|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 17, 2010 22:33:45 GMT -5
Thank you 08. I was beginning to think nobody here was going to resort to the "Israel/US deserve the terrorism" argument. I was disappointed...until now. Personally, I don't care to justify terrorism, I'm a lot more interested in crushing it...but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by syarafire on Sept 17, 2010 23:10:59 GMT -5
There's a lot of taking people's comments out of context in this debate. I certainly don't think he intended to justify terrorism - the post had more to do with the subject of the nature of anti-Zionist sentiment rather than the nature of terrorism.
And to contribute to the topic, I don't feel particularly strongly on these specific issues, but to generalize I think people should have the right to burn (in protest) whatever they want and also to put up places of worship wherever they want. Although the Koran burning would have been incredibly stupid considering the circumstances (not to mention offensive and inconsiderate, but I don't approve of burning things in protest in general), I don't deny that he had the right to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 17, 2010 23:44:39 GMT -5
You think burning the Koran is stupid and insensitive, yet acknowledge that the Pastor has a right to do it. I guess I feel the same way about the GZ mosque. I also think Imam Rauf's motivations for insisting on putting the mosque at that site are similar to the Florida pastor's motivation in burning the Koran. As I said before, if it was really about building bridges, he would have volunteered to move the site once it was apparent he was burning them instead.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Sept 18, 2010 0:44:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 18, 2010 1:03:39 GMT -5
To those unfamiliar with the Gospels, it would seem as if Christ is billing himself as a warrior. However, when surrounded by the other verses... And I guess the point here is that the verses from the Koran that I posted are similarly taken out of context and misunderstood by someone "unfamiliar" with the Koran, correct? Here's what you fail to account for, the practitioners of the faith itself that also believe the Koran provides justification for violence, oppression of women, and jihad. Hamas (the recognized government of Palestine), the Taliban and Al Quada, are all examples. You cannot credibly argue that all of them have just failed to read the Koran in context, that they are somehow "unfamiliar" with their faith. Incidentally, I only posted verses about Jews and Christians in the Koran, we haven't even gotten into what it says about infidels and unbelievers. There are about 20,000 Jews out of about 68 million people. That's .035 percent (which is slightly more than one third of one percent) of Iran's population. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population That's the reasoning the Imam uses now in not moving in the GZ mosque. It's almost coercive, "Don't burn the Koran, or else." "Don't move the mosque, or else." What's strange and quite ironic, is that this argument is usually advanced by the same folks who say that Islamists are no more violent than, say, Buddhists. So which is it? You (I mean this as the general "you", not necessarily directed to Gran) can't have it both ways. Actually, I'm going to post the description from Gran's link, of what went down over a few cartoons. "This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of police firing on crowds of protestors (resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths),[1] including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.[2][3]"
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Sept 18, 2010 19:11:44 GMT -5
And I guess the point here is that the verses from the Koran that I posted are similarly taken out of context and misunderstood by someone "unfamiliar" with the Koran, correct? Here's what you fail to account for, the practitioners of the faith itself that also believe the Koran provides justification for violence, oppression of women, and jihad. Hamas (the recognized government of Palestine), the Taliban and Al Quada, are all examples. You cannot credibly argue that all of them have just failed to read the Koran in context, that they are somehow "unfamiliar" with their faith. Incidentally, I only posted verses about Jews and Christians in the Koran, we haven't even gotten into what it says about infidels and unbelievers. There are about 20,000 Jews out of about 68 million people. That's .035 percent (which is slightly more than one third of one percent) of Iran's population. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population That's the reasoning the Imam uses now in not moving in the GZ mosque. It's almost coercive, "Don't burn the Koran, or else." "Don't move the mosque, or else." What's strange and quite ironic, is that this argument is usually advanced by the same folks who say that Islamists are no more violent than, say, Buddhists. So which is it? You (I mean this as the general "you", not necessarily directed to Gran) can't have it both ways. Actually, I'm going to post the description from Gran's link, of what went down over a few cartoons. "This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of police firing on crowds of protestors (resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths),[1] including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.[2][3]" There are estimated 1.5 to 1.27 billion Muslims in the world. Thats about 25% of the world population. The fact that the Islamic extremists apparently share your interpretation of the Koran is hardly evidence of what all or even what the majority of them believe. It is certainly not indicative of what the muslims who worked and prayed in the WTC, who died or lossed loved ones in 911 believe. Still, I suppose it is no accident these days that the worse of us get to represent the rest of us regardless of what group we are in. I do agree with you on one point. The threat of the violence carried out by extremists should not be the grounds for refraining from burning the Koran. Common sense and sensibility should be the reason. I notice that the violence mentioned in your quotation all happened in the Middle East. Fancy that. Btw, GZ in Manhattan isnt the only place in America right now where this conflict is happening. www.murfreesboropost.com/lawsuit-filed-to-stop-mosque-as-supporters-speak-up-cms-24454
|
|
o8jedi
Jet
Please, call me "o8"
Posts: 364
|
Post by o8jedi on Sept 18, 2010 23:03:30 GMT -5
Thank you 08. I was beginning to think nobody here was going to resort to the "Israel/US deserve the terrorism" argument. I was disappointed...until now. Personally, I don't care to justify terrorism, I'm a lot more interested in crushing it...but that's just me. Straw man. I was merely illustrating the resentment. One can understand Ireland's resentment of the British and not condone the actions of the IRA at the same time, can they not? To those unfamiliar with the Gospels, it would seem as if Christ is billing himself as a warrior. However, when surrounded by the other verses... And I guess the point here is that the verses from the Koran that I posted are similarly taken out of context and misunderstood by someone "unfamiliar" with the Koran, correct? Here's what you fail to account for, the practitioners of the faith itself that also believe the Koran provides justification for violence, oppression of women, and jihad. Hamas (the recognized government of Palestine), the Taliban and Al Quada, are all examples. You cannot credibly argue that all of them have just failed to read the Koran in context, that they are somehow "unfamiliar" with their faith. Incidentally, I only posted verses about Jews and Christians in the Koran, we haven't even gotten into what it says about infidels and unbelievers. The nature of extremism. The Bible has some pretty messed-up stuff in there as well, such as sending menstruating women outside the community until they are done and deemed ritually clean again (Leviticus 15:19-30). Or how little people and hunchbacks can't enter the Temple (Leviticus 21:16-23). Besides, one could also make the argument that Christianity is hell-bent, for lack of a better term, on global domination: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 This may be a roundabout way of saying it, but for God's sake, tone it down a bit. This is frustrating. My point stands. I never said it was a terribly large population, just that it was the largest of any country in the Middle East outside of Israel.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 22, 2010 9:11:27 GMT -5
I notice that the violence mentioned in your quotation all happened in the Middle East. Fancy that. Well, yes, being that there is a large concentration of devout Muslims in the Middle East, many of the things that occur that make me doubt the peacefulness of the faith itself, occur in the Middle East. I honestly don't understand your point at all. Straw man. I was merely illustrating the resentment. One can understand Ireland's resentment of the British and not condone the actions of the IRA at the same time, can they not? Sure, but I get suspicious when someone seems to condemn folks fed up with terrorism more than terrorism itself. I'll just ask straight up, do you condemn terrorists or do you sympathize with them? Ok, just didn't want you leaving the impression that Iran is some sort of desirable haven in the Middle East for Jews. For all we know, all 20,000 Jews are in Iranian prisons awaiting execution. BTW, did y'all here about the recent attempted terrorist attack in Chicago? A man planted a bomb outside Wriggly Field. Fortunately the bomb was a fake...given to him by the FBI (I find that funny for some reason). www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/20/national/main6885121.shtml?tag=topnewsHere's a group that believes the poor would-be terrorist was entrapped. freedetainees.org/10671
|
|
|
Post by luthien on Sept 22, 2010 23:49:05 GMT -5
Seriously? This is what it's come down to? I thought 08 illustrated the point well enough - he doesn't condone terrorists, but can see things from their perspective. Why continue to badger him when he's answered your question more than sufficiently?
|
|
|
Post by Kaneda on Sept 23, 2010 1:14:56 GMT -5
They have the legal right to build there. A person has a right to believe that they SHOULDN'T, but anyone who wants to take that opinion and make it law needs to grow up and understand how our country works. Mind you, it's not even the crap parts of the country that determine this, but one of the genuinely good parts. Constitution and all that.
Anyway, that bit of obviousness aside, while a person has the right to believe that they shouldn't, that line of thinking is weak and counterintuitive to social growth. Personally, near Ground Zero strikes me as the perfect place for an Islamic Center. 9/11 is an event so defining of America's current view of Islam, attention has to be called to it. The only reason for a negative response to this is basic intolerance. Even saying "I don't think it's a good idea because it's too sensitive for America at the moment," while understandable, is still rooted in intolerance. Not necessarily the intolerance of the person speaking, but it's still revolving around the concept, and we shouldn't compromise our society's progress because some people are too stunted.
I didn't read anything anybody posted in this thread by the way, cause like, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 23, 2010 8:54:54 GMT -5
"Stunted." That's almost funny. Yeah, not everybody can be as progressive and broadminded as, say, Al Quada. You want to roll over and make Al Quada happy, be my guest. I would rather not be their b**tch, but that's, apparently, just me. Again, we are lacking argument with the opinion! This won't do here! Not to mention a * does not make for clean language.
|
|
|
Post by luthien on Sept 23, 2010 12:07:04 GMT -5
What does the opinion of al Qaida have to do with basic American principles? Now we're just resorting to name-calling. How does believing that people have the right to express their religious freedom make al Qaida happy?
Quite frankly, what's MORE likely to make al Qaida happy is barring the building of this mosque because it's another "see, they don't like Muslims" argument that they can use to lure in new recruits.
When we, as Americans, let go of our principles and let intolerance reign - THAT is when al Qaida is happy.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Sept 24, 2010 2:05:26 GMT -5
I notice that the violence mentioned in your quotation all happened in the Middle East. Fancy that. Well, yes, being that there is a large concentration of devout Muslims in the Middle East, many of the things that occur that make me doubt the peacefulness of the faith itself, occur in the Middle East. I honestly don't understand your point at all. Here's my earlier post on this thread: So I just wanted to know it better asian malasian that the Islamics who hate jews only hate them because of a translation?? So they like totally misunderstand the whole meaning of Jews and Jesus?? My view is that they use it as an excuse. To contrive a religious reason to justify a mixture of prejudice, ignorance and a whole mess of socio-political conflicts and issues that have brewed and erupted in the Middle East since the 20th Century.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Sept 24, 2010 10:13:38 GMT -5
A little reminder: 1. No swearing or name calling. There are other ways to get a point across than swearing. Petty name calling and insulting someone’s ideas or arguments is an answer for lazy debaters, and it serves as a substitute for a real answer to the issue presented. There will be no more of it.
2. No derogatory religion-based comments or racism. While it hasn’t been a huge issue yet, it may pop up in the future.
3. No Republican vs. Democrat wars. Only debates about issues being discussed in the thread are allowed, without mention of your own political affiliation. No threads dedicated to wars of political affiliation are allowed either.
4. Stay on topic. The need to emphasize this point is immense. When a thread begins to rot because of the negative energy created by people going on off-topic rants, it creates tension between members and grounds for fighting. Not good.
5. If something extremely offensive is geared at you, PM a staff member. We will handle it. If the offense is minor, try to breathe it off. While you're steaming and need to get your mind on something else, I'm sure the pens on your desktop need inspecting.
6. Only post if you can contribute something to the topic/debate. This means no more: "What <insert name> Said" , or "I agree/disagree".
7. Do not take anything personally. No flaming.
8. Please, use spell check, or at least form sentences that make sense. Pretend that you are writing an Essay for class.
9. Since this is a Critical Thinking Forum use evidence to back up your statement if needed. This means no more: "The Bible says so." Actually find the verse that says so (just an example).
Expanded Rules: These rules are for people who have never really debated in a forum before.
1. I have noticed a ton of arguments being taken personally. Critical Thinking is a place for discussion and debate. Debate is where someone refutes an opinion and supports his or her own. There is no reason to take offense about a reasonably presented debate. I know if someone insults what you believe in you tend to get insulted, however part of what makes humans sentient is the ability to control instinctive reactions. If someone debates with you, debate back. Don't insult them. Sure, put a harsh twinge on your comments, it makes it more fun, but do not insult the person for having an opinion.
However on the flip side, if you present your opinion in a juvenile, disrespectful or just plain stupid way; you should expect to be made fun of.
If you keep arguing about something that people have just completely disproved, you should expect some insults. No one is going to respond politely to the same opinion over and over again.
2. If you state a fact that is not your opinion or common knowledge, be sure you have the sources to back it up. A common way to discredit an opponent is to ask where they got their sources. If they cannot cite their sources then it discredits their opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 24, 2010 10:45:08 GMT -5
Seriously? This is what it's come down to? I thought 08 illustrated the point well enough - he doesn't condone terrorists, but can see things from their perspective. Why continue to badger him when he's answered your question more than sufficiently? Relax. I just asked a question seeking the bottom line. If he's already answered me "more than sufficiently", it should be easy to do it again. It's up to him, though, if he wants to answer. Oh regarding American principles you mentioned above, nothing is being abandoned We're exercising our right to free speech and dissent to utilize the one tool we have here, public opinion. If it stops the building of this one particular mosque, then good for us - we would have won by persuasion, not force. Still, nobody's trying to outlaw Islam - that would be abandoning American principles. Well, yes, being that there is a large concentration of devout Muslims in the Middle East, many of the things that occur that make me doubt the peacefulness of the faith itself, occur in the Middle East. I honestly don't understand your point at all. Here's my earlier post on this thread: My view is that they use it as an excuse. To contrive a religious reason to justify a mixture of prejudice, ignorance and a whole mess of socio-political conflicts and issues that have brewed and erupted in the Middle East since the 20th Century. At best, though, that's just an educated guess. There are estimated 1.5 to 1.27 billion Muslims in the world. Thats about 25% of the world population. The fact that the Islamic extremists apparently share your interpretation of the Koran is hardly evidence of what all or even what the majority of them believe. I meant to reply to this earlier. I wasn't claiming that all Muslims believe exactly the same way, I was countering 08's argument that reading and understanding the Koran to be anti-Jew must simply be a function of being "unfamiliar" with it. Certainly extremist sects of Islam are not "unfamiliar" at all with the Koran. I don't dispute this. In fact, as was mentioned in one of the articles linked here (and not even by me), some of these Muslim families also oppose the GZ mosque. BTW, "lossed" or "lost"?
|
|