Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Qur’an, published in 1764. (courtesy of the Library of Congress). Image via 15-Minute History at the University of Texas at Austin.
The Center for Inquiry (CFI) joined in the calls to end plans for any worship center for Islam near the site of the destroyed World Trade Center. But they added a twist.
CFI called for the entire area to be free from religious institutions, since, they say, it was religiously-inspired violence that caused the trouble. Greg Laden has pithy comments at his blog, as does DuWayne Brayton from the opposite tack (Laden agrees with CFI, sorta, while Brayton thinks they’ve jumped somebody’s shark).
And Glenn Beck in ignorance leads us farther and further from the intentions of the “founders”:
- “ . . . to bigotry, no sanction . . .” (George Washington)
- ” . . . they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the Infidel of every denomination.” (Thomas Jefferson)
Also at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
- Statement from the National Council of Churches’ Michael Kinnamon (a Disciple of Christ, by the way)
- “Hallowed Ground: Why other nations think we’re nuts”
- “Cat and Mosque at Dogboy and Mr. Dan”
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Lower writes:
if it isn’t fear…when does ethics come into play?
That question is better asked of you and your side of this argument, Lower.
when does your sides ethics come into play? Because all your side has been doing is acting out of fear and creating more of it.
Don’t demand ethics of someone else when your side is not even remotely acting ethically.
LikeLike
I wrote:
After all…my church was first in this town and for well over a hundred years was the only Catholic church.
That should read “After all…my church was first in this town and for well over a hundred years was the only Christian church.”
LikeLike
lowerleavell asked,
Does proximity ever matter?
You do realize that since there is a mosque there on that spot already, that there are other mosques nearby, that there is a mosque in the Pentagon that question of yours is moot and stupid. Whatever “proximity” you’re worrying about has already been breached. Furthermore there is the muslims who were victims of the attacks themselves (and no I’m not talking about the terrorists) that you’re conveniently ignoring.
Especially since your side of this argument can’t even agree on “how close is too close.” One of you wants it a couple blocks. Another wants it 10 blocks. Some dimbulb Republican running for office in New York said he would not one anywhere ashen human remains might have landed. Which would conceivably mean there would not be a mosque allowed in pretty much the entire Northeast United States.
Furthermore you are blaming the entirety all the muslims in the United States for the actions of a crazed few. And then asking them to surrender just enough of their rights that you get to decide where and when they get to exercise them. I’m sure you have no problem if my town decided that there would be absolutely no churches built in my town..except ones belonging to the Catholic diocese right? After all…my church was first in this town and for well over a hundred years was the only Catholic church. And since we Catholics got persecuted by protestants, including acts that can be considered acts of terrorism, in this country we get to limit whether protestant churches get to build in this town right? That’s not infringing on the rights of the protestants..after all they can just go to a protestant church in one of the 5 towns within 10 miles of mine.
Lower writes:
It is inviting them to self-governance, yes
Except the only answer to that “invitation” of yours that you will accept is if they do what you want. They don’t have to do what you want. Furthermore “inviting” implies you know something that is done politely and civilly and diplomatically. Your side hasn’t. It’s been rude, its been dickish, its been obnoxious, its been engaging in acts of violence. In other words, Lower, your side isn’t “inviting them to self governance” it’s trying to force them to bend to your will. Sorry that makes you and yours bullies. You don’t get to “invite a person to self governance” by trying to force it on them. Especially when your side has not been practicing “self governance” at all.
But in the interest of self governance, I invite you to practice it. You, Morgan and all the rest on your side have become nothing but obnoxious dicks about this subject. You are blowing the situation way out of proportion, if your side wouldn’t have made such a big stink about the issue it wouldn’t have become a world wide news story and ergo your fear of “it will be used as a symbol of victory by the terrorists” would have been far less likely to ever happen. In other words, Lower, it isn’t the muslims that want that mosque that are doing something that the terrorists might claim as victory…it’s you.
So in the interest of self governance, Lower, you and Morgan and all the rest on your side of this subject will knock off the protests, go home, find something else to worry about and let the subject die. Right? And if you don’t do what I say then you are being needlessly provactive and dicks right?
As for you, Morgan, you can claim whatever “majority supports me” all you want but it doesn’t matter. Ed has heard me say this line about 100 times so my apologies to him but there’s a quote I like. It’s “If 50 million people believe a foolish thing…it’s still a foolish thing.” Your argument doesn’t become valid just because its popular. Right and wrong isn’t decided by opinion poll. Only a moral relativist thinks otherwise.
You and Lower have no right to ask the Muslims to surrender their rights to your whims. So it’s time you two and the rest on your side practice some self governance yourselves.
Your side should have acted diplomatically and tried civilly to see if there was a compromise. The second you guys tried bullying is the second your side lost all moral credibility and lost any entitlement to the claim “We’re just asking them to practice self governance.” In other words, Lower, your side acted stupidly. And again why was that? Because your precious right wing masters so dearly want to regain power in this country that they’re willing to break this country apart through ginning up fear and hatred.
As I said before, you two are being played for fools.
LikeLike
I find your dismissive attitude most persuasive.
I calls ’em like I sees ’em Mr. Hanley. Your way of deciding such issues is to root against whatever you perceive to be Euro-centric. You like the Mosque exactly where it’s being planned, not because it will be a beacon of religious freedom, but because it’ll tick off the right people. You know Imam Rauf is playing a game of “good cop bad cop”; it is an exceedingly clumsy game of this sort he’s playing. It would be embarrassing in the extreme to say what you’re really trying to say, which is “you guys are entitled to believe Rauf is lying, but my friends and I are going to take him at his word.” In other words, that you’re falling for it.
So you have to demonize the opposition. Fall for the good-cop-bad-cop game like Hanley & friends…or else you’re a racist.
Trouble is, you run into someone who isn’t manipulated by this, and you don’t know what else to do. All you can do is more & more of the same, followed by a “fooey on you I don’t waste time on you.”
Okay then, take your out. Save your face. Head home.
Meanwhile, the several Muslims here & overseas who are opposed to the Mosque, will be very surprised to find out they’re racists. Nice try.
LikeLike
Morgan,
You act as though it can’t possibly be legitimate to call someone a bigot.
Your words have clearly demonstrated that you are not simply a mild bigot, but a racist.
I don’t waste my time on racists.
LikeLike
Much has been written about the intensity of the many sins committed against humanity and civilization, by any & all of those who are on this “side.” Bigotry, fear, prejudice, yadda yadda yadda…step right up folks, see if you can come up with a more excoriating insult to fling around than James or Nick. You might win a stuffed animal or something.
It’s high time the conversation went in a more useful direction. If you don’t repudiate this line of thinking that the Mosque should be built somewhere else, and/or perhaps Imam Rauf is being less than truthful, you are all kinds of some BAD PERSON(tm). Where, I wonder, does the zone of this bad thinking begin? Can we get a better definition for that?
Does simply watching Fox News make you a bad person? How about Gov. Paterson, who simply stepped forward to offer land for an alternate location, or to arrange for one. Is he now a bad person?
Where’s that all-important out-of-bounds line?
James, I have some food for thought for you: I know you know you were misrepresenting what I said when you portrayed me as a raw-democratic raw-populist “six in ten might-as-well be ten in ten” sort of guy. I think you know perfectly well I was illustrating the absurdity of your statement: 71% of all Americans, according to James Hanley logic, are bigots. Find 700 people randomly selected, Hanley & crew are too good to live among all but 200 of those.
In fact, there are few more sympathetic to the notion that 2+2=4 without regard to how many people want it to be 5, than my fine self. So your pre-canned lecturing, as nicely rehearsed as it might have been, is an exercise in preaching to the choir. I think you know this perfectly well.
But what might have escaped your notice is this: If you become too militant about saying majority-view never counts for anything, which seems to be the direction you’re going here — your own finger-waggling about “law” loses all justification. How else do laws come about, after all? All the noise about “American ideals,” furthermore, ceases to exist or else at the very least it loses all justification. American ideals? In a place where nobody is ever allowed to vote on anything, with any authority arising from the outcome of the vote? Ever?
It would be like building a castle out of dry sand.
Like I said before, it’s just adorable that left-wingers have discovered something important about the free exercise of religion. But it seems the enthusiasm has only come about, on a purely temporary basis, because the correct classes of people are being annoyed by the display.
I’m pretty sure if it was a different class being subjected to the annoyance, the annoyance would become much more important to all three of you. As you three keep saying the same things over and over, I have become more and more sure of this.
LikeLike
I respectfully request that you not try to speak for me. Your thought on this is factually wrong.
LikeLike
lowerleavell asked,
Sure, but it depends on who’s doing what. To give the extreme example, I certainly would be disturbed by al qaeda putting a true victory monument right on top of Ground Zero. (On the other hand, if they had bought the land legally, my being disturbed might no matter.)
But this is not al qaeda. These are not even fundamentalist Muslims. You’re making sweeping generalizations that no Muslim identified something or other should be “too close” (a conveniently flexible measurement of distance), which is wholly inappropriate. This is where my accusation of bigotry comes in–you are making special demands on all Muslims because of the action of a few. You are going beyond condemning just those who committed the act, and applying the unjust and illegitimate concept of collective guilt, even if only to a minor degree. (One of the great moments in U.S. history was post-WWII, when we bucked some of our allies and insisted on individual guilt, rather than allowing the concept of collective responsibility to be applied.) I should clarify my claim of bigotry a bit. I don’t claim that you hate Muslims or wish them ill in general. But bigotry comes in degrees, and any lumping of individuals into a targeted class involves some degree of bigotry.
Further considering the proximity question, let’s say this new Freedom Tower/One World Trade Center office building is built. It will be right on top of part of the footprint of the old WTC. It being New York, no doubt there will be Muslims working in the building. Would you say they shouldn’t be allowed a mosque inside there (as there was formerly in the WTC)? I would say they should be.
But your error is in assuming that self-governance must have a particular outcome. Who are you to say they haven’t been engaging in self-governance, and keeping their project there is the decision they’ve come to? If you are sincere about the issue being inviting them to self governance, rather than demanding a particular outcome (and using the claim of invitation to self governance as mere cover), then you have to accept that the outcome of that self-governance may not be to your liking.
This also happens every day in America–units of the self-governing municipalities, states, and federal government making decisions that any number of people don’t like. That doesn’t mean it isn’t self-governance. Because of differing interests, the outcomes of self-governance cannot help but go against some people’s preferences.
And how can you be so certain that it’s they who are doing “whatever they darn well please, anarchically” and not those who are opposing them?
I want to re-emphasize what Ed was emphasizing with Jefferson’s “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” quote. They’re not harming anyone. Their actions may cause offense, but offense is very distinct from harm, and people choose to take offense. You can be harmed against your own will, but you can never be offended against your own will. (Choosing not to take offense does not mean you give approval, let me note. It means you realize that what is being done and said really has nothing to do with you.)
Unfortunately, I’m not following what you’re asking here. (I don’t mean that snarkily.) The best I can say is that it sounds to me like you want to apply ethics to them, before applying it to yourself in your considerations of them. I believe ethics start with oneself and one’s choice of actions towards others. I don’t see that they’re doing anything unethical because they’re not harming others. It does seem to me that others are acting unethically toward them by making them accountable for the actions of people with whom they are not connected, and whom they also oppose.
I say it is a community center with a mosque in it, which seems to be the most accurate description. But it doesn’t really matter, because I don’t think it matters whether it’s a community center, mosque, museum or dance hall.
But by choosing to be so outraged about it, one particular group has clearly signaled that America is afraid of and antagonistic towards Muslims.
LikeLike
At some point, if the proximity issue is pursued to the nth degree, we become Jerusalem, where the mosques and churches are all built on the holy sites of other religions, and peace is eluded for a thousand years or more.
I think that’s where you’re headed, Joe, and I hope you’ll turn back.
LikeLike
Nic said, “Tell me, Lower, which news source was it that made it a big hullaballoo?”
Didn’t say Fox hasn’t reported on the mosque, just said that it was the NY Times that broke the story. So, it wasn’t this right-wing conspiracy, it was just newsworthy (for whatever reason the NY Times believed it was). The more people got upset, the more it was reported because people were watching and paying attention, and ratings increased. When will people begin to understand that practically all news organizations, including Fox News and the NY Times, simply give news that will keep their ratings higher? It’s no conspiracy, it’s information.
Nick said, “Oh and sorry, despite your delusion to the contrary, Mr. Hanley and I are two different people living in two different states. So apparently it’s you that has a mental problem.”
Sorry – your posts and James’ posts were beginning to look quite similar, though his continues to be somewhat less inflamitory. You may have missed it Nic, but what I was saying to James was that he was dangerously close to writing like you. I don’t think he took it as a compliment.
Nic said, “If you so oppose that mosque, lower, where was your objection years ago when the mosque was first put in that location?”
Where on earth are you getting this idea?? According to the NY Times, as quoted by Wikipedia, the building lay empty after 9/11 until September of 2009!! Please cite your documentation that it’s been there for years.
Nic said “WHy is it that you only suddenly developed this objection within the last two months?”
I don’t know where you’ve been…but you’ve been saying “two months” for over a month. :-)
Nic said, “And your side will also agree that the next time some christian commits an act of terror that means your side will be right there protesting any church near that site.”
I don’t have a “side” that I can speak for…it’s just little old me sitting in my chair blogging before going to work. That being said, absolutely – I’ll be right there (actually, probably still here blogging) to protest. I don’t remember any churches wanting to build right next to the abortion clinic that had a Dr. killed, do you?
Nic said, “It would have sat down quietly with the people involved and see if there was a compromise that could be reached.”
Isn’t that what your “bigoted” bishop tried to do? Shoot, even Pastor Terry Jones tried to meet with the Imam! Lots of people have met with the Imam, including Democrats.
LikeLike
James said, “Sorry, I’ve heard all your arguments, and Freeberg’s arguments, and other people’s arguments, about why the mosque “shouldn’t” be built there, and none of them add up to anything more than sheer silliness, people getting all giddy because it’s somewhere in the proximity of Ground Zero.
Does proximity ever matter? We had a whole long discussion with Ed scouring the globe looking for similar situations. He found some poor examples, like a Japanese cultural center over 10 miles away from Pearl Harbor, and a baseball field/7 11 near the WWII memorial in Nagasaki (or was it Hiroshima?). I can think of a few other Muslim mosques that have been placed at or near the cite of Islamic conquests, but that’s about all I can think of in parallel. Maybe there are some other paralells, but none have been produced here. Why? Because people don’t normally do this sort of thing. It’s the same reason I don’t see putting on a counter-protest rally against Westboro Baptist at a soldier’s funeral as a good idea. Why? Because it will only further distract from the memorial of the soldier and will inflate spotlight on WBC. I think that’s what’s happened here. Even if, as the Imam and other’s claim, that this mosque/community center is intended to work against terrorism, it’s doing the exact opposite. Whether he did it with good motives or not, by moving the mosque 600 ft. away, instead of 12 blocks away, Imam Rauf has taken the attention from where it belongs (on remembering the fallen and the heroism of 9/11) and placed it on himself and now is blaming the terrorists for making it necessary to keep the location.
James said, “And as I’ve noted elsewhere, although perhaps not here, I think when a person says, “I know you have the right to do X, but if you do it you’ll really offend me, so you shouldn’t do it,” they really are–effectively, if not nominally–opposing the other person’s rights. They’re saying, “You should not exercise your rights if I don’t like how you exercise them.””
It is inviting them to self-governance, yes. This happens every day in America. Again, I have the constitutional right to cheat on my wife, but I won’t. Others have said (including Jesus) that I shouldn’t do that. Do I baulk at how they are trying to infringe on my rights? Not at all! They (including Jesus) have my/my wife’s best interest in mind. Telling someone that they should govern themselves and not exercise every right they have by the constitution isn’t “the spirit of intollerance and oppression.” We weren’t made free by our founding fathers and our soldiers simply to do whatever we darn well please. That’s anarchy and the apex of selfishness. Our founders assumed that some level of self governance would take place. In fact, I believe it was Adams that said it like this, “We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/John.Adams.Quote.08DA
I am offended by Westboro Baptist Church and I was offended by Pastor Terry Jones. They are protected by the constitution, but yes, in some respects I would encourage them to limit their own freedom and not use their freedom as a license. Now with both of them, I have no choice but to allow them to use their rights how they want because if I don’t then it may be my rights infringed upon one day, so I support their freedom while encouraging them to use it differently. I am doing the same with this mosque (if it ever gets built). I won’t infringe on their rights, and am not undermining the constitution. Yes, I oppose the unethical exercise of rights, but ultimately, they will answer to God, not me and while I encourage the Imam to move the mosque, I won’t degrade his rights to keep it there.
James said (echoed by Ed), “If you really want to show how strong and free America is, the best thing is to let them build the mosque there, and say to the world, “Yeah, there’s a mosque near Ground Zero. So? We’re America. We’re not that fragile, fearful, and sensitive.””
I understand this logic, and it is probably the closest thing that comes to a good argument that is put forth by supporters of the mosque, but unfortunately…as you guys persist in saying…it’s a community center, so ultimately, it won’t accomplish that desired goal. Sorry…can’t have it both ways. Is it a mosque now?
James said, “If it ain’t bigotry, it’s cowardice. If it ain’t cowardice, it’s fear.”
And if it isn’t fear…when does ethics come into play?
LikeLike
You’ll have to excuse Nick.
He comes from a world in which it’s all about “sides.” Nothing else matters.
LikeLike
And again, Lower, if your side was really so interested in actually getting that mosque moved it wouldn’t have tried a protest. It would have sat down quietly with the people involved and see if there was a compromise that could be reached.
But sorry, thats not what your side wanted. What your side actually wanted was an issue to scare all the white people with in the hopes that they’ll vote Republican.
Again I ask…why should your sides bullying be rewarded?
LikeLike
And again, Lower, there has been a mosque on that spot for years. Whatever you fear obviously didn’t happen.
So why continue this nonsense of yours if this really isn’t about your fear and hatred of muslims?
LikeLike
Lower writes:
By the way Nic, according to that link I posted on the ground zero mosque from Wikipedia, it was the NY Times that broke the story on the mosque to the nation. Call out a witch hunt! Sounds like right-wing conservatives have infiltrated the NY Times!
Tell me, Lower, which news source was it that made it a big hullaballoo? Which news source was the one for days proclaiming “Those muslims are dishonoring our dead.” Or are you going to claim that Billo, Beck, Hannity and the rest work for the New York Times and not Fox?
Or did that train of thought not enter your mind?
Oh and sorry, despite your delusion to the contrary, Mr. Hanley and I are two different people living in two different states. So apparently it’s you that has a mental problem.
And what, Lower, would you call try applying one set of standars to one group and another set of standards to the rest of us, if not bigotry? What would you call infringing on one groups rights because of some dislike if not bigotry?
What would you call all the opposition going on of mosques around the country if not bigotry? Or are you going to continue to pretend that is some sort of stand alone complex?
If you so oppose that mosque, lower, where was your objection years ago when the mosque was first put in that location? Where was your objection to it a year ago when the proposed building was first proposed? WHy is it that you only suddenly developed this objection within the last two months? It doesn’t occur to you that suddenly developing an objection to something years after it was already there is more then a little suspicious?
You want to prove this isn’t about bigotry, Lower? Then you and your ilk will agree that absolutely no religious buildings at all will be within two blocks of the WTC site. None. Not Christian, not Jewish, none.
Lets see your side prove that this has nothing to do with an irrational fear and hatred of muslims by agreeing to live by the same rules they want others to abide by. And your side will also agree that the next time some christian commits an act of terror that means your side will be right there protesting any church near that site.
But as I said before..in the end it is what the law says that matters. Your side has no real recourse in this dispute. All your side is trying to do is to get its way by bullying. Sorry, you think that’s American? Sorry, that’s not.
You still want to sacrifice the ideals of this country just because on 9-11 you got scared ********. Sacrifice your morality for your irrational fear and hatred if you want but do the United States the favor and quit demanding that it follow your suit.
LikeLike
What he said.
What Washington said.
What Jefferson said.
And what Jefferson said about getting our own pockets picked.
LikeLike
lowerleavell,
No, I am not Nick.
And I am not personally offended that Freeberg said I always side with the darker-skinned person. As applied to me, that’s actually just kind of funny.
But Freeberg made it very clear that he thinks this is a racial issue. He seems very concerned about whites versus dark-skinned people. That’s what racists do. (And all racists are filth.)
Until now I hadn’t used that term because no one had made any racial comments that I had noticed. I do think you are bigoted against Muslims, but I don’t assume that’s necessarily based on race, so I have not called you a racist, and am not lumping you in with Freeberg on that score.
As to your general question, whether anyone can oppose the mosque without being this bad thing, that bad thing, or some other bad thing…No, I don’t think you can oppose it without being some kind of bad thing. Sorry, I’ve heard all your arguments, and Freeberg’s arguments, and other people’s arguments, about why the mosque “shouldn’t” be built there, and none of them add up to anything more than sheer silliness, people getting all giddy because it’s somewhere in the proximity of Ground Zero. I honestly can’t believe people are putting any effort into worrying about something so minor. Again, it’s about choosing to take offense.
And as I’ve noted elsewhere, although perhaps not here, I think when a person says, “I know you have the right to do X, but if you do it you’ll really offend me, so you shouldn’t do it,” they really are–effectively, if not nominally–opposing the other person’s rights. They’re saying, “You should not exercise your rights if I don’t like how you exercise them.”
That’s not the spirit of liberty and freedom. That’s the spirit of intolerance and oppression.
If you really want to show how strong and free America is, the best thing is to let them build the mosque there, and say to the world, “Yeah, there’s a mosque near Ground Zero. So? We’re America. We’re not that fragile, fearful, and sensitive.”
But instead, all you protesters of the mosque make America look very fragile and very fearful, and it’s all based on a ridiculous over-sensitivity.
If it ain’t bigotry, it’s cowardice. If it ain’t cowardice, it’s fear.
LikeLike
By the way Nic, according to that link I posted on the ground zero mosque from Wikipedia, it was the NY Times that broke the story on the mosque to the nation. Call out a witch hunt! Sounds like right-wing conservatives have infiltrated the NY Times!
LikeLike
James – Regarding Morgan: “But you’ve just demonstrated that you’re a racist piece of filth.”
I’m beginning to wonder if Nic has two accounts – or at least multiple personality disorder.
According to Nic, and let me see if I can get the list right – anyone who believes in the possibility that the mosque SHOULD (which has nothing to do with their constitutional rights – because AGAIN for the 100th time, no one disputes that!) be moved from the spot(inlcluding many Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Catholics – including the archbishop of NYC, – Protestants, Evangelicals, Jews, and…oh yeah, MUSLIMS) are “bigoted, racist, 1st ammendment hating, terrorist traitors!” These titles haven’t all been used at the same time, but they have all been put in reference to those who believe the mosque should take up the proposal to move the mosque for sake of peace. Are you sure these titles ring true for EVERY single person who believes the mosque should be moved?
And yet James is upset because one person makes one smart statement about him that he feels is untrue…even though Morgan never used the words “you are a racist.” I read something somewhere about doing to others what you want them to do to you…You have no right to be upset with “name calling” whether it is true or not when you engage in the practice on a regular basis. Not saying I agree with Morgan’s assesment or not, just saying you don’t have the right to rebuke it until you first apologize and regain your credibility from your own regular use of slander and rebuke your companions for the same.
LikeLike
Wow, so Morgan K. Freeberg plays the race card.
It’s not enough that I support the right of the white pastor Jones to burn his books. Nope, I always support the darkies against the whites.
It’s not enough that I just believe in live-and-let-live. No, it’s a race thing.
It’s not enough that I think it’s important to support moderate Muslims against the dangerous fundamentalist Muslims. No, I must be a race traitor.
As a matter of fact, in the eyes of racists, I am a race traitor, as my wife and kids are mixed race. Because unlike you, I don’t have any skin color rules.
But you’ve just demonstrated that you’re a racist piece of filth.
LikeLike
But thanks for admitting that your side is actually being unreasonable.
And thank you, Nick, for shining the light of truth on how closely you’ve been paying attention to the conversation. Or not.
Because that “conflict with the surrounding community” is contrived and fake. Again, Morgan, there’s been a mosque on that same exact site for years…and you and yours didn’t utter one peep of protest about it.
LL already took you to the woodshed over this, Nick, and very soundly.
I’ll just take a pass on the rest. It doesn’t matter because you aren’t paying attention.
You know, for awhile there I was bypassing any & all posts headlined with the name “Nick.” I wasn’t quite yet convinced you were a person; you were just regurgitating the same sound bites over and over again, like a script. Now I think you’re a human, but you have some kind of attention-deficit.
Have a nice evening, Nick.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
Are you honest enough that you can’t make your ideas look any more reasonable than the opposition, unless you can invent some things the opposition is saying? Since that’s what you’ve been doing from the very start.
Again, Morgan, you’re the only one, between you and me, being unreasanble. But thanks for admitting that your side is actually being unreasonable.
Morgan writes:
For the Muslim faith to yield in any conflict with the surrounding community,
Because that “conflict with the surrounding community” is contrived and fake. Again, Morgan, there’s been a mosque on that same exact site for years…and you and yours didn’t utter one peep of protest about it. But suddenly two months ago…a full year after the planned building got submitted to the New York authorities oh look..conflict appeared. The muslims didn’t go looking for this conflict, child, you and yours brought it upon them. And exactly why should you be given what you want when it is your side that started the conflict in the first place? Why should they be punished because you suddenly decided to oppose what they want…after years of not opposing what was already there?
Morgan writes:
You’re saying Islamic rage will be unleashed against us from the far corners of the world, unless every single Mosque that is planned, is constructed…and in the locations originally planned.
Sorry, didn’t say that at all. But where exactly did the US Constitution get changed to say that everyone has the same rights…except the muslims? What law was passed after 9-11 that says that muslims can’t build there? What I did say child was that you are giving the terrorists a perfect recruiting tool. You are proving them right..that muslims in this country are persecuted, that the United States muslims. You are trying to treat them as second class citizens. And you pretend you’re not a bigot?
Morgan writes:
But once the Mosques are constructed they can be contaminated with the stench of the unclean beast of cloven hoof. Nick shrugs, says that’s quite alright.
You sure you really want to take the position that religious law can be legislated? Because, Morgan, that is what you’re doing there.
Like I said before…if your side was being so rational and so reasonable you would have tried working out a compromise. You didn’t…your side tried bullying straight from the start. Bullies should be rewarded why?
And in the end, Morgan, what the law says is what will decide this. Unless those Muslims give up and thats not likely since this protest of yours has been going on for two months you have no ability to stop them.
And again…if you really objected to a mosque being that near the WTC site where were you for the last near 10 years? THere’s three mosques close to the WTC site…one of which is standing on the very piece of land you’re throwing such a fit about now.
And be real careful of playing this “I’m in the majority, I get to do what I please” nonsense because that can just as easily be used against you.
THere is an invasion going on here and it was brought upon by the terrorists. That invasion is the invasion of fear, of hatred, of prejudice, of intolerance.
And you, Lower and all the rest are complicit in that invasion. In short, Morgan, you are a traitor.
LikeLike
Or are you honest enough to admit that what you really want is liberty for yourself and shackles for everyone else?
Are you honest enough that you can’t make your ideas look any more reasonable than the opposition, unless you can invent some things the opposition is saying? Since that’s what you’ve been doing from the very start.
Anyway, that’s quite a stunning admission, Nick old boy. You’re saying Islamic rage will be unleashed against us from the far corners of the world, unless every single Mosque that is planned, is constructed…and in the locations originally planned. For the Muslim faith to yield in any conflict with the surrounding community, even a tiny bit, will cause untenable consternation and endanger our security.
Which seems, when one evaluates it rationally, like the very definition of an invasion.
But once the Mosques are constructed they can be contaminated with the stench of the unclean beast of cloven hoof. Nick shrugs, says that’s quite alright.
It’s about following the letter of the law when Nick says…and it’s about something else, when Nick says.
Nice.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
What do you think of Greg Gutfield’s plan to open gay bars and pork sausage factories right across the street from Park51? …
*shrugs* As long as he meets all the legal requirements I don’t give a damn.
But you’re going to protest him doing that right? You, Lower and all the rest of your ilk are going to protest him doing that right?
Or are you honest enough to admit that what you really want is liberty for yourself and shackles for everyone else?
LikeLike
Wow, now that’s just truly whacked. Did you forget to take your meds today? Are you under some kind of misapprehension that there’s any real logic to that paragraph? It’s just a bizarre meaningless screed that makes me wonder if you’re in your mom’s basement furiously typing away before she comes back and puts the mittens on so you don’t scratch yourself. I mean that’s just batshit insane type whackery.
Just trying to find a perspective by which your statements make some kind of sense.
You continue to start out saying what’s right, what’s wrong, how you don’t care what the other guy thinks…and then all your statements end up right back at the bulls-eye of “So THAT’S why I’m better than you are.”
Like people who are accustomed to arguing to conserve their social stature within a village; not to figuring out how things actually work, or need to work, to produce a desired result.
LikeLike
What’s really funny is that first Morgan says I owe 71% of the people in this country, so apparently I’m in a minority that consists of less than 1/3 of my fellow citizens.
Then he accuses me of being the kind of person who sucks up to the majority so I won’t get booted off the island.
That’s hilarious.
Exactly who is sucking up to the majority here, Mr. Freeberg?
I dunno Jim, I’m not sucking up to anyone. I’m calling out dickish behavior where I see it, without regard to skin color while you’re apparently judging these situations according to some “guy with the darkest skin always wins” standard. Which looks quite silly when you see Imam Rauf and Pastor Terry Jones running essentially the same scheme, back to back with each other.
It’s the kind of argument that only makes sense when you’re sucking up.
LikeLike
Nick says,
The 1st and 14th Admendments of the US Constitution grant those muslims you so don’t like the same rights as you. Like it or not that is the truth.
We aren’t debating that, Nick. As you have been told, by LL, repeatedly.
We are debating the free speech of the locals, and the families of the victims, to speak against it and to protest it. You are trying to convince me that such free speech is somehow over the line.
And failing at it rather miserably. And so you’re trying to sell me on the idea that I’m a bigot because you’re used to people being bullied in this way.
It’s not working here.
So you’re getting agitated and angry. Meanwhile, I’m waiting for a convincing argument out of you.
Please try to keep track of the conversation.
LikeLike
What’s really funny is that first Morgan says I owe 71% of the people in this country, so apparently I’m in a minority that consists of less than 1/3 of my fellow citizens.
Then he accuses me of being the kind of person who sucks up to the majority so I won’t get booted off the island.
That’s hilarious.
Exactly who is sucking up to the majority here, Mr. Freeberg?
LikeLike
I wrote:
And you oh conservative are a throwback to that period of human evolution where humans lived in caves and grunted as a form of communication.
I have to correct that. That should read “And you, oh fake conservative, are a throwback….”
Morgan writes:
It’s fair for you to lump people together, but then those people can’t come back and do the same thing to you
Considering that you and lower were the first to “lump people together” I don’t think you’re in a position to whine. Or did you somehow not notice that you were lumping all Muslims together and then deciding that they don’t have the same rights as you?
Again, Morgan, there is already a mosque on that piece of land. There has been one for years. And you and your side never objected to it. In fact some on your side praised it. Sorry, if your side never had a problem with it before it doesn’t suddenly get to become a problem. If your side wasn’t offended by it before you don’t suddenly get to decide to be offended by it. If you didn’t oppose it then you have no grounds to oppose it now.
So turn around and go repent for your foolish hatred and fear. Same goes for you, Lower. Its time you repent for you, oh fellow Christian, letting fear and hatred cloud your soul.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
are they really that dickish?”
Are you really that dickish, Morgan? You are demanding that a group of people surrender their rights to your whim not because they did anything wrong. But because you want to blame them for what others did wrong.
If a majority can trump other peoples rights, Morgan, then your rights are also on that same chopping block. Because sooner or later there will be a majority that you don’t belong to. Whether its political, racial or whathave you.
Sorry, morgan, this is not a pure democracy. Never has been, the founding fathers were scared to death of that. They considered it the gateway to tyranny.
You can cite whatever opinion poll you want but opinion polls don’t decide law and they sure don’t decide what is right and what is wrong.
The 1st and 14th Admendments of the US Constitution grant those muslims you so don’t like the same rights as you. Like it or not that is the truth. And they have every right to exercise those rights..that includes building mosques where they want as long as they meet the local ordinances of whereever they’re building. You have no actual power to stop that mosque from being built. And this protest of yours isn’t going to work. People don’t like being bullied into something. Which is why I said it was stupid that your side went straight for the protest instead of being civil and diplomatic and trying to reach a compromise. But a compromise, Morgan, requires that both sides give up something. A one sided compromise, Morgan, is just another term for the word “surrender.”
But the reality is that your side isn’t actually interested in reaching a compromise nor is it actually interested in “preserving the honor of the 9-11 victims.” Nor is it actually interested in stopping that mosque. Your side is interested, Morgan, in using the muslims in this country as a scapegoat in order for your side to scare all the white people into voting Republican. Your side is willing to turn muslims into second class citizens as long as that means your party regains power. Just as your side did against hispanics, the poor, the unemployed, the middle class, blacks and gays.
And you say my side is the one being irrational? Not only is your side being irrational…its using the same tactics the Nazi’s did against the Jews.
Despite your delusion I don’t hate Republicans or even conservatives. My dad is one. My mom was one. Most of my family are Republicans. But see…they’re old school Republicans. You, Lower and most of the Republican party of today are not. You’re Republicans in name only. Conservatives in name only. As for my being partisanship I will seek to work with Republicans..I will trumpet bipartisanship, Morgan, when they return to being the center right party instead of the far right party. When your party bothers to remember to be bipartisan in return then I will likewise bother to be bipartisan. But if you think my side is to blame for the partisanship going on…the hatred going on, you are kidding yourself. But from where I stand right now your party has gone so far off the deep end into whackjob land that my party needs to stand up to yours and quit pretending that your party is at all interested in fixing the problems this country faces.
Your party has made an artform of being hyperpartisan…of using hatred as a tool. If my side had been as partisan as yours, Morgan, George W Bush and Dick Cheney would have been tried, impeached and imprisoned as war criminals. Oh..and not even I wanted that. But your party spent 8 years trying to impeach Clinton on anything. Your side has spent the last 2 years trying to find something to hang on Obama. Your party spent the years between Clinton and Obama absolutely painting the Democrats as communists/socialists, as not loving the United States, as helping terrorists, as traitors. And the second that a Democrat wins the White House again your party starts talking about secession and “armed revolution.”
That you sit there and claim my party is the one responsible for all the partisanship going on is either laughably pathetic…or stupidly insane. That you sit there and say that, Morgan, proves that you are far more partisan then even I am. At least I’m not so partisan that I’ve blinded myself to reality and deluded myself into beleiving that a lie is the truth.
And at least I’m still moral enough…Christian enough…Republican enough to recognize that hatred and fear should be shunned, not embraced. Oh did I forget? I’m a former Republican. The reason I’m not anymore is simple. It’s not that I left the Republican party…its that it left me when it went so far to the right that I no longer recognize it for what it was. See, my disdain for you and your precious “conservatives” comes from the fact that you guys wrecked my party and drove it into the hands of the crazies and the lunatics. It isn’t that I hate the REpublican party…its that I pity them.
Sorry, Morgan, when a party embraces fear and hatred and terror as political tools it no longer deserves power.
Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower would slap you, Lower and the rest in the face at what you’ve let the Republican party become.
Let me know when you want to start being rational, Morgan. Because you haven’t yet. Same goes for you, Lower. Because fear and hatred can not coexist with rationality. They destroy rationality, they don’t help it.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
Morgan Freeberg wrote”
Conclusion: Politics have become incendiary in America since the Florida debacle of 2000, and it’s the fault of the people on the left, like yourself and Nick. There are just too many issues on which, when people like you find out someone is in disagreement, suddenly you’re complete experts on why. And the other person is always some kind of sub-human monster. For eleven years it all leads straight back to that…doesn’t matter what the issue is.
Oh no, Morgan, my side may share the blame but your side holds most of it. Or did you forget the right’s impeachment of Clinton over an affair? From day one of Clinton’s presidency your side was looking for any means necessary to get rid of him. Or the sudden talk among Republicans about secession when Obama won. Or the painting of Democrats as traitors and “wanting terrorists to win” when we opposed Bush’s misadventure in Iraq. Or doing the same when we opposed Bush’s authorization of torture or his authorization of warantless wiretapping of US citizens.
Your side is far more incendiary and far more partisan then mine has ever dreamed of. Your side is so partisan that it can no longer win elections based on anything substantive. Its only tactic, Morgan, is terror and fear.
Morgan writes:
You’re a liberal, because you’re a throwback to that period of human evolution where we lived in villages
And you oh conservative are a throwback to that period of human evolution where humans lived in caves and grunted as a form of communication.
Morgan writes:
Most Muslims across the globe, who are paying attention to the Victory Mosque controversy, think the Mosque should be moved somewhere else. It has been that way for awhile.
Now, all three of you, Ed Nick + You, are on record with this argument from the pre-rational-thinking village: “You have to be on my side on this thing or you’re a BIGOT! And I reject you! Ostracize him! Him before me!” And you’d all like to project the image you’ve thought this through rationally…but if you’re being rational, and intellectually honest, and consistent, well that must mean 58 percent of Muslims are bigots. Against Muslims.
Exactly what opinion poll do you have of the world’s muslims? And exactly where in your mind does opinion poll trump US law?
It isn’t us that aren’t thinking rationally, Morgan, its you. You and Lower and all the rest of your ilk are pulling this “My feelings trump the law and other peoples rights” bullshit. You have yet to propose anything rational, think anything rational or do anything rational. If you were acting rational you wouldn’t have gone straight for the gin up hatred of muslims protest. You would have tried being diplomatic and negotiating to see if there was a compromise. But rationality also demands, child, that when those you are asking to compromise are not interested in it you accept that. You can’t force people to compromise, Morgan.
And as for the bigotry, sorry no your claim doesn’t wash. You’re not a bigot because you disagree with us. You’re a bigot because you’re letting your fear and hatred of Muslims cloud your rational judgement.
I’m going to assume you voted for McCain right? Well I disagree with that. But that doesn’t make you a bigot in my mind. It just simply means you disagreed with me on that.
But when it comes to Muslims you are a bigot. You let the terrorists win in your mind. Because of their actions you’re willing to treat all muslims…even US citizens as second class..that they don’t have the same rights you do. That they only have rights if you grant it to them.
Well sorry, Morgan, your opinion doesn’t trump their rights. nor does your opinion trump the fact that there has been a mosque on that piece of land for years and you never had a problem with it. Until you got told by Faux News and the irresponsible right wing to have a problem with it.
Like I said…it is you that is being irrational. Your entire side is being irrational. And you can pretend otherwise all you want, Morgan, but you’re only deluding yourself.
You can whine about being called a bigot all you want…but when it comes to your position on that mosque you are a bigot. Pretend otherwise if you want if that helps you sleep through the night…but a bigot you are and a bigot you will remain until you quit damning your soul with fear and hatred.
LikeLike
It’s fine by me. Did you actually think I might object? You really don’t get what liberty means, do you? It means liberty for others, just as for myself.
And you can call me a liberal if you want. Actual liberals don’t, though, so I’m not sure what’s gained by it.
Wow, now that’s just truly whacked. Did you forget to take your meds today? Are you under some kind of misapprehension that there’s any real logic to that paragraph? It’s just a bizarre meaningless screed that makes me wonder if you’re in your mom’s basement furiously typing away before she comes back and puts the mittens on so you don’t scratch yourself. I mean that’s just batshit insane type whackery. I thought I was communicating with someone who was wrong, but not way of the deep end, but I guess you’ve just cleared up that misconception.
LikeLike
Yes Jim. It’s fair for you to lump people together, but then those people can’t come back and do the same thing to you. You’re not a liberal. Got it.
You’re a liberal, because you’re a throwback to that period of human evolution where we lived in villages. During a famine, or threat of famine, people would do their best to impress each other so that when it came time to ostracize individuals and shut them out of the gates, for the good of the collective, it would be some other guy who’d get the shaft. So they said nonsensical things to ingratiate themselves with the majority. That’s what makes a liberal.
Nonsensical things like…
In the end, it doesn’t really matter to me whether you get angry at being called a bigot. If you don’t want to be called a bigot, don’t act like a bigot. But I’m not going to stop pointing out bigotry in the world just because the bigots don’t like it.
Exactly what Ed said.
Most Muslims across the globe, who are paying attention to the Victory Mosque controversy, think the Mosque should be moved somewhere else. It has been that way for awhile.
Now, all three of you, Ed Nick + You, are on record with this argument from the pre-rational-thinking village: “You have to be on my side on this thing or you’re a BIGOT! And I reject you! Ostracize him! Him before me!” And you’d all like to project the image you’ve thought this through rationally…but if you’re being rational, and intellectually honest, and consistent, well that must mean 58 percent of Muslims are bigots. Against Muslims.
So, no. You aren’t arriving at a logical conclusion that I’m a bigot, or anybody else is a bigot. You’re just trying to work your way closer to the top of a social strata of a larger collective, which is apparently composed of dimbulbs.
Meanwhile, I’m curious. What do you think of Greg Gutfield’s plan to open gay bars and pork sausage factories right across the street from Park51? He’s already bought the land for it, he didn’t realize it would cause such a huge stir and if he’d known it, then he never would have started this thing. But now that he’s all locked & loaded it’s way too late to pull out of the plan…the homosexual community would look at it as a rebuke if Gutfield’s gay bar was moved somewhere else. So the poor guy, he’s really in a pickle.
LikeLike
Morgan Freeberg wrote”
Two comments. One, I’m not a liberal, but a libertarian. I’m pro-gun rights, pro-property rights, pro-free trade, and in favor of substantial amounts of de-regulation.
Second, it’s a pathetic lie to blame the left for demonization and all the bitterness of politics. It’s the conservatives who called people un-American and anti-American for opposing the Iraq war. Conservatives called people un-patriotic for criticizing the president while Bush was in office, but now think it’s perfectly OK to criticize Obama (it is, I do it myself, but at least I’m not a hypocrite like conservatives are).
And when you single out one particular group that’s done nothing wrong and demonize them, like you’re demonizing Rauf and his group, it takes a whole lot of chutzpa to complain about others doing the demonizing.
And it’s not that you’re a sub-human monster. Bigotry is, unfortunately, a very human attribute. But when you single out a particular group and try to deny them the free exercise of their rights, whether by law or by political pressure–when you demand that they jump through special hoops that nobody else has to–it’s nearly always driven by bigotry. And bigots always come up with justifications for their actions to try to pretend it’s not bigotry. It’s a rare bigot who can own up to it. It’s hard to recognize this ugly part of ourselves, because it ruins our own self-perception of ourself as a good person.
In the end, it doesn’t really matter to me whether you get angry at being called a bigot. If you don’t want to be called a bigot, don’t act like a bigot. But I’m not going to stop pointing out bigotry in the world just because the bigots don’t like it.
LikeLike
Lowerleavel,
I have to confess to being really tired of people’s misuse of Taqiyya. It doesn’t mean Muslims get to lie willy-nilly to non-Muslims. It means that under situations where they may be persecuted, they may be justified in hiding their faith. Rauf can hardly be said to be hiding his faith. But people like you mis-use that concept to assume Muslims are lying any time they say something that you don’t want to believe is true.
That’s very dishonest of you.
At least you’re honest in your bigotry, though, admitting that even if Rauf’s goal really is to bring people of different faiths together and demonstrate a moderate Islam opposed to fundamentalism. Just don’t expect non-bigoted people to respect that.
The only reason I don’t believe your immortal soul’s in danger is because I don’t believe in any such thing as a soul, mortal or immortal. But if you had one, I would think it would indeed be endangered. Certainly no more than my own, though.
LikeLike
Morgan Freeberg,
Nick and Ed have pretty much given my response. You take Rauf’s comments as being contradictory, hence you claim that he’s lying. But the conclusion doesn’t hold up. Let’s give your thoughts the benefit of the doubt, and–purely for the sake of argument–agree that Rauf is making a second mistake in believing that principle requires him to stay at that location. If so, all that would prove is he’s making a second mistake, not that he’s dishonest.
And there is a real logic to his argument. If he’s pressured into moving, the way it looks to Muslims around the world is that Muslims are being treated unfairly in the U.S., confirming their fears about us. You say, “are they really that dickish?” Hell, yeah, people of every race, creed, color, ethnicity, ideology, and religion have a tendency to be that dickish.
But there’s also the point that we wouldn’t have to worry about how Muslims around the world react if people like you had had the maturity and grace to just shrug your shoulders, and go, “heh, ok,” instead of getting all wound up over what really should be nothing. Imam Rauf’s mistake was in not realizing that in fact there are a whole lot of Americans intent on being dickish toward Muslims.
In the end, even with your latest post, your argument still comes down to, “he shouldn’t build it because it offends me.” That’s very childish.
LikeLike
But it would keep the actual moderate Muslims from starting to think that maybe the militants are right…that the United States is at war with the entirety of Islam and hates muslims.
This may come as a shock to you Nick, but the same principle applies in the opposite direction. There is some ugly innuendo going against Muslims…there are militant non-Muslims who say radical Islam is trying to invade the world one country at a time…there are moderate non-Muslims who insist the radicals are a minority within the Muslim community.
But can’t prove it. So the controversy exists, in the non-Muslim world, about what exactly Islam is.
You aren’t seriously so dense that this has all been flying over your head, are you?
Now then. Applying your own rule — I mean, unless you want to do some of that evil, awful discriminating — the Muslims need to prove this isn’t a “victory mosque” by acquiescing. That will strengthen the hand of the moderate non-Muslims. According to your own rule. That’s the way things work, right?
Must be. Otherwise, you’d have to treat different races & creeds differently, and I know you’re above all that.
LikeLike
Nic said, “There was a mosque on that same exact piece of land for years, Morgan, and you and your ilk said not one word of objection about it.”
I’ll assume that “years” means since September 2009.
Apparently, I’m not the only one who can be accused of not doing research.
“For years, Mitani has attempted to sell the building, at one point asking for $18 million. Until its 2009 purchase the building lay abandoned.[62] For several months after its purchase, since September 2009, the building was used as an overflow prayer space for up to 450 Muslims, with services led by Feisal Abdul Rauf, an Imam based at a mosque in nearby TriBeCa.”
wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51
An article well worth reading to understanding the timeline and other points of clarity on the subject.
LikeLike
And as for that rule little 52…curiously that rule accurately describes you, Lower, and your fellow right wingers.
That you are angry people making demands and if given that demand you’re not going to stop being angry.
Those muslims are under no obligation to give you what you want. Its time you and Lower and all the rest acknowledge that fact and move on.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
That’s a Pastor-Terry-Jones level of dickishness, right there. Hey, they’re going to be our best buds once Rauf is allowed to build this thing, right? Right?
No..they’re not. But it would keep the actual moderate Muslims from starting to think that maybe the militants are right…that the United States is at war with the entirety of Islam and hates muslims. Part of the way to fight the terrorists, Morgan, is to strengthen the hand of the moderate muslims and to make sure that the United States does not go around acting like it is at war with the entirety of Islam. That the United States does not start treating its own citizens who are Muslims as second class citizens..as threats against the United States merely because of what religion they follow.
You, Lower, and all the rest are failing miserably on that. You are strengthening the hands of the terrorists merely because of your stupid fear. You are being dicks for no more reason other then you have an irrational bigotry against muslims.
LikeLike
You forgot #5.
Maybe you forgot #33, too.
LikeLike
No, they’re never going to be our friends. Right now we’re hoping they don’t shoot our sons and daughters long enough we can help them get on their own feet.
These guys:
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
But he acknowledges it causes a lot of terrible pain to build the mosque on the site he has selected.
*yawns* Yeah curiously the fact that there has been a mosque there already for the last couple years never caused any pain. Or that the proposed new building with the new mosque has been in the planning stage for at least the last year has never caused any pain either.
Until right before the midterms elections when lo and behold the terroricans use it to scare all the white people into voting for them.
Sorry, Morgan, when there has been a mosque there for years and yet no protests or objection to it…when there has been a mosque in the proposed building for the last year and yet no protests or objections to it…until just the last two months any claim of “I’m offended” or “they’re causing pain” is nothing other then utter bullshit.
LikeLike
I swear Morgan you and Lower are exactly like the woman in my town who has spent the past 8 years just absolutely railing against all the growth going on in my town. She has literally stood in front of city council meetings and has said that all the people who have moved into town are of low moral character and are “obnoxious” for moving into my town and changing it from a small sleepy little farm town into an exurb of 20 thousand people.
Of couse the fact that after she turned 18 she moved down to Arizona for the next 30 years and then only came back to steal her mother’s farm out from under her brother who was the one that spent his life farming it doesn’t somehow enter her mind. Also the fact that when she insults all the nonnative (thats her term) people who have moved into my town that she is being far more obnoxious and dickish then she pretends the new people in town are being also doesn’t enter her mind.
The point being, Morgan, is that you and Lower and your fellow little protestors are being twice the dicks that you’re pretending the Imam was being. You have gone beyond obnoxiousness to straight out bigotry, hatred and stupid prejudice.
It isn’t the Imam who did something offensive…its you. His intent was never to offend. But your intent, twit, has to be offensive from the start. SOrry, Morgan, that makes you far worse then the Imam.
So its time for you to shut up and sit down.
LikeLike
But he acknowledges it causes a lot of terrible pain to build the mosque on the site he has selected. He goes much further than yourself, Ed or Nick in acknowledging this pain. He says If he’d known at the outset of the controversy this would cause he would not have done it.
Where I came from that, we have a word for that: MISTAKE.
~~~~~
So you should have absolutely no problem in acknowledging the mistake you and yours are making in continuing this stupid controversy and using it to gin up fear and hatred against muslims.
You keep on spouting off that my side of this debate is acting dickish. But you are acting even more dickish.
Again, Morgan, just because you decided to be a dick and claim that the proposal is somehow offensive when it spent the last few years not even being offensive at all does not somehow make it actually offensive.
The only mistake made, Morgan, was made by your side in making this a stupid controversy when it was never a controversy from the start.
There was a mosque on that same exact piece of land for years, Morgan, and you and your ilk said not one word of objection about it. But we’re supposed to take your sudden offensiveness at it seriously? Oh please. That’s rather like how somehow George Bush and company decided to be mad at Saddam Hussein for killing his own people…30 years after the fact.
This is only a controversy in your little mind.
LikeLike
Sometimes we have to follow through to avoid worse consequences.
And then, we take note of the fact that the original move was a mistake. So no one repeats it.
Hey by the way — who are these Muslims around the world who would interpret a mere relocation of the mosque, as some kind of fightin’ words?
That’s a Pastor-Terry-Jones level of dickishness, right there. Hey, they’re going to be our best buds once Rauf is allowed to build this thing, right? Right?
Because if they aren’t, the whole argument makes no sense. There’s no gain from following it. It reminds us of the wisdom of the House of Eratosthenes Thing I Know #52…yet one more time.
Somehow, “civilized” societies have to keep learning that one over and over.
LikeLike
Like the decision to support the French against the Vietnamese freedom movement? In 1968, to cure that mistake, abandoning South Vietnam would have been rather poor form, no?
Like the decision to invade Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from attacking the U.S. with poisons or nuclear weapons? Now we know there were no poisons or nuclear weapons aimed at the U.S., nor that could have been aimed at the U.S. So do we just pull out of Iraq and say “oopsies!?”
Imam Rauf is in an unfortunate position — but it’s not his doing. He didn’t intend to raise a ruckus. No, he can’t retreat without terrible things happening to the U.S. as a result — and he’s a patriot for sticking the course.
Sometimes we have to follow through to avoid worse consequences.
LikeLike
Funny, Morgan, the exact same can be said about yourself. So why don’t you take your own advice [keep opinion to yourself].
I’m using sound logic to show that you and James, and to a lesser degree Ed, are in the process of becoming precisely what you loathe; therefore, you way(s) of looking at the issue is/are, simply, dysfunctional.
You’re just repeating the same conjecture over and over again, about what motivates others whom you don’t know and aren’t going to know. And injecting yourself into a dialogue in which I’m directly addressing an individual — by name — who isn’t you. Just to re-iterate the same stuff one more time.
I’m saying things that hurt your agenda because they make too much sense. You’re saying things that are redundant, boring and tiresome.
See? Different things are different. Similar things are similar. Similar things aren’t different, and different things aren’t similar.
LikeLike
These are two of the definitions of the word “terrorize”:
1. to fill or overcome with terror.
2. to dominate or coerce by intimidation.
Would you like to explain how in God’s name the right wing in this country does not fit those definitions?
Just noticed something.
Actually no…I’ve been noticing this for awhile: Would you, Nick, like to explain how Rauf’s statement, the one about “I have to build it or death and destruction will result,” doesn’t fit both of these, particularly #2?
In fact, I just noticed something else…actually no, I’ve been noticing this for awhile too. You just brought it up again:
You are trying to apply a special set of rules to Muslims that you’re not trying to apply to others. You are judging the entirety of Islam by the actions of a few…and you think you’re not being a bigot? Sorry, no. That’s the definition of bigotry.
If you want to use your definition of terrorism to call the right wing terrorists, and rationalize away any call to do the same with Imam Rauf, then you are, by your own definition, a bigot.
LikeLike
These are two of the definitions of the word “terrorize”:
1. to fill or overcome with terror.
2. to dominate or coerce by intimidation.
Would you like to explain how in God’s name the right wing in this country does not fit those definitions?
Because its not exactly a stretch of the imagination to say that your party has become the party of terror.
Two months those dimwitted protests have been going on. Have they accomplished what you want? Do you honestly think they have any hope of doing so? What’s the point if its not to gin up fear and hatred of Muslims? Because it sure as hell isn’t to move that mosque because the muslims there have made it clear they’re not doing what you want.
Its time to give it up.
LikeLike
And again..that nunnery at Auschwitz was on the grounds of Auschwitz. Furthermore it was in the building that the Nazi’s used to store the gas that they killed the Jews with. This proposed mosque is not on the WTC grounds, its a couple blocks away. So false comparison.
And the protests prove nothing. It is a contrived protest on a contrived issue that wasn’t an problem until Faux News and the right wing decided to use it in order to score political points and fear the people into voting for them.
The fact that there has been a mosque in that building that is there now for years…the fact that noone objected to the proposed building having a mosque in it until the last two months despite the fact that building has been in the planning stages for the last year proves beyond a doubt that the whole protest is nothing but a bigotted fake.
You are trying to apply a special set of rules to Muslims that you’re not trying to apply to others. You are judging the entirety of Islam by the actions of a few…and you think you’re not being a bigot? Sorry, no. That’s the definition of bigotry.
Just because you decided they were being provactive doesn’t make it so. You have no evidence, you have just your opinion. And sorry, your opinion doesn’t mean a damn thing. Opinion does not trump law.
LikeLike
And I disagree. I don’t think any government should play favorites in this — this sect lost members in the WTC attack, Islam lost members and two prayer sites in the WTC itself, and so saying Moslems may not have a prayer site is rude and provocative.
If it’s offensive, say so without exaggeration. It’s not a “victory mosque,” nor was it ever billed as such. If the offense were in the quiet worship, it’s odd that no one noticed sometime in the past 9 years and complained earlier.
So I think it’s a contrived controversy, a controversy contrived to capitalize on fear and unthinking.
In the grand scheme of things, what difference could it make, except as a precedent that religious freedom is less than the founders intended?
LikeLike
No, because you proceed on a false assumption that it’s equally reasonable to believe or disbelieve someone when there is no other evidence.
:
I’m willing to call someone a bigot if they oppose this community center because I see no good grounds for opposing it. I have listened to the argument–including those of you and lowerleavell–and I hear nothing that begins to persuade me that the opposition is based on anything other than bigotry.
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.
Just for reference, more like a refresher, this is the person I’m supposed to take at his word, and if I don’t then I’m a bigot:
“If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse,” Rauf told CNN. “The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.
Earlier in the interview, he says:
>“If I knew this would happen, that this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn’t have done it.”
Now…put these two together. And I’d like you to keep in mind, James, that since you’re judging people as bigots for not agreeing with you — it doesn’t matter if you find the conclusion persuasive here. It matters only that the logic is reasonable. Because you are, after all, doing exactly what I said you were doing: Coming to a conclusion that isn’t proven, and then smearing the character of everyone (71% of the country, or so) who doesn’t arrive at the same conclusion you do:
Let’s evaluate the logic of the opposite — your viewpoint. James says Imam Rauf is telling the truth…hypothesizing that way…rather rigidly. So Imam Rauf doesn’t lie. Imam Rauf, who tells the truth all the time, is saying the mosque is now in an unfortunate position, one that is unfortunately intermingled with our national security. It must be built or else the message will be interpreted to mean Islam is under attack.
But he acknowledges it causes a lot of terrible pain to build the mosque on the site he has selected. He goes much further than yourself, Ed or Nick in acknowledging this pain. He says If he’d known at the outset of the controversy this would cause he would not have done it.
Where I came from that, we have a word for that: MISTAKE.
And when you have a mistake that causes a situation, much easier to enter than to exit, we have other words for that. FUBAR. BOONDOGGLE. CONUNDRUM.
Now, when you take the mission importantly…and Imam Rauf always tells the truth, Jim says so, so he must take it extra importantly…and you just made a boondoggle that endangers the goal of the mission which is fellowship and peace. What do you do? What’s the first thing you do when you find you’ve dug a hole for yourself, and it’s going to be difficult to get out of it, and the hole poses a direct danger to the goal of your mission?
Answer: Get the word out, to others who might be thinking about doing what you did, that they shouldn’t do it. That would be Step One.
Step two: Accept Gov. Paterson’s offer of land for an alternative site. Or at the very least, mull it over. You don’t go saying “no can do, it’s the principle of the thing.” Not if you see the situation the way Imam Rauf said he sees it…as a regrettable mistake that, if he’d known the situation would turn out the way it did, he wouldn’t have done it.
If you regret it, you minimize the damage instead of trying to exacerbate it.
So this is what I was talking about when I said his statements are at odds with his actions. Imam Rauf is exactly like the husband who is oh so sorry he gave his wife a black eye, he loves ya baby, he’ll never do it again…and then one bottle of hooch later he blackens the other eye and knocks some teeth loose.
I suppose if that sort of fellow has a substance abuse problem he can get away with not being a “liar,” per se. But let us just agree, if we can’t agree on anything else, that there are rational reasons for not believing everything he says. Right?
And if there are rational reasons, I’d say 71% of the country is owed an apology from you, Jim.
You know, there’s a serious side to this. If you think Imam Rauf is telling the truth, and I think he’s being less than straight with people for the reasons I’ve walked through, above — we can have a civil conversation about it. We don’t even have to be friends at the end of it. But we can be rational and friendly and everyone around us, even if they’d like to discuss something else, can feel comfortable about it.
But if you start calling me a bigot for not agreeing with you, that no longer holds true.
Conclusion: Politics have become incendiary in America since the Florida debacle of 2000, and it’s the fault of the people on the left, like yourself and Nick. There are just too many issues on which, when people like you find out someone is in disagreement, suddenly you’re complete experts on why. And the other person is always some kind of sub-human monster. For eleven years it all leads straight back to that…doesn’t matter what the issue is.
That isn’t healthy.
I really thought you were better than Nick. But it seems my two bullet points have been proven correct, which means you form unsubstantiated opinions, and with differing opinions remaining entirely reasonable, you leap to the worst conclusion you can about the people who hold them. I guess you & Nick are two of a kind, but your knee-jerkiness is somewhat slower.
LikeLike
Hard to trust someone’s motives when lying to you is a perfectly acceptable practice. When this is the standard, it makes trust practically impossible.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
Irregardless of whether Rauf is lying or not, to me, is not the issue. I, frankly, don’t really care. For me, it could be George W. building the mosque – I wouldn’t care and it wouldn’t change anything for me. Just as it didn’t matter the character of Pope John Paul II or the Catholic Church at Auschwitz. No one had to impugn the nun’s character or the character of the pope to make them leave. That wasn’t this issue at hand. The pope’s decision was simply right. For me, that is the sum of my contention for the mosque being moved – not because they’re lying – not because I’m bigoted against them – but because I believe that the better part of virtue would dictate that the mosque, in that particular location next to ground zero, is not in the best interest of the community/country (as seen by the protests, counter protests, and the debate that has gone on across the country).
I am sure that some take a position against the mosque because they have bigoted bias against Islam. But, is that a universal quality of every single person who takes up an opinion that the mosque would be better served at a different location? Does every person who takes a different view than yours have a problem with their character in the matter? Especially those who also had a problem with the pastor burning the Quran based on the exact same principles? This is a big question – think carefully.
By the way, the difference in this discussion between Nic and James is that Nic believes that disagreement with him on this discussion means you’re “damning your soul”. I doubt that James takes this same stand.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
Nobody’s going to appreciate your opinion in this little exchange, save for those who already agree with you, so you can keep it to yourself.
Funny, Morgan, the exact same can be said about yourself. So why don’t you take your own advice.
Are you so unable to defend yourself or your position that you’re left with nothing but prattling that sort of nonsense?
LikeLike
Morgan Freeberg wrote:
No, because you proceed on a false assumption that it’s equally reasonable to believe or disbelieve someone when there is no other evidence.
Basic courtesy requires that we take someone at their word if their claims are reasonable, unless we have some reason to disbelieve them.
Do you make a habit of assuming every new person who talks to you is a liar, until you have evidence otherwise? I think that would be a sad life, and I suspect your life isn’t that sad and anti-social.
But in fact there is some reason to believe Imam Rauf. George W. Bush asked him to be a special envoy. He has written about Islam and repeatedly pressed for a moderate interpretation of it that functions well in a politically secular country.
So on at least two levels, no, I don’t agree that those who brand him a liar without evidence are being anywhere near as reasonable as those who take him at his word.
I suspect those who assume he’s lying (and how would any of us like that to be how people respond to us?) are mostly people who don’t have experience with moderate Muslims. I have a number of moderate Muslim friends. I know what they believe, and the things Rauf says sounds just like the things they say. There are Muslims in America who love and respect American ideals, want to share in them, and want to stand with their country against the radicals. But when we oppose moderate Islam so ferociously, we make it difficult for them to have any place to stand.
I’m willing to call someone a bigot if they oppose this community center because I see no good grounds for opposing it. I have listened to the argument–including those of you and lowerleavell–and I hear nothing that begins to persuade me that the opposition is based on anything other than bigotry.
It doesn’t mean these people are bad through and through, just flawed. I once worked with a guy who repeatedly told me how much he hated “ni**ers” and “queers.” He was a tremendously nice guy who would literally give you the shirt off his back. But he was a bigot. I would be entirely shocked if I learned that you, lowerleavell, or the Archibishop of New York were horrible people through and through with no redeeming qualities. I’m sure your families love you, that you have friends, and that you don’t steal and are probably kind to animals. The same was true of many southerners in the pre-civil rights era. Senator Richard Russel of Georgia was an extremely intelligent and well-read man, and a true southern gentleman. But he was a bigot, a racist who fought desegregation and civil rights tooth and nail.
So to say a person is a bigot is to impugn only the bigotry. I have nothing more to go on to judge the character of these folks beyond that.
LikeLike
That’s okay, Nick. I’m asking for Jim’s take on it, not yours. Nobody’s going to appreciate your opinion in this little exchange, save for those who already agree with you, so you can keep it to yourself.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
1. You have drawn an inference about the true motivations of Imam Rauf, one that you cannot prove…which means, contradictory references chosen by others, while you disagree with them, are ENTIRELY reasonable — and –
That coming from one of the people who has drawn an inference about the true motivations of Imam Rauf with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back that inference up.
Morgan writes:
2. You’re willing to impugn the character, with no further research, of anyone who draws any of these different inferences — in other words, all are self-incriminated in your eyes if they do not see the issue at hand precisely the way you see it.
That coming from a member of the party that screams “socialism” or “treason” or “that person is immoral” every time a Democrat dares to *gasp* believe the government should do something.
Seriously you two, if you have such a problem with that mosque then where was your objection when they submitted the plans to NYC last year? Where was your objection to it when they put a mosque in the building that is currently there several years ago?
Why did it suddenly become objectionable just two months ago? Or are you two honest enough to admit that if there wasn’t an election in a month and a half this issue would have never been raised at all?
LikeLike
Sorry, Lower, if the fact that there was a mosque in that building for the last 5 years didnt’ somehow have the terrorists claiming they scored a victory and if that mosque wasn’t at all even on your radar as something that you decided was provactive you don’t get to claim that it suddenly is now.
Your objection is too little too late. Its time you and your fellows sit down and shut up for the good of the country.
LikeLike
Again, Lower, I don’t care what the archbishop said. The Archbishop is wrong. You are wrong. Your whole side is wrong.
As for distance? Exactly where did that rule get legislated? Your side can’t even agree on what distance you think is fine. And its not like the terrorists over in the MIddle East are going to go “We were going to claim that mosque as a victory but damn they moved it X distance away so now we can’t.” They own the land, Lower, they have every right to build there as long as they meet all building codes. And there is absolutely nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it.
THere is a mosque already in the building. All they want to do is replace the building with another building. In other words as far as that mosque goes, Lower, it’s not going anywhere. Nothing is changing despite your delusion to the contrary. And the building is going to have worship space for people of other religions.
This is only a provacation in your mind. And sorry, you’re not important enough that the country should change to bend to your will.
If a bunch of Jewish terrorists had attacked us on 9-11 I very much doubt you’d be throwing a hissy fit about a synagogue being built there. And I know damn well you’d turn a blind eye if it was a bunch of Christian terrorists who attacked us on 9-11. You’d pull that “THey’re not real Christians” so fast your head would spin.
Lower writes:
Hey, you’re the one who said that SHOULD doesn’t matter, not me.
Cute that you’re also ignoring me saying that he had the right to do that. But again, lower, that pastor was being intentionally divisive, intentionally provactive and was intentionally spreading fear and hatred. None of that you can in all honesty claim about anyone involved with that mosque. Just because you want to pretend otherwise doesn’t make it so.
All this dimwitted protest of yours and your ilk is proving the terrorists right when they say the United States is at war with Islam. ALl you’re doing is making Muslims in this country feel like second class citizens who only have rights as long as the majority whims it. ALl your side is doing is ginning up fear and hatred of muslims in a craven and depraved whoring of the 9-11 victims so your precious Republicans can regain power. Because just like the Nazi’s before you your party uses nothing but fear and hatred to get what it wants.
You may be a chickenshit coward willing to throw out the ideals of this country on the altar of fear and hatred but sorry, you don’t get to take the United States down that road.
You are trying to discriminate against muslims because of your stupidly morally depraved bigotry.
LikeLike
He isn’t building it as a provocation–you’re just looking for an excuse to be provoked. You’re trying to impose the heckler’s veto, and nothing more…But if he’s [Archbishop of New York] opposed [to] the building, I’ll call him a bigot, too.
Hi Jim!
I appreciate you putting these statements so close together, more than I can say.
Now that you’re being so clear and concise, it looks like you’re putting yourself on the record. Are we interpreting the above, properly, to mean —
1. You have drawn an inference about the true motivations of Imam Rauf, one that you cannot prove…which means, contradictory references chosen by others, while you disagree with them, are ENTIRELY reasonable — and —
2. You’re willing to impugn the character, with no further research, of anyone who draws any of these different inferences — in other words, all are self-incriminated in your eyes if they do not see the issue at hand precisely the way you see it.
You’ll stand by those two, right?
Please skip over anything negative you have to say about me or my character…and proceed straightaway to a yea or a nay to the above question. Thanks.
LikeLike
lowerlevel,
You did not do primary source research on what a masjid is–you didn’t do any research on what the word means. You just saw the word, made an assumption, and moved on. You did not do primary source research on the meaning of the word. Quit making excuses for ignorance–it looks a lot worse than a true mea culpa.
As to distance, you keep referring to the distance as though it actually matters. It. Doesn’t. Matter. Period. I wouldn’t care if it was built 30 feet away. He isn’t building it as a provocation–you’re just looking for an excuse to be provoked. You’re trying to impose the heckler’s veto, and nothing more.
And what does the Archbishop of New York have to do with anything? I’m not Catholic, and the Cordoba House isn’t Catholic, so why does he matter at all? But if he’s opposed the building, I’ll call him a bigot, too. We could cite random religious figures for and against the mosque, but what would that accomplish?
In the end, your only real argument against the community center is that if offends you. But you have chosen to be offended. The fault is within you, not within Rauf.
Regarding the distance from Ground Zero, here’s a nice snippet from someone named Bernard Avishai (who happens to be Jewish, just to counter-balance the Archibishop):
LikeLike
Nic said, “Because the Pastor is being intentionally divisive, being intentionally racist and is intentionally spouting hatred….The Pastor is also inflaming hatred against muslims and is putting our soldiers at increased risk thanks to the terrorists and the militants over in the Middle East.”
Hey, you’re the one who said that SHOULD doesn’t matter, not me. So what if all these things are true in your book?! He has the constitutional right to do it – so, what would your advice be to me who agrees with you 100% and has the exact same problem with this pastor? I believe your advice to me was to “shut up.” Should I now accuse you of being an intolerant bigot towards Pastor Jones?
Nic said, “Do you really want to set up a situation where a building can’t be built as long as one person has a problem with it? Do you honestly think through the $*%&$# you spout?”
So…churches are never denied conditional use permits or building permits because people don’t want the church built in a specific location? Are all instances a result of bigotry?
Nic said, “Tell me, Lower, which should be followed first? What Jesus said? Or what Titus said? Sorry, that “I can be a Christian but act like a immoral bastard but I’ll still get into heaven because I’m Christian” is nonsense. If you don’t live the faith what faith you are doesn’t matter. ”
You’re phrasing that in a way that makes it sound like there’s a conflict between the two. By the way, Ephesians 2:8, 9 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
But check out Romans 6:1,2, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”
There’s a subtle but very important difference here between what you are saying and what I’m saying. You’re saying that in order to obtain salvation, you must have works to back up your faith. Wrong. What I’m saying is that if you HAVE received grace, you WILL work. I don’t work hard to please my dad in order to become his son – I have that already and no one can take it away. I work hard to please my dad because I AM his son and desire to please him. My actions do not affect my sonship – it affects my relationship with my dad and others. Same with my relationship with my Heavenly Father. But the passage you quoted as well as James 2 make the point that our works are there to back up our claim that we are His children.
If I said I was a chef but then the best I could cook was Ramen, no one would believe me – why? Because my works don’t back up my words. As a Christian, my status is not determined by my works – when God sees me, He sees the sacrifice of Jesus on my account and calls me “justified” (declared righteous). Not because of any of my good works – but because of Jesus’ work on the cross. So no, my standing in heaven is not determined by my works. I deserve God’s wrath for my actions, not His grace and mercy.
I do not live up to Scripture, but I am growing. I will never completely arrive, but I do fail – guilty. But I believe you completely cross the line in debate when you accuse your oponent of “damning” his soul for his position.
Nic said, “And hatred, fear, intolerance, bigotry and prejudice are sins.”
Could you provide Biblical references for those sins Nic?
One, I hate sin and so does God. Hate is not always sin. I hate seeing the affects of alcohol addiction, how cheating on a spouse affects a marriage, etc. Hatred can be a very good thing when it is just.
Two, as already mentioned, fear/respect can also be virtue when correctly attributed. I have a fear of heights – especially when I am on the top rung of a rickety old ladder. Sometimes fear is the better part of wisdom…like jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with nothing but a parachute to save you… :-)
Three – Jesus was quite intolerant of any other way to heaven but Him. I would go so far to say that He was an elistist exclusionist who spewed His propoganda wherever He went. And I love Him for it. :-) Intolerance is not automatically a sin.
Four – bigotry is a baseless fear. I agree that unreasoned fear of another is foolishness.
Five – prejudice is not always a sin. I’m prejudiced towards my God. I believe I have a right to be. He’s better than the Islamic god by far. He is loving, gracious, and forgiving. I don’t apologize for that view as I don’t believe it is a sin.
Now, all those things CAN be sins – you’re correct. But, you used them against me in ways that are not accurate. I don’t fear Muslims, and I don’t hate Muslims, though I suppose you could make the case that I am “anti-Muslim” by default since I’m NOT Muslim and don’t agree with their religious views, but I could accuse you of the exact same thing.
One thing too Nic, you keep saying “your side” etc. like I’m following some mantra dictated by Newt Gingrich or something. I don’t have a “side” that I am loyal to politically. I never have. I vote Republican only when they are the candidate that I most agree with politically. A lot of Republicans and Independents are like that – which is exactly why Obama and Democrats got elected in ’08 to begin with – because people were upset with the Republicans…so was I.
LikeLike
Ellie, thanks for the post. It was helpful!
James said, “Sorry, man, “I didn’t bother to do the research” is not an excuse for ignorance, it’s the cause of ignorance.”
I did research on the subject – just primary instead of secondary…unless you say that the masjid’s web-site doesn’t count. I simply assumed (wrongly) that if a masjid was a mosque then the web-site would make that clear and therefore assumed that since there was silence on the subject, it was not an official mosque.
James said, “But what relevance, then, does the height of the WTC have? It’s still a random figure with no meaningful application to the issue.”
I think you read way more into it than I intended. My observation was that 600 ft. is a completely insignificant distance away from ground zero. The height of the buildings was merely used to enforce the scope of that fact. I’m simply tired of hearing Nic say, “It’s two blocks away!” In Phoenix, two blocks can mean two miles. In NYC, it’s 600 ft. Saying it’s two blocks away is an intentional attempt to make it sound farther away than it really is – 600 ft. A site that actually was damaged on 9/11 is not a long ways away! The distance is not insignificant to this discussion – it is the primary reason why so many people are upset now that they actually know about it.
James said, “Your mistake was not in not knowing the percentages; it was in assuming that those black baptists must all be Southern Baptists. If you know there are other types of Baptists, you ought not have made that assumption in your reply.”
I never made such an assumption – you assumed that I assumed. James, I was raised Baptist and pastored a Baptist church. I took college classes on the history of the Baptists. I’m aware that there is a difference between Southern Baptists, Regular Baptists, Northern Baptists, American Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Independent Baptists, etc. In addition, I do know several Southern Baptists, and know that they don’t have a racist bone in their bodies! This whole part of the discussion, in my mind, is completely off topic.
“I’m pleased to teach at a College that has a history of being anti-slavery and non-discriminatory.”
That’s cool. Being out West, there’s not a whole lot of anything left that was around when slavery was an issue, so obviously the college I attended didn’t have an opinion on the subject…except condemning slavery in history class. :-)
James said, “Nobody attributed all the racism to Southern Baptists. Do you just instinctively distort what other people say, or does it require some time and thought?”
I’m not sure if the last sentence is directed at me or Nick, but I guess context says it’s directed at me, so I’ll answer. Ed said he is waiting for Southern Baptists to pull out of any former slave territory. By limiting it to Southern Baptists and wondering when they would leave the South, he IS attributing racism and slavery to SBs by virtue of silence. Why did he not mention any other religious group that supported slavery in the 1800s? I wonder if he would include all the countries that have practiced slavery where Southern Baptist organizations are doing charity work. To have a problem with SB’s now – or even the USA for colonists who purchased territory from the Native Americans is absurd. While I look at the Catholic Church’s history of atrocities against both Jews, Anabaptists, Muslims, Incans, etc. with disgust and have mentioned my disgust to Nic several times, what good would it do to pin Catholics of today with the sins of their fathers? These are bygone failures of people who lived centuries ago and the Catholic Church doesn’t struggle with these issues anymore. I highly doubt I’ll ever hear the words “God wills it” in the context of killing Mulsims from Pope Benedict. But even the Catholic church is sensative in this area, given their history, as is seen by the already mentioned nunery being moved from Aschwitz. I say he made the right move, even though John Paul did nothing wrong! But terrorists are not from a bygone era. We’re still in the middle of fighting a war with Islamic extremist terrorists, don’t forget. Even more reason for sensitivity from Islam to give any credence for their assertion that they are a religion of peace. This mosque isn’t helping their case.
James said, “I think you’re a thoughtless bigot who’ll devise any cockamamie argument to support his bigotry, rather than actually listen to reason. That’s what I really feel. Honestly. Truly. And sadly.”
I posted an article a while back stating what a “reasoned” argument for the mosque looked like. It made me pause and think of my position and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. I have seen practically nothing on this site from bloggers here that would convince me to support the SHOULD of the mosque. For instance, Nic is STILL arguing that they have the right to build it – come on…how many times does a guy have to say “I know – I agree”??? I have never once said that they don’t have the right to build it – yet I am accused of it again and again! If Nic could provide just one quote from me saying that they can’t build it, I will apologize. Otherwise, he should stop. But…apparently, he thinks that his first ammendment rights to free speech means that what he SHOULD do doesn’t matter because he CAN keep attributing words and positions to me that I’ve never said. I’ve said it before, but Nic demonstrates what it looks like when the “SHOULD” is treated with contempt.
James – I’ll say the same as Nic – when you call the archbishop of New York a bigot for taking the same position as me on this issue, I’ll wear the title proudly. Nic thinks he is – so if a man who desires a workable compromise over a bully position is a bigot – I’ll take it. However, Rauf won’t budge towards a workable solution for peace, threatening more violence in the middle east should he move the mosque. Sorry bishop Dolan…your cries for peace and unity were unheard and interpreted as bigotry by the left.
LikeLike
Oh I forgot the other thing that Jesus said about the debate about works versus just believing in Him.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Curious, Lower, how much of the Bible you’ve forgotten or simply never learned. And it’s sad and pathetic how much of a Christian you’re not.
But then your side does love to pick and choose what it believes when it comes to Christianity. What pathetic fakes you are. I thank God every day that I’m not like you. That I didnt sell my soul on the altar of fear and hatred like you have.
LikeLike
Indeed, Lower, that you and your ilk are being dicks is precisely why they shouldn’t obey you. That your side is using it as an opportunity to bully them is why they shouldn’t give in. That your side is using it as an opportunity to scare the American people in the craven hope that it puts your pathetic political party back in power is why they shouldn’t give in. Your little protest is accomplishing nothing other then proving what morally depraved and craven little neanderthals you and your fellow conservatives are.
Sorry, twit, just because you decided to object to that mosque doesn’t actually make that mosque objectionable. Your little problem with that mosque is something you conjured out of your immoral little mind.
LikeLike
Morgan, the Imam’s actions include working in the MIddle East on behalf of the US State department. That, by the way, would also include the State department when President George W Bush was President. In other words…his actions including working on behalf of both President Bush and President Obama. Curious how you ignore that.
Lower, get this through your head.
The mosque/community center has been on the planning stages for at least a year. THere is already a mosque in the building that sits on that piece of land.
What in hell is them building a new building there with a mosque being part of it really going to change? By the way..the mosque in there has been in there for at least the last couple years.
How does it suddenly become provactive, in your mind, when it hasn’t been provactive, supposedly, until the last two months?
Have they actually said anything that makes it provactive? Or is this just something you decided?
Lower writes:
Titus 3:5 states that salvation is, “not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us…”
Matthew 25: 31-47:
31″When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
~~~
Tell me, Lower, which should be followed first? What Jesus said? Or what Titus said? Sorry, that “I can be a Christian but act like a immoral bastard but I’ll still get into heaven because I’m Christian” is nonsense. If you don’t live the faith what faith you are doesn’t matter. So, Lower, if you don’t act like a moral person you can claim to be a Christian and that you follow Jesus from here until doomsday but it won’t matter.
And hatred, fear, intolerance, bigotry and prejudice are sins. So you are saying you’re a Christian but you sure aren’t practicing it. Your anti muslim bigotry…your hatred of muslims…your fear of muslims betrays your faith, betrays God and betrays Jesus. So yes…you will pay a price for that. As I said…your side of the political fence very rarely practices the Christian it so loves to claim.
Anyways, just because you want to pretend that the muslims are being provactive doesn’t make it so. And just because you object to that mosque doesn’t mean they have to move it. In the end, Lower, all that matters is what the law says. And in this case you are on the wrong side of the law….just like you’re on the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of history.
Spout your fear and your hatred all you want, Lower, but you and morgan are only damning your souls for it.
LikeLike
Just to clarify, it was Ed who brought up the SBC, not me.
Morgan, in what way has the Imam’s actions differed from his words?
And are you saying that the Bush administration was bamboozled by him?
Lower writes:
But…between the two of us, I actually read what you write and take your words into account in this discussion. So…we’re dealing in the realm of SHOULD with your views of Terry Jones while you defend his constitutional rights to do something you disaprove of. How is that ANY different than my stand on the mosque???
