a joke, but it brings up an interesting thought

[retro]

Q: What is a bigot?
A: Any one who criticizes Muslims

I don't know about the rest of you, but ever since 9/11 in particular, there seems to be this big things about how you're not supposed to criticize Islam or Muslims. Yes, I very well know that while most terrorists are Muslim, not even close to all Muslims are terrorists.

Let's take the issue of the proposed building of a mosque near ground zero in NYC. Yes, people were up in arms over it, and it brought about the ridiculous publicity given to the idiot pastor with his "burn a qur'an" day. But on the opposite side of the spectrum, I can't even begin to remember how many news programs I saw or articles I read talking about how opposing the building of the mosque was being bigoted or intolerant of Islam.

I'm a hard-core Constitutionalist, as most of you who have been around here and seen me in debates can attest to. As such, I actually defend the rights of those who wish to build the mosque at that location... they're within their legal rights to do so. I think it would be an idiotic thing to do, as it would serve to inflame sentiments against Islam, especially amongst New Yorkers; but they still have the legal right to do so. Just as those opposed to it have the legal right to protest it and request that it not be built. Just as Terry Jones and his congregation had the right to burn as many copies of the Qur'an as they could get their hands on, while it would be an idiotic thing to do, they had the legal right to do so.

I've seen similar things around here and on a number of different forums that I post on lately. The Muslims (and bleeding heart libs ), will attack you for daring to disagree with their religion. While at the same time, they feel they have the right to attack other religions to their heart's content. I don't get why questioning Islam is considered this big taboo, while questioning Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion is simply being open minded and perfectly acceptable.

Over the last few years, the term "Islamic radicalism" removed from government documents in relation to terrorist organizations and individual terrorists. Then there are documents such as this...

Terminology to Define the Terrorists
Recommendations from American Muslims
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/126.pdf

Regardless of the timing of this thread, it really isn't pointing fingers at any specific people. It's something that I've wondered and thought about a lot ever since the mosque issue came up to begin with. I'm an incredibly tolerant person when it comes to people having the freedom and right to follow whatever religion, or lack thereof as the case may be. But I take issue with one religion being treated differently... especially when leaders of countries and groups that subscribe to that religion make comments such as wanting to impose their own religious law in the United States, in England, and all over the world.

There needs to be religious tolerance, but not religious deference.

 

[skyblue]

agreed

 

[Peter Parka]

Anyone who blames most Muslims for 9/11 is a biggoted fool. I guess you wont mind if I object to there being a church down the road then because of Waco?

 

[Zorak]

I think Islam is guilty of a lot of things, it preys on the uneducated and weak, just like all religions do.

 

[ganny]

Was 3000 people from England killed unwillingly at Waco? The people at Waco were there by choice. The people that died in New York did not die because of choices they made. Radical Muslims crased planes into two buildings killing thousands of people. In the Muslim religion they build a mosque at the site of a victory. I can see where it would bother New Yorkers and most Americans for them to build a mosque there. Comparing it to Waco is pretty elementary.

 

[Peter Parka]

Was 3000 people from England killed unwillingly at Waco? The people at Waco were there by choice. The people that died in New York did not die because of choices they made. Radical Muslims crased planes into two buildings killing thousands of people. In the Muslim religion they build a mosque at the site of a victory. I can see where it would bother New Yorkers and most Americans for them to build a mosque there. Comparing it to Waco is pretty elementary.

Ok, how about N Ireland then? The crusades? Is that enough deaths for you to label all Christians and find their churches offensive too?

 

[hart]

I was not prejudiced before, and if I see someone in traditional Muslim garb in most situations I don't think much of it. But I gotta admit Pete, when I am on an airplane..........I'd rather not see one.

 

[Peter Parka]

I was not prejudiced before, and if I see someone in traditional Muslim garb in most situations I don't think much of it. But I gotta admit Pete, when I am on an airplane..........I'd rather not see one.

