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.
devil’s advocate @3:58 – of course, the “Piss Christ” controversy was about government funding of obscene and offensive “art”. Did “Everybody draw Mohammed Day” get a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts? I can’t remember.
(No-One – is he a psychologist? Yeesh. Shrinks; bunch of weirdos; and the -ologists can’t even write you a ‘scrip, so I really don’t see the point of those guys.)
” As an agent provocateur, of the passive aggressive type, and a self identified psychologist”
Provoke? I am putting out a line of argument that, while not consistent with the views of most people here, is ultimately rational and logical. If you get ‘provoked’ by that, well I don’t know what to say. But then again, people get provoked by the strangest things. Also, I am not a self-identified psychologist. I don’t write lengthy diatribes about Obamas narcissism. You may have mistaken me for someone else.
“you are projecting your hatred of white Christians onto to those that oppose a mega mosque.”
Wow. Just wow. You’re a magician. I haven’t got any hatred for White Christians or white people or christians. I don’t hate anyone frankly. And I am almost one hundred percent certain that the opponents of the mosque include colored people and non-Christians in their ranks. So I really don’t know where you are going with this. I can only assume that going against the trend at SDA automatically triggers a knee-jerk reaction in some people over here, who proceed to label everyone disagreeing as “White European apologist” and hater of Christians. Sorry to burst your bubble. I’m not a hater of christians or white people or non-christians or colored people. But, by all means, you are free to convince yourself otherwise.
“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.”
Oh, I see. Now I see where you are coming from. You’re just another one of those SDA types who don’t actually bother reading whats written. Instead you assume, guess and fabricate. If you do bother reading what I’ve written, then you will note that I have said very clearly that those who oppose the mosque can buy the land next to it and build a museum that highlights Islam’s evils. Nothing stopping you at all. If 70% of Americans oppose it, scraping up the money shouldn’t be a problem at all.
“DA is decidedly Christianophobic and Whiteophobic.”
I read and re-read your 6-line opinion piece/argument but there is nothing in there that would allow you to come to the above conclusion, so there’s really no way I can refute it, beyond saying “No, I m not.” Sounds terribly juvenile. If you re going to accuse me of something, at least try to make an effort to provide some basis for it. Or is that asking too much?
“To oppose it is to both disagree and attempt to prevent/obstruct it.”
Well BTJ, I am reluctant to disagree with you, since our resident Obama-diagnosing psychologist (and he/she is really good – managed to diagnose Obama without meeting him) will decide that we have split personality or multiple personality disorder or whatever you want to call it.
That said, they do have a right to oppose it – within the limits of the law. What do I mean? I mean that they have a right to lobby building companies and unions not to do it. They also have a right to ask their congressman to stop it from being built. Whether this opposition will be successful all depends on the legality of the situation at hand. The Congressmen can do nothing to stop it if they deem it legal. Besides, I find it odd that everyone here is only upset with Obama, not with Bloomberg and the city councils, who approved it. IIRC, Bloomberg has very strong links with the Republicans? Is that why he is beyond criticism here?
“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? ”
Again. Is this mosque being built as a memorial to the attackers of 9/11? There is a significant difference between a religious center and a memorial. If they celebrate the attacks of 9/11, then they will be dealt with. However, in the absence of the mosque, and any proof that it will contain memorials celebrating the attacks of 9/11, I suggest we stay true to Western Christian Establishment and avoid minority report style “guilty until proven innocent”. Most of what you write is conjecture, since I am sure Bloomberg and the city councils did their due diligence and concluded that this mosque would not be the first step in some kind of global invasion.
“another site is being offered as a compromise”
But thats exactly the point. If they are equal citizens of the US, why should they have to compromise? I may be the only one on this board, but I do feel the need to draw a distinction between American muslims and the perpetrators of 9/11. I fail to see why American muslims should have to compromise because of the actions taken by a bunch of people who had nothing to do with them, beyond practicing the same religion. This brand of collective guilt is not consistent with US/Western/Christian philosophical or moral doctrines. I’ve noticed that a lot of people here have brought up the Sikh argument over and over again in the Air India case. I don’t see the point. HIndus are hardly offended by the fact that the current Prime Minister of India is Sikh. They hardly hold him and the other Sikhs in India responsible for the Air India bombing. However if we use your logic, then by virtue of being a Sikh, he is unfit for office because of the crimes committed by his coreligionists elsewhere. It makes no sense.
“DA/BTJ (you are the same person; you write the same way).”
Flawless logic. Yes, I noticed that we do write in a similar manner. That doesn’t make us the same. The only difference between our writing style and that used by others here is our apparent ability to use punctuations properly. Beyond that, there’s not much similarity. Maybe we were educated in the same school or college. Regardless, a command of English and fluency with punctuation does not mean we are, well, one person. Don’t believe me? Ask a mod to do an IP check. I can assure you I don’t go running from one location to another to prove anything to you or anyone else here.
“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.”
Well, I understand your automatic need to analyze everything I say – you seem to be some kind of amateur psychologist. I should warn you that those lines are thrown in there to deter people who, as is common on this board, will only respond to what I say by labelling me. When I say I believe in everything and I believe in nothing, I am simply stating that you can accuse me of believing whatever you want to, and apply whatever label you want to (leftie, btj, white european apologist, decidedly christianophobic and whitephobic to name a few) but I don’t care. Maybe I am all those things. Maybe I am not. Who knows. Who cares. Get it?
“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.”
Well, knock the Christian mission bit out, because that was BTJ, not me. But go, explain howw the German, Japanese etc were red herring diversions. Or how they are argumentative fallacies. Or how they divert from the real issue. Because all you have done is throw out some fancy terms without actually explaining how those fancy terms apply. On the basis of this, and this alone, I am almost 100% certain that apart from your amateur psychology hobby, you are an academic. It is amply evident in the language you use. And a senior one at that, because you seem to be under the impression that you can say what you want and it will be fact, without providing any substance to back it up. Go ahead, explain how they are argumentative fallacies. I am not one of your students, so a “because ET said so” isn’t good enough for me.
“Because some form of behaviour is legally valid does not mean that the behaviour ought to be carried out.”
I never said the muslims “ought” to build a mosque there. I said that, if they want ot, they can. In fact, isn’t that what freedom of expression and belief and speech is all about. Think about South Park and its insults, not just at Islam, but at Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity etc. They ought not to do it. But they can. And they do. So what exactly is your point?
“Because there IS freedom of religious expression, does not mean that its expression OUGHT to be located at any time or place.”
Beginning to look like a strawman. Again, I am not saying anything about “ought”. I am saying that under these freedoms, they ‘can’ do what they want, but this is, of course subject to US laws, including those pertaining to conduct in private and public spaces. As far as I know, this mosque is not violating any US laws.
“The morality of ‘ought’ is not bonded to the mere existential nature of ‘is’.”
