Mosque at Ground Zero

[obfuscator]

Pedophilia is not condoned by the church - indeed the action is contrary to all the teachings and according to the doctrine those who offend in such a manner are going to hell. It would be an affront to an abused child to build a statue of the priest in question next to their house, not to build a church.

 

So you're saying that some arbitrary Head of the Muslim Faith condones extremism and terrorism? By the way, actions speak louder than words, and while the Catholic Church may not condone rape and molestation in their church doctrine, they've done a hell of a lot to keep priests from being prosecuted:

 

I agree that they have done that in the past, and it's unnacceptable. Thankfully, they've been more forthcoming in recent years, but that's a debate for another time.

 

I know little about the hierarchy of the muslim faith - all I know is that the essence of the catholic faith is peace and nonviolence(at present anyway) and it's doctrine explicitly states that. The same cannot be said of the Muslim faith as a whole.

 

 

And some pro-lifers are terrorist extremists, that is undeniable. So what? Are all pro-lifers terrorist extremists? No.

 

No - the CLC - Canadian life coalition is a pro-life organization(not the extremist kind). To my knowledge, they preach the use of non-violent opposition to abortion in Canada - and do not allow members who preach violence and who are extremists. The muslim faith does not necessarily alienate extremists, that's the difference.

 

Once again - I do support the building of the mosque. I just think that the far left often is insensitive to those who lost family and friends in terrorist attacks - you can't expect them to be happy that radical muslims(the demographic responsible for their deaths) will be using a mosque so close to the spot where their loved ones perished.

[Yoko Kurama]

I did answer a few pages back, but I'll reiterate.

 

Pedophilia is not condoned by the church - indeed the action is contrary to all the teachings and according to the doctrine those who offend in such a manner are going to hell. It would be an affront to an abused child to build a statue of the priest in question next to their house, not to build a church.

 

I also said that while some Muslims may hate america, they aren't all extremists. However - some are - and this is undeniable. To be honest, although I don't agree that hating anyone for any reason is an acceptable state of mind, in general the middle eastern region has many good reasons to dislike america - and may do.

 

False. If the Church does't condone pedophilia and molestation then why is that the Vatican was involved in a massive cover up, in which even the current Pope, Mr. Ratzinger was involved in: where priests were simply shipped from one parish to another instead of being turned into the proper authorities. There is probably some denial on their part even now. Clearly the Vatican doesn't care much for the law, or justice or either it doesn't think any of those Preists engaged in anything questionable? Which is it? Does the Vatican not care about the law or justice OR does it condone such activities because it doesn't think they are morally vacuous.

 

That still isn't a plausible argument really. So what if some of them are extremists? There are 'some' extremists everywhere. Still don't know what you are getting at. There isn't any plausible reason to suspect Muslims of extremism more so than any other group.

[Myweponsg00d]

Once again - I do support the building of the mosque. I just think that the far left often is insensitive to those who lost family and friends in terrorist attacks - you can't expect them to be happy that radical muslims(the demographic responsible for their deaths) will be using a mosque so close to the spot where their loved ones perished.

 

Yes and I'm sure that the white plantation owners also had their feelings hurt when all their slaves were taken away from them. You can't really let hurt feelings get in the way of civil liberties.

 

Also I do not think that sheltering these families from reality is the best way to deal with their feelings. If you stop the mosque from being built, you continue to isolate the families from the reality that muslims exist in this neighborhood. If you build the mosque, these families must confront reality and will eventually move on with their lives.

 

You can't just step on people because youre afraid some other people might throw a temper tantrum.

[Zygimantas]

The muslim faith does not necessarily alienate extremists, that's the difference.

 

I am beginning to understand what your view is. So do you think that Muslims (especially in the middle-east, where the foundations of extremists groups are) as a group of people with similar religious views, should make war against extremists Muslim groups?

[obfuscator]

I did answer a few pages back, but I'll reiterate.

 

Pedophilia is not condoned by the church - indeed the action is contrary to all the teachings and according to the doctrine those who offend in such a manner are going to hell. It would be an affront to an abused child to build a statue of the priest in question next to their house, not to build a church.

