NYC Mosque Gets the go!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Please answer all three questions, without saying "I've already done so"...

Originally Posted by Skybird

I already asnwered that,

Sorry, couldn't resist.

The reason you get so much resistance from me is not that you disagree, but that you come across as 'preachy'. In fact in my own head I see you as a religious fanatic, talking down to people because you "know" that you're right.

I say that not to insult you, because I don't know you at all or what you are actually like. But that's how you come across, at least to me.

I, on the other hand, "know" that I'm wrong, or at least that there's a good chance I am. My absolutism on freedom is nowhere near as absolute as you might think, but the people I deal with daily are the ones who want to take away freedom from a different angle. They would erode our freedoms in the name of "saving our country", i.e. take away freedom in the name of preserving it. I see this not in you personally, but in some of the things you've said. It really is a fine line, and to me some of your ideas seem to be of the nature I fight against the most. I really do see some of your ideas as just as dangerous as those you oppose.

That said, I won't address the answers you gave, not because I dismiss them, but because they were reasonable and certainly have some merit, so I have to think about them for awhile. Thanks for actually laying all that out for me.

The rest of my statement however remains

How can the rest of the statement remain when it is based on a false premise?
As was pointed out in the Spiegel article once you cut through the "outrage" she was calling for something in the media that Saxony journalists already have themselves as part of their own charter, and her other "contraversial" thing was about the preservation of a secular state.
So since she was argueing for integration which you want, and against a religious state which you don't want then how can your statement remain when she is in agreement with you and you are objecting to the very things you are calling for???????

Though its not as funny as Skys attempt to link her to people who link to groups who want completely different things and paint it as part of his united jihadi conspiracy theory.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

How can the rest of the statement remain when it is based on a false premise?

Does it? I guess all the media outcry and that she was called back by her own party was also based on a false premise?

As was pointed out in the Spiegel article once you cut through the "outrage"

What Spiegel article?

she was calling for something in the media that Saxony journalists already have themselves as part of their own charter,

What has Saxony to do with it?
As a matter of fact the representatives of the media in Lower Saxony felt that they were supposed to sign a self censor agreement.

So since she was argueing for integration which you want, and against a religious state which you don't want then how can your statement remain when she is in agreement with you and you are objecting to the very things you are calling for???????

First of all, who brought that crucifix issue into this debate? I did not. So why are you referring to this now? I never even mentioned it.
Second arguing for integration is one thing. To make the media write only positively about a certain ethnic group is not arguing but simply glossing over realities. Why should a newspaper whitewash things just because immigrants have been involved? Again extra rights for them? Being untouchable for the media while they can write what they want about every native German? This is not integration! It's censorship and whitewashing of realities.
Maybe we should ask ourselves why there is supposedly a need to do so? Is it that certain people appear more often in the negative news than they should according to their numbers?

Does it? I guess all the media outcry and that she was called back by her own party was also based on a false premise?

Media outcry is media outcry, it doesn't need any basis for it to occur, as for her party making it an issue that means nothing as thats what politicians do when the media spout as an issue. Look at the American example recently with Breitbart creating a huge story which outraged the public and got the white house to step in decisively to tackle the issue ....before it emerged it was all just bull cooked up by a wingnut with an agenda.

What Spiegel article?

Sorry I didn't realise views on an issue had to be limited to one source.

What has Saxony to do with it?

It was for the state of Lower Saxony.

As a matter of fact the representatives of the media in Lower Saxony felt that they were supposed to sign a self censor agreement.

Hmmmmm.....
"A representative of the German Journalists' Association in the state described Özkan's initiative as superfluous, noting that similar language was already contained in the journalists' code of conduct in the state."
Damn that German media for reporting that eh.

First of all, who brought that crucifix issue into this debate? I did not. So why are you referring to this now? I never even mentioned it.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you don't want people to read the links you post.
So if you don't want to bring it into the debate Schroeder then don't link to a story its in.
It does nicely illustrate the media outrage angle though doesn't it, as they got all flusterd about banning crucifixes as thats popular outrage the muppets can really hate, while ignoring banning the headscarves as they don't want them damn muslims stealing their thunder on popular outrage that they are selling the muppets.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Media outcry is media outcry, it doesn't need any basis for it to occur, as for her party making it an issue that means nothing as thats what politicians do when the media spout as an issue.

Maybe, maybe not. I've actually never heard our media respond like this. So this was a special occasion, besides politicians have no call in how journalists should have to work, so the entire charter thing was uncalled for.

Sorry I didn't realise views on an issue had to be limited to one source.

I ask again, what Spiegel article?
Do you have a link?
If you claim some source, then provide it.

Hmmmmm.....
"A representative of the German Journalists' Association in the state described Özkan's initiative as superfluous, noting that similar language was already contained in the journalists' code of conduct in the state."
Damn that German media for reporting that eh.

First off, why would anybody see the need to hand out charters if everything was already going as they wished? The media charter could have been the beginning of more and more demands to be "friendly to integration". Let's see with what we can get away with and push it to the max.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you don't want people to read the links you post.
So if you don't want to bring it into the debate Schroeder then don't link to a story its in.

I made pretty clear what my initial post was about and it didn't contain anything about crucifixes. You brought it up. My post was about the media charter. If there had been a recipe for apple pie below the article, would you have assumed I was talking about baking something?