Ground Zero Mosque

[mimartin]

Jon Stewart for President.

 

Covers the subject pretty well in the first segment

 

Really like him pointing out that the Pentagon was hit 9/11/2001, hmmmm the Pentagon has a Mosque in it. Not down the block….IN IT!

[Ping]

Jon Stewart for President.

 

Covers the subject pretty well in the first segment

 

Really like him pointing out that the Pentagon was hit 9/11/2001, hmmmm the Pentagon has a Mosque in it. Not down the block….IN IT!

 

Haha, saw that earlier.

 

Now that I think about it, we'd probably be better off with him in office.

[Totenkopf]

As is his comedic forte, he had a few good one liners in his bit. He blindsided me with the Heston choice, as I was set to kill the clip if he cited someone like Obama (but then it wouldn't have been funny had he done so). John can be clever, but I doubt even he would want to be president....I'm sure he'd rather be the poker than the pokee when it comes to comedy.

[mimartin]

John can be clever, but I doubt even he would want to be president....I'm sure he'd rather be the poker than the pokee when it comes to comedy.

Agreed, but seriously who in their right mind would want to be President. It is a job where no matter what you do ½ the country is going to hate you sooner or later.

[Totenkopf]

Agreed, but seriously who in their right mind would want to be President. It is a job where no matter what you do ½ the country is going to hate you sooner or later.

 

Yeah, and by the time midterms roll around the haters are more like 60-70%, especially if you've managed to extend your stay at "the asylum" to 2 terms. My guess, though, is the perks are too good to pass up, esp now that the prez makes $400K + assorted perks/annum in addition to how well they can clean up as an ex-prez. But, yeah, you've almost got to have a rhino's hide to enter politics in the first place.

[Lord of Hunger]

Are you implying that there's no such thing as extremist Christians or Jews or really anything else?

No I am not. But those are not the issue at hand. The issue presently presented is Islamic extremism, which is one of the most prominent sources of religion-themed terrorism and currently the strongest threat to USA National Security.

No... thats the goal of some Muslim extremists. Some want other religions out of their Holy Land. Some could care less about a world caliphate and would be fine if Russia stopped bombing them. Some would be fine with just their own country as a caliphate, undisturbed by the west. Some of them want to kill the Sunnis. Some want to kill the Shiites I know the media makes terrorism seem really simple, but terrorists are not in an international league of EVVVVIIIILLLLLLLL. They dont all share the same goals.

The ideology of Islamic Extremism is based upon the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate and the elimination of its competitors. Ethic and local problems are usually excuses to recruit for a larger cause.

 

But yes, they are not all the same camp. Rather, they are mostly two large camps with the same general goal but two versions of the same religion: Shia and Sunni. Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their supporters are Sunni-based extremists and function more commonly as terrorist and crime groups, thus being the more immediate threat. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, and Hamas are examples of the more unified, yet slightly more diplomatic Shia factions that are based out of Iran (admittedly Hamas is Sunni but receives funding from Iran). These groups are closer to semi-legal militias and have a greater sense of integrity. However, the basic intent is the same.

Youre completely right. Us God fearing Christians are the only ones fighting the terrorists. Its a good thing Christian Pakistan is aiding us. And thank goodness Christian Kuwait let us hang out there before we invaded Iraq. And our military, good thing its 100% non Muslims.

-Pakistan harbored the majority of the Taliban outside of Afghanistan and has allowed them to build an illegal state within their borders. Only recently have they begun to address this issue.

-We helped secure Kuwait's independence and security from Saddam Hussein. Allowing us to stage some troops there basically makes us about even.

-I did not say that there are no Muslim moderates opposing Islamic extremism. However, they are a considerable minority.

I mean you're lumping all the muslims in one sack and calling them extremists.

Which I am not doing. Inaction does not mean evil action, though it indirectly serves to remove the obstacles for evil action.

Kind of hard to do when they are at gunpoint. Or when the State does not exist or reach a certain places and all that passes for law, social and healthcare are those extrimists. Too much to ask for, say, a tribal community which has ony known war against the same targets the extremists claim to fight against.

 

So:

 

Dunno how you reached that conclusion.

So you know for a fact that this is the situation in every single Islamic community? Taliban Afghanistan is not the example that sets the rule.

