Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Are you serious?

Jul 23, 2010#1

David

Anti-mosque protests on the rise, say Muslim advocates - Yahoo! News

Seriously? Somebody please tell me this is a late April-fools joke.

---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

...Really?

---------- Post added at 11:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 PM ----------

I mean... just so we're clear... this is not just the WBC?

Jul 23, 2010#2

bhamv3

People are opposing the construction of mosques due to terrorism fears? Because terrorists need mosques to be able to recruit and operate, obviously?

Jul 23, 2010#3

David

Oh god... don't read the comments... I think my IQ just dropped a couple points...

Jul 23, 2010#4

Dei

My grandmother was opposed to Muslim stamps because they "dishonored the people who died on 9/11"

I /facepalm'ed

Jul 23, 2010#5

AshburnerX

And once again the catch-22 of Freedom of Religion rears it's ugly head: Yes, you are free to worship any god, goddess, or other worldly force... but if your neighbors don't approve of it, your basically going to be forced to do it in private. It's a problem Jews used to face (though not to this degree in the US, I think), it's a problem Wiccans still face, and it's a problem Muslims are going to face until they can improve their image somehow.

That being said, who thought it was a good idea to build a big, fancy mosque in the middle of New York City? It's going to be a magnet for violence and vandalism.

Jul 23, 2010#6

The Lovely Boehner

AshburnerX said:
That being said, who thought it was a good idea to build a big, fancy mosque in the middle of New York City? It's going to be a magnet for violence and vandalism.

This argument is akin to blaming a rape victim for dressing too provocatively.

Jul 23, 2010#7

Philosopher B.

Every time I hear about something Sarah Palin said/did, I die a little inside.

Jul 23, 2010#8

AshburnerX

The Lovely Boner;418485][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:
That being said, who thought it was a good idea to build a big, fancy mosque in the middle of New York City? It's going to be a magnet for violence and vandalism.

This argument is akin to blaming a rape victim for dressing too provocatively.[/QUOTE]

No, it's more like parking a car in front of a chop shop (that you knew about) and then wondering what happened to it the next day: You have reasonable expectations to safety, but your also supposed to take reasonable measures to ensure it. To do otherwise is reckless.

Jul 23, 2010#9

Dave

In this case I find that the conversation from Men in Black is damn near perfect.

Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

Jul 23, 2010#10

Espy

AshburnerX;418502][QUOTE=The Lovely Boner;418485][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:
That being said, who thought it was a good idea to build a big, fancy mosque in the middle of New York City? It's going to be a magnet for violence and vandalism.

Jul 23, 2010#11

sixpackshaker

As for tact...

A group buys land in rural Texas, outside of Houston, to build a large Mosque/Community Center. Then the Mosque tells the neighbor to get rid of his pigs. That guy's family has lived on that farm for 130+ years was pretty offended. Tensions escalated... Then the farmer sold his cattle and set up a pig racetrack along the fence-line between the Mosque and the farm. -I thought it was wrong of the farmer to escalate the situation, but it was pretty funny.

Jul 23, 2010#12

Norris

AshburnerX said:
That being said, who thought it was a good idea to build a big, fancy mosque in the middle of New York City? It's going to be a magnet for violence and vandalism.

Jul 23, 2010#13

Espy

I don't think anyone said they shouldn't build their mosque in NYC Norris.

Jul 23, 2010#14

AshburnerX

Norris;418538][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:
That being said, who thought it was a good idea to build a big, fancy mosque in the middle of New York City? It's going to be a magnet for violence and vandalism.

If this is the so called "Ground Zero" Mosque, it is not so much a house of worship as it is a cultural/community center. There are to be history exhibits, areas for inter-faith activities, and a slew of other community oriented stuff. Then, on the second floor, there will be a small mosque for religious. And why build in NYC? Because quite a few Muslims live there. That is like asking why build a Mosque in Dearborn.[/QUOTE]

Now you see... this is a different story. If it looks and functions like a community center WITH a Mosque, then these people protesting are being assholes. I was under the impression it was going to be a full on Mosque, like some of the ones we have here in Ohio. Here's one of the one's in Ohio.

Now I could see some people being upset with that imagery in Ground Zero, but a frigging mutli-faith community center? Come on.

Jul 23, 2010#15

Espy

As much as I could care less about a community center/cultural center, either way, if it has a mosque in it it's going to be a lightning rod if it's built in that area, it just doesn't seem like a wise move. No matter how you dress it up it's going to be like poking a bear if you try and build it on/near Ground Zero.

Jul 23, 2010#16

sixpackshaker

Is that mosque actually pink and purple?

I thought Disney had bad tastes...

Jul 23, 2010#17

Chazwozel

Why do they need to build the mosque right at ground zero again?

Jul 23, 2010#18

sixpackshaker

Because they want to heal wounds... by pissing people off?

I don't care either way, but I can definitely see where New Yorkers would not want to see a mosque/community center rising out of the original debris field of 9/11.

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

I can't find any designs or plans for this thing yet.

Jul 23, 2010#19

Chazwozel

sixpackshaker said:
Because they want to heal wounds... by pissing people off?

I don't care either way, but I can definitely see where New Yorkers would not want to see a mosque/community center rising out of the original debris field of 9/11.

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

I can't find any designs or plans for this thing yet.

As someone who's from NYC, that mosque can go fuck itself. I personally don't want to see a mosque in that area. Had it been Christian extremists, I wouldn't want a church built there.

Jul 23, 2010#20

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker said:
Is that mosque actually pink and purple?

I thought Disney had bad tastes...

I THINK it's just a trick of the light. It should be white.

Jul 23, 2010#21

sixpackshaker

Make sure to go read about "Cordoba." That is a badly chosen place name to pick about healing religious strife.

Jul 23, 2010#22

The Lovely Boehner

If seeing a mosque anywhere offends you, you're kind of a horrible person.

Jul 23, 2010#23

Cajungal

I have a delivery of "Gray Area" here for the mosque thread...

No but seriously. I don't believe it's fair that people--even grieving people--lump all Muslims together as if they're all bad. It's awful, and it breaks my heart. But I can see where people are coming from. They're not necessarily bad people. Grief and fear make people behave in an irrational way sometimes. That doesn't make it right, but it's something all people can identify with. I sincerely hope that, if it is built, they are able to assemble peacefully. Maybe they could work to enlighten people a little more about their faith. I hope all of that... but I'm also not stupid. Something bad is probably going to happen, and it might be prevented by building somewhere else... maybe. It's not as if animosity towards Muslims is confined to that area.

Jul 23, 2010#24

The Lovely Boehner

I don't care how in grief people are. A mosque is not the same thing as a sign saying "haha we blew your shit up". At all. We can't give bigots an inch, because they'll take a mile.

Jul 23, 2010#25

sixpackshaker

The Lovely Boner said:
If seeing a mosque anywhere offends you, you're kind of a horrible person.

You are right, those New Yorkers are worse people than the Muslim Nut-Jobs that killed nearly 3 thousand people in that city.

Jul 23, 2010#26

The Lovely Boehner

sixpackshaker;418586][QUOTE=The Lovely Boner said:
If seeing a mosque anywhere offends you, you're kind of a horrible person.

You are right, those New Yorkers are worse people than the Muslim Nut-Jobs that killed nearly 3 thousand people in that city.[/QUOTE]

The bigots trying to stop this mosque are horrible people. The terrorists that blew up the buildings are far worse people.

Jul 23, 2010#27

The Lovely Boehner

Replying to the anonymous reputation leaver: I pity you if "common sense" is hating another religion.

Jul 23, 2010#28

Necronic

Chazwozel;418557][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:
Because they want to heal wounds... by pissing people off?

I don't care either way, but I can definitely see where New Yorkers would not want to see a mosque/community center rising out of the original debris field of 9/11.

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

I can't find any designs or plans for this thing yet.

As someone who's from NYC, that mosque can go fuck itself. I personally don't want to see a mosque in that area. Had it been Christian extremists, I wouldn't want a church built there.[/QUOTE]

So, no churches in the Deep South United States (KKK)?

I understand why people are pissed, but I also think that the mosque should go up. Moreover I think that the people of NYC need to understand why it should go up. The people that did that, did it in the name of Islam, but they were not Muslims anymore than the KKK or WBC are Christian groups. It is a massive finger in the face of the extremists to put a mosque there, it's us saying "we know that you (terrorists) were not one of them. They are with us. They are against you. We are stronger than you, because we can absorb the things that are best about Islam. We want them, and they want us. We will rise above the hatred and anger and we will continue to be the strongest nation in the world for that reason. Basically, we are the Borg. We will assimilate you. Resistance is futile."

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 PM ----------

Also, the biggest threat from post 911 wasn't the terrorists, at least not directly. It was the possibility of the world becoming us against them, where them wasn't the terrorists, it was all of Islam. By building this mosque we are really driving home that point that we do not see them as the same group. By denying it's construction, what are we saying?

Jul 23, 2010#29

Fun Size

You guys say what you want, but I didn't worry about them putting in another Christian church, and the next thing we knew we had local crusades and damned inquisition.

You gotta watch these religious types.

Jul 23, 2010#30

Krisken

I'm having a hard time not being snarky here. I don't understand the lightning rod argument. Blacks who refused to sit in the back of the bus were lightning rods, attracting ignorance. Women who fought for equal rights are lightning rods as well. I suppose these people were wrong in attracting attention?

The only way to fight ignorance is by getting attention. Hopefully those involved with the mosque use the attention to spread a message of peace and acceptance and not accelerate the hate being directed at them.

Jul 23, 2010#31

Dave

I agree with Charlie.

---------- Post added at 11:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 AM ----------

Unless this mosque is being built by radicalized clerics or an offshoot branch known for being batshit insane I have no problems with it. What if it were a Jewish temple or a Christian church? Would you mind? The people building it and worshiping in it aren't the ones who blew up the towers. They are just people like you or I who want freedom of religion in America. How is that bad?

Jul 23, 2010#32

sixpackshaker

I was reading through the Cordoba Institute's Web Site. I actually met some of the people involved with the group. They were linked in one of their news articles. They are good people. A rock star and a magazine publisher that I met through my brother's work and family.

Jul 23, 2010#33

Dave

I don't want any Christian churches in my neighborhood because the Westboro people piss me off and there are those who blow up buildings and kill doctors.

I don't want a Jewish temple in my neighborhood because their people killed Christ and they own everything.

I don't want a Baptist church in my neighborhood because black people commit crimes and I don't want my to be unsafe.

I don't want a Wiccan temple in my neighborhood because they sacrifice animals and cast black magic spells.

I don't want an Islamic mosque in my neighborhood because Muslims blew up the towers and are terrorists.

Why is one of these cool but the rest are bigoted?

Jul 23, 2010#34

Fun Size

Dave said:
I don't want a Wiccan temple in my neighborhood because they sacrifice animals and cast black magic spells.

...

Why is one of these cool but the rest are bigoted?

Whew. Thought you went off the deep end for a minute there. I mean, they're nuts, but Wiccan chicks are hawt!

(I can only imagine that at some point, I will be notified when attempts at levity in "serious" threads are no longer appreciated. I'll most likely ignore such notification, but still.)

Jul 23, 2010#35

ScytheRexx

All I can say about this is you don't fight an act born of intolerance with further intolerance. I do hope they choose another place to put it just to avoid violence, but I don't think they are wrong trying to put a community center up somewhere just because it's near Ground Zero.

I personally don't want to see a mosque in that area. Had it been Christian extremists, I wouldn't want a church built there.

The issue is, if they were Christian extremists, few people would focus on the fact they were Christian over the fact they were crazy.

Jul 23, 2010#36

sixpackshaker

ScytheRexx said:
All I can say about this is you don't fight an act born of intolerance with further intolerance. I do hope they choose another place to put it just to avoid violence, but I don't think they are wrong trying to put a community center up somewhere just because it's near Ground Zero.

I personally don't want to see a mosque in that area. Had it been Christian extremists, I wouldn't want a church built there.

Click to expand...

The issue is, if they were Christian extremists, few people would focus on the fact they were Christian over the fact they were crazy.

Or they would be treated like a cult. That might be a good step for the majority of Muslims to take. Treat the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and other radical groups like the apostates they are.

Jul 23, 2010#37

Dave

That is one thing I say the Muslims are doing wrong. When a Christian group bombs a clinic or kills a doctor or protests outside funerals, most Christian groups speak up and say, "That is not right!" Christians will hold counter-protests to these sorts of things. I can't say that I've heard or seen Muslims going out of their way to deride the actions of the fringe.

Or at least it's not broadcast that much. When someone gets bombed the Muslims need to come out in force and say to the world, "This is wrong!" Sadly, I have not seen that happen often or loudly enough.

Jul 23, 2010#38

Fun Size

Honestly, I've heard it, but I think it doesn't hit the news often, as it's not that sensational.

Jul 23, 2010#39

Dave

I had a feeling that it was because of the broadcasting but I didn't want to make that assumption.

I just know that Omaha is one of the places that Muslims have noted as being particularly nasty towards them. And that makes me sad.

Jul 23, 2010#40

Espy

You know, thats all fair, reading some of the less crazy/extremist responses (ie, not Charlies "everyone is a bigot if you don't agree with me" bullshit) I am gonna have to say I agree with you guys, as long as they know they are going to have to deal with some very serious and unavoidable intensity. I see that this could be a really good, even healhty thing.

Consider my mind changed.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't think it's not going to be very, very sensitive for some people and I guess I don't live in the sort of black and white world that allows me to just slap the label of "bigot" on them. I'm not comfortable with that kind of judgmental attitude.

Jul 23, 2010#41

Troll

Add my name to the list of people who think this should be built. These people holding the protests need to stop and think about what they're really saying. Most them are spreading horrible messages of racism and discrimination, no matter how they try to dress it up.

Jul 23, 2010#42

Bones

Dave said:
In this case I find that the conversation from Men in Black is damn near perfect.

Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

Click to expand...

I live my life by that line, being in the part of science that forcasts "the big one"

Jul 23, 2010#43

The Lovely Boehner

I just don't see any way you can oppose this mosque without holding some bigoted, false views on Islam.

Jul 23, 2010#44

Norris

Chazwozel said:
Why do they need to build the mosque right at ground zero again?

It is two blocks away. Which is, admittedly, not much. But it is not right at Ground Zero. They're on the island of Manhattan. They took the space where they could get it, and having a cultural center where non-Muslims can come inside and learn (if they want) about "real" Islam near GZ is not the worst idea I've ever heard. Too many folks in this country think that ALL Muslims celebrated 9/11, or hate American culture (irony being that the conservative critiques of our culture tend to be the same from proponents of Abrahamic religions), or what have you.

The Lovely Boner said:
I just don't see any way you can oppose this mosque without holding some bigoted, false views on Islam.

That is not true. I have seen people who are fervently against building a Muslim house of worship inside of the Ground Zero crater. And I heartily agree that building a Mosque on the site of Ground Zero itself would be about 31 flavors of wrong. Building a fifteen story community/cultural center two blocks away that will include but be limited to a prayer room, offices, meeting rooms, gym, swimming pool and performing arts center is a horse of a different color entirely.

Opinion Piece from CNN that sheds more light on the topic at hand.

Jul 23, 2010#45

Dave

Just don't read the comments.

Jul 23, 2010#46

Troll

Dave said:
Just don't read the comments.

Dear god, don't. I made that mistake, and I felt a bit of myself dying inside.

Jul 23, 2010#47

Piotyr

The Lovely Boner said:
I just don't see any way you can oppose this mosque without holding some bigoted, false views on Islam.

Some folks I know from NY are opposed because the area is zoned for commercial/business use, not private religious use, and they'd rather just keep it that way than start rezoning. I don't really see that as bigoted.

Jul 23, 2010#48

Cajungal

Amorous Eyes said:
(and educate instead of getting pissed off)

That's what I hope the most. They understand the risks of what they're doing... and I wouldn't fault them for getting pissed off, either... but this could be an opportunity for people to learn that their narrow perceptions of a religion don't apply to every member.

Jul 23, 2010#49

Necronic

Actually there are some amazing comments in there. I guess the really bad ones were removed. I'm going to take my favorite and take it a step further:

If building a Mosque near ground zero is wrong, is it wrong to build a Catholic church near an elementary school?

Jul 23, 2010#50

Cajungal

Awwww, man.

Jul 23, 2010#51

sixpackshaker

Necronic said:
Actually there are some amazing comments in there. I guess the really bad ones were removed. I'm going to take my favorite and take it a step further:

If building a Mosque near ground zero is wrong, is it wrong to build a Catholic church near an elementary school?

I just love seeing more bigoted jokes about the faith I was raised in...

Jul 23, 2010#52

Chazwozel

I don't want it there because it's a waste of space. How bout that?

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

Piotyr;418693][QUOTE=The Lovely Boner said:
I just don't see any way you can oppose this mosque without holding some bigoted, false views on Islam.

Jul 23, 2010#53

The Lovely Boehner

That is literally the first time I've heard someone say it was about zoning and not about "a slap in the face to the bald eagle".

Jul 23, 2010#54

Fun Size

Everyone on Halforums that day learned a little bit about each other, and from that point forward all disagreements were dealt with in a mature fashion marked by understanding and compassion towards one another...

until someone brought up the steak thing again. What a douche.

Jul 23, 2010#55

Chazwozel

The Lovely Boner said:
That is literally the first time I've heard someone say it was about zoning and not about "a slap in the face to the bald eagle".

Fuck you, you damn A-rab lover.

Jul 23, 2010#56

Bones

chaz reminds me of an old bugs bunny cartoon in which a gang of angry new yorkers accuse him of being a quote A RAB.....

Jul 23, 2010#57

Troll

Chazwozel;418713][QUOTE=The Lovely Boner said:
That is literally the first time I've heard someone say it was about zoning and not about "a slap in the face to the bald eagle".

Fuck you, you damn A-rab lover.[/QUOTE]

I hate it when mommy and daddy fight.

Jul 23, 2010#58

Necronic

sixpackshaker;418701][QUOTE=Necronic said:
Actually there are some amazing comments in there. I guess the really bad ones were removed. I'm going to take my favorite and take it a step further:

If building a Mosque near ground zero is wrong, is it wrong to build a Catholic church near an elementary school?

I just love seeing more bigoted jokes about the faith I was raised in...[/QUOTE]

That's not a joke. That's a very similar comparison of the logic. It just seems so much more ridiculous/offensive because it is a faith you know, and from a culture you know. So, use the feelings you get from that and extrapolate it to the feelings many Muslims may have about this issue.

Although...I guess there is one difference, that being that what happened in the Catholic Church was 100% against what the teachings were, whereas what happened with Islam was someone used an irregular/extremist interpretation of what the teachings were. On the other hand many leaders of Islam completely dissavowed themselves of what the extremists did, whereas some of the Catholic church's leadership covered it up and were borderline accomplices.

Also, to the zoning issues, that I agree with and totally get. But this is the first time I have heard it, is it a significant motive for the majority of the people protesting?

Jul 23, 2010#59

Troll

I'm going to be honest, hearing about the zoning issues well after hearing about the "connections to terrorism" argument make it sound like the zoning thing is an afterthought designed to cover the real intentions of many protesters. I'm sure there are people who are legitimately concerned about zoning issues, and not everyone is going to oppose the mosque based on bigotry, but it's too convenient of an excuse for many of the protesters.

Jul 23, 2010#60

Piotyr

Troll said:
I'm going to be honest, hearing about the zoning issues well after hearing about the "connections to terrorism" argument make it sound like the zoning thing is an afterthought designed to cover the real intentions of many protesters. I'm sure there are people who are legitimately concerned about zoning issues, and not everyone is going to oppose the mosque based on bigotry, but it's too convenient of an excuse for many of the protesters.

Of course, the zoning issue isn't a story people are interested in, which is all the more reason news outlets have run with the anti-Muslim angle. That's not to say that there aren't thousands of people that hate it because of anti-Muslim or anti-religion sentiments, but the zoning issues are more of a big deal on a legality front. The way I hear it, it's that changing the zoning like this is going to set a bad precedent for elsewhere in the GZ area, as well as the rest of NYC. There's no reason the area can't be used on a commercial/business level.

Jul 23, 2010#61

Troll

Well, I can definitely see the logic behind the zoning issue. I don't mean to sound as though I'm discounting it completely.

Jul 23, 2010#62

Soliloquy

You know, this is why I have such a negative view of the media in general. Unless we're in New York and talking to the protesters ourselves, we have little to no way of knowing whether most of the protesters are concerned about the zoning issue, or whether most people are protesting because they hate the religion. All we have to rely on are the news reports -- and of course the news reports are going to focus on the more sensational/controversial aspects, no matter how small or large they are. That's just how they make money.

Is there anyone on these boards that lives in NYC, and would be able to verify what it is that most of the protesters are angry about?

Jul 23, 2010#63

Hailey Knight

sixpackshaker;418586][QUOTE=The Lovely Boner said:
If seeing a mosque anywhere offends you, you're kind of a horrible person.

You are right, those New Yorkers are worse people than the Muslim Nut-Jobs that killed nearly 3 thousand people in that city.[/QUOTE]

The fanatics who killed all those innocent people aren't building a mosque.

Jul 23, 2010#64

Chazwozel

And the lesson is don't fuck with New York.

Jul 23, 2010#65

Hailey Knight

"And get the mayor off my back so I don't have any more of this zoning crap."

Jul 24, 2010#66

The Lovely Boehner

Chazwozel said:
And the lesson is don't fuck with New York.

Or the lesson is it doesn't matter if you fuck with New York or not, they'll be bigoted towards you anyways because of their fear and ignorance.

Jul 24, 2010#67

Hailey Knight

The Lovely Boner;418890][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
And the lesson is don't fuck with New York.

Or the lesson is it doesn't matter if you fuck with New York or not, they'll be bigoted towards you anyways because of their fear and ignorance.[/QUOTE]

Protesters: Lumping all Muslims together as terrorists because of shared religion.
Charlie: Lumping all New Yorkers together as bigots because of their region.

Jul 24, 2010#68

Chazwozel

The Lovely Boner;418890][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
And the lesson is don't fuck with New York.

Or the lesson is it doesn't matter if you fuck with New York or not, they'll be bigoted towards you anyways because of their fear and ignorance.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should practice what you preach and be more tolerant of the bigots.

Derp. See what I did there?

Jul 24, 2010#69

Jiarn

Fun Size said:
Whew. Thought you went off the deep end for a minute there. I mean, they're nuts, but Wiccan chicks are hawt!

No. They're not. My ex is Wiccan and she's a beastly looking woman now. She devolved with time but when she went Wiccan it put her into maximum overdrive.

Jul 24, 2010#70

Soliloquy

Question: If you're not tolerant of people who don't share your belief about being tolerant of people who don't share your beliefs, are you actually being tolerant of people who don't share your beliefs?

Jul 24, 2010#71

crono1224

Soliloquy said:
Question: If you're not tolerant of people who don't share your belief about being tolerant of people who don't share your beliefs, are you actually being tolerant of people who don't share your beliefs?

Aka is it intolerant to be intolerant of the intolerants, or is it wrong to be intolerant of bigots/racist.

Jul 24, 2010#72

Espy

It seems like a lot of people here are still making the assumption that everyone not thrilled with this happening is a racist/bigot. While some may be, and some probably are, at least statistically speaking, I just don't understand how exactly you all know what is in these peoples hearts and minds.

Jul 24, 2010#73

Soliloquy

crono1224 said:
Is it intolerant to be intolerant of the intolerant?

Jul 24, 2010#74

crono1224

I think it is understanding where they come from, I think how you are raised can have a huge affect on how you view the world. You grow up in a town of 1000 only white, with racist relatives, you may not be able to easily accept other races/religions. If you hear for say 5 10 15 years about how bad something is its hard to be dissuaded from that belief, especially from people who maybe seen as outsiders.

That leads me to tolerance, simply calling everyone bigots and what not does not help any more than what they are doing, sometimes it really isn't their fault, it takes a lot to break bad habits/beliefs.

Jul 24, 2010#75

Hailey Knight

Soliloquy said:
Question: If you're not tolerant of people who don't share your belief about being tolerant of people who don't share your beliefs, are you actually being tolerant of people who don't share your beliefs?

I got a similar question for you.

If you go back in time and kill your grandfather, how can you exist to go back in time to kill your grandfather? Hmm? HMMMM?!

EDIT: This topic's ad gives me singlemuslim.com

Jul 25, 2010#76

Chazwozel

crono1224 said:
I think it is understanding where they come from, I think how you are raised can have a huge affect on how you view the world. You grow up in a town of 1000 only white, with racist relatives, you may not be able to easily accept other races/religions. If you hear for say 5 10 15 years about how bad something is its hard to be dissuaded from that belief, especially from people who maybe seen as outsiders.

That leads me to tolerance, simply calling everyone bigots and what not does not help any more than what they are doing, sometimes it really isn't their fault, it takes a lot to break bad habits/beliefs.

New York City has a huge diverse population. I'm sure most of the protesters, like myself, have no issues with Islam or Muslims. It's the principle of the thing. The terrorists were Muslim extremists. It's a slap in the face to build a Mosque-type place where in the past it was commercial real-estate. It's almost as if you're honoring the fact that they were Muslim. There are already a bunch of mosques in lower Manhattan. I don't see a reason for why this needs to be built, other than stir up some shit and bad memories with the local populace.

There are a shit ton of churches all over Manhattan, vastly outnumbering the number of any other denomination's worship center. One could argue that this is adding more diversity. Why not add more diversity around Central Park East or North? Why build right were it's still raw for most people? I can't argue against the churches because many of them have been there since the foundation of the city itself.

Jul 25, 2010#77

Eriol

Soliloquy;418978][QUOTE=crono1224 said:
Is it intolerant to be intolerant of the intolerant?

That's a much better way of putting it, yeah.

It's actually an interesting question, when you think about it. If one of your primary beliefs is in the idea of tolerance, but you act inflammatory towards people who are bigoted towards those who don't share their primary beliefs... are you really any different, tolerance-wise?

I guess this all comes down to asking: what is tolerance, anyway? Does tolerance mean always agreeing with everyone? Or keeping quiet when something's going on when you don't agree with? Or can you vocally oppose ideas without being intolerant of them?[/QUOTE]
Be tolerant of people, not of actions. I'd even say be tolerant of speech/ideas in terms of letting them be voiced, but also strongly voice your own opinion.

Ideas should be open and heard, and consequently shouted down by others as well. Free speech is my limit of tolerance. The rest is simple evaluation: is this threatening to your self/group/person/whatever, and why? "Tolerance" itself I see as a misnomer in any topics beyond free speech. The rest is covered by laws (my freedom to move my fist ends where your nose begins, etc).

Jul 25, 2010#78

SpecialKO

I'm glad to see some folks have already dealt with the freedom of religion portion of our program.

A couple more things:

First, there are not "a lot" of downtown Mosques, at least not major ones. Q&A with Sharif el-Gamal about Park 51, NYC - City of Brass

To wit:

6. Why was the site's proximity to Ground Zero considered a "selling point" [3] ? What other locations in lower Manhattan, if any, were considered that could serve the same purpose?

We are not at Ground Zero. In fact we're as close to City Hall as we are to Ground Zero. Lower Manhattan is pretty small. You can't see Ground Zero from our current building and on completion of our planned building some years from now, there won't be any views of the Ground Zero memorial from the building. To honor those who were killed on September 11th, we have planned for a public memorial within our future facility as well as reflection space open to all.

Let me tell you a little bit about the history of this project. We'd been looking for at least seven years to find a space to accommodate the growing population of Muslims in lower Manhattan. We found this site in January of 2006 and getting to the finish line and acquiring the real estate was proof that persistence pays off. We had also been eager to contribute to the revitalization of lower Manhattan, in part because this is our area of business and also because as New Yorkers we wanted to give back to our city and help make it a better place to live.

Prior to purchasing our current facility at 45 Park Place, there were two mosques in lower Manhattan - although Park51 is not affiliated with either of these mosques. One was Masjid Farah, which could fit a maximum of approximately 65 people, and had to hold three or four separate prayer services on Fridays just to fit the crowds.

The second mosque, at Warren St., accommodated about 1,500 worshippers during Friday prayers - people had been praying on sidewalks because they had no room. They lost their space around May 2009. We made the move to buy 45 Park Place in July 2009 in part to offset the loss of this space. Currently, our space at 45 Park Place, accommodates around 450 people every Friday. We are also easily accessible from many different parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, which was an important consideration.
At the same time, we thought, why not give back to lower Manhattan and fulfill a pressing need? We looked for a building that could grow into a community center. In Lower Manhattan, the biggest community center is at Bowery and Houston and it's in a basement. There are new residential towers going up in lower Manhattan as we speak. Four Seasons is planning the tallest residential tower in the city a block away from our site. If you think of all of the community centers in Manhattan, they are further north. Residents need services, investment in the neighborhood, activities and opportunities. Community Board 1, which represents the residents of lower Manhattan, acknowledged the needs we were fulfilling when they gave us their clear support on two separate occasions.

Second, the zoning issue tends to be misrepresented, whether on purpose or through ignorance. NYC has three zoning classifications - Residential, Commercial, and Manufacturing. These classifications are based on bulk proportions of the buildings in the district, as determined by the applicable zoning board. Specifically, you can have residential buildings and community facilities in 6/7 types of Commercial zones. The old Burlington Coat Factory building, where they're building the center, is one of those (C6-4, looks like).

Furthermore, surrounding commercial districts, not even counting the special Battery Park City district, include residential high-rises, St. Paul's Chapel, and the NYC High School of Economics and Finance, to name a few.

Jul 26, 2010#79

Math242

and in 10 years, restaurant owners in the area who sell pork will be the target of criticism and violence because they don't respect the muslims.

As it's happening right now in Lyon, Bruxelles, Paris, Amsterdam (? i know the anti islam movement is pretty damn strong in the NL).

I may sound intolerant and I probably am becoming it more and more but Islam IS becoming a problem in major european cities. I don't care about muslims way of life but they do care about mine and want to change it.

I know, i know. Most muslims are open and tolerant dudes... Their leaders most certainly are not.

Jul 26, 2010#80

Math242

and i will gladly apologize for that. This is how it is depicted here in Belgium tho.

I should have kept to what i have seen by myself.

Jul 26, 2010#81

SpecialKO

I am much more concerned about Dominionism than Sharia. Compared to Pat Robertson's media and political empire, a Muslim-run community center in NYC doesn't add up to much.

Jul 26, 2010#82

Dave

mr_thehun said:
Muslims died in the World Trade Center as well (besides the terrorrists) there were probably a few Christians, Athiests, Buddhists, Wiccans and Canadians.

But people will always love to kill each other over what kind of hat to wear.

Yup. In fact....

Samad Afridi (not on the victims list)
Ashraf Ahmad (not on the victims list)
Shabbir Ahmed (I'm correcting the misspelling. Ahmed's child Thanbir and Nicholas, the son of 9/11 victim Michelle Lanza, are in the movie "Telling Nicholas")
Umar Ahmad (not on the victims list)
Azam Ahsan (not on the victims list)
Ahmed Ali (not on the victims list)
Tariq Amanullah (He worked on the website of the Islamic Circle of North America)
Touri Bolourchi (A retired nurse who emigrated to the US from Iran)
Salauddin Ahmad Chaudhury (not on the victims list)
Abul K. Chowdhury (Cantor Fitzgerald analyst)
Mohammad S. Chowdhury (Windows on the World, father of one of the first 9/11 orphans, born two days after the attack)
Jamal Legesse Desantis
Ramzi Attallah Douani (His name is spelled Doany on one list, Doani on the other list)
SaleemUllah Farooqi (not on either victims list)
Syed Fatha (54 years old; Pitney Bowes)
Osman Gani (not on the victims list)
Mohammad Hamdani (There is only one Hamdani on the list, Mohammad Salman Hamdani, who was one of the heroes of that day)
Salman Hamdani (see above)
Aisha Harris (21 years old; General Telecom)
Shakila Hoque (not on the victims list)
Nabid Hossain (not on the victims list)
Shahzad Hussain (not on the victims list)
Talat Hussain (not on the victims list)
Mohammad Shah Jahan (not on the victims list)
Yasmeen Jamal (not on the victims list)
Mohammed Jawara (MAS security)
Arslan Khan Khakwani (not on the victims list)
Asim Khan (not on the victims list)
Ataullah Khan (not on the victims list)
Ayub Khan (not on the victims list)
Qasim Ali Khan (not on the victims list)
Sarah Khan (32 years old; the list at about.com said she worked for Cantor Fitzgerald, but she worked for Forte Food Services)
Taimour Khan (29 years old; Carr Futures)
Yasmeen Khan (not on the victims list)
Zahida Khan (not on the victims list)
Badruddin Lakhani (not on the victims list)
Omar Malick (not on the victims list)
Nurul Huq Miah (35 years old)
Mubarak Mohammad (not on the victims list)
Boyie Mohammed (Carr Futures)
Raza Mujtaba (not on the victims list)
Omar Namoos (not on the victims list)
Mujeb Qazi (not on the victims list)
Tarranum Rahim (not on the victims list)
Ehtesham U. Raja (28 years old)
Amenia Rasool (33 years old)
Naveed Rehman (not on the victims list)
Yusuf Saad (not on the victims list)
Rahma Salie & unborn child (28 years old; American Airlines #11; wife of Michael Theodoridis; 7 months pregnant)
Shoman Samad (not on the victims list)
Asad Samir (not on the victims list)
Khalid Shahid (25 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald; engaged to be married in November)
Mohammed Shajahan (44 years old; Marsh & McLennan)
Naseema Simjee (Franklin Resources Inc.'s Fiduciary Trust)
Jamil Swaati (not on the victims list)
Sanober Syed (not on the victims list)
Robert Elias Talhami (40 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
Michael Theodoridis (32 years old; American Airlines #11; husband of Rahma Salie)
W. Wahid (not on the victims list)

So aside from zoning I see nothing wrong.

Jul 26, 2010#83

Math242

ROFL Google ads is now giving me ads about muslima.com - international muslim matrimonials

ROFL really

Jul 26, 2010#84

sixpackshaker

I once got "Date Muslim Singles" ad. It showed a girl in the head covering. So I guess she was not from France.

_______________
It came back up...

singlemuslim.*** the world's leading Muslim introduction agency.

Find your partner the Halal way.

Jul 26, 2010#85

Dave

I still get autotrader.com.

Jul 26, 2010#86

Math242

Amorous Eyes;419424][QUOTE=Math242 said:
and i will gladly apologize for that. This is how it is depicted here in Belgium tho.

I should have kept to what i have seen by myself.

It's k. I know that all they show on the news is this jerk:

He reminds me of Draco Malfoy.

It is sad that many countries only see this guy on the news, getting the wrong image that we actually support this idiot. In reality he only has a small following but as long as he doesn't do anything 'radical' he's allowed to continue (though he has been bordering on inciting hatred at times, I think I recall him being brought to court over that as well). We have free speech. That means even dumb people can say what he says. That doesn't mean we agree with it.[/QUOTE]

PVV has 24 chairs tho and was one of the big winners in the last elections, if i remember correctly

Jul 26, 2010#87

Math242

ah ok. that's the problem. Abroad, they make it sound like PVV= Geert Wilders.

Just like NVA= Bart de Wever in Belgium

Jul 26, 2010#88

Espy

Math242 said:
and in 10 years, restaurant owners in the area who sell pork will be the target of criticism and violence because they don't respect the muslims.

Jul 26, 2010#89

SpecialKO

If the RevolutionMuslim jerk-offs haven't done it yet, I think it's fairly safe to say that the children of the area's Muslim investment bankers, corporate executives, graphic designers, city hall employees, and secular school teachers aren't going to start rioting any time soon.

Jul 26, 2010#90

Math242

Espy;419516][QUOTE=Math242 said:
and in 10 years, restaurant owners in the area who sell pork will be the target of criticism and violence because they don't respect the muslims.

Well, this can happen with any people group who have more rigid societal laws, but it can be dealt with and often without violence, although that depends on the people group. Here in Minneapolis we had a real issue for awhile with muslim cab drivers who would not pick up people at the airport who had dogs (think seeing eye dogs, so yeah, blind folks) or had alcohol they had bought. It ended up becoming a pretty big battle and in the end the cab companies just said, if you don't pick those people up you get fired. Your call.
They started picking people up.
I'm of the opinion that if your religion makes it so you can't do your job, don't take that job. There is a point where a job can accommodate (religious holidays, etc) but when it gets to a place where it starts to hurt the business and you can't do your job well... something has to give.
Of course Target took a different route. If you get a muslim cashier and you have pork you get to sit and wait for someone else to come put it in the bag. Not a huge deal breaker for them or their customers so I can see why the accommodated that.[/QUOTE]

I got into trouble once because i was having a beer in a muslim neighbourhood in Brussels. I was insulting their beliefs, they said. Huh no, i'm on my way to a party, you fucktard.
Shops were vandalized because they didn't want to only sell Halal products in Molembeek
Belgium has forbidden Burkas and for that we were called infidels and intolerant

I find Islam to be a great doctrine, i like it's history and it's practical sense. Yet, you don't see any of it in here. More and more, We feel we are being invaded. Peacefully but invaded nonetheless. They want our country to reflect their views and there is no room for cohabitation

Our traditions, our culture are judged and refused by the very people we greeted in the country.

I don't know about the States, but in Belgium and France, something will have to give. Because what appeared as racism 20 years ago is now the program of Sarkozy in France and De Wever in Belgium

Jul 26, 2010#91

Espy

Well, I can't speak to your country, but I would bet that if violence or intolerance on any side is becoming the main reaction/action it's not going to end pretty.

Jul 26, 2010#92

SpecialKO

I dunno about Belgium, but the issues I've heard about in France is that it's a melting pot of racism, poverty, and resistance to integration on both sides that has lead to large, impoverished muslim ghettos strewn about the urban areas. Not too surprising, in hindsight naturally, that such an environment breed religious intolerance among people who likely feel that the "free" society surrounding them won't extend those same privileges to them.

Jul 26, 2010#93

Math242

edit:

wiped my post. i'm done with this because i cannot articulate my thoughts clearly about this subject.

Jul 26, 2010#94

Chazwozel

God, what is it about pigs that makes them such unholy, filthy animals?

That's a literal question to God.

Jul 26, 2010#95

sixpackshaker

Chazwozel said:
God, what is it about pigs that makes them such unholy, filthy animals?

That's a literal question to God.

I guess he needs to answer that, because he created them unholy.

Jul 26, 2010#96

Piotyr

sixpackshaker;419760][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
God, what is it about pigs that makes them such unholy, filthy animals?

That's a literal question to God.

I guess he needs to answer that, because he created them unholy.[/QUOTE]

We're actually talking about "oink-oink" pigs here, right?

Jul 26, 2010#97

sixpackshaker

Piotyr;419764][QUOTE=sixpackshaker;419760][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
God, what is it about pigs that makes them such unholy, filthy animals?

That's a literal question to God.

I guess he needs to answer that, because he created them unholy.[/QUOTE]

We're actually talking about "oink-oink" pigs here, right?[/QUOTE]

No, we are talking about pigs that become bacon.

Jul 26, 2010#98

Espy

Rough, short crappy answer, but not from God, sorry:
Basically pigs eat anything they come across if they aren't given food (generally grain, something that at the time would have meant, in hebrew lands, they would be competing for food with the humans). So for the Hebrew people, eating pork in Old Testament times, would be very dangerous. You don't know what kind of horrible stuff they might have eaten and could pass on to you. Of course over time this became less and less of a concern, and in the end Jews continuing to do so were merely doing it for religious reasons rather than practical ones.

Jul 26, 2010#99

Rob King

Here in Canada, there have been a few incidents in Quebec about Muslim women being required to uncover their face to participate in French-immersion schools. I am horribly uninformed, and I couldn't tell you even a horribly bastardized version of the story, but it sounds very similar to what's been going on in some states in Europe (although Quebec is just a dollar store brand France in a lot of ways, so maybe they're actually trying ...)

Jul 27, 2010#100

Papillon

Rob King said:
Here in Canada, there have been a few incidents in Quebec about Muslim women being required to uncover their face to participate in French-immersion schools. I am horribly uninformed, and I couldn't tell you even a horribly bastardized version of the story, but it sounds very similar to what's been going on in some states in Europe (although Quebec is just a dollar store brand France in a lot of ways, so maybe they're actually trying ...)

CBC News - Montreal - Niqab-wearer blocked again from class

Jul 27, 2010#101

Rob King

Papillon;420193][QUOTE=Rob King said:
Here in Canada, there have been a few incidents in Quebec about Muslim women being required to uncover their face to participate in French-immersion schools. I am horribly uninformed, and I couldn't tell you even a horribly bastardized version of the story, but it sounds very similar to what's been going on in some states in Europe (although Quebec is just a dollar store brand France in a lot of ways, so maybe they're actually trying ...)

CBC News - Montreal - Niqab-wearer blocked again from class[/QUOTE]

There it is. I read about it in Maclean's a while back, but I didn't have a link.

Also, I'd like to point out this from the article:

Potential Quebec immigrants are asked to sign a contract in which they are asked to make a moral commitment to Quebec's values, including secularism, gender equality and respect for the francophone majority, the minister said.

Does this strike any one else as one of the most obvious good ideas of the week?

Jul 27, 2010#102

SpecialKO

Good luck getting any of that stuff attached to the US Oath of Allegiance.

Jul 27, 2010#103

Covar

your avatar makes that post hilarious.

Jul 27, 2010#104

Necronic

Does this strike any one else as one of the most obvious good ideas of the week?

An oath of secularism should imply freedom of religion, which should mean they should be allowed to wear their burkahs in school if they want to. I don't think that is a siginificantly disruptive problem. The government should be secular. People can be whatever the fuck they want. I mean, how could a person be secular?

Also, Brussels has outlawed burkahs? See, that's the kind of thing that makes me proud to be an American. We would never do that. Or, if someone was dumb enough to pass that law it would get struck down as unconstitutional faster than you could say 'technically the words seperation of church and state aren't in the constitution'.

Jul 27, 2010#105

sixpackshaker

Necronic said:
Does this strike any one else as one of the most obvious good ideas of the week?

Click to expand...

An oath of secularism should imply freedom of religion, which should mean they should be allowed to wear their burkahs in school if they want to. I don't think that is a siginificantly disruptive problem. The government should be secular. People can be whatever the fuck they want. I mean, how could a person be secular?

Also, Brussels has outlawed burkahs? See, that's the kind of thing that makes me proud to be an American. We would never do that. Or, if someone was dumb enough to pass that law it would get struck down as unconstitutional faster than you could say 'technically the words seperation of church and state aren't in the constitution'.

Burkahs have been illegal in America since the anti-KKK laws. It is illegal to go around in a mask nearly everywhere in America.

Jul 27, 2010#106

Rob King

Necronic said:
Does this strike any one else as one of the most obvious good ideas of the week?

Click to expand...

An oath of secularism should imply freedom of religion, which should mean they should be allowed to wear their burkahs in school if they want to. I don't think that is a siginificantly disruptive problem. The government should be secular. People can be whatever the fuck they want. I mean, how could a person be secular?

An oath of secularism should imply freedom of religion where it does not disrupt the rest of society. Maybe that's not obvious, and maybe it's open to interpretation, but that's how I see it should be.

Jul 27, 2010#107

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker;420329][QUOTE=Necronic said:
Does this strike any one else as one of the most obvious good ideas of the week?

Click to expand...

An oath of secularism should imply freedom of religion, which should mean they should be allowed to wear their burkahs in school if they want to. I don't think that is a siginificantly disruptive problem. The government should be secular. People can be whatever the fuck they want. I mean, how could a person be secular?

Also, Brussels has outlawed burkahs? See, that's the kind of thing that makes me proud to be an American. We would never do that. Or, if someone was dumb enough to pass that law it would get struck down as unconstitutional faster than you could say 'technically the words seperation of church and state aren't in the constitution'.

Burkahs have been illegal in America since the anti-KKK laws. It is illegal to go around in a mask nearly everywhere in America.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't sound right. Otherwise, they could arrest the entire NYC Halloween parade. And the cast of the Lion King.

It's probably "hiding your face during the commission of a crime, or evasion of law enforcement" or something like that. Someone give O_C a ring.

Jul 27, 2010#108

Math242

exactly, it's forbidden because your face has to be recognizable.

Convenient, i know.

Jul 27, 2010#109

Officer_Charon

Here, you cannot have any kind of full face covering, because we have to be able to view your face. Hang on...

OCGA Title 16, Chapter 11, Section 38 (16-11-38)

(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.

(b) This Code section shall not apply to:

(1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday;

(2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity;

(3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or

(4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.

Now, I'm not AWARE of any particular case law regarding burkhas, but the literal wording of the statute would seem to cover general wear, unless it was a Muslim holiday.

Jul 28, 2010#110

Bubble181

Amy: I'm not sure your own view of the Netherlands isn't a bit too rosy and tinted, both by the past and by the circles you move in yourself. I've got quite a few Dutch friends, and they all say the same thing - the past 10 or so years, the Netherlands have changed from the open, tolerant, beacon of enlightenment it was (well, sort of - the example all left and progressive Flemish liked to sue to show how it could be) into a more right-wing, more scared, more conservative nation. Fortuyn and Wilders wouldn't have made it in '80s Netherlands.

That aside, as far as Belgium is concerned, anyway, the situation *is* deteriorating. It goes both ways, sure, but living in Brussels, and quite close to the "black" neighbourhood (Matongé) myself I'm confronted with quite a bit of anti-Western and/or christian thinking. Mind you, you won't hear me say it's anywhere near as bad as some instances of racism that still exists, but there's a big difference: a white person saying something anti-islamic is publicly crucified as a racist and bigot; when certain people start imposing religious rules on other people, there's a huge debate over how we should accept other people's views and respect them and so on.

About the burkah: first off, Niqab and similar have *not* been banned; like t he law Charon quoted, it's a law against covering the face/head, worded so that it only applies to burkahs as far as religious apparel goes. Secondly, the brouhaha started because of teachers and public servants wearing them, which, according to sme, violated the secularism of the state.

Jul 28, 2010#111

Bubble181

Anger leads to Power beyond your wildest dreams? :-P

I'm far from saying the Netherlands has turned into Nazi Germany - Flanders is still closer than you guys :-P
I don't know if you know the song "bange blanke man", it's pretty old but describes what I think is going on a bit

Jul 28, 2010#112

sixpackshaker

The several Muslim women I know would tear a man's eyes out if he tried to put them in a burqa. Burqas fit under the subjugation of women. Why live in the free, western world, if you are going to have no freedom? Literally, go back to Afghanistan if you are going to live like you are in Afghanistan.

Jul 28, 2010#113

Necronic

That's just it though. America is free. Some women were raised with the tradition of the burkah, and would feel very uncomfortable to not have it. Some women don't want it or feel it is offensive, they don't wear it. Guess what, everybody wins. Except for the people that think they should be able to tell somebody else what to wear or how to think.

---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------

Also, to that law that is quoted, I have a very hard time believing that would ever stand up in court as constitutional if it was used to go after someone wearing a burkah as that is pretty clearly protected as a religious thingie. I mean, a sikh woman was able to sue the IRS for not being able to wear a Kirpan (dagger) to work. I am not sure how that case has gone, it's clear that a dagger in a federal building is a problem, but if that one is up in the air, how could a burkah ever be an issue?

Jul 28, 2010#114

Rob King

It is perfectly reasonable for any nation to set rules and norms, so that it can remain stable and safe. I don't think allowing women to cover their faces is going to lead into anarchy, but a nation is certainly allowed to refuse them the right to do so, if it is on the grounds of safety, and if it is universally applied.

I accept that there are cultural and comfortability reasons for wearing a niqab, but it is unreasonable for someone to move into another culture and not expect to compromise in one regard or another. I could not move to Saudi Arabia and expect to continue drinking alcohol, for example. If that was a deal-breaker for me, I would not be able to move to Saudi Arabia, because their government has the good sense not to bend over backwards for my whims.

A certain amount of assimilation is required. It doesn't have to be complete ... hell, I'd rather it not be complete. Keep your customs and traditions where you can. But the ones that clash must be left at the door, else a nation is completely justified in not letting you enter.

Jul 28, 2010#115

Bubble181

Necronic said:
That's just it though. America is free. Some women were raised with the tradition of the burkah, and would feel very uncomfortable to not have it. Some women don't want it or feel it is offensive, they don't wear it. Guess what, everybody wins. Except for the people that think they should be able to tell somebody else what to wear or how to think.

---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------

Also, to that law that is quoted, I have a very hard time believing that would ever stand up in court as constitutional if it was used to go after someone wearing a burkah as that is pretty clearly protected as a religious thingie. I mean, a sikh woman was able to sue the IRS for not being able to wear a Kirpan (dagger) to work. I am not sure how that case has gone, it's clear that a dagger in a federal building is a problem, but if that one is up in the air, how could a burkah ever be an issue?

Well, see, the problem with a burkah is that it covers - everything-, and no-one's allowed to look under it. There've been court cases of women refusing to take off their burkah during check-in for airplanes, for example. There are people who insisted on having a picture with their face covered on their driver's license and ID card. You can see the security problems and such present.

Jul 28, 2010#116

Math242

plus it's got no place in the 21th century tbh.

there, i said it.

Jul 28, 2010#117

Bubble181

Math242 said:
plus it's got no place in the 21th century tbh.

there, i said it.

Well, a scarf or haircovering I can see as a religious thing. Niqab/burkah....Yeah, no. Even if some people currently see them as religious things, that's pretty much brainwashing (ok, any religion can be considered such) into accepting a submissive and controlled role. I don't think anybody's saying they should all wear miniskirts (just the pretty ones), but one can dress unrpovocatively and cover oneself without resorting to metal frames completely hiding the body shape.

Jul 28, 2010#118

Math242

exactly

Jul 28, 2010#119

sixpackshaker

Even Hijab strikes me as a wrong thing to wear in a Western Nation. The Hijab is not so much a cultural choice, but in the nations where it is worn it is ENFORCED BY THE LAW with strict penalties. So in my eyes the Hijab is a sign of oppression. And the Burqa should be outright against the law in any free land.

Jul 28, 2010#120

Rob King

Banning the Hijab would be taking things far. I have little problem with it, even if several oppressive governments mandate it. Our governments don't mandate it, so if a woman chooses to wear it here, it means a whole lot more than it would if she wore one there.

I still maintain that governments are fully justified in requiring the removal of a Niqab. I would be uncomfortable about an outright ban, but for passport purposes, identification, &c. allowing them is so counter-intuitive it's almost comical.

Jul 28, 2010#121

Cajungal

I think that, when it comes to security, like Bubs said, there might need to be some allowances in seeing people's faces. But to say that they have no place is unfair. I thought the idea of coming here wasn't to abandon your heritage or religion but to know that you have the choice to practice it out of love for it and not fear of being punished.

Jul 28, 2010#122

GasBandit

Security requires your face to be visible, perhaps even your entire head. What your religion says is irrelevant, what you think is "pretty" even less so. We criminally prosecute judeo-christian wierdoes who think it's sacrilege to give their sick children antibiotics, thereby killing them. You want to cover up your face and be pretty in the privacy of your own home? Go nuts. When you want to take a subway or airplane ride somewhere, though, off it comes.

Jul 28, 2010#123

Rob King

Cajungal said:
I think that, when it comes to security, like Bubs said, there might need to be some allowances in seeing people's faces. But to say that they have no place is unfair. I thought the idea of coming here wasn't to abandon your heritage or religion but to know that you have the choice to practice it out of love for it and not fear of being punished.

I typically hate to make sensationalist arguments, but I somehow doubt that anybody immigrating who wanted to continue a religion that included animal sacrifice would find himself in conflict with the law if he intended to practice it fully. The fact is that guaranteeing absolute and unhindered religious freedom guarantees that they will eventually come into conflict with the laws of the land.

Niqabs should be allowed on American/Canadian soil, but if a woman insists on wearing one, they should not expect to be a full participant in this culture.

Jul 28, 2010#124

Fun Size

GasBandit said:
You want to cover up your face and be pretty in the privacy of your own home? Go nuts. When you want to take a subway or airplane ride somewhere, though, off it comes.

Yesss...it's this exact concern that has caused me to spend my life working on perfecting my Breast Identification Scanner. I just want to keep people safe.

Jul 28, 2010#125

Rob King

Also, this just sort of struck me ... how do women in Niqabs even enter the country? I presume they are veiled in their passport photos? How does anybody allow that?

Jul 28, 2010#126

Covar

Rob King said:
Also, this just sort of struck me ... how do women in Niqabs even enter the country? I presume they are veiled in their passport photos? How does anybody allow that?

They can come in from Mexico, the Federal government doesn't seem to care who comes in from there.

Jul 28, 2010#127

Cajungal

Well, sure allowances will have to be made based on the laws we have. When people come here they agree to live by our laws. What I was reacting to was just the comment that they don't have any place here.

Jul 28, 2010#128

GasBandit

Also, you knew THIS was coming:

Jul 28, 2010#129

Rob King

It astounds me how much ignorance can be shed by only a few Google searches.

The only court case I can find in North America regarding the Niqab was of an American-born citizen who converted to Islam suing the state of Florida to be allowed to have her photo-ID display her veiled face. She lost. The DMV had offered to have a female staff member take her photo privately, which she refused.

Veiled women have been flying internationally for decades with passports showing their unveiled face, and consenting to unveil in person only for female security personnel.

In Canada, the Conservative government has mandated that people showing up to vote must do so without veils. Even so, a poll in Quebec revealed that Niqab wearers do not oppose showing their faces for official purposes, although what I found made no mention of whether the 'official purposes' were assumed to be carried out by women agents of the government, or whether or not de-veiling after entering a polling station was allowed.

I'm still not sure how I feel about Niqabs in public spaces. Clearly there are workarounds for things like airports, but I assume there is nothing for mass transit systems in major cities where security is concerned. At any rate, I guess I've once again learned the value of knowing what the fuck one is talking about before one talks about it.

Jul 28, 2010#130

Cajungal

^That confuses me. Because I thought that women could reveal their faces to women, as well as fathers and brothers.

Jul 28, 2010#131

Rob King

What part?

Jul 28, 2010#132

Cajungal

Oh, just the part where she refused to have a photo taken in private and to be seen only by a woman, Rob. (Thanks, Ame) I heard that at a sleepover years ago with a girl whose family was Muslim. She took her scarf off in her dad's presence (I knew it was ok for girls only to see her arms and hair) and explained that immediate male relatives were also acceptable.

Jul 28, 2010#133

SpecialKO

I think I've only ever seen someone wearing a hijab here, not burqas/niqabs (sp?).

Jul 28, 2010#134

Necronic

I typically hate to make sensationalist arguments, but I somehow doubt that anybody immigrating who wanted to continue a religion that included animal sacrifice would find himself in conflict with the law if he intended to practice it fully. The fact is that guaranteeing absolute and unhindered religious freedom guarantees that they will eventually come into conflict with the laws of the land.

Burkah = animal sacrifice. There is a reason you shouldn't make sensationalist/slippery slope arguments.

Religious freedom has its limits. Where it threatens security, or breaks pre-existing laws in such a severe way it won't fly. Rastafarians are one group that have experienced that no doubt. Same with Christian Scientists who allow their children to die because they won't medicate them. My favorite though is Scientologists claiming that the practice of 'fair game' is protected as a religious act. They have also argued that fair game is no longer a part of their scripture. lulz.

So yeah, I can totally hear where you are coming from with regards to security. There are ways to mitigate it, like having a private DMV photo and private screenings at the airport. With identification by a police officer you would pretty much have to remove it then and there.

But man, I am really shocked so many people think it should just be outright banned because it's old fashioned/not in line with western values. There are religious viewpoints that deeply disturb me. The world is 6k years old. Evolution is a myth. Women should submit to the will of their husbands (Souther Babtists in case you thought I was talking about muslims.) Pretty much anything the evangelical movement does. Raising your children as Atheists. But the fact that they can have those viewpoints, and live next door to someone who has completely different viewpoints is what I think is beautiful about America.

Case in point, I've only ever seen a woman wearing a Burkah once. It was in New Orleans on bourbon street. She was working the counter at one of those generic souvenir shops where there are all the obscene T-Shirts and other nonsense. I was simply blown away by the cognitive dissonance of that experience. Nowhere else in the world would you see that. And that is awesome.

I do think that the american muslim community should have outreach programs to make sure that wives in highly conservative marriages like that are not being mistreated by their husbands, not sure if they already have that.

Jul 28, 2010#135

Necronic

Wow, the more I read about this subject the more disturbed I am. The French don't allow students to wear any religious symbols in schools? That is....seriously fucked up. Another eurpoean politician compared the wearing of a burkah to wearing a totalitarian symbol like a swastika or a hammer and scickle? The irony of the latter is that the most stringently non-religious nation on the planet was, you guessed it, the Soviet Union. Good stuff.

Edit: Ah, just saaw something else that makes a lot of sense. So, if we ban burkahs, we should probably ban nuns from wearing full habits right? Especially considering that the whole concept of the nun/priest dichotomy in Catholocism is incredibly sexist. I mean, that's incompatible with our modern western values.

Jul 28, 2010#136

sixpackshaker

Amorous Eyes;420907][QUOTE=SpecialKO said:
I think I've only ever seen someone wearing a hijab here, not burqas/niqabs (sp?).

Jul 28, 2010#137

Necronic

sixpackshaker;420985][QUOTE=Amorous Eyes;420907][QUOTE=SpecialKO said:
I think I've only ever seen someone wearing a hijab here, not burqas/niqabs (sp?).

This may be partly due to the fact that the ones who wear those tend to rarely leave the house.

Hijabs is something I cannot see anyone have a true genuine problem with.[/QUOTE]

Nice, they can't leave the house. A lifetime of house arrest because of the man you marry. THAT DOES NOT BELONG IN EUROPE.[/QUOTE]

Hell, that's spousal abuse and that doesn't belong anywhere. But does banning burkahs get them out of the house? Or does banning burkahs mean that we are just further seperating their culture from ours and giving less of a chance for their decendants to break out of it. Because that's what we are fighting for, their kids. And we get them into our culture, expose ourselves to them (well, not expose...) and you will see that in a handful of generations at the most this will not survive in a western country.

Want an example? The Chinese. The Confucian family structure is insanely heirarchical. The concept of filial piety led a lot of chinese friends of mine to go into educations that they weren't interested in, sacrificing a massive amount of their freedom for their parents (father's) benefit . There is also a sexist element to it as well. The 5 relationships/bonds don't even include the daughter, as they would not be in the family. I know at least one girl who was raised in a family where everything was given to her brother, and nothing to her, praise included.

Now, that was their parents. Them, they will never raise their children this way. Ever. Cultures that are incompatible with western norms and human nature will not survive in America.

Jul 28, 2010#138

sixpackshaker

There are plenty of Christian Sects across America that are growing and thriving, that have many view points that are reprehensible to modern, western culture. We need to look out for these kids as well.

Jul 28, 2010#139

Necronic

sixpackshaker said:
There are plenty of Christian Sects across America that are growing and thriving, that have many view points that are reprehensible to modern, western culture. We need to look out for these kids as well.

We absolutely should, but like Ame said you can't force it on them. Its always about a subtle hand. With the Burkahs and whatnot give it a couple generations, their childrens' exposure to western values will reduce that culture. With the pentacostal/evangelical/etc stuff, give it a couple generations, their childrens' exposure to huffing paint will reduce that culture. Ok, cheap shot, couldn't help it (watched gummo recently.) In all seriousness we just need to get the education and economic standards back in those regions and you will see that dissapear.

Jul 28, 2010#140

Rob King

Necronic said:
I typically hate to make sensationalist arguments, but I somehow doubt that anybody immigrating who wanted to continue a religion that included animal sacrifice would find himself in conflict with the law if he intended to practice it fully. The fact is that guaranteeing absolute and unhindered religious freedom guarantees that they will eventually come into conflict with the laws of the land.

Click to expand...

Burkah = animal sacrifice. There is a reason you shouldn't make sensationalist/slippery slope arguments.

Point is/was that there is a line where traditional aspects of religion cease to be acceptable, even under the banner of religious freedom/tolerance. It wasn't entirely clear to me that we all agreed such a line existed. Then it becomes a question of where that line is, or more importantly, where the Niqab falls in relation to that line.

Jul 28, 2010#141

sixpackshaker

Education and standards is not working now, the Burqa and Hijab are catching on in France. France does not want an under-class of women just in the overly strict households. Islam is to submit, but the women end up submitting to more than the men.

Jul 28, 2010#142

Rob King

sixpackshaker said:
Education and standards is not working now, the Burqa and Hijab are catching on in France. France does not want an under-class of women just in the overly strict households. Islam is to submit, but the women end up submitting to more than the men.

I suspect that the Hijab catching on in France has more to do as a response to government pressure than any cultural invasion (although, there is that).

Kind of like religion in China. I have a professor who has been traveling to China for over 20 years now as a scholar on Chinese Philosophy, and she reports that unfortunately (her opinion) the government-mandated atheism of China has caused lots of young people to embrace various religions in recent years, simply as a reaction to the government's forbidding of it.

Jul 28, 2010#143

Rob King

Amorous Eyes;421025][QUOTE=Rob King said:
Point is/was that there is a line where traditional aspects of religion cease to be acceptable, even under the banner of religious freedom/tolerance. It wasn't entirely clear to me that we all agreed such a line existed. Then it becomes a question of where that line is, or more importantly, where the Nabiq falls in relation to that line.

I think you're misusing words again. Unless you have a strong opinion on fruits.

[/QUOTE]

You know when you're carrying something that you have a precarious hold on, and it keeps sort of wobbling and threatening to fall? Kind of like ... I was carrying in my McDonald's supper last night from the car, and I had to grip the drink from the bottom with only two fingers and a thumb, as I was trying to manage other things. The drink sloshed around, and threatened to crash to my driveway at any moment.

That has been my relationship with the word "Niqab" all day. Every time I've used it (except for this time, which you just quoted) I've re-checked it on Wikipedia to make sure I spelled it right. Shit.

Jul 28, 2010#144

HCGLNS

Rob King said:
In Canada, the Conservative government has mandated that people showing up to vote must do so without veils. Even so, a poll in Quebec revealed that Niqab wearers do not oppose showing their faces for official purposes, although what I found made no mention of whether the 'official purposes' were assumed to be carried out by women agents of the government, or whether or not de-veiling after entering a polling station was allowed.

There is no law in Canada requiring visual identification to vote. The bill you are thinking of died on the table when an election was called.

Jul 29, 2010#145

Rob King

HCGLNS;421098][QUOTE=Rob King said:
In Canada, the Conservative government has mandated that people showing up to vote must do so without veils. Even so, a poll in Quebec revealed that Niqab wearers do not oppose showing their faces for official purposes, although what I found made no mention of whether the 'official purposes' were assumed to be carried out by women agents of the government, or whether or not de-veiling after entering a polling station was allowed.

There is no law in Canada requiring visual identification to vote. The bill you are thinking of died on the table when an election was called.[/QUOTE]

My mistake. I hadn't paid much attention to it when I had first heard of it, and the brief Googling I did today lead me to believe that it had gone through.

Jul 29, 2010#146

Bubble181

Yeah, we do have to make a difference.
Hijab = scarf around the head; fine for pretty much most people; those who oppose it haven't really thought about our own fashion 50 years ago. Acceptable for all, except where it might clash either with uniforms and/or the impartiality and neutrality of the state (because, yes, in Belgium and France, you're not allowed to wear a cross, either, as a public teacher. No racism or whatever there.).
Niqab = full face covering. Can be a security concern, depending on how rigourous the person is. Full body is covered except for hands and eyes; still possible to move around freely
Burkah = full covering of the entire body with a framework to avoid showing any hint of body. No eyes visible, often no sleeves, no hands. By the way, Necronic? A women with a burkah practically -couldn't- work in a shop. No arms to hold anything or take or give money. She was most probably wearing a Niqab.

Niqab:

Burkah:

Jul 29, 2010#147

Bubble181

No, not necessarily. All kinds of things *can* look sexy. That doesn't mean you should be wearing it all the time. Plus, I'm pretty sure most of them aren't wearing it with the intention of looking hot :-P

Jul 29, 2010#148

Math242

In Belgium, lots of arab/muslim girls wear the hijab because it's the only way the little fuckers (that ame described earlier) will leave them alone.

they respect the hijab, they see all other girls as whores.

yeah, sure it's getting better.... how i hate those fuckers.

Jul 29, 2010#149

Cajungal

Daaaaaaaaamn. Cool video.

Jul 29, 2010#150

GasBandit

Amorous Eyes said:
I am the only one here that thinks a niqab can looks sexy, aren't I?

There's lots of stuff that looks sexy that you shouldn't be wearing on the subway/at the airport.

Jul 29, 2010#151

Cajungal

Jul 29, 2010#152

Element 117

Bubble181 said:
Amy: I'm not sure your own view of the Netherlands isn't a bit too rosy and tinted, both by the past and by the circles you move in yourself.

shit, I had no idea I thought of Netherlands at all, much less like that. I kinda just though that's where all the Smurfs live.

Jul 29, 2010#153

Krisken

It's the Bubble name Bobble.

Jul 29, 2010#154

Rob King

Amorous Eyes;421550][QUOTE=.Amy.;421549][QUOTE=Bubble181 said:
Amy: I'm not sure your own view of the Netherlands isn't a bit too rosy and tinted, both by the past and by the circles you move in yourself.

shit, I had no idea I thought of Netherlands at all, much less like that. I kinda just though that's where all the Smurfs live.[/QUOTE]

For whatever reason, Bubble calls me Amy. Not sure why.[/QUOTE]

Now that you mention it ... I'm sure I've called you Amy once before, like a few months ago, probably following Bubble's lead. Only now does it occur to me that it makes no sense.

Jul 29, 2010#155

Eriol

Math242 said:
In Belgium, lots of arab/muslim girls wear the hijab because it's the only way the little fuckers (that ame described earlier) will leave them alone.

they respect the hijab, they see all other girls as whores.

yeah, sure it's getting better.... how i hate those fuckers.

I was in Egypt last month on a tour (it was awesome), but what is stated above there is EXACTLY what was described to us by a local: a woman working in a hotel in Alexandria. And this was ALEXANDRIA. Possibly the LEAST-egypt-like city in the country. We went everywhere from Cairo to Aswan to the western desert (stayed in Dahkla, Baharyya (sp?), and Siwa). Cairo's in the middle, western desert is holy crap conservative (FEW un-veiled women (Niqab) if there were any at ALL visible on the street), and Alexandria was the "closest" to Europe... but still damned far away. More like an attempt at a veneer.

And what was described to us was a place where if you're a woman, pray day and night that you can get out of the country in ANY way possible. And if you don't dress what's considered "modest" (hijab at the LEAST), you're a whore. Straight out. There's no wiggle room on that. Now it's strange what qualifies (some odd contradictions), but don't mistake that these things, hijab, niqab, and burkah, are all symbols of oppression, NOT modesty. If your skin is even brown-ish, if you're not in a Hijab, you're harassed. And there were two girls in our tour from California that were definitely "very" white, but if they went off alone, THEY were harassed quite bad on at least two occasions. My wife and I were always together, but we knew to NEVER have her go off alone. It's not exaggerating that it's dangerous.