Hack away at the straw man. For what its worth, did you ever think of whether Danish cartoons ‘ought’ to publish provocative cartoons or whether pseudo artists ought to be allowed to create urine jar exhbits or whether South Park ought to be allowed to insult Buddhists? Because all of those things have happened. And they have been justified on the basis of freedom of speech/expression. The ‘ought’ is irrelevant. The real issue is ‘can’. The problem however, is that if one US citizen/ citizen’s group ‘can’ do it, then so can all other US citizens/citizen groups.
Right, lets get past that and see what you are saying
“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?”
I haven’t gone through the mosque proposal – you know, the one that was approved by Bloomberg and NYC city councils. I assume it is out there somewhere, and I suspect you will find your answers in there. Please forgive my refusal to do your research for you. After all, you have not asked anyone here to provide proof that this will be a memorial to the attackers of 9/11 or a staging post for a global invasion by Islam, even though many people have suggested as much.
If you have questions about the role the mosque will play, I would suggest you direct questions to the Mayors office.
The mega mosque debate/discussion reminds me of Kohlbergs Theory and Stages of Moral Development. According to Kohlberg, DA/BTJ score/rank low developmentally on this scale; whereas, those that oppose the mega mosque location score/rank high.
http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm
To add insult to injury – if it were not enough to build the victory monument on “hallowed ground”, the grand opening is scheduled for September 11th, 2011 which undeniably ties the building of the mega victory mosque to the events of 911. Muslim Internet sites and tweets are abuzz with the prospect of the psychological victory this will have over the American people – indeed the free world. There has also been a call for Dua (supplication prayer) for the death of those organizing the protest against the mega mosque – goes to prove that opposition to Islam is met with death threats.
Islam’s intentions are as transparent as child caught with chocolate brownie on their face coupled with the undeniable fact of a missing brownie.
DA/BTJ – nope. You still don’t understand the difference between ‘is’ and ‘ought’.
Your comments about the mosque focus only on the legal right to do this. So what? That’s an ‘is’ argument. What we are talking about and what you refuse to acknowledge is ‘ought’.
You show your lack of understanding of the ‘ought’ process by continually referring to US laws of conduct. Again, the law refers to the ‘is’ or descriptive process. The ‘ought’ refers to the ‘prescriptive’ process and it requires a different evaluative criteria.
You obviously don’t understand the difference and don’t have a clue what these different evaluative criteria might be. In fact, your indifference to them…is obvious. That shows that you are committing the logical fallacy of simplistically merging ‘is’ and ‘ought’.
No – I’m not going to waste my time going through your argumentative fallacies. Look up red herring by yourself and false analogy etc. You keep doing it – you divert the focus from the real issues to irrelevant and false comparisons. This is not an issue of ‘free speech’ so your comparisons are false. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech but with the prescriptive function of ‘ought’.
Again, if you believe in nothing and everything, then you refuse accountability. The refusal of accountability and standing up for your statements is the act of a coward.
One thing that “Is” and not “Ought” is the mid-term election coming this fall. A vote still IS a vote. Even New Yorkers know that.
One thing that is an outright “Ought” is how ought the Dem Congressmen and Senators up for re-election respond to their President’s choice to support the Muslim Ground Zero Victory Monument.
“Let me be clear”, get out the hot buttered popcorn…this has a General Custer remake written all over it.
“What we are talking about and what you refuse to acknowledge is ‘ought’.”
Its not that I am ignoring it. I am just stating very clearly that it is irrelevant. You re engaging in an entirely academic argument. Good for you. I am not interested.
“You obviously don’t understand the difference and don’t have a clue what these different evaluative criteria might be. In fact, your indifference to them…is obvious. That shows that you are committing the logical fallacy of simplistically merging ‘is’ and ‘ought’.”
Yes. Very obvious. Mostly because, beyond engaging in academic debates, it is irrelevant. You can give any number of reasons on why they ought not to do it. The guys building it have obviously given Bloomberg and the planning councils several reasons on why they ought to do it. I fail to see why I should start providing reasons for why they ought to do it. That is a debate for you to have with the builders, the mayor and the planning council. What I am stating, apparently not clearly enough, is that as things stand, they have the priviliges rights and freedoms bestowed upon them by the US consititution. Ought and ought not are matters of opinion and I don’t have one on this.
“No – I’m not going to waste my time going through your argumentative fallacies. Look up red herring by yourself and false analogy etc. You keep doing it – you divert the focus from the real issues to irrelevant and false comparisons.”
Of course. Make a claim without any substance and then tell anybody who asks to prove that the claim has no substance. Are you going to ask me to prove that there are no teacups in space, next? I know what the terms mean. I fail to see how they apply. You are either unwilling or unable to prove they apply, so really, is there any point taking it seriously? You might as well tell me I have am possessed by an elf and then tell me to disprove it. That doesn’t mean that I am possessed by an elf. Juvenile argument. Weak.
“This is not an issue of ‘free speech’ so your comparisons are false. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech but with the prescriptive function of ‘ought’.”
You’re right. Its an issue of freedom of expression. I just tend to lump them together. As for the rest – yeah keep beating that dead ‘ought’ horse. Are you really going to start a debate on what amounts to little more than rhetoric and semantics?
“Again, if you believe in nothing and everything, then you refuse accountability. The refusal of accountability and standing up for your statements is the act of a coward.”
Yes, I am a coward. And I am a braveheart. You can call me what you want. I don’t care. Besides, it only has a bearing on my accountability if you want to engage in ad hominem attacks. If you do, then my apologies, but I really don’t care for ad hominems.
DA/BTJ – No, you are quite wrong. The ‘ought’ argument is the basis of a civilization. Machines function by the mechanical tactics of ‘is’. Humans require ethical evaluations.
That’s the reason for the Nuremberg trials. They weren’t an ‘academic irrelevant exercise’ but were an insistence that ‘ought’ is a basic attribute of the human condition.
Ever heard of the Nicomachean Ethics? A whole work devoted to this basic attribute of the human condition – ‘every action and pursuit’..to aim at some good’.
No, a planning committee does NOT deal with ‘ought’; it deals only with ‘is’, with the by-laws of building construction.
Freedom of speech and expression are the same. So, don’t try this red herring evasion. The issue is NOT free speech/expression. It is about what ‘ought’ to be done. That is why your continued focus on ‘is’, i.e., the legal validation of building a mosque is totally irrelevant! The by-laws, the freedom to build, etc are totally irrelevant. The issue is about whether it ‘ought’ to be done.
You refuse to enter into this argument and instead, waste our time with your irrelevant and trivial focus on ‘is’. Again – that’s NOT the issue! So stop babbling on about it.
Describing you as choosing to be unaccountable and that behaviour as a cowardly action is NOT an ad hominem argument. Don’t you know what the ‘ad hominem’ argument means? It’s an evasion of an argument, not a description and criticism of someone!
Equally, if you knew what false analogy and red herring meant – you’d know that your use of them destroys your argument.
I don’t even think Custer was as much of a narcissist as the Wiz of ‘O. Any suggestions on a title for the upcoming Obama “Last Stand” movie? “Mega Mosque in the Big Apple”, “Little People vs. the Progressive Transformers”, “How the West Was Almost Lost”, “The Rising Crescent on Park Avenue”, “The Big Apple Dumping Gang”, and “Sweet November, New Yorker” are a few that come to mind.
Popcorn’s popp’n.
How about “Little Barry O’s Big Adventure” played by Pak Soetoro.
Martin – don’t count your chickens, so to speak. Think about it.
Obama probably moved into the narcissist stage around the time he was 9 or 10. He’s had 40 years in that psychological trap. Essentially, it means that he’s unable to interact with the real world. He lives within his virtual world, his world of words, where what he says – is all that matters.
What he says has one agenda: to manipulate you to be in his control. It has NO relation to reality. None. So, he can tell one audience one thing, and two hours later, tell another audience the other. In his mind, he’s OK. But his agenda is not to reference his words to the external reality. But to manipulate you.
So, Obama will let Congress take the fall this November. He’s not accountable; he’ll slither out. Then, he’ll play both the ‘race’ theme, and the ‘victim’ theme, blaming Congress for hampering his Good Intentions.
As for the mosque – it’s obvious that it’s a confrontative symbol of domination; it has no agenda of collaboration, dialogue, openness. Whether it will go through – is another story. I personally suspect that Bloomberg has been bribed with massive input into city coffers.
“No, a planning committee does NOT deal with ‘ought’; it deals only with ‘is’, with the by-laws of building construction.”
Okay. This only goes to prove that Nicomachean ethics, interesting though they may be, are irrelevant in the context of this situation. You can stand on your car and yell that they ought not to do it, but they will still do it, because they can. And they can, because they are legally entitled to do so. If you feel so strongly about it, lobby your congress man. Till then, South Park is free to insult people and muslims are free to build mosques on property they have presumably purchased. Provocative? Not provocative? Doesn’t matter. You don’t, as of now, have a right to not be provoked.
“Humans require ethical evaluations.”
Fair enough. How do you propose we go about it? Start another one of those HR Kangaroo commissions/courts that claim to deal with ethical evaluations? Because the law is the law.
“That’s the reason for the Nuremberg trials. They weren’t an ‘academic irrelevant exercise’ but were an insistence that ‘ought’ is a basic attribute of the human condition.”
At the Nuremburg trials, they were trying people who had committed crimes. How is the building of a mosque, in any way, comparable to a trial? The only way you could make it comparable is if they set up memorials to the hijackers of 9/11. Then you might have some claim. Here, beyond the alleged provocativeness of this building’s location, you really have nothing tangible on what will go in there. Nuremberg was about trying known Nazi leaders and operatives, not people who were sympathetic to the Nazi cause but who never actually did anything for the Nazis. Slight difference, but significant one.
“The issue is about whether it ‘ought’ to be done.”
RIght. I get what you are saying. I can only assume that on the issue of the Danish cartoons, you would ignore the freedom of expression/speech/belief inherent in them, and state that it ought not to be done becuase it is ‘provocative’/’insulting’ to muslims. Sorry, but you can’t pick and choose who gets what rights. Ought or ought not are therefore irrelevant, since it essentially amounts to you arbitrarily imposing what you consider ethical and moral on others.
Either you stand for principles, or you stand for arbitrary moral and ethical approaches that you appear to want to impose on others. You cannot argue in favor of free expression on one day, and against it on the other purely on the basis of your own personal opinion on the two issues at hand, especially when there are clear, indiscriminate legal guidelines on the matter. Isn’t that why we have laws and constitutions in the first place?
“Describing you as choosing to be unaccountable and that behaviour as a cowardly action is NOT an ad hominem argument.”
Again, you are wilfully misconstruing what I say to make yourself sound smart. Its becoming quite repetitive with you. Good tactic. I ll try it sometime. Let me repeat myself. You can call me God. You can call me the Devil. You can call me smart. You can call me dumb. I don’t care. What I am, or am not, is irrelevant to this discussion. Trying to drag it in has more than a hint of ad hominem. If I’m wrong, pat yourself on the back. I’m not interested in debating defintions beyond stating very clearly that who or what label you want to tag me with is of no consequence to what I write. Calling me a coward doesn’t make me start arguing like one.
“Equally, if you knew what false analogy and red herring meant – you’d know that your use of them destroys your argument.”
I love it when players become referees and then unilaterally declare themselves the winners. Bravo.
Guys, please stop interacting with the nutty troll. He keeps pretending that people are arguing that building the Mosque is illegal, which absolutely nobody is, and then he goes on about how mysterious he is and how many names we can call him. This is very much not worth the bandwidth.
“As for the mosque – it’s obvious that it’s a confrontative symbol of domination; it has no agenda of collaboration, dialogue, openness.”
How much do you actually know about the founders? Have you even done any research? I do not claim to know anything about them. Perhaps that is why I am willing to stick to the Western/Christian/European tradition of not adopting the “guilty until proven innocent” approach. Can you prove that they want to be confrontational and provocative, beyond circumstantial evidence (location, refusal to compromise)? On the latter, I would add, that as US citizens, why should they have to compromise? They (American muslims) did not carry out the attacks and compromising carries an implicit acceptance of guilt on their part.
“Whether it will go through – is another story. I personally suspect that Bloomberg has been bribed with massive input into city coffers.”
The eight richest man – a multi billionaire – in the US in now in the pocket of a bunch of rich Arabs. And that too, on a project worth a 100 million. Bit of an active imagination, no? Especially given his status as a former Republican with strong Republican links to this day. We are wandering far away from facts, and straight into loony conspiracy theories. Purely based on your hunches and some events that you believe amount to circumstantial evidence.
“then he goes on about how mysterious he is and how many names we can call him”
Not mysterious. I just tell people to not bother calling me names. Name-calling is generally considered more of a waste of bandwidth than a dissenting opinion. However, you clearly don’t think the people engaged in name-calling are doing anything wrong.
sheesh – it’s like arguing with a robot. DA/BTJ is a robot. He is totally unable to learn.
Again, the ‘is’ argument of ‘what IS legal’ is totally irrelevant here. It’s the ‘ought’ argument of ethical standards that applies; therefore Aristotle’s Ethics (as well as others ethical analyses) DO apply in this instance.
Furthermore, to assert that ethical standards are relative is rubbish. I know you are a leftist and as such, to you, ethics is relative. But a rational person knows that such a claim is nonsense; ethics are universal.
No, your argument is circular and therefore invalid. You state – At the Nuremberg trials ‘ they were trying people who had committed crimes’. That’s circular.
First, you have to define the action as a crime! And these ‘crimes’ were nominally legal (the laws against the Jews) but were ethically unacceptable. With your point of view, the actions against the Jews were OK – because they were legal! Your suggestion would have been to ‘write my congressman about these actions’?
Ethics is not a ‘right’! It’s an evaluative standard operating within the use of reason. It must apply to human affairs because we are not machines. Therefore we can’t just do what we want because ‘it’s legal’.
“It’s the ‘ought’ argument of ethical standards that applies; therefore Aristotle’s Ethics (as well as others ethical analyses) DO apply in this instance.”
Which only begs the question – do you want to create the Canadian HR style Kangaroo courts to look into this issue? I am merely pointing out inconsistencies in your arguments.
“Furthermore, to assert that ethical standards are relative is rubbish. I know you are a leftist and as such, to you, ethics is relative. But a rational person knows that such a claim is nonsense; ethics are universal.”
Hmm, perhaps I did leave that open-ended enough for you to misconstrue it as such, and so it is my fault. Let me be a little clearer- it is not the universality of the ethics that I am challenging, it is the manner in which they are applied. The relative aspect comes into play when people apply ethics when it suits them and not when it doesn’t. Now, let me ask you clearly – where do you stand on the Danish cartoons? Its a simple question. Dont try to obfuscate it with academic jargon. Where do you stand on the Danish cartoons? I expect you to apply the same ethics implicit in your answer to the mosque situation. Nothing too complicated. If you don’t then you are picking or choosing, in which case, your arbitrary application of universal ethics is compromised by the relative difference in your stance on each issue.
“No, your argument is circular and therefore invalid.”
Can’t answer it. Call it something and invalidate it. Classic academic obfuscation. Whatever.
“And these ‘crimes’ were nominally legal (the laws against the Jews) but were ethically unacceptable. With your point of view, the actions against the Jews were OK – because they were legal! Your suggestion would have been to ‘write my congressman about these actions’?”
Ah, again you are putting words into my mouth. I asked you how te Nuremburg trials were related ot the building of the mosque, and you promptly go and sugest that I am endorsing Nazi law? I mean come on. How is my willingness to demand the indiscriminate application of a US law (that does not discriminate against any group) in any way equivalent to endorsing a Nazi law that discriminates against one or several minority groups? What are you playing at? Are you suggesting that current US law makes is discriminatory against someone? If so, who?I have been arguing throughout that the basis of this mosque lies in the Western/Christian tradition of right, freedoms and priviliges guaranteed by the US constitution, which I would like to see upheld. How does that make me argue in favor of Nazi law? Does it derive itself form the same basis? You will also note the focus of my argument was on the difference between a Nazi leader/operative and an alleged sympathiser of the Nazis. You could not try a Nazi sympathiser if he hadn’t actually done anything, could you? But by all means, pick up the ball and run with it.
“It’s an evaluative standard operating within the use of reason. It must apply to human affairs because we are not machines. Therefore we can’t just do what we want because ‘it’s legal’.”
Of course you can. What exactly was the point of the Danish cartoons? Entertainment? Amusement? It ultimately boiled down to arguments about freedom of expression and speech. You are free to express yourself however you want, as long as its legal.
As for the shpiel about ethics being an evluative standard operating with the use of reason, different people have varying abilities to reason, which inevitably means that their application of ethics will be arbitrary. That has been my point all along. Does that make me a relativist? Not really. You seem to think otherwise.
ET, why do you keep wasting your eloquence on trolls like DA,T,BTJ? They are not interested in your response in the slightest. They are probably the same person and if they/he were in your class you would flunk them and move on.
The rest of us just skip over their posts, please do the same and save your brilliant posts for those of us that love to read them.
F%#k YOU OBAMA!!! You socialist, marxist piece of garbage!!
Paul in clagary
I think it was Jefferson who had a copy of the koran, the lefties say it was for unity but we all know it was to KNOW THY ENEMY.
Someone, please slaughter a pig or 2 on the coat factory site!
Far too much written here in response to the trolls. As their world and beliefs are starting to crumble they are becoming desperate. Do not engage them and like the Witch in Oz they will shrivel up and wither away, perhaps to crawl back under the rock where they emerged from.
Here is the difference between “IS” and “OUGHT” ,
Little Timmy IS peeing in his pants,
Little Timmy OUGHT to pee in the toilet bowl.
I explained it clearly in about 5 seconds and in 2 short lines.
Why would anybody expand on this topic for hours and hours writing pages and pages?…
Unless they are in love with their own eloquence…
and their need to be admired is so out of control that they do it over and over again until someone tells them how great they are…
mmmhhh…that is very close to the definition of Narcissism…
Which reminds me,
ET IS accusing me of posting comments devoid of valid argumentation.
While ET OUGHT to be providing evidence that I am guilty of posting comments devoid of valid argumentation.
So where is the evidence ET?
(((…CRICKETS CHIRPING…)))
From Wikipedia,
An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth.
ET’s premise is that I knew nothing of psychology or more precisely Narcissism.
Her conclusion was that I thus write inannities and that I babble.
Her premise is wrong since my father – who has a doctorate in psychology and had a very successful career – discussed psychology with us daily, and the house I gew up in was full of books – many on psychology – and many I did read.
Thus her conclusion is 100% wrong.
She was saying aninnities ( lacking significance, meaning, or point ) about me,
and she was babbling ( To utter a meaningless confusion of words ) about a man who she knew nothing about.
ET posted repeatedely comments that were devoid of valid argumantation about who I am and what I do.
My premise and my conclusion are both accurate and right.
My argument is valid.
She also fadricated a few other false premises about me…
but this comment is already long enough…
“as if you would not oppose your house being bulldozed to make way for a freeway.”
That’s completely different, that’s an issue of my personal individual rights being threatened. No one’s house is being bulldozed to make way for the Mosque, they legally bought the property I assume.
“What you fear is the power of public opinion”
If by ‘public opinion’ you mean the collective, then you’re close…it worries me.
“Answer this – do you think it is okay for environmentalists and organizations like Greenpeace to oppose legal developments including the oil sands? ”
To disagree and voice that disagreement, yes…to physically oppose it, no..and justifiably, they usually get arrested in the end for doing so. This is assuming that the LEGAL development ‘clause’ is met.
” Why bother having an official opposition party in government if opposition is not a right?”
Opposition in the context of personal rights and freedoms is not the same as opposition in the context of government. Government is supposed to be the individuals means of opposing things, so long as that opposition does not contradict rights and freedoms.
“The site location is radical/extreme and mirrors the intent of the group.”
Really? Any explanation or just an empty statement?
“The point again is that you don’t get the bigger picture.”
Right, and you do…can you see the future?
” I say close the borders so that each country can sort out its own individual mess.”
So then you’re for nationalization of resources? I believe you’ve argued against certain South American countries who’ve nationalized their oil deposits and kicked out American companies, no?
“DA/BTJ (you are the same person; you write the same way).”
I assure you we are not, I know how scary that is for you, but you’ll have to come to grips with it.
“‘false analogy’ comments (Christian missions) are argumentative fallacies.”
The only way it’s a false analogy is that Christian missionaries are usually foreign citizens actively converting local citizens, where as the mosque is run by local citizens.
Devil’s:
“Whether this opposition will be successful all depends on the legality of the situation at hand.”
For sure, I was making the assumption that
a) any unlawful aspect of the issue would take it’s just course
b) ‘voicing one’s disagreement’ includes lobbying and communicating with government rep’s
c) ‘attempting to prevent’ referred to intruding upon another’s lawful rights (under assumption a)
“the need to draw a distinction between American muslims and the perpetrators of 9/11.”
Very much so…disagreement with this distinction is agreement with an apologist stance.
