• 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!

Protesters rally against, for planned Islamic center in New York

Ikari said:
I don't know if religions can really be blamed for the actions of man. Religions are just abstract ideals and stories made up by people. The use of religions is totally up to the individual themselves. Religions do not act, religions cannot act; only man acts. Any given religion can be made violent and any given religion can be made peaceful. It's all how the individual chooses to act. If not religion, we'll come up with other excuses for our actions; it's not like religion is unique in this charge.
Click to expand...

Anything that can be abuse will be abused by someone. It is not uncommon to use something like religion to justify all manner of actions, good and evil. That's why blaming a religion seems fruitless. Best to blame the people commit the evil.

Just agreeing with you. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
It isn't tied to 9/11 any more than McVey and Okl. City is to Christianity. So, I had your logic accurately pegged, and have shown it flawed. There is nomore insult to building a mosque than to build a Christina Church in OKl. City. None.
Click to expand...

Jesus ****ing christ.

Go back, read what I wrote about McVeigh, and then get back to me when you want to have a discussion. Unless you can actually offer up some evidence disproving my statements on him, the OKC bombing, and how much Christianity had any impact on him OR said bombing I'm not responding any further to this ignorance.
 
Boo Radley said:
It isn't tied to 9/11 any more than McVey and Okl. City is to Christianity. So, I had your logic accurately pegged, and have shown it flawed. There is nomore insult to building a mosque than to build a Christina Church in OKl. City. None.
Click to expand...
McVeigh was not a Christian. He was agnostic.
 
Redress said:
But those being "inflamed" are being "inflamed" for illogical and entirely personal reasons. I tend to see this argument as very much a case of PC gone wild. I am not saying the anger is not real, but the people building this "mosque" are not terrorists, are not responsible for 9/11, the religion is not guilty for 9/11. I cannot stop people from being "inflamed", but I would not other people's let irrational emotion effect my decisions.
Click to expand...

I would if my purpose was to "build bridges", provide "out reach", and attempt to promote acceptance of equality and diversity amongst religions and compasion towards my religion. If THAT was my purpose than emotions, rather irrational or not, would be something I'd DEFINITELY let affect my decision because if by ignoring it I make my ability to do all the things I've stated as my purposes harder if not absolutely impossible with the groups of people who would need said things the most then frankly I'm cutting off my nose to spite my face.

Then again, if that wasn't really my purpose but just what I was stating publicly because it sounds a lot better than my honest intent or purpose, then yeah...you're right...I wouldn't really care about peoples emotions.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Look everyone, someone that actually gets what I'm saying, DISAGREES WITH MY END POSITION, and yet still is able to honestly discuss what I stated.

Thank you YouStar.

And I agree, its ridiculous to blame all Muslims for 9/11. Its ridiculous to think "The muslims are the enemy". And I think its even ridiculous to suggest a law must be made to keep them from placing a "mosque of conquest" or whatever other such hyperbole people are trying to place on this.

However, I also think its ridiculous to build a mosque in such a place that's OBVIOUSLY going to needlessly inflame people if your purpose is to "build bridges". I think its ridiculous to attempt to capitalize on 9/11 and use it as a giant club to beat over the head of people visiting said location that they must be tolerant and understanding towards a religion that was instrumental in the attacks.

Do I think that message in general...that we should be tolerant of Islam, more understanding, and realize that not all muslims are terrorist...a good one? ABSOLUTELY! But I think that it does that message a disservice to try and force it on people and club them over the head with it through the use of 9/11 itself. I think its disrespectful, tactless, and insulting. I think it shouldn't have been there, and I applaud the Mayor for offering tem up other land, and I support those that protest it. And I would oppose any law that attempted to forbid them from going forward with it.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

And I agree that it isn't the wisest thing to do. Because even if I don't, many people are going to think Mosque=Islam=Terrorism. To my understanding it is being built to take in some of the overflow from other mosque's in the area. If they really wanted to build bridges, they would make it a place where all faiths can have service, have a mosque, church, synagogue, and come from the viewpoint that were all Americans of faith, and have no conflict with each other. At it's current state, it's just another mosque/community center in a location that is sensitive to some people.
 
buck said:
Why are you so hesitant to call a space for islamic religious services a mosque? It's a building that will contain a mosque and all these other things you keep wanting to bring up.
Click to expand...

The top two floors being prayer space does NOT equal a mosque. It's a 14-story building. I'm not hesitant. It's just not factual.
 
Zyphlin said:
I would if my purpose was to "build bridges", provide "out reach", and attempt to promote acceptance of equality and diversity amongst religions and compasion towards my religion. If THAT was my purpose than emotions, rather irrational or not, would be something I'd DEFINITELY let affect my decision because if by ignoring it I make my ability to do all the things I've stated as my purposes harder if not absolutely impossible with the groups of people who would need said things the most then frankly I'm cutting off my nose to spite my face.
Click to expand...

That is looking at it short term however. A few years from now, when the controversy has died down, people are using the community center and enjoying it, it could very well have the desired effect. Will it? Damned if I know, predicting the future is not very accurate, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility.
 
j-mac said:
it is my business because I live in the freest country on Earth, and have a right to declare my opinion, and discuss anything I wish to discuss. Your little snarky fascist comments aside.
Click to expand...

I remember someone getting all bent out of shape once when I used the "fascist" line. But regardless, that is not an argument for being your business. You can say what you want, talk about what you want; even stuff that ain't none of your business. It's true, being a busybody ain't against the law. But I wanted to know what business it was of yours. Is it your religion? Are you going to this place? Are your rights negatively effected by this planned mosque? What is it in any of this that is YOUR business. Let's have an honest answer this time; not some free speech deflect. I am not arguing that you can't say anything about it. I just think that you're sticking your nose in other people's beeswax. Why is this mosque your business. Tell me the negative side effect towards your rights and liberties that makes this your business. Not some "I can be a busybody if I want" argument; no one is arguing that you can't. I want to know why it's your business. Can you honestly answer the question? Or is all you have pointless, useless, and worthless bitching?

j-mac said:
Love the progressive bent in your question here Ikari. As if the Mosque of conquest that you so love were to bow to public pressure and move, that would be 'un' just. What a load. I have the right to speak out against it and lobby my politicians to put pressure on them to move it, or pursue any legal ways to block it. That is America buddy. if you don't like it well, you know what to do.
Click to expand...

No one said you couldn't bitch. But you wanted to complain about personal insults or some other BS like that when I asked if you had legitimate reason and legitimate course or if all you have is endless crying. So the second part of this question again isn't a "can you bitch about X", you can bitch about anything you want. The second part of the question is about legitimate course. Is there anything you can justly do about this mosque? Again, you didn't answer the question, you tried to deflect along the free speech route. So I ask again, what can you legitimately and justly do about the mosque being built? Anything? Or is this just more pointless bitching and moaning? And I'm not saying you can't sit there and pointlessly bitch and moan. You are more than free to do that. I want to know if you can honestly answer the question and give a legitimate and just course of action against the mosque. Because if it ain't your business and if you ain't got any legitimate course of action; guess what? You're just bitching for bitching's sake. Again, not illegal not saying it is. But I tend not to listen to people throwing a temper tantrum with no legitimacy behind it.

j-mac said:
Ooooh I am so hurt. I just internet tough guy's. Listen, when you have an argument based in some sort of civil tone, then maybe we can get somewhere, until then all I see is a kid in mom's basement with a puffed out chest because you can type....
Click to expand...

So deflection and run away tactics is what you're down to. Kk.

j-mac said:
We don't, and were it not for the absurd claim of Imam Rauf that he is building it as some sort of outreach. It is not.
Click to expand...

Who cares? Why is it your concern? So he lied. He's not the first religious leader to lie, won't be the last. Why is it your business?

j-mac said:
In this country there are walls between religion and political speech from the pulpit, although you really wouldn't be able to tell considering the last election cycle, but they are there, a church can lose tax status if they cross the line.
Click to expand...

Mormons fundraised against prop 8 was it? In CA? Should they be punished? Fact is, lots of churches preach politics from the pulpit and we don't really do anything about it.


j-mac said:
Me thinks you are emulating a bit too much hazelnut.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I am but my own man.
 
Zyphlin said:
That's a ridiculous notion.

You're telling me that a 3rd generation Muslim living in America and someone born and raised in Saudi Arabia by highly religious parents are going to have exactly the same views with regards to what their holy books mean and imply and the interpritation of its rules and edicts?
Click to expand...

Are you saying all muslims in SA, 3rd generation, have the same views as terrorists? I would not argue all Christinas ever had the same views, even in the same place and tme, brought up in the same community.

It is too general to make the leap that we need to be offended by those who did not act, did not attack.
 
Zyphlin said:
As I've said elsewhere, its tactless. It'd be tactless to build a bar immedietely on top of a location that just had 5 people die due to a drunk driving accident, to build a church on the land that 2 years before had an abortion clinic on it but was destroyed by a christian fanatics bomb, or to have built a museum glorifying the history of Japan right outside of Pearl Harbor's naval base 10 years after that attack.
Click to expand...

All of these comparisons are invalid and involve moving the goal posts. You go after jamesrage for the innacuracy of his analogies, yet you continually resort to inv alid analogies yourself on this issue, Zyph. IMO, you should hold yourself to the same standards you hold your opponents on this, Zyph.

To explain: the bar in your example is being placed on the exact location of the accident immediately after the incident. Thus it is invalid becuse we are not talking about the exact same location (that's a gross distortion made by opponents of this mosque, unless of course a Burlington coat factory was the intended target of the attacks) nor are we talking abotu immeiately after the attacks.

In the church example, you have the same issue. Exact same location, and the time-frame after the incident is dramartically smaller. As pointed out above, this is invalid.

The pearl harbor example is the best of them all, but again, you cut the distance down arbitrarily. It's not 2 long blocks away, but instead it's "right outside". Also, the building being built is not iof the same nature as the one being built here. If your analogy involved a Shinto community center built a few blocks from Pearl Harbor instead of a Japanese museum glorifying Japanese history being built just outside of Pearl harbor, it would be a valid analogy. Teh time frame is valid, but the thing being built and the distance is not.

In every single anaolgy you present, you move the goal posts just a bit. I'm sure you will use the scale of the attacks as the justification for this moving of the goalposts, but I reject that as a weak justification. It is not supported by logic.


As far as your true and false commentary:


True or false: Americans have been killing muslims in the name of democracy for over ten years.

True or false: Those who pull the strings on the americans who do the killing are part of a democratic regime that demonizes non-democratic countries, exspecially many of them found in th eMuslim world.

True or false: These puppet master have vowed to bring democracy to the Middle East, and have shown that they are willing to kill in order to do so.

True ro false: McDonalds is an American company and often is used to represent american captialist and democratic ideals.


Thus, it is tactless to open up a McDonalds anywhere near the middle east.
 
Barbbtx said:
That's a lie. McVeigh was agnostic. There is nothing you can find where he proclaims he was a Christian or anything he has done that would show he is a Christian. He said he was agnostic.
Click to expand...

He actually grew up Catholic and stated in an interview that he kept his core childhood beliefs. You check wikipedia for that. thy also mention the agonstic article.
 
Boo Radley said:
Are you saying all muslims in SA, 3rd generation, have the same views as terrorists?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying a 3rd generation American Muslim is likely to have a very different take on what their religion states and believes than a devoutely religious SA Muslim, so suggesting that ALL Islam is the exact same without extreme or moderate versions is ridiculous.
 
Zyphlin said:
Hey James, how about you not duck out of your other thread when you attempted this ridiculous comparison and you take me up on my challenge to tell me how Catholics building a church next to a place with kids, of which no Catholic had ever molested said children some said place before, is the same as building a mosque next to a site that was the site of an attack that was LARGELY tied to the following of Islam?
Click to expand...

Those Muslims building a mosque two blocks away from ground zero never flew any planes into buildings, so it is a valid comparison. And a bunch of terrorists scum who claim to be religious does not mean the whole entire religion as well as the different sects of that religion are all like that. The KKK claims to be a christian organization but yet all white Christians are not held accountable for what terrorist organization did in the past.

I can't help but notice you declared it "exactly the same" and then never ever showed your face again to back up the claim.
Click to expand...

It is the same. I apologize for not directing my full attention to a non-issue such as this. The media should be reporting real stories instead of nonsense such as this.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, as I said if the Klan did it based specifically on justifications and reasonings regarding their faith, much like Al queda's protest to US Middle East Policy is based off the notion that they're desecrating the "Land of Islam" and that Allah commands them to fight against such people.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Klan did cite the Bible as justifications and reasonings. Now you can say that they bastardized and/or twisted what the Bible said, but that is exactly the point with the 19 hijackers. It's a loose association. If this was what Islam really was, we'd all be posting from our terror bunkers.

What if they said that Judas Priest, Ozzy Osbourne, movie creator or video game were their motivation? Would that be the fault of the people who produced their product?

It's not the fault of Briggs & Stratton if you cut your fingers off using your lawn mower as a hedgetrimmer.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, I'm saying a 3rd generation American Muslim is likely to have a very different take on what their religion states and believes than a devoutely religious SA Muslim, so suggesting that ALL Islam is the exact same without extreme or moderate versions is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Of course there will be general difference, and specific difference among people and places, and even with people in the same place and upbringing.

But all this skips the point. You cannot link the actions of those who misuse a relgion with those who practice a relgion legitimately. Nor should you assume someone's motives and use misrepresentations of comments as the basis for doing so. Muslims are not the enemy, or not responsible for those who misuse the religion.
 
Tucker Case said:
All of these comparisons are invalid and involve moving the goal posts. You go after jamesrage for the innacuracy of his analogies, yet you continually resort to inv alid analogies yourself on this issue, Zyph. IMO, you should hold yourself to the same standards you hold your opponents on this, Zyph.
Click to expand...

Yes, my analogies are not exactly the same. However, UNLIKE Jamesrage I'm not CLAIMING they're the same.

To explain: the bar in your example is being placed on the exact location of the accident immediately after the incident. Thus it is invalid becuse we are not talking about the exact same location (that's a gross distortion made by opponents of this mosque, unless of course a Burlington coat factory was the intended target of the attacks) nor are we talking abotu immeiately after the attacks.
Click to expand...

Correct. However, I was giving an example of a similiar...not EXACT as was the words James used...situation. The reason I changed portions of it is because to me, SCALE matters. A drunk driving accident that kills 5 people in a single town is not anywhere near the scale of an attack on a massive American building known the world over that killed more than 3,000 people and was a devestating attack upon the country, affecting almost every citizen in some way and is known by almost every citizen even those that weren't alive at the time. That SCALE doesn't compare at all to a drunk driving accident that killed 5 people, so to me relatively immedietely after a drunk driving accident is about the same impact in regards to how touchy of a subject it still is as ten years after 9/11 would be.

In the church example, you have the same issue. Exact same location, and the time-frame after the incident is dramartically smaller. As pointed out above, this is invalid.
Click to expand...

As above, I'm not stating its EXACTLY the same, and again, the SCALE would be greatly different which factors into it.

The pearl harbor example is the best of them all, but again, you cut the distance down arbitrarily. It's not 2 long blocks away, but instead it's "right outside".
Click to expand...

Except you've missed my comments regarding what I think "right outside" could denote. Here's the issue, I am not familiar with whether or not Pearl Harbor is in a large city or not. I was there 12 years ago. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t. I’ve already explained why I think within a few blocks in a large city is essentially “right outside” of an area. If it was down the road walking distance away from Pearl Harbor my statement would remain the same. Right Outside is within the vicinity of the location thought of as the Pearl Harbor area. To me, the blocks surrounding and serviced by the World Trade Center subway are is generally the World Trade Center area.

Also, the building being built is not iof the same nature as the one being built here. If your analogy involved a Shinto community center built a few blocks from Pearl Harbor instead of a Japanese museum glorifying Japanese history being built just outside of Pearl harbor, it would be a valid analogy. Teh time frame is valid, but the thing being built and the distance is not.
Click to expand...

Japanese history, specifically the mentality of their emperors, was instrumental in the actions that caused pearl harbor. Shinto, to my understanding, was not involved in the decision to, justification for, or methods used to attack Pearl Harbor.

In every single anaolgy you present, you move the goal posts just a bit. I'm sure you will use the scale of the attacks as the justification for this moving of the goalposts, but I reject that as a weak justification. It is not supported by logic.
Click to expand...

Of course its supported by logic based on what I'm arguing which is the respect and tact shown to those affected by the attacks. Scale greatly matters and logically is a part of it. Something that is not remember 5 years ago doesn't matter with regards to the affecting emotions based on respect and tact shown because no ones remembering it to be offended. Something that IS remembered 5 years later would matter.

True or false: Americans have been killing muslims in the name of democracy for over ten years.
Click to expand...

True

True or false: Those who pull the strings on the americans who do the killing are part of a democratic regime that demonizes non-democratic countries, exspecially many of them found in th eMuslim world.
Click to expand...

True.

note people, I'm answering his question.

True or false: These puppet master have vowed to bring democracy to the Middle East, and have shown that they are willing to kill in order to do so.
Click to expand...

True.

True ro false: McDonalds is an American company and often is used to represent american captialist and democratic ideals.
Click to expand...

False, but now you veer off from it. McDonalds is not associated with the American government, has a hand in any of the actions going on across the seas in regards to wars, and other such things. McDonalds != Democracy. Indeed, one can find McDonalds in locations that are far from Democracies.

Thus, it is tactless to open up a McDonalds anywhere near the middle east.
Click to expand...

You were doing well until you reached with McDonalds trying to equate McDonalds as directly related to the doctrine and belief of Democracy as a mosque is directly related to the doctrine and belief of Islam.
 
jamesrage said:
Those Muslims building a mosque two blocks away from ground zero never flew any planes into buildings, so it is a valid comparison.
Click to expand...

No, but SOME Muslims did.

In your scenario NO catholics, not the ones building it or ones not building it, molested children at that chuck-e-cheese.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Actually, the Klan did cite the Bible as justifications and reasonings. Now you can say that they bastardized and/or twisted what the Bible said, but that is exactly the point with the 19 hijackers. It's a loose association. If this was what Islam really was, we'd all be posting from our terror bunkers.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. I was discussing a hypothetical situation that someone else put forward not an actual event.

What if they said that Judas Priest, Ozzy Osbourne, movie creator or video game were their motivation? Would that be the fault of the people who produced their product?
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way. I think it was idiotic to blame "Doom" for columbine. I wouldn't exactly think building ID's (if they still existed) developer headquarters down the street from Columbine would be a very tactful thing to do if the people in the town/city were still rather uncomfortable with the emotions it swirled up.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, but SOME Muslims did.

In your scenario NO catholics, not the ones building it or ones not building it, molested children at that chuck-e-cheese.
Click to expand...

Some catholics did, but you can't make all catholics responsible. Only those who did are responisble.
 
Boo Radley said:
Some catholics did, but you can't make all catholics responsible. Only those who did are responisble.
Click to expand...

Actually no, in his scenario he did not say any catholics specifically molested kids at that chuck-e-cheese.

For it to be equivilent to what you're saying I'd have to be saying you shouldn't build mosques ANYWHERE in the U.S. because muslims attacked the U.S. at some point. I'm not making that argument.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually no, in his scenario he did not say any catholics specifically molested kids at that chuck-e-cheese.

For it to be equivilent to what you're saying I'd have to be saying you shouldn't build mosques ANYWHERE in the U.S. because muslims attacked the U.S. at some point. I'm not making that argument.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. If you are offended by catholics building nearly anywhere specific, then you are in fact relatig all catholics to that evil, making all guilty for it.
 
Boo Radley said:
He actually grew up Catholic and stated in an interview that he kept his core childhood beliefs. You check wikipedia for that. thy also mention the agonstic article.
Click to expand...

All I saw was that his parents were Irish Catholics who divorced when he was 10. No mention of any of them actually going to church or practicing their faith.
It seems he was a gun nut from an early age and anti-government. What put him over the edge was the way Waco was handled. I can find no connection between religion and the bombing.
 
Barbbtx said:
All I saw was that his parents were Irish Catholics who divorced when he was 10. No mention of any of them actually going to church or practicing their faith.
It seems he was a gun nut from an early age and anti-government. What put him over the edge was the way Waco was handled. I can find no connection between religion and the bombing.
Click to expand...


Well, I relooked it up for you:

In a recorded interview with Time magazine[80] McVeigh professed his belief in "a god", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."

Timothy McVeigh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Ikari said:
I remember someone getting all bent out of shape once when I used the "fascist" line. But regardless, that is not an argument for being your business. You can say what you want, talk about what you want; even stuff that ain't none of your business. It's true, being a busybody ain't against the law. But I wanted to know what business it was of yours. Is it your religion? Are you going to this place? Are your rights negatively effected by this planned mosque? What is it in any of this that is YOUR business. Let's have an honest answer this time; not some free speech deflect. I am not arguing that you can't say anything about it. I just think that you're sticking your nose in other people's beeswax. Why is this mosque your business. Tell me the negative side effect towards your rights and liberties that makes this your business. Not some "I can be a busybody if I want" argument; no one is arguing that you can't. I want to know why it's your business. Can you honestly answer the question? Or is all you have pointless, useless, and worthless bitching?
Click to expand...

Wait a minute...What the..? Sticking my nose in their business? How so? By trying to discuss it, and offer my opinion? Sure you don't like my opinion, I could care less. But to think that just because I am speaking out that they should move their Mosque, and not that they shouldn't build, mind you, but that I find it offensive that they are giving one reason for building it, in the face of offending the very people that they want to out reach to is now 'none of my business'? Allow me to apply your own logic Ikari, WTF business is it of yours to presume that I don't have anything to say about this subject on an open forum in the US, on the internet? you think only your take on things should be listened to? What kind of arrogance drives you to presume to tell me what I can or can not comment on? So why not just drop all the bluster, and BS and realize that there are some people offended by this mosque, and they have the right to speak out against it.

is it just bitching? Well, I certainly don't have to lay out my family tree for you pal. For all you know I lost a family member at WTC. To make your rude, and crass assumptions about another member posting here is just amazing, and something I don't think you'd have the balls to do face to face.

No one said you couldn't bitch. But you wanted to complain about personal insults or some other BS like that when I asked if you had legitimate reason and legitimate course or if all you have is endless crying. So the second part of this question again isn't a "can you bitch about X", you can bitch about anything you want. The second part of the question is about legitimate course. Is there anything you can justly do about this mosque? Again, you didn't answer the question, you tried to deflect along the free speech route. So I ask again, what can you legitimately and justly do about the mosque being built? Anything? Or is this just more pointless bitching and moaning? And I'm not saying you can't sit there and pointlessly bitch and moan. You are more than free to do that. I want to know if you can honestly answer the question and give a legitimate and just course of action against the mosque. Because if it ain't your business and if you ain't got any legitimate course of action; guess what? You're just bitching for bitching's sake. Again, not illegal not saying it is. But I tend not to listen to people throwing a temper tantrum with no legitimacy behind it.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for your permission. I don't need it. And I complained about your style of addressing me because it is really nothing more than flame bait, and you know it.

So deflection and run away tactics is what you're down to. Kk.
Click to expand...

I am not running anywhere. I'm right here buddy.

Who cares? Why is it your concern? So he lied. He's not the first religious leader to lie, won't be the last. Why is it your business?
Click to expand...

Again, you don't care? Yeah right, that is why you are in here just like me typing away eh? Good one. I'll decide what is my business thank you.

Mormons fundraised against prop 8 was it? In CA? Should they be punished? Fact is, lots of churches preach politics from the pulpit and we don't really do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Yep. You liberals hiding as faux Libertarians, and Independents need to learn one thing, and that is that separation of Church and State should be applied equally, not only when it is convenient for your side.


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, I relooked it up for you:

In a recorded interview with Time magazine[80] McVeigh professed his belief in "a god", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."

Timothy McVeigh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

You leave out where he goes on to say that he considers himself agnostic, and that "science is his religion". It also doesn't specifically suggest "his core beliefs" are referencing to Catholic doctrine or simple morals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom