Obama supports Ground Zero mosque. Religious freedom or is he being too PC?

Minnemooseus writes:

quote:

---

I don't recall any recent such events by Christian based groups.

---

I know I already have a post about this, but it's been a day and it appears that the Christian crazies aren't sitting still.We've got the arrest of a teenager firing a shotgun into the World Sufi Foundation mosque in Carlton, NY during services.Too, we have Bill Keller (from Florida...he of birther fame, claiming Obama is the next Hitler, and that voting for Mitt Romney would be "voting for Satan") gathering donations to build a "9/11 Christian center" nearby so that he can continue his claim that "Islam is a wonderful religion... for PEDOPHILES!" and a religion of "hate and death."Surely the people who are complaining about the "hallowed ground" of the World Trade Center will be just as upset over the construction of a "deliberately provocative" building.And that's just of late. Have you forgotten Katrina? Michael Marcavage of Repent America: Of course, the French Quarter was actually spared the brunt of the storm. By their analysis, god spared the gays.Have you forgotten the actual terrorist attacks, themselves? How the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson got on television and rejoiced in them, claiming that god had "lifted his shield" from the US, blaming the attacks on gays, feminists, abortion providers, the ACLU, and the People for the American Way? Now, before you misunderstand again, I am not saying that anybody is "excused." You've got it completely backwards. If behaviour of one group is considered bad, then the equivalent behaviour by another group is also bad. The fact that we don't go into paroxysms of hyperventilation when the latter group does it doesn't mean the former are "excused."Advocating violence, no matter how subtly, is bad no matter what. But that means terrorism is bad no matter where it comes from and in this country, we don't have a problem of Muslim terrorists...the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks carried out in this country are from Christians. And if we seem to think that our response to Christian terrorist attacks is sufficient, why are we going nuts over something that doesn't happen here?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Message 229Message 252 Oh I know how YOU decided to read into it, cuz your a fag like that. But this isn't the thread for that. The thread where this is relevant is still open, waiting for you to fly back in and start your ad nauseum rhetoric. Wrong thread douch nozzle... The same one's you mentioned. You should move to NYC and become a Muslim cabbie.- Oni

My comments were focused on the Muslim riots because of and after the Danish publication of the cartoons depicting Mohammad. That rioting was BAD STUPID. Especially since, if I recall correctly, part of their protests were about Islam being depicted as an irrational violent religion - Nothing like refuting that by mass acts of irrational violence.I WAS NOT CONDEMNING OR CONDONING ANY OTHER ACTIONS BY ANY GROUP!Bottom line - I thing the so called "ground zero mosque" is a good thing. I think being against it is stupid. And my impression is that the vast majority of religion based stupidity happening in the U.S. is Christian based.Happy now?Moose

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Really? Then indulge me and try it again, just so we can be clear.

---

​

Message 229

​

Message 252

---

Neither of these answer the question. How do you determine who goes away without what they want? Why does "fair" mean everybody has to lose something?

quote:

---

The thread where this is relevant is still open, waiting for you to fly back in and start your ad nauseum rhetoric.

---

(*chuckle*)You keep telling yourself that. I'll remember that when you say, "shut the fuck up," what you really mean is to give it to you with both barrels.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Really? Who? You can give me the name of the specific group Comedy Central was referring to, yes?

---

​

The same one's you mentioned.

---

In other words, you don't know because you haven't done your homework. Just as I said.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Minnemooseus responds to me:

quote:

---

Happy now?

---

No.Because you claimed that I was advocating some sort of "pass" for bad behaviour on the part of Muslims because of my pointing out equivalent behaviour on the part of Christians. You failed to provide any justification for why anything I wrote could possibly be interpreted to mean that. And when I called you out on it, you got prissy.The words you're looking for are, "Oops. I misunderstood what you were trying to say."Can that possibility cross your mind?Try it. Chances are I'll say something like, "No worries," if anything at all.And then we let it go. Can do you do that? Can do you what it takes to keep the conversation moving forward?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

I think to some degree we are both misunderstanding what the other is trying to say.A larger chunk of quote from me: All that probably could have been said better, or perhaps better be not said at all. The "You are defending bad Muslim behavior by saying the Christians are just as bad" should not have been said.At this point, I don't know or care how Christian behavior got into my messages. What triggered my first non-graphics message in this topic was the South Park/Mohammad situation. As I have said in earlier messages, Muslims rioting over cartoons was the intended scope of my message(s).Allah willing, this will be my last message in this topic.MooseAdded by edit:OK, I think I may have found a root of the problem: My "red bolding".I was specifically talking about RIOTING, and you launched off on other NON-RIOTING Christian executed violence. You went off on a tangent to my sub-theme.I certainly condemn the terrorism actions in your tangent.Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

Minnemooseus responds to me:

quote:

---

As I have said in earlier messages, Muslims rioting over cartoons was the intended scope of my message(s).

---

Something that has never happened here in the US.

quote:

---

I was specifically talking about RIOTING, and you launched off on other NON-RIOTING Christian executed violence.

---

Ah, and you accuse me of being lawyerly. Here was your original statement: You focus on the "riot" part of it and seem to forget that you led off with "violent reactions." Pardon me for focusing on the more important part, the violence, rather than the specific method by which it manifests. Surely you aren't saying that violence is only bad if it is at the hands of an angry mob, are you?Second, you forget that I pointed out that when it happens here in the US by Christians, we don't call it a "riot." Exactly how many people have to be gathered for it to be a "riot"? Certainly, I would think the situation in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict could be called a "riot," but what do you think the intimidation of a black man who happened to be wearing a skull-cap is? Does the fact that they didn't actually strike him mean it wasn't a "riot"? It's only a "riot" if someone gets hurt or there is property damage greater than $2,000? Please, let us know the specifics of what a "riot" is.But let's talk about what happened with regard to the Danish cartoons. Were there any "riots"? Well, there certainly were demonstrations. Do they only count as "riots" if they're Muslim?The Danish embassy was torched in a few countries, but was that necessarily the result of a "riot"? Why? Does it only count as a "riot" when Muslims do it? Of the 139 people who died in the various "gatherings" (for lack of a better word), the vast majority of the deaths were at the hands of the police. It isn't like Muslims were going around killing people left and right.So if that is the standard for a "riot," why is it when it happens in the US by Christians, we don't call it a "riot"? We call it "protesting." We call it "a bad apple." Anything but the same terminology we use for Muslims. That doesn't excuse the behaviour of the Muslims (death threats always bad), but we don't seem to get nearly as agitated when Christian groups send out death threats, when they go on national television and rejoice in the deaths of thousands, etc.This was my original post to which you responded: So what exactly is the real difference between the Christian crazies and the Muslim crazies? So far, here in the US, and let us not forget that this event is taking place here in the US, we haven't had any real examples of Muslims violently responding to Christians but we have plenty of examples of it going the other way around.When the Danish cartoons were published, nothing happened here in the US.On the flip side, all we have is a multi-cultural center headed by an imam that the Bush administration called upon to be part of its outreach to Muslims and funded in part by the #2 shareholder of News Corp (you know...Fox) and we have...protesters?...rioters?...almost coming to blows against a Christian simply because he's black and wearing a skull cap.So please, what's the difference between the Christian crazies and the Muslim crazies?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

For two people who share the same position, we sure are having trouble agreeing. Thankfully - But do you think the South Park cartoon could have triggered "rioting" in the U.S.? Sorry. In my mind in that context "riots" and "violent reactions" were synonymous. I defer to your greater knowledge of the facts. In my limited knowledge of the situation I may well have overstated the significance of the so call riots. A riot is a riot, regardless of who the rioters are. The Christian crazies tend to have whiter skin? Whatever other point(s) you made that you want a response from me - I'll give you a blanket concession.The bad reactions by Christian (and whomever else) crazies will provoke bad reactions by Muslim crazies. And the grand feedback loop continues.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Spelling error in subtitle.

Minnemooseus responds to me:

quote:

---

But do you think the South Park cartoon could have triggered "rioting" in the U.S.?

---

No.

quote:

---

The bad reactions by Christian (and whomever else) crazies will provoke bad reactions by Muslim crazies.

---

Really?Nobody's in front of the Embassy Suites protesting Bill Keller's little group specifically and deliberately designed to be a Christian smack-down of Islam. He'll be meeting there every Sunday to denounce Muslims as pedophiles until he can get the $8M he needs to build his "9/11 Christian Center" so as to do it every day.Those poor, put-upon Christians...having to put up with no mobs of angry people outside their indoctrination centers.

For a couple reasons. 1, building a shrine to celebrate the terrorist attacks on ground zero is not a far fetched idea. That obviously has nothing to do with religion, and shouldn't be allowed.
2, where the hell did all that money come from?I find it hard to discern the objectives of any religious group jar, including Christians. Religion can be a mask. While there is a separation of church and state, that doesn't excluded them from the law.With all the attention they are getting, and the accusations, doesn't it just make good sense to make sure they are for real, and harmless? It would be stupid to not check them out. Just like all the other stupid mistakes our government has made.

Which means absolutely nothing. It is a terrorists job to hide in plain sight. (not saying he is one or isn't) But like I was saying to jar, it makes sense to investegate further to calm everyone down.WTF is the problem? If they are clean, they have nothing to worry about. People get investigated all the dam time, over stupid shit. there obviously is a stir, and it should be governments job to calm the people down. Make sure, this way there can be no " I told you so"

Stupidest thing you ever said.

Some of that money came from the same place Fox News' money came from--a Saudi sheik. But he must be okay, since Fox has not denounced him.Fox did a fine segment where they agonized about the Saudi funding, in the darkest terms, without revealing he owned a good piece of their sorry butts: talk about having it both ways.Of course, some of that money came from the Christians, Jews, and just regular Muslim Americans who support the center.Nobody ever seems to wonder where Christian money came from...Edited by Omnivorous, : HR/LF

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

An intense investigation of Beck, Limbaugh and Palin would calm me considerably.Oh, and, um...you.That okay with you?

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

Damn good thing no one is doing that then, so that is certain;y not a reason to investigate them.BUT, I also see nothing wrong with some group doing that if they wanted to.There is a thing called the Constitution you know and it covers Freedom of Speech.It is not the speech that we like and approve of that we should fight to protect. Where does any development money come from? Why should this group be under the kindly gaze of Homeland Security just because they are doing urban renewal? HUH?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!