Conversely, the prohibition of the construction of the mosque would serve as an example of perceived Western oppression and upheaval of Islam. Propaganda is propaganda, regardless of the reason, and in this case, it wouldn't be incredibly inaccurate, although highly embellished.That's too general; al-Qaeda's present aim is to rid the Muslim world of Western influence, of any form. Whether that means the direct upheaval of the West itself, and the propagation of Islam thereafter, is something entirely different. Right now, al-Qaeda's motive are molded as a defensive one; world domination isn't exactly an explicit goal. I suppose that Hamas and Hezbollah could also be lumped into the same, villainous cubby, no?

Hamas and Hezbollah are similar but not equivalent to Al-Qaeda.

 

But yes, either way propaganda is propaganda. However, in this situation I'd prefer pro-US propaganda. This country honestly doesn't believe in itself enough, and the only way that the extremist elements of Islam will ever be satisfied is if we convert to Islam. If the moderate elements are moderate, they will not take offense...no?

Secondly, would it not be unreasonable to say that this controversy is all rooted in coincidental real estate, and not idealistic capital? Even if the construction is where it is for a specific reason, would it not be a better way to turn a new leaf than to do so at the figurehead of all misunderstanding of Islam? It's not too different than establishing St. Peter's Basilica over a Roman necropolis, or the reestablishment of the then-polytheist Kaa'ba as a site of worship to God.

Building a religious building of any type would just be a problem for somebody (this is coming from a religious person mind you ), so I'd personally support a ban on any such construction there for at least ten years.

[jawathehutt]

No I am not. But those are not the issue at hand. The issue presently presented is Islamic extremism, which is one of the most prominent sources of religion-themed terrorism and currently the strongest threat to USA National Security.

So if extremist Christians were the greatest threat you would fully support not building churches?

 

The ideology of Islamic Extremism is based upon the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate and the elimination of its competitors. Ethic and local problems are usually excuses to recruit for a larger cause.

But yes, they are not all the same camp. Rather, they are mostly two large camps with the same general goal but two versions of the same religion: Shia and Sunni. Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their supporters are Sunni-based extremists and function more commonly as terrorist and crime groups, thus being the more immediate threat. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, and Hamas are examples of the more unified, yet slightly more diplomatic Shia factions that are based out of Iran (admittedly Hamas is Sunni but receives funding from Iran). These groups are closer to semi-legal militias and have a greater sense of integrity. However, the basic intent is the same.

No. They're not just split into Sunni and Shia. Once again you're making extremely simplified statements. Are Americans divided into strictly Republicans and democrats? Or are there conservative democrats and liberal republicans(hint, there are). And then there's parties like the green party and libertarian party. And then there's the parties that In areas like the failed state of Somalia, I can assure you that if you walked in assuming you could group everyone into to categories, you might be shot by someone who wants to institute an Islamic caliphate, you might be shot by someone who wants their neighbor to be supreme ruler of Mogadishu and you might be shot by someone who is upset that Americans and just want to defend their home. This isnt the 30 year war here, and if you treat it like it then you wont understand it.

-I did not say that there are no Muslim moderates opposing Islamic extremism. However, they are a considerable minority.

I stopped reading after you said this. I have to ask you, have you ever even met a Muslim? Have you ever seen a mosque in the US? I know quite a few Muslims, a lot who were from the former Yugoslavia. Strange, how despite being subject to ethnic cleansing by CHRISTIANS, they never showed up to school to kill them some Christians. Maaayybe its because the vast majority of Muslims are against extremism. In the book Inside the Jihad, about a French secret service agent sent to infiltrate terrorist training camps, one of his first major obstacles was trying to find a way to be connected to the violent jihad movement. This is in Afghanistan. Not some midwest mosque. That place where supposedly Bin Laden and Cobra Commander and Lex Luthor conspire to create the Muslim caliphate with every other Muslim. No, he didnt find people waving recruitment flags, he found Imams who encouraged peaceful jihad by helping others. Wow, helping others. Strange, I guess the league of Evil better find a better religion to support it.

[Lord of Hunger]

So if extremist Christians were the greatest threat you would fully support not building churches?

I would not support building a church ON THE SITE OF A RELIGION-BASED TERRORIST ATTACK.

 

Dear God, I swear at times that people NEED to turn their opponents arguments into broad statements rather than accept the fact that individuals can have situational views independent of a political ideology.

No. They're not just split into Sunni and Shia. Once again you're making extremely simplified statements. Are Americans divided into strictly Republicans and democrats? Or are there conservative democrats and liberal republicans(hint, there are). And then there's parties like the green party and libertarian party. And then there's the parties that In areas like the failed state of Somalia, I can assure you that if you walked in assuming you could group everyone into to categories, you might be shot by someone who wants to institute an Islamic caliphate, you might be shot by someone who wants their neighbor to be supreme ruler of Mogadishu and you might be shot by someone who is upset that Americans and just want to defend their home. This isnt the 30 year war here, and if you treat it like it then you wont understand it.

Again, I am not saying it is impossible for exceptions to exist. I am saying that these are the more prominent issues in relation to national security. Each group has its own view, but when it comes down to it there are two overarching camps within Muslim extremism based on a fundamental divide of the faith. The Shia-Sunni battle is at the core of Islamic history, usually centering around the inheritance of their prophet's authority. The Shia believe in inheritance based on a series of Imams descended from Muhammad, while the Sunni prefer a sort of election system for their religious authorities.

 

And yes there are a variety of views in America, but considering that people ACT in a way that only those TWO parties matter, then I think there's little point in discussing those small differences until people begin acting upon them and show some thought independent of the parasites in the DNC and GOP.

I stopped reading after you said this. I have to ask you, have you ever even met a Muslim?

Yes. Why do you assume I haven't? Guess what: I live in Oregon, one of this country's most liberal states. I also happen to be pro-gay marriage, a Catholic who is well-read in Darwin's theory of evolution, neutral on economic ideology, and hawkish on military policy.

*snipped*

1) Do not assume that because I disagree with you that I am somehow ignorant. I can easily bring up some story as well and have it support my point. Furthermore, I can easily cite this story as if it is inherently unbiased and not based by limited sources of information.

 

2) Stop acting as if the fact that I am opposed to Muslim extremism means that I don't have a problem with Christian extremism. I oppose ANY and ALL acts of evil, from all religions and secular ideologies alike. However, it is important to note that the people who blew up the Twin Towers were not Christians. They were Muslims. Right now, America's enemy is Muslim extremism. If it was a terrorist attack by "The Lord's Army" in Africa (a genocidal militia group of Christian extremists), then Christian extremists would be the enemy. The logic here is not hard.

 

3) Tell me, if what that French service agent found was the case in every camp, do you honestly think that we would even have this problem of Muslim extremism?

 

Here's a book for you to read: A Thousand Splendid Suns. It shows that this issue is not a case of "the Muslims are evil" or "the Americans are ignorant". The war we are fighting is not easy, but nor is being a mother and wife in Kabul during three wars and three totalitarian states with their own challenged ideologies.

[mimartin]

I would not support building a church ON THE SITE OF A RELIGION-BASED TERRORIST ATTACK.

I would like to know what would be considered a safe radius from Ground Zero to build a Mosque? 2 blocks, 4 miles, 1000 miles? I really would like to know, since the thread as already shown that some consider Tennessee and California too close to Ground Zero.

 

 

I would not support building anything at Ground Zero and since the Mosque is not being built at Ground Zero, I have no problem with it. Surprised no one has post pic of site with sign saying "Future home of Ground Zero Mosque."

 

The land was for sale, they bought it. As long as they proscribe to zoning and ordinance regulations they should be allowed to build whatever that darn well please on their own land. If people did not want them to build, then they should have bought the land themselves.

[Tommycat]

I would like to know what would be considered a safe radius from Ground Zero to build a Mosque? 2 blocks, 4 miles, 1000 miles? I really would like to know, since the thread as already shown that some consider Tennessee and California too close to Ground Zero.

 

 

I would not support building anything at Ground Zero and since the Mosque is not being built at Ground Zero, I have no problem with it. Surprised no one has post pic of site with sign saying "Future home of Ground Zero Mosque."

 

The land was for sale, they bought it. As long as they proscribe to zoning and ordinance regulations they should be allowed to build whatever that darn well please on their own land. If people did not want them to build, then they should have bought the land themselves.

 

To be fair, this building actually had debris hit it from the attacks on 9/11. I believe it was one of the aircraft's landing gear.

 

As said enough times in this thread. It's not about mosques, as there are other mosques within 4 blocks of ground zero. However it is about the mosque within 2 blocks.

 

Legally, there is no justification for them NOT to build there. The land was for sale. They bought it. It's a good location. The building being demolished is not a historical building. It's just merely poor taste to do so.

[mimartin]

To be fair, this building actually had debris hit it from the attacks on 9/11. I believe it was one of the aircraft's landing gear.

 

No bodies? Anyone killed there because of the terrorist attack?

 

If not, I see no reason to honor or respect a piece of the plane used as a weapon to kill thousands of people. It was evidence nothing more. (should not have to point this out, but...IMO).

[jrrtoken]

To be fair, this building actually had debris hit it from the attacks on 9/11. I believe it was one of the aircraft's landing gear.

By that logic, the entire lower half of Manhattan Island should also be "landmarked" due to all of the ash and fire from the fallout when the towers collapsed.

As said enough times in this thread. It's not about mosques, as there are other mosques within 4 blocks of ground zero. However it is about the mosque within 2 blocks.

So what's the specific range of the designated "Muslim-free" buffer zone, then? I'd warrant that even if this same building was a block or two farther from the WTC, we'd still be seeing the same controversy. Even if it wasn't built on Manhattan proper, but say Long Island or New Jersey, it'd still be named "a towering ziggurat to Muslim conquest" or some other reactionary ilk.

Legally, there is no justification for them NOT to build there. The land was for sale. They bought it. It's a good location. The building being demolished is not a historical building. It's just merely poor taste to do so.

If it's not historical... then how is it morally reprehensible to use it as anyone may please? If any other organization or corporation bought and demolished this same Burlington Coat Factory, would this also be considered a disgrace, or is this veil of sanctity just applicable to one specific organization?

[Lord of Hunger]

I would like to know what would be considered a safe radius from Ground Zero to build a Mosque? 2 blocks, 4 miles, 1000 miles? I really would like to know, since the thread as already shown that some consider Tennessee and California too close to Ground Zero.

About 4 miles away would be acceptable in my book. At that distance, there's really no connection to Ground Zero other than sharing the same city.

 

So yeah, as long as it is at least 4 miles away from Ground Zero, they can build all the Mosques they want and enjoy religious freedom to their hearts' content.

I would not support building anything at Ground Zero and since the Mosque is not being built at Ground Zero, I have no problem with it. Surprised no one has post pic of site with sign saying "Future home of Ground Zero Mosque."

 

The land was for sale, they bought it. As long as they proscribe to zoning and ordinance regulations they should be allowed to build whatever that darn well please on their own land. If people did not want them to build, then they should have bought the land themselves.

I kind of agree with this. The local population should have at least taken the time to make their stance clear to the city government. However, it's still tactless in my view to build a Mosque there.

[jrrtoken]

About 4 miles away would be acceptable in my book. At that distance, there's really no connection to Ground Zero other than sharing the same city.

How did you arrive at the "4 mile buffer zone" then? How is "too close to Ground Zero" even quantified; this isn't Three Mile Island here. If "4 miles" is appropriate, then shouldn't this be applied to every mosque within the 4-mile-radius of any federal or national building, seeing as they're all under threat from this same Islamic terrorism being propagated through the Ground Zero Mosque?

So yeah, as long as it is at least 4 miles away from Ground Zero, they can build all the Mosques they want and enjoy religious freedom to their hearts' content.

Now, it's "You have to be this tall to go on this ride"; what will be the next contention of debate? If it's not a mosque near the WTC, then it's one in Temecula, an ocean away, or Tennessee. This argument of "There, but not here" is borderline xenophobia; it's indirectly discriminating a minority due to the sensibilities of others. The "not in our backyard" mentality has been the most pervasive anti-immigrant sentiment throughout American history, to say the least, and now that it is being reignited is predictably embarrassing. The democratic system in America shouldn't, and never has, operate(d) upon the principle of "unanimous agreement or nothing", and this most certainly applies here.

[Totenkopf]

Now, it's "You have to be this tall to go on this ride"; what will be the next contention of debate? If it's not a mosque near the WTC, then it's one in Temecula, an ocean away, or Tennessee. This argument of "There, but not here" is borderline xenophobia; it's indirectly discriminating a minority due to the sensibilities of others. The "not in our backyard" mentality has been the most pervasive anti-immigrant sentiment throughout American history, to say the least, and now that it is being reignited is predictably embarrassing. The democratic system in America shouldn't, and never has, operate(d) upon the principle of "unanimous agreement or nothing", and this most certainly applies here.

 

So, how do you view the opposition of other Muslims (like the head of Al Aribiya, reportedly) to the location? It's not as if all Muslims are monolithic on this issue. Why, when the governor of NY was willing to donate land elsewhere for the mosque/center, do its adherents still try to peddle the racism charge to opposition in general? Most Americans don't seem to be of the mind that Muslims can't be allowed their own places of worship, w/in the confines of the law (zoning, etc..). But that doesn't invalidate opposition to the proposed location of the GZM. I recall similiar fears of "rampant racism" in the wake of the Towers coming down, but it largely didn't happen then either. Besides, it's interesting that Bloomberg and company are content to deny a Greek Orthodox church the right to rebuild for almost 9 years, but are falling all over themselves to accomodate Rauf. Maybe it's just the mayor's fine business sense that's getting in the way.. http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081029/BUSINESS/302158245/1005

[jrrtoken]

So, how do you view the opposition of other Muslims (like the head of Al Aribiya, reportedly) to the location? It's not as if all Muslims are monolithic on this issue.

Yes, I understand that. I'm not talking about opposition to the mosque due to location and location alone, though; it's the hysteria that has been propagated by the few who have used the mosque as a rallying cry for paranoia, portraying Islam and all Muslims as a creeping national threat. This is an undeniable fact. The sentiment has influenced the opinion of others in the opposition, who have masqueraded the fear and hate as a political issue... some aren't afraid to show their true colors, though.

Why, when the governor of NY was willing to donate land elsewhere for the mosque/center, do its adherents still try to peddle the racism charge to opposition in general?

I don't believe that the opposition as a whole are racist, but you must admit that a sizable portion is racist, either explicitly and or implicitly. Feel free to watch many of the protests for evidence.

Besides, it's interesting that Bloomberg and company are content to deny a Greek Orthodox church the right to rebuild for almost 9 years, but are falling all over themselves to accomodate Rauf. Maybe it's just the mayor's fine business sense that's getting in the way.. http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081029/BUSINESS/302158245/1005

I don't see anything in the link that seems to even allude to your point...

[mimartin]

Hate to point this out again, but...

 

Did this proposed donated land have easy access to 6 subway line and the South Ferry?

 

If not, then it is hardly comparing apples to apples.

 

If it does, then it is still too close to Ground Zero for many of the opponents, because beside being close to Ground Zero the real major attraction to this piece of property is it convenience to major public transportation.

[Totenkopf]

Yes, I understand that. I'm not talking about opposition to the mosque due to location and location alone, though; it's the hysteria that has been propagated by the few who have used the mosque as a rallying cry for paranoia, portraying Islam and all Muslims as a creeping national threat. This is an undeniable fact. The sentiment has influenced the opinion of others in the opposition, who have masqueraded the fear and hate as a political issue... some aren't afraid to show their true colors, though.

I don't believe that the opposition as a whole are racist, but you must admit that a sizable portion is racist, either explicitly and or implicitly. Feel free to watch many of the protests for evidence.

 

Yeah, I referenced earlier that there are people who are opposed on principle to Islam that are protesting the GZM (and perhaps in CA and TN). What you mean by sizable is another matter entirely. I think that there are people on both sides that are resorting to all manner of politicizing the issue. Whether it is aholes like Ed Shultz on MSNBC pulling the nazi card or the guy wanting to celebrate "burn a Koran day", there are people exploiting this issue for their own ends. Problem w/protests is that they often only involve a microcosm of society at large and the coverage is usually cherry picked by the national media.

 

I don't see anything in the link that seems to even allude to your point...

 

Was implying that it's possible that Bloomberg's stance may have been influenced by his expansion into Dubai. Perhaps he doesn't want to offend his new hosts. May be unlikely, but we'll probably never really know... Still, it brings to mind the old saying, "follow the money".

[Liverandbacon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7966533/Campaigners-say-Ground-Zero-mosque-plans-led-to-taxi-driver-murder-attempt.html

 

I'm calling BS on the claims made by people on both sides of this argument. Both pro and anti "Ground Zero" mosque people are claiming that this attack was motivated by the mosque. Mainly because it happened to happen in the same city.

 

Let's look at the facts:

1. Enright was actually a supporter of the "Ground Zero" mosque, at least publicly.

2.Sharif, the stabbed cabbie, was actually against the construction of the mosque.

3.Enright, before stabbing the cabbie, started spouting all sorts of crazy stuff "This is a checkpoint... I need to put you down! (something about the king of Saudi Arabia as well)"

4. At film school, Enright did a lot of projects about PTSD.

5. Enright went to Afghanistan to video a USMC unit, but didn't ever witness attacks, firefights, etc.

 

This seems much less an attack based on Mosque-related hate, and more the work of an insane person who wishes they had real PTSD for god knows what reason, and decided to pretend.

 

Just thought I'd lay out the facts behind the situation before someone posted it as anything to do with the Mosque, either for or against. (My personal opinion has not changed since my last post on the topic.)

[mimartin]

5. Enright went to Iraq to video a USMC unit, but didn't ever witness attacks, firefights, etc.

The article you linked said Afghanistan. Did he go to Iraq too?

 

Anyone that has ridden in a New York City cab could just as easily claim temporary insanity. First off you have to be out of your mind just to get into a cab there (same goes for New Orleans and Raleigh, NC of all places).

[Liverandbacon]

The article you linked said Afghanistan. Did he go to Iraq too?

 

Anyone that has ridden in a New York City cab could just as easily claim temporary insanity. First off you have to be out of your mind just to get into a cab there (same goes for New Orleans and Raleigh, NC of all places).

 

Thanks for pointing that out, I forgot which one, and my memory lied to me. The rest of the post is fact though, and I've edited it to eliminate confusion.

 

Agreed on the topic of the cabs. I try to walk or take the subway as much as possible, I know too many people who've been ripped off by cabbies.

[Lord of Hunger]

How did you arrive at the "4 mile buffer zone" then? How is "too close to Ground Zero" even quantified; this isn't Three Mile Island here. If "4 miles" is appropriate, then shouldn't this be applied to every mosque within the 4-mile-radius of any federal or national building, seeing as they're all under threat from this same Islamic terrorism being propagated through the Ground Zero Mosque?

Now, it's "You have to be this tall to go on this ride"; what will be the next contention of debate? If it's not a mosque near the WTC, then it's one in Temecula, an ocean away, or Tennessee. This argument of "There, but not here" is borderline xenophobia; it's indirectly discriminating a minority due to the sensibilities of others. The "not in our backyard" mentality has been the most pervasive anti-immigrant sentiment throughout American history, to say the least, and now that it is being reignited is predictably embarrassing. The democratic system in America shouldn't, and never has, operate(d) upon the principle of "unanimous agreement or nothing", and this most certainly applies here.

You know, I keep hearing the phrase "minority". I'm guessing that if anything is in favor of a "minority", it's okay? But if the majority does not like it, they are racists.

 

Guess what: Discrimination in some form will always be present when some group wants something and another group is opposed to it. We can have civil liberties and such, but the fact is that LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

 

So why is it that every time America has a cultural debate the majority must be the ones in the wrong?

 

The democratic system itself is based on majority rule, but is established to be fair on a basic level to the minority. That doesn't mean that the minority must always be in the right.

 

I am starting sick and tired of hearing how minorities are being wronged. There is a majority here and now that is being wronged too. Where are their civil rights? Where are the activist groups? Where are the lawyers to sue on their behalf?

 

I'll tell you why this is the case: It's how the press keeps themselves alive at this point. They're loosing their financial basis, so all they can do is make up this false image of "bigoted Americans" and hope it sells well enough.

 

When every single group in existence points fingers at the "bigoted Americans", you gotta wonder who the bigots really are.

 

I for one refuse to believe that all of those people are bigots. I believe that they are normal people who feel betrayed and are then being told they aren't allowed to express that hatred because of laws that are meant to serve THEM.

 

At the end of the day, I'm guessing that people who were never bigots before probably became bigots after being told over and over again about how bigoted they are.

[Ping]

@LOH: Life may not be fair, but discrimination is intolerable. To pretty much say "get over it" is rude and disrespectful. Have you ever been the victim of racism? Try saying "get over it" again after you've been ostracized based on your ethnicity, creed, religion, etc.

