NYC Mosque Gets the go!

[Platapus]

Islam is a religion of peace as much as Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance.

In both there are factions that do the opposite of what the religion dictates. These individuals are called apostates and should not be used as a representation of the entire religion.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Islam is a religion of peace as much as Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance.

.

I'm not a big fan of evangelical movements (which is a masterstroke of understatement), but even I have to acknowledge that at least Christianity has progressed into the 20th and 21st century. Hipocritical as they are, at least they don't commit violence like, or to the scale in frequency, that Islam does. ( Exception being abortion clinics, then they go jihad and start shooting doctors. )

edit: And yes, i realize im using the word, "They" very loosely.

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Islam is a religion of peace as much as Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance.

In both there are factions that do the opposite of what the religion dictates. These individuals are called apostates and should not be used as a representation of the entire religion.

This man speaks the truth.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Islam is a religion of peace as much as Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance.

In both there are factions that do the opposite of what the religion dictates. These individuals are called apostates and should not be used as a representation of the entire religion.

LOL.

Muslims who believe that we are in the "house of war" and dhimmi is in their lands are not apostates. They are devout. Those that think that they have a responsibility to jihad... not apostates. Islam means submission to god. Not peace.

Islam itself is fundamentally regressive.

[Sgt_Raa]

some white suppremicist will blow it up!... any money...

It is hard to get the image of Muslims cheering when the towers came down out of my head.

[Moeceefus]

People tend to ignore the fact that although many of our enemies are Muslims, not all Muslims are our enemies.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Moeceefus

People tend to ignore the fact that although many of our enemies are Muslims, not all Muslims are our enemies.

More precise:
people ignore the fact that if Muslimhood is taken serious, the muslim must be our enemy because we are not Muslim (the Quran demands all males to stand united against those who refuse to submit, and claims refusing submission to Islam is an attack on Islam against which must be defended: that way the victim of an attack becomes labelled the attacker; Muhammad also demanded that men should be happy to even give theirmlives in such "defensive" attacks against the enemy

(=suicide attacks against infidels, and that men only may fear this becasue the fail to see the logic in what Muhammad said by this explanation: in that passage of the Quran he indeed mocked his own followers hesistating to kill the enemy and accept their own death over it),

and that there are people who - for whatever their reasons are - label themselves as muslim, but indeed are not hostile to us, by that unexcusably violating basic dogma of the Quranic ideology and in principle risking their lives, because in principle they already are apostates who refuse to admit they are. Apostacy in Islam is under death penalty.

One cannot understand this if one bases on thw wrong and unfounded legend of Muhammad having preached a peaceful religion and that muhammad and Jesus in rpirnciple taught the same peaceful things. This nonsense simply is right this: an unfounded legend without any grain of truth in it. the quran shows that it is a legend, and muhammad's life shows that it is a legend.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

It is hard to get the image of Muslims cheering when the towers came down out of my head.

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".

Originally Posted by Platapus

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".

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

[Skybird]

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.

[tater]

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.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

It is hard to get the image of Muslims cheering when the towers came down out of my head.

I was meaning to quote/reply to this one earlier but I got sidetracked. I remember the news clips of some of those naughty little celebrations they were having over there, and the resentment that welled up inside as I watched. At the same time I felt sorry for those people. Why is it that humans are so easily twisted to such fervent displays of lunacy, by the whims and ambitions of so very few?

I also remember this treasure:



This was a painting that was hanging in an Iraqi barbershop. Note the lack of destruction and aircraft. I wonder why the shop keeper would risk his neck by putting it on the wall, when it would have been much more fashionable to display a work similar to this one from Nasiriya:



Charming ain't it?


Source articles below for anyone interested.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in546437.shtml
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...ral/index.html

Sorry to dogleg back into the topic like this. But for every bad, there is at least one good. That is the thrust of my post.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Islam is a religion of peace as much as Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance.

In both there are factions that do the opposite of what the religion dictates. These individuals are called apostates and should not be used as a representation of the entire religion.

The third sentence is just not true, in either case. Unless when using the passive voice, you only mean that you specifically call them apostates.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Islam is a religion of peace as much as Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance.

In both there are factions that do the opposite of what the religion dictates. These individuals are called apostates and should not be used as a representation of the entire religion.

Islam does not dictate peace . It dictates conquest and subjugation. This is not voluntary, it is mandatory.

Jesus did not preach like this, and it is malicious of you if you think you must claim both are the same kind of teaching. That is like comparing Ghandi to Gengis Khan and claiming both are equally peaceful. The truth about Jesus and muhammad is more like that both are antagonistic to each other.

An apostate in islam is the one refusing to discriminate other cultures/religion and refusing to claim his own superiority due to the fact that he is islamic, and refuses the enslaving of women. the one followng the dogmatic teaching of islam is the one who does not tolerate anyone but Islamic people, who thinks it is Islam'S natural right to rule the world and that he is just helping evolution's natural cause if assisting islamization with force, lie and violence, who treats women as lifestock and think all girls and women need to be the possession of their fathers or a husband, and who follows Muhammad'S order, laid down int he Quran, to not accept seize-firing for longer time than necessary to gain superiority about non-Islamic facitons, and then crush them, in this way creating "peace" by extinction of differences and victory of the others. Which is the peace of a uniform, monocultural, totalitarian society.

Disclaimer: I am not Christian. I am no member of any sect. I am hostile to the church AND Islam.