It is a huge assumption DonnyMost, and an ignorant one. I don't assume that Christianity is responsible when someone kills their own children in the name of Jesus Christ. I would say that person obviously does not understand Jesus Christ's teachings. Christianity wouldn't be responsible for the murders, but rather the person's agenda or a mental illness. Instead, you have accepted the killing of innocent people on 9/11 as part of Islam. If one saw Islam's relation to 9/11 as with the example above, this mosque would not be offensive. Try this exercise with the Spanish Inquisition.
This mosque only became and issue when national Republican/Tea Party zealots decided to make it into an election issue. Before that no one talked about it nor cared. The community board approved it. There is already a mosque near Ground Zero and no one has advocated moving that one! There's also strip clubs and a gay bar near by. Islamaphobia doesn't serve our national interest, it serves Bin Laden's interests. This is what he wants, a war between Islam and America. Why are you people giving it to him?
My "pansy" position is aimed directly at getting to the root cause of the problem and taking action to eradicate it. The converse position, which it seems you hold, is to simply label people as bad, or stupid and end discussion. This more balls than brains approach is, ironically, exactly how we got in our current situation. If more people would think with their brain rather than their testicles, perhaps in time we could achieve change that would be to the betterment of all rather than to entrench hatred and exacerbate our present problems.
I rob someone in the name of DonnyMost tonight. I also wear a DonnyMost shirt with his picture on it and scream his name after succesfully robbing some poor victim. During an investigation, I claim to know DonnyMost better than anyone else. DonnyMost is unable to confirm, deny or comment on anything. From then on, DonnyMost's family are never allowed into shopping malls again. Do you see how that does not make sense? Now here is the important part: It only makes sense if you believe the criminal's unconfirmed claim that he knows DonnyMost and that DonnyMost wants him to do this. To bring you back into the loop: What you say only make sense if you sincerely believe that the Prophet PBUH told Osama Bin Laden's minions to blow up the WTC. In reality, a thief is a thief and a terrorist is a terrorist and their claims as to who commanded them to do things is meaningless as they are immoral people to begin with. If they claimed to do it in the name of Krusty the Clown, would you then ban the Simpsons even though there's no proof of Krusty supporting any such actions?
Wow. That was a fascinating read. Thank you for posting it. Perhaps the present GOP leadership needs to take a page out of Bush's book. I never thought I would say that.
"No proof". Heh, heh. Good one. Not going to chase you down this theological rabbit hole again. You believe your interpretation of Islam is correct and the others are wrong. Same story, different day, yawnnnnnnn.
You calling me ignorant is just the richest irony ever. I know it may seem like a really harsh reality, and kinda sucks to believe, but yeah, perfectly sane, healthy, educated human beings can be persuaded by completely un-doctored abrahamic scripture into thinking that killing people is justified. You seem to have a total lack of understanding of my position, so I'll go ahead and leave you to your own devices.
That's Batman Jones' signature move, though: "Either you agree with me 100 %, or you are a proven [insert random insult such as racist, bigot, *******, etc. etc.]. And Mathloom, I see your point about people doing something in the name of Krusty the clown, but Krusty the clown having no responsibility for it. Only issue with that is that people continue to kill other people in the name of Islam...but not in the name of Krusty the clown. Alert me when they start doing that. As to the mosque, I am not sure. It will be interesting to see how things will develop.
No amount of cerebral discussion can get around the fact that a group of people are being singled out for their beliefs wrongly because they are being associated with terrorists. We have words for those who discriminate this way. I pasted Webster's definition for "bigot." I fairly posted the opposition's position. I showed the intolerant and hateful assumption that underlies the position. Without which, the opposition's position falls apart. There are few discussions we have as clear cut as this. The discussion you propose seeks to drown us with verbosity that will either lead the conversation in the wrong direction, or end the conversation with an exasperated "lets just agree to disagree." The reason is this, you give credibility to an argument that deserves none. The point of discussions are to parse out credible arguments from those that lack it, but you have already destroyed the process by refusing to get off your fence, so your discussion can lead no where but both sides giving a "i'm sorry you feel that way" conclusion. At some point discussions are supposed to end with, "well... you know, its wrong to discriminate against all black people because you were harmed by one ten years ago." And then we learn the lesson that this is what being a bigot is and that it is wrong. Its not name calling if Webster labeled them already. I didn't distort the language or the definition.
Save your "other interpretations" card for another day buddy. There is a direct order not to murder and there is no order to go out and murder civilians. But if that makes it easier for you to think how you want to think, have a good day!
I called your assumption ignorant. We never allow that "perfectly sane, healthy, educated human being" to make the religion responsible for the act. In our society, we always hold the person responsible. Christianity has been used by "perfectly sane, healthy, educated human being(s)" to justify a lot of things, but if we are not holding Christianity responsible in those situations then why do we make the exception for Islam? Even where scripture from the Bible has been used, we still don't hold the religion responsible when the act is out of touch with the message. Making an exception for Islam would demonstrate one's prejudice. It has yet to be shown that 9/11 is within the message of Islam.
If people continue to kill in the name of Krusty the clown forever, but Krusty the clown doesn't tell them to, then it's time to find another motive. But you wouldn't know because, as you said before, you don't need to read the Quran to know what Islam says. Anyways, I doubt any of us have any interest in discussing this again.
No, I am more interested in hearing about what you do at that regulator (since you mentioned it)...as I have been to Dubai and am curious about some of their regulations...
Just to add, it would be quite difficult to show this in a credible way. Simply saying that the terrorists believed it, does not help. We are taking about a standard that society has set for accepting the message of a religion. Unfortunately the problem here is that a significant portion of Americans have allowed themselves to have a different standard for setting the message for Islam than the one they have for Christianity. A couple of places where we can say a religion is responsible for someone's act would be an unequivocal and plain-meaning command to act in such a manner (Jesus told His followers to go and convert so I would say that Christianity is responsible for acts of converting.) or if the act itself was commanded in the scripture itself (Jews told to invade Canaan and thus Judaism is responsible for the Battle of Jericho). I have seen nothing that comes close to such standards when tying Islam with 9/11.
You are seeing the symptom and calling it the disease. You are seeing the coughing up blood and failing to treat the tumor causing it. I believe that people are not born bigoted. They become bigoted by some skew in the lens they view the world through. The vast majority of people in this country know very little about Islam. There is an entire generation that has as their only sight of Islam being the Achile Lauro, Pan Am 103, bombings in Beirut and other hijackings. There is another generation becoming adults now whose only sight of Islam being 9/11 and the USS Cole. These are all things done by extremists. Some education of these people could go a long way to correcting their world view. If you are looking for immediate fixes, then yes it is hopeless. Things will never change. Things will likely get worse as people become more fragmented. Or...you could take the big picture, long term view and realize that in time, the proper way of handling the situation can effect positive change. The choice is yours. That is a pretty fatalistic view. I lend credibility to nothing. I realize that this is how some people feel. If you just label them as "bad" and move on, then you have engaged in the same flawed logic that led them to hold the beliefs that you abhor. In short, it makes you no better than they are to just summarily toss them aside as being basically defective and somehow unworthy as a person. And you expect to do this by just labeling them as bad or defective and taking no further action? Please try not to be shocked when it doesn't work that way. There are many words in the dictionary that can be used for name calling. It is all about connotation. I assume that you know that already though and are merely being contrary.
And why do you think that is? 1. People think differently about their faith than they do about the faith of others. 2. Most Americans know little to nothing about Islam.