 

Also, nobody said the majority were bigots. Yes, some of the people opposing the mosque are bigoted, but nobody said ever one of them was.

[jrrtoken]

You know, I keep hearing the phrase "minority". I'm guessing that if anything is in favor of a "minority", it's okay? But if the majority does not like it, they are racists.

 

Guess what: Discrimination in some form will always be present when some group wants something and another group is opposed to it. We can have civil liberties and such, but the fact is that LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

 

So why is it that every time America has a cultural debate the majority must be the ones in the wrong?

Well... they usually are? If you don't believe me, then research every new religious movement and immigration wave, and nine times out of ten, the minority is persecuted. This is the same issue; no more, no less.

I am starting sick and tired of hearing how minorities are being wronged. There is a majority here and now that is being wronged too. Where are their civil rights? Where are the activist groups? Where are the lawyers to sue on their behalf?

The "majority" has been irrevocably vocal, activist. You seem to think that this is the "liberal elite prodding the masses" spiel again; clearly, certain members of the opposition have manipulated others indifferent to or slightly sympathetic to their views and have stoked the flames of hysteria. This is compounded by the fact that the leaders of these groups are hailed as "experts" on Islam and are featured on nearly every major news outlet as guest panelists. When groups like Stop the Islamization of America and the English Defence League are touted as "civil activist groups" then the original argument has been delegitimized as a wholesale of fear and intrigue.

 

I'll tell you why this is the case: It's how the press keeps themselves alive at this point. They're loosing their financial basis, so all they can do is make up this false image of "bigoted Americans" and hope it sells well enough.

If the "liberal media" can be blamed for covering this, then so can Fox News & Co. be chastised for promoting a narrow outlook.

I for one refuse to believe that all of those people are bigots.

Agreed.

I believe that they are normal people who feel betrayed and are then being told they aren't allowed to express that hatred because of laws that are meant to serve THEM.

If you by "normal" you mean the majority of the opposition who actually opposes the location and the location alone, then I'm plenty comfortable with that. What troubles me are the ones who wave posters proclaiming "SHARIA" in a diabolic typeface.

[Lord of Hunger]

@LOH: Life may not be fair, but discrimination is intolerable. To pretty much say "get over it" is rude and disrespectful. Have you ever been the victim of racism?

Yes, I happen to belong to an ethnic minority myself, and have been the subject of several racist remarks.

Also, nobody said the majority were bigots. Yes, some of the people opposing the mosque are bigoted, but nobody said ever one of them was.

Except that is more or less the current cultural message of this country.

Well... they usually are? If you don't believe me, then research every new religious movement and immigration wave, and nine times out of ten, the minority is persecuted. This is the same issue; no more, no less.

I'm not talking about the past. I am talking about the present.

The "majority" has been irrevocably vocal, activist. You seem to think that this is the "liberal elite prodding the masses" spiel again; clearly, certain members of the opposition have manipulated others indifferent to or slightly sympathetic to their views and have stoked the flames of hysteria. This is compounded by the fact that the leaders of these groups are hailed as "experts" on Islam and are featured on nearly every major news outlet as guest panelists. When groups like Stop the Islamization of America and the English Defence League are touted as "civil activist groups" then the original argument has been delegitimized as a wholesale of fear and intrigue.

These groups exist when a cultural agenda is being opposed upon the masses. Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that there is no demonization of America's cultural and ethnic majority?

If the "liberal media" can be blamed for covering this, then so can Fox News & Co. be chastised for promoting a narrow outlook.

Fox News is one news corporation out of many major networks, and is the only network that actually represents the political right of the country. They also at least make their agenda known, unlike any other network. Though I do agree that their message has become unnecessarily extremist recently.

If you by "normal" you mean the majority of the opposition who actually opposes the location and the location alone, then I'm plenty comfortable with that. What troubles me are the ones who wave posters proclaiming "SHARIA" in a diabolic typeface.

I don't entirely blame them for those posters. Sharia law as it has been interpreted in the past two centuries has been responsible for countless acts of brutality and evil. Yes, I know such thing occurred under Christianity too, but there are no Christian extremist groups at war with the US right now and Islamic extremism is currently the biggest threat. Where Christianity had the violent Crusades in the Medieval Era, Islam is now having its violent Jihad in the Modern Era.

 

And at this point, there is only so morally superior we can get at this point.