View Poll Results: Regarding the "Cordoba House" mosque being built 2 blocks from ground zero in NYC...

Voters
140. You may not vote on this poll
  • This is OK by me

    51 36.43%
  • This is NOT OK at all

    85 60.71%
  • Other (Explain)

    4 2.86%
Page 18 of 51 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 510

Thread: Mosque near WTC moves forward

  1. #171
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,492

    Re: Mosque near WTC moves forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Um no actually I don't see how its hypocritical at all, not any more so then finding it a ridiculous to be labeled a bigot for hating Nazism and Communism.
    I did not say you were. I said you were a religious bigot. I merely stated the term is neutral, you are the one that jumped to those ridicules conclusions on your own. Technically you would be, this does not make it wrong in those cases.

    It's funny. That is the best argument you could come up with? You also seem to be fixated on Nazi's and communist. They have nothing to do with this discussion at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    So Islam (or any other religion) are not to be held up to the same standards of any other ideology? Why exactly?
    I did not say that. It also has no bearing on the guarantee of religious freedom we enjoy in this country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    What elevates these ideologies to this place on the pedestal? Is it because they assert that it comes from an imaginary man in the sky?
    I have no idea what pedestal you are talking about. This has nothing to do with your "Nazi" comment or my "Godwin" reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    You don't even have a clue what Christian Identity is do you?
    I am a Christian, so yea I probably have a little incite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Anyways, most negative ideologies have some positive aspects, for examples Communism promotes equality of the sexes and races and Nazism promotes environmental conservation.
    This has nothing to do with anything.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 05-08-10 at 05:58 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #172
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Mosque near WTC moves forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Yes, certain sects. So you are free to sue them.
    That would be the Suni sect.

    Irrelevant.
    Actually quite relevant, as Suni Islam is the largest sect within Islam.

    They were acting under orders from Osama Bin Laden, so no. You again are free to sue them though.
    And the Murderer in the UKA case was acting under orders from his father who was not acting under orders from national members of the UKA.


    Now you are just being silly.
    I'm actually quite serious, why exactly is it that you feel that Islam should not be judged by the same standards as any other negative ideology. I seriously doubt we'd ever hear you say "not all Nazi's are bad" or "Communists that kill people are not in the majority," but for some reason Islam gets a free pass and you feel compelled to use "not all Muslims are bad" or "most Muslims don't kill people," in your defense of a very negative ideology.

    Fallacy that does not again apply.
    Why?

    We are not talking about Nazi's. Not all Nazi's were guilty of any crime based on the fact they were indeed a Nazi.
    I never claimed that all Nazi's are guilty of a crime but the standard set in the UKA case was that not all Nazi's need to be guilty of crimes or even the upper echelons of the Nazi organization but rather that the entire organization is responsible for the actions committed by its members who were adhering to its principles.


    Good for you! It is foolish and shows a pretty limited world view, but what the hell.
    How is it foolish to blame an organization for actions taken by members of that organization following the principles espoused by that organization? Does not Christianity (or the majority of it) support the concept that abortion is murder and in fact that it is mass murder? If one is taught that abortion is indeed mass murder then it would be a moral prerogative to stop it by any means necessary.

  3. #173
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Mosque near WTC moves forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    I did not say you were. I said you were a religious bigot. I merely stated the term is neutral, you are the one that jumped to those ridicules conclusions on your own. Technically you would be, this does not make it wrong in those cases.
    You clearly used the term as a pejorative rather than in a neutral context.

    It's funny. That is the best argument you could come up with? You also seem to be fixated on Nazi's and communist. They have nothing to do with this discussion at all.
    I'm just wondering why Islam gets a free pass with you in that you seem to think that it should not be judged by the same standards as other negative ideologies.


    I did not say that. It also has no bearing on the guarantee of religious freedom we enjoy in this country.
    People are free to be Nazi's and Communists too, that does not make them any less repugnant or their ideologies any more valid.


    I have no idea what pedestal you are talking about. This has nothing to do with your "Nazi" comment or my "Godwin" reply.
    O.K. let's try it this way. What exactly makes Islam or its adherents any better than Nazism and its adherents or Communism and its adherents. Why should it not be looked upon with the exact same disdain and why do you feel compelled to label those who do as bigots?

    I am a Christian, so yea I probably have a little incite.
    Well obviously you don't because you have no idea what Christian Identity even is.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity]Christian Identity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    This has nothing to do with anything.
    Actually it does as you attempted to use the "love thy neighbor" principle as a defense for Christianity.

  4. #174
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,492

    Re: Mosque near WTC moves forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    That would be the Suni sect.
    Osama Bin Laden does not represent the entire sect of Sunni Muslims. No more than Jessie Jackson represents all Christian blacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Actually quite relevant, as Suni Islam is the largest sect within Islam.
    So what? Catholics represent the largest block of Christians but we all don't follow the Pope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    And the Murderer in the UKA case was acting under orders from his father who was not acting under orders from national members of the UKA.
    Many people got prosecuted for crimes on the orders of the UKA. The UKA was not ordered to disbanded, they are still around to this day.

    It is completely irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    I'm actually quite serious, why exactly is it that you feel that Islam should not be judged by the same standards as any other negative ideology. I seriously doubt we'd ever hear you say "not all Nazi's are bad" or "Communists that kill people are not in the majority," but for some reason Islam gets a free pass and you feel compelled to use "not all Muslims are bad" or "most Muslims don't kill people," in your defense of a very negative ideology.
    Here we go again with Nazi's and communists. Play a different tune. This is getting stupid.

    Muslims are not Nazi's or communists who killed people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Why?
    Because it is a stupid argument and does not apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    I never claimed that all Nazi's are guilty of a crime but the standard set in the UKA case was that not all Nazi's need to be guilty of crimes or even the upper echelons of the Nazi organization but rather that the entire organization is responsible for the actions committed by its members who were adhering to its principles.
    As I have shown, this is a civil matter and not criminal as I stated. Those who were guilty of crimes were arrested. Or complacent in those crimes. Just like anyone else. Islam is not organized crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    How is it foolish to blame an organization for actions taken by members of that organization following the principles espoused by that organization?
    Not all of Islam adheres to those violent beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Does not Christianity (or the majority of it) support the concept that abortion is murder and in fact that it is mass murder?
    Yes. Again we have a secular government so abortions are legal. And yet the majority of Christians do not go around bombing or killing abortion clinics and doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    If one is taught that abortion is indeed mass murder then it would be a moral prerogative to stop it by any means necessary.
    Only if you want to commit the same crime you want to condemn the other person of.

    Falls into that whole "treat others" thing.

    Your are getting more and more desperate, so I am done.

    I have made my point over and over and you are still relying on fallacy and Godwin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  5. #175
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Mosque near WTC moves forward

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtRock View Post
    You hate America?
    I hate YOUR America
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  6. #176
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: Mosque near WTC moves forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite View Post
    I hate YOUR America
    Me too.


    _________

  7. #177
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Mosque near WTC moves forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Osama Bin Laden does not represent the entire sect of Sunni Muslims.
    And Bennie Hays did not represent the entire UKA, but Bennie Hays like OBL was certainly committing acts in accordance with the principles of the organization.


    No more than Jessie Jackson represents all Christian blacks.
    No but Loise Farrakhan does represent all members of the Nation of Islam and thus he should be held liable when members of that organization commit unlawful acts in accordance with the principles of that organization.


    So what? Catholics represent the largest block of Christians but we all don't follow the Pope.
    So then you don't believe that the Catholic Church should be held accountable when illegal actions are taken by members of that church acting in accordance with the principle thereof?

    Many people got prosecuted for crimes on the orders of the UKA.
    I don't believe its central leadership has ever been prosecuted.

    The UKA was not ordered to disbanded, they are still around to this day.
    But they were held civilly liable and forced to pay restitution which actually destroyed the organization. The UKA is not the UKA of back then and that is only because of the civil suit.

    It is completely irrelevant.
    It is entirely relevant as the case set the precedent that organizations can be held liable for the actions committed by its members if they are in accordance with the principles of that organization even if they were not ordered by the organizations central leadership.

    Here we go again with Nazi's and communists. Play a different tune. This is getting stupid.
    I'm just trying to understand why you think that Islam doesn't need to be held to the same standards of other ideologies.


    Muslims are not Nazi's or communists who killed people.
    I'm just trying to understand why people like you like to throw out the old "most Muslims are peaceful" shtick, because the same can be said about most Communists and Nazi's, most Communists and Nazi's are not violent but that does not make the Communist or Nazi ideologies any less repugnant.

    Because it is a stupid argument and does not apply.
    I'm sorry but you're going to have to explain exactly why it is stupid and why it doesn't apply.

    As I have shown, this is a civil matter and not criminal as I stated. Those who were guilty of crimes were arrested. Or complacent in those crimes. Just like anyone else. Islam is not organized crime.
    So then the UKA can be held responsible for the actions of its members even though they were not acting under orders from the leadership of the UKA but only because they were acting in accordance with the principles of that organization, but the same standards do not apply to Islam? Why exactly?

    OBL is not acting on the orders of the leadership of the Suni Sect, however, he is acting in accordance with the principles of Suni Islam.

    Not all of Islam adheres to those violent beliefs.
    No, not all Muslims act on those principles, however, those principles are certainly in accordance with Islam.

    Yes. Again we have a secular government so abortions are legal. And yet the majority of Christians do not go around bombing or killing abortion clinics and doctors.
    And most Nazi's don't go around killing Jews and most Communists don't go around co-opting the property of the bourgeois.


    Only if you want to commit the same crime you want to condemn the other person of.
    So then what should Christians do when confronted with what they are taught is mass murder?

  8. #178
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Mosque near WTC moves forward

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    Me too.
    That's funny, I hate your view of the future of America.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #179
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Mosque near WTC moves forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Perhaps you can explain the difference. How does subscribing to an ideology which is antithetical to individual liberty whilst in an open society make the ideology any less antithetical to liberty?
    What you keep forgetting is that they choose to subscribe to that religion and adhere to its tenets, and they don't force any other adults to behave thusly.

    Furthermore, how closely they adhere to the tenets of their faith is also a very individual choice.

    While you could make the argument that if they raise their kids in that religion, they're forcing them to do as they do, but they do so only within the margin that any parent is permitted to make choices for their children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    The only thing that I see here is unreasonable is that when someone slaps the "god" label on a bat**** crazy belief structure that you people expect it to get a free pass. If anything asserting that their bat**** crazy belief system is mandated by an imaginary man in the sky makes it even more bat**** crazy.
    Whether it's bat**** crazy or not, it's their right to believe in it, it's their right to practice it, and there isn't a thing in the world wrong with them wanting to build a mosque on the site they've chosen -- especially if they're doing it in the name of improving relations between Muslims and the rest of American society.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  10. #180
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Mosque near WTC moves forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I think that's part of the point --- the mosque is literally steps away from ground zero - the old WTC took up 2 city blocks. But I agree, thankfully, no minarets. I'm wondering if this mosque will piping out "call to prayer" audio 5 times a day?
    It would not be allowed to begin with because it would break city ordinances for noise control.

    Secondly, minarets do the call to prayer. Mosques are just churches without belltowers.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

Page 18 of 51 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •