Is the U.S. Losing Its Freedom of Speech?

[nismaratwork]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

How dare they fly US flags, or build Christian churches or banks, within sight of the US Federal Building memorial! Clearly patriotism, capitalism, and Christianity, are responsible for this horrific act.

I don't think logic or facts have much impact here anymore... *sigh.

Good point however.

Here's another...

The USA has a military base (agreed upon by all parties I should add), in Tokyo. Now, it may not be an atomic bomb, but we DID firebomb Tokyo into the ground, killing tens of thousands at least. I think a "cultural center" is a fairly large step down from a military base, and we actually DID firebomb Tokyo. 9-11 wasn't the action of all Muslims, but the attack on Tokyo was (and I'm not arguing for or against it) WAS an action of a nation as a whole. Can this example staunch the flow of ridiculous and nearly irrelevant comparisons and blaming of groups now? I doubt it, but it's worth a shot.

 

[nismaratwork]

What I'm hearing here is that since being offended by the Islamic center is illogical/unreasonable, their feelings should not be considered. Is that a fair assessment?

Since when have real-estate development and feelings gone together? Need I recall the Native American history of NY to make the point? Let's let this guy, Rauf, do what everyone does... consider the feelings, then ignore them. Why are feelings important here and now, in this case?

 

[JaredJames]

Maybe this will make the first extremists out of atheists...

I can see it now - "In the name of Stephen Hawking!"

 

[nismaratwork]

I can see it now - "In the name of Stephen Hawking!"

I'm definitely ready to see people burned at the stake in the name of atheism. Next time someone asks me how I can possibly believe there's no god, I can just light 'em on fire and scream, "HERETIC!"

 

[DaveC426913]

What I'm hearing here is that since being offended by the Islamic center is illogical/unreasonable, their feelings should not be considered. Is that a fair assessment?

That is certainly my contention, yes.

[momentary digression to an absurd analogy]
If it were the KKK feeling that a Black should not be president, should we "consider their feelings"?
[/momentary digression to an absurd analogy]
Of course that's absurd, the only point being: is it always right validate any feelings?



These feelings that 9/11 mourners have are misguided. They are blaming Islam for 9/11 then using their pain to punish innocent Islam followers.

No. We do not indulge that kind of thing!


I lie. We absolutely should consider their feelings. These people need counselling and education.

 

[nismaratwork]

That is certainly my contention, yes.

[momentary digression to an absurd analogy]
If it were the KKK feeling that a Black should not be president, should we "consider their feelings"?
[/momentary digression to an absurd analogy]
Of course that's absurd, the only point being: is it always right validate any feelings?



These feelings that 9/11 mourners have are misguided. They are blaming Islam for 9/11 then using their pain to punish innocent Islam followers.

No. We do not indulge that kind of thing!


I lie. We absolutely should consider their feelings. These people need counselling and education.

YES. Nothing wrong with considering their feelings, and then dismissing them as fundamentally misguided or created by media and political machinations... or a need for education. Given what happened in Tenn. it's probably good to consider what actions people in such a frenzy may take, but none of that should stop development.

 

[DaveC426913]

Convenient that you get to decide who is irrational.

No, he is not deciding who is irrational. Irrational has an objective definition.

They are benig irrational because they are basing their stance on their emotions. Emotions are personal. Those who are rational are basing their stance on logic, which is (at least by contrast with emotion) objective.

 

[DaveC426913]

YES. Nothing wrong with considering their feelings, and then dismissing them as fundamentally misguided or created by media and political machinations... or a need for education. Given what happened in Tenn. it's probably good to consider what actions people in such a frenzy may take, but none of that should stop development.

They are misguided for none of the reasons you mention; they are misguided because they violate Universal Human Rights as defined by United Nations, of which U.S. is a member.

Specifically: freedom practice religion in public free of molestation.

 

[nismaratwork]

They are misguided for none of the reasons you mention; they are misguided because they violate Universal Human Rights as defined by United Nations, of which U.S. is a member.

