Mosque at Ground Zero - Page 2

Go Back   Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards > NBA Discussion > The Podium

View Poll Results: Would you approve of a Mosque being built on Ground Zero
Yes, it creates unity 17 58.62%
No, religion shouldn't be mixed with ground zero 8 27.59%
Whats a Mosque? 4 13.79%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-19-2010, 11:23 PM   #21 (permalink)
representing the Big Land

basketball is life
 
Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Newfoundland
Posts: 1,415
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renihan_00 View Post
While this is a nice gesture, the problem would be who are they speaking on behalf of?

Because your average american doesn't feel that way.
But its all about sending a message from the American government to the Muslim people, not about how the average American feels.

I have mixed feelings about this
Chris is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 03:28 PM   #22 (permalink)
Unacceptable?! Did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!

Get off my lawn
 
Renihan_00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,370
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopha View Post
But its all about sending a message from the American government to the Muslim people, not about how the average American feels.

I have mixed feelings about this
That would be a serious short-run career decision for that individual.
Renihan_00 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 07:50 AM   #23 (permalink)
far away

Senior Member
 
archie63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Panama City
Posts: 981
Representing:
Default

I went to ground zero 2 years ago and the ticket seller was a muslim veiled woman and nobody cares. I found it a sign of an open minded culture; as for the musque I don't know maybe is a little stretched and provocative but as the building is still there why destroy it?
archie63 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 04:57 PM   #24 (permalink)
stank

member
 
Someguy again's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,387
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renihan_00 View Post
That would be a serious short-run career decision for that individual.
but a difference in the future, when michael moore made the film "bowling for columbine" he shoved it in america's face that they are a nation living under fear and over reaction to anything different in their society, it wasn't popular with the americans back then but now the film is a celebrated picture of how the US has to change its ways. building a mosque near ground zero may not be popular with the generation of americans now but its a stepping stone to acceptance for the future, they have been living like this for too long, now its time to finally hit it where it effects them the most
Someguy again is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:39 AM   #25 (permalink)
limitless...in his dreams

Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 305
Representing:
Default

let me ask why should people build mosques, churches or synagogues ?
perhaps for one main reason... to provide religious services to a local community

is there even minor muslim community around WTC site? no
so, the whole reason of building a mosque at ground zero is purely symbolical and therefore has no practical value other than to be an anger catalyzator
edki is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 01:50 PM   #26 (permalink)
a baller

Senior Member
 
bjjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,734
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edki View Post
let me ask why should people build mosques, churches or synagogues ?
perhaps for one main reason... to provide religious services to a local community

is there even minor muslim community around WTC site? no
so, the whole reason of building a mosque at ground zero is purely symbolical and therefore has no practical value other than to be an anger catalyzator
Their isn't a muslim community in the heart of New York City?
bjjs is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 01:56 PM   #27 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,699
Representing:
Default

by that same argument, there shouldn't be any christian churches in oklahoma city near the govt building site.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 06:37 PM   #28 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,087
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edki View Post
let me ask why should people build mosques, churches or synagogues ?
perhaps for one main reason... to provide religious services to a local community

is there even minor muslim community around WTC site? no
so, the whole reason of building a mosque at ground zero is purely symbolical and therefore has no practical value other than to be an anger catalyzator
So who is building and paying for this? The Muslims that won't attend? That just doesn't make any sense.


Personally, I think the people that are making this a symbolic issue are those on the side against the Mosque. They lump together everyone under a particular dogma, either Islamic terrorist or virtuous patriot. The truth is that the act on 9/11 represented a minority of Muslims, and they shouldn't be prevented from exercising their religious freedom based on motivations, beliefs, and actions that they don't share. It has to be understood that 9/11 was not categorically an Islamic attack against Americans; it seems to me that it is best explained as a politically motivated attack made plausible by minority, fundamentalist beliefs.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 06:40 PM   #29 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,087
Representing:
Default

To use some of the symbolism common in the public during the early outset of the war on terror, suppose that the attack on the WTC was indeed an attack on freedom and liberty. Does oppressing the Muslim community honestly reflect those ideals considered so deserving of protection?
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 03:04 AM   #30 (permalink)
limitless...in his dreams

Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 305
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
So who is building and paying for this? The Muslims that won't attend? That just doesn't make any sense.