ET:
“No – I’m not going to waste my time going through your argumentative fallacies.”
Of course not, you just like to use type fancy words, not use them.
“No, a planning committee does NOT deal with ‘ought’; it deals only with ‘is’, with the by-laws of building construction.”
Actually, a planning committee deals with public opinion by hosting information sessions and public discussions…so they’re role is very much to consider the question of ‘ought’.
“Ethics is not a ‘right’! It’s an evaluative standard operating within the use of reason….Therefore we can’t just do what we want because ‘it’s legal’.”
Another Jim Taggart moment…is anybody else seeing this? I’m rereading ‘Atlas Shrugged’ right now so I can’t help but see the similarity.
Not to mention the repetitive reliance on unsupported judgments based on perceived non-values. Whether or not someone is labeled as something or another has nothing to do with his/her contributions, logic, reasoning, ingenuity, and ability to conceptualize.
“DA/BTJ is a robot. He is totally unable to learn.”
Please, enough with your conspiracy theory…we are two different posters. I understand that’s hard to come to terms with, and that, by lumping all dissenting views into a collective which you then recognize as a single person, you feel more powerful behind your mass of supporters. But it’s all just a self-created delusion.
“Ethics is not a ‘right’! It’s an evaluative standard operating within the use of reason”
“to you, ethics is relative. But a rational person knows that such a claim is nonsense; ethics are universal.”
You contradict yourself…is ethics ‘an evaluative standard’ and therefore subjective? Or is it ‘universal’ and therefore objective?
@sherman
Can you please tell me why i said what i said ?
Am i defending my faith ? no couldn’t be that now could it ? He is a piece of garbage who is tring to rip apart the church ,the traditional christian family just like stalin did in russia stalin was tring to remove god from people he would have his goons drag pastors out into the street’s and publicly execute them he was tring to replace god that witch you cannot ever do ..and with the help of the A.C.L.U. the big 0 is tring to do the same .
So i will take what you say as a compliment although i know you hardly mean that
you maek assumtions about christians like we should just be led to the slaughter rather than stand up and fight the good fight ..well i am an exception i guess ..having lived a godless life for 28 years i now see what is happening around me and i am enraged at what ,the govornment’s ,public institutions are doing schools,universtiies,court’s ,inhumane right’s commisions ,and tribunals, who go out of there way to silence anyone who draws a line or takes a stand for there faith in jesus .
So yeah i am a little upset and i tend to lose it sometimes maybe my language is offencive….GOOD maybe i will catch someones ear and they can actually listen and hear , I am a proud christian i may not be so humble asi have not lead a humblel ife i was GODLESS for 28 years i lived on the street’s of winnipeg for 9 month’s alone in highschool , my mom left me alone she could not care to this day weather i live or die , my dad was no different , i grew up very well knowing the institutions welfare ,family services ,and the damage they can do. I was on welfare in highschool becasue i wanted to graduate and they made it so hard for me becaseu i was a white male yet the indians would come into these facilities offices drunk and get twice what i got . I need no sympathy or “i’m sorry to hear that ” If he takes you to it he will take you through it and he did i just didn’t want to listen to his voice .
Well now i have herd his call and i would not ever back down or humble myself before anyone except him so again when i see a socialist selling snake oil to the people ie. more ei benifit’s ,wlefare ,food stamps, so on and so forth i get mad becasue i look at myself and i think i had no right to anyone elses money , And i have given my fair share back gladly ,but what he and this country have become is horse sh!t and i am P!ssed what we need to do is get rid of welfare period ..and start holding people ie.MY PARENT’S accountable my mom was a parapolegic 2 years after she left my dad god punished her …..my dad died at 56 massive heart attack all alone …god punished him as well can i say that for sure no not on your life but it is what i beelive my parent’s were to concerned with getting back at each opther that they ripped our family apart my brother was from anotherm an and he was around me since i was born and my mom took him from me when i was 8 years old just to get back at my dad ….this is the perfect family according to obama,stalin and the likes complete chaos …society is a direct reflection of the single family unit so when you see society falling apart it means the family is being messed with .
Iwill never appologize for thing’s i say as they are my feeling’s i don’t hide my feeling’s but you know me andm y situation so well don’t you .
We need a complete overhaul in the west and maybe obama is just the tool for it maybe he will create a huge famine and complete economic meltdown and what a great starting point maybe people will wake up to see that a grocery store with shelves full of food IS NOT A RIGHT it is a privalage no body and i mean nobody owes you SH!T once your over 18 not one person owes you any thing so be greatful for what you have and maybe you will see why i am so mad and enraged …..tell me that i need to wear a bicycle helmet or get a ticket …F$#K YOU !!! we need a complete melt down a total failure of our system to wake people up .
In japan they have declared that liberalism is a mental disorder we should do the same here .
Paul in calgary
GOD BLESS!!!
Whoa, looks like I’ve stumbled onto an “Intellectual Fight”.
I for one prefer being not too smart so it’s not a big blow when I’m shown to be wrong(like DA; you got served (by ET) dude!).
FOU
I can see by your comments you are a true “intellectual”. Only an “intellectual” could be so patronizing as to water-down his comments for the “little people” as the former BP CEO described peons like me. Get over yourself dude.
As far as ET goes, regardless of her views I see no reason for ad-hominem attacks thrown her way. She’s likely the most respectful person on this site whether you agree with her or not. She’s entitled to her opinion and she shouldn’t be penalized for expressing her views concisely. JMO
On topic:
I think Lev’s comments(7:20 Aug 14) best sum-up what’s happening here. This is almost exactly the same tactic used by the WH the week before with MO’s holiday to Spain. The key to BO’s longevity is a Congress that can keep him in check while simultaneously serving as an alibi for his critics on the Left. BO is in full campaign mode and is “wagging the dog” better that Cesar Millan.
“I for one prefer being not too smart so it’s not a big blow when I’m shown to be wrong(like DA; you got served (by ET) dude!).”
I suppose if you blindly agree with everything ET says, then I did get served. Just as no team that you’re a fan of can ever lose without some kind of illegal interference.
If you actually look treat the arguments on their merit, you will notice that ET’s line of reasoning has become increasingly inconsistent, so much so that he may very well have to condemn the Danish cartoons and those who insist on publishing them. His entire ‘ought’ versus ‘is’ line is turning him around in cirlces. Our main disagreement is on the applicability of certain freedoms, rights and priviliges, guaranteed by the constitution, to all citizens of the US. He argues that regardless of the freedoms, the citizens ‘ought’ to not do certain things even if they are illegal. I argue that they ‘can’ do whatever they want as long as it is legal. His primary argument is that muslim americans ought not to build the mosque there because it is provocative etc etc. Fair play. However, if you take that line of reasoning, then you must condemn people who publish the Danish cartoons because these cartoons are provocative etc. When I point this out, it is ignored, probably deliberately. To put it very simply then, either you believe in freedom of expression or you don’t. You can’t support it for one group on one day, and condemn it for another group on the other day, claiming that they ought not to do it. There’s no serving being involved. If you are a fan of ET, you will undoubtedly think he is correct through and through. Whether that is an objective analysis of the discussion is a separate issue.
I don’t claim to be smart. I simply am what I am. Not smart. Not dumb. Just there. Nor do I really care how smart or dumb anyone here thinks I am. If I was worried about that, I would take a page out of a certain someone’s book here and throw in academic terms just to obfuscate the discussion, apparently with great effect, judging from your reading of the whole thing.
devil’s advocate = New & his buddies. Sheesh The long posts where the give away.
“I simply am what I am.”
Have you read any Eckhart Tolle?
“Our main disagreement is on the applicability of certain freedoms, rights and priviliges, guaranteed by the constitution, to all citizens of the US.”
You’re wrong on this specific poinT DA. Nobody disagrees with these rights! This is why everyone thinks you are either “thick” or disingenuous; because you continue to harp on a point that has been conceded, and is off topic. The discussion is IF they SHOULD built the mosque THERE! Out of respect for the majority view, who ALSO have the freedom to express their disgust with the mosque’s proposed location. Compromise is what is required here, but the Left(and you) will have nothing to do with it. Instead they(and you) will harp tangential arguments quoting the very Constitution they loathe, while at the same time convincing themselves they are being intellectual, therefore making their critics non-intellectual; which is EXACTLY what you’ve done.
As far as the “Intellectual Fight” comment, it wasn’t directed at you. I was referring to the debate between FOU and ET. I was having a little fun. Perhaps this was a Freudian Slip on your part which speaks to your “disingenuousness” as you clearly DO think of yourself as an intellectual,hence mistaking yourself for being a combatant in the aforementioned “Intellectual Fight”.
Perhaps you and FOU could find a room and discuss who’s more intellectual, or not. Eh?
Just bugg’n FOU:)
I don’t doubt you are smart, which is why I lean to the “disingenuous” theory as far as your commenting goes. Why? Because I’m positive you will come back and argue that “the Constitution…blah blah blah”. As far as your cartoon comments go, it’s not a valid analogy. You’re grasping at straws! Everyone here, and in the US abroad agree that the mosque could be built ANYWHERE ELSE; whereas, the demand from radical Islam is that those comics be printed NOWHERE! If you don’t believe me, google South Park and Allah and see what you find. That said, I support the right of those who don’t want the comics published to voice their opinion; just not the violence some use (past tense) to enforce their views.
Now I don’t believe I said I agree with ET; but if I did, how is that any different that you agreeing with someone else? Once again, you can’t accept that you WERE “served” (at least in my opinion), you can only comprehend that there MUST be something wrong with my POV because you couldn’t possibly be wrong. Everyone’s an idiot but you! Right? Now back to ET. Is ET and her POV so toxic and/or intoxicating that anyone who might agree with her is a “fan” and has no opinion of their own? I can assure you that there are many things that ET disagrees with me about, and I her; but, much of what she has said over the years has enlightened me; which is a hell of allot more than I can say about you. No insult intended, just the facts.
Only an “intellectual” could be so patronizing as to water-down his comments for the “little people”
said Indiana omez,
I said the exact opposite of what you accuse me of!!! THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!
CAN’T YOU READ ???????
I NEVER liked intellectualism that is why I write the way I write.
I specifficaly mentioned I did not enjoy reading intellectual’s books such as Simone De Beauvoir or DesCartes.
I Specifically said intellectuals use too many words to say very little.
Can’t you read ??????
Just like ET you can not read nor understand simple sentences.
You leave me no choice but to say what I observe;
You and ET are depressingly obtuse…
BTW
I have nothing against intellectuals, but I do think most of you are dumb-asses.
FOU
I was just poking you in the ribs, having a little fun. I think your comments are good, but even the best guys talk a little isht now and then. If we were having a beer and you went into that tirade I’m sure most of us at the table would lovingly tell you to STFU.
bygones
As far as ET goes, regardless of her views I see no reason for ad-hominem attacks thrown her way. She’s likely the most respectful person on this site whether you agree with her or not. She’s entitled to her opinion and she shouldn’t be penalized for expressing her views concisely.
Well Indiana you really can not read and/or are really obtuse because it is ET who started it by saying I write inannities ( lacking sense ) and I babble ( going on and on without a point or a meaning )
That was an ad Hominem attack on me by ET.
SHE STARTED IT.
I SIMPLY PUSHED BACK.
She started it by acting condescending and acting as if she knew who and what I am.
But you have a completely distorted vision of what is typed on this page.
You see all of ET’s as clean and pure, and you invent bad things about me ( just as ET did ) things I never said or done.
What the hell is going on here????
I could understand someone misinterpreting ET’s complex eloquent 3 pages essays, but my concise and short comments are a MAZE in which you get lost Indiana????
REALLY???
WOAH I guess obtuse is too polite a word to describe both you and ET.
There is no debate between ET and me,
She made up stuff about me, threw an ad hominem, came back to throw a few more ad hominem and then ran away.
I have repeatdly asked her to show where I post non valid arguments but she ran away.
She accused me of posting non valid arguments but she can not support her own premises.
Her argument is not valid.
so she ran away.
Which only supports my point that behind all her eloquence there is not much…
“The discussion is IF they SHOULD built the mosque THERE! Out of respect for the majority view, who ALSO have the freedom to express their disgust with the mosque’s proposed location…Compromise is what is required here”
But then what worth is the US constitution then? If everything is actually to be decided by some subjective ‘ought’?
Where is this expression of disagreement by ‘the majority’?
That being said, you must realize that you are suggesting that the proper thing to do is ignore personal rights and freedoms and instead bow to the whims of the collective. Once again, an example of Ayn Rand’s antagonist character springing up in this (self proclaimed) ‘pro-Rand’ blog.
“Everyone here, and in the US abroad agree that the mosque could be built ANYWHERE ELSE; ”
Except of course California, Tennessee, and Wisconsin where there have been protests and opposition to Mosques. But I’m sure ANYWHERE ELSE would be fine right? Isn’t that the way Waco Tx started out? Push them out of sight and all is ok…of course that is until the army has to be called in.
“Is ET and her POV so toxic and/or intoxicating that anyone who might agree with her is a “fan” and has no opinion of their own?”
Probably more a case of ‘small things amuse small minds’.
He’s from the Kerry school of politics:
“For it afore bein’ agin’ it”
Indiana,
I had not noticed your last comment!…
Sorry I am reacting so strongly but ET has really touched a nerve…
Her alluding to my being ignorant and stupid was too much.
And her running away from the debate is only making me more pissed off.
( Notice that I am not using profane language or anything of the sort.)
Thank you for the compliment and I think you write good comments too.
Nota: I never said I was always right.
And I could use a beer right now!
“The discussion is IF they SHOULD built the mosque THERE! Out of respect for the majority view, who ALSO have the freedom to express their disgust with the mosque’s proposed location. ”
Discussion? They are all agreeing with each other. There’s not too many voices of dissent here. As for the majority opinion bit, the founding fathers were quite fearful of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ (Federalist Papers) that you seem to be implicitly supporting here. Your argument is essentially that, if the majority don’t like it, the minority should not (ought not to) exercise their rights.
” who ALSO have the freedom to express their disgust with the mosque’s proposed location”
Nobody is denying that they have the right to express their disgust. In fact, if you read what I have written, you will note that I have told the offended crowd to go and buy property next to the mosque and create a museum dedicated to promoting their version of the story or of Islam or whatever. Put up a museum outlining the evils you attribute to Islam. By all means. No one will stop you from doing that either, least of all me. But then again, I believe in the right to exercise free speech and expression within the parameters of US law.
“Compromise is what is required here, but the Left(and you) will have nothing to do with it.”
Why? Are they not equal citizens of the United States. Lets put it this way. They buy some property and want to build something there but they are told that they should not build it there because the majority won’t like it. What about their rights? By virtue of being members of a minority faith, are they less equal than other US citizens? If others, including the majority, don’t like it, too bad. The majority does not have a right to not be offended. The minority shouldn’t have to compromise on their constitutionally guaranteed rights just because they belong to the minority and the majority won’t like it. If all US citizens are equal, the members of the minority should be allowed to exercise their rights however they please, rather than having to exercise and tone down their rights in order to make sure that the majority is happy. Fairly straightforward, no? Compromise is essentially accepting that the majority’s concerns and feelings should be allowed to impede on your constitutionally guaranteed rights because you are a minority. Its completely against the spirit of the founding fathers, particularly James Madison.
“harp tangential arguments quoting the very Constitution they loathe, while at the same time convincing themselves they are being intellectual, therefore making their critics non-intellectual; which is EXACTLY what you’ve done.”
A bit rich coming from someone who thinks that minorities in the US are less than equals and should accept a subservient position and compromise on their rights if the majority gets offended. I don’t know if you have read the Federalist Papers, but I am sure that if you consult them again, you will find that my arguments have been entirely consistent with the arguments espoused therein. I have stated again and again (and again) that there is no reason to demand (or expect) a compromise because the majority should not be allowed to dictate terms to the minority. Whether this is an intellectual or non-intellectual line to take is irrelevant.
“DO think of yourself as an intellectual,hence mistaking yourself for being a combatant in the aforementioned “Intellectual Fight”.”
All human beings are born with intellects, therefore all people are intellectuals. Now you’re telling me that some people aren’t in fact intellectual? Were they somehow born without an intellect? I start from the basic premise that I, like you and everyone else, have an intellect. Whats so wrong with that?
“As far as your cartoon comments go, it’s not a valid analogy.”
Of course it is. You are demanding a compromise because one group (in this case the majority) will get offended if the other group exercises its rights. The cartoon debate was pretty much the same thing, was it not?
“the mosque could be built ANYWHERE ELSE; whereas, the demand from radical Islam is that those comics be printed NOWHERE!”
Ah I see. So you think they are different because in one case, one group thinks it has the right to tell another group to not do something, while in the other case, one group seems to be under the impression that it can tell the other group how to do something. Same condescending attitude – ones just more absolute than the other, partially because the US constitution imposes constraints on the ability of the latter to make such demands. Sorry buddy, but a minority citizen is equal to a majority one and has the same rights, freedoms and priviliges. Majority citizens cannot try to dictate the terms or demand compromises. That, incidentally, is the essence of US democracy.
“you can only comprehend that there MUST be something wrong with my POV because you couldn’t possibly be wrong.”
Ah, but I never said I was right. I said that I found inconsistencies in ET’s approach that left me feeling that I hadn’t, and I quote, been “served”. Not that I was right. I may well be wrong. I then pointed out your apparent unwillingness to recognize these inconsistencies.
“Is ET and her POV so toxic and/or intoxicating that anyone who might agree with her is a “fan” and has no opinion of their own”
I don’t know. You tell me.
It was hilarious watching these two/ one operate (DA BTJ). I could never be sure if it was two very dull posters writing identical looping non arguments, or one really crazy nutbar having conversations with itself. Like NEW used to. I think you may be right Indiana H. Due to the long obsessive repeating non arguments and dual personality shtick, we may have just been revisited from a galaxy from far far away!
“They buy some property and want to build something there but they are told that they should not build it there because the majority won’t like it”
Is that not straight out of ‘The Fountainhead’?!
“It was hilarious watching these two/ one operate (DA BTJ). I could never be sure if it was two very dull posters writing identical looping non arguments, or one really crazy nutbar having conversations with itself. Like NEW used to. I think you may be right Indiana H. Due to the long obsessive repeating non arguments and dual personality shtick, we may have just been revisited from a galaxy from far far away!”
Might I suggest you concentrate on following and actively participating in the debate, perhaps with the aid of reason and logic, instead of creating ridiculous conspiracy theories that have no bearing on the issue at hand? If devil’s and I were the same person…we’d have to be genius in order to pull it off…way too genius to put forth such an effort on a blog. But believing so seems to make you feel better, and it sounds like it’s your excuse for not having the ability to contribute to the discussion.
whew – I’m away for an afternoon with the grandkids and come back to irrational inanities.
First – yet again, the argument has zilch to do with the Constitution, with individual freedom and legal rights. It’s incredible how obtuse DA/BTJ is about this. The argument is about the ethics of behaving in a certain manner.
No, ethics is not subjective; it’s universal. Do you seriously think that the great works of Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hume (he’s the is-ought guy) and others – focus only on the subjective perspective? Or are they about the ‘normative standards of humanity in ‘striving for the good’.
These ethical standards are not just expressions of opinion, so telling us that those who object to the mosque should simply be free to express their objections – totally and completely misses the point.
The point is – the ethical values of the Islamists who insist on that mosque being there, rather than elsewhere.
And no – this has no comparison to the Danish cartoons which have a completely different ‘Final Cause’ – a cause of freedom and indeed the rational necessity to critique the ideology of a belief system. That’s the ‘ought’ focus in this issue.
The ‘ought’ focus with regard to the mosque is the reality of 9/11, its perpetrators, the site, and the agenda of this proposed mosque which is not about deradicalization, transformation of dogma to dialogue. An ethical valuation – which is not, of course, subjective (try reading up on ethics)..would conclude that the mosque should not be built here.
By the way – you can check out some analyses of ‘what is ethics’ on the web. Harry Gensler has some great books on the topic – and a great web program.
The Golden Rule – a universal clause – declares that ‘one treats others only as you consent to be treated …in the same situation’.
The question then becomes – Should we, ethically, demand the right for a church in Mecca (i.e., a site sacred to a specific population – one and only one religion)?
Should we, ethically, demand the right for a mosque on the hallowed ground of 9/11 – a site sacred to a specific population (all Americans no matter their religious or non-religious filiation)?
Nothing to do with the constitution or freedom of expression. Freedom of expression doesn’t enter into the Golden Rule concern. – The GT is all about how we treat each other with a respect for our nature as human beings.
BTJ
I told you! What aren’t you piecing together here? The guy has said over and again that ‘God’ guides his decisions, that ‘God’ has a mission for him, that ‘God’ told him to do things. THAT’S THE DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS FANATICISM!