In a "western" country there may be no harm to some of these things initially, but if it grows to ANY significant extent (even in a ghetto of some kind), those garments then become oppressive. And a defense. And that's why it's even more oppressive: wear this and you'll have no "problems" (no freedoms ever, a faceless woman). But don't wear it, and you'll be harassed. Vicious. And I've seen the results in person.

Jul 30, 2010#156

Necronic

In some ways we're only 50 to 100 years ahead of them. Girdles and 'proper' female dress were only really taken out ~50 years ago or so. Before that you had plenty of other oppressive womens garments/mentalities.

Anyways, my impression is that in Europe these people (or their children) don't integrate with the local culture the way they do in America. I'm wondering why that is. Maybe its because to immigrate to America takes a much larger investment of capital, so the muslim immigrants we are recieving are generally better educated which leads to better educated kids.

I dunno, just a guess.

Jul 30, 2010#157

Math242

I've been to Egypt... it's quite moderate compared to the Other middle east countries.

In Cairo, there are a lot of unveiled women. In the more rural areas, yeah you won't find any.

Jul 30, 2010#158

Necronic

No, my concept of integrate is understanding that they can do anything they want in this country, but they don't have to do it. I don't disagree with previous statements that many muslim women are effectively forced to wear the hajib etc, and I have a problem with that. For the same reason I have a problem with someone being forced to not wear it.

By integrate I mean that they understand that there are other options to the way they live, and that their choices in life are their own, and no one elses. If, in Brussels, they never leave their all muslim communities and see that there are other ways, then they may never be able to make that choice. And that is all that matters to me, choice. That is something a government should never be able to remove (well, except like, I choose to murder you. That's not cool.)

Jul 30, 2010#159

Math242

ghettos are bad. Especially for the people who lived there BEFOREHAND

Jul 31, 2010#160

Dave

Oi vey.

Church plans Quran-burning event - CNN.com

Florida church who says Islam is the Devil (or maybe the GREAT SATAN) will be burning Qurans on September 11. Because they are apparently turning the other cheek and loving their neighbors. And I assume the Muslim response will be equally level-headed and well thought out.

Jul 31, 2010#161

Chazwozel

Dave said:
Oi vey.

Church plans Quran-burning event - CNN.com

Florida church who says Islam is the Devil (or maybe the GREAT SATAN) will be burning Qurans on September 11. Because they are apparently turning the other cheek and loving their neighbors. And I assume the Muslim response will be equally level-headed and well thought out.

The fuck does book burning ever accomplish (other than telling people one is a book burning ignoramus).

Jul 31, 2010#162

Rob King

Chazwozel said:
The fuck does book burning ever accomplish (other than telling people one is a book burning ignoramus).

In the days of handcopied manuscripts, I'd have called it a crime against humanity.

In the days of the printing press, I'd have called it a tragic attack on knowledge.

In the days of the internet I just call it a telling and useless declaration of one's love of ignorance.

Aug 1, 2010#163

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Rob King;422367][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
The fuck does book burning ever accomplish (other than telling people one is a book burning ignoramus).

Aug 1, 2010#164

Hailey Knight

I misread that as "mosque-burning" and got really freaked out.

Pretty much any book-burning pisses me off, but I at first mis-thought it as some terrorist network of Christian fundamentalists.

Aug 1, 2010#165

Terrik

So.. yeah, I've said it once and I'll say it again. Organized religion has no place in a modern society. It's main purpose is the spread of hatred in the world by creating an in-group, out-group mentality

This could be applied to any sort of ideology or belief though.

Aug 1, 2010#166

Rob King

mr_thehun said:
So.. yeah, I've said it once and I'll say it again. Organized religion has no place in a modern society. It's main purpose is the spread of hatred in the world by creating an in-group, out-group mentality. The growing pressence of religiouse extremists in the USA terrifies me, especially the number of groups that call for a christian America.

America is made up of many different faces and beleifs. It IS a melting pot and it is this quality that makes America great. The freedom to think is something that other parts of the world is lacking but that America is quickly destroying. To see the progress that is occuring where I live and the degression that is occuring in other parts of the world breaks my heart.

How do you mean this? Do you mean this in a "society must be secular" sort of way, or do you mean this in a "all organized religion must end" way?

---------- Post added at 12:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 AM ----------

Terrik said:
So.. yeah, I've said it once and I'll say it again. Organized religion has no place in a modern society. It's main purpose is the spread of hatred in the world by creating an in-group, out-group mentality

Click to expand...

This could be applied to any sort of ideology or belief though.

And as with so many other ideologies and beliefs, I would argue that while in-group/out-group might be an unfortunate result of religion, it is rarely the purpose.

Aug 2, 2010#167

Hailey Knight

I see you're misspelling some things on purpose, so I'll do the same favor for reason I know.

F4lun G0ngs not a religion, and I think you know the real reason it's not allowed in a certain nation.

Aug 2, 2010#168

drifter

Rob King said:
And as with so many other ideologies and beliefs, I would argue that while in-group/out-group might be an unfortunate result of religion, it is rarely the purpose.

Really? I don't agree with mr_thehun's assertion that religion holds no place in modern society, but I would think creating an in-group/out-group is pretty much the exact purpose of most religions.

Aug 2, 2010#169

Terrik

F4lun G0ngs not a religion, and I think you know the real reason it's not allowed in a certain nation.

I dunno...at the very least its cultish---and this is from my experience dealing with them in Singapore.

Aug 2, 2010#170

Dave

mr_thehun said:
Yes but I won't kill you in the name of Jobs.

Apple users would.

Aug 2, 2010#171

Hailey Knight

mr_thehun said:
The fact that the cult continues to advocate open rebellion against a government that is better than the cost of another civil war.

This is closest to what I was going for. I know China has a limit to how many non-family may gather because previously the gathering of their members grew into a political movement against the government.

However, I get some cases at my job of people seeking asylum here in the U.S. because they're beaten and put in jail for physical exercise. Of course, more than half of them never practiced or even met someone who was a member of the group and are exposed in court for being liars, but it happens.

Aug 2, 2010#172

Rob King

drifter;422755][QUOTE=Rob King said:
And as with so many other ideologies and beliefs, I would argue that while in-group/out-group might be an unfortunate result of religion, it is rarely the purpose.

Really? I don't agree with mr_thehun's assertion that religion holds no place in modern society, but I would think creating an in-group/out-group is pretty much the exact purpose of most religions.[/QUOTE]

Judaism: yeah. They are the people of God to the exclusion of all others. I'll give you that.

Christianity: no. The entire thrust of the New Testament is that there is no Jew or Gentile or Greek. The entire human race is invited to be the 'in crowd.'

Islam: I can't speak to, but I get the impression that it was more about bringing people into true belief than creating an in-crowd. Much like Christianity, the fact that not everybody is a Muslim means that there is a de facto in and out crowd, but that doesn't seem like the purpose.

Buddhism is about personal enlightenment, as far as I understand it, so again, it's not about creating an in crowd or out crowd.

I know next to nothing about both Hinduism and Sikhism, so I won't speak to either of those.

The point is, if you look at the core philosophy of most religions, none of them started to purposefully divide a population. Except for Judaism, but I forgive that based on the age of the religion. Besides, even they have allowances for 'outsiders' who wish to convert into Judaism. Most divisive elements come after the founding of the religion, and at best constitute sub-sects of the greater philosophy of Christianity, or Islam, or whatever else.

Aug 2, 2010#173

sixpackshaker

1500 years of warfare between cultures, leads to some hurt feelings.

Aug 2, 2010#174

Hailey Knight

Buddhism isn't really an organized religion outside Tibet as far as I know. The Buddhists I've known never had any congregation or official gathering unless you count wi-fi cafes and yoga class.

Aug 2, 2010#175

Rob King

escushion said:
Buddhism isn't really an organized religion outside Tibet as far as I know. The Buddhists I've known never had any congregation or official gathering unless you count wi-fi cafes and yoga class.

Okay, then nothing to disagree with there. They aren't trying to divide themselves into inside/outside.

Aug 2, 2010#176

drifter

Rob King said:
Christianity: no. The entire thrust of the New Testament is that there is no Jew or Gentile or Greek. The entire human race is invited to be the 'in crowd.'

Perhaps it's merely a matter of semantics, but once you make an in-group, you are also making an out group. Just because you want everyone to join the in-group doesn't exclude the fact that the out-group now exists

Rob King said:
The point is, if you look at the core philosophy of most religions, none of them started to purposefully divide a population.

Yeah, I believe I understand what you're getting at, I just think it's kind of a cop-out to say, "Well we didn't mean to divide a population!" Really? You want to start a whole new theology and you expect everyone to just dive right in? No questions asked? Trying to look at the ultimate motivations of an organization in a vacuum is all well and good, but you can't divorce it from the actions and effects those motivations incur.

Look, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but the purpose of pretty much any group is to create an us and a them. If it didn't, there would be no purpose to the group.

Aug 2, 2010#177

AshburnerX

escushion said:
Buddhism isn't really an organized religion outside Tibet as far as I know. The Buddhists I've known never had any congregation or official gathering unless you count wi-fi cafes and yoga class.

There ARE Buddhist temples in some cities, and they do have Monks who live in them as sort of "Teachers" to people wholeheartedly interested in learning about it. However, it is NOTHING like how it was in Tibet... where the priests were basically the "haves" and everyone who wasn't a tourist was basically property. China gets a lot of crap for kicking out the Dalai Llama and ousting the priesthood from Tibet, but the system they've tried to implement there is arguably kinder and more fair than the old one.

Aug 2, 2010#178

Hailey Knight

drifter said:
Look, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but the purpose of pretty much any group is to create an us and a them. If it didn't, there would be no purpose to the group.

That is the dumbest thing I've read today, and I read Bubble's posts in the immigration thread, as well as some Youtube comments.

Aug 2, 2010#179

drifter

Next time I'll try to upgrade to Youtube quality.

Aug 2, 2010#180

Rob King

drifter said:
Yeah, I believe I understand what you're getting at, I just think it's kind of a cop-out to say, "Well we didn't mean to divide a population!" Really? You want to start a whole new theology and you expect everyone to just dive right in? No questions asked? Trying to look at the ultimate motivations of an organization in a vacuum is all well and good, but you can't divorce it from the actions and effects those motivations incur.

Well, try and look at this from the perspective of a wholehearted believer. If you thought it through an came to some pretty neat conclusions, would you keep your yap shut for the sake of the public peace? Maybe if it was something like "Toast should be eaten buttered side down." you would do well to hold your silence, but when they have to do with the nature of the universe, that's not the kind of thing you just don't talk about.

drifter said:
Look, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but the purpose of pretty much any group is to create an us and a them. If it didn't, there would be no purpose to the group.

See, I think the problem here is that you're seeing the grouping as the triggering element. But it rarely goes that way. It's a rare occurrence when the group actively decides that they're going to be a club now. In the example of Christianity, it started off with a pile of Jews who believed that Jesus was God. People looked at that and said "holy shit, that's not what those other Jews are saying." So Christians became a sect of Judaism, and as it went on it evolved and took on new converts, and it grew until it became recognized on it's own terms.

The same thing happens all over the place. Confucius didn't found a school of thought. He just thought. And then he talked about it, and took on students, and then those students thought and continued the work that Confucius began. Then four hundred years later, after Warring States China was warring significantly less, scholars looked at the thinkers of the era and said "those guys talk about a lot of the same shit, and it seems like it started with Confucius. We're going to call that Confucianism." And these guys who never thought of themselves as a specific group became known as Confucians.

People get shoehorned into subgroups as a matter of convenience after the fact. I'm not saying that there aren't groups who began specifically to exclude everyone else. And I'm not saying that there aren't groups who met up one day and said "let's start a club." I'm just saying that more often than not, they just did their shit, and then someone else grouped them together into a sect.

Aug 3, 2010#181

drifter

Rob King said:
Well, try and look at this from the perspective of a wholehearted believer. If you thought it through an came to some pretty neat conclusions, would you keep your yap shut for the sake of the public peace?

Well no, I wouldn't expect that person to keep his yap shut. But I do think that one would understand that there are consequences once you open up, which is what I'm trying to say.

Rob King said:
See, I think the problem here is that you're seeing the grouping as the triggering element. But it rarely goes that way. It's a rare occurrence when the group actively decides that they're going to be a club now. In the example of Christianity, it started off with a pile of Jews who believed that Jesus was God. People looked at that and said "holy shit, that's not what those other Jews are saying." So Christians became a sect of Judaism, and as it went on it evolved and took on new converts, and it grew until it became recognized on it's own terms. The same thing happens all over the place. Confucius didn't found a school of thought. He just thought. And then he talked about it, and took on students, and then those students thought and continued the work that Confucius began. Then four hundred years later, after Warring States China was warring significantly less, scholars looked at the thinkers of the era and said "those guys talk about a lot of the same shit, and it seems like it started with Confucius. We're going to call that Confucianism." And these guys who never thought of themselves as a specific group became known as Confucians. People get shoehorned into subgroups as a matter of convenience after the fact. I'm not saying that there aren't groups who began specifically to exclude everyone else. And I'm not saying that there aren't groups who met up one day and said "let's start a club." I'm just saying that more often than not, they just did their shit, and then someone else grouped them together into a sect.

Well, sure, the first guy who kind of got things off the ground perhaps wasn't intending to found a school of thought. But once he gains adherents, a group forms. That's kinda my point. A group forms around a certain belief system, and that group then acts to reinforce itself. Just because you haven't named a group, or formally started out to form a group, doesn't change the fact that a group has formed.

Let's take your Christian example. One dude breaks off of Judaism, and let's say a friend joins him in his belief of Judaism. Bam, there's a group. These two guys, while not formally intending to start a sect, are now bound by their belief separate from Judaism. They now have a vested interest in this separate belief, and while they may not try to force it onto others, they will do their best to support their own belief system, and welcome others into their fold. There is now an "us" and "them," whether they wanted it like that or not. (Note: Now, I am not trying to turn this into an exclusionary thing with regards to groups, just pointing out their are definite delineations which mark them as separate, if that makes sense.)

People aren't shoehorned into subgroups after the fact. They are LABELED into subgroups after the fact. I think maybe this is the point where our opinions on this most differs.

Aug 3, 2010#182

Rob King

You've certainly given me something to think about. Labels have always been tricky business, and this all brings me back to an essay I was working on a while back about external and internal labeling: the labels that are attached to us by others, and the labels that we ourselves embrace. But that's slightly tangential.

All the same, I'm not sure what your stance on all of this is. You aren't suggesting that these groupings are bad, are you? I'm getting the impression you're simply suggesting that these groups take responsibility for the divisions they create?

Aug 3, 2010#183

drifter

Rob King said:
You aren't suggesting that these groupings are bad, are you? I'm getting the impression you're simply suggesting that these groups take responsibility for the divisions they create?

Nope. I simply mean that groups, by their very existence, form an "us" and a "them." This is not necessarily a bad thing; it is what it is. There is a difference between division and divisiveness.

Aug 3, 2010#184

Rob King

drifter said:
Nope. I simply mean that groups, by their very existence, form an "us" and a "them." This is not necessarily a bad thing; it is what it is. There is a difference between division and divisiveness.

Excellent. Then there's not much disagreement to begin with. For some reason (I guess I associated what you were saying with what Mr_Thehun was saying) I thought we were on more dramatically different footing.

Aug 3, 2010#185

Necronic

Bringing the conversation back to a point where there is less agreement, let me comment again on how some cultures are different, and how we aren't always right. I heard a great piece on NPR a couple months ago about what the biggest pieces of culture shock were for new immigrants. Some were obvious (PDA), others weren't. My favorite is in the story below (I'm sure I am missing some details):

Guy moves to NYC from the middle east. He is walking through central park near sundown. He sees an old woman laying on a bench. She looks sick, he walks up to her and asks her if she was alright, and if she needed any help. She looked at him a little confused. He then asked where she lived. She said 'here, I'm homeless'. He calls 911, and says that there is a woman there and she says she doesn't have a home. The 911 operator is like 'uhm, ok?'

See, to him that is completely unheard of in his country (can't remember where it was, I think it was the middle east, but I'm not sure,) and it was completely immoral on so many levels for that to just be commonplace and accepted here.

Aug 3, 2010#186

sixpackshaker

NY mosque near September 11 site wins approval - Yahoo! News

The Cordoba House passed one more hurdle. I think it is up to the Zoning Board now, to pass or fail the project.

Aug 3, 2010#187

Necronic

A lot of what I heard around that meeting validates some of the views mentioned before. People were trying to get it held up as a historical site due to it having been built in the 1850s in the "Italian Renaissance Pilazzo" style, whatever that is. The commission declined the proposed status (to be honest I am a bit surprised about this, in Texas that totally would have been approved but we don't have that many old buildings). Now, the interesting part is that everyone railing against this decision isn't mad because the building is a historic landmark, they are mad because they think it's offensive to build this thing near ground zero. So they bring a case based on it being a historic landmark, then when they loose they rail because of how offensive it is to build this here.

Honestly I have a hard time believing that anybody cares for any reason other than it is a Muslim place of worship near ground zero. I don't think many people give two shits about historic landmarks or zoning restrictions, this is just a matter of using whatever tool they can to block it. Which, I mean, it's totally legal to do that. But don't call a black cat white then get mad when people don't buy your story.

Edit: Sweet, an ad for "SingleMuslim.com" .... I think I should join. Make's me think of that movie Yes Man or whatever with Jim Carey. It's funny that the ad shows nothing but women.

Aug 3, 2010#188

Espy

The more I think about this the more I think, how awesome is it to have a mosque near ground zero? It's part of what makes America so great, the tolerance we give to differing beliefs (or should give...).

Aug 3, 2010#189

SpecialKO

Bloomberg gave a really fantastic speech on the subject today. Full text and video.

Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue – and they were turned down.

“In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies – and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

“In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion – and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780’s – St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.

“This morning, the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.

“The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.

Beautiful. For a few minutes, I was slightly less ticked off at him over the removing-term-limits thing.

Aug 5, 2010#190

North_Ranger

Good one from Bloomberg

Aug 19, 2010#191

DarkAudit

I asked the protesting Congressmen and Senators via the Twitterverse how many jobs their protests had brought to their districts. I was immediately branded as scum and evil for even daring to question them. When I told the respondent to stop frothing and actually READ the Constitution, his only reply was "fuck off". And when I came back that no "loyal American" (as he claims to be) would tell the Constitution to "fuck off," he again proceeded to do exactly that.

There's no way through such a serious case of teh stupid.

Aug 19, 2010#192

JONJONAUG

At first I thought this was satire, but then I got hit in the face by Poe's Law.

Aug 19, 2010#193

Chibibar

DarkAudit said:
I asked the protesting Congressmen and Senators via the Twitterverse how many jobs their protests had brought to their districts. I was immediately branded as scum and evil for even daring to question them. When I told the respondent to stop frothing and actually READ the Constitution, his only reply was "fuck off". And when I came back that no "loyal American" (as he claims to be) would tell the Constitution to "fuck off," he again proceeded to do exactly that.

There's no way through such a serious case of teh stupid.

Yea. They say "fuck off" the Constitution now since it suites them until someone else restrict THEIR Constitutional rights and it is all about "Hey, my rights are protect by the Constitution!!!!"

As for the Mosque...... I am VERY sadden by the fact that "teh stupid" seems to think all Muslim are created equal...

gee.... are there no extremist in Christianity? Catholic? any religion for that matter?

Aug 19, 2010#194

tegid

The problem is that some of these people ARE extremists.

Aug 19, 2010#195

North_Ranger

JONJONAUG said:
At first I thought this was satire, but then I got hit in the face by Poe's Law.

I know have this udden urge to pick up this asshole's instrument and introduce it to his face with significant kinetic force.

Gah, I miss the times when being a patriot didn't mean being a dick...

Aug 19, 2010#196

DarkAudit

Leave it to Fox News, et. al. to make the USA! chant something to feel ashamed of.

Aug 19, 2010#197

Krisken

I got to "We got freedom of religion, I understand. But..." and turned it off. I assume it is filled with bigotry and ignorance, yes? Pass on that.

Aug 19, 2010#198

GasBandit

Chibibar said:
gee.... are there no extremist in Christianity?

As a matter of fact, there are... such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's preacher and friend for 20 years, whom he threw under the bus as soon as Wright was politically inconvenient because of his extremist views

Aug 19, 2010#199

Krisken

GasBandit;429398][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
gee.... are there no extremist in Christianity?

[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he's the only example of extremist Christians. Dink.

Aug 19, 2010#200

GasBandit

Krisken;429399][QUOTE=GasBandit;429398][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
gee.... are there no extremist in Christianity?

[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he's the only example of extremist Christians. Dink.[/QUOTE]
Because "such as" means "the only example of which is," right?

Aug 19, 2010#201

Krisken

GasBandit;429402][QUOTE=Krisken;429399][QUOTE=GasBandit;429398][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
gee.... are there no extremist in Christianity?

[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he's the only example of extremist Christians. Dink.[/QUOTE]
Because "such as" means "the only example of which is," right?

[/QUOTE]
Oh, you have more examples at the tip of your biased finger? Well, lets hear them!

Aug 19, 2010#202

Espy

Krisken, why is it "biased" of him to point out one group of extremists? Would you have called him biased had he chosen Westboro Baptist or the church who wants to burn Qurans or any of the numerous other nutjobs?

Aug 19, 2010#203

GasBandit

Krisken;429405][QUOTE=GasBandit;429402][QUOTE=Krisken;429399][QUOTE=GasBandit;429398][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
gee.... are there no extremist in Christianity?

[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he's the only example of extremist Christians. Dink.[/QUOTE]
Because "such as" means "the only example of which is," right?

[/QUOTE]
Oh, you have more examples at the tip of your biased finger? Well, lets hear them![/QUOTE]
Certainly! Nancy Pelosi, who strenuously insists she is a devout catholic, while pushing as hard as she can for the complete legalization of abortion. Not that I have a problem with that, but I don't claim to be a devout catholic, either.

Oh, and the entirety of Ireland, obviously.

Aug 19, 2010#204

Chibibar

There is a wiki, but not sure how accurate it is since I'm not Christian

Christian terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seems there are lots.

Aug 19, 2010#205

Espy

There are LOTS of extremists in any religion who take and abuse the religion and it's people to gain power/achieve selfish ends. Its nothing new or a problem relegated to religion.

Aug 19, 2010#206

Krisken

Espy said:
Krisken, why is it "biased" of him to point out one group of extremists? Would you have called him biased had he chosen Westboro Baptist or the church who wants to burn Qurans or any of the numerous other nutjobs?

Aug 19, 2010#207

Espy

So you would have jumped on him had he only listed a group that was connected to the more conservative element? People point shit out and their personal bias plays into it, if I spent all my time pointing out "liberal" bias in threads here I'd post in 90% of threads and my fingers would fall off.

Aug 19, 2010#208

GasBandit

Krisken;429420][QUOTE=Espy said:
Krisken, why is it "biased" of him to point out one group of extremists? Would you have called him biased had he chosen Westboro Baptist or the church who wants to burn Qurans or any of the numerous other nutjobs?

What, it isn't biased to only point out the nutjobs connected to Democrats? I mean, really? You aren't that oblivious, Espy. His intention was obvious in this case (and was followed up with his 'oh no, dems!' post).[/QUOTE]

The late senator Byrd, member of the KKK, an organization which claims Christian affiliation?

Is it biased of the prosecutor to let the defense handle its own side?

Aug 19, 2010#209

DarkAudit

Let me be the first of the 1.5 million West Virginians to just punch you right in your fucking mouth, GB.

Aug 19, 2010#210

Espy

Amorous Eyes said:
It's also not uncommon to be completely unaware of it until it is pointed out at you. Sure, the guy was always a bit too preachy and get very loud and animated while doing his sermons but somehow I never realized how far he took it until my friend pointed it out to me. I grew up with it so I didn't see it.

Totally, thats how most people get into it I think.

Aug 19, 2010#211

Chibibar

DarkAudit said:
Let me be the first of the 1.5 million West Virginians to just punch you right in your fucking mouth, GB.

Robert Byrd: KKK Says Late Senator 'Wasn't A Klansman Long Enough To Get His Sheet Broke In'

He wasn't a member long enough GB

Aug 19, 2010#212

GasBandit

Chibibar;429437][QUOTE=DarkAudit said:
Let me be the first of the 1.5 million West Virginians to just punch you right in your fucking mouth, GB.

Robert Byrd: KKK Says Late Senator 'Wasn't A Klansman Long Enough To Get His Sheet Broke In'

He wasn't a member long enough GB

[/QUOTE]

He was in it long enough to have his picture proudly taken though. And really, you think he didn't know what the KKK was about before he joined them? That's just plain willful gullibility.

Robert Byrd, D-WV

---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

DarkAudit said:
Let me be the first of the 1.5 million West Virginians to just punch you right in your fucking mouth, GB.

Any given day DA doesn't want to physically assault me, is a day I haven't done my job.

Aug 19, 2010#213

sixpackshaker

Cut and paste photoshop to prove a point. Gas, you normally do a bit better than that.

Aug 19, 2010#214

Krisken

Espy said:
So you would have jumped on him had he only listed a group that was connected to the more conservative element? People point shit out and their personal bias plays into it, if I spent all my time pointing out "liberal" bias in threads here I'd post in 90% of threads and my fingers would fall off.

You know, I probably wouldn't have. I'm sure someone else would have. We jump on what we notice, just like when Bush was president and he would do the SAME FUCKING THING.

If you have a problem with pointless comment which rags on conservatives and makes connections which have nothing to do with the topic, by all means point it out.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

sixpackshaker said:
Cut and paste photoshop to prove a point. Gas, you normally do a bit better than that.

He just wants to get DA's dander up. You know, ruffle his feathers. Get him down.

Aug 19, 2010#215

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
Cut and paste photoshop to prove a point. Gas, you normally do a bit better than that.

How about this one?

“ I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. ”

— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944, [10][18]

Aug 19, 2010#216

Espy

No, no, I'm just saying, of all the people who NEED their bias pointed out I doubt Gas is worth your time Krisken, I mean, it's not like there are people here who are confused and wondering what side of the aisle he's on

Aug 19, 2010#217

sixpackshaker

GasBandit;429458][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:
Cut and paste photoshop to prove a point. Gas, you normally do a bit better than that.

— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944, [10][18]

[/QUOTE]

And he changed. It took another 20 years, but he did.

Aug 19, 2010#218

Krisken

Amorous Eyes said:
You get way too worked up over this person, Krisken.

I'm not really worked up. Gas and I are having fun here.

Aug 19, 2010#219

Krisken

Amorous Eyes;429475][QUOTE=Krisken;429472][QUOTE=Amorous Eyes said:
You get way too worked up over this person, Krisken.

I'm not really worked up. Gas and I are having fun here.[/QUOTE]

You two are secretly IRC BFFs?[/QUOTE]
We get along as well as anyone else, I think. I can tell when he is fishing, and sometimes I let him think he caught a fish. It's good fun all around, really.

If either of us took this seriously, there would be a whole lot less open threads!