Specifically: freedom practice religion in public free of molestation.

We disagree. They are misguided in many more ways than just violating a mutual mission statement.

 

[DaveC426913]

We disagree. They are misguided in many more ways than just violating a mutual mission statement.

Sorry, so you agree that they are misguided. That these feelings they have, that they'd like to have considered, do violate Basic Human Rights. Do I interpret correctly?

 

[DaveC426913]

Given the "substance" (a word I use loosely in this context) of his earlier posts, I assume that he means all muslims, supporters of such, and anyone too blind to appreciate the truth of his singular viewpoint. You know, the usual horse****.

Yes, I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth.


I'd like to hear him accuse all Islam of wanting to overrun the West (I'd also like to hear him explain his own country's actions in light of the America doing its own form of overrunning).

 

[nismaratwork]

Sorry, so you agree that they are misguided. That these feelings they have, that they'd like to have considered, do violate Basic Human Rights. Do I interpret correctly?

Yes, they are misguided, and yes they violate BHR. I agree with both of those statements.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth.


I'd like to hear him accuse all Islam of wanting to overrun the West (I'd also like to hear him explain his own country's actions in light of the America doing its own form of overrunning).

He definitely already accused Islam of wanting to overrun the WORLD, but the rest I'd love to hear him explain too. Then again, maybe all we'd hear is a soft nickering and requests for sugar lumps?

 

[FlexGunship]

The terrorists claiming they did it in the name of their religion does not make that religion responsible.

I'm of the opinion that you can't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. But the religion can and should share some of the blame.

Islam really does preach violence as a solution to religious non-adherence. Really.

In contrast, consider Jainism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism). The Jains peach an entirely non-violent religion. Funny that no one ever hears about these people. They have a purely pacifist region and they are never accused of "Terrorism" or "Violence."

If there were radical or extremist Jains they would only become MORE peaceful.

Yet, we routinely recognize extremist Muslims and Christians as becoming more violent.

Wouldn't you agree that we could attribute that difference to the religion?EDIT: for citation. These are some of the versus that "confuse" Muslims. The note is given in [Surah.Verse] format.

[2.190] ...fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you...[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

[4.89] ...take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back [to their homes], then seize them and kill them wherever you find them... [4.90] Allah has not given you a way against them [Allah supposedly does not allow Muslims to fight people friendly to Muslims]. [4.91]...seize them and kill them wherever you find them...

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm of the opinion that you can't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. But the religion can and should share some of the blame.

Islam really does preach violence as a solution to religious non-adherence. Really.

In contrast, consider Jainism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism). The Jains peach an entirely non-violent religion. Funny that no one ever hears about these people. They have a purely pacifist region and they are never accused of "Terrorism" or "Violence."

If there were radical or extremist Jains they would only become MORE peaceful.

Yet, we routinely recognize extremist Muslims and Christians as becoming more violent.

Wouldn't you agree that we could attribute that difference to the religion?

You're talking about broad global issues compared to a specific event and the reaction to it.

 

[DaveC426913]

You're talking about broad global issues compared to a specific event and the reaction to it.

Well, he's addressing his claim that Islam does, in essence, support the terrorists' actions.

It's a valid point.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, he's addressing his claim that Islam does, in essence, support the terrorists' actions.

It's a valid point.

It's valid in that I can probably use the collected works of Dr. Seuss to justify atrocities too if I felt like it. More relevant is how specific nations and their governments use this particular religion as a tool to manipulate their people and how that's now gotten out of hand. I don't think this can be contained within the rubric of a religious discussion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That sounds like serious sarcasm...but it is pretty silly. I'm sure you must see why that isn't analagous, don't you? When someone insults someone else who is under the same umbrella of ideology, you basically get a divide by zero error trying to apply that logic.

But tell me this: if you always use such logic to determine whether someone's feeling of being offended is reasonable, does that mean you still call black people "colored"?