Posted by: BTJ at August 12, 2010 5:52 PM
How about someone who believes God speaks to them and guides them on missions, someone who makes decisions that require reasoning based on what ‘God’ told them in a dream? How about when said decisions concern the life or death of thousands of other people? Is that reasonable enough?
Posted by: BTJ at August 12, 2010 9:14 PM
I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to challenge BuShChimplerMcCheneyHaliburton to defend its projects or else to change them.
I included this comment illustrate duplicity in thinking – since the mega mosque is legal it can not be challenged or changed, yet BTJ wants to change other legal projects.
Posted by: BTJ at August 12, 2010 6:50 PM
Muslims are a deeply sensitive people and their feelings are easily hurt, but Islamist leaders across the world took to the airwaves and beseeched their followers to refrain from acts of violence and instead walk the path of peace. Although the pontiff’s words were reminiscent of Hitler back before he redeemed himself by killing 6 million Jews in an imaginary Holocaust, they were only words and no excuse for harming innocents. Once an appropriate amount of churches had been burned and enough nuns brutally gunned down, Muslims and infidels could co-exist in peace and harmony.
The Pope, on the other hand, seems determined to start a Holy War. His half-assed apology was too little, too late, and didn’t include anywhere near the amount of groveling Muslims have grown to expect from Europeans. Nor did he mention that he was willing to accept punishment for his cruel attack on the peacelove Muslim peoples. Under Sharia law, anyone who even indirectly implies that Islam is anything less than “peachy keen” can only be forgiven once they’ve been decapitated, disemboweled, and then trampled to death by a herd of unwashed goats. The Pope is probably too much of a bigot to accept such an olive branch, but there is an alternative. He could convert to Islam.
Posted by: BTJ at August 13, 2010 3:22 PM
Christians are supposed to turn their swords into plowshares, but they have instead fused their faith with the NRA and the GOP to create an American Taliban full of gun-toting Bible freaks who quote scripture and open fire on anyone who proudly expresses his burning hatred for the Christian religion. It’s only a matter of time before Assam and her fellow jackboots start going around door-to-door, killing any liberal democrat they can find while Shrub watches approvingly from his stolen throne.
Was the man that Assam murdered mentally disturbed? Perhaps. Did he hate Christians? Who Doesn’t?
Posted by: BTJ at August 13, 2010 3:25 PM
I’m interested to know how people feel about Christian missionaries working around the world?
Posted by: BTJ at August 15, 2010 5:59 AM
When will the Christianophobia end?
On a more somber note: Christian Mission Workers Brutally Murdered
One by one, the entire team — Little, Woo, five other Americans, one German and two Afghans — were wiped out.
Only their driver, who fell to his knees and recited from the Koran, was spared.
“God was good to me,” Safiullah told the AP in his first interview since being released.
No, he was spared because he was a Muslim.
When the slaughter was over, one of the Taliban killers spoke Urdu into his radio.
“Mission accomplished,” he coldly declared.
When news of the brutal Aug. 5 killing surfaced, the Afghanistan government initially blamed rogue bandits. But now authorities believe the deaths were anything but random, the newspaper reported.
Testimony from Safiullah has convinced Afghan officials that Little and his group were tracked and executed for the perceived sin of preaching Christianity, the paper said.
“They had made a plan,” said the survivor, who suggested that the attackers may have also been after their satellite phones. “It was a very organized group.”
Little and the others were part of the Christian charity International Assistance Mission, which has denied the group was doing anything but rendering medical aid to the needy.
They day the group was ambushed, the medical workers were returning from a 120-mile trek on foot and horseback to treat villagers in the remote Nuristan region.
Muslim Cleric Calls for Jihad, Coptic Christians Attacked in Egypt
Assyrian International News Agency
(AINA) — On August 13 Sheikh Tobah, Imam of the village of Shimi 170 KM south of Giza, called during Muslim Friday prayers for Jihad against Christians living there. As a result the Christian Copts living in the village were assaulted over two consecutive days. Eleven Copts were hospitalized and many Coptic youths were arrested.
The assaults begain a couple of hours after the Sheikhs incitement. An argument between Copt Maher Amin, who was washing his taxi, and Mohamed Ali Almstaui, a Muslim extremist from the village, escalated into violence as Mohamad assaulted Maher. The altercation was stopped by bystanders. However, after the evening break of Ramadan fast, Ahmad, the brother of the perpetrator Mohamad, who is reported to belong to an extremist organization, together with twenty other men, went to Maher’s family home, breaking down the door and assaulting him and his family with batons, including his old mother and his paralyzed sister, injuring them and breaking their furniture.
Security forces came and took away the Christian victims and kept them at the station in spite of their wounds, to pressuree them into accepting “reconciliation” with their attackers. None of the Muslims were arrested.
When will the Christianophobia end?
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Don’t need to count chickens, ET. The point of the post is that the Wiz of ‘O has picked the issue on which to fully implode his presidency.
Putting a politically correct whitewash on the Islamic victory symbol won’t fool anyone. People of all walks are aghast on the idea, especially Repubs and Independents.
O’s support for this ill conceived 9-11 grave spittoon will guarantee his party is eviscerated come November’s Hurricane midterms. That won’t be a light Spanish rain shower falling at Michelle’s Ritz Carleton. It will be a crashing wall of cold fury that could very well wash away all of the at risk Dems down the river.
The dissing of 3000 dead Americans by supporting the victory mosque is the beginning of Barry’s lame duck Presidency. He won’t be able to put together enough support to pass gas, let alone an actual bill from now on.
“The GT is all about how we treat each other with a respect for our nature as human beings.”
Ah, and I see you propose that we treat human beings with a differing amount of respect, depending on what group we put them in…how ethical of you.
You my friend, are Ellsworth Tooey in the flesh.
BTJ – being the Christianophobic and Jewpohobic (denial of the holocaust)that you are – you have zero, none, nada credibility. Further, I consider your comments akin to those of a raving lunatic.
“BTJ – being the Christianophobic and Jewpohobic (denial of the holocaust)that you are – you have zero, none, nada credibility. Further, I consider your comments akin to those of a raving lunatic.”
Maybe you should read a little closer and not be so gullible…most of the quotes you haphazardly pasted were not written by me, but by some weirdo posing as me. It’s not difficult to see the glaring difference in writing.
DA
Disingenuous!!!!
I said in my first comment that we concede the legal point you make.
This issue boils down to one thing: Class! And the lack of it being shown by those that wish to build the mosque in the aforementioned location. So you and everyone who agrees with you can take your legal, and sophisticated high ground and rub your victory (if it’s built) in the faces of everyone that see this mosque as an affront to the memories of the deceased. They (and you) may win this battle and discussion, but they (and you) did it without class; so you didn’t really win at all.
Being that you’re on the Left of things politically (I assume) I doubt you’ll understand this comment.
Furthermore,
There is a good chance I’ll be coaching girls basketball this season, and because of this issue I think I’ve gotten this years philosophy together. Likely my first words to the girls will be along these lines: I can’t say if we’ll do a lot of winning or losing this year, but what I can say is, win or lose, we’ll be doing both with class.