That's because you've fallen for all the lies and propaganda

 

[retro]

Anyone who blames most Muslims for 9/11 is a biggoted fool. I guess you wont mind if I object to there being a church down the road then because of Waco?

Those are two wholly different things... in the case of Waco, it was the "church" itself that was destroyed in a hostage/siege situation. With 9/11, it was Muslim extremists that flew planes into buildings, killing thousands of innocent people.

Like I said though, they have every right to build a mosque wherever they damn well please, as long as they're following building code, zoning, etc. I just personally don't think it would be a good idea, because it could serve to cause division, while they state the purpose of the mosque is unity. I don't think that people who don't want a mosque built in that location are bigoted for feeling that way. Then if you consider the imam that is supporting the building of the mosque and comments that he has made, I think you can understand why people feel the way that they do.

 

[Peter Parka]

Those are two wholly different things... in the case of Waco, it was the "church" itself that was destroyed in a hostage/siege situation. With 9/11, it was Muslim extremists that flew planes into buildings, killing thousands of innocent people.

Like I said though, they have every right to build a mosque wherever they damn well please, as long as they're following building code, zoning, etc. I just personally don't think it would be a good idea, because it could serve to cause division, while they state the purpose of the mosque is unity. I don't think that people who don't want a mosque built in that location are bigoted for feeling that way. Then if you consider the imam that is supporting the building of the mosque and comments that he has made, I think you can understand why people feel the way that they do.

Yes extremists. Please show me some evidence that this mosques congregation had anything to do with 9/11 or approve of it.

 

[retro]

Yes extremists. Please show me some evidence that this mosques congregation had anything to do with 9/11 or approve of it.

When asked about whether or not the United States deserved to have the attacks happen, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's response was:

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

 

[Peter Parka]

When asked about whether or not the United States deserved to have the attacks happen, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's response was:

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

And that means he approved of 9/11 how?

 

[retro]

the implication, to me anyway, is that the United States got what it deserved

 

[Peter Parka]

So someway saying that the US didn't deserve 9/11 means they think the US did? What strange logic you use.

 

[porterjack]

When asked about whether or not the United States deserved to have the attacks happen, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's response was:

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

the problem there is lack of understanding about US foreign policy, the US could do a better job at branding itself - the mis perception of the global cowboy riding rough shod to serve it's own interests seems to prevail

 

[porterjack]

btw the post numbers in this thread are all wonky:ninja perhaps we are being monitored, maybe sean penn was right:willy_nilly:

 

[Tim]

Q: What is a bigot?
A: Any one who criticizes Muslims

I don't know about the rest of you, but ever since 9/11 in particular, there seems to be this big things about how you're not supposed to criticize Islam or Muslims. Yes, I very well know that while most terrorists are Muslim, not even close to all Muslims are terrorists.

Let's take the issue of the proposed building of a mosque near ground zero in NYC. Yes, people were up in arms over it, and it brought about the ridiculous publicity given to the idiot pastor with his "burn a qur'an" day. But on the opposite side of the spectrum, I can't even begin to remember how many news programs I saw or articles I read talking about how opposing the building of the mosque was being bigoted or intolerant of Islam.

I'm a hard-core Constitutionalist, as most of you who have been around here and seen me in debates can attest to. As such, I actually defend the rights of those who wish to build the mosque at that location... they're within their legal rights to do so. I think it would be an idiotic thing to do, as it would serve to inflame sentiments against Islam, especially amongst New Yorkers; but they still have the legal right to do so. Just as those opposed to it have the legal right to protest it and request that it not be built. Just as Terry Jones and his congregation had the right to burn as many copies of the Qur'an as they could get their hands on, while it would be an idiotic thing to do, they had the legal right to do so.

I've seen similar things around here and on a number of different forums that I post on lately. The Muslims (and bleeding heart libs ), will attack you for daring to disagree with their religion. While at the same time, they feel they have the right to attack other religions to their heart's content. I don't get why questioning Islam is considered this big taboo, while questioning Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion is simply being open minded and perfectly acceptable.