Personally, I think the people that are making this a symbolic issue are those on the side against the Mosque. They lump together everyone under a particular dogma, either Islamic terrorist or virtuous patriot. The truth is that the act on 9/11 represented a minority of Muslims, and they shouldn't be prevented from exercising their religious freedom based on motivations, beliefs, and actions that they don't share. It has to be understood that 9/11 was not categorically an Islamic attack against Americans; it seems to me that it is best explained as a politically motivated attack made plausible by minority, fundamentalist beliefs.
I bet that if we find who's sponsoring this project we will know if this mosque has any practical value.

I can't argue with your point about generalization of muslims under "terror" cathegory. Moreover I seriously doubt that this act had anything to do with muslim terrorists and islamic fundamentalism. Until I hear or read declassified documents about 9/11 I tend to think it was inside job or at least partially covered by US agencies. Unfortunatelly this won't happen in our lifetime, so let's abandon this subject...
edki is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 11:38 AM   #31 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,087
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edki View Post
I bet that if we find who's sponsoring this project we will know if this mosque has any practical value.
I'm not sure why looking at the sponsor of the project has any impact on the practical value of the mosque. It seems to me that those are two distinct questions. If there's a necessary connection between those two answers, you haven't made clear what that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edki View Post
I can't argue with your point about generalization of muslims under "terror" cathegory. Moreover I seriously doubt that this act had anything to do with muslim terrorists and islamic fundamentalism. Until I hear or read declassified documents about 9/11 I tend to think it was inside job or at least partially covered by US agencies. Unfortunatelly this won't happen in our lifetime, so let's abandon this subject...
Classic argument from incredulity, or argument from ignorance, and includes a false dichotomy. "Until you provide suitable explanation x, my explanation y is satisfactory." Every claim requires its own evidence and reasoning, and there's frankly no good evidence or line of reasoning to convince us that there was a larger conspiracy at hand.

Last edited by Ligeia; 07-24-2010 at 11:41 AM.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 11:07 PM   #32 (permalink)
enjoying having the keys to destiny

perusing ancient database
 
ClingRap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The far side of the Universe.
Posts: 1,953
Representing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
I'm not sure why looking at the sponsor of the project has any impact on the practical value of the mosque. It seems to me that those are two distinct questions. If there's a necessary connection between those two answers, you haven't made clear what that is.



Classic argument from incredulity, or argument from ignorance, and includes a false dichotomy. "Until you provide suitable explanation x, my explanation y is satisfactory." Every claim requires its own evidence and reasoning, and there's frankly no good evidence or line of reasoning to convince us that there was a larger conspiracy at hand.
It seems your more interested in reasoning and argumentation 101, following the rules of philosophical engagement and psychosis rather than engaging with the politics of what he's claiming. I think he's made clear in prior posts where he's coming from, and in the comments you've quoted he's made a CLEAR line between the suppression of information which is wholly common in all levels of the government and the focused current of disinformation fed to corporatized media conglomorates.

Your false dichotomy is based upon the dangerous assumption that the government sees itself as an institution that is critically responsible for the conveyance of all of it's knowledge of a particular event. Given that the U.S. government is a clusterfuck of contradictory organizations working on a number of levels through thousands of individuals taught to choose their words carefully, I don't think it's that much of a stretch (more like moving your toe) to come to the conclusion that there's something afoot.

I don't find what he's saying to be controversial in the least, or unclear. But I do find your analytical practice problematic and unproductive. I took my fare share of philosophy classes (one was enough) to know that your method is a popular one which promotes the idea that "until you provide suitable explanation x, my explanation y is satisfactory."
ClingRap is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 12:20 AM   #33 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,277
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Someguy again View Post
maybe is a symbol from urban planners to show the world that america is willing to move on from its ignorance and place something of importance to islam near ground zero to show the world that they stopped blaming muslims for everything and instead blame the extremists and terrorists responsible.
+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Febreezy View Post
You're a smart guy, hard to say that to a lot of people.
+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renihan_00 View Post
That would be a serious short-run career decision for that individual.
The sad thing is, you're probably right. Certain politicians and other leaders pander to the wishes of domestic interest groups and perceived concerns of "the average American." However, if the "war on terror" actually really mattered to the US government, having an inter-faith place of worship with a Muslim focus at Ground Zero would be an excellent PR move overseas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Someguy again View Post
but a difference in the future, when michael moore made the film "bowling for columbine" he shoved it in america's face that they are a nation living under fear and over reaction to anything different in their society, it wasn't popular with the americans back then but now the film is a celebrated picture of how the US has to change its ways. building a mosque near ground zero may not be popular with the generation of americans now but its a stepping stone to acceptance for the future, they have been living like this for too long, now its time to finally hit it where it effects them the most
+1 Yeah, there tends to be a generational divide on some issues in the US. Well, that tends to be the case in a lot of countries. People under 35 are less concerned about Obama taking away their fire arms, and, if the polls are accurate, there are fewer people under the age of 35 screaming about their country being "taken away" from them at those silly rallies where latent racism can be found at almost every corner. Sometimes you got to drag the older people along by their feet for the sake of the future generation which is not consumed by past stupidity and ignorance.

