Title from CNN.com tab today, outstanding read, he really is representing what America is about. I remember hearing another representative against the mosque on television saying if they let us build an American understanding center in Mecca, then I will say we should build this mosque here. So essentially he was saying he wants to match their levels of freedom and have America not take a higher road and stand true to our roots, but do just as the countries we try to liberate instead and act in that manner...glad to hear bloomberg say it as well as anyone. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/25/new-yorks-bloomberg-we-are-all-muslims/?hpt=T2
The day the USA match the level of "freedom" in Saudi Arabia will hopefully never come. This would be terrible.
no we're not. Spoiler <object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KrM0dAFsZ8k?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KrM0dAFsZ8k?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>
yea they are celebrating as Palestinians primarily, not muslims. That is the misconception. Even in the 9/11 attacks, was the attack n christianity or judaism? No it was on American, and yes Muslims died in that attack, infact majority of the people affected and harmed by the taliban and alquaeda are Muslims. Yes these people happen to claim to be muslim, but you have to see the root of the issues, what political and social agenda and turmoil they have and why they have trouble, because it wasn't always like this, suicide bombs and terrorism that the media puts hand in hand with islam when one day it was all about progress in sciences and technology and pluralism and tolerance during muslim rule in the moorish times...that was the same religioin Regan actually called these extremist heros and said they have teh character of the founding fathers, this is when they were under war with Russia and they were fine with America then, they worked with America than, they didn't have some inherit problem with some sort of 'infidels', what changed? Yes its more than religion if you can just put it together
Nice reference. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5mu02xUgE4k?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5mu02xUgE4k?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Language NSFW
he was referring to the tea party guy who says this mosque is fine as long as he can build a church close to mecca. why is the level of freedom america should strive towards equal to that of saudi arabia? we're better than that. looks like you and srf were the ones not thinking.
He was thinking that it's what the Rep implied. I'm sure the Rep didn't think of it that way, but he said basically that we should set our religious freedom standards based on what Saudi Arabia does. If they allow a Church, we allow a Mosque. If they don't, we don't. This is what happens when Reps decide they want to play to populist fear - they say stupid things without really thinking through the logic of what they are saying.
Thanks. After re-reading it twice and with your explanation, I understand what he was trying to say. But it was worded so strangely that it sounded like he was asking for the US to match Saudi-Arabia in terms of "level of freedom".
If that is how you want to look at it - but asking for reciprocity is nothing unusual in international relations and certainly not exclusive to Americans or to Republicans...and if the money for the mosque actually comes from the Saudis...well...
The author of the blog should be more accurate by using this title Bloomberg: We are all Jews, Christians, and Muslims
It makes perfect sense. If you didnt sit there waiting to attack posters, and actually absorbed the content you would realize that the sentence in regards to "matching levels of freedom" was in reference to Lets try this excercise.... 1. Read the quote above. 2. Now read the sentence being attacked "So essentially he was saying he wants to match their levels of freedom" 3. Now use references from the original quote to fill out the sentence... "So essentially (another representative against the mosque) was saying (the representative) wants to match (Saudi Arabia)'s levels of freedom and have America not take a higher road and stand true to (America)'s roots [roots of religious freedom and tolerance] Another shining example of your intelligence wasted.
Except this isn't international relations. This is an American non-profit building a religious structure on private property in America. We don't define what we allow Americans to do based based on what Saudi Arabia allows. Of course, no one has actually substantiated that.
Get it now? Sorry about the awkward wording and thanks to the other posters who cleared it up. Yea, I understand that, but America was built on religious freedom, that we were unlike any place on earth, thats what made it the greatest country that all people wanted to come here and be like america, and essentially he is saying not to stay to those core principles, instead that rep was saying lets be more like mecca since he was saying if they do it than we will, and we are better than that sort of exclusivity country, yes its a muslim majority country, but the heads just use the religion for unification, many of its values and views contradict the quran itself, so once again, those guys aren't the face and representatives of the quran, ofcourse thats a different topic, but yea, do you agree with him? should we,as wrong as they are, copy them and be like them?