 

I also said that while some Muslims may hate america, they aren't all extremists. However - some are - and this is undeniable. To be honest, although I don't agree that hating anyone for any reason is an acceptable state of mind, in general the middle eastern region has many good reasons to dislike america - and may do.

 

False. If the Church does't condone pedophilia and molestation then why is that the Vatican was involved in a massive cover up, in which even the current Pope, Mr. Ratzinger was involved in: where priests were simply shipped from one parish to another instead of being turned into the proper authorities. There is probably some denial on their part even now. Clearly the Vatican doesn't care much for the law, or justice or either it doesn't think any of those Preists engaged in anything questionable? Which is it? Does the Vatican not care about the law or justice OR does it condone such activities because it doesn't think they are morally vacuous.

 

That still isn't a plausible argument really. So what if some of them are extremists? There are 'some' extremists everywhere. Still don't know what you are getting at. There isn't any plausible reason to suspect Muslims of extremism more so than any other group.

 

Do you even know the meaning of the word condone? If the church were to condone pedophilia and molestation they'd be making public announcements saying "Yeah, we're cool with pedophilia, you'll still go to heaven if you rape little boys".

 

Cover-ups are meant to protect your reputation - this indicates precisely how clear it is that pedophilia and molestation are contrary to the overall teachings of the church.

 

I've also never stated I suspect Muslims of extremism more than any other group - rather I've said(and I stand by it) that as a faith community they are less likely to alienate those members of their faith who do practice extremism.

 

 

Once again - I do support the building of the mosque. I just think that the far left often is insensitive to those who lost family and friends in terrorist attacks - you can't expect them to be happy that radical muslims(the demographic responsible for their deaths) will be using a mosque so close to the spot where their loved ones perished.

 

Yes and I'm sure that the white plantation owners also had their feelings hurt when all their slaves were taken away from them. You can't really let hurt feelings get in the way of civil liberties.

 

Also I do not think that sheltering these families from reality is the best way to deal with their feelings. If you stop the mosque from being built, you continue to isolate the families from the reality that muslims exist in this neighborhood. If you build the mosque, these families must confront reality and will eventually move on with their lives.

 

You can't just step on people because youre afraid some other people might throw a temper tantrum.

 

Which is what I've reiterated several times. Do you also just expect the thousands of families torn apart that day to just "get over it", to just forget about everything? In a perfect world, perhaps, but not everyone is ready to forgive so easily.

 

The muslim faith does not necessarily alienate extremists, that's the difference.

 

I am beginning to understand what your view is. So do you think that Muslims (especially in the middle-east, where the foundations of extremists groups are) as a group of people with similar religious views, should make war against extremists Muslim groups?

 

I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs)

[Myweponsg00d]

 

Which is what I've reiterated several times. Do you also just expect the thousands of families torn apart that day to just "get over it", to just forget about everything? In a perfect world, perhaps, but not everyone is ready to forgive so easily.

 

 

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the mosque should be built, but you are just concerned that it isn't being built apologetically? Like a political incorectness in the way that the issue is being handled? And not an incorrectness in the planned course of action?

[obfuscator]

 

Which is what I've reiterated several times. Do you also just expect the thousands of families torn apart that day to just "get over it", to just forget about everything? In a perfect world, perhaps, but not everyone is ready to forgive so easily.

 

 

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the mosque should be built, but you are just concerned that it isn't being built apologetically? Like a political incorectness in the way that the issue is being handled? And not an incorrectness in the planned course of action?

No, I'm saying the mosque should be built, but I sympathize with those families who lost loved ones in that they may find it hard to take.

 

The mosque being built is quite clear - there's no legitimate reason to deny it - in fact I believe such a mosque could help the general perception of muslims in the area.

[Troacctid]

I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs)

The Muslims involved in this project have done so.

[Harakiri]

I agree. Americans say that the United States is the best country in the world because everyone has freedom and equal rights regardless of religion or race. Yet some are going against their very own amendment and what they think makes the country so great. I hope this type of hypocritical thinking does not spread to the US government.

 

The thing is though, that this was founded as a Christian nation, but it accepts everyone else. Which is kind of confusing when you think of it. So we are Christian, yes. But yet, we do also have equal rights for everyone. So the people complaining we are a Christian nation are right. The people complaining we are a nation built for everyone is right. I just like to say we should accept everyone. And be done with it.

