• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mosque near WTC moves forward

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


  • Total voters
    58
  • Poll closed .
No that doesn't actually cover it, by your definition someone who is completely stubborn and intolerant of Nazism is likewise a bigot.

And that would be true.

"Bigot" in itself is a neutral term. You associate it with something other than it is. We are all bigots in one form or another, this does not make it bad.

Yes I suppose if intolerance of intolerant ideologies equates to bigotry.

Christianity and Islam or any religion is not "intolerant" in and of itself. Again that is a blanket statement.
 
That's not what he said. He said "Christains do not act violently in the name of there god."

This as you and I have shown is a lie.

Statism does not cut it. The Constitution is clear on this.


That is why, rather than agreeing with either of you, I presented my own viewpoint: that it is a matter of scale.


Terrorism committed in the name of Islam is a boulder twenty feet high massing five hundred tons. Terrorism committed in the name of Christianity is a pebble smaller than a marble.
 
So do Nazi's and Communists, how does that make Nazism or Communism any less antithetical to individual liberty?

Irrelevant. They have the freedom and do you as long as they do not infringe on someone else's rights. If that happens criminal prosecution takes over.

It's the way our system worls.
 
You still haven't told me that the acceptable ratio of militants to moderates is.

Until so called moderates prove otherwise by standing up in force and condemning and pointing out the militants amongst them. Until so called moderates take back thier religion and reform Islam. There is not an acceptable ratio.

When the cry of Allahu Akbar is no longer heard before an explosion and death of innocents, when muslims respect the rights of women and treat them as equals, when muslims, christians, and jews can co-exist in peace everywhere including Israel then and only then will there be anything that is acceptable. Until then we struggle to maintain freedom and liberty here at home and help to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world.
 
That is why, rather than agreeing with either of you, I presented my own viewpoint: that it is a matter of scale.


Terrorism committed in the name of Islam is a boulder twenty feet high massing five hundred tons. Terrorism committed in the name of Christianity is a pebble smaller than a marble.

Our Constitution does not recognize acts committed by others no matter what size as a reason to persecute or other wise treat differently under the law.
 
Until so called moderates prove otherwise by standing up in force and condemning and pointing out the militants amongst them. Until so called moderates take back thier religion and reform Islam. There is not an acceptable ratio.

When the cry of Allahu Akbar is no longer heard before an explosion and death of innocents, when muslims respect the rights of women and treat them as equals, when muslims, christians, and jews can co-exist in peace everywhere including Israel then and only then will there be anything that is acceptable. Until then we struggle to maintain freedom and liberty here at home and help to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Okay, so since there is no acceptable ratio, the existence of Christian militants is just as abhorrent to you as the existence of Muslim militants, which means the two religions are equally defaced by such individuals.

Glad we agree. :lol:

Also, it may be that millions of moderate Muslims in America are failing to point out the militants in their midst because, well, they may not know who there are.

ETA: In addition, it may well be that millions of moderate Muslims in America are failing to take to the streets to condemn militants because they figure that no reasonable person would associate them with doers of evil
 
Last edited:
And that would be true.

"Bigot" in itself is a neutral term. You associate it with something other than it is. We are all bigots in one form or another, this does not make it bad.

Fine you're a bigot and tolerant of intolerance to boot. If that's your standard of bigotry then go ahead of label me a bigot of violent intolerant ideologies.

Christianity and Islam or any religion is not "intolerant" in and of itself. Again that is a blanket statement.

Really? So Christian Identity isn't intolerant? Give me a ****ing break. That's like saying that Nazism isn't inherently intolerant.
 
Hello, Godwin!

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?


Get back to me when you have a reasonable point to make. :lol:

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.
 
Our Constitution does not recognize acts committed by others no matter what size as a reason to persecute or other wise treat differently under the law.

Actually it does for example the civil lawsuit against the United Klans of America, Donald v. United Klans of America in which the "agency theory" was set into precedent which holds that corporations are responsible for the deeds of employees acting according to the corporation's principles.
 
Irrelevant. They have the freedom and do you as long as they do not infringe on someone else's rights. If that happens criminal prosecution takes over.

It's the way our system worls.

The original point is that Islam and Individual Liberty are antithetical and I don't see how proscribing to an anti-freedom ideology whilst in a free society makes the ideology any less antithetical to freedom.
 
Actually it does for example the civil lawsuit against the United Klans of America, Donald v. United Klans of America in which the "agency theory" was set into precedent which holds that corporations are responsible for the deeds of employees acting according to the corporation's principles.

The clansman were operating illegally and breaking multiple laws as a representative of the United Klan's of America. Notice the KKK is still around? It was one chapter, not the group as a whole.

Muslims are not representing Islam as a whole.

I suppose you hold all Christians responsible for abortion clinic murders as well? :lol:
 
The original point is that Islam and Individual Liberty are antithetical and I don't see how proscribing to an anti-freedom ideology whilst in a free society makes the ideology any less antithetical to freedom.

That is not the original point. It has yet to be shown as true anyway. To many Muslims in this country are legal citizens who have done nothing wrong for that to be the case. They show the exact opposite of what you are saying.
 
The clansman were operating illegally and breaking multiple laws as a representative of the United Klan's of America.

So were Muslims acting as representatives of Islam.

Notice the KKK is still around? It was one chapter, not the group as a whole.

Actually it was the largest Klan organization in the country. So would you assert that we could hold Sunni Islam responsible for the actions carried out by adherents of Sunni Muslims just so long as we don't blame Islam itself as the culprit? Would that placate your delicate sensitivities in relation to this ideology which apparently you seem to feel should be beyond reproach just because its adherents say it comes from an imaginary man in the sky?

Muslims are not representing Islam as a whole.

So then Nazi's don't represent Nazism as a whole then either I suppose?

I suppose you hold all Christians responsible for abortion clinic murders as well? :lol:

I hold Christianity responsible for all of the violent acts carried out in its name using what it actually teaches as justifications for those acts.
 
Fine you're a bigot and tolerant of intolerance to boot. If that's your standard of bigotry then go ahead of label me a bigot of violent intolerant ideologies.

That is ridicules. You are accusing all Muslims of the same intolerance you are displaying. A bit hypocritical wouldn't you say?

Really? So Christian Identity isn't intolerant? Give me a ****ing break. That's like saying that Nazism isn't inherently intolerant.

Again with Godwin, lol.

Yea that whole "love thy neighbor" thing should be ignored. While we are at it the whole "treat others as you want to be treated" out the window.

Damn intolerant Christians. :lol:
 
The situation in the world today borders on the fantastic.

Never before in history has one civilization allowed large numbers of those who come from an alien, and immutably hostile situation, to settle deep within that first civilization’s borders.

Never before have the members of one civilization failed to investigate, and even willfully refused to investigate, or to listen to those who warn about, the consequences for all non-Muslims of the belief-system of Islam.

In history, the phenomenon of the Barbarians at the Gates is hardly new. Those barbarians lay siege; if they win, they enter in triumph. Should they lose, the advanced civilization survives. But never before have the gates been opened, to an entering force that has not even been identified or understood.

Never before have the inhabitants of the by-now vulnerable city made efforts not to recognize, or realize, what they have done, and what they have undone. That demographic intrusion shows no signs of diminishing.

The systematic building of mosques and madrasas, paid for by Saudi Arabia, everywhere in the Western world, helps to make the conduct of Muslim life easier. Western populations have been trained to make much of “celebrating diversity” and “promoting difference” and constructing, on a base of militant but unexamined pluralism, an edifice of legal rights and entitlements.

These rights, these entitlements, this militant pluralism are exploited by Muslims who do not believe in pluralism. Nor do they accept the individual rights of conscience and free speech, the legal equality of men and women, and of religious and racial minorities, recognized, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Their current claim to support pluralism is based on the need to protect, and increase the power of, the Muslim umma, or Community, within the West, until such time as that umma no longer needs to pretend to have any interest in Western pluralism and Western values.

Fitzgerald: Islam for Infidels, Part One - Jihad Watch
 
That is not the original point. It has yet to be shown as true anyway. To many Muslims in this country are legal citizens who have done nothing wrong for that to be the case. They show the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Islam does not allow for freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, to leave Islam is what is known as apostasy the punishment for which is death under Sharia law, to assert that Mohamed is not and never was a prophet is likewise a crime under Islamic Fiqh. Now that is quite clearly an ideology which is antithetical to individual liberty. Now you assert that just because adherents to this ideology live in a free society proves that it is not antithetical to individual liberty, and if that is the case then the same must be true for any other ideology; such as, Communism or Nazism, because we have plenty of Nazi's and Communists who are legal citizens of this country as well. Now perhaps you can now explain to me how that makes them any less antithetical to individual liberty.
 
So were Muslims acting as representatives of Islam.

Yes, certain sects. So you are free to sue them.

Actually it was the largest Klan organization in the country.

Irrelevant.

So would you assert that we could hold Sunni Islam responsible for the actions carried out by adherents of Sunni Muslims just so long as we don't blame Islam itself as the culprit?

They were acting under orders from Osama Bin Laden, so no. You again are free to sue them though.

Would that placate your delicate sensitivities in relation to this ideology which apparently you seem to feel should be beyond reproach just because its adherents say it comes from an imaginary man in the sky?

Now you are just being silly. :roll:

So then Nazi's don't represent Nazism as a whole then either I suppose?

Fallacy that does not again apply. 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 hold Christianity responsible for all of the violent acts carried out in its name using what it actually teaches as justifications for those acts.

Good for you! It is foolish and shows a pretty limited world view, but what the hell.
 
That is ridicules. You are accusing all Muslims of the same intolerance you are displaying. A bit hypocritical wouldn't you say?

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.

Again with Godwin, lol.

So Islam (or any other religion) are not to be held up to the same standards of any other ideology? Why exactly? 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?

Yea that whole "love thy neighbor" thing should be ignored. While we are at it the whole "treat others as you want to be treated" out the window.

Damn intolerant Christians. :lol:

You don't even have a clue what Christian Identity is do you? Anyways, most negative ideologies have some positive aspects, for examples Communism promotes equality of the sexes and races and Nazism promotes environmental conservation.
 
Islam does not allow for freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, to leave Islam is what is known as apostasy the punishment for which is death under Sharia law, to assert that Mohamed is not and never was a prophet is likewise a crime under Islamic Fiqh.

We have a secular government and don't live under Shira law. So it does not even apply in any way.

As soon as honor killings become legal in the US, you may have a point.

Now that is quite clearly an ideology which is antithetical to individual liberty. Now you assert that just because adherents to this ideology live in a free society proves that it is not antithetical to individual liberty, and if that is the case then the same must be true for any other ideology; such as, Communism or Nazism, because we have plenty of Nazi's and Communists who are legal citizens of this country as well. Now perhaps you can now explain to me how that makes them any less antithetical to individual liberty.

Because it is against the law for them to infringe on the rights of anyone else. Other than that they have every right here in the US to live by their own code be it religion or secularism.
 
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. :mrgreen:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
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. :roll:

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.
 
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. :mrgreen:

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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.


Because it is a stupid argument and does not apply.

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. :roll:

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.

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.

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.

:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom