Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
Sun News, Aug.14th, 2010 – Slater then grabbed two bottles of beer, pulled the lever to activate the inflatable escape chute and hurled himself down it.
CFRA, Aug.14th, 2010 – U.S. President Barack Obama is in favour of building mosque near Ground Zero. The place of worship is slated to be constructed a short distance from the site of the former World Trade Centre, destroyed nine years ago by terrorists in hijacked airplanes. Obama made the comments at a White House dinner Friday night, to mark the beginning of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month.
Related!
Update: Is there nothing that Obama can’t do? As has been noted elsewhere, all his statements come with an expiry date. All of them.
President Barack Obama on Saturday sought to defuse the controversy over his remarks on plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero, insisting that he wasn’t endorsing the specific project but making a general plea for religious tolerance toward all.
American culture is, one way or another, business culture, and our business is service. Once we were a great industrial nation. Now we are a service economy. Which means we are forced to interact with each other, every day, in person and by phone and email. And it’s making us all a little mad.
I’m not sure we’ve fully noted the social implications of the shift from industry to service. We used to make machines! And steel! But now we’re always in touch, in negotiation. We interact so much, we wear each other down. We wear away the superego and get straight to the id, and what we see isn’t pretty.
Here’s why. At the same time we were shifting, in the past 30 years, to the more personal economy of service, we were witnessing and took part in a revolution in manners. We tore them down as too fancy, or sexist, or ageist, or revealing of class biases. Just when we needed more than ever the formality and agreed-upon rules of manners to act as guard rails, we threw them aside. And now no one knows how to act anymore.
The result is that everyone is getting on everyone’s nerves. We’re all snapping the bins shut on each other’s heads. Everyone wants to tell the boss to take this job and shove it. Everyone wants to take a good, hard, last look at the customer and take the chute.
more at http://www.peggynoonan.com/
Speaking of pathological narcissists….
The REAL election fraud was in 2000…and then again in 2004.
BTJ, Media Matters is going to cut you loose from the payroll if you don’t do better than that. That was actually their 2004 talking point.
You must be a veteran troll. Get with the times.
As I have said “this is an Act of Stupid” by a fool. This was “Staged” to win Muslim votes… a teaching lesson
If I was a Muslim I would be pissed because it sends a totally false message that Religion has a 1st amendment RIGHT that suspends “home Rule”. The development/community Boards control building permits & licensing such that a conflict with the existing community are avoided. Only a Corrupt Mayor would suspend the normal process where objections MUST be addressed before issuing a permit.
Why would a Muslim not feel aggrieved if the lies he is told by the Marxists don’t fit the real USA world. What other issues/lies are used to create anger in the Muslim Community
Example:
It would be ridicules to think that the City of Emerald, Cal (developed by Gays) would have to issue multiple building permits to Churches that are active in gay bashing
Ok great point, I love Obama and will embrace Socialism & Islam now.
Do you know of any mosques in Canada that will take and sell my kids as “domestic servants” then shipped to the Middle East?
Proceeds can go to Laraza in the US to help kick out all the people of European heritage and give back to the “indigenous” Mexican’s of “not” Spanish, French, German, and Portugese, liniage.
Six flags over Texas is a sham and Mexico really is an ancient society who rightfully owns the continent. Thanks.
I believe in freedom of religion too and think a tribute to King Leonidas and all the Persians he killed should go next to the mosque.
“Tonight, we dine in HELL”.
Manitoba Moose >
Great point – But – I doubt many Jihadi Muslims have a clue of any real history beyond the bombing of the Liberty.
If you want to piss them off aside from building Benji’s Koshir Deli and Freedom Center next door, you post advertisements directed at Muslim women. As in the benefits of getting an education and dating western men. He he that gets em every time………
What needs to be set up next door to the Cordoba Victory Mosque is a combination Orthodox Synagogue/Baptist Missionary HQ/strip joint/pig farm/gay bar/U.S. Military Recruitment Centre/ stray dog sanctuary/radical lesbo-feminist hippy conciousness-raising crash-pad/nudist colony/Hindu Temple. With a big statue of Queen Isabella of Castile french kissing W out in front.
If it can happen anywhere, it can happen in Manhattan.
Going directly to the core of the matter the US Constitution does not devolve power to an elite but rather to THE PEOPLE. Right or wrong the WILL OF THE PEOPLE is that the GZ Mosque is not appropriate…..
Policies and actions counter to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE must end now. This mosque must not be erected. Anything else will end bably.
It ain’t right…it ain’t wrong…it just is.
What needs to be setup next door is a pig farm and winery. I’ve heard that sometimes pigs can “accidentally” stray into places of worship and explode into a big mess :O all over the walls!
“BTJ – You’re the fraud, everything about you is fraudulent, and your here because you’ve been ignored where ever it is you came from; even your own can’t abide your pomposity, and the drivel you jabber on about.”
A GWB fan I presume…and a psychologist as well? Speaking of drivel..refreshing to receive such a valuable response from a GWB supporter :-S
“BTJ, Media Matters is going to cut you loose from the payroll if you don’t do better than that. That was actually their 2004 talking point.
You must be a veteran troll. Get with the times.”
Huh? Were you going to explain how the 2000 and 2004 elections weren’t fraudulent? Or were you only interested in providing empty comments?
“If I was a Muslim I would be pissed because it sends a totally false message that Religion has a 1st amendment RIGHT that suspends “home Rule”.”
What are you talking about? The first amendment IS the right to religious freedom!
“Manitoba Moose >
Great point”
That was a great point? You have low standards.
Black Mamba>
Unfortunatly that’s already been tried an has proven not to work – it’s called the UN, and they are right next door………
Typical troll! ROTFLMAO!
You brought up the subject, you provide the proof. otherwise, it’s your comments that are empty.
Remember, your measly paycheck from Media Matters depends on it!
Your comments remain without valid argumentation – eloquent or not.
– ET
Please elaborate, give examples, quote me and prove it.
Argumentation is a line of reasoning.
You are seriously telling me I show no line of reasoning?
Are you really that defeated that you resort to fabricating accusations?
Common ET prove it that I show no line of reasonning.
I’ll be waiting.
( although I expect a lot of lying, cheating and out of context excerpts…)
…
I never said that the narcissism theory was mine alone
-ET
You certainly can write well but your comprehension level is at about the sixth grade level!!!
I never said you claimed it was yours, I said people are under the impression it is yours because you write so well about it.
Since you could NOT tell the difference, it seems you do not reason very well…and you can not see the obvious line of reasoning in my comments…
(all signs of an ordinary IQ.)
…
ET,
Considering I still paid you a very nice and very sincere compliment on your ability to write very well, mocking my average score on maths ( the only category where I am not off the charts) is childish pettyness on your side.
I paid you a sincere compliment and in return you are condesending and mocking me.
Thank you for showing everyone I’m the one with grace and you are not.
…
And to those who repeat the urban legend that says people with IQ never mention their high IQ.
Do you also beleive that people who won a gold medal at the olympic never EVER mention it? and this is the ultimate proof they really won a medal at the olympics?
Geeze you people are worse than I expected!!!
All my life people have tried to ridicule me for having a high IQ.
All my life people have ask why is it I can not find a cure for cancer or fly like superman…
this only shows they are not intelligent enough to understand wath high intelligence is about.
Einstein was neither the greatest violinist in the world, the greatest olympic athlete on the planet nor could he cure cancer.
But according to you people, this means his IQ was not as high as people say it is.
Keep it up.
It only confirms everything I have said in this thread.
I said I’d be ridiculed and mocked by less intelligent people.
I said people don’t understand what high intelligence is about.
My predictions were all right.
So far I’m still ahead by a mile over any of you who are trying to belittle me.
I’m still polite, I still show grace and yes I show modesty.
So ET where are the quotes of me showing no line of reasoning?
I’m waiting…
Let’s face it, there is a reason that the Islamization of the west is least prominent in the US over the other sheepish liberal western countries. And it’s not because Islam dosen’t want to come in mass, it is because of fear.
They are cowards at heart and rightfully fear the backlash of armed American citizens who may wake up too quickly to the stealth Jihad around them. Hence the quite Muslim communities nestled in protective sanctuaries of Liberal American cities.
If this mosque on ground zero goes ahead, it will definitely be too much too fast for more Americans than white guilt apologists care to have nightmares about.
The US 2010 is a powder keg of racial and religious division thanks in no small measure to the Great Racial divider Barry Soetoro. The mosque is a fuse and Soetoro is the dull spark.
“You brought up the subject, you provide the proof.”
Actually I responded to a claim that the 2008 election was fraudulent.
How about the inaccurate purging of Florida voters by a private company in 2000 (by GWB’s cousin) and the placement of old, faulty voting machines in lower class, democratic voting counties in 2004 as well as inaccurate voter purging.
Now, any proof for election fraud in 2008? Other than the same fraud that happens EVERY election…the winning incumbent not living up to election promises.
FOTUSA >
Right or wrong, a friendly suggestion that you drop it now.
This line of comments has “cracked” beyond debating and is sounding childish on all sides. It’s using up page space and fracturing the thread “Islamic Mosque on ground zero”.
No ill intent implied, just a reminder that sometimes you need to bite your lip and move on.
BTJ >
Google
“Acorn fraudulent voting stations”.
Wow, the real BTJ showed up. Who knew. Hello BTJ. Apparently we have a fair bit in common. But I digress, there is a lot of repetition in the ‘arguments’ being thrown at me.
“The war with Islam is real. All your pseudo-intellectual clap-trap sounds like lawyer-speak. Able to talk around a point without actually taking the issue head on. ”
Okay. And exactly what are you doing here? Believe it or not, you’re engaging in pseudo-intellectual clap-trap discussions. I should ad that I am not engaging in lawyer speak. I am simply stating the facts. If one were to judge by the anger and antagonism directed my way, I must really have hit a nerve. The facts don’t suit you, do they?
“IF they are violating the laws, then, throw them into jail. A nation under the rule of civil and criminal law doesn’t operate in such a simplistic manner. These civil and criminal laws don’t oversee religious beliefs.”
Criminal and civil laws do oversee your behavior and action. You can believe what you want to, but as long as you don’t act on it, its hardly going to have an impact on anyone. The moment they act on it, they will feel the full force of the law. So what exactly is your point? Mere obfuscation?
“Then why are you commenting here since you have, effectively, no arguement about anything.”
Very simple. I am not here to argue about what Islam is or isn’t. God knows there are enough resident scholars of Islam on this site. I am simply here to state the rather obvious fact that US muslim citizens do, under the constitution, have the right to build the mosque. Its not an argument and its not complicated. Its merely a fact of life in the US.
“Why should someone who rejects the reality of Muslim terrorism be permitted to build a mosque in an area devastated by that same terrorism?”
I really don’t know how to respond to that. Maybe you should write to your congressman and ask him to propose a law that will make denial of muslim terrorism a crime akin to holocaust denial in Europe. Until then, he is free to believe what he wants as long as he does not carry out illegal actions. As things stand, you cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of his belief on this topic. What next? Ban the democrats from politics because they are – and I am quoting a majority of SDA contributors here – “America haters”. What people believe is their problem. When they act on it or do anything illegal, then toss them into jail. I think the US has already had this debate ( think Nazi rallies and freedom of expression and belief in Chicago). This is the reality in the US right now. I don’t see the point in debating Islam. Beliefs are irrelevant as long as they dont evolve into illegal action. When they do, the law will take its course.
“Reducing the argument to ‘any citizen can do what he wants’ is illogical, for you are ignoring that the individual is not operating as an isolate entity but as a member of a collective, the Islamic ideology. You ignore this.”
He can believe what he wants. The moment he acts on it or carries out an illegal action, he will be dealt with. Whether I am ignoring this arguments or not, you simply have to accept that under US law, people are entitled to believe what they want as long as these beliefs do not manifest themselves in illegal acts. If they are out to do whatever it is you thtink they are out to do, then they will step across the line, at which point, they will be dealt with. This “guilty until proven innocent” approach that you take is not consistent with US liberties and laws, which, I assume, are the two things that you are trying to protect from the terrorist hordes.
“To equate BDS with pathological narcissism is stupid. The latter is a medically defined psychological syndrome.”
Again, you re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t equate them. I simply equated the mental condition of those who believe in BDS and those who compulsively write long paragraphs detailing how much of a pathological narcissist Obama is.
“To again, reduce the attack to ‘some Muslims were also killed’ ignores that the sole agents of the attack were Islamic fascists.”
And in the Air India bombing, the sole agents of the attacks were Sikh extremists. Does that, in some way, reduce the value of the Sikh lives lost in the attack? I don’t know what you’re getting at here. Am I simply supposed to assume that because an Islamic extremist carried out a terrorist attack, the muslims who died were not victim? Because that suggests that they may have brought it upon themselves. No one is ignoring anything. We know that the the perpetrators were from one religion. And we know that people from several religion were killed. know at least one of these muslims was a NYPD officer who went in to save lives. Presumably, by taking note of the fact that he was a victim, I am ignoring the fact that muslim extremists were behind the attack? You write well, ET, but your logic is not up to scratch.
“The issue is the moral and intellectual legitimacy of an agenda to build a centre devoted to the Islamic religion, an ideology focused on the annihilation of other religions and cultures, in a site that was devastated by that ideology.”
Oh, I see. So Islam is out to annihilate all other religions. If that is the case, why have US lawmakers not banned it altogether. If we are to believe you and some others here, it is an open-and-shut case, is it not? By all means, go and argue your case to US lawmakers. I do not doubt for a second that if ISlam is as dangerous as you claim, it will be dealt with accordingly. Unless, of course, you are smarter than all those elected leadersout there. And by virtue of democracy, smarter than all of the people who elected them. In which case, you might as well accept that the dumb people have won and that the world is doomed. No point arguing it on SDA.
“Your red herring that it’s all about ‘equal citizenship rights’ is bs; the issue is the moral and intellectual legitimacy of such an action.”
Call it what you want. I tend to call it the US legal system. The moral and intellecutal legitimacy argument is sort of undermined by your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that 9/11 had muslim victims who were uninterested in annihilating other religions or taking over the world. You try to pass off your beliefs as fact, but that doesn’t make them fact.
Well, I guess that the only good thing to come out of 9/11 was that it led to the nail in the coffin for Obama’s presidency. Look for his approval ratings to plummet.
“Acorn fraudulent voting stations”
Obama won by a LANDSLIDE! ACORN was guilty of multiple registrations, something common with all forms of voter registration.
“Apparently we have a fair bit in common”
It appears we do.
“I am simply here to state the rather obvious fact that US muslim citizens do, under the constitution, have the right to build the mosque”
Keep it coming..keep the simple but oh so powerful facts coming! They can’t fight it.
Knight 99,
I’ll listen to your advice and stop because I’m a gentleman,
but I must mention the following facts.
The first annoying if not childish comment was ET saying I post inanities ( Silly/lacking sense ) and I babble ( Meaningless silly talk )
It was childish and insulting.
Then the 2 very childish replies were from Black Mamba.
Then ET turned to childish pettyness ( and ludicrous accusations ).
Not one of my comments were childish, especially compared to Black Mamba’s.
If there was a little childishness in my replies it is them who dragged me down to their level.
And I still maintain that one can still call himself tolerant if he refuses to tolerate people who are intolerant of him and his religion.
Now that is a clear and valid line of reasonning.
“The goals of Islam are no different than the goals of the Third Reich”
Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies!
“But if so then it follows that you support the right of Japanese citizens who are also citizens of USA to build and fund a museum about Japanese military exploits on the site of Pearl Harbour. AND you support right of Sikhs who are also citizens of Canada to build a temple on the site of the Air India bombing.”
