Mosque at Ground Zero? What's the latest?

[thorn69]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/06/a_mosque_at_ground_zero/


I remember hearing about this several months ago and was appalled by the idea! Is this still in the works? Does anyone know the latest on this proposal! Please tell me it didn't get approved! That WOULD BE a slap in the face to the 9/11 victims, their families, and Americans alike IMHO!

[tater]

This is why we need 100% separation of church and State.

The trouble with a Mosque there---it would be illegal to prevent a Mosque but not a church, for example---is that there are likely laws on the books that change the zoning of NON-religious building nearby. Many cities forbid bars within a certain distance of churches (or mosques), for example.

All zoning laws that relate to places of worship as "special" should be abolished.

Maybe we could pitch together and put in a titty bar next door to the mosque to piss them off?

[Zachstar]

From what I understand it got approved. Likely because the racist hatemongers who wanted it denied made it national issue overnight.

Haha!

[Platapus]

Perhaps it was approved because it was not at "ground zero" (A term I absolutely hate) but two blocks away.

[Skybird]

I said it in two different threads before, and I say it again: having a mosque build at ground zero or close to it, compares to having an NSDAP education centre for a "balanced view on German history" near the KZ of Auschwitz.

Americans should not tolerate it, should accept no compromise, and block it - no matter the means necessary.

[Platapus]

Skybird,

What possible harm could it be to have an Mosque in NYC? There are thousands of Muslims in NYC who have done no one any harm.

Besides there is already a mosque at this location and no one has caught any Mooooslim cooties yet.

[thorn69]

This is why we need 100% separation of church and State.

The trouble with a Mosque there---it would be illegal to prevent a Mosque but not a church, for example---is that there are likely laws on the books that change the zoning of NON-religious building nearby. Many cities forbid bars within a certain distance of churches (or mosques), for example.

All zoning laws that relate to places of worship as "special" should be abolished.

Maybe we could pitch together and put in a titty bar next door to the mosque to piss them off?

I'm all for titty bars! :rock:

[thorn69]

I said it in two different threads before, and I say it again: having a mosque build at ground zero or close to it, compares to having an NSDAP education centre for a "balanced view on German history" near the KZ of Auschwitz.

Americans should not tolerate it, should accept no compromise, and block it - no matter the means necessary.


Exactly Skybird! :up:

From what I understand it got approved. Likely because the racist hatemongers who wanted it denied made it national issue overnight.

Haha!

Perhaps they should have built a monument of Yamash!ta at Pearl Harbor Zachstar! :roll:

[tater]

From what I understand it got approved. Likely because the racist hatemongers who wanted it denied made it national issue overnight.

Haha!

How is disliking a set of ideas, voluntarily held, "racist?"

Is disliking nazis similarly "racist?" How about disliking the members of the Westborough (sp?) Baptist Church ("god hates fags")—is that "racist" as well?

Maybe it's just that I don't assign religion as an indelible trait as you apparently do. I was raised Catholic, but I'm an atheist, am I always a Catholic because I have "catholic blood?"

[Skybird]

Skybird,

What possible harm could it be to have an Mosque in NYC? There are thousands of Muslims in NYC who have done no one any harm.

What harm could it have to have that NSDAP culture centre near Auschwitz? Remember that many Germans did not know that KZs like Auschwitz were planned, built and maintained

Maybe the damage coming from mocking the victims? legitimising the perpetrators by giving them arespectable appearancxe? Implying that the ideology motivating the deed has nothing to do with the deed?

Islam always marches forward agressively - and claims to be the victim of supression and racism and and cultural pressure. Maybe you still fall that scheme. I, and more and more other people as well, do not. We call islam no longer a victim of the evil, but the source of the evil. That german who were no Nazis at all got killed by the Nazis too, does not mean that Nazi ideology was any less harmful.

If you want to be taken serious in your claims that you are a democrat, not a Nazi, that you dispise Hitler and his ideology, that you are a liberal humanist and philantropist and that you could not wish anyone any harm, maybe it would be more convincing if you not only produce such words in candy cream and endless volumes to gloss over the Nazi ideology and the the crimes it has caused - but by taking that picture of Hitler off the wall, taking of that swastika sticker on your jacket, stop paying contributitons to Nauzi organisation hidden or evident, and stop raising the straight right arm for a greeting.

P.S. regarding that other mosque - bring it down, and any other you find in the West. Else the religion of peace will bring you down: you, your Western value order, and your constitutional rights and guarantees, and finally your religion, or lack of. This cultural fight is forced upon you, whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, whether you fight back or not. If this fight gets lost, the western culture - in good and bad - is lost. Simply that. the future then will be totalitarian-islamic, based on medieval ideals and mindsets, a disgrace to humanity and delaring the female half of mankind a subordinate species of slaves. Welcome to the dark age 2.0.

[August]

So this Muslim exclusionary zone you guys want to create around the WTC, how far should it extend? 2 blocks?, 10?, off Manhattan island completely?

[thorn69]

So this Muslim exclusionary zone you guys want to create around the WTC, how far should it extend? 2 blocks?, 10?, off Manhattan island completely?

Just not within visual sight of the WTC would be just fine to me.

[Platapus]

I suppose we should also exclude christian churches around The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building too?

Or do these religious exclusion zones only apply to "them mooslims"?

Jus' tryin' to understand the mind set here.

[August]

Just not within visual sight of the WTC would be just fine to me.

You could see the WTC from New Jersey. Most real adults would know this.

[Skybird]

Why allowing any new mosque at all when synagogues and churches in Muslim countries get put down and supressed, their communities discriminated and intimidated and being driven out?

the number of ,mosques inthe West is EXPLODING. The number of representations of non-Muslim cultures in Muslim country gets constantly decimated - although already being minimal.

Muslims in Wetsern countries enjoy an ammount of protection and liberties that they can only dream of in muslim countries. Non-Muslims in Muslim countries are expected to bezave submissively, and are more or less supressed and restricted in their human rights of for exmaple free speech or free religious practicing. the yearly number of victims of direct religious violence, in case of Islamic attacks like terror organisation, riots, assassinations, street assaults, goes into the tens of thousands getting killed. But how many Muslims get stabbed on western streets for not being christian, Jewish, atheists?

Discrimination of non-Muslims in Muslim countries is more or less the rule of the day, especially if you are female or are not a member of the three desert dogmas. But Muslims in the West you see an monumental propaganda machine, supported by politiciians, risen for hiding the nature of Islam and supressing any statistic revelation about how disastrous the big scale presence of muslim communities in western nations is for the hosting nation. Even european legislation gets designed to meet the demands of this foreign conqueror and to criminalise any opposition and resistence to his advance - and may it even be that you dare to ask it a critical question that it finds offending - after the coup d'etat of Lisbon, such questioning already is a crime.

Fan-tas-tic.

[thorn69]

You could see the WTC from New Jersey. Most real adults would know this.

Exactly! :up:

[Zachstar]

Exactly Skybird! :up:



Perhaps they should have built a monument of Yamash!ta at Pearl Harbor Zachstar! :roll:

If it is within the law that is perfectly fine. I guess that Nova episode where that Admiral from Japan prayed and said a eulogy for sailors of a IJN minisub that failed to escape enraged you eh?

You see this is 2010 not 1949 2010 not 2001. 9-11 is the past and the hatred has subsided somewhat. It is over and it is time to move on.

[Zachstar]

I said it in two different threads before, and I say it again: having a mosque build at ground zero or close to it, compares to having an NSDAP education centre for a "balanced view on German history" near the KZ of Auschwitz.

Americans should not tolerate it, should accept no compromise, and block it - no matter the means necessary.

Enough skybird. There is no comparason between the two and you know it.

[August]

Exactly! :up:

Thanks for the confirmation, it's juvenile and anti-American statements like that which leads me to believe that you aren't a real cop, heck now I doubt that you're even an adult. You might want to quit while you're ahead.

[krashkart]

P.S. regarding that other mosque - bring it down, and any other you find in the West. Else the religion of peace will bring you down: you, your Western value order, and your constitutional rights and guarantees, and finally your religion, or lack of. This cultural fight is forced upon you, whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, whether you fight back or not. If this fight gets lost, the western culture - in good and bad - is lost. Simply that. the future then will be totalitarian-islamic, based on medieval ideals and mindsets, a disgrace to humanity and delaring the female half of mankind a subordinate species of slaves. Welcome to the dark age 2.0.

Pat Condell tried to send us a similar message some time ago:

http://www.youtube.com/patcondell#p/u/9/KjSjpNe1-Vc

[thorn69]

If it is within the law that is perfectly fine. I guess that Nova episode where that Admiral from Japan prayed and said a eulogy for sailors of a IJN minisub that failed to escape enraged you eh?

You see this is 2010 not 1949 2010 not 2001. 9-11 is the past and the hatred has subsided somewhat. It is over and it is time to move on.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think the hatred has subsided. It's only intensified! Al-Qaeda is still actively seeking your destruction but you're too liberal minded to care. You should be thanking your lucky stars that there are men and women out there watching out for people like you!

[Moeceefus]

Suprising to see so much hatred for freedom of religion. Some people are very narrow minded. You can be a radical from any religion, that shouldn't make its entirity responsible because you need a scapegoat for your criminal acts.

[Platapus]

Not including the terrorist apostates, 23 Muslims died in the 911 attacks. (This represents 0.75% of the total number of victims. Muslims, in general, represent 0.6% of the population of the United States so the ratio of Muslims that died in the 911 attacks tracks with their ratio to the population.)

http://crosswordbebop.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-many-muslims-died-in-911-attacks.html

Don't the families and communities of those 23 Islamic VICTIMS deserve a place of worship near the attack site? Of did these Muslim victims only "get what they and all Muslims deserve"?

Muslims did not attack us on 911. Muslim apostate terrorists attacked us. I would be all in favour if someone wanted to prevent a Salafi mosque being built there. But not a ban on any type of Muslim Mosque. :nope:

[Skybird]

Enough skybird. There is no comparason between the two and you know it.
The comparison is perfect, and both ideologies both represent extreme representations of totalitariansim, and both ideologies are responsible for a horryfying ammount of racism, genocide, supremacism, killing, suffering and barbarism - all based on their inner teachings.

[thorn69]

The comparison is perfect, and both ideologies both represent extreme representations of totalitariansim, and both ideologies are responsible for a horryfying ammount of racism, genocide, supremacism, killing, suffering and barbarism - all based on their inner teachings.


Don't worry Skybird! You're EXACTLY spot on with your comparison! :up:

Zachstar, is just mad that you've shown him up the way you've pointed out the double-standards that he seems so eager to defend! Makes me wonder why this guy even lives in the US? :hmmm: He seems so opposed to anything American and consistently plays the "race card" game for some reason. Could he be a sleeper cell agent for Al-Qaeda or is he just one of these terrorist sympathizers that wants self-destruction to ensue? :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Not including the terrorist apostates,
are you now declaring the upside the downside and the left the right? What "terrorist apostates"?

23 Muslims died in the 911 attacks. (This represents 0.75% of the total number of victims. Muslims, in general, represent 0.6% of the population of the United States so the ratio of Muslims that died in the 911 attacks tracks with their ratio to the population.)
So what? Because non-Nazi Germans got killed in WWII - that made Nazism a more harmless ideology?

Don't the families and communities of those 23 Islamic VICTIMS deserve a place of worship near the attack site? Of did these Muslim victims only "get what they and all Muslims deserve"?

They deserve to be given a chance to learn about the true inhumane nature of that ideology they maybestill believe in and that is directly responsible for their family members gotten murdered in the name of the Quran. Bin Laden always has referred to the corruption of the true Muslim faith as laid out in the Quran and to the cporruoption of the rich arabic governments as well. and he is right in nthat claim, the Quran justifies lethal force against corrupted Muslims indeed, since they smudge the pirity of the faith. To give people of muslim cultural origin a chance to critically learn about what they take for granted, you must confront them with those critical questions that their culture since 1400 years has made a form of art to evade. This is the chance you want to deny to Muslims in the West when you think you do them a favour by fulfilling all their claims based on those 1400 years, so that they have no need at all to question thermslves and the ideologic basis of the culture they come from. - Ironcially it is some of the most prominent Muslim apostates and islam critics saying so. But what does that mean, when you know Islam so much better than they do although they had lived in it, studied it, even have acadmeic careers dealing with it. you want to believe in a rosy world where conflict is not known, and that vision you call peace and harmony and islam dances hand in hand with you and everything is hei-ti-tei.


Muslims did not attack us on 911. Muslim apostate terrorists attacked us. I would be all in favour if someone wanted to prevent a Salafi mosque being built there. But not a ban on any type of Muslim Mosque. :nope:

Wrong, it were muslim terroists, and Islam had all to do with their attack. It borders pure malicious cynism to label the strike a deed not of Islam. It was the Islam described and defined in the Quran.

You seriously suffer from a variation of Stockholm syndrome.

-----

Islam is neither peaceful, nor humane or humanistic. It does not know our concepts of equality, liberty, cultural coexistence, secularism, freedom, peace, tolerance - all these ters it understands and defines in a totally different way linking it to totalitarian concepts as to be seen in uniform societies like fascism. That Muslim terrorists also target and kill Muslims, means not much.

The strike on the WTC, btw, was meant to hit America and white Americans, America's culture, a symbol of it's leading economic role in the world. Collateral damages - in the Quran are considered acceptable (like suiicde attacks as well, btw), if the attack serves the purpose and interest of islam and it's spreading, and bringing death and destruction to it's opponents.

Yopu guys have not learned much neither from the Third Reich, nor from the literature our academic tradition has assembled over islam since over 250 years. You really started to remind me of the left opposition, the peace movement in Germany, and the RAF in Germany, all of which were massively infiltrated, controlled and directed by the great opponent of the West: the KGB of the USSR, and the Eastgerman secret service.

And what a great time and heydays they had! "Useful idiots" as well.

[UnderseaLcpl]

This is a silly discussion. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can build anything they want on or near ground zero because this is a country where we believe that all men are created equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It's understandable that there is still resentment towards the Muslim community from 9/11, but if we allow our sentiemtns to cloud our judgement and, more importantly, empower the state to discriminate amongst religions, we will find that the same state we give that power to will be used against us in the future.

I feel like freaking Yoda, being a guy with large ears who always tells people not to take the quick and easy path, but there is wisdom in that message. You cannot simultaneously have a free state and a controlling state. If you create a legal precedent for enforced discrimination (or elimination of enforced discrimination, as the case may be) it will come back and bite you in the ass, I promise you. One might as well build the gallows with which to hang oneself.

What strikes me as being extremely odd is that there are so many W.A.S.P.s who are of a the opinion that we should somehow create a means to preserve the status quo of W.A.S.P. America. Really, guys? Are you so blind to the past and present? Have you forgotten how we used to do that to other people? Do you really think that in the political system we have that we're ever going to "win" against the Muslims or the Latinos or whoever happens to be on your s***-list at the moment? Would you be willing to live under a system that could keep them out? Would you willingly give anyone that kind of control? Methinks you've been fooled by people with a different agenda.

If we really cherish our nation and our values, we should be confident enough to let them stand on their own merit. We have nothing to fear, aside from a politcal machine that has regard not for merit or equality of opportunity, but that promotes intolerance or equality of outcome.

[SteamWake]

Two blocks is too close..

I'm sorry this is a thinly vieled slap to the face of the families that suffered losses on that fatefull day.

It is not just a happenstance.

[Platapus]

are you now declaring the upside the downside and the left the right? What "terrorist apostates"?




Terrorists that are apostates.

Was that really that difficult for you to understand?

Considering that you think most things about Islam are bad, I imagine it would be.

[Skybird]

This is a silly discussion. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can build anything they want on or near ground zero because this is a country where we believe that all men are created equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Even if the other wants to destroy yourself, wants his freedoms - different from yours - at your freedom's cost?

When you say yes, I call you a suicidal madman.

[thorn69]

This is a silly discussion. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can build anything they want on or near ground zero because this is a country where we believe that all men are created equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It's understandable that there is still resentment towards the Muslim community from 9/11, but if we allow our sentiemtns to cloud our judgement and, more importantly, empower the state to discriminate amongst religions, we will find that the same state we give that power to will be used against us in the future.

I feel like freaking Yoda, being a guy with large ears who always tells people not to take the quick and easy path, but there is wisdom in that message. You cannot simultaneously have a free state and a controlling state. If you create a legal precedent for enforced discrimination (or elimination of enforced discrimination, as the case may be) it will come back and bite you in the ass, I promise you. One might as well build the gallows with which to hang oneself.

What strikes me as being extremely odd is that there are so many W.A.S.P.s who are of a the opinion that we should somehow create a means to preserve the status quo of W.A.S.P. America. Really, guys? Are you so blind to the past and present? Have you forgotten how we used to do that to other people? Do you really think that in the political system we have that we're ever going to "win" against the Muslims or the Latinos or whoever happens to be on your s***-list at the moment? Would you be willing to live under a system that could keep them out? Would you willingly give anyone that kind of control? Methinks you've been fooled by people with a different agenda.

If we really cherish our nation and our values, we should be confident enough to let them stand on their own merit. We have nothing to fear, aside from a politcal machine that has regard not for merit or equality of opportunity, but that promotes intolerance or equality of outcome.

You have a very pleasant message here but there's plenty of other places to put up Mosques... So why there if it's not an attempt to add insult to injury? Surely you can understand the logic of this considering 9-11 just happened less than a decade ago! I don't think people have a problem with Mosques being erected in the US but rather WHERE they are erected.

The racism crowd will cling to their belief that it's racism against Muslims to not erect a Mosque at ground zero, but I am not fully convinced that a lot of these people aren't Al-Qaeda, or Al-Qaeda sympathizers, wearing sheep skins and trying to make this into a civil rights case to push their evil agenda even more onto the good people of this nation!

[Skybird]

Terrorists that are apostates.

Was that really that difficult for you to understand?

Considering that you think most things about Islam are bad, I imagine it would be.

Maybe apostates from islam nevertheless can become terrorists over other motives then. But on 9/11, no Islamic appostates were involved, only islamic terrorists. Terrorism is a legitmiate tool in islam, described and referred to in several verses of the Quran. No muslim is automatically an apostate just because he is a terrorist.

Is that really so difficult for YOU to understand? Of course you know it. You just delivered a rethoric trick of which you thought that would serve your purpose to gloss over the true nature of islam (on the grounds of Quran and Sharia, that is the only basis Islam can be defined upon).

[Moeceefus]

Maybe apostates from islam nevertheless can become terrorists over other motives then. But on 9/11, no Islamic appostates were involved, only islamic terrorists. Terrorism is a legitmiate tool in islam, described and referred to in several verses of the Quran. No muslim is automatically an apostate just because he is a terrorist.

Is that really so difficult for YOU to understand? Of course you know it. You just delivered a rethoric trick of which you thought that would serve your purpose to gloss over the true nature of islam (on the grounds of Quran and Sharia, that is the only basis Islam can be defined upon).


Terrorism is not a legit tool in any religion. Though any radical from any religion can make a case for it based on thier twisted beliefs. All religions by thier very nature impose themselves over any other religion. Terrorist's are nothing but criminal scum that need to be dealt with accordingly. Are you implying that the only terrorists are Muslims and that we should kill all Muslims in order to prevent terrorism in the future?

[thorn69]

Terrorism is not a legit tool in any religion. Though any radical from any religion can make a case for it based on thier twisted beliefs. All religions by thier very nature impose themselves over any other religion. Terrorist's are nothing but criminal scum that need to be dealt with accordingly. Are you implying that the only terrorists are Muslim and that we should kill all Muslims in order to prevent terrorism in the future?

Compare the number of non-Muslim terrorists to Muslim ones! What's the ratio? Like 1 for every 1000 of them? Come on, use some brains and open your eyes! It's heavily advocated in their religion compared to non-Muslim religions.

[Moeceefus]

Compare the number of non-Muslim terrorists to Muslim ones! What's the ratio? Like 1 for every 1000 of them? Come on, use some brains and open your eyes! It's heavily advocated in their religion compared to non-Muslim religions.

Where did you get those numbers? I'd like to see your sources for that study, as it sounds beyond ridiculous to me. This is just one of many examples but, the next time a right to life Christian kills a doctor and fire bombs an abortion clinic, we should start cracking down on those pesky Christians as well.

[August]

Well it's your town Moeceefus you and your fellow New Yorkers ought to have the most say in what is "too close" or not. You might be despicable Yankees fans but I have full confidence that you'll ultimately make the right decision in this matter.

[tater]

Again, the solution is not to have special rules for ANY religion. No tax breaks, not special zoning, nothing. I'm not for an exclusionary zone, but I also don't think that they should be able to prevent, say, a strip club from being in the next storefront (nor should a church be able to exclude any business with special zoning).

My point in the last post, however, is that disliking Islam—or even people who believe that nonsense—is not "racist."

Racism requires an indelible trait, religion is software, not hardware.

[tater]

Where did you get those numbers? I'd like to see your sources for that study, as it sounds beyond ridiculous to me. This is just one of many examples but, the next time a right to life Christian kills a doctor and fire bombs an abortion clinic, we should start cracking down on those pesky Christians as well.

Yeah, that's really hard to nail down. I'm confident that in the last few decades the overwhelming majority of deaths to terrorism have been at the hands of Muslims, though.

An easier number is polling of attitudes towards terrorists, or how states (and states function at the consent of the governed) treat terrorists. Poll after poll shows at the very best substantial minority support for terror in the Islamic world (pushing majority). If you assume that "no opinion" means what it must in fact mean—"I agree with it, but refuse to say so"—then it's a majority. Then states that like terrorists do things like name public schools for some guy who murdered school kids (the PA does this all the time). When an attack happens, the muslim oprganizations get on TV and instead of apologizing for their co-religionists, and saying they are wrong, tell us not to judge them.

When some christian nut kills a doc (the total deaths and injuries to all these whackos in the US is only ~17 as I recall), what happens? The churches all condemn the attack (except maybe that WBC nut and his 50 inbred members), and the state catches, then even executes the scumbag.

A world of difference.

[Zachstar]

Don't worry Skybird! You're EXACTLY spot on with your comparison! :up:

Zachstar, is just mad that you've shown him up the way you've pointed out the double-standards that he seems so eager to defend! Makes me wonder why this guy even lives in the US? :hmmm: He seems so opposed to anything American and consistently plays the "race card" game for some reason. Could he be a sleeper cell agent for Al-Qaeda or is he just one of these terrorist sympathizers that wants self-destruction to ensue? :hmmm:

Have already reported this. So I will say the answer to your insane question is no. But do tell me do you believe all liberals (I am not even liberal I am progressive) are terrorists as well? Are you joining Bill Orielly in saying the ACLU is a terrorist organization?

So someone points out that you are likely no officer and you call them a terrorist sympathizer. You sir are nuts in my opinion and no chance you are an officer.

Do you even remember what you were banned for last time? Enjoy the keelhauling ban.

[Moeceefus]

Again, the solution is not to have special rules for ANY religion. No tax breaks, not special zoning, nothing. I'm not for an exclusionary zone, but I also don't think that they should be able to prevent, say, a strip club from being in the next storefront (nor should a church be able to exclude any business with special zoning).

My point in the last post, however, is that disliking Islam—or even people who believe that nonsense—is not "racist."

Racism requires an indelible trait, religion is software, not hardware.


Indeed sir. I agree.

[Moeceefus]

Yeah, that's really hard to nail down. I'm confident that in the last few decades the overwhelming majority of deaths to terrorism have been at the hands of Muslims, though.

An easier number is polling of attitudes towards terrorists, or how states (and states function at the consent of the governed) treat terrorists. Poll after poll shows at the very best substantial minority support for terror in the Islamic world (pushing majority). If you assume that "no opinion" means what it must in fact mean—"I agree with it, but refuse to say so"—then it's a majority. Then states that like terrorists do things like name public schools for some guy who murdered school kids (the PA does this all the time). When an attack happens, the muslim oprganizations get on TV and instead of apologizing for their co-religionists, and saying they are wrong, tell us not to judge them.

When some christian nut kills a doc (the total deaths and injuries to all these whackos in the US is only ~17 as I recall), what happens? The churches all condemn the attack (except maybe that WBC nut and his 50 inbred members), and the state catches, then even executes the scumbag.

A world of difference.


Indeed. And we are so lucky to live in a country where we have no fear of death squads showing up at our homes for having differing views. A government operating under the guise of a religion is even more dangerous. Dont expect an honest poll from those who are not allowed to be honest. Terrorist's are bred through fear, intolerance, and lack of education. These things need to be combated.

[thorn69]

Where did you get those numbers? I'd like to see your sources for that study, as it sounds beyond ridiculous to me. This is just one of many examples but, the next time a right to life Christian kills a doctor and fire bombs an abortion clinic, we should start cracking down on those pesky Christians as well.