On a side note, although Bowling for Columbine was an interesting film that raised important issues, I find Michael Moore quite annoying.
Bill Haverchuck is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 12:46 AM   #34 (permalink)
limitless...in his dreams

Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 305
Representing:
Default

dear Ligeia,
I have no background in philosophy and very little experience in reasoning without facts which automatically makes me an underdog in our argument... so I will simply explain my, as I thought, obvious idea about sponsors of the project

if the mosque building sponsored by local muslim community, NY based organizations that support muslim religion and culture the mosque has clear practical purpose of serving local muslim community (if any exists in Financial District of Manhattan) and guests of the neighbourhood
however if the project sponsored from outside by wealthy muslim figures or fundamentalist organizations based in Europe or Middle East the mosque has purely symbolical value, thus being "a red blanket in front of a bull"

I really trying to avoid starting another useless argumentation about 9/11 events.
As I said, I don't believe the official version but I also don't buy everything that independent media have to say.
It just one thing that bothers me; those who claim that alternative information on the 9/11 events is "conspiracy theory" fail to support their "official" point of view by any solid and confirmed facts (released by goverment doesn't make fact solid and confirmed). Therefore for me both sides are representing "conspiracy theory" of opposite origin. Which one is "bigger" is not easy to understand without studying islamic fundamentalism and corporate capitalism as threats to healthy world and peaceful development of human race

Last edited by edki; 07-25-2010 at 02:06 AM.
edki is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 01:02 AM   #35 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,277
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClingRap View Post

I don't find what he's saying to be controversial in the least, or unclear. But I do find your analytical practice problematic and unproductive. I took my fare share of philosophy classes (one was enough) to know that your method is a popular one which promotes the idea that "until you provide suitable explanation x, my explanation y is satisfactory."


I'm debating whether or not to post a longer response. For now....

Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 07-25-2010 at 02:57 AM.
Bill Haverchuck is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 04:24 AM   #36 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,087
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClingRap View Post
It seems your more interested in reasoning and argumentation 101, following the rules of philosophical engagement and psychosis rather than engaging with the politics of what he's claiming. I think he's made clear in prior posts where he's coming from, and in the comments you've quoted he's made a CLEAR line between the suppression of information which is wholly common in all levels of the government and the focused current of disinformation fed to corporatized media conglomorates.

Your false dichotomy is based upon the dangerous assumption that the government sees itself as an institution that is critically responsible for the conveyance of all of it's knowledge of a particular event. Given that the U.S. government is a clusterfuck of contradictory organizations working on a number of levels through thousands of individuals taught to choose their words carefully, I don't think it's that much of a stretch (more like moving your toe) to come to the conclusion that there's something afoot.
Certainly he has made it clear what he's arguing: the government is keeping information under wraps that would otherwise make it clear that the government played a role in 9/11.

I make no assumption about how well any government position corresponds with what is true. What I argue is this: saying that the evidence to support your case is being kept secret undercuts the very argument you're trying to make. If you can produce no evidence to support your case, regardless of the cause for that lack of evidence, then you have no case to make. If such evidence comes to light, then I'm entirely open to changing my position.

I find it interesting that on one hand, you refer to government as a "clusterfuck of contradictory organizations" and then turn right around to say that they're somehow able to keep such an incredible secret under wraps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClingRap View Post
I don't find what he's saying to be controversial in the least, or unclear. But I do find your analytical practice problematic and unproductive. I took my fare share of philosophy classes (one was enough) to know that your method is a popular one which promotes the idea that "until you provide suitable explanation x, my explanation y is satisfactory."
If you find the application of reason and logic to claims problematic and unproductive, I'd be confused, to say the least. I'd be interested to see a challenge to that approach (by no means my own) that wasn't itself an application of logic or empiricism. Since you only took one philosophy class, I wonder if it was more of an Introduction to Philosophy as opposed to a Logic or Intro to Critical Thinking class. If so, you would see why the argument from ignorance is so shabby.

