And hence in aster-ix. And the reason I did that was because this is not the first time where you have cut and pasted an article from another site without engaging in a bit of critical reasoning on your part. Check the website. Read the article. Check for biases (site and the article). Cross-check the facts. Draw your own conclusions. This is something I would tell my daughter to do. And you are 37 years old.
After all, just yesterday the OP implied that the thread title "Why are Muslims so easily offended?" is a fact. In reality, this thread title is in his bottom 3 least misleading thread titles. Give credit where it's due people. Having said that, I think it's wrong, even though it's not specifically Obama's fault. It's wrong to do it at all, regardless of churches being burned. It's improper behavior (though not illegal) on the part of a secular state to garner favor with religious institutions. Secularism is not only about protecting state from religion, it is also about protecting religion from the state and this goes against that idea.
Can't agree. They are cultural heritage sites. They are being preserved for historical and cultural reasons, not because of religion (in my opinion). That a site is/was a mosque or a church, for example, is incidental in the eyes of the program, and I think that's a good thing.
I did read the article. I did cross-check...hence the link showing that this wasn't Obama's idea in the first place. I don't have to do any critical reasoning for every post that I put in the D&D, I do however agree with the highlighted part of the OP, in regards to the Pakistan public service announcement. Sometimes it is ok to just have read an article and post it on a discussion board to see what others think, isn't it?
the American Family Association, really? the anti-gay group that labeled Rudy and Tyson Gay as Rudy and Tyson Homosexual in their newsletter? the same group responsible for a failed boycott of JCPenney for endorsing Ellen Degeneres? the anti-Muslim group that sent out an "Action Alert" when the first Muslim was elected to US Congress and was sworn in on the Koran? the same group that opposed a Hindu prayer based on the teachings of Ghandi being read in the US Senate, claiming such prayer is "seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god"? the same group that claimed that "Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government... Because of this subversive ideology, Muslims cannot claim religious freedom protections under the First Amendment." the same group that claims homosexuality is a choice and can be cured by religious therapy and opposes gay/straight alliance clubs in schools?
If you're not going to do some lifting before posting this crap, then the crap you get in return should be expected, isn't it?
that is an insult to the quality of threads that basso starts. it's nothing compared to ATW, either. those guys know what they are doing. it's ToyCen on a whole new ignorant let's talk about United States through an anti Muslim prism level. we're about to get hit with some god awful gifs and pictures from the Internet
Not disputing that they are cultural heritage sites. I'm disputing whether it's the role of a government, whether foreign or domestic, to rebuild those sites. Whether the identity of the sites is incidental in the eyes of the government program is debatable, but not part of my argument. Imams of those mosques have a responsibility to remain independent. The owners/operators of those sites should be saying "Thank you but no thank you. This is an extravagant and thoughtful gift, but it would diminish my credibility and hence impact my ability to fulfill my duties." It would be better to use that money for other purposes IMO.
Irrelevant. The way America's money is spent can and does affect non-Americans depending on how it is spent. Same goes for all countries. I don't know how/if that applies here, but it doesn't make sense to say no one should care how you spend your money. That money could be used to bribe people, to influence people, to fund industries that are illegal in their territories, etc.
The United States has a long history of providing foreign aid, and just as long a list of reasons for doing so. Something like this should be celebrated, not nit-picked to death, in my opinion.