Aug 19, 2010#220

GasBandit

sixpackshaker;429469][QUOTE=GasBandit;429458][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:
Cut and paste photoshop to prove a point. Gas, you normally do a bit better than that.

— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944, [10][18]

[/QUOTE]

And he changed. It took another 20 years, but he did.[/QUOTE]

At least 20, seeing as how he filibustered the civil rights act in '64, and I doubt he immediately repented afterwords.

But all this is beside the point. I was providing an example as requested, of a christian with extremist views. And make no mistake Robert Byrd did consider himself a Christian. That he changed his views sometime at, around or after 50 years of age, doesn't change the example he set before that even if he did work to mitigate the damage he did for the rest of his life.

---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

Krisken;429472][QUOTE=Amorous Eyes said:
You get way too worked up over this person, Krisken.

I'm not really worked up. Gas and I are having fun here.[/QUOTE]

SHSHT! IXNAY ON THE EALRAY ORYSTAY!

Aug 19, 2010#221

Krisken

Damn it! I mean.... if Gas would stop typing so much he could give Ron Paul the courtesy reach around.

Aug 19, 2010#222

SpecialKO

Can you keep your mutual troll-age out of HF, please? You have the right to express it, obviously, but some of us think it's really insensitive to do it on the grave of Scott's dead PvP forum. >

Aug 19, 2010#223

Krisken

mr_thehun said:
I see Krisken and Gas are really the wiggin kids

I have no idea what that means.

Espy said:
No, no, I'm just saying, of all the people who NEED their bias pointed out I doubt Gas is worth your time Krisken, I mean, it's not like there are people here who are confused and wondering what side of the aisle he's on

Ah hah, I see. I suppose that is true. Maybe I was trying to remind Gas? He forgets sometimes

Aug 19, 2010#224

Rob King

mr_thehun;429606][QUOTE=Krisken;429591][QUOTE=mr_thehun said:
I see Krisken and Gas are really the wiggin kids

I have no idea what that means.
[/quote]

A brother and sister that plot to take control of the government by posting on internet forums with vastly different views. Other than that Enders Game was a good book about a child prodigys adventures with a giant time travelling space bunny. I'm not sure what part of this statement is fact or fiction.[/QUOTE]

I have to admit: despite enjoying Ender's Game, I was confused about the "Wiggin Kids" reference. I thought maybe it was another cartoon of the 80/90's that I failed to watch.

Aug 20, 2010#225

Dave

Love or hate Olbermann, this is a great fucking video.

Aug 20, 2010#226

Krisken

Keith definitely has his moments. Sadly, it's usually when his verbose blustering style no longer seems so over the top

Aug 20, 2010#227

JONJONAUG

Al Franken continues to be one of my favorite Congressmen

Aug 20, 2010#228

Dave

JONJONAUG said:
Al Franken continues to be one of my favorite Congressmen

Probably why people are shooting at his house.

Aug 20, 2010#229

Krisken

Dave;429823][QUOTE=JONJONAUG said:
Al Franken continues to be one of my favorite Congressmen

Probably why people are shooting at his house.[/QUOTE]
If they are shooting at his house with a rock or b b gun and expect it to seem threatening, those responsible should get their heads examined.

More likely, it's some stupid kids messing around.

Aug 20, 2010#230

Dei

I think it's probably stupid kids too, but...

Sgt. Bill Palmer of the Minneapolis Police Department told CNN he did not think the incident was politically motivated.

"I find it unlikely people actually even know where the senator lives," he said.

is a pretty ignorant thing to say in this day and age.

Aug 20, 2010#231

SpecialKO

Dei said:
I think it's probably stupid kids too, but...

Sgt. Bill Palmer of the Minneapolis Police Department told CNN he did not think the incident was politically motivated.

"I find it unlikely people actually even know where the senator lives," he said.

Click to expand...

is a pretty ignorant thing to say in this day and age.

It's ignorant regardless. If Franken owns his house, the address is in public records at the local county clerk's office.

Aug 20, 2010#232

SpecialKO

Really good article at Forbes from a former FBI agent about the importance in the war on terror in being able to attack Bin Laden's narrative that the US is at war with Islam.

Aug 20, 2010#233

sixpackshaker

I wonder if the Dem's will play the bigot card against Palin and the Tea Party. Sarah weighing in on this and Dr "N-word" should be drummed out of the spotlight.

Aug 23, 2010#234

Troll

Here's an article covering protests, both against and in support of, the prayer center near Ground Zero.

Lots of interesting things in there. I'd rather you guys pick through it and comment instead of highlighting the high and incredibly low points of what people are saying.

WARNING: Do not read the comments section. If you value your sanity and IQ, stay far, far away.

Aug 23, 2010#235

twitchmoss

Troll said:
WARNING: Do not read the comments section. If you value your sanity and IQ, stay far, far away.

too late. MY EYES. THE STUPID, IT BURNS.

Aug 23, 2010#236

AshburnerX

Amorous Eyes said:
"This is sacred ground and it's where my son was buried," the native Israeli from Queens said. She said the mosque would be "like a knife in our hearts."

Click to expand...

"Sacred ground", yes. Much like Palin calls it "hallowed ground". Is that why there are 2 strip joints situated there?

That is because we in the US are worshipers of the Almight Dollar.

Aug 23, 2010#237

SpecialKO

Non-muslim Union Carpenter passes by WTC site, gets harassed for "looking Muslim".

No, nothing to do at all with religious prejudice or racism [/sarcasm]

Aug 23, 2010#238

Rob King

Jesus Christ.

The irony of this situation is fucking palpable. I remember reading about the causes leading up to World War I, and the talk of the intense nationalism, demonetization of other nations and peoples, etc. I always wondered how people could be so blind as to let that escalate into a global conflict, but now here I am watching it happen in my own day in age.

Aug 23, 2010#239

JONJONAUG

The "No Mosque at Ground Zero" group was deleted by Facebook today for death threats and conspiring to commit terrorist acts. The irony is delicious.

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) is a pretty cool guy:

The debate swirling around the proposed mosque and Muslim community center in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center site has, for many, tapped into strong emotions of a national trauma that is still raw. But in the churning political and constitutional arguments, one question has not been adequately addressed: what makes a mosque near ground zero offensive.

Nearly everyone in this debate affirms the constitutional right for the mosque's construction. Indeed, that right is a cherished founding principle. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." It is no accident that the right to worship in accordance with one's own conscience is enshrined in the First Amendment.

But, many mosque opponents argue, just because it can be built does not mean it should be. They say it would be disrespectful to the memories of those who died on 9/11 to build a Muslim facility near the World Trade Center site. I appreciate the depth of emotions at play, but respectfully suggest that the presence of a mosque is only inappropriate near ground zero if we unfairly associate Muslim Americans with the atrocities of the foreign al-Qaida terrorists who attacked our nation.

Such an association is a profound error. Muslim Americans are our fellow citizens, not our enemies. Muslim Americans were among the victims who died at the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attacks. Muslim American first responders risked their lives to save their fellow citizens that day. Many of our Muslim neighbors, including thousands of Oregon citizens, serve our country in war zones abroad and our communities at home with dedication and distinction.

Some have also argued that the construction of the mosque would hand a propaganda victory to Osama bin Laden. I think the opposite is true. Al-Qaida justifies its murder by painting America as a nation at war with Islam. Celebrating our freedom of religion and Muslim Americans' place in our communities is a blow to al-Qaida's ideology of hate and division. We strengthen America by distinguishing, clearly and unequivocally, between our al-Qaida enemy and our Muslim neighbors.

President Bush understood the importance of separating the terrorists from over a billion peaceful Muslims around the world whose faith has been used as an excuse by those bent on killing. Speaking at a mosque just six days after the World Trade Center attack, President Bush said, "These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith, and it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that."

I have great respect for the sentiments of the survivors and family members of those who died on 9/11, and understand that some may not regard the situation this way. But our fundamental religious freedom and our national security -- in addition to fairness for our fellow citizens -- will be well served by drawing a bright line between our Muslim friends and neighbors at home, and our al-Qaida enemy abroad.

And it's nice to see at least one Republican practicing what he normally preaches. Ron Paul:

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

Aug 23, 2010#240

sixpackshaker

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals....

I need to find that on DVD some time...

Aug 23, 2010#241

Espy

Wow, way to go Ron Paul. Where'd you get that from Jonjon?

Aug 23, 2010#242

Dave

Ron Paul never stood a chance in the presidential campaign because of logical views like this. Logic and critical thinking is trumped by the loudmouth fringe idiots on both sides. I may not like his every view on things but damn do I respect the guy.

Aug 23, 2010#243

SpecialKO

I will give any politician who argues for the US to step a little lighter on the international level at least the time of day.

It's sad that I now have to add "politician who supports the 1st Amendment and one of the founding principles behind the identity of our country" to that statement.

Aug 23, 2010#244

sixpackshaker

Dave said:
Ron Paul never stood a chance in the presidential campaign because of logical views like this. Logic and critical thinking is trumped by the loudmouth fringe idiots on both sides. I may not like his every view on things but damn do I respect the guy.

Too bad is boy Rand is one of the kooky, loudmouthed, fringe idiots.

Aug 23, 2010#245

Bubble181

JONJONAUG said:
The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators

Click to expand...

Hear here.

Aug 23, 2010#246

JONJONAUG

Espy said:
Wow, way to go Ron Paul. Where'd you get that from Jonjon?

From here

Freeper tears are delicious.

Aug 23, 2010#247

Krisken

That seems to be a common mistake made, Ame.

Aug 23, 2010#248

JONJONAUG

Amorous Eyes;430882][QUOTE=JONJONAUG;430880][QUOTE=Espy said:
Wow, way to go Ron Paul. Where'd you get that from Jonjon?

From here

Freeper tears are delicious.[/QUOTE]

I wish I didn't scroll down to the comments..[/QUOTE]

Free Republic is a hilarious goldmine of conservative nutjobs.

Aug 23, 2010#249

drifter

JONJONAUG;430880][QUOTE=Espy said:
Wow, way to go Ron Paul. Where'd you get that from Jonjon?

From here

Freeper tears are delicious.[/QUOTE]

Good lord. I skimmed through the comments (a classic mistake), and I just stopped dead on this one.

Most people do not recognize that what happens in a mosque is sedition. Pure and simple. Islam is not just a “religion”, it is a cult.

:wtf:

Aug 23, 2010#250

SpecialKO

The Freepers are...an unbalanced lot.

Aug 23, 2010#251

Hailey Knight

What will Gasbandit say next?

Aug 23, 2010#252

Krisken

escushion said:
What will Gasbandit say next?

Midgets should be kept as pets?

Aug 23, 2010#253

Espy

Krisken;430978][QUOTE=escushion said:
What will Gasbandit say next?

Midgets should be kept as pets?[/QUOTE]

"Dr. Doolittle 2: Electric Eddie Murphy boogaloo" is the best movie of all time?

Aug 24, 2010#254

Iaculus

Krisken;430978][QUOTE=escushion said:
What will Gasbandit say next?

Midgets should be kept as pets?[/QUOTE]

Yub yub.

Aug 24, 2010#255

GasBandit

Man, even I don't go to Free Republic.

Aug 24, 2010#256

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
Man, even I don't go to Free Republic.

It's like if you took all the paranoid, anti-government-yet-still-authoritarian whack-jobs, stuck them in a pot with insular, small-minded dominionists, put it on the stove, and then forgot about it until all possible moderating influences had boiled away, and the only thing left was overcooked crap that explodes all over you if you try and add some sense back in.

Aug 24, 2010#257

Krisken

So basically Kirby's Smash attack?

Aug 24, 2010#258

The Lovely Boehner

SpecialKO said:
It's like if you took all the paranoid, anti-government-yet-still-authoritarian whack-jobs, stuck them in a pot with insular, small-minded dominionists, put it on the stove, and then forgot about it until all possible moderating influences had boiled away, and the only thing left was overcooked crap that explodes all over you if you try and add some sense back in.

you forgot the virulent racists.

Aug 24, 2010#259

Iaculus

Yes, but that's a given, isn't it?

Aug 24, 2010#260

sixpackshaker

You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons

Aug 25, 2010#261

Bubble181

Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/19/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Aug 25, 2010#262

Krisken

Muslim taxi driver in New York is attacked for admitting he is Muslim.
It truly is sad that the fear and hatred has escalated to this level.

Aug 25, 2010#263

JONJONAUG

Bubble181 said:
Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/19/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

The Parent Company Trap - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/23/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

It gets worse.

Aug 26, 2010#264

Chazwozel

Dave said:
Ron Paul never stood a chance in the presidential campaign because of logical views like this. Logic and critical thinking is trumped by the loudmouth fringe idiots on both sides. I may not like his every view on things but damn do I respect the guy.

Problem with Ron Paul was that he became a raving loon once the presidential primaries started. Ron Paul is the republican version of Ralph Nader.

Aug 26, 2010#265

GasBandit

And now, for a summary of events, we turn to east asia and their pirate copy of Sims 3:

Aug 26, 2010#266

SpecialKO

I'm not sure I get the starbucks connection, but that was otherwise hilarious!

Aug 26, 2010#267

Frankie Williamson

Apparently New York City sits on the coast of Lake Ontario

Aug 26, 2010#268

SpecialKO

LOL!

I was wondering why Canada felt so much closer today.

Aug 26, 2010#269

Espy

That was the most awesome thing I've seen today.

Sep 4, 2010#270

Shegokigo

Sep 15, 2010#271

SpecialKO

That image just reminds me that you can see the Statue of Liberty from Jersey, she just has her back to it.

---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------

Not necessarily representative, of course, but both funny and more than a little sad.

Forums