Because the Pastor is being intentionally divisive, being intentionally racist and is intentionally spouting hatred? None of which can accurately or honestly be ascribed to the mosque despite whatever delusion you’re engaging in. The Pastor is also inflaming hatred against muslims and is putting our soldiers at increased risk thanks to the terrorists and the militants over in the Middle East.
But tell me, Lower, if I decide that when your church decides to build a new building that I don’t like it and that you’re, in my mind, being provacative and all that does that mean that you agree that your church shouldn’t do such a thing? Do you really want to set up a situation where a building can’t be built as long as one person has a problem with it? Do you honestly think through the bullshit you spout?
Or did you somehow forget that in this country when there is a dispute it is the law that decides? You’re not a Republican, Lower, you’re an anarchist. They have the legal right to build that mosque/community center no matter what you think. I acknowledge your right to be a dick and protest it but they are under no obligation to listen to you and obey you, child.
LikeLike
You mean his stated goals of building a Muslim community center, versus his actions of building a Muslim Community Center?
Sure, I’m convinced.
LikeLike
But what basis do you have for assuming he’s a liar?
His stated goals, versus his actions.
LikeLike
lowerlevel
LikeLike
Morgan wrote:
In other words, if we assume Imam Rauf is a liar, we can easily come to the belief that he’s building the mosque for nefarious reasons.
But what basis do you have for assuming he’s a liar? And how would you feel if people simply rejected everything you said on the basis of, “I’m assuming Morgan’s a liar”?
I’m sorry, but that’s just not an impressive position, unless you have some evidence that Rauf generally lies.
LikeLike
This may be held up in moderation because it contains a link and I’m not good at inserting those. Just thought I’d throw it in, with the latest question about the SBC and African Americans. I will say this; I’m an Episcopalian which technically means, I’m part of the Anglican Communion even though I disagree vehemently with much of what some Bishops in that Communion have to say. I’m guessing it may be the same for the black churches (and do keep that in mind, also — it says Black Churches) within the SBC.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-19-southern-baptists_x.htm
LikeLike
James said, “Um, no. I looked it up. You know, instead of saying things out of sheer ignorance.”
Silly me…instead of looking up every Arabic word I encounter in Islam, I just went directly to their site and spent ten minutes without finding any reference to a “mosque”. Expecting people to know that a “masjid” is a mosque is like expecting the average non-Christian to know what an “ekklesia” is. Sure, you can look it up, but if they wanted to say it was a mosque then I’d just assume they’d say “mosque.”
James said, “Well, duh. It’s the fine art of mockery, you know?”
Well congrats then, Picasso.
James said, “There’s no logic to that statement at all. There are buildings even closer than 600 feet, so obviously it would be logistically possible to move it closer. WTF kind of nonsense are you trying to peddle here?”
Wow James…tell me how you really feel! Sigh…apparently you didn’t catch any interviews by El-Gamel (the developer) on how hard it is to buy real estate in Manhattan. Sure – there’s buildings closer. My four year old knows that. Any of the size they need that are closer than 600 ft. to Ground Zero coming up for sale any time soon? Not a conspiracy theory – just saying that it would be extremely, extremely difficult (I suppose impossible would be too strong) to get anything closer. Is that inaccurate information?
James said, “Most of those black Baptist congregations are not part of the Southern Baptist Convention. Not all Baptists are Southern Baptists–not by a long shot.”
I’m sorry I haven’t researched the actual percentages of Southern Baptist Membership. Did you? Or are you saying that out of ignorance? You’re probably right, and you definitely are right that there are a LOT more kinds of Baptists than Southern Baptists. But unfortunately, evangelical Bible colleges as late as the 60s denied black people entrance to their colleges. Doesn’t that make you sick?! I simply don’t understand that thinking. Glad I live in a day and age where an African American can become President and that those days are getting farther behind us! But you’d make a mistake if you attributed racisim to Southern Baptists. Mormons also denied priesthood to black people until like the 70s – there was a LOT of racism in that time frame and to attribute it all to the Southern Baptists is like attributing 9/11 to Glenn Beck (you like that simile?) :-)
Morgan’s dealing with Pastor Jones.
LikeLike
Morgan, Yes, there’s a meaningful difference, and I already expressed it. The motivating factor behind Jones’ action is bigotry and hatred–or at least dislike–for others. Rauf’s desire to build a community center and mosque is not motivated by bigotry or hatred. I think the difference between trying to build a community center and place of worship to meet the needs of a population that wants them is meaningfully and logically different than burning books to show your dislike of other people. Legally there’s no difference. Morally there’s an obvious difference.
I’m just not seeing it, James.
I note that, in order to see this difference, you have to believe Imam Rauf. Word for word. In everything he says. If you don’t believe every single word out of the Imam, the difference vanishes.
Believe him if you want.
But I don’t see a difference. To my vision, they are cut from the same cloth.
LikeLike
I should add that it was reported that the FBI paid a visit to Pastor Jones. I don’t mind the president using his bully pulpit to say he doesn’t think Jones should burn the Koran, but I vigorously object to the nation’s police “interviewing” a person for an act that’s clearly constitutionally protected.
Just because the FBI did that I kind of want him to burn a Koran. It won’t save him from being an idiot, but at that point it’s almost a matter of principle.
LikeLike
Morgan,
Yes, there’s a meaningful difference, and I already expressed it. The motivating factor behind Jones’ action is bigotry and hatred–or at least dislike–for others. Rauf’s desire to build a community center and mosque is not motivated by bigotry or hatred.
I think the difference between trying to build a community center and place of worship to meet the needs of a population that wants them is meaningfully and logically different than burning books to show your dislike of other people.
Legally there’s no difference. Morally there’s an obvious difference.
LikeLike
Because Pastor Jones is doing something stupid based on pure bigotry. The other folks are just trying to build themselves a community center and place of worship.
Is there some difference between Imam Rauf and Terry Jones? I mean, a meaningful difference, not based on skin color or religion?
James, I’m looking in your direction in particular…for the presentation of a meaningful, logical answer.
I maintain that there isn’t one.
LikeLike
Um, no. I looked it up. You know, instead of saying things out of sheer ignorance.
Well, duh. It’s the fine art of mockery, you know?
There’s no logic to that statement at all. There are buildings even closer than 600 feet, so obviously it would be logistically possible to move it closer. WTF kind of nonsense are you trying to peddle here?
Oh, jiminy, that’s just conspiracy-theory type thinking. There’s no way to logically refute it because it’s not based on logic. It’s based on an insistence on finding some nefarious interpretation, no matter how you have to torture logic to get there. Bigots do that a lot.
Because Pastor Jones is doing something stupid based on pure bigotry. The other folks are just trying to build themselves a community center and place of worship. In the same way, we wouldn’t condemn Christians for building a church, but would condemn Muslims for burning Bibles.
Most of those black Baptist congregations are not part of the Southern Baptist Convention. Not all Baptists are Southern Baptists–not by a long shot.
LikeLike
Nic, here’s where I should ignore everything you said about defending Pastor Jone’s right (and everyone else’s) to burn the Quran and keep hammering about your bigotry against him, quote Benjamin Franklin, and pretend that you’re trying to destroy the 1t ammendment. That would be annoying to have to keep defending your position, wouldn’t it?
But…between the two of us, I actually read what you write and take your words into account in this discussion. So…we’re dealing in the realm of SHOULD with your views of Terry Jones while you defend his constitutional rights to do something you disaprove of. How is that ANY different than my stand on the mosque??? I’ve never ONCE said that they didn’t have the right to build it there – or that they weren’t there already, etc. What I’ve said from the very beginning that this whole thing deals in the realm of SHOULD or should NOT. You tell me to “shut up” because it doesn’t matter! You then blast Terry Jones for the horrors of what he was very legally going to do and yet at the same time hammer away at me and Morgan for dealing in the same realm. No difference whatsoever. Pure hypocricy from all but James who never got on the “bash the pastor” bandwagon.
Nic said, “…you two say you have such a problem with a mosque being that close to the WTC site…and yet there has been a mosque exactly that close to the WTC site for years. And yet neither you nor Lower nor anyone of your side of that debate has uttered one word of protest about it. Nor did your side utter a word of protest about the proposed building until just within the last 2-3 months. Despite the fact that proposed building has been on the drawing boards for a year plus.”
If I’d known the facts sooner I would have been vocal sooner, ok? You don’t know what you don’t know. Frankly…I care FAR less about this mosque than the myriad of posts required to defend my position! This is where your position borders on madness when you simply can’t/won’t accurately represent your oponents views. The thing most logical to do in such situations is to walk away from a foolish debate that continues to spiral farther downward with every word that you type.
Nic, go back and read what you said about Glenn Beck. You said, ” Before you say that he said that the United States held some responsibility for the 9-11 attacks..so did Glenn Beck, and a few others.”
I read that to say that you were saying that the US, he, and a few others were responsible for 9/11. If that’s not what you were saying…my mistake – I see it now.
The info I got for the mosques in NY was from google maps. Apparently, they don’t always get things right. If there are mosques closer – then a google maps search for “mosque” in NYC needs to catch up.
Nic said, “If you’re referring to what I said about you objecting to a muslim group burning a bunch of bibles, Morgan, I was stating my opinion.”
I’m remembering our own military burning Bibles in Afganistan in the not to distant past…I don’t remember any protests or government officials getting whacked off because of it either. Such a contrast to one pastor’s threat to burn some Bibles…(though again I’m not defending him).
Nic said, “I just love how your side claims to be such good moral Christians and yet your side couldn’t find morality much less true Christian morality if your souls depended on it.
Oh wait…your souls DO depend on it. Sucks to be you.”
I thank God you’re flat wrong that my eternal soul doesn’t depend on any moralistic perfomance on my part! Titus 3:5 states that salvation is, “not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us…” If I have to plead my own morality on judgment day…I’m doomed. Thank Jesus for His mercy in what He did on that cross!
Ed said, “The SBC was set up to support and defend slavery as a religious ideal, subjugating some millions of Americans to horrendous conditions of involuntary servitude, and then morphing into a 100-year campaign of genocidal proportions to hold Americans down and suppress their rights.”
Is that why there are so many black Baptists? If they’re comfortable being Baptist and have no offenses, why are you trying to manufacture one? Beyond that, do you have primary evidence to support your claim that this is why the SBC was set up?
James said, “(lowerleavel apparently doesn’t realize that “masjid” is just the transliteration of the Arabic word for “mosque.”)”
Nope – sure didn’t. Did you before this whole discussion happened? Hats off to you if you did. Learn something new every day! I thought it was a smaller version of a “community center” – like a “chapel” if you will. You’re right – I was ignorant of that piece of information.
James said, “Ah, so the circle of sacredness is defined by the height of the building attacked? The Pentagon is 77 feet tall, so we need to make sure any mosque built near there is more than 39 feet away from it? Good thinking.”
You’re reading into my statement and you know it, James. My statement that the mosque is less distance than one tower was high was that it would be logistically impossible for the Imam to move it any closer if he wanted to. If a “victory mosque” (as Morgan calls it) were intended to be built, then logistically, I can’t imagine the scenario looking any different than the one that faces us now. If not..coincidence couldn’t be any more bizzarre.
LikeLike
If you’re referring to what I said about you objecting to a muslim group burning a bunch of bibles, Morgan, I was stating my opinion.
Apparently both you and Lower have a problem with reading comprehension if you thought I was stating evidence there.
I was simply stating my opinion based on what a pair of miscreant hypocrites you are.
As for the mosque…you two say you have such a problem with a mosque being that close to the WTC site…and yet there has been a mosque exactly that close to the WTC site for years. And yet neither you nor Lower nor anyone of your side of that debate has uttered one word of protest about it. Nor did your side utter a word of protest about the proposed building until just within the last 2-3 months. Despite the fact that proposed building has been on the drawing boards for a year plus.
Sorry, your *protest* is nothing more then a craven attempt by the right wing fear machine to scare people into voting for them. You are being played for a sucker…whether you have the intelligence and honesty enough to admit it or not. You, Morgan, and you Lower, are being played for fools.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
It’s rather sad seeing someone go through life a little bit too pleased with his ideas, trying to find ways to shoehorn evidence into them.
Glad to see that you and Lower are finally figuring out your problem, Morgan.
But then that’s what you get when you try and conjure evidence out of thin air instead of just admitting you’re wrong.
LikeLike
At last! We’ve been waiting for you to finally figure that out.
LikeLike
Nick ridicules me and Lower an awful lot about things we “will” be doing.
It’s rather sad seeing someone go through life a little bit too pleased with his ideas, trying to find ways to shoehorn evidence into them.
LikeLike
Nick, you mean protestant victory monuments!
LikeLike
Mr. Darell,
Yes, thank you kindly.
LikeLike
Since I figure that at some point Lower and Morgan will bring up the New Jersey transit worker who was fired from his job for desecrating a Quran, if they haven’t already, I’ll cut them off at the proverbial pass.
Since, as far as I know, he did such a thing while not at work, I don’t think he should have been fired. His employer, a state agency, didn’t have the right to do that. It’s an infringment of his first admendment rights.
Even if he wanted to practice those rights in a stupid and idiotic manner.
But somehow I suspect L&M would have a fit if some nonChristian did that to a Bible. Just as I bet they’d also have a fit if a bunch of muslims wanted to burn a bunch of bibles.
After all..racists and bigots never apply the rules they want nonwhites to live by to themselves.
LikeLike
Oh I didn’t think of it.
I guess that means any and all Protestant churches have to pull out of Philly.
After all..a bunch of protestants murdered several dozen Catholics and burned two Catholic churches down all because the Catholics stood up for their rights.
And I’m sure that Lower and Morgan won’t mind if the largest religious group in this country (i.e. I and my fellow Catholics) start deciding on where protestant churches can be built, right?
After all..the majority can trump the rights of any minority, right?
LikeLike
Mr. Hanley, did I get the proper fix on the HTML error?
LikeLike
I’m still waiting for any congregation with a link to the Southern Baptist Convention to pull out of any former slave territory. SBC was set up to support and defend slavery as a religious ideal, subjugating some millions of Americans to horrendous conditions of involuntary servitude, and then morphing into a 100-year campaign of genocidal proportions to hold Americans down and suppress their rights.
When that is accomplished, I’ll worry about a group of whirling Dervishes setting up a dance floor in Manhattan. But I’ll only worry about it during trips to get all the economic descendants of Peter Minuet to refund the deed to Manhattan in return for the beads he used to hornswoggle the locals.
Meanwhle, did you hear about Texas, going to take Jesus out of the classroom Bibles?
Back to history studies now . . .
LikeLike
SOrry, Lower, no picking arbitrary numbers out of your ass and saying “you can’t build here.” 9-11 didn’t change the rules, didn’t change the US Constitution, didn’t change the statutes of New York City, didn’t change the building code in New York City. There was no rule adopted “Muslims can’t build here.” after 9-11.
The muslims in this country have the same rights as you do. You’ll just have to accept that fact and deal with it.
Oh and by the way, twit, do bother to remember that muslims died in the WTC attacks too. And i’m not talking about the terrorists.
Seriously, your fear and hatred is causing you to sell your soul.
LikeLike
Not sure what happened to the original comment I posted in reply to Lower so if it ends up getting posted twice my apologies.
But in case it doesn’t, here goes:
Lower, there is a mosque as close to the WTC site as the proposed one. Why? Because, now pay attention here, IT’S IN THE SAME BUILDING THAT SITS ON THE LAND WHERE THE PROPOSED ONE YOU’RE HAVING SUCH A HISSY FIT ABOUT IS PLANNED FOR. Secondly, the second one is a few blocks away from that site and the third one is only a few blocks further. Plus the two mosques that were actually in the WTC buildings themselves. Yes they’re not there now obviously but it would help if you bothered to realize that it wasn’t just the terrorists who were muslims who died in the attacks.
Plus..where did you become such an idiot that you failed english comprehension? I didn’t say that Glenn Beck was responsible for 9-11…I said that he said on national tv that some of the actions of the United States contributed to 9-11. You know..like turning a blind eye to Saddam killing his own people since he made such a convenient buffer against Iran. Using the Afghanis to fight the Soviets then abandoning them afterwards. Stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. It really would help your credibility if you bothered to realize that there are actual reasons that the terrorists don’t like us instead of just swallowing the koolaid behind Bush’s “THey hate us for our freedom.”
As for the pastor in florida, as far as I’m concerned he had the first admendment right to do what he was planning, as stupid and as much of a jackass as it makes him. I wouldn’t have infringed on his rights. Though by the same token if a group of, for example, muslims wanted to burn a couple hundred copies of the Bible in reply I wouldn’t have hindered them either. See, unlike you, I apply the rules the same to everyone. You, because you’re a scared coward, want to pick and choose. And I take no responsibility for any supposed threats against him as I wasn’t ginning up fear and hatred of him. If you can find an actual organized group that was doing so please provide the actual verifiable evidence. But I just love your moral relativism..or I should say complete lack of morality in thinking that the sudden islamophobia going on around the country just conjured itself out of thin air. Tell me, child, where were the attacks on mosques before your side made such a fake hullabaloo about the mosque in New York?
I just love your party’s ability to claim that it holds such strong Christian morality but when it comes time to show that Christian morality your party can’t even summon common morality much less Christian morality. Your party is either morally deficient or it’s purely morally depraved. BUt then that’s what happens when your party becomes the party of the racists, the fearful, the ignorant and the crackpots.
Then there is your party’s constant wrapping itself in the flag and claiming to be the party of the true patriots. And yet when it comes time to show that patriotism your side runs from patriotism like a dog that just got kicked. You’re oh so willing to give the terrorists what they want..you’re oh so willing to sacrifice the ideals of this country in the name of fear, cowardice and prejudicial bigotry.
What was that line by Benjamin Franklin? Ah yes…those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those muslims have the right to build that mosque. And you can sit there and protest it all you want but you have no right to actually stop them. If your side had any brains it would have tried negotiating with them, and no don’t claim it did, instead of being stupid dumbass hateful bullies. Why should bullies be given what they want?
LikeLike
Lower writes:
Let’s see – 2001, Glenn Beck was in Tampa Fl. doing a local radio program. Love to hear your explanation how a local radio talk show host was able to incite 9/11.
Gee, Lower, I didn’t say that Glenn Beck incited 9-11. I said that he said on national tv that he said that some of the actions of the United States in the middle east is partially what led to 9-11. Are you that much of an idiot or do you not understand the english language? You know..actions like using the Afghanis to fight the Soviet Union and then abandoning them, supporting Saddam Hussein to use as a buffer against Iran while turning a blind eye to what Saddam Hussein was doing to his own people.
Lower writes:
By blocks, you mean about 17-20 blocks, right? There’s a Masjid in the downtown district nearby, but not a mosque.
No, try within 5 blocks. Starting with the mosque that is in the building that is sitting on the piece of land that you’re throwing such a hissy fit over.
http://www.indyposted.com/37871/mosque-near-ground-zero-just-686-feet-closer-than-existing-mosque/
The Masjid mosque, child, is a few blocks from the proposed one. And the second is only 12 blocks away from the WTC site.
Oh and the fact that there were two mosques in the WTC buildings themselves.
Lower writes:
No matter what stand you take on practically anything, there will be crazies out there who will take it to an extreme, no? Or were the 100 plus death threats against Pastor Terry Jones just and rational? Do you bear some responsibility for the threats of violence for speaking out against him? Even if you did, it still does nothing to show that your position is wrong or right – bait and switch.
That jackass pastor, as far as free speech rights go, had the right to do what he was planning. I wouldn’t have liked it but at least I, unlike you and your little groupie there, recognize his right to do it. Hell, I even think the guy who got fired for desecrating a quran shouldn’t have been fired since he wasn’t doing it during his work hours but during his free time.
See that’s the difference between you and me, Lower, I apply the rules the same to everyone. You want to pretend that you can pick and choose.
Oh and as for any threats of violence against that jackass pastor, no I’m not responsible for it. I wasn’t ginning up fear and hatred of him. I wasn’t giving the crazies an excuse and justification for their craziness. And if you can point to any actual organized groups ginning up threats of violence against him..point it out. Oh and by point it out I mean actually have credible evidence that such a group was doing such a thing.
If I had been in control of the little pastor situation and this is assuming he had been intelligent enough to get the permits necessary for his little bonfire I would have let him do it but would have made sure he did it in complete media silence. Meaning he wouldn’t have gotten the media face time he was so craving. But then do understand that if a bunch of muslims or whoever else wanted to burn an equal number of bibles I would have done the same to them. They would have been allowed to do it…but in a media blackout. But somehow I suspect that if there was a bunch of muslims trying to burn a bunch of bibles you and Morgan and the rest of your ilk would having a childish hissy fit.
But your sides pretending that racism and bigotry conjures itself out of thin air is a particularly good example of how purely morally depraved and deficient your side has become. I just love how your side claims to be such good moral Christians and yet your side couldn’t find morality much less true Christian morality if your souls depended on it.
Oh wait…your souls DO depend on it. Sucks to be you.
Again, let me know when you want to stop being a coward by trying to surrender the ideals of this country just because we got attacked by a bunch of crazy whackjobs.
Your party so loves to wrap itself in the flag, it so loves to claim to be the party of the true patriots. And yet when the time for patriotism likes your party is no better then Benedict Arnold.
LikeLike
Dang, html fail. All that blue text was supposed to just be a link to this NYT story about two mosques within twelve blocks of GZ, including the Masjid Manhattan. (lowerleavel apparently doesn’t realize that “masjid” is just the transliteration of the Arabic word for “mosque.”)
LikeLike
Are you making a concerted effort to demonstrate how dumb you are? He didn’t say Glenn Beck was responsible for 9/11, he said that Glenn Beck said America holds some responsibility for 9/11. You can hear him say it here.
Ah, so the circle of sacredness is defined by the height of the building attacked? The Pentagon is 77 feet tall, so we need to make sure any mosque built near there is more than 39 feet away from it? Good thinking.
Wrong twice. The masjid is a mosque, an there are at least two within twelve blocks. You really are working overtime to demonstrate ignorance, aren’t you?
Not that it matters how many there are or how close they are. They’ve got the same rights you and I do, and it’s their property, so they get to build their community center with a mosque in it, no matter how bigots like you feel about it.
Oh, and the Florida pastor? He’s an ignorant bigot, too, but he also has the same rights as you and me. I’ll staunchly defend his First Amendment rights to free speech, protest, and making an ass of himself. Anyone who gives him a death threat should be investigated, and if they have committed a crime in doing so, they should be prosecuted.
What was so hard, or surprising, about that?
LikeLike
Probably not, especially when I don’t know which of the last four or five you’re referring to.
LikeLike
Nic said, “4: Before you say that he said that the United States held some responsibility for the 9-11 attacks..so did Glenn Beck, and a few others.”
Let’s see – 2001, Glenn Beck was in Tampa Fl. doing a local radio program. Love to hear your explanation how a local radio talk show host was able to incite 9/11. I mean, they blame Limbaugh for a lot, but even as a national host, I don’t think he could pull off what you’re suggesting even if he wanted to. Though he would be honored that you give him that much credit of course. :-) But a local talk show host??? Seriously? Oh…I get it! Florida…Glenn Beck…Pastor Terry Jones…I’m sure there’s a connection there! You should do some digging!
The terrorists hate us in part because we had troops in Saudi Arabia – close to Mecca – especially when Hussein invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden used our actions in the Middle East (Mogadishu, etc) to incite extremists to kill and terrorize us. Unless you’re advocating we take a complete “hands off” policy to the entire world, including relief aid, there’s really no way Al Qaeda would have ignored us, as they didn’t ignore even smaller countries like UK and Spain. I agree with Morgan, appeasement isn’t the answer – they want us dead! Just for living our lives. They would want you dead Nic, just for your cursing! Are you volunteering to go first in order to make them happy, because it wouldn’t work unless we (Americans) all either converted to Islam or were all dead. No middle ground for terrorists. Bottom line – 9/11 was NOT the USA’s fault! Scary that you agree with the terrorists and the Imam…
Nic, “5: There’s two other mosques also within blocks of the WTC site”
By blocks, you mean about 17-20 blocks, right? There’s a Masjid in the downtown district nearby, but not a mosque. Not saying that Muslims in Manhattan shouldn’t have a place of worship – I’m saying that your information is stretching it at best.
Nic said, “7: This anti-New York mosque hysteria has ginned up fear and hatred of muslims and caused protests against mosques in other parts of the country. It’s also caused some violence against muslims. Sorry, deny that if you want but that’s the truth. When you give a forum to the crazies in which they can justify their violent tendencies by saying “See…I’m not alone.” you have to bear some of the responsibility.”
No matter what stand you take on practically anything, there will be crazies out there who will take it to an extreme, no? Or were the 100 plus death threats against Pastor Terry Jones just and rational? Do you bear some responsibility for the threats of violence for speaking out against him? Even if you did, it still does nothing to show that your position is wrong or right – bait and switch.
Nic said, “8: Muslims died in the WTC attack too…”
I personally don’t doubt that. Interestingly, more Muslims die every year from Muslim terrorist attacks than Christians. Sounds kind of like how the Waldensians (for example) were treated by another religious group…Such a peaceful group that would even kill even their own.
Nic said, “Your side has been nothing but a bunch of dickless and brainless wonders.”
Stop calling your archbishop such debased names! If you treat your “men of the cloth” like that, I’d hate to see how you’d treat your enemies! Sheesh!
Nic also said, “If you and your ilk want to **** in your pants and surrender so you can give the terrorists what they want…that because of their attack we are scared enough to fundamentally change the way we live, that we are willing to throw out our ideals and that we agree with them that this is a war against the entirety of Islam I would very much appreciate it if all of you went to Afghanistan and Pakistan, surrender to the terrorists in person and kindly quit trying to compel the rest of us to partake in your cowardice.”
I’ll be waiting for that apology to Pastor Terry Jones then for your attacks on his rights…unless you want to continue to compel the rest of us to “partake in your cowardice” by sacrificing his 1st ammendment rights to burn the Quran.
I think I answered everything else you wrote in previous posts.
LikeLike
Ed,
Are you going to answer Lower’s question directly?
He’s been pretty conscientious about responding to similar challenges coming back the other way…as best I can tell. I wrote off the “confetti” quite some time ago as so much noise, but LL deserves to get back as good as he’s given.
When you deflect into parody, you give off the appearance of having a need to do so.
LikeLike
Perhaps you’d support a monument to that part of the aircraft, the Sacred Landing Gear?
LikeLike
Watch this video and tell me that 600 ft. from where the towers fell is on a different site from the tower collapsing. Again, part of the plane fell into this building! 600ft…that’s less than 1/2 the height of one of the towers.
youtube.com/watch?v=Qiye0R-65RE&feature=related
I also found this site helpful for showing just how close this mosque would be. Indeed, I don’t think the Imam COULD get any closer even if he wanted to.
ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2010/08/24/13-Views-of-the-Ground-Zero-Mosque-site-location-MAPS.aspx
Oh, by the way…just a quick google search shows that most mosques call themselves a “community center” or a “cultural center.” This mosque is no different. It would be like saying “New Life Christian Fellowship Center” is not a church but has a church in it.
Nic, still waiting for you to defend Pastor Terry Green. Jim’s got some consistency, how about you? Will you recant your statements on the subject?
LikeLike