And that is the argument used by so many who want to take it away. Decades of experience hearing that one.

I have the natural (or God-given, if you please) right to do anything I want. As long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same. I fought, and will continue to fight, for your right to do the same.

How am I being selfish by supporting freedom?

Thank you. :salute:

As do I. But is that a reason (either moral or legal) to prevent it's being built? Obviously the people with that authority didn't think so.

you should not take them literal, maybe. They maybe just thought abiut the outcry from Muslims if they would not allow that mosque beeing build. Or they dreamed the dream of the cinvincing shiny Westa gain, that they would have the moral obligation to noance again give something in advance to islamis interest, this oh so precious endlöess chain of tiny olttle gesture and signlas of how good willing one - is that good will not the best reason to expect that our good will be answered on equal terms by islam - with good will in return, and churches being build in Muslim countries?

I have never seen people who have taken personal responsibility for their actions try to take away the same from others. if you have decades of such experience, perhaps you can profer a few examples. I'm willing to learn.


I feel no desire to infringe upon your rights or liberty. I come to that position because I take personal responsibility for my actions and wouldn't deny you the opportunity to do the same, as it pertains to my rights and liberty.


You are being selfish by not allowing the freedom for others not to extend you the same freedom.

Maybe. Or maybe we believe that the purpose of law is to keep everyone equal, so we don't use the law to enforce our morals or opinions on others. Until a certain group of people (and I don't mean Muslims in general, I mean the group who want to purchase the land and build the mosque) actually break the law, they have the same rights as everyone else. If you believe differently, I see you as the greater danger. (Again not meaning you personally, but anyone who claims that moral prerogative or percieved threat is more important than equality for all).

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Third Man http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif
No. It means the Jews practiced stoning. The new testament chronicles the early Christians (maybe). Crusades were more to Christian liking.

Thank you. :salute:

Don't be mistaken. Stoning was practiced by many cultures. Romans, Egyptians, bedoins, many others. It was a punishment which required no treasure, like rope, blade or militia, to execute. The very rock at ones feet was enough.

Don't be mistaken. Stoning was practiced by many cultures. Romans, Egyptians, bedoins, many others. It was a punishment which required no treasure, like rope, blade or militia, to execute. The very rock at ones feet was enough.[/QUOTE]

As it is hard for me to get the image of American cheering when missile strikes in Iraq and AF are shown on the news as "entertainment".

What's wrong with using reason? isn't it that obvious to you when i slap pyu in the face, that I do not mean you well? When I steal your mmoney, that I do not mean well? when I mock you when you fall, that I do not mean you well? when I preach you defeat, that I do not mean you well? If you get pricked, do you not bleed? If you get tickeld, do you not laugh? If you get poisened, do you not die?

Do you have any problem with what Popper said in "The Free Society"?

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Sounds like very healthy reason to me.

What is wrong with you that you want to see the defending of our freedom being prevented becasue only when you get you idea of absolute, total, unlimited freedom then it is freedom, else oyu do not care if the others are taking freedom away from you? Have you so little to lose? The relative ammount of freedom oyu have, is more than they have in most other coutries - and you carelessly give it up? You still give me the benefit of doubt when I would kick you, beat you, betray you, lie to you, take what you give volunaterily for granted, and never trade back to you on your wellmeaning, oh so noble terms? you know whwere this will lead you? you will lose freedom. Youj will get ovberwhelemed by those who do not care for your diea of freedom. Who do not value your wanted absolute freedom. Who obey their ideological education of you idea not being freedom.
It will lead you to stay aside and doing nothing, while the free world around you gets ruined. You will stay aside when an ieology of totaltiarin control and lack of freedom takes over, gains influence. And by your passivity you will have heölped to create the oppoortunity for this destruction of freedom taking place. Becasu you had too much thinkling stuff on your mind - just getting and educate insight into islamic idelogy, it's content and scripturte -´that for some reason you do not have on your mind. Yiu take it'S porimnicpal gioodness for granted - but you have no clue whether you are right or wrong.

Im other words: you gamble, claim that to be philosophical concerns of yours, and our freedom you out at stake.

Ypou claim unlimited freedom by that. Freedom absolute - or it is no freedom. Popper says and me says that that abslute claim of yours guarantees your self-destrucxtion by the ehnad of those giving a rat'S azz about your freedom.

You simply ignore that your approach depends on reciprocity. If the other side does not react to your approach on the same level, on the sam terms, than you are screwed. Pretty high risk you take there, Sir. wouldn't be my business if only your own fate and freedom is at vstake. But you will to put mine at stake as well, and that of all of us, and of our children and chidren'S children. And that I cannot and will not accept. Go into voluntary slavery, if you want. But leave all of us others out of it.

So does islam - it does not want the Western, American idea of freedom (or better: it does not know this type of freedom, nor does it know our concept of tolerance as a mutual deal). It only wants to abuse that idea of freedom to estavblish itself, and when it is stro9ng enough that it does not need our good will anymore, it can skip it and estavblish the freedom idea of sharia. islamic freedom and Wetsern freedom are two totally different things.

And on you remark that I say freedom is its own enbemy, you shorten and by that distort it. For the fourth time in ten days now I quote the paradoxon of tolerance and the paradoxon of freedom as it was formulated by Popper, will you please coinsider it and think aboit it and then try to argue with it and show that Popper was wrong when he said that - if you can:

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.


still you give racism the opportunity to grow in strength and to establish itself in society, in education, in policy-making, in communal influence, in laws. Islam is racist and discriminating towards all other cultures and non-Muslim people, especially Jews. Islam is deeply antisemitic, and always was. Muhammad HATED the Jews since they showed him his intellectual deficits when he met them for theological talks at Medina. A deep narcissistic offence to his ego! His reaction was not to say to himself "I must learn more and do better, then they cannot argue me down anymore", his reaction was to try to annihilate them. And he did. Two trivbes got driven away, the third got wiped put, the males got massacred, the girls led into sexual slavery. Genocide, we call that today: the attempt to completely extinct and wipe out existence, history and future of another culture or people. islam is very forgiving on genciide, if it is in the name of Islam. Archealogical exmainations in and around Medina until today are fobidden by death penalty. the evidence for the massacre shall be forgotten until the end of time.

That'S the kind of thinking you want to give the benefit of doubt about it's intentions and moral motives, Steve. Islam does like this until today. You occasionally hear it in the news when unwanted monuments showing the eixtence of ealrier cultures in Arabia get destroyed, or historic evidence for a history that opposes islam's description of things getting rejected, forged, or deleted. Compared to how islam does it, creationists are amateurs when rewriting man's history to fit into just 6000 years.

That just is not good enough. Believe what you weant, but you allow the opportunity of freedom getting abused to destroy freedom. deciding you still must, no matter your belief. and the consequences you must bear, no matter how good or bad your intentions before have been. You cannot escape the need to choose.

See Popper above. his remark is most logical. Simply ignoring him, is no solution, no answer, ignoring it will only cause your defeat - and ours.

that naivety is breathtaking. That is no idelaism anymore, that is ignoring the message, the content, the goal, the ideal, the aim of islam.

Let Nazis build a Nazi culture centre at Auschwitz - as long as they are peaceful, let them?

You must be stoned if you don't see the problem with your attitude here.

Too bad you are not German. I have read many books about islam, but the best ones I know are in German. Else i would go into town tomorrow and pack you three or four books and send them as a parcel to you. Because I think you only give Islam the benefit of doubt because you do not know it, and thus your willingness to interprete just about anything into it, since you do not know it better. Or are you also giving the benfit of doubt to the KKK? the Nazis? Stalin? I assume you do not, and I assuje your iknowledge about these thing sis much better - that'S why you probably do not ngive it the benefit of doubt anymore.

At least I hope you do not.

You left me both a bit upset and quite angry here. I simply cannot believe that one can choose to just close one's eyes and label that "freedom" or "tolerance" - that leaves me speechless, and yes, it makes me angry. I do not want to get into a personal mudwrestling here, so I will not answer here anymore. At least not for the time being. Anger is no good basis for talking.

Then call your news channel and voice your displeasure. It doesn't change any fact but you won't have to see it.

By Platapus' logic, I am tempted to conclude that law enforcement by the police is of the same moral value - or lack of - like committing the crime that triggered law enforcement.

However, I agree with that war should not be made an evening entertainment show, and that the way the media reprot about it, lacks bothg journalistic quality and compoetence, and reasonable presentational style. I also find the onesided, extremely enthusiastic military docus on docu channels extremely bad. The uncritical attitude of these, the lacking reflection on the background of wars, borders intentional mass manipulation. I find the typical relation of America to weapons, violence and war extremely troubling. In this alienating manner and fashion, it seems to be unique in the Western world.

BTW, as I said in the other thread on this subject, I cannot see how to ban it without going against the 1st Amendment.

Instead, I maintain that strict separation should apply.

In this latest case, the simple question is this:

did the mosque, or would ANY OTHER religious building get precedence over landmark status vs other possible uses? This unelected group decides what building of XXX age happen to be architecturally important enough to be preserved—others of the same age, based on their subjective view, DO merit protection.

This is a case where what is being built, even who owns a structure should be 100% unknown to the committee for any sort of fairness. It's hard to believe that they'd reach the same conclusion—given the fact they they get to arbitrarily decide what people can do with their own property—if the structure to be built was something they were single-mindedly against.

I'm against this mosque, but I don't think there is any "american" reason to not permit it—landmark status committees are wrong, period, IMHO, everywhere (an objective standard a computer could render (like any building over a certain age, made of a certain material, or nothing at all). Better would be strict separation to make sure that they get ZERO special treatment down the road. No breaks in property taxes, no special zoning rules, NOTHING.

Concerning the construction of the community center, I truly believe that any person has the right to be "offended" by it; and the rest of the people have a right not to be concerned who it "offends".

As I have posted in multiple other threads, just because someone or some group is "offended" does not mandate any action/inaction on the part of other people/groups. :nope:

This enelected group was chosen by the objectors as a last ditch attempt to block the building, since you support the objections you can't complain about the actions of a group of people that the objectors invited into the issue.
If that run down dump was such a wonderful historic piece of outstanding architecture that needed preserving for the sake of the city then why hadn't anyone bothered trying to get it listed before?

Are you trying to say that the historians and architects unanimously rejected the application for preservation of this dump for some reason other than it was simply an unimportant structure?