Suppose you ask me what speed light travels at. Suppose also that you haven't the first clue what speed light travels at, nor do you know how to find out.

I tell you plainly, much as Aristotle did, that "light is due to the presence of something, but it is not a movement." Clearly you cannot produce a better explanation than I just have, being that you know nothing of the subject, but is that itself a good reason to believe it? Shouldn't I demonstrate to you how it is that I know this to be the case? Indeed, as soon as you request that I do so, my claim crumbles to pieces and you'll ultimately find that light travels at a speed of roughly 3.0 x 10^5 km/s. It should be clear that because a better argument has not been produced does not in itself make your argument right if it fails to account for particular facts or lacks sound reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edki View Post
dear Ligeia,
I have no background in philosophy and very little experience in reasoning without facts which automatically makes me an underdog in our argument... so I will simply explain my, as I thought, obvious idea about sponsors of the project
Not to worry...this is what conversation is for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edki View Post
if the mosque building sponsored by local muslim community, NY based organizations that support muslim religion and culture the mosque has clear practical purpose of serving local muslim community (if any exists in Financial District of Manhattan) and guests of the neighbourhood
however if the project sponsored from outside by wealthy muslim figures or fundamentalist organizations based in Europe or Middle East the mosque has purely symbolical value, thus being "a red blanket in front of a bull"
I think the only circumstance in which it would be a red blanket in front of a bull would be if it were Islamic terrorists behind the building, and as far as I can tell the Cordoba Initiative is not composed of Islamic terrorists. Notice that your argument relies a great deal on unconfirmed speculation that someone more sinister might be behind it. Without confirming such a fact, on what grounds could we pass judgement against those in favour of the building?

The fundamental issue for me is that an entire religious group is being discriminated against in a manner that is directly contra the first amendment of the US constitution. It is an affront to basic liberty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edki View Post
I really trying to avoid starting another useless argumentation about 9/11 events.
As I said, I don't believe the official version but I also don't buy everything that independent media have to say.
It just one thing that bothers me; those who claim that alternative information on the 9/11 events is "conspiracy theory" fail to support their "official" point of view by any solid and confirmed facts (released by goverment doesn't make fact solid and confirmed). Therefore for me both sides are representing "conspiracy theory" of opposite origin. Which one is "bigger" is not easy to understand without studying islamic fundamentalism and corporate capitalism as threats to healthy world and peaceful development of human race
To the contrary, I think that the analysis' done by scientists have shown that the collapse of the towers is consistent with the official story.

Last edited by Ligeia; 07-25-2010 at 04:29 AM.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 01:06 AM   #37 (permalink)
enjoying having the keys to destiny

perusing ancient database
 
ClingRap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The far side of the Universe.
Posts: 1,953
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post


I'm debating whether or not to post a longer response. For now....
with abated breath. I've seen you post novels for much less. Sleep on it some more.
ClingRap is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 07:59 AM   #38 (permalink)
far away

Senior Member
 
archie63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Panama City
Posts: 981
Representing:
Default

[quote=Ligeia;415725]
Suppose you ask me what speed light travels at. Suppose also that you haven't the first clue what speed light travels at, nor do you know how to find out.

I tell you plainly, much as Aristotle did, that "light is due to the presence of something, but it is not a movement." Clearly you cannot produce a better explanation than I just have, being that you know nothing of the subject, but is that itself a good reason to believe it? Shouldn't I demonstrate to you how it is that I know this to be the case? Indeed, as soon as you request that I do so, my claim crumbles to pieces and you'll ultimately find that light travels at a speed of roughly 3.0 x 10^5 km/s. It should be clear that because a better argument has not been produced does not in itself make your argument right if it fails to account for particular facts or lacks sound reasoning.


Yes but don't make it wrong either. I mean(just for love of discussion,"absit iniuria verbis") that yours are just rethoric and philosophical tools to make your point, and in reality you are wery good at this.


I think the only circumstance in which it would be a red blanket in front of a bull would be if it were Islamic terrorists behind the building, and as far as I can tell the Cordoba Initiative is not composed of Islamic terrorists. Notice that your argument relies a great deal on unconfirmed speculation that someone more sinister might be behind it. Without confirming such a fact, on what grounds could we pass judgement against those in favour of the building?

The fundamental issue for me is that an entire religious group is being discriminated against in a manner that is directly contra the first amendment of the US constitution. It is an affront to basic liberty.

I was taugth that my liberty ends when yours start, besides i'm sure that in the U.S. there're a lot of mosque even in the neighbourhood of ground zero so your statement is a little stretched, I understand your point but in the real world you need to make some compromise to have a civil cohabitation. I mean I know for sure speaking with some New Yorkers that the wound is far from healed so this construction cuold reopen the wound
archie63 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 10:56 AM   #39 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,699
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by archie63 View Post

I was taugth that my liberty ends when yours start, besides i'm sure that in the U.S. there're a lot of mosque even in the neighbourhood of ground zero so your statement is a little stretched, I understand your point but in the real world you need to make some compromise to have a civil cohabitation. I mean I know for sure speaking with some New Yorkers that the wound is far from healed so this construction cuold reopen the wound
so... 10 years ago, some extremists blew up a building. and now, 10 years later, peaceful citizens in america can't build a house of worship a full two manhattan blocks from the site of that explosion because it takes americans more than 10 years to heal from something that has nothing to do with a mosque? sweet logic.

is this civil cohabitation you speak of only possible on wounded christian fundamentalist terms? what about the hundreds of american muslims that died in the towers on 9/11? should their relatives have a place to pray and mourn near the site?

you might as well say, since all of theattackers were men, that only females should be allowed within a certain periphery of ground zero. i mean, this was clearly an attack on us femininity.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 11:05 AM   #40 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,087
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by archie63 View Post
Yes but don't make it wrong either. I mean(just for love of discussion,"absit iniuria verbis") that yours are just rethoric and philosophical tools to make your point, and in reality you are wery good at this.
Certainly it does not make it wrong; my point is that the line of reasoning used tells you absolutely nothing about the truth value of the claim. That can only be determined in a logically valid argument with verifiable premises.

The question I'm addressing is this: do we have a good reason to believe that claim X is true? I take the position that all claims should be presumed false until demonstrated otherwise; in scientific terms, the null hypothesis is that our existing understanding of the world is true. If good argument and evidence are combined in such a way as to suggest that the truth value of the claim is, in fact, true, then we're completely justified in providing assent to that claim. Until then, we should not provide it a modicum of support.

This relates to my initial point as follows:

It is not sufficient to say that "Until the government provides a coherent account I can agree with, it must have been a conspiracy." I think my example earlier spells out why this is bad logic. The claim that it is a conspiracy requires its own evidence to substantiate itself and, being that I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to do so, I reject it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archie63 View Post
I was taugth that my liberty ends when yours start, besides i'm sure that in the U.S. there're a lot of mosque even in the neighbourhood of ground zero so your statement is a little stretched, I understand your point but in the real world you need to make some compromise to have a civil cohabitation. I mean I know for sure speaking with some New Yorkers that the wound is far from healed so this construction cuold reopen the wound
Certainly one of the core foundations of liberty is that of negative liberty: that we are free to our liberties without them being impinged on by others. The question remains, though: are the fundamental liberties of New York citizens really being impinged by the building of this Mosque? Do their liberties include a right to not be offended? Certainly not. On the other hand, the Muslims have the right to practice their religion freely and not be discriminated against on the basis of religion. Clearly this IS a case of religious discrimination, because no other religious groups are subject to this sort of scrutiny. One of the gubernatorial candidates for New York has gone so far as to say that he would essentially seize the land to prevent them from exercising their religious freedom.

The critical premise here (that someone sinister might behind the Mosque) is not by any means confirmed. It is taken as an assumption only on the prejudiced notion that the actions on 9/11 somehow represent all Muslims.

Contrast this with how other religions are treated in the US. We know, for example, that the Catholic church has systemically raped young children, American and otherwise, for decades, and yet we will not scrutinize for even a second the construction of a new Catholic place of worship. We know also, with absolute certainty, that Scientology is completely made up, and we have a great deal of evidence suggesting that the Church of Scientology has engaged in serious misconduct, and yet do you know of a single instance where the government has intervened to prevent them from erecting a new building? In the case of the Catholic church and Scientology, these aren't just a handful of misled followers; these are high ranking officials implicitly, and explicitly, causing harm to other people, and yet very few will turn the same critical eye against these groups as they have the Islamic believers.

Though I fundamentally disagree with a nanny government deciding who can build what where, I would be considerably less irritated if they were at least consistent in the application of such reasoning. Instead, Islam is unfairly singled out.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24