Over the last few years, the term "Islamic radicalism" removed from government documents in relation to terrorist organizations and individual terrorists. Then there are documents such as this...

Terminology to Define the Terrorists
Recommendations from American Muslims
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/126.pdf

Regardless of the timing of this thread, it really isn't pointing fingers at any specific people. It's something that I've wondered and thought about a lot ever since the mosque issue came up to begin with. I'm an incredibly tolerant person when it comes to people having the freedom and right to follow whatever religion, or lack thereof as the case may be. But I take issue with one religion being treated differently... especially when leaders of countries and groups that subscribe to that religion make comments such as wanting to impose their own religious law in the United States, in England, and all over the world.

There needs to be religious tolerance, but not religious deference.

I consider this topic to be a very straight forward conversation that has been manipulated to be something else.

Let me explain. The first problem is that the facts always seem to be ignored or forgotten.
Islam does not equal terrorism, the religion as practiced by most do not condone such actions. It has been hijacked by the crazies to read into their own agenda and to fault the religion is ignorant at best. Over and over we here that Muslims are trying to convert the world to Islam, a take over if you will, but isn't that every religion? Just look at the Christians and their goal of spreading their religion, missionaries all over the world and churches being built in every corner of the globe. The whole goal of religion is to spread the word and to convert others to their religion.

As far as the Mosque in NYC... Again it's media manipulation to evoke an emotional response. It's not a mosque, it's a community center that will have a place for prayer. Yet it get's a bigger media foot print when you call it a mosque, so that's what you hear. And the fact that they have been using this building for the last year seems to be conveniently over looked. They aren't asking to establish this community center, they are requesting to refurbish the building with updated facilities. So even if the protesters win, they will still be in the building doing what they are doing, they just won't be able to update the building...

My view on using the term "Islamic radicalism" I think the government was correct to drop the term from it's vocabulary. It does absolutely nothing to help the problem of terrorism, but it does create fear, hatred and resentment. Call these people what they are, killers, terrorists, radicals (ie people with extreme views outside the mainstream of their kind) but don't equate terrorism with those who are Islamic, it does nothing divide.

 

[hart]

That's because you've fallen for all the lies and propaganda

Actually no Peter, it's because I vividly remember 9/11. I was due to go the DC the next day to pick up an award. 9/11 made a big impact on us Americans and I would be lying if I said I don't think of it when I fly now.

I don't blame Muslims as a group for what happened, but it's like seeing a pitbull. I've never had a bad experience with a pitbull and I'm told if they are raised right they are a good dog, but If I see one loose when I'm on the street alone, I get apprehensive. When I see a Muslim on an airplane in traditional garb, my reaction is instinctive, I get apprehensive. I don't when I see them in other situations, I don't think of it.

 

[Peter Parka]

Actually no Peter, it's because I vividly remember 9/11. I was due to go the DC the next day to pick up an award. 9/11 made a big impact on us Americans and I would be lying if I said I don't think of it when I fly now.

I don't blame Muslims as a group for what happened, but it's like seeing a pitbull. I've never had a bad experience with a pitbull and I'm told if they are raised right they are a good dog, but If I see one loose when I'm on the street alone, I get apprehensive. When I see a Muslim on an airplane in traditional garb, my reaction is instinctive, I get apprehensive. I don't when I see them in other situations, I don't think of it.

Do you get worried if your out and see an Irishman wearing a cross because of IRA terrorists? If not, what's the difference?

 

[hart]

Do you get worried if your out and see an Irishman wearing a cross because of IRA terrorists? If not, what's the difference?

Well for one thing, I'm married to an Irishman so that sort of influences how I view them. I have read and seen lots of films about the IRA but I've never been involved with the conflict. I took what happened in the US personally, as I am an American and I could have easily been on one of those planes. I'm human, I think things thru logically, I'm not too stupid but I have instincts too and I am saying I would instinctively feel apprehensive if I saw someone in Muslim garb when I'm on an airplane. Would I deplane? I don't know, especially going to Ireland it's a long flight, hard to rebook easily. But I would definitely be aware.