Yes, I do. Given that the Air India bombings had several Sikh victims, I don’t see the issue. And given that the Japanese Americans, whose families were interned, served in, and I repeat, THE MOST DECORATED UNIT IN THE US MILITARY IN WWII, I see no reason to not build a memorial to Japanese American military exploits in WWII. 21 Medal of Honors and 9500+ Purple Hearts in a unit that only had 3000 men at any time is worht commemorating. In pure statistics, that means that over a 3.5 year period, 90% of the unit suffered injuries or death each year. Why is that wrong? Because the Imperial Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? What does that have to do with Japanese Americans? And why should it take away from the Japanese American contribution to the US. Pearl Harbor resulted in the internment of the Japanese. Yet these brave soldiers went out there and fought for the US, even though their families were being treated like spies and criminals. I see no reason to not commemorate their bravory and willingness to fight for the US. And I don’t think any Pearl Harbor or US war vet will be offended by such a memorial. Just as, I am sure, no HIndu would mind a Sikh temple near an Air India memorial, given that Sikhs were among the passengers killed. I don’t see what is so offensive about this all. I can only assume that by virtue of the Imperial Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we should refrain from recognizing the heroism of Japanese Americans? I don’t htink its fair to blame or punish Japanese Americans for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The wierdest part of your argument is that you didn’t think it through. By extension, you are effectively arguing that we should remove the names of all German and Italian Americans from WWII memorials in Europe because the US was at war with Germany and Italy. Baffling.
“incapable of reason and evaluation.”
Impressive. You quoted ET without giving him credit for it. Plagiarism, even.
While I am at it, I should remind all of you that you needn’t bother with the personal insults. I really don’t care. I may be stupid. I may be smart. Such is life.
“What did everyone think was happening when Obamba bowed in submission to the Wahabi Saudi King?”
Not much. I thought it was a bit of achange from GWB holding the Saudi King’s hand and giving him a kiss on the cheek. Personally, I prefer the bowing over the hand-holding and kissing due to hygiene reasons.
Devils Advocate>
It’s funny, most “lefties” I meet will always use the term “I’ll play devils advocate” air thier true feelings in plain view, but allow themselves an escape mechanism when the argument dosen’t go thier way. A point of observation anyway.
You have made your point loud and clear that “Muslims have a legal right to build a mosque on ground zero”.
I’m not sure anyone here has ever disputed that “legal right”?
The key points here have been around the tastelessness, and the obvious in your face insult to America as a flame war. Why ground zero for intance, the US is a big country after all? The point is about bieng insulting period and everyone knows it. To say otherwise is really either the act of an agent provocateur, or a simpleton who is extremely naive about the world around them. I believe your comments about Japanese memorials at pearl harbor and other apologist comments for the white European Christian establishment clearly show the mindset you dwell in.
Knowing that, there is no point of debate or comment with you by any of the SDAers that believe that building a mosque on ground zero is inflammatory and insulting. You would rather see more inflamed emotions, and the inevitable violence it will bring. Relax it’s coming, let’s just hope the world you wish for is as accommodating as the one you’ve shunned. Cheer, I’m out.
“high IQ does not mean a high capacity for logic or reasoning.”
Clearly not, since said poster (FOUSA) used the imaginary word ‘greatfull’
-said BTJ
The importance you give to my typo only shows how little you understand about logic, reasonning and IQ.
Just as I predicted.
2 points for me,
0 for BTJ
…
Knight 99,
Why was I asked to stop but ET and Black Mamba were not?
I think I know…
“You would rather see more inflamed emotions, and the inevitable violence it will bring.”
Because the opposite scenario, eg. Waco Tx, was such a success right?
If all you chalk 9/11 up to is ‘Islam’ then you’re looking through a might narrow lens.
My choice of monicker has no real meaning. I don’t particularly care if you think I am a leftie or a rightie or an in-betweenie. They’re all rather tiresome labels.
“Why ground zero for intance”
For some reason, I have been under the impression that this mosque is being built in some kind of interfaith zone at ground zero with other religious centers around. If this is not the case, then I can’t understand why nobody has mentioned it in their lengthy “intellectual” diatribes aimed at me.
“I believe your comments about Japanese memorials at pearl harbor and other apologist comments for the white European Christian establishment clearly show the mindset you dwell in.”
What comments for white European Christian establishment? I have no idea what you are talking/writing about.
My mindset is not that difficult to decipher. I draw the line between perpetrators and victims. I am, as you rightly point out, guilty of not holding Japanese Americans who served in the US military in WWII as being responsible for Pearl Harbor. Its not complicated. In the same way, I don’t hold the American muslims who died on 9/11 responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Do you think they are?
“Knowing that, there is no point of debate or comment with you by any of the SDAers that believe that building a mosque on ground zero is inflammatory and insulting.”
Let me put it this way. Most of you will go falling over yourselves to protect the freedom of speech and expression of people who put forth provocative material – the cartoons or South Park or whatever. Fair enough. You are, after all, legally entitled to do so. By an extension of the very same logic, American muslims have a right to freedom of expression which, in this case, is manifesting itself as a ‘provocative’ mosque. I am merely pointing out the obvious here. If you, as an American citizen, have the right to express yourself as you wish, even if others find it provocative, then so do other American citizens. Now, before you accuse me of any type of relativism, I think you should accept the basic fact underlying it all: the provocative material was produced in the name of the right to do so and so and the freedom to do so and so. This mosque is being built on the basis of hose same freedoms and rights.
Now don’t get me wrong. If you have an issue with it, buy the land next to it and build a museum to highlight all the evils of Islam right next to it. Nobody is stopping you. And if you are really so concerned about the funding, then maybe you’ll think twice about consuming so much oil – a lot of that money does go to the funders of these mosques. You can’t have your SUV and not enrich the crooks.
Just saying.
You are deficient in that?
Agaim ET showing her very poor comprehesion skills.
I’m NOT deficient in mathematics, I’m above average in Maths but NOT off the charts as I am in all other categories.
I was being honest that is all.
You keep pulling stuff out of you a** because you have nothing else on me.
Goodnight.
A very entertaining topic. Great energetic banter. Clearly people are emotionally concerned. It’s a good thing.
I’m with O’Reilly on this one. There won’t be one union crew within three states that will touch the construction of such a mosque. If construction every starts on the site there might be enough new material once the dust settles for a “Sopranos” movie. The decision to build a “Ground Zero” mosque is what the British term “Bad Form”…which to them is unforgivable idiocy. For the Wiz of ‘O to openly support such a project is tantamount to announcing that he’s not really American after all. Maybe there’s something to the citizenship thing after all.
By the way, ET, your comments are RIGHT ON! As usual. It’s always a joy to read your insightful comments. Keep on truck’n, master commenter.
In my opinion Obama’s publicly demonstrated narcissism is rising in comparison to levels inhabited by the most loathsome dictators in history. Didn’t Obama say it was up to him to “save” America during the election run-up? Just think what he could do without the US Constitution?
It’s all good news for the Repubs. The more Obama says now the more harm is done to the Dems. A vote is still a vote. As for the Wiz of O’, there will always be a talk show host job for him waiting on Oprah’s new cable network.
He’s now only a couple of months away from officially becoming a lame-duck presidency.
Excuss the odd typo, I’m traveling and using and iPod to post, big pain in the butt.
Anyway Devils Advocate – you lable yourself a “lefty” by your typical “lefty” arguments, via protectionism for Islam as some saintly victim caught up with a few bad apples who simply wish to innocently build a massive monument of thier faith at the spot where many if not most American’s see the beginning of WW3. Right or wrong it’s the reality of the situation.
I brought up the term White European Apologist, because that’s where all your argument have led. Japanese internment, Air India bombing memorials? Why not talk about a tribute to Amercia at ground zero in Heroshima, to coin an example of rediculous? Well that would be offensive wouldn’t it. Let’s not bring up the tragedies and horrors that the Japanese Imperial armies inflicted upon China, South East Asia and the allied service personell throughout the war. Atrocities to be frank, yet you stated that due to internments within the US a Japanese memorial would be quite ok at Pearl Harbor.
Do you not realize that that makes you an apologist? Do you not realize that you are making arguments for almost anyone who is not White Christian establishment? You have argued with flawed reasoning for the sympathy of every barbaric culture but your own, giving it’s feelings none.
Who in thier right mind could take you or your “arguments” seriously.
I fail to see how disagreeing with you makes is the equivalent of protecting Islam. I don’t give a damn about Islam, one way or the other.
If this mosque is being built in an inter-faith zone, I don’t see the issue. So far, no one here has indicated that this is not the case. If it is in an interfaith zone, I feel that there is room to believe that the builders are not trying to be provocative.
Besides, the provocative angle only offers a vague and weak defence. The constitution guarantees certain rights and freedoms to all US citizens regardless of caste and creeds. These freedoms are routinely cited when some Americans exhibit material that is provocative to certain groups/religions. I must once again point out that you are not necessarily disagreeing with me, but rather with the consitution of the US, mostly because it gives every US citizen – muslim or non-muslim – the right to be provocative under the tenets of freedom of speech and expression.
“Let’s not bring up the tragedies and horrors that the Japanese Imperial armies inflicted upon China, South East Asia and the allied service personell throughout the war. Atrocities to be frank, yet you stated that due to internments within the US a Japanese memorial would be quite ok at Pearl Harbor.”
I would advise you to read what I write more carefully. And please avoid putting words in my mouth. Here, let me spell it out for you.
I said it would be okay to build a memorial to Japanese American military personnel at Pearl Harbor memorial. Japanese American. Not Japanese. Japanese American. What did the Japanese Americans do for America? The 442nd Infantry regiment, staffed almost entirely by Japanese Americans, served in Italy, South France and Germany. It earned 21 Medal of Honors (all Japanese Americans), over 50 Distinguished Service Crosses and 18,000+ medals in total. It is, and I am tired of repeating myself the MOST DECORATED UNIT in the US MILITARY. I DID NOT say we should have the memorial on the basis of the interment. I mentioned the internment to highlight the selflessness and bravery of the Japanese American men who fought for the US military, despite the fact that their families were being interned and treated as second-class citizens. It takes some conviction and a lot of devotion to fight for a country that is treating your family as a second-class citizen. These men did. They contributed to the US war effort. NOT the Japanese War effort. Why is it so wrong to build a memorial to Japanese Americans at Pearl Harbor? Are we to hold the Japanese Americans responsible for the attack in Pearl Harbor? Were they consulted by the Imperial Japanese Government? You can accuse me of being a White European Apologist all you want, but your point blank refusal to acknowledge the contribution of Japanese Americans to the US war effort in WWII speaks volumes in itself.
The problem with your logic is the same as the problem with ella’s logic. If we think it is insulting to put a memorial to Japanese AMERICAN troops at Pearl Harbor because of the actions of the Imperial Japanese forces, the logical extension is that we omit the names of German and Italian Americans who fought in Europe because of the atrocities that were committed by the German and Italian armies. I completely disagree with this approach, because I am as grateful for the contributions of the German and Italian Americans as I am for any soldier who fought in the Allied war effort, be he Japanese American, South African or Indian. Does that make me a White European Apologist?
“Do you not realize that you are making arguments for almost anyone who is not White Christian establishment?”
Still fail to see what you are getting at. The White Christian Establishment places an onus on the inherent equality of all human beings (NOT beliefs) and provides to human beings certain rights, freedoms and priviliges. Correct?
Now, each country has its constitution that guarantees these rights, freedoms and priviliges to the country’s citizens. Think US constitution.