I never used any sources but for the sake of argument that might be a good thing. I might have been off on the Muslim terrorists by several thousand instead of just the 1000 I posted originally.

Sorry, but murderers killing murderers isn't even in the same league! The people in the WTC weren't in there killing babies when they were attacked by Muslims terrorists.

[Moeceefus]

I never used any sources but for the sake of argument that might be a good thing. I might have been off on the Muslim terrorists by several thousand instead of just the 1000 I posted originally.

Sorry, but murderers killing murderers isn't even in the same league! The people in the WTC weren't in there killing babies when they were attacked by Muslims terrorists.


Wow. :hmmm:

[krashkart]

Indeed. And we are so lucky to live in a country where we have no fear of death squads showing up at our homes for having differing views.

Or for practicing theater, or for desiring an education, or for having an education, or for wanting freedom, or for.... list goes on and on. :yep:



I think 9/11 is still too fresh in some minds for there to be a mosque so close to the site of the World Trade Center. I'm not crying foul here in any way, I'm just saying that maybe it's a little bit too soon for it. Maybe a century or two down the road, depending on how long the pointless war of ideologies continues. :shifty:

[Moeceefus]

Or for practicing theater, or for desiring an education, or for having an education, or for wanting freedom, or for.... list goes on and on. :yep:



I think 9/11 is still too fresh in some minds for there to be a mosque so close to the site of the World Trade Center. I'm not crying foul here in any way, I'm just saying that maybe it's a little bit too soon for it. Maybe a century or two down the road, depending on how long the pointless war of ideologies continues. :shifty:


Indeed sir.

[thorn69]

Have already reported this. So I will say the answer to your insane question is no. But do tell me do you believe all liberals (I am not even liberal I am progressive) are terrorists as well? Are you joining Bill Orielly in saying the ACLU is a terrorist organization?

So someone points out that you are likely no officer and you call them a terrorist sympathizer. You sir are nuts in my opinion and no chance you are an officer.

Do you even remember what you were banned for last time? Enjoy the keelhauling ban.

Ah, way to go! Somebody has a different opinion than your own and you're quick to call them a racist nut and then hit the report button to boot.

This is a forum of debate, sometimes "heated argument" (as Sailor Steve has said in another thread) and that's all I've been doing. You on the other hand seem to be one of those who can't take the heat and are quick to call foul. Maybe you should excuse yourself from this forum for awhile. All you've managed to do is fling insulting names around after all!

You've done this ever since I mentioned what I do for a living. Seems to me that you have a personal problem with LE! Seems like several on here do. There's even a thread from somebody claiming they were mad at a cop in CA that pulled them over for going 81 on a 65! And they wanted to know why they got pulled.... It's always the "why me" attitude and never "I was wrong". Even here we can see that you're somebody that can't accept any wrong doing on your own part.

BTW, last time I was banned it was a "general purpose" ban because I didn't have the popular opinion of the forum. I didn't really violate any particular rule from what I recall. If I did, then so did everybody else. I never resorted to any name calling and still haven't. While I'm making a legitimate argument on here you're resorting to personal attacks. There's a difference.

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry, but murderers killing murderers isn't even in the same league!
You're changing the subject again, and the new one is a topic for a completely different thread. Murdering someone because it is your moral belief that what he has done is murder is indeed a completely different but equally evil league.

BTW, last time I was banned it was a "general purpose" ban because I didn't have the popular opinion of the forum. I didn't really violate any particular rule from what I recall. If I did, then so did everybody else. I never resorted to any name calling and still haven't. While I'm making a legitimate argument on here you're resorting to personal attacks. There's a difference.
No, you were brigged specifically for advocating killing people for the crime of being in the country illegally. That is a big difference.

And while you claim you don't resort to name calling you do have a habit of constantly belittling the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you, and you do engage in personal attacks more than anyone in these discussions.

[Zachstar]

You're changing the subject again, and the new one is a topic for a completely different thread. Murdering someone because it is your moral belief that what he has done is murder is indeed a completely different but equally evil league.

A topic that does not need to be started especially as that pretend cop in my opinion is about to be Keelhauled in my opinion anyway.

[Sailor Steve]

pretend cop
That is to me a useless observation because neither one of us is in a position to judge the veracity of his claim. I know a small handful of people here personally, and know who and what they really are. The rest I take at face value because I'm not in a position to judge. I'm sure Jim can talk about fellow policemen who should not have been in that position, and others can too.

I only judge people here by what they say here, and nothing more.

[thorn69]

You're changing the subject again, and the new one is a topic for a completely different thread. Murdering someone because it is your moral belief that what he has done is murder is indeed a completely different but equally evil league.

I never said that it was right but I view abortionists as murderers. That's just my opinion on that. He tried to compare the WTC to an abortion clinc however. That's what's sad! :nope:


No, you were brigged specifically for advocating killing people for the crime of being in the country illegally. That is a big difference.This is what it said.... Looks like the "I don't really know what to ban you with" option. Hmmm, isn't this what people were accusing me of being a bad cop over? Tacking on anything I could to put somebody away for a long time!? :hmmm:

Dear thorn69,

You have received an infraction at SUBSIM Radio Room Forums.

Reason: Nuclear option (porn, piracy, obscenities, X-Trolling)
And while you claim you don't resort to name calling you do have a habit of constantly belittling the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you, and you do engage in personal attacks more than anyone in these discussions.

You're one to talk! You do the same thing Steve. Hell, everyone does the same thing on here. Oh, I get it! Zachstar is your friend!

Nope, I haven't really done anything wrong since my ban. Even before my ban all I did was post my opinions about things. They might not have been popular but isn't that funny! In a recent thread people are saying that a person SHOULD have a right to unpopular opinion. Well, everyone but Thorn that is! :har:

[thorn69]

A topic that does not need to be started especially as that pretend cop in my opinion is about to be Keelhauled in my opinion anyway.

You really think you're getting to me with your stupid comments! I'm just laughing away over here! You're going to have to do more than tickle me lover boy! :har:

[Moeceefus]

I never said that it was right but I view abortionists as murderers. That's just my opinion on that. He tried to compare the WTC to an abortion clinc however. That's what's sad! :nope:


I did not compare the two. I'm simply saying you can not blame an entire religion for the evil deeds of radicals.

[thorn69]

I did not compare the two. I'm simply saying you can not blame an entire religion for the evil deeds of radicals.

You specifically used bombing abortion clinics in your post! Your comparison was disgusting and offensive no matter how you try to defend it.

[Moeceefus]

You specifically used bombing abortion clinics in your post! Your comparison was disgusting and offensive no matter how you try to defend it.


Whatever you say pal. To further prove the point you know damn well I was making, here is a quote you may be familiar with.


"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."


Guess who!!!

[Zachstar]

Just so people know what the heck he is going on about most forum software these days has "levels" or points associated with accounts. When a level is exceeded it automatically bans or restricts access.

That is likely the difference between brig and keelhauled. Brig is based on a selection a mod or admin makes. Keelhaul is a traditional ban only an admin can make if I understand the forum software correctly.

[Takeda Shingen]

The moderators' 'nuclear option' exists for behavior that is so far removed from the boundaries of acceptable action that it merits immediate brig time. The notification cites the examples of pornography, piracy and extreme examples of trolling. This differs from the standard infraction procedure involving layers of point assignment to serve as deterent without necessarily resulting in brig time. There is nothing indecisive or unclear about it.

[krashkart]

Hell, everyone does the same thing on here.

Not quite everyone. Just a few.

[thorn69]

To clarify, the moderator's 'nuclear option' exists for behavior that is so far removed from the boundaries of acceptable behavior that it merits immediate brig time. The notification cites the examples of pornography, piracy and extreeme examples of trolling. There is nothing indecisive about it.

Well, thanks for clarifying that for us! Did anyone else really know? :doh: I sure didn't!

Anyways, I think Zachstar is really reaching here for some moderator support to have me banned. He wants to silence the opposition because apparently his opinion is the only one that should matter on here on SubSim. Just look at the way he put his hand up in my face on one thread and said, "Just go away" like he was the Queen of Sheba or something! :rotfl2:

[Takeda Shingen]

Well, thanks for clarifying that for us! Did anyone else really know? :doh: I sure didn't!

Interesting. All I did was repeat what the notification actually said.

[thorn69]

Not quite everyone. Just a few.

Looks like everyone tries to debunk everyone else's opinion on here! Zachstar is the only one that runs for moderator help when he's insulted somebody and can't stand that they have an opinion different than his own! :down:

[thorn69]

Interesting. All I did was repeat what the notification acually said.

I didn't know how or why it was administered. You know what? Forget it! :nope:

[Zachstar]

The moderators' 'nuclear option' exists for behavior that is so far removed from the boundaries of acceptable action that it merits immediate brig time. The notification cites the examples of pornography, piracy and extreme examples of trolling. This differs from the standard infraction procedure involving layers of point assignment to serve as deterent without necessarily resulting in brig time. There is nothing indecisive or unclear about it.

Thanks for pointing that out. Tho I doubt that option will be used a second time.

[thorn69]

Thanks for pointing that out. Tho I doubt that option will be used a second time.

Wow dude, you act like this is Hell's Kitchen up in here and you're putting me up on the chopping block! But you know your cooking sucks just as bad though! :O:

http://rlv.zcache.com/hk_ramsay_piss_off_donkey_tshirt-p235864943300200385trlf_400.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

You're one to talk! You do the same thing Steve.
I would respectfully ask for examples.

Oh, I get it! Zachstar is your friend!
If that was true I would not have have taken exception to his "not a cop" comment. In fact I have included Zachstar in my criticisms many times.

Nope, I haven't really done anything wrong since my ban. Even before my ban all I did was post my opinions about things. They might not have been popular but isn't that funny! In a recent thread people are saying that a person SHOULD have a right to unpopular opinion. Well, everyone but Thorn that is! :har:

Like I said before, it's people like Steve here who'd be the biggest Nazi supporter had they won. :nope:
Imagine if people like Steve here got their way in today's modern battle against a person's Constitutional right. Now the issue is firearms. People like Steve will side with the winning side because he's safe there. He has no real opinion or credibility in my book. I don't associate myself with people that can't think outside their box that was erected by someone else.
And YOU'RE NOT guilty of the same exact thing? How dishonest of you! But I expected nothing less.
When I disagree with someone I try to present facts to support my case. Sometimes all I have is an opinion, and when that's the case I say so.

You say you're being attacked for having an opinion, yet in that thread when I presented facts you accused me of only taking only the popular opinion, you accused me of using my high post count to bully others into accepting my opinion, with the help of my "moderator buddies", you called me dishonest and said outright that you expected nothing less of me, and that's only your personal attacks on me. And you never did address the actual facts I presented.

You like to belittle people who disagree, and then say you're being attacked for having an "unpopular opinion". Most of the attacks have been on your side.

[Stealth Hunter]

This is why we need 100% separation of church and State.

The trouble with a Mosque there---it would be illegal to prevent a Mosque but not a church, for example---is that there are likely laws on the books that change the zoning of NON-religious building nearby. Many cities forbid bars within a certain distance of churches (or mosques), for example.

All zoning laws that relate to places of worship as "special" should be abolished.

Maybe we could pitch together and put in a titty bar next door to the mosque to piss them off?

This, basically. And stop exempting them from taxation.

[Skybird]

^^ x3.

"He who fights that Islam shall be superior fights in Allah's cause." - Muhammad.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell the people what they do not want to hear. " George Orwell

"When the Quran says Fighting is ordained for you, even if you don’t like it, the message is clear. This is God speaking. That is what you have accepted a priori. So how can you dispute with God? Once you accept the Quran as the word of God you cannot pick and choose and discard what you don’t like. This is strictly prohibited." - Ali Hirsi on "The illusion to reform Islam":
http://www.islam-watch.org/AliSina/Illusion-of-Reforming-Islam.htm

Dr. Ingrid Mattson, the woman who was invited by Barak Hussein Obama to represent Muslims in the interfaith prayer of the Democrats Presidential convention, and who is the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), when asked whether Wahhabism is an extreme right wing sect of Islam, responded:


No it’s not true to characterize ‘Wahhabism’ that way. This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation
(...)
What is the essence of the reformation in Islam? The essence of the Wahhabi belief is that man is not free but a slave of Allah. People are Ibad (slaves).

This is diametrically different discourse from the discourse of Protestantism and here is the essential difference between Christianity and Islam.

On the surface, there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. Both believe in a God, both rely on an intermediary between man and God, both faiths are eschatological and have a hell, a heaven and an afterlife, etc. However, in their core they are very different, in fact opposite to one another. Islam is not a continuation of Christianity, as Muhammad and Muhammadans claim, but it is an anti Christian belief in its essence. These faiths are different. One advocates freedom of man and the other his slavery. One brings the message of liberation the other, of submission.

The discourse of freedom, so essential to Christianity is contrary what Islam stands for. When you see Muslims carry placards that read “democracy is hypocrisy,” and “freedom go to hell,” during their laud demonstrations, they are expressing the true essence of Islam, which is anti freedom, anti democracy, pro slavery and pro subjugation.

True Muslims should not be free to choose, but they should emulate Muhammad. The Quran 33:36 says:
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَن يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا مُّبِينًا
“And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.”
It is not up to Muslims to decide what is good for them. This decision is already made for them and all they have to do is to obey, even when they don’t like it.
كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ
Fighting is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know. (Q. 2:216)
Islam can be distilled in its name: Submission. Allah knows best. Therefore man must accept His command, given to humanity by his last emissary Muhammad.
Democracy means the government of people by the people. In Democracy men make the law. You cannot have that in Islam. In Islam the law comes from God. Man must obey even if those laws appear contrary to reason and are oppressive.
This is the reason why Muslims cannot oppose stoning adulterers or killing the apostates.


Western people often are so proud of their freedom and their options to learn and get education on any given issue. And yet, on the issue of Islam so very many refuse to make use of it, instead they pick their own unfounded fantasies about what islam - in their views - should be so that the world would be less heavy with conflict, and then mistake that mental fantasy of theirs with the real thing. And although it is just a hallucination, it has accumulated a fearsome ammount of power over western thinking, supressing both freedoms and critical self-analysis and education, and even sees legislation and laws getting bend in favour of an totalitarian, inhumanen ideology that ultimately aims at their culture'S total destruction and the enslaving of all free (=non-Muslim) mankind. We even have started to add back special status for this "religion of peace", whereas our ancestors have fought over centuries to right take this special status away from relgions and keep it a separate thing from legislation, state and society. we reverse history - and not even in the name of Christianity or the church, but slavery and submission! Das ist doch zum Haare ausraufen!

That raises the question to people like me more and more often, why a suicidal culture of such foolery and self-denial even should be defended, when it is so eager to get subjugated and overrun. It is debates like in this thread that make me believe that if people cannot value freedom, they do not deserve freedom, and indeed maybe should get a collar around their necks.

[krashkart]

Looks like everyone tries to debunk everyone else's opinion on here! Zachstar is the only one that runs for moderator help when he's insulted somebody and can't stand that they have an opinion different than his own! :down:

I dug back through the last 100 days of posts to find these memorable exchanges between myself and another member. The exchange was a tangle for me because I felt that the wording in the response (link #2, below) to my initial post was pretty harsh. And, I was thoroughly debunked (and knew it), because I have no first-hand experience in the field.

Please read the following exchanges (in order: my initial post, the other guy's response, my final repsonse, and the end result):

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1350105&postcount=65
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1350210&postcount=68
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1350498&postcount=82
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1350584&postcount=83

I had to re-write my response to him twice before posting it (link #3, above). I had to stop and think about what I was saying in relation to what I was feeling, and how my final decision would influence his response. Something tells me that his demeanor would have been much different if I had posted any of the material that I banged out on the keyboard before I caught myself. The desire for credibility won out over frustration, thankfully. I found out that my adversary was not an adversary at all, he was just pointing out the flaws in my logic. :yep:

If your views are debunked by someone it's really no big thing. There is still room for error. But if you retaliate with harsh words and "Piss Off" t-shirts the battle is won in favor of the other guy. Additionally, it irritates people and derails the thread. Double lose. You're not going to win an argument here if you don't try. Simple as that.

Anyway, thought I'd share that experience here and point out that adrenaline does not win logical arguments. I cede the floor back to the Topic.

[Oberon]

Aaah, another day another inflammatory topic in the GT forum leading to mud slinging, post reporting and renegade flaming from a few against the well reasoned arguments of the many.

Am I getting jaded when I look at a thread title like this and expect rage posts before I even click on it? :hmmm:

Oh, and Steve...I suspect you may be fighting a losing cause, but good on you for trying. :salute:

[Skybird]

Aaah, another day another inflammatory topic in the GT forum leading to mud slinging, post reporting and renegade flaming from a few against the well reasoned arguments of the many.

Am I getting jaded when I look at a thread title like this and expect rage posts before I even click on it? :hmmm:

Oh, and Steve...I suspect you may be fighting a losing cause, but good on you for trying. :salute:
Football's over, no referees to bash anymore, so what did you expect? :D

[Skybird]

Oh, and while some people here are laughing or complain when I compare Islam and Nazism, this news, just two days old (the news message; the content of the message is known by Islam experts since several years already, and is evident for everybody knowing the ideological concepts of both "schools"):

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,705829,00.html (German)

Headline: "Office for the Protection of the Constitution sees ideological alliance between Neonazis and Islamists".

[Oberon]

Football's over, no referees to bash anymore, so what did you expect? :D

:har:

Touché, touché :yep:

[Takeda Shingen]

Thanks for pointing that out. Tho I doubt that option will be used a second time.

I understand your frustration, but every time a person posts something like this it makes the moderator's job that much more complicated.

[GoldenRivet]

This is why we need 100% separation of church and State.

The trouble with a Mosque there---it would be illegal to prevent a Mosque but not a church, for example---is that there are likely laws on the books that change the zoning of NON-religious building nearby. Many cities forbid bars within a certain distance of churches (or mosques), for example.

All zoning laws that relate to places of worship as "special" should be abolished.

Maybe we could pitch together and put in a titty bar next door to the mosque to piss them off?

+1

:yeah:

Sooner or later you wont be able to do a damned thing.

I pass about 20 Churches on my way to work for example. think of all the square mileage there that cannot be used for other businesses (because lets face it, whether you like it or not, religion IS an industry just like any other)

[tater]

I know there are religious people here that believe creationism and other nonsense. Believing that is fine with me, it's only a problem when they want it taught in school ("teach the controversy!"). Those folks need to remember that right now it's their pet fantasy they want taught as science, but should that ever happen, the precedent will be set for someone else's pet fantasy to be taught in school—like the PC idea in places like NYC of having "Arabic" schools. Then we end up with taxpayer funded madrassas. Just say NO to encouraging religion with tax dollars, or the power of the State (zoning).

This protects EVERYONE.

[August]

I know there are religious people here that believe creationism and other nonsense. Believing that is fine with me, it's only a problem when they want it taught in school ("teach the controversy!"). Those folks need to remember that right now it's their pet fantasy they want taught as science, but should that ever happen, the precedent will be set for someone else's pet fantasy to be taught in school—like the PC idea in places like NYC of having "Arabic" schools. Then we end up with taxpayer funded madrassas. Just say NO to encouraging religion with tax dollars, or the power of the State (zoning).

This protects EVERYONE.

You're not going to get much support for your ideas from religious people if you insist on calling their beliefs "nonsense" and "fantasy".

[tater]

You're not going to get much support for your ideas from religious people if you insist on calling their beliefs "nonsense" and "fantasy".

Myth, then?

Extant religious call the beliefs of Romans and Greeks, "myth," correct? Or of stone-age peoples... what makes one belief obvious fantasy, while another deserves respect?

[August]

Myth, then?

Extant religious call the beliefs of Romans and Greeks, "myth," correct? Or of stone-age peoples... what makes one belief obvious fantasy, while another deserves respect?

Oh I dunno, how about a few Billion members worldwide? Now tell me why I should ever support a person who likes to mock my beliefs?

[Fish]

Oh I dunno, how about a few Billion members worldwide?
Argumentum ad populum.

[thorn69]

Oh I dunno, how about a few Billion members worldwide? Now tell me why I should ever support a person who likes to mock my beliefs?

Because Christ was just ONE man and look at how he got Billions of people to follow his way of life! And Christianity continues to grow.

[August]

Argumentum ad populum.


Irrelevant. I didn't say anyones argument was right or wrong. Only that if you seek peoples support perhaps it isn't good policy to mock their beliefs.

[Skybird]

http://www.welt.de/die-welt/kultur/article8423718/Wie-Gott-das-Gehirn-der-Glaeubigen-ruhigstellt.html

[tater]

I only mocked literalism. Didn't mean to, but it's just so easy.

So the cutoff is billions of believers. Gotcha. So a few hundred years ago Christianity was a myth?

[August]

I only mocked literalism. Didn't mean to, but it's just so easy.

So the cutoff is billions of believers. Gotcha. So a few hundred years ago Christianity was a myth?

I didn't say that either.

Y'know I was on the fence about this whole mosque thing but since people like you oppose it then maybe the idea isn't so bad after all. I'll drop an email to my congressman telling him I don't have a problem with the idea.

See what happens when you make fun of peoples beliefs? Or is the cutoff too low for you?

[tater]

I didn't say that either.

Y'know I was on the fence about this whole mosque thing but since people like you oppose it then maybe the idea isn't so bad after all. I'll drop an email to my congressman telling him I don't have a problem with the idea.

See what happens when you make fun of peoples beliefs? Or is the cutoff too low for you?

I didn't say I was against it, in fact I said the opposite. I said it was unconstitutional to forbid a mosque, but not a church. That would be "establishment."

Since forbidding ALL would likely also run afoul of the 1st Amendment, it''s better to make sure there are NO zoning laws that particularly pertain to places of worship at all. Build the mosque, but I can build the "I hate stupid literalists" shop next door. Or a XXX Live Girls! place, complete with booze next door to the mosque—or any church I want.

The Islamists are counting on the support of non-coreligionist fundies to help them with establishing medieval laws in what is now the free world since they have so very much in common.

BTW, you said that a belief with a few billion worldwide deserves respect. Since the question was to make a cutoff between getting respect or not, I can only assume that any religion with fewer than a few billion gets no respect from you.

I'm always interested in what makes one religion a religon, and another a "cult" or "myth." Why, for example is Zeus any less deserving of respect than any other god? Also, what about sects? If one sect, say Catholicism, has more adherents than some particular sect of Christianity here in the US with a church in a strip mall, does that make the former more valid or deserving of respect?

[August]

BTW, you said that a belief with a few billion worldwide deserves respect. Since the question was to make a cutoff between getting respect or not, I can only assume that any religion with fewer than a few billion gets no respect from you.

Oh please. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I said that perhaps you shouldn't mock the beliefs of those whose support you might need. Period.

I never told you not to respect any group, regardless of size. I never told you that you had to believe what they believe either. Clear?

[tater]

... what makes one belief obvious fantasy, while another deserves respect?

Oh I dunno, how about a few Billion members worldwide? Now tell me why I should ever support a person who likes to mock my beliefs?

I put no words in your mouth, I asked what makes one belief fantasy, while another deserves respect, and you immediately replied "a few billion members worldwide".

If a roll call is not the difference, what is? Do you judge yourself which story is believable, and which is silly? Mormon golden plates are "dumb, dumb, dumb," while walking on water is not? As a monotheist (you are Christian, correct?) you must think that your flavor is right, and that all other religions are wrong. That's not the same as saying they have a right to their own beliefs, you can till think that, but inside you must of course think they are not right, else you'd switch to their flavor, correct? Everyone talks of "greek mythology," but why not "greek religion?"

Me calling extant religions "fantasy" is no different than calling greek gods "myths." Though again, I was talking about fantasy in science classrooms. Extant, religious just-so stories are without question fantasy—which says nothing at all of the veracity of the religion necessarily (unless you are a literalist).

[August]

Whatever tater. Feel free to continue ignoring my point.

[onelifecrisis]

Argumentum ad populum.

Is that real latin or did you make it up? :88)

[Moeceefus]

I put no words in your mouth, I asked what makes one belief fantasy, while another deserves respect, and you immediately replied "a few billion members worldwide".

If a roll call is not the difference, what is? Do you judge yourself which story is believable, and which is silly? Mormon golden plates are "dumb, dumb, dumb," while walking on water is not? As a monotheist (you are Christian, correct?) you must think that your flavor is right, and that all other religions are wrong. That's not the same as saying they have a right to their own beliefs, you can till think that, but inside you must of course think they are not right, else you'd switch to their flavor, correct? Everyone talks of "greek mythology," but why not "greek religion?"

Me calling extant religions "fantasy" is no different than calling greek gods "myths." Though again, I was talking about fantasy in science classrooms. Extant, religious just-so stories are without question fantasy—which says nothing at all of the veracity of the religion necessarily (unless you are a literalist).


Numbers aren't important when it comes to faith. Faith is a personal thing and therefore, nobody elses business. Its fine to think someone's belief is silly to you, but to mock them is wrong. You are supposed to be free to believe what ever you wish without being shamed for it. Which back to topic, I agree there should be no issues with mosques, or any other buildings (ie strip clubs) in any given zone, except for school zones. I believe religion, alchohol, and strippers should be kept well away from schools. :up:

[tater]

Whatever tater. Feel free to continue ignoring my point.

Which point? The point that it's bad politics to insult a religion, then tell members they should listen to you?

Yeah, you're right, it is bad politics. Regardless, it is in the self-interest of those who are religious to heed my call for separation, since they have more to lose in many ways. Why? Because they are more "brittle." A biblical literalist has their entire world-view fall apart if one little literalism is put into question—if the earth is NOT 4000 years old, then the bible is 100% wrong! A non-literalist believer is not disturbed by that, they'd say, "the creation story is just a story, the universe is billions of years old, and the god of the bible is still real."

That literalism and the brittleness of belief in such a system goes a long way to explain why Islam is so regressive—because all major sects are what are called "fundamentalists" in Christian sects.

I'm still curious what the cutoff is for fantasy/cult/myth vs "real" religion is—or are all beliefs equally valid and deserving of respect?

If the all deserve respect , then you must respect, say, satanism, or some random "cult" as you do a major church. If the some are less deserving (cults, etc), then you can disrespect some religions for a particular set of reasons, in which case it is presumably OK for others to be less than respectful of yours for their own reasons (or even the same reasons).

[tater]

Numbers aren't important when it comes to faith. Faith is a personal thing and therefore, nobody elses business. Its fine to think someone's belief is silly to you, but to mock them is wrong. You are supposed to be free to believe what ever you wish without being shamed for it. Which back to topic, I agree thier should be no issues with mosques, or any other buildings (ie strip clubs) in any given zone, except for school zones. I believe religion, alchohol, and strippers should be kept well away from schools. :up:

Trouble is the church or mosque will almost always add a school, then they get their way.

[Rilder]

Please be careful slinging the word myth when talking about Hellenism, some of us around here DO believe in the Hellenic Gods. Thank you.

On a side note we do need more Hellenic temples in this country.

Even though I think its wrong to be forced by your religion to attend any sort of organized-religious services, or change how you live your life.

[Skybird]

:nope:

Why a believer demands respect for himself or his faith because he believes something, forever will be beyond me. He seems to assume that he has collected some merits by believing in something, as if he has accomplished something fo value for himself and for the community, deserving him the right to demand special status for himself.

Myth or not, believe what you ant, and but save others from needing to take note of it if they do not ask you. as long as you claim the right to make public your private beoief issue, peope like me will claim the right to ask critical questions about it, and call it a myth - or even a folly.

Because the fact that you believe in something - earns you no credits or special rights at all. ;) and where belief is made public, it is an object of public interest, public discourse, public disagreement, and any demand not to do so, please, is a political demand to give religion a special status that protects it from free speech, free thought, critical questioning, etc.

And that is unacceptable, always.

So you will need to live with people mentioning "myth" when pointing at your belief's objects and mechanisms. ;) Because we non-believers have no obligation at all to obey any implicit rules of behavior deriving from your belief. We are not part of your club, and don't want to be.

[Sailor Steve]

It's simple, Skybird. Your belief in something untestable and unprovable is a myth. My belief in something untestable and unprovable is the truth.

Get it yet?

[Skybird]

Not really :timeout: - as long as you do not try to be ironic. :06: I admit I sometimes have difficulties to catch your humour.:)

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry about that. Not ironic, but sarcastic. Put more simply it's easy to fall into saying that very thing - "My faith is real, the other guy's is false".

[Dan D]

:nope:


...Myth or not, believe what you ant..


Whatever, but is it necessary to become rude by calling people "ants"?

Or am I a bit oversensitive today? :-)

[August]

I'm still curious what the cutoff is for fantasy/cult/myth vs "real" religion is—or are all beliefs equally valid and deserving of respect?

If the all deserve respect , then you must respect, say, satanism, or some random "cult" as you do a major church. If the some are less deserving (cults, etc), then you can disrespect some religions for a particular set of reasons, in which case it is presumably OK for others to be less than respectful of yours for their own reasons (or even the same reasons).


You keep casting lures at me but i'm just not going bite. You addressed my only point (finally) in the first paragraph. The rest of it is about you trying to pin me down on a subject that is irrelevant to my point.

Making fun of someones religious beliefs is rude. Do you seriously think that the size of the group you're insulting makes it any less rude?

[Moeceefus]

:nope:

Why a believer demands respect for himself or his faith because he believes something, forever will be beyond me. He seems to assume that he has collected some merits by believing in something, as if he has accomplished something fo value for himself and for the community, deserving him the right to demand special status for himself.

Myth or not, believe what you ant, and but save others from needing to take note of it if they do not ask you. as long as you claim the right to make public your private beoief issue, peope like me will claim the right to ask critical questions about it, and call it a myth - or even a folly.

Because the fact that you believe in something - earns you no credits or special rights at all. ;) and where belief is made public, it is an object of public interest, public discourse, public disagreement, and any demand not to do so, please, is a political demand to give religion a special status that protects it from free speech, free thought, critical questioning, etc.

And that is unacceptable, always.

So you will need to live with people mentioning "myth" when pointing at your belief's objects and mechanisms. ;) Because we non-believers have no obligation at all to obey any implicit rules of behavior deriving from your belief. We are not part of your club, and don't want to be.


I dont think a believer demands respect because they believe in something. They just demand the common courtesy not to be ridiculed anyone else demands. You cant mock someone for being a believer and you cant mock someone for being a nonbeliever. I agree though if you make your private faith public, or attempt to impose it on others you have opened yourself up to challenge. Though faith can be argued without resorting to ridicule, it seldom is so its best not to even bring it up to begin with. Its best to just drop it. You wont convert anyone to either side.

[tater]

Making fun of someones religious beliefs is rude. Do you seriously think that the size of the group you're insulting makes it any less rude?

Now we're getting somewhere.

Let's say I agree with you, and apologize for being rude for insulting someone believing a religion. You'd not then make fun of a "cult?" What about those spaceship nuts that were here in NM for a while, then moved to CA—they had some sort of suicide pact as I recall, remember that? They deserve equal respect to, say, baptists?

As you say, the number of members doesn't matter.

If it is OK to make fun of ANY religious belief, it's OK to make fun of all of them.

[tater]

I dont think a believer demands respect because they believe in something. They just demand the common courtesy not to be ridiculed anyone else demands. You cant mock someone for being a believer and you cant mock someone for being a nonbeliever. I agree though if you make your private faith public, or attempt to impose it on others you have opened yourself up to challenge. Though faith can be argued without resorting to ridicule, it seldom is so its best not to even bring it up to begin with. Its best to just drop it. You wont convert anyone to either side.

True enough.

I brought up non-muslim literalists in the US (creationists) because they indeed try to impose their belief on others via education. IT's an example of where muslim and christian fundie views are coincident.

There is an idea put forward by many conservatives—I'm a conservative, BTW—called "vouchers" for schools. The base point is for the State to subsidize religious education, though that is always unsaid. They couch the debate in terms of school quality and "choice," but there is no disguising the real goal, taxpayer funded religious schools. I disagree with vouchers for very conservative reasons—I am fine with a write-off for private school, but I disagree with giving people money for school that they have not paid in (vouchers are wealth redistribution, plain and simple). In addition, from a Separation standpoint, they open the floodgates. Strict separation is in fact conservative. Then muslim kids can go to madrassas in the US, and get taxpayer money to do so. That is a terrible idea. The only way around it is to not pay for private/religious schools. Of course we need our stupid, PC school boards to also not make "special" schools for different demographic groups, either. they also need to pay ZERO attention to their religious needs.

Look at State universities that have special prayer rooms for muslims. Outrageous, IMO.

Strict Separation is all that is between the US with its explicit freedom of religion and the abyss.

[Moeceefus]

True enough.

I brought up non-muslim literalists in the US (creationists) because they indeed try to impose their belief on others via education. IT's an example of where muslim and christian fundie views are coincident.

There is an idea put forward by many conservatives—I'm a conservative, BTW—called "vouchers" for schools. The base point is for the State to subsidize religious education, though that is always unsaid. They couch the debate in terms of school quality and "choice," but there is no disguising the real goal, taxpayer funded religious schools. I disagree with vouchers for very conservative reasons—I am fine with a write-off for private school, but I disagree with giving people money for school that they have not paid in (vouchers are wealth redistribution, plain and simple). In addition, from a Separation standpoint, they open the floodgates. Strict separation is in fact conservative. Then muslim kids can go to madrassas in the US, and get taxpayer money to do so. That is a terrible idea. The only way around it is to not pay for private/religious schools. Of course we need our stupid, PC school boards to also not make "special" schools for different demographic groups, either. they also need to pay ZERO attention to their religious needs.

Look at State universities that have special prayer rooms for muslims. Outrageous, IMO.

Strict Separation is all that is between the US with its explicit freedom of religion and the abyss.


Indeed sir.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree that on the one hand it's taxpayer funding of religious schools, but on the other it means that parents have to send their children to schools they don't like simply because they can't afford to send them elsewhere. The government does require by law that children attend school at least until age 16, and if they can't afford anything else they are required by law to attend a school they not of their choosing.

It is my understanding that in The Netherlands all money is tied to the student, not the school, and the result has been an improvement in state-run schools since it has become a necessity to weed out bad teachers.

It is a tricky situation. I don't agree with biblical creationism being taught as "science", but I do think that if children are forced to go to schools at taxpayers expense, there ought to be some choice allowed.

[tater]

I agree that on the one hand it's taxpayer funding of religious schools, but on the other it means that parents have to send their children to schools they don't like simply because they can't afford to send them elsewhere. The government does require by law that children attend school at least until age 16, and if they can't afford anything else they are required by law to attend a school they not of their choosing.

It is my understanding that in The Netherlands all money is tied to the student, not the school, and the result has been an improvement in state-run schools since it has become a necessity to weed out bad teachers.

It is a tricky situation. I don't agree with biblical creationism being taught as "science", but I do think that if children are forced to go to schools at taxpayers expense, there ought to be some choice allowed.

In the Netherlands it is my understanding that they have state-sanctioned (and funded) Islamic schools.

In general, the problem with "schools" is NOT the teachers. The notion that choice weeds out bad teachers is patent nonsense, IMHO.

In terms of schools (way OT, here), the problem is the students and parents, not the schools. School "choice" works for one, simple reason. It selects for parents that are involved—which means families that value education.

This is why private schools are better. The teachers at my kids' school are great, but I don't think they are really any better than at our public school system at all—this is a pretty serious observation on my part since the private school we use costs a small fortune—more than tuition (in state) here at UNM. The student population, however, is sorted mostly by income in private schools. Since educated people make more in general, that means that private school are filled with kids that have educated parents. Our school also gives scholarships to kids of police/fire/military, so it sorts for that too—but still, the parents are motivated to find a good school for the kid.

Public school systems with "choice" built in see similar results. There are schools judged to be better, and kids from more marginal parts of town with involved parents get driven across town to go to a "better school." The school is still APS, the only difference is the students.

In CT growing up, we had kids bussed in from Bridgeport (a very rough town). There were not too many, and they ended up doing great because they in effect absorbed the "culture" of our rich, suburban school system. Trying to achieve was the norm. Bad SAT scores got people made fun of. This was partially because kids had to be signed up for this by their parents—it sorted for involved families.

CT decided to expand the program in a test near Hartford, and apparently when the bussed in urban student population got above ~10% of the suburban kids, they dragged the suburban school down with them. This expansion bussed ALL the kids, no parental effort required.

[Sailor Steve]

In general, the problem with "schools" is NOT the teachers. The notion that choice weeds out bad teachers is patent nonsense, IMHO.
Public schools are government schools, and government employees are notoriously hard to get rid of, even the bad ones. When public schools have to compete for funding they become more concerned with performance. As I understood it at least one Dutch public school teacher said that in their case it made a huge difference, which is why I mentioned it.

[tater]

While I agree that it can be hard to get rid of PS teachers that suck, the overall "problem with our schools" is not the teachers, it's the students/parent. Throwing money at it ("hire better teachers" or "encourage people to teach") is not the answer. It's cultural.

Move most PS teachers to an affluent, CT suburb, and watch their scoring rise.

[August]

You'd not then make fun of a "cult?"

Still trying to determine what the maximum size a group has to be for you not feel guilty about being rude? Well unlike you I don't look for reasons to denigrate people. I've lived long enough to realize that such things have a tendency to bite you in the butt.

[tater]

Still trying to determine what the maximum size a group has to be for you not feel guilty about being rude? Well unlike you I don't look for reasons to denigrate people. I've lived long enough to realize that such things have a tendency to bite you in the butt.

No, I personally don't care, to me cult and religion are one and the same (the former having fewer members, I suppose, being the only distinction).

I can only assume that religious people talk about cults (or other religions) the way I always heard them called (growing up among church-going people as the vast majority of us have). Heck, I know religious people that talk about Mormons that way.

The point is that if you think of any other religion as lesser to your own, you are guilty of this. If you ever have said it out loud, ditto the rude part. I have no problem denigrating literalists since they are self-evidently wrong (the granite in my kitchen is older than they claim the universe is). I made no comment about non-literalist beliefs. The latter largely because they don't tend to try and add their religion to the schools, etc.

[August]

The point is that if you think of any other religion as lesser to your own, you are guilty of this

Well thank you for the information but your point is invalid seeing as I don't hold that belief.

[tater]

Well thank you for the information but your point is invalid seeing as I don't hold that belief.

You're not a monotheist?

You cannot think that Zeus is just as valid as Jesus and still be Christian, can you? So you believe in every god that anyone believes in on earth?

If Christianity is "true," then by definition other beliefs that don't have the same "true" god must be less true (or outright untrue). That means they are "lesser."

Doesn't mean that you don't nod and smile and treat them as if they are the same, but privately you'd have to think they were wrong, otherwise why would you hold the religion you believe to be true instead of theirs?

Is Shiva real? Did god really give Muhammad his direct words that supersede the Bible? Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster real?

[tater]

I know there are religious people here that believe creationism and other nonsense. Believing that is fine with me, it's only a problem when they want it taught in school ("teach the controversy!"). Those folks need to remember that right now it's their pet fantasy they want taught as science, but should that ever happen, the precedent will be set for someone else's pet fantasy to be taught in school—like the PC idea in places like NYC of having "Arabic" schools. Then we end up with taxpayer funded madrassas. Just say NO to encouraging religion with tax dollars, or the power of the State (zoning).

This protects EVERYONE.

Creationism—the nonsensical attempt to present biblical literalism as science—is fantasy. If you are going to pretend that something is science, then having it called fantasy should not be offensive—global warming proponents shouldn't be offended if someone calls their pet hypothesis "fantasy," either. Instead, they should try and demonstrate that their model is correct.

It has exactly nothing to do with the meat of your religion (salvation via god's son sent to earth, assuming you are christian) unless you are a literalist.

If someone is going to be a literalist, they should be prepared to be constantly offended by the modern world. Muslims certainly are constantly offended.

[August]

I don't think you'll ever understand what I have been trying to get across to you and i'm sick and tired of trying to explain it, so go back to insulting and belittling anyone that has different beliefs than you do and i'll continue thinking the less of you for it.

[tater]

I have no problem with literalists not liking me. Irrationally dispensing with a good idea—separation of church and state—because it is defended by someone with whom you disagree, is, well, irrational.

Reminds me of the morons who vote for 3d parties to teach the party closest to their own beliefs a lesson. It does no such thing, it just helps those farther from their views win by splitting the vote.

Separation benefits both non-believers, and the religious for the reasons I stated. Take it or leave it. I act pragmatically, and if my allies have disagreements with me, I can live with that. Heck, I vote Republican even though it's filled with religious types because I agree on other issues (though the dems pretend to be religious, too).

I find it interesting that I cannot get an answer, though. Being a literalist—I only insulted literalists—you pretty much can't think that other religious are just as likely as your own. I at least say what I think of them in the open.

[onelifecrisis]

Come on you two. This is just a last-word competition now.

[Sailor Steve]

No it's not! :O:

[onelifecrisis]

Yes it is. :stare:

[August]

Yes it is. :stare:

No it's not. I could have replied to him last night but i've said all I wish to say on the subject. If he don't get it he don't get it.

[onelifecrisis]

No it's not. I could have replied to him last night but i've said all I wish to say on the subject. If he don't get it he don't get it.

See! :O:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Last word!

[NeonSamurai]

Final word :woot: