is it necessary to be personally impacted by the holocaust or the middle passage to feel strongly about those events?
What does this have to do with religion? I read this article and the two that are linked here and nowhere is the religion of the pie-thrower mentioned.
"The student charged with assault, Ahlam Mohsen, said she was protesting Levin’s support of Israel." it's safe to assume she's not Jewish.
All right then, let me attempt a rejoinder: They are not opposing the spread of religion. They are opposing the construction of a mosque near ground zero. The opposition is accordingly predicated on the idea that Islam is somehow responsible for the atrocity, or that those who follow it are ideologically predisposed to consider the site from an alternative (and presumably sinister) point of view. In order to submit to the idea that a mosque should NOT be allowed implies several things: 1) That the first amendment and other associated rights do not apply in this case. (ignorance and bigotry) 2) That muslims are somehow responsible for the event in the first place (bigotry) 3) That islam harbors an intrinsic ideology antithetical to the purposes of the memorial area (ignorance and bigotry). 4) That limiting the construction of mosques arbitrarily near ground zero will better the memorial area itself, or (more likely) that the spite associated will provide gratification in regard to a fictitious enemy. (ignorance) 5) That this action will somehow "score points" against extremism, even though it indubitably furthers their agenda. (extreme ignorance) The fact of the matter Donny is that opposing the spread of religion (if that's what you seriously think the intention is here) is all well and good but it provides zero basis to legally disallow this building. Furthermore, a building is just a building - if you really want to fight extremist ideology (or religions in general) prohibiting certain architectural expressions is not effective, just...pathetic.
You don't seem to feel so strongly about it when reminded that it was your president, and his national security team that let 3000 people die rather than read a memo or take a meeting.
GW Bush isnt a conservative pundit. I agree that he did come out time and again to go out of his way and make in roads with the Muslim community. I'm talking about people like Michael Berry saying he hopes someone blows up the mosque if it gets built. I didnt hear any of the better known pundits come out and 'refudiate' it.
First off, believe it or not, there are Jewish people who protest the actions of Israel. Second, even if she isn't Jewish, why can't she be Christian or non-religious? You're just showing your own prejudices here again. She has an ARAB sounding name, so she must be a Muslim.
btw, here's a (now deleted) tweet from the 9/11 Debris Field Mosque's official twitter account: if Haaretz likes publishing fables, perhaps they could go back to the Yiddish ones with parables sounds like muck mark could have tweeted that particular bridge...
http://www.ktrh.com/pages/michaelberry.html Hannity's had him on before and he's been on Fox News. They know him, I'm 100% they are aware of his remarks, and yet they sat silent. Why?
I'm guessing you've been skimming this thread, but we've already covered the fact that no one is advocating legal, government, or military intervention.
i have no idea- i don't watch hannity, and the only fox news show i do watch is Brett Baier Special Report.
Other than the people who are trying to stop the mosque from being built by going to the city and to court to stop it from being built.
Well then, we're done here. If they own the land, they can build a mosque. Arguing that's it's "improper" is, as I stated above and you glossed over, objectively ignorant and bigoted. And in any case, a waste of time.