What we have in this case, is a group of US muslim citizens exercising the rights provided to them by Western Christian establisment and guaranteed to them by the US constitution. They are, essentially, exercising the same rights and freedoms that any other US citizen can exercise. I am not arguing that we should give muslims more rights (or less rights, for that matter). I am arguing that US muslims have certain rights and these have to be respected regardless of their religious beliefs – at least until a law comes into place to change this. The upholding of rights is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the Western Christian Establishment and the US constitution. ALL US citizens have certain rights, and the US muslims building this mosque are not overstepping their rights.
Whether it is provocative or not is a separate issue. Freedom of expression and speech have been used to justify a lot of provocative material directed at any number of groups and religions. Why, then, are you so shocked that a muslim group is using those rights to justify what you, and several others here, claim is a provocative act. Do these rights only apply to non-Muslims? If you want that to be the case, write to your congressman.
Till then, I suggest you read things carefully and think things through – perhaps even try to respond, instead of reacting.
“Who in thier right mind could take you or your “arguments” seriously.”
People who read carefully, I hope.
Yea, yea around we go.
We will just need to wait and see how this “legally ok” mosque will pacify the the American public.
I’m still not even close to understanding how or why you’ve chosen to make a debate about the legal ramifications of a grand mosque on ground zero verses the sensibilities of it.
I suppose some people will argue anything, especially when thier fallback position is the constitution which no one has counter argued.
Regardless my stance or argument remains unchanged. That the building of this mosque is going to lead to violence and more bitter feelings by American’s towards Muslims.
The argument of constitutional right is moot and no one has ever disagreed with it, so then it becomes a fabricated argument. One that allows you to take a moral high road as if the constitution was the argument “write your congressman”.
yea ok.
Still…
After all is said and written..
It is hard to imagine President/General Dwight D. Eisenhower telling the American people in 1954-
“I have no problem with the Japanese building a 30 million dollar Buddhist Temple approximately 400 yards away from the Arizona battleship memorial.”
–
–
–
Its not the religion.
Its the building.
Sherman,
I’m sure Obamba’s sensibilities and finger on the nations pulse will play out marvelously this coming November.
Those crickets you hear in the oval office these days are really democrats on little cell phones begging for his public support.
“I’m still not even close to understanding how or why you’ve chosen to make a debate about the legal ramifications of a grand mosque on ground zero verses the sensibilities of it.”
Pretty much on the same grounds as the ones used to justify the Christ in urine exhibit in the US. Freedom of expression and speech, which implicitly allows individuals to engage in provocative exercises. Simple as.
“That the building of this mosque is going to lead to violence and more bitter feelings by American’s towards Muslims.”
Maybe. Maybe not. That same argument could be justified to ban the publishing of those Danish cartoons – “lead to violence and more bitter feelings by Muslims towards (whoever)”. At the end of the day, both the cartoons and this mosque are being built on the basis of the same rights and freedoms. Since the US consitution gives the same rights to all US citizens regardless of religion, this should hardly come as surprise. In other words, if you suppor the publishing of cartoons/literature/symbols/speeches that are provocative to some groups, then you really can’t complain much if some of those groups use the same rights and laws to do something that you deem provocative – even insulting.
I believe in freedom of speech and expression regardless of the provocation value. Best let everything out in the open, instead of leaving it to fester in hidden areas.
DA – I think it amusing that you state that the issue of the mosque, being one of provocation, is inconsequential given that you post here simply to provoke. As an agent provocateur, of the passive aggressive type, and a self identified psychologist, one would think you would be cognitive of the fact that you are projecting your hatred of white Christians onto to those that oppose a mega mosque. As a psychologist, I am sure you were educated about the dangers of transference and how to guard oneself so as not to transfer ones own experience/sentiments/beliefs onto a persons or groups. It is obvious by your comments that you have failed and are actively transferring. In so doing, you have sub-consciously and consciously aligned yourself with Islams ideology which has a strong and organized anti-white christian establishment belief system -so much so that paradise is offered to any member of this ideology that beheads a Christian or Jew. Time to clean your lens.
Americans have just as much of a right to oppose the mosque at ground zero as Islamists have in wanting to build at that location. As a matter of fact the majority – 70% of Americans oppose the mosque at the proposed location and have every right to oppose and speak out against it.
I find it highy hypocritical that the same persons who are aligning themselves with Islam and the “right” to build a mosque at the 911 memorial site are also the same ones who oppose perfectly legal developments for environmental reasons, and loudly speak out against houses being built where trees once stood; even going so far as to place spikes in trees and lay down in front of dozers. What is the difference? There is none, although it is perfectly legal to build houses on land that was purchased, environmentalists have absolutely no qualms about speaking out against these legal developments and organizing themselves to stop said developments, with the msm’s approval I might add, and when they are successful they break out the champaign. I would not be surprised if you share this duplicity in thinking.
Now I remember why I stopped coming here.
The trolls and the police state editors.
Oh yeah and DEATH TO ISLAM!
I’ve never advocated banning the Danish cartoons, nor “artistic” expressions such as “The Christ in Urine”. As a matter of fact I have agreed that the Mosque on ground zero has every legal basis to be built there.
What I find amusing is that some people don’t see a bigger ramification than a few loudspeakers blaring away 5 times a day across the street from the World Trade Center.
As far as violence, well I guess we will just need to wait and see. Now that Americas own “Nobel Prize” winning fraudster is expanding his war into Yeman, while consolidating his navy around the Straites of Hormuze, things should relax on the Islamic front.
In the end who can argue that a massive Islamic mosque built on the ruins of World Trade Center is every bit as passive as building it in say New Jersey?
Well again, only time is going prove out this theory of “spiritual bonding” of Christian & newly landed Muslim Americans through this mosque, along with the Liberals idealistic marriage of the American Constitution & Islamic ideology.
Sounds sweet anyway dosen’t it? I’ll stick to my own theories as too how it will eventually go over, you stay on your’s (that’s right they have a constitutional right to build a mosque…..)
November will indeed be interesting.
For the record, I was against the Draw Muhammad Day because I sensed that something was not quite right and suspected that it could be a set-up and used against Americans to prove their “bigotry” “racism” and “Islamophobia” effectively destroying all the work of those that have been making headway against the HRC’s attempt to silence and force every Canadian to become PC here in Canada, and I felt the event would do nothing to preserve free speech in the the states which has been fiercely under attack by the Islamist community (how hypocrital is that?). I thought it way too coincidental that the comedy central South Park debacle coupled with prime time drama’s that aired serendipitously that had a Muslim cartoon and/or terrorist and bomb themes/plots, despite them being taped months in advance, along with the conveniently “failed” bomb attempt/scare in times square – these all screamed provocation and incitement to me. Thankfully, the American public did not bite or the Islamists would have been able to erect this mega Mosque without so much as a peep from the public due to proof of their own “violence” and/or “Islamophobia”. The timing of all of these events and the announcement of the mega mosque can not be ignored, in my view. The PR for the mosque actually tried to use the cartoons as proof that Americans are racist and Islamophobic – it did not fly because the “Draw Muhammad Day” turned out to be a non-consequential event.
DA is decidedly Christianophobic and Whiteophobic.
Devil’s: I must say, what a relief to read a rational, reasoning mind around here.
Agree with you and sherman.
People have a right to DISAGREE with the Mosque and voice that disagreement, but they don’t have a right to OPPOSE it. To oppose it is to both disagree and attempt to prevent/obstruct it. That being said, one must also present a logical argument for their disagreement if the rational person is to take them seriously.
“the building of this mosque is going to lead to violence and more bitter feelings by American’s towards Muslims.”
Whether or not it ‘provokes anger and violence’ is a matter that concerns the philosophical and psychological well being of American citizens, not the people building the mosque.
In regards to the decision itself, to build the Mosque in that spot, I can’t think of an instance where pushing social issues we don’t like to confront into corners has come to any good, it certainly doesn’t foster progress. Is progress not desirable?
I’m interested to know how people feel about Christian missionaries working around the world?
“In the end who can argue that a massive Islamic mosque built on the ruins of World Trade Center is every bit as passive as building it in say New Jersey?”
No one is arguing that, I certainly didn’t read that anymore.
“Well again, only time is going prove out this theory of “spiritual bonding” of Christian & newly landed Muslim Americans through this mosque, along with the Liberals idealistic marriage of the American Constitution & Islamic ideology.”
It’s not like it’s the only Mosque in the city, in fact there’s one a few blocks away.
“I’m still not even close to understanding how or why you’ve chosen to make a debate about the legal ramifications of a grand mosque on ground zero verses the sensibilities of it.”
Do you not believe that the American Constitution represents one of the, if not the, greatest advancements in individual freedom?
“I have agreed that the Mosque on ground zero has every legal basis to be built there. What I find amusing is that some people don’t see a bigger ramification than a few loudspeakers blaring away 5 times a day across the street from the World Trade Center.”
“Americans have just as much of a right to oppose the mosque at ground zero as Islamists have in wanting to build at that location.”
THAT’S JIM TAGGART RIGHT THERE…this ‘support’ of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, meanwhile playing into the role of her antagonists, is degrading to be quite frank. You want the benefits of freedom only if it applies to you, if it applies to something that disagrees with you, it must be opposed.
DA/BTJ – I suspect you are one and the same, but i digress. Poppycock – as if you would not oppose your house being bulldozed to make way for a freeway. Yes, one does have a right to oppose anything they want. What you fear is the power of public opinion. Answer this – do you think it is okay for environmentalists and organizations like Greenpeace to oppose legal developments including the oil sands? Why bother having an official opposition party in government if opposition is not a right? That is the lamest argument I have ever heard par none. The environmentalists have opposed and stopped and/or forced revisions to plans in many developments due to public pressure, so it will be with the mega mosque location – another site is being offered as a compromise, if it is not accepted than the whole – we want to build a sensitivity bridge will be exposed for what it is – a lie and an attempt to build a victory mosque next door to the gravesite of those who were murdered by this same group. The site location is radical/extreme and mirrors the intent of the group. If your children were murdered – would you want a monument to their murderer built next to their gravesite in the name of tolerance and understanding? Would you be okay with the monument being named after another one of the murderers many victims? That is exactly what is being proposed and people rightly oppose such a thing – in fact, ones conscience demands it.
“In the end who can argue that a massive Islamic mosque built on the ruins of World Trade Center is every bit as passive as building it in say New Jersey?”
“No one is arguing that, I certainly didn’t read that anymore.”
Exactly. That was sarcasm if you read it again, and you proved it’s point, by agreement. The point again is that you don’t get the bigger picture.
No worries it will most definitely sort itself out, every bit as much as Obamba is proving his worthyness as predicted on SDA before Jan 2009.
BTJ >
“I’m interested to know how people feel about Christian missionaries working around the world?”
For the record, I could care less, it’s thier necks. I say close the borders so that each country can sort out its own individual mess. Until of course each can deal with each other in civility and bring something to the table aside from a hand out. Stop all taxation aid and if the tree huggers and god squad wish to go play with the natives, they can do it on thier own dime and with thier own time. We can look after ourselves, and with a little less “help” from the do-gooders and the cons they enrich, so will everyone else. Eventually that is.
You asked.
DA/BTJ (you are the same person; you write the same way). You declare that you believe in nothing, which is an illogical statement because if you genuinely felt that way you would not be making the single view comments you make here. How about some logical reasoning?
Your red herring diversions (German, Japanese American soldiers, Muslim 9-11 victims) and ‘tu quoque’ and ‘false analogy’ comments (Christian missions) are argumentative fallacies. They are diversions from the real issue.
Equally illogical is your failure to recognize the difference between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ and ‘dicto simpliciter’. Because some form of behaviour is legally valid does not mean that the behaviour ought to be carried out.
Because there IS freedom of religious expression, does not mean that its expression OUGHT to be located at any time or place. Your error lies in focusing exclusively only on the ‘is’ (the legal right) and concluding erroneously that ‘ought’ is seamlessly bonded. Not true. The morality of ‘ought’ is not bonded to the mere existential nature of ‘is’.
The mosque can legally be built there but that is not the issue. The issue is whether it ought to be built there and the answer to this can’t be to revert to the ‘is’ – which would be a modus ponens fallacy (reversing the two statements). You can’t say that because it ‘is’ legal (descriptive), then it ‘ought’ to be done (prescriptive).
The arguments focused on ‘ought’ are moral, contextual and historical. First, does this mosque address any of these issues?
Does it acknowledge the reality of the attack, which was carried out by Islamic fascists? How? Does it seek to reduce Islamic fascism? How?
Does it acknowledge the necessity for changing Islamism and modernizing it? How?
Does it promote interfaith knowledge? How?
The answer, to my knowledge, is that it carries out none of these actions. It is confined to Muslims, its imam is a radical who refuses to acknowledge the reality of Islamic fascism and it has no programs of reducing extremism. Therefore, ought it to be set up on this location? Why? No – don’t try the ‘is’ tactic; you have to acknowledge the ‘ought’.
Like you, dizzy, I’ve been trying to figure out the juxtaposition of Slater and Obama. Reading (most of) these comments I’ve come up with a few similarities (besides planes):
Both are narcissistic to the nth degree.
Both show adolescent tendencies (related to above observation), considering themselves to be the centre of the universe: look at me! look at me!.
Both are out of touch with reality (Slater wants his job back! Obama seems to think he’s actually doing the job of the POTUS.)
Both seem to be gay: Slater has a lisp, a hip swivel, and a boyfriend and Obama has a (veiled) past and Michelle, who obviously wears the pants in the family.
Boys just want to have fu-un.
The US 2010 is a powder keg of racial and religious division thanks in no small measure to the Great Racial divider Barry Soetoro. The mosque is a fuse and Soetoro is the dull spark.
Bang on Knight, Obama and the MSM have done so much racial and religious damage to the fabric of US’s society. It’s clear pandering to Political Islam needs to stop, if Muslims want to be equal that’s great but stop treating them with a level of supremacy because we are afraid they’ll get violent. Nothing but complete surrender will appease the Wahhabist, and frankly I have no desire to surrender to a medieval fake religion designed by an Islamic nutjob.
This is what some folks think OUGHT to happen:
Mohamed Haroun, an intern at a mechanical engineering firm, said, “What he (Obama) should have said was: ‘This is a community decision. Constitutionally, they have the right to do it, but it’s a community decision and we should see what the local community wants to do.’ ”
Gov. Paterson offered to help the mosque developers find another location. But they rejected the offer, reinforcing suspicion that provocation to the memory of 9/11 is part of the developers’ plan.
Palin also questioned why Obama did not encourage the Cordoba Initiative to accept an offer from New York Gov. David Paterson, who said he would donate state land to the group if they would agree to move further away from Ground Zero.
“Why haven’t they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you (Obama) have described, in agreement with me, as ‘hallowed ground’?” Palin wrote
John Galt; I really appreciated the Peggy Noonan article – I think she wisely pointed out a phenomena that has gone unnoticed by most.
Are we feeding trolls again? Why?
The WTC site is a -burial ground- among other things, which in our culture makes it different than the usual kind of ground. 2000 people died there, hundreds of whom left no remains. Killed by Muslims in an attack on both
Bottom line, Barry made comments that can quite rightly be interpreted as support for a triumphal mosque paid for by America’s enemy, literally on the ashes of American dead.
Now he backs away claiming religious freedom, which is a transparent and cowardly attempt to escape without repudiating his previous statement. So at one fell swoop Barry has managed disloyalty to his country, cowardice, and really astounding political stupidity.
The trolls are forced to be in support of all that by their insane ideology. Sucks to be a troll.
nomdeblog – exactly.
Obama is now trying to back out of his specific comments to the Muslim dinner audience, where he merged ‘is’ and ‘ought’.
He said – beginning with his dusty ‘let me be clear’..that “I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country” and then he added that ‘this includes the right to build a place of worship and community centre on private property in the lower Manhatten”.
He’s now trying to explain that, we, the ignorant, didn’t understand him. Yes we did; we heard exactly what he said.
What ‘is’ and what ‘ought’ to be are not the same, and the latter requires a different type of evaluative judgment, because it must acknowledge morality, ethics, context, history.
Remember, the Nuremberg trials were all about the failure to separate ‘is’ and ‘ought’. Because it was legal to divest Jews of property and enslave and exterminate them, does not mean that it ‘ought’ to have been done.
Because apartheid in SA was legal (is) does not mean that it ought to have been done.
The two actions require different evaluative processes.