You’re proposing that we treat an entire varied widely defined class of people as dangerous (potentially infringing on their rights as citizens and/or human beings–no one’s sure, since you refuse to say what you actually want to do) because of the actions of a tiny percentage of that group. Actions that are, you know, actively and explicitly rejected by a lot of others within that group.
You are literally making me sick to my stomach. Not figuratively-literally. Actually sick. I sit here, and I read what you write, and my gorge rises and my vision starts getting blurry. *That *is how fucking disgusting you are.
Soooo… What’s your point, exactly? Being a Christian doesn’t *require *that you drag gay men to death behind your truck or refuse medical treatment to your dying child because Jesus will save her instead. But some Christians *choose *to do these things.
We have a winner! Thank you. See what happens, folks, when you read the words on the page and not listen to the voices in your head.
I’m not sure. I struggle with this one. On the one hand, I see how it can be viewed as a slap in the face to the people who died there and their loved ones. On the other, I see how this mosque, due in part to the microscope it would be under, could be a great model for Islam in the U.S. And since Islam isn’t going away anytime soon, that could be a very valuable thing. One of the things that has been working against Islam is that those who which to hijack and contort the religion have been allowed, in large part, to enjoy the protection of the more benign adherents to the religion. The thing that will help Islam the most, is an intolerance for radicalism from within.
I guess in the end I might come out on the side of not allowing it because it may be too hot an issue and may cause more of problem than a solution, more o a rift than a bridge. But having typed that, I lament missing out on the potential benefit oh having it built. Like I said, I’m torn.
Okay, here’s what I think I would do. I’d try mightily to have it built, but only do so when I’ve convinced a majority of those families torn apart by 9/11.
It’s just your general attitude on this subject that most of us find hateful & small minded. This thread was started to berate Valteron & Perciful, who might be even more insane than you on this particular subject. (Although that’s hard to believe.) However, you are more of an equal-opportunity bigot, less fixated on reliving the Crusades.
You are probably not proposing to* do* anything at all. You will just continue to sit at your little PC & continue to spew hatred.
Of course I do; you just want to pretend that Christianity is admirable, while claiming that Islam is barbaric. Both are irrational, destructive forces like all religions; Islam just has more influence, more freedom to act. This country is full of tens of millions of Christians who would tyrannize and torture and enslave in the name of Christ if they could get away with it; or just torch the planet with nukes in order to bring on the Second Coming. The government of the US won’t let such Christians have free reign in their own country, but that doesn’t make them less barbaric than their Islamic counterparts who do have free reign.
So no, Islam is not worse than Christianity at all.
:rolleyes: The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Therefore - obviously - treating Muslims as a whole badly in the name of fighting terrorism means that you are overwhelmingly harming non-terrorists.
Ohhh, I’m guilty of a thought crime. Thanks. I knew it must be something.
And you may want to look up the word “hate”. “Insane”, too. It doesn’t mean “does not agree with you”. :rolleyes:
So no, Islam is not worse than Christianity at all.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Christianity is evil, blah, blah, blah. Do me a favor, take your Thorazine before posting, would ya. It’s shit like this that makes people view you as not grounded in reality. And just so you know, I don’t practice any religion.
What is this supposed to mean: “treating Muslims as a whole badly”? I asked for specifics. I know you saw that, because you quoted my “Specifics, please.”.
So just to be clear, you’re currently defending the point that you originally had no point at all, and what semblance of one you did have was deliberately vague enough to render it impossible to extract any specifics as to what the hell you were talking about, hence your confidence in others’ inability to meet your own demands to tell you what that might’ve been.
Says the man who continues to ignore the point of the thread.
Strangely, this is the exact same thing many of us keep saying about the Republican Party.
You’re reluctant to come out in favor of the mosque because there might be some vague undefined problem? Bold.
With all due respect to those families, what difference does it make to them? The people building the cultural center/mosque are different people of a different ideological ilk to those who committed the 9/11 attacks. The building is not on Ground Zero. They have not condoned the attacks. Please stop trying to suggest that they are somehow connected.
Much as it makes me grit my teeth to agree with Der Trihs, one can certainly come up with many modern examples of people who do nasty things under the banner of Christianity (indeed, I already did above) and a substantial number more (although “tens of millions” is hopefully hyperbolic) who claim that they would, given the opportunity. It’s hardly a controversial statement to point out that people do nasty shit in the name of religion all the time, especially when money and politics are also involved. You are too eager to show the worst of Islam while handwaving away the worst of other religions.
Not quite. My point is that radical Islam poses a threat to us. And since we cannot simply point to those Muslims that are murderous barbarians, or support murderous barbarians, it behooves us to be wary of all Muslims. Pretty straightforward position.
I said I’m not sure how this mindset would manifest itself in any public policy. I would l=eave those specifics to those who are experts in their fields. But the general proposition that a 26-year-old Muslim male warrants a greater degree of scrutiny than an 80-year-old Norwegian Lutheran woman is unassailable. Now, if over the next few years radical Islamists are able to use 80-year-old Norwegian Lutheran women as proxies in their murderous barbarism, then thinking would have to change. But until then, I’ll go with the Muslim guy being the greater threat.
Yes, but its not just the 20-something year old Muslim guy who gets it. Its all Muslims. And not just Muslims, but Sikhs, Hindus, and Christians from the Indian sub-continent. Basically if you look “brown” and don’t speak Spanish or if you look remotely Middle Eastern, male or female, you get the prejudice, the bigoted looks, the automatic assumption that you’re a threat, and yes, the racism. Explain to me how that is right. Explain to me why I should be treated that way.
Its not too dissimilar to the way black males get treated by people, and indeed, a very close friend of mine made this observation: “So at airports, you’re the threat and not me for a change?”. And the answer is “yes”. Especially if I dress in any way that may indicate that I’m “covering” myself – long skirt? You’re being patted down, ma’am as you’re obviously a threat. :rolleyes:
ETA: What you’re advocating is State-sponsored and organized widespread racism. I thought we’d done away with that. Not every brown non-Spanish speaking male is Muslim, not every Muslim looks brown, not every man who is obviously Muslim is a threat and Muslim men who don’t look “Muslim” are sometimes a threat. How do you propose to deal with that without State-sponsored racism?
Oh, heavens! A thread where not every single point in every post was directly speaking to the OP. I think you should report this immediately!!! :rolleyes:
Sorry, I can’t entertain this point, as it is not directly related to the OP.
Newsflash: just because a problem may be difficult to define doesn’t mean that it is not real. And sometimes “bold” is the way to go, sometimes not. Now, my guess is that you agree with that statement, but you are just looking for ways to disparage me. Transparent, therefore weak.
I did not say that the building is on Ground Zero. Why? Because it’s not. I have not claimed that the people wanting to build it have condoned the attack. In fact, they have done the opposite. Yet you attempt to saddle me with this nonsense. Why? Because you’re desperate. You want my position to be irrational and rooted in ignorance, but when you can’t find it in my actual words, you make them up. I do wish you’d try to debate in a more honest fashion.
Now, you want bold? Here’s some bold: if you think that the building of this mosque and 9/11 are unrelated events, that they are not “somehow connected”, you are a complete and utter imbecile. And not dealing in reality.
Nope. Christians don’t strap bombs onto themselves and blow up innocent people in a market. They don’t fill a truck with explosives and drive it into a grammar school and kill innocent kids. They don’t hijack planes and fly them into buildings, attempting to kill tens of thousands of innocent people. They don’t bury women guilty of adultery up to their necks and stone them to death. They don’t try to adhere to a set of barbaric laws that were barbaric even at their inception. So, no. Radical Islam is not close to “radical Christianity”. That’s not just wrongheaded, it’s Der Trihs level insane.
Your suggestion that all Muslims are worthy of extra scrutiny because of an incredibly small minority is laughable. You can’t tell just by looking at someone what their religion is, or that they’re at the nutjob level of blowing stuff up. So how do you propose to give Muslims extra scrutiny? Go on their names? Their looks? The former is unreliable, the latter is racism.
I think this is the issue that seemingly gives you a double standard. So far as I can tell, you don’t appear to consider there is any ability to “assess the specific ones” when it comes to Muslims, or, that the ability to do so is not foolproof enough for you to be confident in it. Family members (if the point is accurate) are more likely to harm you in some way than Muslims, but you can seperate out issues that mean you don’t have to be suspicious of all your family members. So far as I can tell, you seem to entertain no factors among Muslims that allow you to differentiate; as you say, you “cannot simply point to those Muslims that are murderous barbarians, or support murderous barbarians, it behooves us to be wary of all Muslims” (which seems wrong, since you know, I can point to** Angua**, for one, but anyway).
My question to you essentially is, why is it that you feel comfortable differentiating in some instances but not others? Why is that there is zero method of differentiating Muslims that you find acceptable, but apparently methods of differentiating other groups which are perfectly normal and rational?