 

Most of the founding Fathers weren't Christian anyway...

[obfuscator]

I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs)

The Muslims involved in this project have done so.

And I suppose they'll be refusing overseas funding from known radicals?

[Zygimantas]

The muslim faith does not necessarily alienate extremists, that's the difference.

 

I am beginning to understand what your view is. So do you think that Muslims (especially in the middle-east, where the foundations of extremists groups are) as a group of people with similar religious views, should make war against extremists Muslim groups?

 

I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs)

 

I understand, but I think Muslims are fearful of doing this, especially if there are extremists living among their cities. I think if they made it clear that the extremists views are unacceptable then the extremists might resort to violence against them. It could very well turn into war.

[Troacctid]

I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs)

The Muslims involved in this project have done so.

And I suppose they'll be refusing overseas funding from known radicals?

Sure, whatever. *shrug*

[obfuscator]

I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs)

The Muslims involved in this project have done so.

And I suppose they'll be refusing overseas funding from known radicals?

Sure, whatever. *shrug*

Exactly - they won't.

[magekillr]

I agree. Americans say that the United States is the best country in the world because everyone has freedom and equal rights regardless of religion or race. Yet some are going against their very own amendment and what they think makes the country so great. I hope this type of hypocritical thinking does not spread to the US government.

 

The thing is though, that this was founded as a Christian nation, but it accepts everyone else. Which is kind of confusing when you think of it. So we are Christian, yes. But yet, we do also have equal rights for everyone. So the people complaining we are a Christian nation are right. The people complaining we are a nation built for everyone is right. I just like to say we should accept everyone. And be done with it.

 

Most of the founding Fathers weren't Christian anyway...

 

I know you mean well and I get the idea you're trying to get at, but this is a bit muddy.

 

What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.

~James Madison. Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785

 

Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitution or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions. Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

~James Madison, Detached Memorandum

 

The *majority* of the Founding Fathers rejected the notion of a Christian nation or one otherwise married to religion. They were hardly unanimous.

 

However, the great minds who contributed the bulk of the text to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution (Jefferson and Madison) were believers in the separation of church and state. Madison, as a lawyer, challenged the right of the Anglican/Episcopal (then the "state" religion of Virginia) church to collect assessments from Virginians of other faiths. Jefferson was instrumental in the creation of Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom as its writer; Madison got the bill passed by Virginia's legislature. Jefferson and Madison had some very influential supporters on the national level (Franklin and Washington) to name two.

 

Jefferson and Franklin were Deists (though some later would consider them Unitarians). Washington and Madison were Anglican/Episcopalians who distrusted the power of the organized church. Oddly, Madison had a relative who was an Anglican bishop. Washington eventually fell away from churchgoing.

 

Patrick Henry led the charge for a greater public and legal role for Christianity and had much support from numerous lesser-known founders. He is a hero today for the "Christian Nation" camp.

[Nenga]

I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs)

The Muslims involved in this project have done so.

And I suppose they'll be refusing overseas funding from known radicals?

Sure, whatever. *shrug*

Exactly - they won't.

You don't know they won't.

 

Instead of giving [cabbage] reasons why not to do it like they might accept funds from some source, give us a real reason. I might walk outside tomorrow, fly to where you live, kill your girlfriend, your dog, and your family, 18 random strangers, and throw you off a cliff. Have any proof that I won't do it?

[obfuscator]

I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs)

The Muslims involved in this project have done so.

And I suppose they'll be refusing overseas funding from known radicals?

Sure, whatever. *shrug*

Exactly - they won't.

You don't know they won't.

 

Instead of giving [cabbage] reasons why not to do it like they might accept funds from some source, give us a real reason. I might walk outside tomorrow, fly to where you live, kill your girlfriend, your dog, and your family, 18 random strangers, and throw you off a cliff. Have any proof that I won't do it?

What I was attempting to say is that he has no idea of that. They've already stated they will be accepting foreign funds - and some of those might come from radicals. If they take funding from radicals, they can scarcely disallow radicals entry, can they?

[Dupin]

I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs)

The Muslims involved in this project have done so.

And I suppose they'll be refusing overseas funding from known reactionaries?

Sure, whatever. *shrug*

Exactly - they won't.

You don't know they won't.

 

Instead of giving [cabbage] reasons why not to do it like they might accept funds from some source, give us a real reason. I might walk outside tomorrow, fly to where you live, kill your girlfriend, your dog, and your family, 18 random strangers, and throw you off a cliff. Have any proof that I won't do it?

 

Nevermind.

Next time just say "post count" ;)

 

Does Fox News refuse funding from "known radicals"? Perhaps we should shut them down -- who knows what sort of weapons they could be hiding in all that filming equipment.

[Troacctid]

some of those might come from radicals

Come back when you can identify exactly which funds are being provided by exactly which radicals. Then we'll talk. Until then, you have nothing.

[obfuscator]

Yeah, I found that pretty funny. I don't give a [cabbage] about fox news though, so w/e.

[Saru Inc]

I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs)

The Muslims involved in this project have done so.

And I suppose they'll be refusing overseas funding from known reactionaries?

Sure, whatever. *shrug*

Exactly - they won't.

You don't know they won't.

 

Instead of giving [cabbage] reasons why not to do it like they might accept funds from some source, give us a real reason. I might walk outside tomorrow, fly to where you live, kill your girlfriend, your dog, and your family, 18 random strangers, and throw you off a cliff. Have any proof that I won't do it?

 

Nevermind.

Next time just say "post count" ;)

 

Does Fox News refuse funding from "known radicals"? Perhaps we should shut them down -- who knows what sort of weapons they could be hiding in all that filming equipment.

 

Dude, I have 4.5k+ post counts. One post is literally nothing. I added something, but realized it didn't really mean anything so I edited it.

 

And, no, Fox News doesn't refuse funding. (Well actually, only the People at Fox can tell us that) However, Fox News doesn't (and does not support) blowing people and places up. inb4war

[obfuscator]

some of those might come from radicals

Come back when you can identify exactly which funds are being provided by exactly which radicals. Then we'll talk. Until then, you have nothing.

Once the thing actually gets built, and they provide a funding statement, then I'll be glad to. However, I'm sure Fox News will do it for me :P

[Nenga]

[hide]

I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs)

The Muslims involved in this project have done so.

And I suppose they'll be refusing overseas funding from known radicals?

Sure, whatever. *shrug*

Exactly - they won't.

You don't know they won't.

 

Instead of giving [cabbage] reasons why not to do it like they might accept funds from some source, give us a real reason. I might walk outside tomorrow, fly to where you live, kill your girlfriend, your dog, and your family, 18 random strangers, and throw you off a cliff. Have any proof that I won't do it?

What I was attempting to say is that he has no idea of that. They've already stated they will be accepting foreign funds - and some of those might come from radicals. If they take funding from radicals, they can scarcely disallow radicals entry, can they?

[/hide]

How do we know you don't take funds from overseas radicals, we have no proof otherwise, sure you can tell us, but there's still that what if.

 

That's all it is, a what if. We can't stop the building because of a what if. The likelihood of them taking funds from overseas radicals in hopes of having a safe haven in new york city is the same chance that the president will turn out to be an evil lizardman from Jupiter.

[obfuscator]

I'm not arguing for stopping building at all, as I've reiterated countless times so far.

 

At some point, that what if will be certain fact; once they release a full funding statement for instance.

 

At that point, if they haven't accepted funds from radicals, great. If they have, they'll allow radicals use of the community center, and that can be seen as offensive to the memories of those who perished in 911.

[Troacctid]

At some point, that what if will be certain fact; once they release a full funding statement for instance.

 

At that point, if they haven't accepted funds from radicals, great. If they have, they'll allow radicals use of the community center, and that can be seen as offensive to the memories of those who perished in 911.

Until then, please shut up. You don't even have a reason to be suspicious, let alone evidence. :roll:

[Nenga]

I'm not arguing for stopping building at all, as I've reiterated countless times so far.

 

At some point, that what if will be certain fact; once they release a full funding statement for instance.

 

At that point, if they haven't accepted funds from radicals, great. If they have, they'll allow radicals use of the community center, and that can be seen as offensive to the memories of those who perished in 911.

We'll have a lot more problems than being offensive to people if we have a terrorist base in new york. But you're searching for a needle in 5 haystacks.