And if death threats against American troops make Obama's opposition to the Koran burning reasonable, does that mean that if credible death threats were to occur against the Iman leading the Muslim center project in NY then opposition to the center would become reasonable?

Nothing that you've said here makes any sense. The analogy absolutely applies. The terrorists who attacked the wtc are no more representitive of Islam, than McVeigh was Christianity, or Capitalism, or the spirit or intent of the Constitution.

You really can't understand this?

 

[FlexGunship]

It's valid in that I can probably use the collected works of Dr. Seuss to justify atrocities too if I felt like it.

Pardon?

My post specifically dealt with a significant contrast between religions. Some religions promote violence, and some promote peace. When adherents to those religions go into "extreme mode" the violent ones become more violent, and the peaceful ones become more peaceful.

I summarized by saying that no one had ever heard of a Jain terrorist. But there are plenty of Christian and Muslim terrorist stories.

Can't we acknowledge that as a significant difference amongst religions?

 

[JaredJames]

In all fairness, FlexGunship gave specific quotes to show where the religion promoted violence, or at the least where confusion could be created.

Yes, you can use most literature to justify pretty much anything, but that is not the point here. You aren't taking some random piece of literature and making it fit, you have a book that people live their lives by and it clearly shows acceptance of violence to non-muslims. (this applies equally to christians).

 

[nismaratwork]

Pardon?

My post specifically dealt with a significant contrast between religions. Some religions promote violence, and some promote peace. When adherents to those religions go into "extreme mode" the violent ones become more violent, and the peaceful ones become more peaceful.

I summarized by saying that no one had ever heard of a Jain terrorist. But there are plenty of Christian and Muslim terrorist stories.

Can't we acknowledge that as a significant difference amongst religions?

So... the sum total of your point is that there are extremes at both ends of the spectrum of violence in religions? Yeah, that's pretty basic, and doesn't do much to forward the discussion here, but I accept that's true. Of course, I can imagine a Jain terrorist given the proper motivation... maybe if they felt they could do something to end wars by causing a nuclear tragedy? Who knows how people are going to interpret their religion, and that's discounting their sanity.

 

[Jack21222]

Pardon?

My post specifically dealt with a significant contrast between religions. Some religions promote violence, and some promote peace. When adherents to those religions go into "extreme mode" the violent ones become more violent, and the peaceful ones become more peaceful.

I summarized by saying that no one had ever heard of a Jain terrorist. But there are plenty of Christian and Muslim terrorist stories.

Can't we acknowledge that as a significant difference amongst religions?

Three major religions in the world have such violent passages in their holy books. Yet somehow, only Islam seems to have the bad reputation. Centuries ago, the roles were reversed. The Islamic world was the center of culture and civilization, preserving ancient Greek works, developing medicine, mathematics, et cetera. They had the same holy texts that they have today.

Meanwhile, Christians were looting, raping, burning and pillaging anything that got in their way.

My point is, not all Muslims today nor throughout history live by those violent passages in the Quran. If we want to start railing against religious buildings, I see no reason to single out Islam and ignore Christianity or Judaism. There are passages in the Old and New Testaments just as violent, if not more so, than the ones you posted from the Quran.

While I agree that Islam played a part in the terrorist attacks on 9/11, it has no bearing on whether or not a peaceful community center should be built. This has already been brought up before, but the violent passages in the Bible that lead to the murder of Dr. Tiller doesn't mean a church shouldn't be built next to an abortion clinic.

 

[FlexGunship]

Meanwhile, Christians were looting, raping, burning and pillaging anything that got in their way.

My point is, not all Muslims today nor throughout history live by those violent passages in the Quran. If we want to start railing against religious buildings, I see no reason to single out Islam and ignore Christianity or Judaism. There are passages in the Old and New Testaments just as violent, if not more so, than the ones you posted from the Quran.

That's why I included Christians in my short list of "violent religions." (Here I use the term "violent religion" to contrast my earlier example of "peaceful religion" which is Jainism.)

So, to conclude my point: religions that promote violence should share some of the blame for the acts of violence perpetrated by its adherents (no matter how extreme). That does not mean that innocent practitioners of that religion share the blame, simply that the religion does. (i.e. If your policy causes injury to some, blame the policy, not the people who follow it and don't get injured.)

 

[mheslep]

Since when have real-estate development and feelings gone together?

If it has not been the case in every single historical transaction, I assure you that public and personal sympathies figure in everyday, continuously, speaking from my own experience in commercial development and other observation.

 

[nismaratwork]

Three major religions in the world have such violent passages in their holy books. Yet somehow, only Islam seems to have the bad reputation. Centuries ago, the roles were reversed. The Islamic world was the center of culture and civilization, preserving ancient Greek works, developing medicine, mathematics, et cetera. They had the same holy texts that they have today.

Meanwhile, Christians were looting, raping, burning and pillaging anything that got in their way.

My point is, not all Muslims today nor throughout history live by those violent passages in the Quran. If we want to start railing against religious buildings, I see no reason to single out Islam and ignore Christianity or Judaism. There are passages in the Old and New Testaments just as violent, if not more so, than the ones you posted from the Quran.

While I agree that Islam played a part in the terrorist attacks on 9/11, it has no bearing on whether or not a peaceful community center should be built. This has already been brought up before, but the violent passages in the Bible that lead to the murder of Dr. Tiller doesn't mean a church shouldn't be built next to an abortion clinic.

To me, this is the beginning and the end of this debate. Well said, especially your last point. I would feel a little uncomfortable with your last example, but that's MY problem, and not reasonable. Given time, I'd get over it... good advice for others in the case of this islamic center.

The whole "these are SUFFIs" issue is not tiny either. I'm not worried about Episcopalians gunning me down if I abort a fetus, I'm worried about fundies. Likewise, if I'm worried about pissing off Muslims, it's hardcore Shiites and Wahhabis that scare me.

 

[nismaratwork]

If it has not been the case in every single historical transaction, I assure you that public and personal sympathies figure in everyday, continuously, speaking from my own experience in commercial development and other observation.

Definitely, but academic research and excavation is the only factor that can generally halt construction, unless we're talking about a significant burial ground or the like. I realize that it's a nightmare for a developer to break ground only to find an arrowhead, but nothing they face matches this kind of outrage, and let's be honest... one was mass murder, the other was genocide.

 

[mheslep]

I don't think logic or facts have much impact here anymore... *sigh.

Good point however.

Here's another...

The USA has a military base (agreed upon by all parties I should add), in Tokyo. [...]

When recognizing the highlighted point why didn't you stop there, and at least dispense with the glib dismissals?

 

[FlexGunship]

I just want to (again) reiterate that I never had a problem with the mosque/multi-cultural center being built where it is, so long as the property is paid for (which it is). My problem was that we were letting international pressures (which I initially attributed wrongly to Imam Rauf) affect how we feel about real-estate construction.

Frankly, I'm still bothered by the fact that Muslim extremists feel that they have any say in where a mosque gets built in the U.S.. If Afghani Joe Bin Laden wants to build a mosque in my neighborhood, he can't just yell about it and threaten people from the streets of Afghanistan. He needs to come over here, buy some property, get quotes on construction, apply for a zoning waiver, and raise funds for it.

 

[mheslep]

Definitely, but academic research and excavation is the only factor that can generally halt construction,

Yes and we're not talking about construction. The complaints, as now in Manhattan, largely come in the planning stages.

 

[Jack21222]

Frankly, I'm still bothered by the fact that Muslim extremists feel that they have any say in where a mosque gets built in the U.S.

American troops are roaming their streets, conducting traffic stops, kicking in doors, searching houses, and blowing up buildings with unmanned drones. They're told his is not a war against Islam.

Then, American citizens at home are protesting an Islamic community center? But, this isn't a war against Islam, they were told!

Lets make a deal, Gunship. We remove all of our troops from the Middle East and Persia, and then I agree that they have nothing to say about Americans protesting an Islamic building in America.

 

[FlexGunship]

Lets make a deal, Gunship. We remove all of our troops from the Middle East and Persia, and then I agree that they have nothing to say about Americans protesting an Islamic building in America.

Deal, Jack. Can I also have all of my tax money back that went to helping/hurting these countries?

 

[FlexGunship]

Lets make a deal, Gunship. We remove all of our troops from the Middle East and Persia, and then I agree that they have nothing to say about Americans protesting an Islamic building in America.

Also... dude... Persia?

Note: I'm actually not aware of a significant American troop presence in Iran. I know we've got ground forces in about 10 countries around it.

EDIT: I'm not claiming there AREN'T American troops in Iran, I just didn't know it. Details?

 

[mheslep]

Three major religions in the world have such violent passages in their holy books. Yet somehow, only Islam seems to have the bad reputation. Centuries ago, the roles were reversed. The Islamic world was the center of culture and civilization, preserving ancient Greek works, developing medicine, mathematics, et cetera. They had the same holy texts that they have today.

Meanwhile, Christians were looting, raping, burning and pillaging anything that got in their way.

Could you provide a historical source for this view, perhaps just one sourced example illustrating the comparison of violent tendencies you indicate? I believe you are mistaken in the using the term reversal with respect to violence based on religious governance, and I suggest a more accurate appraisal is that with respect to violence born of religion both Islam and Western religion had much in common centuries ago. The West began to depart from that philosophically, if temporarily, with the birth of Christianity in the 1st century AD, recaptured that lost idea in the Reformation, culminating in the separation of church and state with the founding of the American republic. The Islamic religion, as I understand it, has not made that journey with few exceptions (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attaturk#Modernization_efforts.2C_1926.E2.80.931930" on a another continent.

 

[encorp]

EDIT: I should be clear that I have NOOOOO anti-Muslim tendencies. Simple minded people will make this into an "us vs. them" post. If Obama told me not to burn a Bible, I would burn a Bible.

Imam fears moving NYC mosque could inflame tension
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEincsjPzkZo6_gBr4jVuVlkB_OwD9I45DSG0

This is incredible. This is literally the definition of terrorism. "Terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear" (Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism)

Our friendly neighborhood Imam is telling us that if we speak out as a nation (or as factional divisions of a nation as per our 1st amendment righs) that he "can't be held responsible for the consequences." This is no better than 1930s era mobsters threatening to rough up a store clerk if he doesn't pay his protection money.

Obama wants Koran burning cancelled
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hJo3TrJgNxQFSKtdLWpGG4ERuLlg

Furthermore, our own president is advocating the abridgment of our freedom to demonstrate.
I am not religious in the slightest, and I had no inclination to support this event, but now that it's a statement about my freedoms as an American I'm forced to support it. This is disgusting. I have a really nice edition of the Koran that I'm tempted to burn now. Maybe I'll take out a few of the books in my Bible collection, too. Surely, someone will burn a copy of the "Origins of Species" just to make a point.

This is getting ridiculous. And people wonder why Obama is so adamantly loathed. Buddy, it's got nothing to do with your birth certificate, your skin color, or your suspected religious leanings. Honestly! It has to do with the fact that you're a jerk. A jerk that can't leave the people of your country alone for a week without asking for more money, limiting our freedoms just a little more, and proposing some other crazy-*** scheme that involves penalizing hardworking people.

The oldest terrorist organization in the world is the KKK; a white supremacist group - as I'm sure you know.

It is just insane to insinuate that the KKK represents Christianity as it is to say that Muslim extremists represent Islam.

 

[FlexGunship]

The oldest terrorist organization in the world is the KKK; a white supremacist group - as I'm sure you know.

It is just insane to insinuate that the KKK represents Christianity as it is to say that Muslim extremists represent Islam.

Welcome to the discussion?

One of those is about extremist pressure on real-estate development in the U.S. (as voiced by Imam Rauf) and the other is about Obama asking someone to voluntarily limit their 1st amendment rights.