was just more of the same old clash of cultures drivel.
Frazzled wrote:Why is it named Cordoba again?
Because it was a prosperous and advanced Islamic region, a time of peace between Islam and Christianity, and with a strong history of Sufism - the particular form of Islam followed by the people wanting to build the mosque.
Again, this guy is all about peaceful relations between Islam and the West. He opposes extremism. He wrote a book called "What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America". He is moderate. Stop the bs.
Haddi wrote:I think an important question to ask is, if they are not allowed to build a Mosque 2 blocks from the site of the WTC disaster, what is the limit?
5 blocks? 10? All of New York?
There are people who don't think muslims should be allowed to build mosques anywhere at all.
To me it just screams insult and a lack of understanding and consideration. You can ask all you want about why people don't want it there. As misguided and irrational as you may believe these protesters are, they are the people of New York city and they were there, I think their opinions should be respected and listened to.
Lets face it it is a tender spot, putting a Mosque there is going to cause problems and hurt feeling. To many people it is Tantamount to building a WW2 victory monument at Hiroshima. so why do it? Do you really need to put it in the shadow of 911? Is that really necessary? Is it even smart? Many people will see it as a slap in the face and I think the muslim religion as a whole needs to do some bonding a PR work with America. I think the thought alone to build the Mosque there was in bad taste. The fact that they continued to plan after there was a public outcry is pretty audacious. Now that they really have dug in their heel and are really fighting to build it their is beyond belief. Its callous, inconsiderate and does not speak of the peaceful and considerate islam that everyone tries to sell us in America.
Most people in America see islam like this. Walks like a duck. Talks like a Duck. Probably a Duck.
Some reasons people may be worried about Islam
As much as I am not a giant fan of the man in the pointy white hat. He at least he keeps things twisted in one way and is accountable for his flock. He as thier leader keeps most of the Catholics in line (please no history lessons here and yes I know there are boy touching priests and such) He does not endorse any violence towards anyone and when Catholics do step out of bounds, hes pretty good as letting them know its unapproved.
Islam has no such character, people believe act and twist the faith anyway they chose. If a Catholic priest built a school that trained you to perform terrorist acts and kill innocent civilians he would be excommunicated. This is a major issue. There is no way to separate the the good muslims from the bad. Hell there is no way to even regulate how or what is being preached or taught.
Taqiyya is a Koran supported deception technique used to trick your enemies into believing whatever you want them to. So even if you know good muslim people, can you really feel that they can be trusted?
I was going to make a list, but the amount of violence caused thought the world in the name of islam is ridiculous. Really most anywhere there is islam there is fighting. New York, London, Pakistan, Chechnya, Holland, France, Africa. This goes on and on forever.
Islam does not adjust to where it goes, but expects all others to adjust to it and accept it laws.
So yeah there is apprehension. Maybe its just bad PR, but building the mosque so close to ground zero is not going to help alleviate the apprehension. Now people will say that it is not their job to alleviate these biased views. Maybe not. But maybe it would be smart of them if they would. Starting by backing away from ground Zero might be a a good start.
To me it just screams insult and a lack of understanding and consideration. You can ask all you want about why people don't want it there. As misguided and irrational as you may believe these protesters are, they are the people of New York city and they were there, I think their opinions should be respected and listened to.
I don't think irrationality should ever be listened to. Those people should toughen the feth up.
Lets face it it is a tender spot, putting a Mosque there is going to cause problems and hurt feeling, so why do it?
As an attempt to build bridges?
Do you really need to put it in the shadow of 911? Is that really necessary? Is it even smart? Many people will see it as a slap in the face and I think the muslim religion as a whole needs to do some bonding a PR work with America.
And here I thought thats what this was.
I think the thought alone to build the Mosque there was in bad taste. The fact that they continued to plan after there was a public outcry is pretty audacious. Now that they really have dug in their heel and are really fighting to build it their is beyond belief. Its callous, inconsiderate and does not speak of the peaceful and considerate islam that everyone tries to sell us in America.
And that public outcry makes america look like the land of religious freedom and opportunity it's talked up? Please, be more conflicting in the future, I can almost see the hot air balloon you're filling from space.
As for islam. Walks like a duck. Talks like a Duck. Quacks like a Duck.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Lets face it it is a tender spot, putting a Mosque there is going to cause problems and hurt feeling, so why do it? Do you really need to put it in the shadow of 911? Is that really necessary? Is it even smart? Many people will see it as a slap in the face and I think the muslim religion as a whole needs to do some bonding a PR work with America.
That is the announced purpose of the cultural center/mosque.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I think the thought alone to build the Mosque there was in bad taste. The fact that they continued to plan after there was a public outcry is pretty audacious. Now that they really have dug in their heel and are really fighting to build it their is beyond belief. Its callous, inconsiderate and does not speak of the peaceful and considerate islam that everyone tries to sell us in America.
Why not? It isn't as though the only people supporting this particular building are Muslim. Several Jewish organizations has come out in favor of it, as have several family members of 9/11 victims. To pretend that this is somehow a contest between Muslims and the rest of New York is disingenuous.
Andrew1975 wrote:
As for islam. Walks like a duck. Talks like a Duck. Quacks like a Duck.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Islam has no such character, people believe act and twist the faith anyway they chose. If a Catholic priest built a school that trained you to perform terrorist acts and kill innocent civilians he would be excommunicated. This is a major issue. There is no way to separate the the good muslims from the bad. Hell there is no way to even regulate how or what is being preached or taught.
There are several ways to separate the good Muslims from the bad ones, and they tend to be the same ways one would separate the good Christians from the bad ones; personal judgment and considered examination of evidence and experience. Sure, there is no central authority of the sort found in the Catholic Church, but that certainly hasn't helped them to avoid the boy touching priests referred to in the omitted section, or even terrorism. Not too many members of the IRA were excommunicated.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Taqiyya is a Koran supported deception technique used to trick your enemies into believing whatever you want them to. So even if you know good muslim people, can you really feel that they can be trusted?
The same is true of all people; even those without religious permission to conceal their beliefs when in danger.
Do we distrust all people because some of them are sociopaths, and good at concealing that fact? Yes, of course we do, which makes one wonder why we regard Muslims as especially distrustful when trust is itself irrational outside compelling circumstances.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Islam does not adjust to where it goes, but expects all others to adjust to it and accept it laws.
Islam doesn't do anything, as it is not a thing which can take actions. That would require it to be a contiguous group with some form of central authority, which you point out to be absent.
OH NOES!!!! THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING!!! LET ME cALL MY GRAND WIZARD AND START THE CROSS BURNING!!
*Sarcasm off.
Freedom of religon. Freedom to practice religon wherever they so please, as long as it doesn't violate another idviduals rights.
Last time I checked, having a mosque in NYC didn't violate anybodies rights. Neither does having a Church, or a Temple, or a Synagogue(sp?).
mattyrm wrote:Ergo, i know it is wrong to penalise all Muslims for the behaviour of terrorists, but do Muslims not penalise Christians? Look into it a tad (i got the figures above from a cop of National Geographic) and you will find that they absolutely do. It smacks of double standards to me that we seem so eager to bloody please when they dont give us the same treatment back.
This. If you go to a predominantly Muslim country and place demands on their culture you'll end up in a jail or get your head handed to you... literally.
Traditionally it is forbidden for non-Miuslims to build new places of worship in Muslim lands. If your church burns down or gets destroyed by an earthquake... sorry. God must not like you.
It was a stupid idea in the first place. Nothing should go there except more buildings. It's the fething lower west side, The Fething business District!
Just throw up another building and call it a day. Did the japanese just leave nagasaki after it got nuked? NO, they picked things back up and now it's a thriving city.
The victim's families have my sympathies and it was a terrible thing. Still, there's no Fething reason to leave a prime piece of property in the lower west side vacant. It would be a waste of time to build anything that isn't related to business there, like a mosque. A museum isn't a good idea either, nor is a giant memorial in the middle of manhattan.
A City park would be a good idea, but you could really just walk up a couple blocks if you like that sort of thing.
mattyrm wrote:Ergo, i know it is wrong to penalise all Muslims for the behaviour of terrorists, but do Muslims not penalise Christians? Look into it a tad (i got the figures above from a cop of National Geographic) and you will find that they absolutely do. It smacks of double standards to me that we seem so eager to bloody please when they dont give us the same treatment back.
This. If you go to a predominantly Muslim country and place demands on their culture you'll end up in a jail or get your head handed to you... literally.
Traditionally it is forbidden for non-Miuslims to build new places of worship in Muslim lands. If your church burns down or gets destroyed by an earthquake... sorry. God must not like you.
I think it's cute that you think that it matters what third world hellholes do and that you think we should match their conduct out of some sort of fairness I can only assume you picked up from a six year old. Your grasp of wacky revisionist history is neat also. Do you think that heavy things fall faster too?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote:It was a stupid idea in the first place. Nothing should go there except more buildings. It's the fething lower west side, The Fething business District!
Just throw up another building and call it a day. Did the japanese just leave nagasaki after it got nuked? NO, they picked things back up and now it's a thriving city.
The victim's families have my sympathies and it was a terrible thing. Still, there's no Fething reason to leave a prime piece of property in the lower west side vacant. It would be a waste of time to build anything that isn't related to business there, like a mosque. A museum isn't a good idea either, nor is a giant memorial in the middle of manhattan.
A City park would be a good idea, but you could really just walk up a couple blocks if you like that sort of thing.
Just my 2/100ths of a dollar.
I don't know if you knew this, but a mosque IS A BUILDING.
Samus_aran115 wrote:I mean a large, multi-story building. Mosques are about the size of a church, which would be dwarfed in NYC.
Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9-0, saying the 152-year-old building blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks wasn't special or distinctive enough to meet criteria to qualify as a landmark. Commissioners also said that other buildings from the era were better examples of the building's style.
Just because it's clear half of you don't actually know whats going on, they want to put a mosque into a building that is already standing and is blocks away from the WTC sites. It's ALREADY A BUILDING they're just putting a mosque in it. It's also unlikely that it will be the only operation within the structure itself and the structure was not destroyed in the attack. It's just kinda close. If you consider a few blocks kinda close.
Look this isn't about how Christians are treated in other countries. This is the USA. No not all muslims are evil, as a majority they are fine people. But the mosque is a bad move. If the idea is understanding and an olive branch, ,then why push it down peoples throats in a location that is unacceptable to many. Its just stupid. As much as they may resent any sense of culpability (rightly so). This is not the way to do it. Bridges need to, must be built. But not on such volatile ground. It should be a sign of respect not to build it there. Its an opportunity to win hearts an minds. Legally they have every right to build it, as they should. But morally it's not the brightest idea.
Lets try to improve relations with Hiroshima and Baghdad by flying the worlds largest U.S. Flag over them. See how that flys
Samus_aran115 wrote:I mean a large, multi-story building. Mosques are about the size of a church, which would be dwarfed in NYC.
Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9-0, saying the 152-year-old building blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks wasn't special or distinctive enough to meet criteria to qualify as a landmark. Commissioners also said that other buildings from the era were better examples of the building's style.
Just because it's clear half of you don't actually know whats going on, they want to put a mosque into a building that is already standing and is blocks away from the WTC sites. It's ALREADY A BUILDING they're just putting a mosque in it. It's also unlikely that it will be the only operation within the structure itself and the structure was not destroyed in the attack. It's just kinda close. If you consider a few blocks kinda close.
Ah. Okay. Actually, most of the people I've been talking to about this thought it was going to be on the site of the buildings. A couple blocks is pretty close. Thanks.
Um... because it's not REALLY about an olive branch, but rather about sticking a thumb in the eye of the Great Satan? Just a guess.
I don't think it is about that. But look at it logically. They are not wanted there by many people because of what happened in a close proximity. There has to be more that one vacant building in Manhattan. So build (remodel really) one somewhere else...unless of course thumb in the eye is your goal. That is going to be the perception. Why Must they build it there? Just move it. Be kind, rewind, relax, preach the good word of allah down the street. If the goal is to build bridges, why start by burning them?
Look this isn't about how Christians are treated in other countries. This is the USA. No not all muslims are evil, as a majority they are fine people. But the mosque is a bad move. If the idea is understanding and an olive branch, ,then why push it down peoples throats in a location that is unacceptable to many. Its just stupid. As much as they may resent any sense of culpability (rightly so). This is not the way to do it. Bridges need to, must be built. But not on such volatile ground. It should be a sign of respect not to build it there. Its an opportunity to win hearts an minds. Legally they have every right to build it, as they should. But morally it's not the brightest idea.
Lets try to improve relations with Hiroshima and Baghdad by flying the worlds largest U.S. Flag over them. See how that flys
The German people or better yet some current Nazi group should build a Nazi Party Headquarters that extols the virtues of Nazism and how it was a great political and social movement, its just too bad that some fanatics high jacked it, but we are really great people, join the party. Place that about 3 blocks from Auschwitz. I mean hey Neo Nazis didn't have the death camps, they weren't responsible, its a legitimate form of government. So what's the problem?
Albatross wrote:This whole thing reminds me of those stories you see in the tabloids that are along the lines of 'RELEASED PAEDO GIVEN FLAT 5 MINS WALK FROM KIDDIES PLAYGROUND!!!'
It's not like they're building it from WTC debris in the middle of 'Ground Zero' - it's down the road. As someone pointed out, it's a non-story.
Mate ive known you ten years and you disagree with everything i say! Since you moved to Manchester you have started reading the Guardian and eating wheat free cake haven't you!
The Green Git wrote:
This. If you go to a predominantly Muslim country and place demands on their culture you'll end up in a jail or get your head handed to you... literally.
So, in order to defend Western values like freedom of religion, we must act like those people whom we criticize for not allowing freedom of religion.
The Green Git wrote:
Traditionally it is forbidden for non-Miuslims to build new places of worship in Muslim lands. If your church burns down or gets destroyed by an earthquake... sorry. God must not like you.
That depends on the geographic location, and period of history. The Ottomans, notably, had few such provisions.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't think it is about that. But look at it logically. They are not wanted there by many people because of what happened in a close proximity. There has to be more that one vacant building in Manhattan. So build (remodel really) one somewhere else...unless of course thumb in the eye is your goal. That is going to be the perception. Why Must they build it there? Just move it. Be kind, rewind, relax, preach the good word of allah down the street. If the goal is to build bridges, why start by burning them?
I believe that, to some extent, it has been assumed that anyone who would object to the presence of this mosque is already too far on the other side of the debate to be reached; ie. if you blame Muslims in general for 9/11 there really is no reason to consider anything you have to say regarding the presence of a mosque near Ground Zero, as you would probably have some negative reaction to the presence of a mosque anywhere. The bridges to be built will not be constructed by those people who actively protest this type of thing, but by those who are either indifferent or yet to be born. In that sense, the choice of location was likely intended to be provocative in order to supply media attention; both good and bad. However, given the people involved in supporting the construction, I very much doubt that it has anything to with biting thumbs at the Great Satan.
Andrew1975 wrote:
If the idea is understanding and an olive branch, ,then why push it down peoples throats in a location that is unacceptable to many. Its just stupid.
The Civil Rights movement was largely about pushing acceptance down the throats of others.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The German people or better yet some current Nazi group should build a Nazi Party Headquarters that extols the virtues of Nazism and how it was a great political and social movement, its just too bad that some fanatics high jacked it, but we are really great people, join the party. Place that about 3 blocks from Auschwitz. I mean hey Neo Nazis didn't have the death camps, they weren't responsible, its a legitimate form of government. So what's the problem?
That's a false analogy, as the relationship between Nazism and Judaism is not the same as the relationship between Islam and terrorism. Nazi ideology is directly predicated on the inferiority of Jews, among others, whereas Islam is not directly predicated on the destruction of large buildings full of people.
Traditionally, foreign sects were allowed to build temples, synagogues and mosques in secular western democracies, because we practice tolerance, respect and equality before the law.
(Except for Greece.)
As we now resile from that position, perhaps we can hope that muslim countries will move towards it.
I can get why the people are upset, but at the same time I think they're kind of crying over spilled milk. It's not like the mosque is actually on the 9/11 site. It's 2 blocks away. Can you even see the location from ground zero? They have to build it somewhere if they're going to build it. If it's not actually on ground zero why should I care
I like how everyone assumes the people opposed to the mosque are racists. There are certainly racists there, lets be realistic, but there's probably an equal number of people who are just upset and don't like the idea of an Islamic place of worship being built on the site of an Islamic terrorist attack. Doesn't make them right, but it doesn't make them racists or bigots. Just upset.
I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Muslim culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant and is the opposite of what western culture represents. Most Muslims may not be terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. It is Muslim tradition that mosques be built where the infidels used to have cities or their places of worship and its the same thing here. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Muslim culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant and is the opposite of what western culture represents. Most Muslims may not be terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. It is Muslim tradition that mosques be built where the infidels used to have cities or their places of worship and its the same thing here. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Well, I'll have to disagree. I have plenty of muslim friends and all of them are pretty tolerant. I doubt they actually obey those "rules" in the western world. In the middle east, maybe they do.
And your wrong. Most terrorists aren't muslim at all. In fact, a large percentage of what we consider "terrorism" occurs in south america and asia, which would make most terrorists Buddhist or Catholic
Albatross wrote:This whole thing reminds me of those stories you see in the tabloids that are along the lines of 'RELEASED PAEDO GIVEN FLAT 5 MINS WALK FROM KIDDIES PLAYGROUND!!!'
It's not like they're building it from WTC debris in the middle of 'Ground Zero' - it's down the road. As someone pointed out, it's a non-story.
Mate ive known you ten years and you disagree with everything i say! Since you moved to Manchester you have started reading the Guardian and eating wheat free cake haven't you!
HAVEN'T YOU!!!
I hate the Guardian. I don't often buy newspapers, but when I do I like the Times or the Daily Telegraph. I haven't got the foggiest idea what a 'wheat-free cake' is, either. I find it weird that you consider me a hippy when I'm basically a liberal nationalist with a fetish for the British Empire!
I'm no fan of the Islamic religion (or ANY religion, for that matter), or Islamic culture (apart from qawwali music maybe) - but I know crap when I smell it, and this story is crap. That's all.
Since you love Israel so much Matt, why not google the plaque the Israelis placed outside the King David hotel to commemorate the bombing. That's insulting. This? It's something and nothing, and I see no reason for my feelings about Islam to cloud the issue.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The German people or better yet some current Nazi group should build a Nazi Party Headquarters that extols the virtues of Nazism and how it was a great political and social movement, its just too bad that some fanatics high jacked it, but we are really great people, join the party. Place that about 3 blocks from Auschwitz. I mean hey Neo Nazis didn't have the death camps, they weren't responsible, its a legitimate form of government. So what's the problem?
Dogma wrote
That's a false analogy, as the relationship between Nazism and Judaism is not the same as the relationship between Islam and terrorism. Nazi ideology is directly predicated on the inferiority of Jews, among others, whereas Islam is not directly predicated on the destruction of large buildings full of people.
Your critic of my analogy is false and narrow.
National Socialism is a form of government that promotes an economic third position; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist. The Nazis accused communism and capitalism of being associated with outside influences and interests. They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honor for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.
The Nazi that you are speaking of are Hitlers minions that Hijacked an already established political situation and turned it into a sick ideology, based on hatred of an outside group and global conquest.
The Terrorists Al-quieda and such have taken an existing religion and actively pervert Islam (the religion of peace) and turn it into a religious Jihad against any non Islamic influence with the goal of islamifying the world. Same situation. For these Terrorists that have Hijacked islam I think it can be easily assumed their goals may be predicated on the destruction of large buildings (buses, subways,cars, hotels etc...etc.. full of people, yes as we have seen and witnessed.
Your average German citizens and soldiers had about as much to do with the Nazi atrocities as you average Muslim has to do with Al-Quieda.
It's interesting though once the allies got to Germany they couldn't find any Nazis or Nazi sympathizers, every German they spoke to hated the Nazis. Just like so many Muslims hate the terrorists.
So people have a reason to be worried. Now if Western Muslims really want to separate themselves form the radical crazies, why insite the obvious problems by building a mosque so close to the site.
Do they have a right...Yes
Is it Legal...Yes
Is it smart...No
Are they terrorists..Probably not, certainly not all or most or many.
Could there be a terrorist sympathizer in the midst..sure
Could this sign of weakness embolden them or the rest of the terrorists...SURE COULD.
Could protesting the building create more tension polarizing people in the middle and forcing them to take sides...SURE COULD
Does the situation makes Muslims look bad to many Americans...SURE DOES
Does the situation make America look stupid and petty to the rest of the world and bad to moderate Muslims....YOU BET IT DOES
So its a terrible idea as an olive branch, but as part of a sinister plot. Well played islam. Mission accomplished weather it gets built or not.
speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Christian culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant and is the opposite of what western culture represents. Most Christians may not be terrorists, but most terrorists are christians. It is Christian tradition that churches be built where the infidels used to have cities or their places of worship and its the same thing here. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Christians to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Christians who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that god will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
There its fixed
This statement could be applied to any religion at some point in time
Colossal Donkey wrote:I can't believe you would accept something that essentially contradicts western beliefs so readily at the site of one the greatest religious atrocities of our time
You may accept them at the moment, just wait until the boot is on the other foot. Bigotry will be the Wests salvation. We too readily accept incompatible countries/beliefs hoping to change them over time but nothing changes. The acceptance is nothing but negative reinforcement. Rewarding the act before it is complete is entirely futile.
speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Muslim culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant and is the opposite of what western culture represents.
I reiterate: In order to defend Western values, like freedom of religion, we should behave like those whom we criticize for failing to respect freedom of religion? Its one thing to punish a Muslims because he violates a specific law, it is another thing entirely to punish the same Muslim simply for being a Muslim.
speedfreak wrote:
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.
With one exception, every single sura in the Koran begins with "In the name of God the merciful, and compassionate". The Koran encourages violence in certain situations, and compassion or peace in others. The inherent conflict between these two messages has been at the center of the Islamic theological debate for the majority of its history.
speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Muslim culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant and is the opposite of what western culture represents. Most Muslims may not be terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. It is Muslim tradition that mosques be built where the infidels used to have cities or their places of worship and its the same thing here. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Well, I'll have to disagree. I have plenty of muslim friends and all of them are pretty tolerant. I doubt they actually obey those "rules" in the western world. In the middle east, maybe they do.
And your wrong. Most terrorists aren't muslim at all. In fact, a large percentage of what we consider "terrorism" occurs in south america and asia, which would make most terrorists Buddhist or Catholic
Numbers or it doesnt count. I think once you do some research you'll find you are quite mistaken. Just as an example let Take the Tamil Tigers from South East Asia. Probably the regions best known terrorist group.
Intelligence agencies are well aware that the LTTE was involved in the 1990s in training the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) both of which are closely linked to al-Qaeda. In 1995 and 1998, an LTTE combat tactician and an LTTE explosives expert accompanying groups of al-Qaeda Arabs was recorded training members of MILF. In 1999, an LTTE combat tactician accompanying a group of al-Qaeda Arabs was recorded training members of the ASG. At the apparent behest of al-Qaeda, the LTTE is recorded training members of Al Ummah (An Islamic terrorist group formed in India in 1992, believed to be responsible for bombings in southern India in 1998) in Tamil Nadu, India.[78]
Not all Muslims are terrorists...Correct
Not all terrorists are Muslims...Correct
Are most of the conflicts in the world right now centered around Muslims either terrorist activities or full out wars.....yes, yes they are. Lets name a few shall we Chechnya, Russia, USA, UK, France, Spain, Germany, India, Pakistan, Most of Africa,the list goes on and on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: in short should they be legally allowed to build it....Yes
Should they want to...NO
Should they fight so hard for it..NO
Should people be all up in arms...Probably not, but there is reason.
Could they find a more suitable place...Of course they could.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The Nazis accused communism and capitalism of being associated with outside influences and interests.
You're missing the part where those 'outside influences and interests' were generally defined according to principles which were biologically racist; notable with respect to Jews.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The Nazi that you are speaking of are Hitlers minions that Hijacked an already established political situation and turned it into a sick ideology, based on hatred of an outside group and global conquest.
No, that's absolutely false. Maurice Barres coined the term 'national socialism', and he founded his belief on an aggressive sort of xenophobia (and biological racism) with a bend towards antisemitism. However, Hitler was its most visible exponent and it is his ideological position which is the definitive component of Nazism. Central to that ideological position was biological racism, out of which grew antisemitism. Note that Strasser, Hitler's chief ideological opponent, was also a biological racist and antisemitic.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The Terrorists Al-quieda and such have taken an existing religion and actively pervert Islam (the religion of peace) and turn it into a religious Jihad against any non Islamic influence with the goal of islamifying the world. Same situation.
Not at all, you're confusing Hitler's ideological influences (Nietzsche and Fichte, primarily) with Nazism. They are not at all the same.
Andrew1975 wrote:
For these Terrorists that have Hijacked islam I think it can be easily assumed their goals may be predicated on the destruction of large buildings (buses, subways,cars, hotels etc...etc.. full of people, yes as we have seen and witnessed.
Terrorists, yes, Muslims no. You're making three very large mistakes here. The first is obviously your misreading of national socialism. The second is drawing a line between Islamists, who have corrupted Islam, and Nazis who accurately represented the sum of their position. The third is to equate Islamists with Islam, which is what is necessary for our analogy to hold given that you are operating under a false definition of national socialism.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Your average German citizens and soldiers had about as much to do with the Nazi atrocities as you average Muslim has to do with Al-Quieda.
Sure, but if they build a monument to Nazism next to Auschwitz they are clearly invoking the ideology which brought about the deaths of the people held there. The fact that they are German would be irrelevant to the matter.
Andrew1975 wrote:
So people have a reason to be worried. Now if Western Muslims really want to separate themselves form the radical crazies, why insite the obvious problems by building a mosque so close to the site.
Do they have a right...Yes
Could this sign of weakness embolden them or the rest of the terrorists...SURE COULD.
Why do we particularly care if Muslims are emboldened? Shouldn't we only be concerned with the boldness of terrorists? It seems to me that you're envisioning this as a struggle against the Muslim world, and not against terrorism.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Could protesting the building create more tension polarizing people in the middle and forcing them to take sides...SURE COULD
That's probably the idea. By forcing people to take sides, the builders of the mosque hope to generate support for efforts designed to foster tolerance.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Does the situation make America look stupid and petty to the rest of the world and bad to moderate Muslims....YOU BET IT DOES
Again, that's the idea.
Andrew1975 wrote:
So its a terrible idea as an olive branch, but as part of a sinister plot. Well played islam. Mission accomplished weather it gets built or not.
And again it comes down to referring to the whole of religion, especially one lacking a central hierarchy as a monolith. Regardless, to the extent that this measure was designed to forced the issue of intolerance, and thereby foster support for tolerance, it seems to have worked quite nicely. The resultant conflict is an unfortunate, and necessary side-effect of such measures.
Andrew1975 wrote:
For these Terrorists that have Hijacked islam I think it can be easily assumed their goals may be predicated on the destruction of large buildings (buses, subways,cars, hotels etc...etc.. full of people, yes as we have seen and witnessed.
Dogma Wrote
Terrorists, yes, Muslims no. You're making three very large mistakes here. The first is obviously your misreading of national socialism. The second is drawing a line between Islamists, who have corrupted Islam, and Nazis who accurately represented the sum of their position. The third is to equate Islamists with Islam, which is what is necessary for our analogy to hold given that you are operating under a false definition of national socialism.
So you are saying the Terrorists that flew planes into buildings or work of Al-quieda were not Muslims? I specifically said the Terrorists that have hijacked Islam. I never said all Muslims. You sir are a troll that likes to play semantics games.
You are also wrong about National Socialism as a political Movement.
The self-identification term, used by exponents of the ideology past and present is National Socialism and adherents describe themselves as National Socialists. For instance the best known organization exposing this system, the German party led by Adolf Hitler was called the National Socialist German Workers Party. Similarly, the second volume of Mein Kampf is entitled The National Socialist Movement. According to Joseph Goebbels in an official exposition of the ideology, the logic behind the synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism as represented in the name, was to "counter the Internationalism of Marxism with the nationalism of a German Socialism"
Two Words, National Socialism. Like Communism, there are all different kinds.
It's public and popular goals were never the extinction of entire races of people. This was defiantly not what won the national socialists their elections in Germany. It's hidden goals and agenda on the other hand were not brought about until it was far too late for the people of Germany to do anything about it, except a few assassination attempts made by fed up officers. As we have no idea what the final goal of Radical Islam is we can only go by their current attitudes towards outsiders. This is not a pretty picture. In fact many people have made points about how countries run by muslims treat their non muslim countrymen...Pretty similar to Hitlers Nazis if you ask me.
Andrew1975 wrote:
So people have a reason to be worried. Now if Western Muslims really want to separate themselves form the radical crazies, why insite the obvious problems by building a mosque so close to the site.
Do they have a right...Yes
Could this sign of weakness embolden them or the rest of the terrorists...SURE COULD.
Why do we particularly care if Muslims are emboldened? Shouldn't we only be concerned with the boldness of terrorists? It seems to me that you're envisioning this as a struggle against the Muslim world, and not against terrorism.
As I was speaking here about the possible terrorists in the proposed mosque...yes I think that is what people are worried about. I think its pretty much guaranteed that at some point a member of a terrorist organization will be in that building with a smirk on his face. Not saying hes there now or part of their group. But they will come in droves to see their handy work from that mosque. With or without the knowledge and or permission of the people that are building it.
I still can not see one good reason why it must be built there and only there. Its just a bad move anyway you look at it. Which in turn may make it the best move of all.
speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Western culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant....
Weird how the above edit I made to your quote also totally fits...
Western culture is built upon slavery, oppression, genocide, war, suffering, greed, religous, zealotry and radical politics.
It's called "human nature" and Westerners are not immune to nor above it...
Andrew1975 wrote:
For these Terrorists that have Hijacked islam I think it can be easily assumed their goals may be predicated on the destruction of large buildings (buses, subways,cars, hotels etc...etc.. full of people, yes as we have seen and witnessed.
Dogma Wrote
Terrorists, yes, Muslims no. You're making three very large mistakes here. The first is obviously your misreading of national socialism. The second is drawing a line between Islamists, who have corrupted Islam, and Nazis who accurately represented the sum of their position. The third is to equate Islamists with Islam, which is what is necessary for our analogy to hold given that you are operating under a false definition of national socialism.
So you are saying the Terrorists that flew planes into buildings or work of Al-quieda were not Muslims? I specifically said the Terrorists that have hijacked Islam. I never said all Muslims. You sir are a troll that likes to play semantics games.
You are also wrong about National Socialism as a political Movement.
The self-identification term, used by exponents of the ideology past and present is National Socialism and adherents describe themselves as National Socialists. For instance the best known organization exposing this system, the German party led by Adolf Hitler was called the National Socialist German Workers Party. Similarly, the second volume of Mein Kampf is entitled The National Socialist Movement. According to Joseph Goebbels in an official exposition of the ideology, the logic behind the synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism as represented in the name, was to "counter the Internationalism of Marxism with the nationalism of a German Socialism"
Two Words, National Socialism. Like Communism, there are all different kinds.
It's public and popular goals were never the extinction of entire races of people. This was defiantly not what won the national socialists their elections in Germany. It's hidden goals and agenda on the other hand were not brought about until it was far too late for the people of Germany to do anything about it, except a few assassination attempts made by fed up officers. As we have no idea what the final goal of Radical Islam is we can only go by their current attitudes towards outsiders. This is not a pretty picture. In fact many people have made points about how countries run by muslims treat their non muslim countrymen...Pretty similar to Hitlers Nazis if you ask me.
Andrew1975 wrote:
So people have a reason to be worried. Now if Western Muslims really want to separate themselves form the radical crazies, why insite the obvious problems by building a mosque so close to the site.
Dogma wrote
Do they have a right...Yes
Could this sign of weakness embolden them or the rest of the terrorists...SURE COULD.
Why do we particularly care if Muslims are emboldened? Shouldn't we only be concerned with the boldness of terrorists? It seems to me that you're envisioning this as a struggle against the Muslim world, and not against terrorism.
As I was speaking here about the possible terrorists in the proposed mosque...yes I think that is what people are worried about. I think its pretty much guaranteed that at some point a member of a terrorist organization will be in that building with a smirk on his face. Not saying hes there now or part of their group. But they will come in droves to see their handy work from that mosque. With or without the knowledge and or permission of the people that are building it.
I still can not see one good reason why it must be built there and only there. Its just a bad move anyway you look at it. Which in turn may make it the best move of all
Andrew1975 wrote:
So you are saying the Terrorists that flew planes into buildings or work of Al-quieda were not Muslims? I specifically said the Terrorists that have hijacked Islam. I never said all Muslims. You sir are a troll that likes to play semantics games.
The basic premise on which your position is founded is that it is somehow inappropriate to construct a mosque near Ground Zero because some Muslims flew a plane into a building there. In doing this you are focusing of the fact that hijackers were Muslim, rather than the fact that the hijackers were terrorists. In then comparing the action to the construction of a Nazi monument new Auschwitz you are drawing a line between something that is intrinsically offensive to the victims of that place (Nazism), and something which is related only tangentially to the victims of 9/11 (Islam).
I'm not trolling anyone, I'm simply pointing out what you appear to be doing here. If you don't intend to convey the message that I'm taking from your words, then you need to revisit your position. Its not a matter of semantics, its a matter of literal meaning.
Andrew1975 wrote:
You are also wrong about National Socialism as a political Movement. It's public and popular goals were never the extinction of entire races of people.
You really need to read Mein Kampf, or listen to Hitler's public speeches. I can understand the idea that Hitler's nationalist claims took precedence over his antisemitism in the eyes of many, but to pretend that the antisemitism wasn't an overt element of his rise to power is absurd. Moreover, its irrelevant to question at hand as your analogy had nothing to do with Germans in general, but Nazism in particular. The specific German character of any Nazi monument built near Auschwitz is not relevant to the fact that the monument glorifies Nazis in the presence of the cite of the atrocity they, as a whole, collectively advocated.
Andrew1975 wrote:
This was defiantly not what won the national socialists their elections in Germany. It's hidden goals and agenda on the other hand were not brought about until it was far too late for the people of Germany to do anything about it, except a few assassination attempts made by fed up officers. As we have no idea what the final goal of Radical Islam is we can only go by their current attitudes towards outsiders. This is not a pretty picture.
Again, the analogy you created has nothing to do with Germany, but only Nazis in particular. In order to express your point correctly one would have to suppose that the mosque in question were dedicated to radical Islam, but it is not. Another possible line of reasoning would be that the terrorists are analogous to the Nazis, with the Germans standing analogy to the whole of Islam. However, this second comparison does not really agree with your position, as I sincerely doubt that anyone is offended by the fact that Auschwitz is in the proximity of German buildings.
I'm not sure if you've forgotten what you wrote, or if you're simply struggling to separate the a series of related ideas, but you seem to be jumping around rather frantically for whatever reason.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Two Words, National Socialism. Like Communism, there are all different kinds.
Yes, and they all trade in some sort of biological racism. Its one of the fundamental tenets underpinning the ideology. It doesn't matter if its not what brought the Nazis to power in Germany, because it is necessarily connected to Nazism and has been since the concept of National Socialism arose.
Andrew1975 wrote:
As I was speaking here about the possible terrorists in the proposed mosque...yes I think that is what people are worried about.
No, that's only part of what you said. You also referred to Muslims in general. I will ask you to be more careful in your wording if that isn't what you meant.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I think its pretty much guaranteed that at some point a member of a terrorist organization will be in that building with a smirk on his face. Not saying hes there now or part of their group. But they will come in droves to see their handy work from that mosque. With or without the knowledge and or permission of the people that are building it.
That's why we have no-fly lists, border security, and intelligence organizations.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I still can not see one good reason why it must be built there and only there. Its just a bad move anyway you look at it. Which in turn may make it the best move of all.
I presented an excellent reason for why someone might want to build the mosque there.
As an aside, please work to format your posts more clearly. They are difficult to parse with the mess of quotations.
So you are saying the Terrorists that flew planes into buildings or work of Al-quieda were not Muslims? I specifically said the Terrorists that have hijacked Islam. I never said all Muslims. You sir are a troll that likes to play semantics games.
And you're a troll that doesn't understand the simple mathematics that underpins a statement such that. The west has hijacked islam into the false belief that it has been hijacked by terrorists, this is a belief bred from xenophobia and ignorance that has been cultivated as a catchall scapegoat for modern western economic and philosophical insecurity. Terrorists exist, of course they do. There are plenty of them. They comprise less than one percent of one percent of the religions population however. Its a religion with over a billion practitioners, the thought that it can be hijacked by a few thousand is patently false and blatantly stupid.
It's public and popular goals were never the extinction of entire races of people. This was defiantly not what won the national socialists their elections in Germany. It's hidden goals and agenda on the other hand were not brought about until it was far too late for the people of Germany to do anything about it, except a few assassination attempts made by fed up officers.
Racial xenophobia was a part of the parties platform from its earliest days, they didn't immediately formulate the plans for wars of conquest or genetic extermination in their early speeches but the subtext and ideals were there plain as day.
This is not a pretty picture. In fact many people have made points about how countries run by muslims treat their non muslim countrymen...Pretty similar to Hitlers Nazis if you ask me.
Name a theocracy that has treated it's people well by modern western values. It's a problem inherent to medieval forms of governance and socio economic stagnation in a region with very poor public education. The fact that Islam is the majority religion there is happenstance. The Christian portions of africa are rarely any better.
So people have a reason to be worried. Now if Western Muslims really want to separate themselves form the radical crazies, why insite the obvious problems by building a mosque so close to the site.
Do they have a right...Yes
Could this sign of weakness embolden them or the rest of the terrorists...SURE COULD.
People have the right to be ignorant weak willed idiots, but that doesn't mean we should defend them or act in deference to their shrill prattle.
As I was speaking here about the possible terrorists in the proposed mosque...yes I think that is what people are worried about. I think its pretty much guaranteed that at some point a member of a terrorist organization will be in that building with a smirk on his face. Not saying hes there now or part of their group. But they will come in droves to see their handy work from that mosque. With or without the knowledge and or permission of the people that are building it.
As opposed to, y'know, just going to ground zero and attending a mosque ten blocks away. Do terrorists not know how to use taxis? Do you know how stupid this sounds? Ground zero isn't even visible from the building itself.
Post 2010/08/05 00:01:57 Subject: "Ground Zero Mosque" Approved
speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Western culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant....
CT GAMER wrote: Weird how the above edit I made to your quote also totally fits...
Western culture is built upon slavery, oppression, genocide, war, suffering, greed, religous, zealotry and radical politics.
It's called "human nature" and Westerners are not immune to nor above it...
Yes, throughout history Europeans have had slaves and killed Muslims, pagans, and animists for their religion, and killed millions of innocent people, but we don't anymore. We've grown out of it. We do not execute homosexuals and women who cheated on their husbands. We don't force women to wear veils in public. We live in a free and maybe too tolerant society and I am not afraid to say that our culture is better than theirs. If they they want to live like that in their own countries, go right ahead. If you come here, get in line with our culture. No, you don't have become a Christian, but don't bring sharia law here.
Yes, throughout history Europeans have had slaves and killed Muslims, pagans, and animists for their religion, and killed millions of innocent people, but we don't anymore.
The Nazis did their thing a half century ago and this mosque is being built in America which had its economic foundation built with slaves and the extermination and removal of native peoples.
We've grown out of it. We do not execute homosexuals and women who cheated on their husbands. We don't force women to wear veils in public.
The west has also created and detonated over 1000 nuclear bombs in the last 50 years. America was segregated for much of the last century and europe is still recovering from some of the feelings that stemmed from world war two. The cold war very nearly started the largest and presumably the most deadly war in history over the clash of ideals between two forms of governance. The west is economically developed, the mideast and southasia are not. We only stopped killing when we started selling, the chinese picked that up and are running with it. The mideast may someday as well.
We live in a free and maybe too tolerant society and I am not afraid to say that our culture is better than theirs. If they they want to live like that in their own countries, go right ahead. If you come here, get in line with our culture. No, you don't have become a Christian, but don't bring sharia law here.
What about the mosque in question here is bringing in sharia law? Is it nothing? Because I'm pretty sure it's nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Germans=Muslims Generally good people
National Socialism = Islam One was a genuine political party, the other a religion
Hitler and his goons = Radical islamic terrorist sects
This isn't how logic works, revise your arguments so that they aren't based on insanity or stop using them.
Andrew1975 wrote:Ok Dogma Ill make it easy to understand
I dont think you can follow an argument
I'm fully aware of the argument you're attempting to make, it simply isn't valid.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Germans=Muslims Generally good people
National Socialism = Islam One was a genuine political party, the other a religion
What? Why are you differentiating between Islam and Muslims? The group 'Muslims' is defined by the presence of the religious category 'Islam', there is no substantive distinction between the two. An analogous distinction would be the one between national socialists and National Socialism, there is a difference between the two, but it isn't significant to your argument.
Moreover, why are you supposing that Germans were all National Socialists? Hitler and his goons were National Socialists, Germans were just German. It isn't as though Germany was a Nazi state prior to the arrival of Hitler. I know that you are stuck on the idea that National Socialism isn't intrinsically antisemitic, but that's outright false.
It appears you've already made a fatal error in your argument.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Hitler and his goons = Radical islamic terrorist sects
Germans got a bad rap because of Hitler and his goons
Muslims get a bad rap because Radical Islam and their goons
Same thing
No, you've brutally twisted both situations in order to contort yourself into some sort of reasonable position. The argument you want to offer is:
Muslims=Germans
Radical Muslims = Nazis
Muslims get a bad rap due to the actions of radical Muslims, and Germans get a bad rap due to the actions of National Socialists.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Therefor
Building a Islamic Mosque next to ground zero =
Building a National Socialist party headquarters next to Auschwitz.
It's stupid and insensitive.
No, that's a false conclusion. If Muslims are equivalent to Germans, then a mosque would be equivalent to any specifically German structure, like the museum at Auschwitz; which is not thought to be offensive . For your final point to hold, the Muslim structure would need to be dedicated specifically to the ideology which caused the suffering at Ground Zero; which is Salafism.
What you've done here is express the distinction between a general category and a specific one, only to completely eliminate that distinction in your conclusion; rendering it false per the proffered argument.
ShuahGorath wrote:The Nazis did their thing a half century ago and this mosque is being built in America which had its economic foundation built with slaves and the extermination and removal of native peoples.
The west has also created and detonated over 1000 nuclear bombs in the last 50 years. America was segregated for much of the last century and europe is still recovering from some of the feelings that stemmed from world war two. The cold war very nearly started the largest and presumably the most deadly war in history over the clash of ideals between two forms of governance. The west is economically developed, the mideast and southasia are not. We only stopped killing when we started selling, the chinese picked that up and are running with it. The mideast may someday as well.
I was actually referencing slavery and Nazis. With the Cold War, I don't really consider the Soviets part of Western culture. Also, if the the US and some Western European countries didn't have nukes, Europe would be part of the Soviet Union and the US would be a toxic hole in the planet. To many lives would have been lost trying to take Japan. Nuclear weopons are necessary with countries like North Korea and Iran around. As for America being segregated, it isn't segregated anymore and Barack Obama is president. Slavery and the extirmination of many natives are the worst things in the US's history, and I'm not trying to say we should forget them, but they are history. And the Chinese have not stopped killing. Christians and Muslims are badly persecuted there and are sometimes killed.
National Socialism = Islam One was a genuine political party, the other a religion
Hitler and his goons = Radical islamic terrorist sects
This isn't how logic works, revise your arguments so that they aren't based on insanity or stop using them.
How is this not logical? Again National Socialism was a political party as I have explained above. To the average German citizen it was promising. Sure, It had Nationalistic tones and was fearful of outside influences. Only once it was Hijacked by Hitler and his goons did it turn into the Nazi that we all love to hate.
Same can be said of Islam. Islam by nature is even more aggressive than any of the original ideas behind National socialism. In the hands of fanatics it is by far worse than anything the Nazis ever dreamed of. Complete extinction of everything non Islamic. I don't think the Nazis were stabbing people that drew cartoons of Hitler.
National Socialism = Islam One was a genuine political party, the other a religion
Hitler and his goons = Radical islamic terrorist sects
This isn't how logic works, revise your arguments so that they aren't based on insanity or stop using them.
How is this not logical? Again National Socialism was a political party as I have explained above. To the average German citizen it was promising. Sure, It had Nationalistic tones and was fearful of outside influences. Only once it was Hijacked by Hitler and his goons did it turn into the Nazi that we all love to hate.
Same can be said of INSERT RELIGON HERE. iNSERT RELIGON HERE by nature is even more aggressive than any of the original ideas behind National socialism. In the hands of fanatics it is by far worse than anything the Nazis ever dreamed of. Complete extinction of everything non INSERT RELIGON HERE. I don't think the Nazis were stabbing people that drew cartoons of Hitler.
Fixed.
They actually were. Ever hear of secret police?
National Socialism = Islam One was a genuine political party, the other a religion
Hitler and his goons = Radical islamic terrorist sects
This isn't how logic works, revise your arguments so that they aren't based on insanity or stop using them.
How is this not logical? Again National Socialism was a political party as I have explained above. To the average German citizen it was promising. Sure, It had Nationalistic tones and was fearful of outside influences. Only once it was Hijacked by Hitler and his goons did it turn into the Nazi that we all love to hate.
Same can be said of Islam. Islam by nature is even more aggressive than any of the original ideas behind National socialism. In the hands of fanatics it is by far worse than anything the Nazis ever dreamed of. Complete extinction of everything non Islamic. I don't think the Nazis were stabbing people that drew cartoons of Hitler.
Do you know much about Weimar Germany? Germany was highly fractured amongst a multitude of different parties. The Nazi party was established by a dejected WWI veteran and Clockmaker named Anton Drexler in 1919. Hitler did not start the party, but he had the charisma to bring it into some sort of relevance. The Nazi party got the majority of the German parliament by getting 32% of the seats in 1932. That's all they needed. As soon as the Reichstag went up in smoke the emergency powers were given to Herr Chancellor and it's history from there.
Andrew1975 wrote:
How is this not logical? Again National Socialism was a political party as I have explained above. To the average German citizen it was promising. Sure, It had Nationalistic tones and was fearful of outside influences. Only once it was Hijacked by Hitler and his goons did it turn into the Nazi that we all love to hate.
National Socialism is a political ideology which was at the heart of several political parties at the time of Hitler's rise.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Same can be said of Islam. Islam by nature is even more aggressive than any of the original ideas behind National socialism.
One of the fundamental tenets of national socialism is ethnic nationalism, which necessarily trades in an expansionist foreign policy given its lean of the notion that all present nations were fragmented and impure.
Andrew1975 wrote:
In the hands of fanatics it is by far worse than anything the Nazis ever dreamed of. Complete extinction of everything non Islamic. I don't think the Nazis were stabbing people that drew cartoons of Hitler.
Yeah, that Aryan master race sure was tolerant of difference, and not at all interested in exterminating 'lesser' people.
Hmm..Muslim terrorists are "extremists" but Christians who beat up homosexuals are just "Christians".
Love how in a roundabout way Muslim religion is being defended because not all Muslims are "extreme" and yet any and all Christians who act extremely are just acting the norm of Christian values.
Fateweaver wrote:Hmm..Muslim terrorists are "extremists" but Christians who beat up homosexuals are just "Christians".
Love how in a roundabout way Muslim religion is being defended because not all Muslims are "extreme" and yet any and all Christians who act extremely are just acting the norm of Christian values.
Got to love the massive, millions strong brainwashing going on in this country in the past few years or so. Hell, read the "official" 9/11 report. It's been edited to make sure no one mention of "terrorist" or "islam" or "jihad" or "muslim" is mentioned.
If a Catholic "extremist" burned down Walmart in my town, killing everyone in it and then wanted to build a house of worship on the site of the old walmart I'd burn it down with him in it.
Andrew1975 wrote:As much as I am not a giant fan of the man in the pointy white hat. He at least he keeps things twisted in one way and is accountable for his flock. He as thier leader keeps most of the Catholics in line (please no history lessons here and yes I know there are boy touching priests and such) He does not endorse any violence towards anyone and when Catholics do step out of bounds, hes pretty good as letting them know its unapproved.
Islam has no such character, people believe act and twist the faith anyway they chose. If a Catholic priest built a school that trained you to perform terrorist acts and kill innocent civilians he would be excommunicated. This is a major issue. There is no way to separate the the good muslims from the bad. Hell there is no way to even regulate how or what is being preached or taught.
Do you similarly oppose Protestantism? Because they don't have a leader.
Islam does not adjust to where it goes, but expects all others to adjust to it and accept it laws.
Do you believe this describes the full billion muslims? Because they don't all believe that. Many not only believe in fitting in to their new country, many believe that the values of their adopted countries are closer to the values of true Islam than in the Islamic theocracies of the Middle East.
Some of them put this into words, by writing books called things like "What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America". Then they try to build Islamic cultural centres based around tolerance and mutual acceptance, and they put them near the site of a terrible religiously motivated terror attack to remind people what happens when bigotry triumphs over reason and compassion. Then members of the US right wing wig out and call the guy trying to build the centre a terrorist sympathiser.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:Germans got a bad rap because of Hitler and his goons
Muslims get a bad rap because Radical Islamic terrorists and their goons
This fails because the Nazis actually had control of Germany. No-one has control of Islam. There are bad groups within Islam (AQ), there are bad governments (the Saudis, Iran), and there's a whole lot of people just going about their lives like the rest of us.
When a group of Muslims not affiliated with the bad guys builds a mosque, it is exactly as insulting as Americans of Japanese descent building a buddhist temple a few kms from Pearl Harbour.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:Only once it was Hijacked by Hitler and his goons did it turn into the Nazi that we all love to hate.
That's nonsense. National socialism was overtly racist and nationalistic from it's origins, before Hitler joined. This isn't a thing that can be debated, it's a matter of plain fact. Why are you pretending otherwise?
Islam by nature is even more aggressive than any of the original ideas behind National socialism.
That's just absurd. Stop saying really silly things.
Because there are problems with Islam, it has moved towards intolerance and fundamentalism in many places. But the religion of a billion people isn't worse than the Nazis, and when you carry on making stupid claims like that it only makes it harder for people to properly address the issues within Islam.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Green Git wrote:Um... because it's not REALLY about an olive branch, but rather about sticking a thumb in the eye of the Great Satan? Just a guess.
Except it isn't. As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread the guy behind this has a single motive in his political life, and that's improving relations between Islam and the West. But you'll ignore that, you will go on believing he is part of some radical Islamic sect despite all evidence to the contrary, because you want to hate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:If a Catholic "extremist" burned down Walmart in my town, killing everyone in it and then wanted to build a house of worship on the site of the old walmart I'd burn it down with him in it.
What about the non-extremist catholics who worship there? Would you be happy to let them burn as well? Because one extremist catholic doesn't make them all bad, you know.
Arctik_Firangi wrote: Their property and agricultural assets were seized, burned or destroyed, and despite support from the PLO getting a long way towards reaching a peaceful resolution, foreign interference guaranteed that they were utterly deprived of justice by empowering the Israeli regime and their completely racist policies.
Irony isn't always funny, but like ignorance, it's always there to slap you in the face.
I find it funny that people are allowed to be aggresively anti-jew but as soon as i throw anything in the Muslims direction i get the ban hammer.
Anyway, theres always going to be exceptions to the rule, whats your point? You cant hide the statistics.
Israel has a better record with regards to womens equality and gay rights than almost all of their neighbours, im not saying the Israelis arent needlessly harsh sometimes, but you might think you need to be in their shoes.
I also seriously doubt your partner is fair minded and impartial with regards to the Israeli regime if she lived in that neck of the woods.
I suppose the fact that I came into this thread saying the mosque seemed like a pretty bad idea has nothing to do with Muslims. I'm talking about Israel as a matter of policy thirty years ago, not people who identify themselves as Jews in whatever context. If someone would like to show me a ban-hammer I'd be interested in seeing what it looks like... I don't tend to attract threats myself, but I can see how you do.
Israel's record over the past quarter century means little to those whose lives were destroyed, and as for the record, it's not that good. Women's equality and gay rights are a skewed example in that social context, and if you insist on comparing chalk and cheese your 'records' will reflect the discrepancy. If Hitler decided one day that he was going to start being a pretty cool dude, that doesn't take back what he was held responsible for, now or then.
I don't expect my partner's family to ever really accept what was done to them. The thing is, though, they can forgive, and they don't hold 'Jews' as a people responsible. As a Palestinian Christian family living in Australia, provoking no-one, they are still subjected to abuse from some groups of Australian jews in what can only be considered as spite and ignorance. The majority of jews don't hold Germans responsible - a significant number of them are German, just as everyone in Palestine was Palestinian until a policy of Jewish nationality was created, and backed by foreign powers settling their own petty differences during the Cold War. Those in the American public who blame 'Muslims' as a whole for the 9/11 tragedy are guilty of exactly what you are accusing 'my' people of. Never mind the 1800+ American and other Muslims killed in the event. There will always be people who need help understanding, and your presumption that they cannot possibly be fair-minded and impartial says a lot. Why even bother trying, then?
Palestine's negotiations over Eastern Jerusalem back then are comparable to the topic in this thread. A public sentiment was synthesized, made into policy, and used as a catalyst to a situation of complete and utter inequality. Now all I said before was that building a mosque in the middle of ground zero would be a bad idea for all involved, and that isn't what's being proposed at all. It is perfectly understandable why some people are upset by the proposal as it is. It doesn't make them right just because most of them aren't Muslim.
Fateweaver wrote:
IMO, Muslims of any fanaticism are terrorists.
Does my opinion step on anyones toes? Oh well.
Wait, what? Are you really claiming that any fanatical Muslim, even one who has never engaged in terrorism, must be a terrorist?
Way to cheapen the concept.
Fateweaver wrote:
Got to love the massive, millions strong brainwashing going on in this country in the past few years or so. Hell, read the "official" 9/11 report. It's been edited to make sure no one mention of "terrorist" or "islam" or "jihad" or "muslim" is mentioned.
Having read the report several times, I can assure you that claim is false. Hell, the table of contents contains the words 'Islamic' and 'terrorism'.
Fateweaver wrote:
If a Catholic "extremist" burned down Walmart in my town, killing everyone in it and then wanted to build a house of worship on the site of the old walmart I'd burn it down with him in it.
But in the case of the mosque, the extremists aren't asking to build it.
Fateweaver wrote:Obvious dig at Christian values is obvious.
IMO, Muslims of any fanaticism are terrorists.
Does my opinion step on anyones toes? Oh well.
Is our country too soft on terrorists? Hell yeah.
Got to love the massive, millions strong brainwashing going on in this country in the past few years or so. Hell, read the "official" 9/11 report. It's been edited to make sure no one mention of "terrorist" or "islam" or "jihad" or "muslim" is mentioned.
If a Catholic "extremist" burned down Walmart in my town, killing everyone in it and then wanted to build a house of worship on the site of the old walmart I'd burn it down with him in it.
Bad troll is bad.
Twice I have gotten to say that in this thread! Lock has to be coming soon!
Wow, all the way to page 5 without being locked... I'm proud of y'all.
Now, onto the topic.
While the Middle East and Islamic countries DO tend have a horrible human rights record. Guess what? This isn't the middle east. We accept everyone here, even if we don't want to.
Do I think they should be allowed to build the mosque? YES
Do I think they should? NO
Not because of being insensitive, because I don't give a feth about anyone's feelings (I lost an uncle in 9/11, and a friend in Afghanistan)
But because this is NYC we are talking about. I give the place a month before some crazy dude crawls out of a subway station and burns it to the ground, making the whole situation even worse.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:While the Middle East and Islamic countries DO tend have a horrible human rights record. Guess what? This isn't the middle east. We accept everyone here, even if we don't want to.
Do I think they should be allowed to build the mosque? YES
Do I think they should? NO
It's worth point out that a number of prominent Muslims also advised against building the mosque. While you might not care about the sensitivity issue, it was an issue of debate in the Islamic community, and I think it's a reasonable argument as well. I mean, while the Muslims building the mosque are not the Muslims who flew planes to the towers, that kind of detail can get lost on the people who suffered in the attacks, and you have to be respectful of that.
Still the guy building this thing thinks hope and good intentions of the project is greater than that, and he managed to the building council on board.
sebster wrote: I mean, while the Muslims building the mosque are not the Muslims who flew planes to the towers, that kind of detail can get lost on the people who suffered in the attacks, and you have to be respectful of that.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
Not because of being insensitive, because I don't give a feth about anyone's feelings (I lost an uncle in 9/11, and a friend in Afghanistan)
After taking care of my aunt and her 2 kids, I'd like to think I know a bit about people that have suffered in the attacks.
Yes, it's insensitive to New Yorkers, but saying no is just as bad. Its a bad situation either way
Post 2010/08/05 00:01:57 Subject: "Ground Zero Mosque" Approved
speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Western culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant....
CT GAMER wrote: Weird how the above edit I made to your quote also totally fits...
Western culture is built upon slavery, oppression, genocide, war, suffering, greed, religous, zealotry and radical politics.
It's called "human nature" and Westerners are not immune to nor above it...
Yes, throughout history Europeans have had slaves and killed Muslims, pagans, and animists for their religion, and killed millions of innocent people, but we don't anymore.
Could I have some of what your smoking?
Last time I checked there are still a fair number of recognized hate groups/militias/etc. in just the United states alone that espouse Christianity as the justification for their actions: harassment and violence against minority groups(racial, sexual and political): that is they kill "fags", lynch "[see forum posting rules]", burn crosses, burn churches and blow up clinics, and all varieties of hate crimes, etc. all in the in the name of the baby Jesus. A perusal of newspaper archives and police reports on crime statistics can easily confirm this.
Now these groups/individuals do not represent Christianity as a whole, but neither do the small percentage of Islamic terrorists ( Check the numbers on practicing Muslims word wide) represent Islam, though claiming they do certainly makes it easier to be xenophobic and a hate mongering...
Also just out of curiosity are you aware of the numbers of civilian casualties (mostly incidental, but which doesn't make them any less dead) killed by Western armed forces in the two gulf "wars", the ongoing situation in Iraq and Afghanistan to date?
Have you ever considered the numbers of innocents killed worldwide with arms that Western governments and arms dealers have sold to various armies, regimes and fanatical groups throughout the years? We Love terrorists and radicals when they are doing our dirty work for us, and we love to arm them with the best tools money can buy. After all we gotta fatten those stock portfolios...
I don't know about you but I consider non-combatives ( especially elderly, woman and children) "innocent people".
Yes Non-Western cultures have their share of "bad men" and governments, and yes as Westerners we enjoy unparalleled levels of freedom and prosperity but let's not pretend that the West doesn't continue to have blood on it's hands. As I said human nature (and sadly profit driven aggression) is universal...
Emperors Faithful wrote:
So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?
Emperors Faithful wrote:
So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?
It wasn't. Thats just stupid.
As is saying that building a mosque 2 blocks away from ground zero is insensitive. I just don't get it. (But I didn't follow the Nazi/Terrorist comparison either so I'm lagging behind here)
What's hard to follow? Nazis are terrorists and Germans are Muslim. So since all Nazis are German by the transitive property all Muslim are terrorists as well as being German and Nazis.
Post 2010/08/05 00:01:57 Subject: "Ground Zero Mosque" Approved
speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Western culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant....
CT GAMER wrote: Weird how the above edit I made to your quote also totally fits...
Western culture is built upon slavery, oppression, genocide, war, suffering, greed, religous, zealotry and radical politics.
It's called "human nature" and Westerners are not immune to nor above it...
Yes, throughout history Europeans have had slaves and killed Muslims, pagans, and animists for their religion, and killed millions of innocent people, but we don't anymore.
CT GAMER wrote: Could I have some of what your smoking?
Last time I checked there are still a fair number of recognized hate groups/militias/etc. in just the United states alone that espouse Christianity as the justification for their actions: harassment and violence against minority groups(racial, sexual and political): that is they kill "fags", lynch "[see forum posting rules]", burn crosses, burn churches and blow up clinics, and all varieties of hate crimes, etc. all in the in the name of the baby Jesus. A perusal of newspaper archives and police reports on crime statistics can easily confirm this.
Now these groups/individuals do not represent Christianity as a whole, but neither do the small percentage of Islamic terrorists ( Check the numbers on practicing Muslims word wide) represent Islam, though claiming they do certainly makes it easier to be xenophobic and a hate mongering...
Also just out of curiosity are you aware of the numbers of civilian casualties (mostly incidental, but which doesn't make them any less dead) killed by Western armed forces in the two gulf "wars", the ongoing situation in Iraq and Afghanistan to date?
Have you ever considered the numbers of innocents killed worldwide with arms that Western governments and arms dealers have sold to various armies, regimes and fanatical groups throughout the years? We Love terrorists and radicals when they are doing our dirty work for us, and we love to arm them with the best tools money can buy. After all we gotta fatten those stock portfolios...
I don't know about you but I consider non-combatives ( especially elderly, woman and children) "innocent people".
Yes Non-Western cultures have their share of "bad men" and governments, and yes as Westerners we enjoy unparalleled levels of freedom and prosperity but let's not pretend that the West doesn't continue to have blood on it's hands. As I said human nature (and sadly profit driven aggression) is universal...
In the Western world there are small, insignificant group of radicals with no support from the public. In the Muslim world there are large, powerful, dangerous radicals, who are intent on destroying Israel and Western culture. If these groups didn't receive support from their governments and the local populace, and weren't considered heroes by the people, there would be no need to worry about them. The problem is, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban have support of governments, and an endless line of recruits, eager to martyr themselves to get to heaven.
The civilian deaths in the War on Terror are unfortunate but it is difficult to avoid when the terrorists hide among the people. Civilian deaths are the very sad and difficult to deal with, but they can't be avoided in a war like this.
What if they built the mosque but dedicated a small section to something along the lines of "Inter-Faith Relations Center". Wouldn't that both promote the ideas of healing and peace and silence some naysayers that claim this is about something else?
This has gone kinda far OT and has basically fell back into the "is Islam bad?" debate with the left leaning lot quoting the gak out of the right and vice versa that has gone on many many times before. So ill stay clear of that.
All i will say is, peoples holier than thou attitude is annoying to me. People like Fraz and FW and me are allowed our more right leaning opinions, but when rebutting us, people love to try and gain some sort of, smug, percieved moral superiority. Sure i might be a better person if i wasnt slightly intolerant towards Islam, but we all have our own issues and biases, its a natural thing in a human brain, everyone dislikes something, and I just admit mine.
To be fair i have a hearty dislike for all the big three mono-theism, so at least im an equal opportunities employer.
And Albatross, how on earth do you get that i LOVE the Israelis? Dont you remember? We argued about this in person last time i saw you! Im well aware of the right wing Israelis celebration of the hotel bombing, and i absolutely do not love Israel. Why would i? Im an Englishman from Middlesbrough with no religious interest at all, and as a result i dislike them for the very same reasons i dislike Muslims, their dogmas and their lack of willingness to integrate, move forwards etc..
However, im a soldier at heart, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I am absolutely convinced that the next major conflict is going to be us and the Yanks against an Islamic state, so i suggest you get used to cosying up to the Israelis mate.
Oh and i will add that every single British and American serviceman that has died in Iraq and Afghanistan has done do due to assistance from other Islamic states, and as a result, id be very happy with malleting the Iranians for openers.
I have zero issue with soldiers doing soldier's work. Orders are orders and soldiers are professionals who are doing their job. You can't fault soldiers for doing what they are tasked to do.
My issue is with Governments and big business/contractors being in bed with each other and with politicians personally profiting off of wars they initiated.
Initiating a war that grows the stock portfolios of your friends/associates and yourself seems a very distasteful conflict of interest and makes one wonder what the real motivation was to begin with.
How much money has gone into the pockets of political and contractor fat cats since Bush claimed "Mission Accomplished" on that carrier?
Profitting from death and destruction that you initiated is FUBAR.
As for the Mosque in NY, I don't think we can really complain about this and still claim we ar ea nation that believes in freedom of religion.
This whole thing is a fascinating example of how yellow journalism and picking your phrases right can get people to side with you, and how they will then cling to that position regardless.
The number of people who have pointed out that the Mosque isn't at Ground Zero, that's it's not a new building, that muslims are already worshipping there, and then the amount of time it's taken other people to actually realise this...
Really interesting.
sebster wrote: the Muslims building the mosque are not the Muslims who flew planes to the towers,
And being fair, I think if zombie Islamic terrorists were the ones doing the construction work there would be good grounds for worry and complaint.
They do very slapdash work and their H & S record is abysmal.
How can you complain about the H&S standards of zombies? They're zombies, it doesn't matter if you lop a finger off here or there. The zombies don't miss the fingers, why should we care for them?
Once again we see living people trying to enforce their standards on the dead, just to maintain an monopoly on inner city New York mosque construction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote:What if they built the mosque but dedicated a small section to something along the lines of "Inter-Faith Relations Center". Wouldn't that both promote the ideas of healing and peace and silence some naysayers that claim this is about something else?
mattyrm wrote:However, im a soldier at heart, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I am absolutely convinced that the next major conflict is going to be us and the Yanks against an Islamic state, so i suggest you get used to cosying up to the Israelis mate.
Oh and i will add that every single British and American serviceman that has died in Iraq and Afghanistan has done do due to assistance from other Islamic states, and as a result, id be very happy with malleting the Iranians for openers.
We dont have the strength...
But the Israelis might help us out...
"Shalom!"
Hamas came to power as an undesirable alternative because the PLO were prevented, by us, from doing what they wanted to achieve peacefully. As far as we are concerned, Jews have always lived in Palestine. Before we interfered, there was peace. Get rid of Israel in terms of nationalist policy and the Middle East is solved. If not, it is the fault of our leaders for taking too long. Make them listen, if words alone will not stand. Iran's government won't have a foot to stand on, and if they cannot be easily dealt with then, then they are the second last step. It isn't going to happen, so go on being a soldier and do it the hard way. Your sacrifice is appreciated for what it's worth, and I only pity those who must serve the economic interests of arms manufacturerers.
Modern Zionism has nothing to do with religion, it is policy. Jews are not evil people, nor are Muslims. People still seem to think that middle eastern sentiment towards the west is completely without foundation, and/or utterly based on religion. For the most part, their leaders oppose what our leaders have done in the past, and continue to uphold without good reason but tit-for-tat. Religion is being used to incite people against others, and it is utterly wrong. I can happily admit that this incitement occurs much more in the middle east than here, but it does not mean that we are not misled simply because religion is not involved. I am not attacking religion, only how it is abused. As in the west, the people of those countries are not to blame for atrocities committed by those who irresponsibly wield power. There are no innocents in leadership. If you expect them to forgive and forget whilst under constant siege... well, I'd be breaking Dakka policy to comment further.
Look I never said all muslims were bad, if fact I said very much the opposite, that's kind of the point. Not all members of the National Socialist movement were evil, everyone that voted them in power and waived flags or attended the parades was not a world conqueror bent on the extinction of the Jews.
Also NOT ALL NATIONAL SOCIALISM HAS TO BE GERMANY"S WW2 NAZI"S. I've already given the definition of the National Socialist political party as a movement. You can have a National socialist party in America, that would not be after killing all the Jews and conquering the world. By Definition its Socialism with a Nationalistic slant ie no imports, localized labor etc.
Every time you Label all national socialists as NAZI, you are just being ignorant, and jumping to the same conclusion that all muslims are terrorists.
By your arguments all Communists are are Russian WW2 Stalinists.......Its just not the case.
So if someone built a National Socialist Headquarters in Auschwitz it would be pretty Disrespectful. And you would have to wonder why they were doing it. They might be fine.....but the average person would still have to wonder.
George Demos, the Conservative Republican Candidate for Congress in New York’s First Congressional District issued the following statement on the proposed mosque amid the sacred ruins of Ground Zero and expressed outrage at our own government’s refusal to rebuild the only house of worship that was actually destroyed on September 11th- the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.
George Demos said:
“On September 11, 2001, over 3,000 Americans, including 168 residents of our community in Suffolk County, were taken from us by the evil acts of Islamic extremists bent on destroying our freedoms. Amid the thick smoke and choking ashes of that fateful day, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was reduced to dust.
Since 1922, St. Nicholas Church had stood as a quiet sanctuary of prayer and reflection amidst the tumultuous and bustling crossroads of commerce. For nine years the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey has used bureaucratic obstacles and false promises to hinder the rebuilding of the St. Nicholas Church. This must end and it must end now.
What an outrage that our government has put roadblocks in the path of its own citizens trying rebuild their beloved Church destroyed by Islamic extremists, while Saudi Arabia, a nation that prohibits people from even wearing a Cross or the Star of David, now provokes the families of those who lost loved ones by apparently funneling money to build a mosque at the same location.
As our Congressman, I will always remember that our Constitutional freedom of religion starts with respecting our own sacred Judeo-Christian heritage. Now is the time for the Port Authority to stop hiding behind its bureaucracy and to facilitate the rebuilding of the St. Nicholas Church that was taken from us on that quiet September morning nearly a decade ago.”
So the city stands in the way of a Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed in the 911 attacks, but allows a Mosque to be built.
Andrew1975 wrote:Not all members of the National Socialist movement were evil, everyone that voted them in power and waived flags or attended the parades was not a world conqueror bent on the extinction of the Jews.
The people that voted the National Socialists into power were not necessarily National Socialists themselves. Neither partisan, nor ideological affiliation are determined entirely by vote. However, all people that can be properly called National Socialists were National Socialists who believed in National Socialism, which is antisemitic.
Andrew1975 wrote:
So the city stands in the way of a Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed in the 911 attacks, but allows a Mosque to be built.
St. Nicholas has three problems at this point:
1) Its southern foundation is above the vehicle security complex for the proposed memorial tower; meaning that any delay regarding the memorial tower is likely to impact the church.
2) The proposed alternate location for the church is on Port Authority land, which invites obvious complications regarding ownership.
3) The organization supporting St. Nicholas church now wants to build a marble domed structure that would be 6 times the size of the original church.
Because a Church hasn't been able to rebuild itself we shouldn't allow other organizations to exist? The city isn't paying for either, though I would be willing to bet St. Nicholas would be able to get some government funds because of it's age, so it isn't really a fair comparison. One is about people putting an inter-faith center in a building and the other is about repairing a building. One needed a building permit and the other needs a contractor.
And Albatross, how on earth do you get that i LOVE the Israelis? Dont you remember? We argued about this in person last time i saw you! Im well aware of the right wing Israelis celebration of the hotel bombing, and i absolutely do not love Israel.
I know. I was just teasing.
I am absolutely convinced that the next major conflict is going to be us and the Yanks against an Islamic state, so i suggest you get used to cosying up to the Israelis mate.
Like in the First Gulf W... Oh. Ah, the Second Gulf Wa... Nope, they weren't involved THERE either. Or in Afghanistan.
Mate, you are aware that a considerable amount of the west's problems in the middle-east stem from our association with Israel, aren't you? They don't hate us for no reason.
In the Muslim world there are large, powerful, dangerous radicals, who are intent on destroying Israel and Western culture. .
Yes and The U.S . armed and trained many of them.
And lets be honest The 2nd Iraq war wasn't initially about the war on terror, it started by convincing us of WMDS and a supposed imminent threat ( as an excuse to topple Saddam), then it was about securing oil reserves (again gotta keep those stock portfolios healthy), then as we occupied and things bogged down (tends to happen when you topple a government and decimate all infrastructure with no plan for how to reinstate them) Radicals flocked to Iraq as it presented an opportunity (literally and symbolically) to fight America. OF course this then allowed Bush and his Warmongers to say "Iraq is an Al-Queda stronghold". Self-fufillig prophecy.
And let's not forget the main reason Jr. wanted to get into Iraq before his presidency ended: He wanted to bloody the nose of the guy that had tried to hurt his daddy.
So all those civilian deaths of women, children, elderly and other non-combatives are akin to premeditated murder on the part of the Bush regime as far as I'm concerned...
And lets be honest The 2nd Iraq war wasn't initially about the war on terror, it started by convincing us of WMDS...
What's worse is that it was recently revealed that Hans Blix had -repeatedly- investigated Iraq for WMDs and -repeatedly- told both Bush and the US Congress that there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that Iraq had WMDs. And this was long before the invasion.
"...there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that Iraq had WMDs. And this was long before the invasion." I dunno, dude. I think the US congress thought the Iraqis had WMD because they had sold them WMD in the 80s.
They were there for the oil and the Babylonian Stargate. The last thing they needed was Saddam getting in tight with the Annunaki.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?
EDIT: Hey, someone has used this example already.
I've noticed a slight hole in my argument here,
It's more like building a church in a black part of town in which the Black community worships hinduism, because otherwise the church would be among people of the same religion.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?
EDIT: Hey, someone has used this example already.
I've noticed a slight hole in my argument here,
It's more like building a church in a black part of town in which the Black community worships hinduism, because otherwise the church would be among people of the same religion.
Eh, KKK followers form of Christian thinking is radically different enough to be considered distinct from (what would most likely be) a Baptist Church.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?
EDIT: Hey, someone has used this example already.
I've noticed a slight hole in my argument here,
It's more like building a church in a black part of town in which the Black community worships hinduism, because otherwise the church would be among people of the same religion.
Eh, KKK followers form of Christian thinking is radically different enough to be considered distinct from (what would most likely be) a Baptist Church.
But...doesn't that mean you can then say the same of a mainstream islamic area having to deal with a (distinct in it's dogma) radical mosque?
Yes alb i am aware, its pretty much the only reason they all hate us isnt it? I mean, sure they disaprove of our "decadent" lifestyles but nothing worth a bombing.
And Shuma, thats true enough, i was one of the first into Iraq ( 42 commando were tasked to secure the GOSPs with a night raid prior to shock and awe!) and was told to expect "heavy resistance from the elite republican guard"
When we arrived with enough ammo to kill a Chinese Battalion, 90% of them had gone home to bed and the rest had their hands up.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?
EDIT: Hey, someone has used this example already.
I've noticed a slight hole in my argument here,
It's more like building a church in a black part of town in which the Black community worships hinduism, because otherwise the church would be among people of the same religion.
Eh, KKK followers form of Christian thinking is radically different enough to be considered distinct from (what would most likely be) a Baptist Church.
But...doesn't that mean you can then say the same of a mainstream islamic area having to deal with a (distinct in it's dogma) radical mosque?
Your sentence structure is confusing and vague. It seems like your trying to say that because mainstream forms of Christianity are different than white power groups then all forms of Islam are radical. Which obliviously makes no sense unless you misunderstood my point that mainstream forms Islam shouldn't be confused for radical. The vast majority of American Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?
EDIT: Hey, someone has used this example already.
I've noticed a slight hole in my argument here,
It's more like building a church in a black part of town in which the Black community worships hinduism, because otherwise the church would be among people of the same religion.
Eh, KKK followers form of Christian thinking is radically different enough to be considered distinct from (what would most likely be) a Baptist Church.
But...doesn't that mean you can then say the same of a mainstream islamic area having to deal with a (distinct in it's dogma) radical mosque?
Your sentence structure is confusing and vague. It seems like your trying to say that because mainstream forms of Christianity are different than white power groups then all forms of Islam are radical. Which obliviously makes no sense unless you misunderstood my point that mainstream forms Islam shouldn't be confused for radical. The vast majority of American Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.
What he's saying is that you are arguing that the KKK should be viewed as entirely separate from "normal" christianity, due to their radical ideas.
This is exactly the same distinction that should be made between most muslims and terrorist radicals.
mattyrm wrote:Yes alb i am aware, its pretty much the only reason they all hate us isnt it? I mean, sure they disaprove of our "decadent" lifestyles but nothing worth a bombing.
So many muslims disapprove of our western decadent lifestyles that our governments spend millions to keep them out of emigrating here, and their own governments at home spend millions trying to stop them from pursuing those lifestyles where they live at the moment.
Ahtman wrote:
The vast majority of American Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.
Almost, but not quite.
Goliath wrote:
What he's saying is that you are arguing that the KKK should be viewed as entirely separate from "normal" christianity, due to their radical ideas.
This is exactly the same distinction that should be made between most muslims and terrorist radicals.
Goliath wrote:What he's saying is that you are arguing that the KKK should be viewed as entirely separate from "normal" christianity, due to their radical ideas.
This is exactly the same distinction that should be made between most muslims and terrorist radicals.
This is what is confusing: you are agreeing with me, yet keep doing so in such a fashion as to come across as disagreeing. I say "'X' is good" and then you say "no no no, 'X' is good". I can't tell if you are reiterating my exact point because you misinterpret what I am typing or just because you agree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
The vast majority of American Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.
Almost, but not quite.
I made the distinction because we are talking about American Muslims building a mosque within the United States. Somehow we have broadened it as if this is about all of Islam. Much like every religion, each region has a distinct flavor.
mattyrm wrote:Yes alb i am aware, its pretty much the only reason they all hate us isnt it? I mean, sure they disaprove of our "decadent" lifestyles but nothing worth a bombing. ...Oh and they kept asking us for cake?
Cake is pretty decadent. Just saying.
Of course it isn't the only reason they hate the West. There are also other reasons, not least among them the fact that the UK and USA have between them a pretty long history of imperial game-playing in the region, both formally (UK) and informally (USA).
Buddhists, Hindus and Orthodox Jews and Christians also believe we have a decadent lifestyle, but there are relatively few (if any) terrorist organisations affiliated with those religions that want to bomb British and American cities. The 'western decadence/jealousy' argument is the sort of thing Glenn Beck or Fateweaver () would use. It's a tiny part of what actually motivates people to blow themselves up and kill civilians.
Frazzled wrote:Then why is the East hated as well?
Kashmir
Thailand
China
blah blah
Kashmir is primarily a territorial dispute, which, given the radically different cultures of Pakistan and India, has of course boiled over into a ethnic/religious conflict. China and Thailand both have horrendous human rights records, especially when dealing with religion. The Thai insurgency in particular is as much an ethnic conflict as anything, with the rebels identifying more strongly with Malaysia than Thailand.
Albatross wrote:Buddhists, Hindus and Orthodox Jews and Christians also believe we have a decadent lifestyle
Admittedly my Hindu and Sick isn't as extremely thorough as my Buddhist dealings I don't get that vibe from the majority of them. I absolutely don't get it from the Buddhists who I deal with with great frequency. Of course, like trying to sum up all of Christiandom under one blanket is really disengenious, so it is also true the Buddhism has a good deal of plurality in it's expression so you may be thinking of a specific group I am not considering, but generally I find fault with your statement.
The same India that's fighting over Kashmir? The Kashmir already mentioned above? I think you're starting to repeat yourself.
As for Sudan, it suffers from the same issues as much of the Middle East: A century of European colonialism, followed by decades of civil war due in part to the British policy of segregating the Muslim population. In general, the Arab world suffers from one hell of a persecution complex. The problem is, it's extremely well justified, and every time Western countries intervene we simply throw more fuel on the fire.
The same India that's fighting over Kashmir? The Kashmir already mentioned above? I think you're starting to repeat yourself.
As for Sudan, it suffers from the same issues as much of the Middle East: A century of European colonialism, followed by decades of civil war due in part to the British policy of segregating the Muslim population. In general, the Arab world suffers from one hell of a persecution complex. The problem is, it's extremely well justified, and every time Western countries intervene we simply throw more fuel on the fire.
No India. The internal conflicts there.
So the Sudanese are wiping out the indigineous populations in the South because of the British?
ok. I see now. If someone from the West ever set foot in the country then you can do whatever you want. Gotcha.
What about Somalia? We don't have squat to do with Somalia except making the mistake of trying to help feed a bunch of starving people for a while.
Goliath wrote:What he's saying is that you are arguing that the KKK should be viewed as entirely separate from "normal" christianity, due to their radical ideas.
This is exactly the same distinction that should be made between most muslims and terrorist radicals.
This is what is confusing: you are agreeing with me, yet keep doing so in such a fashion as to come across as disagreeing. I say "'X' is good" and then you say "no no no, 'X' is good". I can't tell if you are reiterating my exact point because you misinterpret what I am typing or just because you agree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
The vast majority of American Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.
Almost, but not quite.
I made the distinction because we are talking about American Muslims building a mosque within the United States. Somehow we have broadened it as if this is about all of Islam. Much like every religion, each region has a distinct flavor.
Sorry about the confusion, I think I misinterpreted your response to Emperor's Faithful
I think that we are in agreement, just that EF's addendum to your original comment was misinterpreted slightly, and that led to a mistinterpretation, and so on and so forth...
The same India that's fighting over Kashmir? The Kashmir already mentioned above? I think you're starting to repeat yourself.
As for Sudan, it suffers from the same issues as much of the Middle East: A century of European colonialism, followed by decades of civil war due in part to the British policy of segregating the Muslim population. In general, the Arab world suffers from one hell of a persecution complex. The problem is, it's extremely well justified, and every time Western countries intervene we simply throw more fuel on the fire.
No India. The internal conflicts there.
So the Sudanese are wiping out the indigineous populations in the South because of the British?
ok. I see now. If someone from the West ever set foot in the country then you can do whatever you want. Gotcha.
What about Somalia? We don't have squat to do with Somalia except making the mistake of trying to help feed a bunch of starving people for a while.
So are we just listing gakky places now or what? What is the aim of this conversation?
Ok guys this new mosque is to be build within two blocks of ground zero. In manty places in Manhattan two blocks is the difference between well to do apartments and hell holes filled with muggers.
Frazzled wrote:
No India. The internal conflicts there.
Which have as much to do with Maoist terrorism, and Hindutva organizations as Islam.
India is a deeply divided state with a large wealth gap, and weak central government. Its the sort of place that is bound to be riddled with conflict.
Frazzled wrote:
So the Sudanese are wiping out the indigineous populations in the South because of the British?
In part. The British helped to set up the current political situation in the state, which should really be two independent nations. However, there are other factors at work as well; namely the foreign support of non-Arab, agricultural terrorist organizations.
Frazzled wrote:
What about Somalia? We don't have squat to do with Somalia except making the mistake of trying to help feed a bunch of starving people for a while.
Somalia is a matter of ethnic, and factional conflict. The nation is almost 100% Sunni Muslim.
The hatred of the West really is fairly unique, and directly tied to colonialism. You won't find jihadists talking about the evils of the decadent East; possibly because the Islam encountered in the East is very different, and for more factional, than that encountered in the Middle East.
Albatross wrote:Buddhists, Hindus and Orthodox Jews and Christians also believe we have a decadent lifestyle
Admittedly my Hindu and Sick isn't as extremely thorough as my Buddhist dealings I don't get that vibe from the majority of them. I absolutely don't get it from the Buddhists who I deal with with great frequency. Of course, like trying to sum up all of Christiandom under one blanket is really disengenious, so it is also true the Buddhism has a good deal of plurality in it's expression so you may be thinking of a specific group I am not considering, but generally I find fault with your statement.
So our rampant materialism isn't contrary to Buddist/Hindu philosophy? Cool, I learnt something new. Also alcohol, drugs, meat-eating and violence.
As far as the judeo-christian side of things: sex/co-habiting before marriage, homosexuality, adultery, abortion... Orthodox Jewish women aren't even allowed to touch or show their hair to any man who isn't their husband or a memeber of their immediate family.
All of these things are fairly common in western society.
So our rampant materialism isn't contrary to Buddist/Hindu philosophy? Cool, I learnt something new. Also alcohol, drugs, meat-eating and violence.
I don't think you should be talking about hinduism as a hegemonic entity. It's the single most diverse and sectionalized religion in the history of mankind. There are literally thousands of different belief structures within the framework of "hinduism" and over one million different worshipped spirits/gods/entities.
As far as the judeo-christian side of things: sex/co-habiting before marriage, homosexuality, adultery, abortion... Orthodox Jewish women aren't even allowed to touch or show their hair to any man who isn't their husband or a memeber of their immediate family.
All of these things are fairly common in western society.
One can follow a religion without following it zealously or adhering to every principle.
Shuma already pointed out the problem with bringing up Hinduism so I shall just go with the Buddhist issue. Having things isn't against Buddhism; Buddhism isn't equal to asceticism. It generally isn't concerned with having things, it is concerned with our relationship to said things. A guy with practically nothing that is enamored and hoards things is more of an issue than a man that has a ton of material goods but understands his relationship to them.
Orlanth wrote:Ok guys this new mosque is to be build within two blocks of ground zero. In manty places in Manhattan two blocks is the difference between well to do apartments and hell holes filled with muggers.
This story has been blown out of all proportion.
There's people trying to get all outraged over the Muslim occupation of America. Who are you to ruin their fun?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:So our rampant materialism isn't contrary to Buddist/Hindu philosophy? Cool, I learnt something new. Also alcohol, drugs, meat-eating and violence.
I think if the Hindus were to get militant about rampant materialism they'd probably worry about India before worrying about the rest of us. But given that India is embracing materialism in ways that we'd think garish, I'm not sure they're that big an issue. That said, there are some hard line Hindu groups, and sometimes they even wield power in Indian government. But then they basically just try and provoke Pakistan and complain about women being sluts, and leave us in the West alone. Except Richard Gere, but he had it coming.
There's a lot of money to be made by selling terrorism licences. India is a poor country. They have to compromise for the moment, but once they have got their own economy up to scratch, they'll make terrorism illegal again.
So our rampant materialism isn't contrary to Buddist/Hindu philosophy? Cool, I learnt something new. Also alcohol, drugs, meat-eating and violence.
I don't think you should be talking about hinduism as a hegemonic entity. It's the single most diverse and sectionalized religion in the history of mankind. There are literally thousands of different belief structures within the framework of "hinduism" and over one million different worshipped spirits/gods/entities.
Yeah, thanks for the lesson. You're missing my point. You're also using the word 'hegemonic' incorrectly, unless you're referring to Hinduism's position as the dominant force in Indian religious life, in which case it would be correct to refer to Hinduism as the religious 'hegemon'. 'Homogeneous' maybe?
As far as the judeo-christian side of things: sex/co-habiting before marriage, homosexuality, adultery, abortion... Orthodox Jewish women aren't even allowed to touch or show their hair to any man who isn't their husband or a memeber of their immediate family.
All of these things are fairly common in western society.
One can follow a religion without following it zealously or adhering to every principle.
Yes, I know that. My point was that most deeply religious people regard excessive 'worldliness' as a Bad Thing, and that Muslims don't have the monopoly on that.
Shuma already pointed out the problem with bringing up Hinduism so I shall just go with the Buddhist issue. Having things isn't against Buddhism; Buddhism isn't equal to asceticism. It generally isn't concerned with having things, it is concerned with our relationship to said things. A guy with practically nothing that is enamored and hoards things is more of an issue than a man that has a ton of material goods but understands his relationship to them.
Sounds like a peculiarly American equivocation to me. I could be wrong of course. Also, see above.
Goliath wrote:What he's saying is that you are arguing that the KKK should be viewed as entirely separate from "normal" christianity, due to their radical ideas.
This is exactly the same distinction that should be made between most muslims and terrorist radicals.
This is what is confusing: you are agreeing with me, yet keep doing so in such a fashion as to come across as disagreeing. I say "'X' is good" and then you say "no no no, 'X' is good". I can't tell if you are reiterating my exact point because you misinterpret what I am typing or just because you agree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
The vast majority of American Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.
Almost, but not quite.
I made the distinction because we are talking about American Muslims building a mosque within the United States. Somehow we have broadened it as if this is about all of Islam. Much like every religion, each region has a distinct flavor.
So we just mininterpereted a previous minterperation? Sweet. We good now?
Sorry about the confusion, I think I misinterpreted your response to Emperor's Faithful
I think that we are in agreement, just that EF's addendum to your original comment was misinterpreted slightly, and that led to a mistinterpretation, and so on and so forth...
Shuma already pointed out the problem with bringing up Hinduism so I shall just go with the Buddhist issue. Having things isn't against Buddhism; Buddhism isn't equal to asceticism. It generally isn't concerned with having things, it is concerned with our relationship to said things. A guy with practically nothing that is enamored and hoards things is more of an issue than a man that has a ton of material goods but understands his relationship to them.
Sounds like a peculiarly American equivocation to me. I could be wrong of course. Also, see above.
You're wrong. There are similar things in Christianity.
For example, "Money is the root of all kinds of Evil" -- the correct quotation is, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of Evil".
Similarly, there is a commandment against coveting your neighbour's ass, but not against having your own ass.
Also see the traditional interpretation of the seven deadly sins.
mattyrm wrote:Its a tough one to be sure, you cant punish all muslims for the acts of a few, and yet... i cant help but be annoyed about it.
Islam has always been an aggressive religion, and people that claim otherwise are not aware of the facts, indeed, people who arent even muslim themselves are the ones that seem to take great offence to any and all miniscule criticisms of Islam.
Christian difficulties with the Arab world did not commence with the crusades but with the birth of Islam itself, Muhammads faith has always rejected other faiths. The prophets followers preached that "people of the book" (Jews and Christians) could be tolerated as second class Dhimmis, but they have never been granted total equality as we seem so constantly eager to do here in the west.
While Christian communities in the arab world continue to disapear (The Christian population of Bethlehem has gone from 90% to less than 25%, and Lebanon 60% to 27%) the only place in the middle east where Christian communities have expanded is Israel, where since 1949 the number of Arab Christians has gone up by 345%!
Ergo, i know it is wrong to penalise all Muslims for the behaviour of terrorists, but do Muslims not penalise Christians? Look into it a tad (i got the figures above from a cop of National Geographic) and you will find that they absolutely do. It smacks of double standards to me that we seem so eager to bloody please when they dont give us the same treatment back.
I really dont have a logical answer to this conundrum as i think you can make a convincing argument both for and against.
I also now await KK to delete all of my text due to this post possibly registering above 10% of the not-politically correct-o-meter. Im pretty sure it passes on the actual fact-o-meter however, and that is the one that should concern people.
Despite being an Abrahamic monotheistic religion that considers Jesus Christ a prophet? Surely to a moderate Muslim our only disagreement is over the divinity of Jesus Christ? Surely on that basis we should show blind intolerance to the Jews as well, oh wait...
As for spread by conquest? What about the Teutonic crusades against Lithuania? Or the conquest and subjugation of the Americas? The propagation of Christianity as a means for control in Africa? You can't say that Christianity can't hold a flame to one era of rapid expansion in Arab history, especially when that expansion (of the religion) was hand-in-hand with the expansion of the racial group.
As for declining populations in Bethlehem and Lebanon... I suppose considering Israel a culprit never entered your head? For starters, in Lebanon there was a little war nobody noticed and in Israel, there are numerous cases of violence against Christians.
[/Yeah, thanks for the lesson. You're missing my point. You're also using the word 'hegemonic' incorrectly, unless you're referring to Hinduism's position as the dominant force in Indian religious life, in which case it would be correct to refer to Hinduism as the religious 'hegemon'. 'Homogeneous' maybe?
I think it's a good idea to build a Mosque. It could show the Arab world that we don't hate all of them, and can forgive the transgressions of a few extremists and move foreward instead of wallowing in grudges. That might be a step towards less extremists hating us in the future. Just an idea.
I went to a Mosque a couple of times and was welcomed in, was respectful. The man at the door asked me "you know this a mosque, right" and I responded "Doesn't matter, it's still god, and I'd like to have a moment to think" He smiled and let me right in, after I took my shoes off.
It was very serene in there. A man came and sat on the floor next to me and asked me what I pray for. I said "peace". I was actually speaking of peace in my immediate situation. He took it to mean peace in the World sense and immediately tried to explain that not all Muslims are violent, quite the opposite. I told him I understood this, and was actually just praying for personal peace and he told me "That is the way of Islam, I know you are not Muslim but you seek the same thing we do.". It was a really rewarding experience. Then we just sat and quietly talked while other people were quietly singing, or just praying, or discussing or whatever. It was cool.
Shuma already pointed out the problem with bringing up Hinduism so I shall just go with the Buddhist issue. Having things isn't against Buddhism; Buddhism isn't equal to asceticism. It generally isn't concerned with having things, it is concerned with our relationship to said things. A guy with practically nothing that is enamored and hoards things is more of an issue than a man that has a ton of material goods but understands his relationship to them.
Sounds like a peculiarly American equivocation to me. I could be wrong of course. Also, see above.
You're wrong. There are similar things in Christianity.
For example, "Money is the root of all kinds of Evil" -- the correct quotation is, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of Evil".
Similarly, there is a commandment against coveting your neighbour's ass, but not against having your own ass.
Also see the traditional interpretation of the seven deadly sins.
I was assuming that the accumulation of wordly goods was an indication of too great an attachment to the material world, something which Buddhism generally discourages due to their belief in the transient nature of matter. Was I wrong?
Yes or no?
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, thanks for the lesson. You're missing my point. You're also using the word 'hegemonic' incorrectly, unless you're referring to Hinduism's position as the dominant force in Indian religious life, in which case it would be correct to refer to Hinduism as the religious 'hegemon'. 'Homogeneous' maybe?
Yeah, my bad. I get those mixed up a lot.
Meh, don't worry about it, babe.
Although I would like to ask what your reaction would have been if I had made that mistake. Well? You would have slaughtered me for it, correct?
Albatross wrote:
I was assuming that the accumulation of wordly goods was an indication of too great an attachment to the material world, something which Buddhism generally discourages due to their belief in the transient nature of matter. Was I wrong?
Yes. Learn more and don't confuse Buddhist Monks with Buddhists in general. You seem to be transposing Jainists for Buddhists.
Shuma already pointed out the problem with bringing up Hinduism so I shall just go with the Buddhist issue. Having things isn't against Buddhism; Buddhism isn't equal to asceticism. It generally isn't concerned with having things, it is concerned with our relationship to said things. A guy with practically nothing that is enamored and hoards things is more of an issue than a man that has a ton of material goods but understands his relationship to them.
Sounds like a peculiarly American equivocation to me. I could be wrong of course. Also, see above.
You're wrong. There are similar things in Christianity.
For example, "Money is the root of all kinds of Evil" -- the correct quotation is, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of Evil".
Similarly, there is a commandment against coveting your neighbour's ass, but not against having your own ass.
Also see the traditional interpretation of the seven deadly sins.
I was assuming that the accumulation of wordly goods was an indication of too great an attachment to the material world, something which Buddhism generally discourages due to their belief in the transient nature of matter. Was I wrong?
Yes or no?
You were wrong about it being a peculiarly American equivocation.
Although I would like to ask what your reaction would have been if I had made that mistake. Well? You would have slaughtered me for it, correct?
No, I likely would have reacted in the same fashion you did. I slaughter people for having wrong opinions or stating stupid things, not for grammar or mispoken words (hegemonic and homogenous are easy to mix up!).
I slaughter people for having wrong opinions or stating stupid things, not for grammar or mispoken words (hegemonic and homogenous are easy to mix up!).
Albatross wrote:
I was assuming that the accumulation of wordly goods was an indication of too great an attachment to the material world, something which Buddhism generally discourages due to their belief in the transient nature of matter. Was I wrong?
Yes. Learn more and don't confuse Buddhist Monks with Buddhists in general. You seem to be transposing Jainists for Buddhists.
So Buddhism allows for excessive materialism? It approves? I was making a point about wordliness, and the fact that most deeply religious people are opposed to it in a general sense. The more extreme the religious belief, the greater the opposition to 'decadence'. The purpose of that was to illustrate that islamist terrorists don't just attack the West because of our decadence - the reasons are more complex than that. Other religions are opposed to aspects of our lifestyle and their adherents don't bomb our cities. If you're going to argue, argue the point. I don't give a gak about Buddhism. Really.
Kilkrazy wrote:You were wrong about it being a peculiarly American equivocation.
It just placed my in mind of that American tendency to approach everything like a lawyer - 'hey buddy, I might have a large stock portfolio, a house in the bahamas and a yacht, but as long as I'm properly aware of my relationship to them I'm still being a good Buddhist.' Er, no. You're doing it wrong.
See also: 'Actually "Thou Shalt Not KILL" means "Thou Shalt Not MURDER", so it's ok to kill someone as long as you don't murder them'.
I slaughter people for having wrong opinions or stating stupid things, not for grammar or mispoken words (hegemonic and homogenous are easy to mix up!).
I slaughter people for having wrong opinions or stating stupid things, not for grammar or mispoken words (hegemonic and homogenous are easy to mix up!).
Mate im not having a go at you, as i find your barbed comments most amusing, but how can you have a "wrong" opinion? Surely an opinion cant be wrong can it? Its just your opinion?
I mean, i disagree with people all the time, but who gets to decide which of us has an opinion that is right or wrong?
Albatross wrote:So Buddhism allows for excessive materialism?
There is a difference between financial success and excessive materialism.
Albatross wrote:It approves?
"It" doesn't approve or disapprove because "it" isn't a singular thing but various groups of people.
Albatross wrote:The more extreme the religious belief, the greater the opposition to 'decadence'.
You might consider reading "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James. The answer to your statement is that religion is not that homogenous and it seems you are using religion to coincide with your personal experience involving the Religion of the Books more than all possible types of religious expression or dogma. The Church of Satan is all for decadence. The Gospel of Wealth strain of Christian thinking, in essence, states that the better a Christian you are the more stuff you get.
Albatross wrote: - the reasons are more complex than that.
It is kind of hard to argue for complexity while giving an extremely broad and inaccurate view of something.
Albatross wrote:I don't give a gak about Buddhism. Really.
Then it is kinda of stupid to bring it up, especially considering your knowledge of it is cursory at best.
I slaughter people for having wrong opinions or stating stupid things, not for grammar or mispoken words (hegemonic and homogenous are easy to mix up!).
Mate im not having a go at you, as i find your barbed comments most amusing, but how can you have a "wrong" opinion? Surely an opinion cant be wrong can it? Its just your opinion?
I mean, i disagree with people all the time, but who gets to decide which of us has an opinion that is right or wrong?
People can have opinions that are wrong when they are based on factual matters.
ummm... isn't that kind of the point of buddhism...? not giving a gak about anything? Desire is the root of sorrow. Caring causes grief, etc etc. The Buddha never claimed to be god, a son of god, or any interest whatsoever in god, he only sought truth and peace. That is a wise man, not a religious figure. Unfortunately, just like Jesus the teaching became doctrine and the doctrine became the word of god and the word of god became the law and the law became the 'rules' when really all it was was a philosophy of eternal boredom to eliminate the anxieties of life's ups and downs.
I'm sure Sidhartha would be happy to hear that you don't give a gak about Buddhism, and I would wager Jesus would be pretty sickened by modern xtianity too.
Albatross wrote:So Buddhism allows for excessive materialism?
There is a difference between financial success and excessive materialism.
Listen, whatever gets you through the night, (Aht)man. If it helps you to believe that, cool. I'm not here to ruin your party.
Ahtman wrote:
Albatross wrote:It approves?
"It" doesn't approve or disapprove because "it" isn't a singular thing but various groups of people.
There's that 'hyper-literal' lawyer-ish approach (that I mentioned earlier) in action. I have a funny feeling you know exactly what I meant and are just trying to score cheap points at this stage. Sad.
(sigh)
Ok, how about this: 'Do the teachings of the various forms of Buddhism, and Buddhist philosophy in a general sense, allow for, encourage or approve of excessive consumption of, indulgence in, or accumulation of, material possesions?
Better?
Albatross wrote:The more extreme the religious belief, the greater the opposition to 'decadence'.
You might consider reading "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James. The answer to your statement is that religion is not that homogenous and it seems you are using religion to coincide with your personal experience involving the Religion of the Books more than all possible types of religious expression or dogma. The Church of Satan is all for decadence. The Gospel of Wealth strain of Christian thinking, in essence, states that the better a Christian you are the more stuff you get.
You might consider reading my earlier posts. I only referred to Buddhism, Hinduism, Orthodox Judaism and Christianity. Oh, and Islam of course.
But please, don't let me derail The Smug Train - you seem to be enjoying yourself.
Of course I'm using broad generalisations - the person I was replying to implied that Fundamentalists Islamists consider the West to be decadent. Yes, that's true, broadly speaking - but it's also true of other religious adherents, again, BROADLY speaking. The difference is that those people don't generally bomb us, meaning that citing decadence as a reason for Islamic antipathy towards the West is too simplistic an argument.
I think my 'crime' here was taking all of this as assumed (although I DID state it pretty explicitly) - I wasn't expecting to have to spell it out like I was talking to a fething infant.
Guitardian wrote:I'm sure Sidhartha would be happy to hear that you don't give a gak about Buddhism, and I would wager Jesus would be pretty sickened by modern xtianity too.
I'm sure Sidhartha would be pretty sick about modern Buddism too by that standard. Them Buddist monks seem to care about a lot of things these days . The point of Buddism isn't not caring. Buddist monks do a lot of humanitarian work in the world. And Buddha is a religious figure. Just like Christians, there's a good deal of debate in Buddism concerning what he intended and meant in his teachings. There are a lot of metaphysical concepts and beliefs in Buddism that go back to Sidhartha, not that we know anymore about who he really was than we do about who Jesus really was.
Unfortunately, just like Jesus the teaching became doctrine and the doctrine became the word of god and the word of god became the law and the law became the 'rules' when really all it was was a philosophy of eternal boredom to eliminate the anxieties of life's ups and downs.
Really? Wow. And here I thought the Historical Jesus was an enigma of opinions and scholarly slap fights over which documents, sentences, and words are more correct.
There is no consensus on who Jesus really was, assuming he is something other than what Christians make him out to be. Since all information concerning him is second and third hand it's unlikely anyone will ever know for sure without a time machine. And Seriously, if we had a time machine, what would you rather see? Jesus, or Dinosaurs?
EDIT: As to Fundamentalist muslims hating decadence, it's an okay generalization. Radical Islamic leaning folks also didn't like us stationing US Troops in Saudi Arabia, or that they want to go back to the good old days of the Muslim Caliphate that the west crippled. Radical Islam is the result of a cultural conflict between western ideals and ideals of people who hold that Islam is a religion as well as a political system with some identity crisis and fascist concepts thrown in. It's a complex issue going all the way back to the late 19th Century.
I think Jesus probably partied hard, thought a lot, and talked a lot... so he would probably be a fun guy to kick it with. Just don't let the Romans catch you hanging out with him. That much at least we can assume to be true.
I would think that Buddhists do humanitarian work because they seek to not care about materialism, not necessarily because they care about other people's material needs. If its food and someone wants it, it doesn't affect me, I may as well give it away. If they want stuff that's their problem. Humanitarian acts are considered selfish in some schools of thought. A desire to feel good about onesself by doing good deeds for others... it is pretty paradoxical.
Guitardian wrote:I think Jesus probably partied hard, thought a lot, and talked a lot... so he would probably be a fun guy to kick it with. Just don't let the Romans catch you hanging out with him. That much at least we can assume to be true.
The Romans didn't really have anything against Jesus. It was the Sanhedrian, Jewish officials, who wanted him dead. Christians would claim it was because he committed blasphemy by claiming to be the Son of God. Historians might agree with that, others might just say his teachings were radical, some even think he was trying to incite rebellion against the Romans, and the Sanhedrian wanted to avoid another crack down on their faith which to them was synonymous with their people. EDIT: I actually kind the idea kind of funny. It's the Roman Empire, conquerers of the known world. I don't think one Jew was on their radar
Guitardian wrote:I think Jesus probably partied hard, thought a lot, and talked a lot... so he would probably be a fun guy to kick it with. Just don't let the Romans catch you hanging out with him. That much at least we can assume to be true.
True, in fact he was criticised for it. But partying isnt necessarily lead to drunken-ness or irresponsibility, even if there was wine at the party, let alone the prostitutes that were also frequently there.
Luke 5:33 They said to him, "John's disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking."
The Romans were not bothered by Jesus until they were told to be at a high level, in fact allowing for the large number of Centurions 'of faith' stories in the Gospels, plus more in the Acts grants the impression that the Roman intelligence machine, which weatched the province especially closely, knew all about Jesus and not only didnt want to act against him but in many cases respected him.
You know Alb, you could have saved everyone the eye strain by just admitting you don't really know anything about Eastern Religion/Philosophy. You didn't need to go through the trouble of showing us you don't know. We would have believed you.
Ahtman wrote:You know Alb, you could have saved everyone the eye strain by just admitting you don't really know anything about Eastern Religion/Philosophy. You didn't need to go through the trouble of showing us you don't know. We would have believed you.
Ahtman wrote:You know Alb, you could have saved everyone the eye strain by just admitting you don't really know anything about Eastern Religion/Philosophy. You didn't need to go through the trouble of showing us you don't know. We would have believed you.
Yeah... Good comeback, champ.
Yes it was. The things you say show that your knowledge is second-hand at best. Everything you needed to know about Buddhism you learned from The Matrix, amiright? Other people have tried to point out where you are incorrect, initially in a friendly way, but you continue to want to tell people that actually have knowledge of the subject that they are wrong. You purposefully are choosing the path of ignorance consistently on the subject. Are we supposed to pat you on the head and agree with you just to make you feel better? Well it won't happen. You are wrong, you are arguing with people that actually have above a laymen understanding of the subject yet you still want to disagree.
Albatross wrote:'Do the teachings of the various forms of Buddhism, and Buddhist philosophy in a general sense, allow for, encourage or approve of excessive consumption of, indulgence in, or accumulation of, material possesions?
There is nothing inherent in Buddhism that prohibits being successful and owning a great many things. Again it comes down to a humans relationship with the objects, not against their existence. Is excessive consumption bad? Sure, but it is considered problematic by everyone, including atheists. It really isn't a religious issue. Excessive water will kill you as well. It is like the person who confuses a dollar bill for wealth. The unclear mind confuses the symbol with the symbolized. If your mind is clear than you can have all the money in the world and it won't matter.
Guitardian wrote:ummm... isn't that kind of the point of buddhism...? not giving a gak about anything? Desire is the root of sorrow.
There is a difference between non-attachment and disinterest/disconnection. Compassion is an important component and you can't be compassionate and apathetic at the same time. This is a common misunderstanding. It is one of the aspects that stems from Buddhism's Hindu roots, more specifically the Upanishads.
Ahtman wrote:If your mind is clear than you can have all the money in the world and it won't matter.
I would just re-word this bit.
There can be a difference between financial success and excessive materialism.
Financial success is a difficult phrase to pin down. Excessive material isn't quite so difficult to pin down. A person can have one dollar and be financially successful if their needs are met by that dollar. It is more difficult to say that a person that doesn't need redundant items but has them anyway, isn't practicing excessive materialism.
Does Bill Gates live in excess? Yeah, my guess would definitively be yes. Do most westerners live in excess? Probably. Obesity is often caused by excessive consumption, while eating an extra roll at dinner could hardly be considered that excessive.
You can be financially successful and live in excess. I would call that being extremely successful and living in excess as a perceived result. Your mind can be clear and you can be both financially successful and clearly living in excess.
If I were to go merely by the brand established by buddhist monks themselves (ignoring the excessive facade in many Buddhist temples and the overall concept is silly IMO, but whatevs) I would say that having more than you need while others go without is generally frowned upon. I don't know, and I don't presume to know.
It would be interesting to hear what opinions there are in Buddhism, specifically about the whole rich man, camel-needle thing. Are there many parts of Buddhism that actually deal with that? I guess the better question would concern what the range of opinions are on that subject.
Wrexasaur wrote:If I were to go merely by the brand established by buddhist monks themselves
We aren't basing the discussion of Christianity based just on how the monks or nuns do things in Monasteries, why would we just limit the Buddhists to that standard?
Wrexasaur wrote:Are there many parts of Buddhism that actually deal with that? I guess the better question would concern what the range of opinions are on that subject.
Yes there are. Typically they are about a guy going to a rich Buddhist and wondering how he can have all this material stuff and him giving a lecture on non-attachment.
One of the best examples of having material success and not being obsessed with wealth is my boss.
A co worker had to have his sone put into the hospital and came up with a $100,000 dollar tab. My boss went to him and told him that whatever insurance didn't pay, he would. Another co worker had a 27 members of his family in El Salvador that he was worried about with the stuff that was going on there at the time. My boss heard about it and had them flown up here and he set them up in this country on his own dime.
Currently, he's in Africa helping a village get a going industry so the people there can have a higher living standard.
He does do well, but he uses a lot of his money helping other people. I gave just a few examples of what he does with his money.
He is someone who could get through the proverbial "eye of the needle" and still have headroom left over.
The tenets of Christianity come from Judaism, and a guy who questioned those absolutist LAWs of god and asked "why aren't we better than this?"... From what I understand (sorry Philosophy103 was 10 years ago for me) Buddhism sprang from Hindu ideals... one had the 'noble truths' (4 of them?) and one had the 'sacred path' (5 of them). Religions certainly do love their numbers.
the first truth is understanding that life is suffering caused by yearning
the next is that to eliminate the yearning in order to eliminate the suffereng
then the paradox... how can you yearn to not yearn?
I don't remember what the last and resolving one was, it has been a long time.
It is possible I suppose to not yearn, have an aweful lot of materiel wealth, and not necessarily yearn for it, covet it, and have a charitable nature to just let other people have your material stuff if they need it/want it, without really caring one way or another. "I have a mountain of gold so if you want/need gold here have some"... heck I give my old guitars away to kids just because I can. I don't need them any more, so may as well put them to use, right? I have accumulated lots of musicy stuff, but as long as it gets use, its still serving its purpose, right? Do I miss them? well... yeah I miss all of my old guitars in the way of having happy memories of them. Do I want them? not particularly otherwise I would have not given them to various kids. Do I want to be paid for them? No. They have already been paid for once, why do it again? Do I care who gets them? If it a thief I would say yes. If it is an interested 9-year old or an aspiring 16 year old then no, I'm happy they have something to do, and when/if they give up on it it will be passed along... If I were broke I might be a little more tightwad about my possessions but when stable, have enough musicy stuff to use for my trade, and more that I don't use... may as well let someone else use it, right? it is pretty easy to have a "dont care" attitude when you already have what you feel you need... is that materiel buddhism?
Guitardian wrote:The tenets of Christianity come from Judaism, and a guy who questioned those absolutist LAWs of god and asked "why aren't we better than this?"
I'd love to know where you get your information. I suggest some reading: Matthew 5:17. The Laws of Jewdism are in pretty good harmony with the Laws of Christianity. As much as can be expected from two groups of people in a discussion of religion. We all know how those like to end The problem for the Jews at the time from the Christian perspective was that they didn't follow the law. They liked to interpret it to their advantage.
The Law of God is the Law of God. Jews and Christians have the same god and follow the same law. Neither of them can accurately be described as absolutist. The difference is an interpretation of the law used by the two groups. Christians followed an interpretation used by Jesus that gave rise to a sect of Jewdism that would evolve into Christianity; One that to them follows not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. It's an even more complex issue than that though. As far as codes of law go the Christian/Jewish one is rather confusing and takes as much study as any other code of law to understand, but what you've described is hardly accurate of why Jesus began his ministry or adequately reflects his teachings, if Christianity is the view from which we are looking at the issue.
Buddhism sprang from Hindu ideals... one had the 'noble truths' (4 of them?) and one had the 'sacred path' (5 of them)
I'm no expert on Hinduism but neither of these to my knowledge are part of their system of belief. They are Buddist beliefs, and it's the Eightfold Path that I believe you are thinking of (Granted I'm no expert on Buddhism either). It's true that Buddhism has roots in Hinduism but neither of the things you mentioned are to my knowledge among these roots. EDIT: I'm looking around and I actually think I may need to read more about this. I'm reading some stuff on Hinduism and its history and I could have even less of an understanding of it than I believed I did in its relation to Buddism. I think I might actually want to get a book on this and do some proper study.
Kilkrazy wrote:Similarly, there is a commandment against coveting your neighbour's ass, but not against having your own ass.
There was a Christian sect that believed it was a sin to have an ass of your own. They had to make themselves special chairs.
Can you be reported for terrible jokes? Just asking...
ShumaGorath wrote:People can have opinions that are wrong when they are based on factual matters.
I like to think that while people can't have wrong opinions that can certainly have stupid ones.
Ahtman wrote:Everything you needed to know about Buddhism you learned from The Matrix, amiright?
I though the Matrix was gnostic? I mean, I can't say for certain, because I don't know much about gnosticism, buddhism or the Matrix movies, but I think I remember people talking about the story drawing heavily gnostic ideas when they were released...
LordofHats wrote:
I'm no expert on Hinduism but neither of these to my knowledge are part of their system of belief. They are Buddist beliefs, and it's the Eightfold Path that I believe you are thinking of (Granted I'm no expert on Buddhism either). It's true that Buddhism has roots in Hinduism but neither of the things you mentioned are to my knowledge among these roots. EDIT: I'm looking around and I actually think I may need to read more about this. I'm reading some stuff on Hinduism and its history and I could have even less of an understanding of it than I believed I did in its relation to Buddism. I think I might actually want to get a book on this and do some proper study.
Buddhism has both The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.
1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.
As for The Matrix, it is a hodgepodge of ideas. The idea of maya (the veil) predates gnosticism and the original title of the script was "The Third Eye". There certainly is some gnosticism, but the series draws from a lot of different ideas, often not very well once you get past the first movie. It might have been the whole plagiarism thing.
LordofHats wrote:
I'm no expert on Hinduism but neither of these to my knowledge are part of their system of belief. They are Buddist beliefs, and it's the Eightfold Path that I believe you are thinking of (Granted I'm no expert on Buddhism either). It's true that Buddhism has roots in Hinduism but neither of the things you mentioned are to my knowledge among these roots. EDIT: I'm looking around and I actually think I may need to read more about this. I'm reading some stuff on Hinduism and its history and I could have even less of an understanding of it than I believed I did in its relation to Buddism. I think I might actually want to get a book on this and do some proper study.
Buddhism has both The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.
1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.
As for The Matrix, it is a hodgepodge of ideas. The idea of maya (the veil) predates gnosticism and the original title of the script was "The Third Eye". There certainly is some gnosticism, but the series draws from a lot of different ideas, often not very well once you get past the first movie. It might have been the whole plagiarism thing.
Something the Matrix had in it too was Fascism, Neo was the "Ubermensch", the Agents were "Das System" it's quite an interesting story.
The new truths:
1 life means suffering
2 suffering means everyone else does too
3 understand that and dont be a jerk
4 keep breathing as long as possible
Ahtman wrote:You know Alb, you could have saved everyone the eye strain by just admitting you don't really know anything about Eastern Religion/Philosophy. You didn't need to go through the trouble of showing us you don't know. We would have believed you.
Yeah... Good comeback, champ.
Yes it was. The things you say show that your knowledge is second-hand at best. Everything you needed to know about Buddhism you learned from The Matrix, amiright? Other people have tried to point out where you are incorrect, initially in a friendly way, but you continue to want to tell people that actually have knowledge of the subject that they are wrong. You purposefully are choosing the path of ignorance consistently on the subject. Are we supposed to pat you on the head and agree with you just to make you feel better? Well it won't happen. You are wrong, you are arguing with people that actually have above a laymen understanding of the subject yet you still want to disagree.
Ah. Can I assume you are a Buddhist? Specifically a relatively wealthy Buddhist? Interesting.
Albatross wrote:'Do the teachings of the various forms of Buddhism, and Buddhist philosophy in a general sense, allow for, encourage or approve of excessive consumption of, indulgence in, or accumulation of, material possesions?
There is nothing inherent in Buddhism that prohibits being successful and owning a great many things.
I didn't say that there was. I said that in a general sense, excessive materialism was discouraged. Instead of avoiding the issue, and just basically being a dick, why don't you answer the question? Is excessive materialism discouraged in Buddhist teaching? Yes or no?
Again it comes down to a humans relationship with the objects, not against their existence. Is excessive consumption bad? Sure...
So you admit it! What the feth are you arguing about in that case? Did you just want to show your knowledge of Buddhism? Did you just want to be right about something?
If excessive materialism/consumption, intoxicants, abortion and sexual license are generally discouraged amongst the religions I originally mentioned, then using them in an illustrative sense to provide examples of other religions which may view western lifestyles as decadent is absolutely acceptable, and you should just stop posting. Seriously.
but it is considered problematic by everyone, including atheists.
So I'm not allowed to treat religion as one homogenous mass, but you are allowed to treat EVERYONE as such? I think you'd better go and lie down.
dogma wrote:Ahtman is quite knowledgeable regarding Buddhism, and all other Eastern religions.
I'm not disputing that at all. That's obvious.
Why should that preclude me using Buddhism as an example of a religion that frowns upon decadence? I wouldn't have thought most people would identify Buddhism with indulgence in physical pleasures.
dogma wrote:Decadence is itself a frowned upon thing. It is part of the definition of the word.
...and it becomes problematic when determining by whose standards morality can be said to be decaying. That was the crux of my original point. By the standards of many religions, society is in a state of moral decay - it's not just radical islamists that think that.
Moral decay as an accusation on a societal level is an illusion necessary for the self-righteous. Nobody really has any rights except animal level survival instinct, which cannot be denied. The more rules get added on to that mean the more rights available to be violated and therefore the less moral we appear. Inventing the rules and then not following the rules you invented is not a sign of moral decay, it's just getting back to that simpler psychology of following a survival instinct.
Societal decay is inevitable due to growing pressures on resource sharing.
While technological advance can alleviate that problem to some extent by stretching resource thresholds ultimately it will take a large philosophical change the west in particular is not ready for.
Religion is one of the prime solutions for that, all the major relgions have themes for dealing with a collective want, and in fact rose to prominence in times of collective want - even those that were founded in times of plenty.
This is not the only theme of societal decay, moral levity is also a major contributor, however the eventual resource crisis is the inescapable crunch time. Moral decay can largely be, and often is ignored. In fact it is illusory as man has not changed, its just that the different levels of liberty and constraint over thev generations mean that people break the social contraints in visibly different ways.
The problem Alby, is that you are assigning Western language to Eastern problems. For example when someone says 'logic', Dogma and I hear something very different (and more accurate) than your average person who hasn't had training. Suffering in the four noble truths isn't as simple as being unhappy or having unfortunate circumstances. It is more complex and ones status economically has no real bearing on it. The Buddhism you keep referring to is an overly simplified Western amalgamation of multiple Eastern philosophies. It has no bearing on the living, breathing religion. Are some Buddhist ascetics? Sure. Are some wealthy? Sure. Is it concerned with excessive materialism? It would define it differently and approach the subject in a radically different way than Christianity or Islam. The problem arises when you lumped them altogether as if they are all the same, which they are not; the concerns of Buddhism are very different.
Perhaps you should read God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter.
As for my socio-economic status and religious preference, it has no bearing. It is akin to telling a Mathematician you think he has ulterior motives when he tells you that 2+2=4. Since when does knowing something mean that one must be untrustworthy? Especially information one doesn't have and doesn't know. Making these assumptions just makes you look desperate.
Smugness has reached critical mass.... unsubscribing from thread...
Without getting into a semantic debate on it, Albatross is basically correct on the subject of Buddhism with respect to materialism. Waxing pedantic and fisking the Christ out of a bunch of posts with hyper-literal snarkiness isn't going to make this any less true.
Monster Rain wrote:Smugness has reached critical mass.... unsubscribing from thread...
Well stop being smug and it won't be a problem. Or is it that anyone that has a broader knowledge of a subject is automatically labeled as smug?
Monster Rain wrote:Without getting into a semantic debate on it
He says as he gets ready to incite a semantic debate...
Monster Rain wrote:Albatross is basically correct on the subject of Buddhism with respect to materialism
No, it's only accurate in the sense that 99% of the world is against it. At that point Buddhism (or Christianity for that matter) has nothing to do with it. The problem is lumping them together as if they all think the same way about something that is ill-defined and very regional. Shoving Islam and Buddhism together to argue against the subject shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between the two. It is making an "All religions are the same" argument and it just isn't true.
Colossal Donkey wrote:I can't believe you would accept something that essentially contradicts western beliefs so readily at the site of one the greatest religious atrocities of our time
You may accept them at the moment, just wait until the boot is on the other foot. Bigotry will be the Wests salvation. We too readily accept incompatible countries/beliefs hoping to change them over time but nothing changes. The acceptance is nothing but negative reinforcement. Rewarding the act before it is complete is entirely futile.
Ahtman wrote:
As for The Matrix, it is a hodgepodge of ideas. The idea of maya (the veil) predates gnosticism and the original title of the script was "The Third Eye". There certainly is some gnosticism, but the series draws from a lot of different ideas, often not very well once you get past the first movie. It might have been the whole plagiarism thing.
Something the Matrix had in it too was Fascism, Neo was the "Ubermensch", the Agents were "Das System" it's quite an interesting story.
The Matrix cannot be relied upon in any way as a philosophical tool, nor should films in general to be safe. Point being the film draws doctrines heavily from both Buddhism and Christianity mixes them together and pours the out, as Buddhism and Christianity are mutually exclusive it only works on a very superficial level.
Orlanth wrote:Societal decay is inevitable due to growing pressures on resource sharing.
Societies change, why do we think of that as decay, and why do we think of 'decay' as an objective quality?
Decay is entropy not change. Or to put it differently Nurgle not Tzeentch. Decay occurs because entropy is guaranteed. The only counter to entropy in the human timescale is sustainability. Sustainability is not achievable due to human greed and resource competition. The the population grows and also as the world devlops so that the finiite resources are shared between a larger proactive population, and above all as resources are consumed but not replaced, a pressure develops.
We see this with the cycles of boom bust et al, its an essential part of our economic structure. The eceonomy is engineered into cycles to allow for growth and renewal, amongst other benefits. However as the resources get more strained the cylce tightens. Technological advances can alleviate this, but not beyond our ability to guzle the worlds bounty. Something has to give, at the point the people, still entertaining short term mentalities react. look about you, this is what is happening today.
Monster Rain wrote:Smugness has reached critical mass.... unsubscribing from thread...
Well stop being smug and it won't be a problem. Or is it that anyone that has a broader knowledge of a subject is automatically labeled as smug?
no thats not it. I'm as dumb as a box of rocks but I'm feeling pretty smug today. Must be something else.
The rum. It does it for me, until I get maudlin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Societal decay is inevitable due to growing pressures on resource sharing.
Societies change, why do we think of that as decay, and why do we think of 'decay' as an objective quality?
Decay is entropy not change. Or to put it differently Nurgle not Tzeentch. Decay occurs because entropy is guaranteed. The only counter to entropy in the human timescale is sustainability. Sustainability is not achievable due to human greed and resource competition. The the population grows and also as the world devlops so that the finiite resources are shared between a larger proactive population, and above all as resources are consumed but not replaced, a pressure develops.
We see this with the cycles of boom bust et al, its an essential part of our economic structure. The eceonomy is engineered into cycles to allow for growth and renewal, amongst other benefits. However as the resources get more strained the cylce tightens. Technological advances can alleviate this, but not beyond our ability to guzle the worlds bounty. Something has to give, at the point the people, still entertaining short term mentalities react. look about you, this is what is happening today.
Orlanth wrote:
Decay is entropy not change. Or to put it differently Nurgle not Tzeentch.
Entropy is a property of matter. It is not applicable at the level of our understanding.
Orlanth wrote:
Sustainability is not achievable due to human greed and resource competition.
I would argue that, insofar as the analogy is appropriate, entropy is countered by any human action. Whether or not it is driven by greed is irrelevant.
Orlanth wrote:
We see this with the cycles of boom bust et al, its an essential part of our economic structure. The eceonomy is engineered into cycles to allow for growth and renewal, amongst other benefits. However as the resources get more strained the cylce tightens. Technological advances can alleviate this, but not beyond our ability to guzle the worlds bounty. Something has to give, at the point the people, still entertaining short term mentalities react. look about you, this is what is happening today.
The economy isn't 'engineered' into cycles. Cycles occur because of the inability of human activity to function in the analog manner demanded by economic assumptions.
Fuller was unrealistically optimistic because he refused to take into account the nature of man to consume until he can consume no more. Applying restraint to man except by force, or very rigid social custom is impossible, and even those systems breed a state that is resource wasteful in other ways through the corruption of its elite.
technology helps, but will only go so far.
dogma wrote:
Entropy is a property of matter. It is not applicable at the level of our understanding.
Decay is also a property of society, energy is used to renew society or stave off decay. This is why energy companies are the most powerful, everything feeds on them. Modern society is in a way organic, it gro0ws and responds like an artificial lifeform, if it gets ill it suffers. This has never been more true than with our current advanced infrastructure.
Please remember our resource base is finite, tyet the supposed benefit of economic growth is drawing ever more heavily from it.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Sustainability is not achievable due to human greed and resource competition.
I would argue that, insofar as the analogy is appropriate, entropy is countered by any human action. Whether or not it is driven by greed is irrelevant.
Greed accelerates decay as fewer people consume more resources than they need to. In fact the entirity of western scoiety is guilty of this. look in your local supermarket and you will see fruit and vegeteables out of season, a lot of that is imported. Individual bunches of cut flowers might contain the products of several different countries. There is a HUGE resource sink towards maintaining our infrastructure, while those companies in ther infrastructure can see a positive waste balance because to them it has been made profitable to operate in this manner. Globally it is a huge loss.
To counter this huge drain we would need to pretty much throw away our economic, greatly restrict resource access and generally be a lot pooererr as inddividuals. These sacrfifices are futuile because we simply wouldnt agree to end the good times, and if we did others didnt and would gain an 'advantage'.
dogma wrote:
The economy isn't 'engineered' into cycles. Cycles occur because of the inability of human activity to function in the analog manner demanded by economic assumptions.
It most cerrtainly is, while the cycles might not have a trigger time the cycles are counted on and reinforced by those who understand the larger scale economic model. Frankly there is no such thing as boom and bust, it is just that different types of entrepreneur expand at different times. Boom times are for the general economy to expand, often with the aid of an artificial credit economy, bust times are when the credit economy is reset and the hard work of the boom time entrepreneur is replaced by the wasy work of thre bust time entrepreneur who buys up busines failed in the bust. The latter is the wiser businessman, and to stock thier own larder they encourage growth of others in ther boom.
credit creates the boom bust, the resources are the same, but the money is illusory, more moneies exist as credit than actually exist, by a considerable margin. Essentially the cash economy is based on a huge lie.
The relevance of all this is that when lean times come some methods of social control are needed, to keep people content with where they are and whast they have got. State religion plays a part in this, state religion may or may not differs
from free religion, but at its core the choice of state relgion is largely irrelevant, any religion will do so long as it serves the state purpose.
Orlanth wrote:
Decay is also a property of society, energy is used to renew society or stave off decay. This is why energy companies are the most powerful, everything feeds on them.
You've already changed the sense in which you are using the word 'energy'. That doesn't bode well for you argument.
Orlanth wrote:
Modern society is in a way organic, it gro0ws and responds like an artificial lifeform, if it gets ill it suffers. This has never been more true than with our current advanced infrastructure.
Please remember our resource base is finite, tyet the supposed benefit of economic growth is drawing ever more heavily from it.
Stop trying to create analogical statements; they do not help you illustrate anything. Speak in the correct terminology.
Orlanth wrote:
Greed accelerates decay as fewer people consume more resources than they need to.
You've assumed a negative process which, eventually, leaves the human race at naught. Stop assuming things.
Orlanth wrote:
In fact the entirity of western scoiety is guilty of this. look in your local supermarket and you will see fruit and vegeteables out of season, a lot of that is imported. Individual bunches of cut flowers might contain the products of several different countries. There is a HUGE resource sink towards maintaining our infrastructure, while those companies in ther infrastructure can see a positive waste balance because to them it has been made profitable to operate in this manner. Globally it is a huge loss.
Where is the global account which tells you this? Where is the 'waste metric' which allows you to determine what waste is?
Orlanth wrote:
It most cerrtainly is, while the cycles might not have a trigger time the cycles are counted on and reinforced by those who understand the larger scale economic model.
This is absolutely false. Go back and read the news from 2 years ago.
Orlanth wrote:
The relevance of all this is that when lean times come some methods of social control are needed, to keep people content with where they are and whast they have got. State religion plays a part in this, state religion may or may not differs
from free religion, but at its core the choice of state relgion is largely irrelevant, any religion will do so long as it serves the state purpose.
More 'dogma', yeah? You are a conspiracy theorist, and therefore useless.
Orlanth wrote:
Decay is also a property of society, energy is used to renew society or stave off decay. This is why energy companies are the most powerful, everything feeds on them.
You've already changed the sense in which you are using the word 'energy'. That doesn't bode well for you argument.
Deja vu. Care to back up your comment please. You do a lot of denial of logic, but dont actually state a case for your denial. In what way have I changed my meaning. I have been consistent throughout.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Modern society is in a way organic, it grows and responds like an artificial lifeform, if it gets ill it suffers. This has never been more true than with our current advanced infrastructure.
Please remember our resource base is finite, tyet the supposed benefit of economic growth is drawing ever more heavily from it.
Stop trying to create analogical statements; they do not help you illustrate anything. Speak in the correct terminology.
What terminology do you want. My comments are valid, if you think otherwise please show otherwise. What is so wrong with the allegory chosen.
Take for example transport 'arteries', not my term, what would be the result of a fuel resource failure. Western society, at least in the locations concerned would bleed dry. Our consumer society requires a constant restocking, should the flow of lorries and trains stop the shows would run dry alarmingly quickly. Similar in a poetic sense to the fate of a man whose arteries are clogged and cant get oxygen to his body.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Greed accelerates decay as fewer people consume more resources than they need to.
You've assumed a negative process which, eventually, leaves the human race at naught. Stop assuming things.
Where is the global account which tells you this? Where is the 'waste metric' which allows you to determine what waste is?
Should you also stop assuming things? This is more than just an opinion, there are plenty of books and papers on the subject of resource consumption. The figures dont add up for sustaining a western style of living.
Do a search on the subject of 'ecological debt' see for yourself.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
It most cerrtainly is, while the cycles might not have a trigger time the cycles are counted on and reinforced by those who understand the larger scale economic model.
This is absolutely false. Go back and read the news from 2 years ago.
Care to back that up please, why is it 'fake' because dogma says so. Please provide an arguement, not a blank denial.
In any event yourself this what is happening to the companies that fail? Do they leave market vacancies. By and large no. Some fringe products might disappear entirely, but if a company fails due to the recession a company more savvy with the concepts of boom/bust which accounted for the hard times can survive and swallow up the market share. Ultimately it involves forsight in planning that is often absent from management thinking, especially with the western model of 'target based' management, which is symptomic of this type of failure of thinking.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
The relevance of all this is that when lean times come some methods of social control are needed, to keep people content with where they are and whast they have got. State religion plays a part in this, state religion may or may not differs
from free religion, but at its core the choice of state relgion is largely irrelevant, any religion will do so long as it serves the state purpose.
More 'dogma', yeah? You are a conspiracy theorist, and therefore useless.
Ok take a deep breath. I have perhaps wasted my time trying to argue logic with you. First I get denials without an arguemnt to expklain your denial now ad hominem attacks. Please grow up.
State religion is not a wild eyed conspiracy theory. Its open plain as day. In the west we have such concepts as state religion, partly with state funding and at times control. An example for you, the Archbishop of Canterbury and York, the two main prelates of the Church of England are not elected by the Synod but appointed by the secular government. There is a straight forward example of state religion right there.
An even better example is China, where religion is accepted sio long as it is state religion. This can mean Buddhism, but can also mean Christianity too. China has an official Christian church with doctrines approved by the state. China also has an underground free church, casually known as the house churches. House churches are persecuted in China, but China does not prevent Christianity as and of itself.
Orlanth wrote:
Decay is also a property of society, energy is used to renew society or stave off decay. This is why energy companies are the most powerful, everything feeds on them.
You've already changed the sense in which you are using the word 'energy'. That doesn't bode well for you argument.
Deja vu. Care to back up your comment please. You do a lot of denial of logic, but dont actually state a case for your denial. In what way have I changed my meaning. I have been consistent throughout.
You used the term energy as an abstract, and a reference to energy as a property of physics. The two usages are not comparable outside of analogy.
Orlanth wrote:
What terminology do you want. My comments are valid, if you think otherwise please show otherwise. What is so wrong with the allegory chosen.
The problem is that you need to use an allegory. If you knew what you were talking about the allegory would be unnecessary.
Orlanth wrote:
Should you also stop assuming things? This is more than just an opinion, there are plenty of books and papers on the subject of resource consumption. The figures dont add up for sustaining a western style of living.
Do a search on the subject of 'ecological debt' see for yourself.
I'm quite familiar with the notion of ecological debt, the 'research' is nonsense because the categorical assumptions of the research are unproven. You can't simply say 'there is an account here' in order to will that sort of category into existence.
Orlanth wrote:
Care to back that up please, why is it 'fake' because dogma says so. Please provide an arguement, not a blank denial.
I don't have to. You have to prove your assertion, I don't need to prove the falsity of something that is itself unsupported.
Orlanth wrote:
In any event yourself this what is happening to the companies that fail? Do they leave market vacancies. By and large no. Some fringe products might disappear entirely, but if a company fails due to the recession a company more savvy with the concepts of boom/bust which accounted for the hard times can survive and swallow up the market share. Ultimately it involves forsight in planning that is often absent from management thinking, especially with the western model of 'target based' management, which is symptomic of this type of failure of thinking.
You've just argued against the notion of a designed 'boom bust' model.
Orlanth wrote:
Ok take a deep breath. I have perhaps wasted my time trying to argue logic with you. First I get denials without an arguemnt to expklain your denial now ad hominem attacks. Please grow up.
You haven't used logic in this thread. Please do not corrupt the word with your colloquial rambling. All you have done is conflate divergent meanings of individual words in order to construct a sophist's house of cards.
Orlanth wrote:
State religion is not a wild eyed conspiracy theory. Its open plain as day. In the west we have such concepts as state religion, partly with state funding and at times control. An example for you, the Archbishop of Canterbury and York, the two main prelates of the Church of England are not elected by the Synod but appointed by the secular government. There is a straight forward example of state religion right there.
An even better example is China, where religion is accepted sio long as it is state religion. This can mean Buddhism, but can also mean Christianity too. China has an official Christian church with doctrines approved by the state. China also has an underground free church, casually known as the house churches. House churches are persecuted in China, but China does not prevent Christianity as and of itself.
You're describing social control through information control. It is not a unique manifestation of religion. That is simply the mode you have chosen to perceive it in, which isn't surprising given your apparent tendency to lean on sophistry and theological reasoning in equal measure.
dogma wrote:
You used the term energy as an abstract, and a reference to energy as a property of physics. The two usages are not comparable outside of analogy.
Neither, I refer to energy in a practical sense regard world resources.
Reread in light of the above.
dogma wrote:
I don't have to. You have to prove your assertion, I don't need to prove the falsity of something that is itself unsupported.
Are you in any doubt that we are using more say oil, that is magickally appearing underground?
You understand that the population rising but the world remaining the same size.
How much proof do you need. This is a given to any reasonable person. I wasnt expecting anyone who deny that we are facing an eventual global resource crisis, are you arguing for the sake of it?
dogma wrote:
You've just argued against the notion of a designed 'boom bust' model.
You could have elaborated with a why so I could provide a proper counter to your denial.
Boom/bust model is maintained because boom/bust refers to its effects on mainstream business, the business that is encouraged to expand and borrow, to maximise profit and adhere to target culture, not the longer term business that accounts for the larger scale economic model and makes its real expansions in the 'bust' years on the backs of failed overextended businesses. Merchant banks have been relying on this business model for years, but the smarter companies can also account for it.
dogma wrote:
You're describing social control through information control. It is not a unique manifestation of religion.
There is more to it than information control, yes it is not uinque to state religion or religion in general.
At least its a step up from a bare faced write of of state religion as just a 'conspiracy theory'.
I will ignore the trolling half of your comment.
I think I am done trying to reply to you dogma. Have a free reply if you like, I doubt there will be any content in it.
Oh dear oh dear. I remember once upon a time when this was about a Mosque. Now it is no longer a place of peace but a place of one-upsmanship over logic.
So I suppose my smugness will play along.
A Mosque is a good thing, no matter what you believe, because it is a place where people gather to meditate or make their peace in whatever way they need to.
Cultural differences and bickering over religions which are all flawed only sows the seeds of hate.
Grant that religions are all victims of political manipulation and rife with contradictions. Just pointing out the flaw in another does not make a person better.
Therefore, in the interest of international communion, cultural acceptance, a Mosque should be built at a site of Jihadist attrocity, specifically to show a desire for peace and of not having something like this happen again because of resentment or some kind of grudge.
I say god, you say Allah... Buddha.... Krishna... whatever... its all the same thing we're talking about. I also say tomato. Religious politics are the problem here, not the actual faith involved. If they refuse to allow a Mosque it will just send a message that we are wanting revenge, and then when we get our revenge they get their revenge then we get revenge etc.
Mosques are places of acceptance, tranquility, and enlightenment in whatever form you choose to ask someone about, converse about, seek in the books they have open for anyone to read. Or to just sit quietly in peace and think.
If a Mosque is denied it sends a message of "we don't like your kind", it becomes "us" versus "them" all over again. If it is preserved, it says "we welcome you and yours to practice in peace".
Guitardian wrote:
A Mosque is a good thing, no matter what you believe, because it is a place where people gather to meditate or make their peace in whatever way they need to.......<snip>
If only that were (always) true. Sure there are nice Moslems about and moderate Mosques, it sounds like you found one. But there are also Mosques that need constant watching by the security services, manned by fanatics who have no intention of co-existing peacefully with anyone else.
Please dont be overly blind to that just because you have found a nice Mosque.
The odd fanatic church, synagogue, hindu temple excetera are a tiny minority of the whole. With mosques its a much larger minority, with a more extreme congregation. Westboro baptists, scum though they are, don't fund bombings as far as we are aware, and they are about as far as a non-Moslem congregation goes excepting whacky cults, and by all logic Westboro baptists are a whacky cult not a church. Islam really is unique in its reactions in the present day, at least amongst mainstream religions in the western world.
Guitardian wrote:
A Mosque is a good thing, no matter what you believe, because it is a place where people gather to meditate or make their peace in whatever way they need to.......<snip>
If only that were (always) true. Sure there are nice Moslems about and moderate Mosques, it sounds like you found one. But there are also Mosques that need constant watching by the security services, manned by fanatics who have no intention of co-existing peacefully with anyone else.
Please dont be overly blind to that just because you have found a nice Mosque.
Yeah.
It would be wrong to claim that all mosques are problematic. It would be equally wrong to argue that a mosque is no more likely to harbour terrorism than other religious groups.
There is simply more of a problem with extremism and terrorism within Islam. It is still a minority.
Guitardian wrote:A Mosque is a good thing, no matter what you believe, because it is a place where people gather to meditate or make their peace in whatever way they need to.
A Mosque isn't a good thing simply by the nature of being a Mosque.
Cultural differences and bickering over religions which are all flawed only sows the seeds of hate.
Grant that religions are all victims of political manipulation and rife with contradictions. Just pointing out the flaw in another does not make a person better.
Stop! You're saying bad things about religion and sowing the seeds of hate!
Sorry. I just find these three sentences ironic
Therefore, in the interest of international communion, cultural acceptance, a Mosque should be built at a site of Jihadist attrocity, specifically to show a desire for peace and of not having something like this happen again because of resentment or some kind of grudge.
Yeah. Al-Qaeda will be very forgiving of us once they see Islam's new mosque. Everything will be better then. Peace is a two way street. There are groups of extremists unwilling to walk it, and they'll do what they do regardless of this Mosque's construction. If anything it's construction just becomes some propaganda they can tout as a victory flag. A good story for the rookies about how they blew up that evil American capitalist state and replaced it with a Mosque. I don't see how this Mosque's fate will change anything in regards to our problems with Islamic extremists.
Religious politics are the problem here, not the actual faith involved.
So if they were building a Buddist temple instead there would still be an issue? Don't be silly. The faith is the cause of the current dispute. If this was any other religious structure going up I doubt anyone would care.
Mosques are places of acceptance, tranquility, and enlightenment in whatever form you choose to ask someone about, converse about, seek in the books they have open for anyone to read. Or to just sit quietly in peace and think.
Terrorists also like to recruit suicide bombers from them Again. A Mosque isn't a good idea just because it's a mosque.
If a Mosque is denied it sends a message of "we don't like your kind", it becomes "us" versus "them" all over again. If it is preserved, it says "we welcome you and yours to practice in peace".
It's funny how only the Muslim's can possibly be the one's wronged in this situation. People have loved ones who died in the towers. There's a legitimate reason for them to be upset at a Mosque's construction. But then again we get back to the crying over unspilled milk. 2 blocks can be quite the distance. I honestly want to know how far away it is. Are we talking 200 feet? 500? 1000?
LordofHats wrote:Yeah. Al-Qaeda will be very forgiving of us once they see Islam's new mosque. Everything will be better then. Peace is a two way street. There are groups of extremists unwilling to walk it, and they'll do what they do regardless of this Mosque's construction. If anything it's construction just becomes some propaganda they can tout as a victory flag. A good story for the rookies about how they blew up that evil American capitalist state and replaced it with a Mosque. I don't see how this Mosque's fate will change anything in regards to our problems with Islamic extremists.
Not really. The way to beat a terrorist group is to de-legitimise it in the eyes of moderates. In and of itself, this is just a mosque, but by remaining an open, tolerant and well, good nation you give the majority of muslims every reason to align themselves with us, isolating the extremists.
It's funny how only the Muslim's can possibly be the one's wronged in this situation.
Your mistake is in thinking of them as 'the muslims' as though they're a hive mind. The men planning on building the mosque are very different to the 9/11 terrorists.
Orlanth wrote:
Neither, I refer to energy in a practical sense regard world resources.
Reread in light of the above.
Yes, you used the word 'energy' in the abstract sense, and in the physical sense.
Orlanth wrote:
Are you in any doubt that we are using more say oil, that is magickally appearing underground?
You understand that the population rising but the world remaining the same size.
How much proof do you need. This is a given to any reasonable person. I wasnt expecting anyone who deny that we are facing an eventual global resource crisis, are you arguing for the sake of it?
I agree with you in the sense that we will certainly want for specific resources, but I do not agree with you in that we will want for resources in general. There is not enough information to draw that conclusion.
Orlanth wrote:
You could have elaborated with a why so I could provide a proper counter to your denial.
The implication of competitive forces is that there exists no central authority to 'engineer' any sort of model.
Orlanth wrote:
Boom/bust model is maintained because boom/bust refers to its effects on mainstream business, the business that is encouraged to expand and borrow, to maximise profit and adhere to target culture, not the longer term business that accounts for the larger scale economic model and makes its real expansions in the 'bust' years on the backs of failed overextended businesses. Merchant banks have been relying on this business model for years, but the smarter companies can also account for it.
That's not 'engineering' it is simply a reaction to the nature of the economy. You're attributing causal force to actors that do not have it.
Orlanth wrote:
There is more to it than information control, yes it is not uinque to state religion or religion in general.
At least its a step up from a bare faced write of of state religion as just a 'conspiracy theory'.
I will ignore the trolling half of your comment.
State religion as a general, manipulative concept is a conspiracy theory; and you used it in a general context. Unless you intended your use of state religion to be non sequitur, you could only have been referencing it in this manner.
You have shown yourself to be fond of conspiracy theories in the past, and it is no stretch to suppose that your attraction to this is similar. It is, as you are so fond of saying, your dogma. This doesn't indicate that you are wrong, but it does indicate that you may be a hammer seeing nails.
sebster wrote:Not really. The way to beat a terrorist group is to de-legitimise it in the eyes of moderates. In and of itself, this is just a mosque, but by remaining an open, tolerant and well, good nation you give the majority of muslims every reason to align themselves with us, isolating the extremists.
Yeah. One mosque built in New York City will win the war on terror. If we don't build it, it will just keep going and going. Build it now!
It'll take a lot more than one mosque. This issue isn't some deciding factor in the struggle with Islamic terrorism. EDIT: Islam as a whole for the past century has been facing a cultural crisis; one most obvious in the MIddle East due to it's adjacency to the West. It's a crisis we aren't going to solve by building a mosque here in the US.
Your mistake is in thinking of them as 'the muslims' as though they're a hive mind. The men planning on building the mosque are very different to the 9/11 terrorists.
Muslims have a hive mind? Gasp! Go back and read my posts. I go out of my way to make a differentiation between general muslims and Islamic extremists/terrorists. You completely missed the point of the statement.
No one really seems to care that there are people who feel wronged by the mosques construction. They're just automatically labeled as bigots and racists which I disagree with. I think they have a legitimate reason to be upset that is being dismissed. We can all rest assured there's probably plenty of racists and bigots among the protestors but I'm sure many just don't want to mosque so close to the site. Not that I have any clue how close it actually is. I've seen a little arial view photo of the mosque's proposed location in relation to ground zero but I can't really judge the distance very well.
On a small scale, you are looking at hurting the feelings of a few righteously pissed off New Yorkers. On the bigger scale, you are looking at a chance to take hate and ignorance one step down.
Once everybody gets over their delusional fairy tales we will all be safer and yeah I would like to ban the building of all churches, temples, mosques and so on because they all offend my faith, cultural background, reminders of historical persecution etc. However, you cannot just ban one without banning all of them and still consider it fair. If the Mosque goes, then maybe so should all the xtian churches.
LordofHats wrote:Yeah. One mosque built in New York City will win the war on terror. If we don't build it, it will just keep going and going. Build it now!
It'll take a lot more than one mosque. This issue isn't some deciding factor in the struggle with Islamic terrorism. EDIT: Islam as a whole for the past century has been facing a cultural crisis; one most obvious in the MIddle East due to it's adjacency to the West. It's a crisis we aren't going to solve by building a mosque here in the US.
It isn't a deciding factor in the struggle, no one thing is ever going to be the deciding factor in a global issue.
And yeah, the rise of extremism is a century old thing (something a lot of people miss, they assume Islam has always been like this).
Muslims have a hive mind? Gasp! Go back and read my posts. I go out of my way to make a differentiation between general muslims and Islamic extremists/terrorists. You completely missed the point of the statement.
Ah, reading it a second time I can see how you were putting the emphasis on the people who were wronged. I retract my comment.
No one really seems to care that there are people who feel wronged by the mosques construction. They're just automatically labeled as bigots and racists which I disagree with. I think they have a legitimate reason to be upset that is being dismissed. We can all rest assured there's probably plenty of racists and bigots among the protestors but I'm sure many just don't want to mosque so close to the site. Not that I have any clue how close it actually is. I've seen a little arial view photo of the mosque's proposed location in relation to ground zero but I can't really judge the distance very well.
Funnily enough I wrote this on page five of this thread;
"It's worth point out that a number of prominent Muslims also advised against building the mosque. While you might not care about the sensitivity issue, it was an issue of debate in the Islamic community, and I think it's a reasonable argument as well. I mean, while the Muslims building the mosque are not the Muslims who flew planes to the towers, that kind of detail can get lost on the people who suffered in the attacks, and you have to be respectful of that."
To me, it's a lot like the drawings of Mohammed, people have a right to draw it but that doesn't mean they should. The point of difference, to me, is that the artist's behind the Mohammed drawings were mostly aiming to antagonise Muslims, whereas the people behind this mosque are aiming to use it a way of bridging the divide between Islam and the West. Ultimately I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but they deserve points for motive.
Guitardian wrote:On a small scale, you are looking at hurting the feelings of a few righteously pissed off New Yorkers. On the bigger scale, you are looking at a chance to take hate and ignorance one step down.
We're talking about 1 step on a rather long staircase. One can argue that it's insensitive to those hurt on 9/11 to construct the mosque. What's more important? Sure maybe the local Muslims who want to use the services provided will be very happy, but you're just upsetting the opposite side. Either way this ends someone's going to feel wronged.
Personally, I don't care if some folks want to build a mosque. I just don't like the things being said about the people who do care. There's no law that prevents the construction on the site which is the only real issue concerning its construction. Anything else is subjective. Right now we're just seeing what are normally reasonable people in a state where they are venting confusion, anger, and fear. Seven, eight years? No bodies even going to remember this happened except some New Yorkers. The world keeps turning regardless of this mosque. Hate and ignorance keep turning with it.
Once everybody gets over their delusional fairy tales we will all be safer and yeah I would like to ban the building of all churches, temples, mosques and so on because they all offend my faith, cultural background, reminders of historical persecution etc. However, you cannot just ban one without banning all of them and still consider it fair. If the Mosque goes, then maybe so should all the xtian churches.
What was that about taking hate and ignorance one step down?
And yeah, the rise of extremism is a century old thing (something a lot of people miss, they assume Islam has always been like this).
The desire to learn more about why things happen is something I find lost on many people. They like to just take one look and decide at face value. It saddens me.
To me, it's a lot like the drawings of Mohammed, people have a right to draw it but that doesn't mean they should. The point of difference, to me, is that the artist's behind the Mohammed drawings were mostly aiming to antagonise Muslims, whereas the people behind this mosque are aiming to use it a way of bridging the divide between Islam and the West. Ultimately I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but they deserve points for motive.
Agreed. In the end it looks like the mosque is going up whether people like it or not. Like I said before. Give it a decade. No ones even going to remember this little blip. It'll go in New York City records where it will stay and the rest of us will keep on breathing (Until we stop breathing ).
Sorry. My sarcasm gets a bit extreme. I have no interest in taking away anyones church, temple, mosque, shrine, etc. they can do their thing their own way. I was trying to say that if you make one unacceptable then you have to make all of them unacceptable, not that I want to tear down all the churches. I don't care how people like to get their deep thoughts or social community of fellow believers, that's their problem. I care when it becomes my problem though. If the Mosque goes, then so do the churches... this way nobody is happy, rather than just one group being unhappy. See what I'm getting at? Either that solution or everybody is happy except a few angry locals misled in where they are directing their understandable anger.
Ahtman wrote:The problem Alby, is that you are assigning Western language to Eastern problems. For example when someone says 'logic', Dogma and I hear something very different (and more accurate) than your average person who hasn't had training. Suffering in the four noble truths isn't as simple as being unhappy or having unfortunate circumstances. It is more complex and ones status economically has no real bearing on it. The Buddhism you keep referring to is an overly simplified Western amalgamation of multiple Eastern philosophies. It has no bearing on the living, breathing religion. Are some Buddhist ascetics? Sure. Are some wealthy? Sure. Is it concerned with excessive materialism? It would define it differently and approach the subject in a radically different way than Christianity or Islam. The problem arises when you lumped them altogether as if they are all the same, which they are not; the concerns of Buddhism are very different.
But I'm not lumping them together as if they are the same! I'm saying that there are areas of natural convergence. Do you deny that? The religions that I mentioned all have standards of morality (and moral codes, either formal or informal), aspects of which are transgressed by certain behaviours and actions that are relatively common in the 'western world' (I am growing to loathe that term...). It is not a great leap to see that in the eyes of some religious adherents, our failure to sufficiently live up to their moral standards is evidence of the decay of our morality, evidence of our decadence. The consumption of certain foodstuffs and chemicals are considered 'unlawful' or 'incorrect' in some religions, there are rules governing sexual license, modesty, abortion, and yes, excessive attachment to financial wealth is frowned upon by some. For some reason you seem to have gotten hung up on this last one, when it was only a part of what I was alluding to in the first place. Which leads me to the next part...
As for my socio-economic status and religious preference, it has no bearing. It is akin to telling a Mathematician you think he has ulterior motives when he tells you that 2+2=4. Since when does knowing something mean that one must be untrustworthy? Especially information one doesn't have and doesn't know. Making these assumptions just makes you look desperate.
I found the whole 'it's ok to have a large amount of material possesions as long as you understand your relationship to them'-thing funny, I'll be honest. I tried to transpose that equivocation to another religion, Islam for the sake of argument: 'It's ok to eat this bacon sandwich and drink this beer as long as I understand that it's unlawful'. It just looks like an excuse do do things that one's religion discourages. I couldn't help but think you argued the point with such vigour because it's an excuse you make to yourself. THAT"S the relavance. Guilty conscience?
Albatross wrote:But I'm not lumping them together as if they are the same!
Of course you did. This conversation has been from you putting 4 of the major religions in a lump and saying they all felt the same way but aren't blowing stuff up. The problem was, and still is, that they don't feel the same way. If that weren't enough right after making this statement you go on....
Albatross wrote:I found the whole 'it's ok to have a large amount of material possesions as long as you understand your relationship to them'-thing funny, I'll be honest. I tried to transpose that equivocation to another religion, Islam for the sake of argument: 'It's ok to eat this bacon sandwich and drink this beer as long as I understand that it's unlawful'. It just looks like an excuse do do things that one's religion discourages.
to equivocate Islam and Buddhism in the next paragraph. Just because something might be hypocritical in Islam then it must also be hypocritical in Buddhism? Even though it is an apples to oranges comparison? Well guess what? It doesn't work that way. Islam and Buddhism are different religions and strangely enough that actually means that tenets, doctrines, and philosophies in them are different. The ban on pork is not similar to Buddhism's stance on materialism. They don't even have the same metaphysical outlook on what matter is (well, if we go into Sufi mysticism we might make a few arguments but that is a much more in depth conversation and one that would require some knowledge above cursory to really grasp). Buddhism doesn't actively discourage being monetarily successful or having things. You seem to be working on the assumption that when I say that it must mean it actively encourages it or is somehow endorses materialism. It doesn't. It doesn't discourage or encourage it because it really isn't the point. I'm dropping the subject because 1) at this point your starting to head down to person assumptions instead serious considerations which can't lead to good things and 2) you have already admitted to not really knowing all that much about the subject and admitted that you "had no doubt" that I did know what I am talking.
This thread has dissolved into 4 people endlessly trying to one up each other, but fear not! I shall get us back on track in as short a time as possible!
Islam is inately intolerant of all that defies their holy book, halal meat causes needless and unnecessary suffering to animals and should be banned, and as far as I'm concerned the less mosques the better.
but... I guess this one isn't a big deal if I'm honest, its not really a story is it?
I'm convinced as a whole Islam does more harm to the world than good, but what's one mosque eh?
plenty more to worry about.. what about the ones that are just normal houses but they don't have to pay council tax?!
30 where? There are eight listed buildings in Manhattan under Mosque that I could find, and not all are actually Mosques. To some that is eight too many, I can sympathuise but I can also see the boot on thr other foot. there are been too much hysteria about this construction such as scares that it is to open on 9/11/2011 and other such nonsense.
If there are 30 mosques it must be in a much larger area. Now if this was a sparse rural district that would be pretty heavy coverage, maybe even alarming. But New York is not iexactly sparesely populated, neither is Manhattan, neither is Manhattan small.
I dont like Islam very much, but I prefer to find a valid excuse before critiqueing. If this was a PC dogma flagship project and the Mosque was paid for out of taxpayers money, as happens over here from time to time, there would be some cause to complain. However if they buy the building and make it a Mosque the only reason to say no is if it violates planning in some way.
Curse those pc dogmas, have you heard about the council that is making all the school dinners halal? I would be giving my kids a packed lunch in protest make no mistake!
mattyrm wrote:This thread has dissolved into 4 people endlessly trying to one up each other
That's what debate is. If we all just agreed with each other this would be a boring world. You make it sound like acting like a person knows something is something to be ashamed of, or at the very least hidden as not to appear to be trying to "one up each other".
mattyrm wrote:Curse those pc dogmas, have you heard about the council that is making all the school dinners halal? I would be giving my kids a packed lunch in protest make no mistake!
Carteful Matty the low IQ squad is liable to turn up and say you have no proof the PC dogmas exist and that its all in your mind.
@Ahtman - Good, drop it. Better still, go back in time and never take it up in the first place. What I made was an off-hand comment, meant to illustrate the fact that Islamist conflict with The West is centred around more than just a hatred of percieved 'decadence', and you jump in with both feet with the intention of doing what? Proving you know more about Buddhism? Well, guess what? No-one cares, and it isn't relevant to the conversation.
Albatross wrote:@Ahtman - Good, drop it. Better still, go back in time and never take it up in the first place. What I made was an off-hand comment, meant to illustrate the fact that Islamist conflict with The West is centred around more than just a hatred of percieved 'decadence', and you jump in with both feet with the intention of doing what? Proving you know more about Buddhism? Well, guess what? No-one cares, and it isn't relevant to the conversation.
Albatross wrote:@Ahtman - Good, drop it. Better still, go back in time and never take it up in the first place. What I made was an off-hand comment, meant to illustrate the fact that Islamist conflict with The West is centred around more than just a hatred of percieved 'decadence', and you jump in with both feet with the intention of doing what? Proving you know more about Buddhism? Well, guess what? No-one cares, and it isn't relevant to the conversation.
Orlanth wrote:
Carteful Matty the low IQ squad is liable to turn up and say you have no proof the PC dogmas exist and that its all in your mind.
The question isn't about whether or not there is some for of zeitgeist at work in the public sphere. The issue is whether or not that zeitgeist is sufficient wrote to justify calling it a dogma.
) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?
I'll be back after my trip to Barns and Noble 
