Plan for Mosque III...

[useless]

Neither. Not once in my post did I mention white people. And if I recall correctly, I did not mention Christians either.

No, but the very fact that Muslims and the Coptic Christians were treated like outsiders/aliens was due to their skin colour, language and ethnicity. The sad fact is that the "real american" (in the eyes of many) consists of being white and christian. Hence why Obama isn't considered even an american by many.

 

[Traitorfish]

Probably. How about the Westboro Baptist Church opening up a branch in a predominately gay neighborhood in San Fran, or South Beach in Miami, or Philidelphia?

Dont you think there would be some protestation to that?

You bet your sweet bippy there would be. And for good reason. It would be a terrible idea, although probably perfectly legal on the part of the WBC to attempt.

Does the Manhattan mosque openly support Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism, or express any other antipathy towards the people of New York? It would need to for this analogy to be effective.

 

[useless]

No, but you see, both are the same like 9/11 and the holocaust

 

[MobBoss]

Does the Manhattan mosque openly support Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism, or express any other antipathy towards the people of New York? It would need to for this analogy to be effective.

It would for it to be more effective, sure. But the link is simply the fact that the perps of 9/11 were muslims.

If they were openly supportive of AL Qaeda or another such group, we wouldnt be having this discussion...they would be in Gitmo or other similar dark hole, and the issue would be resolved.

 

[Defiant47]

Again, I get your're trying to be consistent.

Guess what...I dont believe you.

The WBC are reviled pretty much across the board. They would absolutely be protested heavily, just like they are already across America.

And that protestation wouldnt, absolutely WOULDNT, be written off as 'irrational and flawed' by anyone. In fact, it would be seen as legitimate due to the fact that the WBC are a bunch of turds in the punchbowl of America.

Thats simply a fact, your're objection notwithstanding.

OK, if you want to get into the details of this particular hypothetical...

The issue with the WBC is that a large proportion of them have been such bigots. There is good evidence to indicate that more such bigotry would come out of a new WBC location. Such protests wouldn't be irrational or flawed then.

The problem with the mosque protests is that they are simply wrong. To draw a parallel between the terrorists who caused 9/11 and Muslims who want a place of worship in NYC, is completely wrong (on a factual level, not on a moral level, though that too). As such, no credence should be extended to their protests.

 

[useless]

No, they were nutters who happened to be Muslims, unless you want everyone to have their view clouded when it comes to Christianity, and associate Fred Phelps with moderate chistians

Also you mean torturing them

 

[warpus]

Considering that a majority of democrats, independents and republicans are all against the idea of it being build so close to Ground Zero, I am going to have to go with spontaneous. Opposition to this has wide bipartisan support.

And yet at the very beginning when this was announced the project had bipartisan support, including support from the local community..

and it was months before this ever came up in the media as a potentially bad thing..

 

[MobBoss]

OK, if you want to get into the details of this particular hypothetical...

The issue with the WBC is that a large proportion of them have been such bigots. There is good evidence to indicate that more such bigotry would come out of a new WBC location. Such protests wouldn't be irrational or flawed then.

And the vast majority of terrorist acts committed worldwide are done by people of what faith?

If you recall, I said in the previous thread that Christians, even tho not of the same cut as the WBC folks, still need to be aware of the effect that sects like the WBC have upon communities, relationships and perceptions. Thats not any different that muslims of a peaceful sect have the same issue with radical/violent/fanatical muslims the world over.

 

[useless]

Before the Right wing attack dogs came and scared everyone with stories and misinformation about the scary "Muslims" who want to take over everything and piss all over the graves of the 9/11 victims etc

 

[MobBoss]

Before the Right wing attack dogs came and scared everyone with stories and misinformation about the scary "Muslims" who want to take over everything and piss all over the graves of the 9/11 victims etc

Are you saying that democrats and independents are so stupid that they believe whatever the right wing attack dogs tell them?

 

[Defiant47]

And the vast majority of terrorist acts committed worldwide are done by people of what faith?

That's thinking backwards, and it's wrong because the emphasis should be on not punishing innocents rather than punishing the guilty.

OK, most modern day terrorist acts are committed by Islam extremists.

If we were to place an emphasis on punishing the guilty, at whatever cost, then we should discriminate against Muslims. Lots of innocent people would be discriminated against, but so would the ones deserving of such discrimination.

If we were to place an emphasis on not punishing the innocent, then we should discriminate against Muslims only if the reverse proportion is true - that a large proportion of Muslims are terrorists. However, since the proportion remains minute (especially in the United States), it would be unethical to punish all Muslims, since a lot of innocents would be discriminated against wrongly.

The implication that discrimination against Muslims is acceptable since most terrorists are Muslims is akin to the implication that we should lock up everyone in a hotel where a murder was committed.

--- And by discrimination, I mean social discrimination, not necessarily just illegal discrimination.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

First of all, I resent the implication that I was the problem. Your're better than that Eran, so clean it up a bit. Secondly, our neighbors were a bunch of hispanic renters who insisted on getting dead drunk and fighting every weekend, while giving all their neighbors the finger if we objected to their partying. The cops being city cops were loath to actually do their job and do anything about it.

I lived in that house for 15 years, with good relations to everyone on the block till those scum moved in. And when it became apparent the cops wouldnt do anything about the situation, I could either a) deal with it or b) find a better place to live. For my wife and kids I chose b.

Wow, you pretty much completely missed the point of my analogy. Dare I say, you somehow got the exact opposite message from what I was going for, even.

Hint: in the analogy, the Muslims are the neighbors being driven off, the protesters are the neighbors doing the driving off. To relate it to the original debate, you are the one saying that the you of this analogy were the problem and "should" have left; I am not.

 

[useless]

Are you saying that democrats and independents are so stupid that they believe whatever the right wing attack dogs tell them?

No, but the general american public is. Same with Rush Limbaugh, Birther crap, and Foxnews.

 

[Defiant47]

If you recall, I said in the previous thread that Christians, even tho not of the same cut as the WBC folks, still need to be aware of the effect that sects like the WBC have upon communities, relationships and perceptions. Thats not any different that muslims of a peaceful sect have the same issue with radical/violent/fanatical muslims the world over.

They might need to be aware of it, but they should not be unduly influenced by it.

Nobody should be unduly influenced by the opinions of a large group of people who are in the wrong. (of course, assuming this large group of people won't be violent)

 

[Traitorfish]

It would for it to be more effective, sure. But the link is simply the fact that the perps of 9/11 were muslims.

"Were muslims"? Not even "Muslim extremists", or "militant Islamists"? Well, Jesus, guess I better mind my Fenian self should I ever visit Manchester, lest I am ever held personally responsible for the 1996 Bombings.

If they were openly supportive of AL Qaeda or another such group, we wouldnt be having this discussion...they would be in Gitmo or other similar dark hole, and the issue would be resolved.

So, essentially, if there was actually something to get your bollocks in a twist about, there wouldn't be? Do you not find that rather... Telling?

 

[useless]

In fact, the Tea party movement is a prime example of American gulibility and their desire to trust complicity everything their right wing media pundits spew out.

 

[dwaxe]

We've been putting ground zeros near Iraqi Mosques since 2003.

 

[MobBoss]

That's thinking backwards, and it's wrong because the emphasis should be on not punishing innocents rather than punishing the guilty.

No, you just call it backwards because it literally blows holes in your point.

If we were to place an emphasis on punishing the guilty, at whatever cost, then we should discriminate against Muslims. Lots of innocent people would be discriminated against, but so would the ones deserving of such discrimination.

No one is talking about discriminating against muslims on the basis of anything.

The implication that discrimination against Muslims is acceptable since most terrorists are Muslims is akin to the implication that we should lock up everyone in a hotel where a murder was committed.

Legal verbal dissent against the mosque being built near to ground zero isnt discrimination.

 

[Defiant47]

No, you just call it backwards because it literally blows holes in your point.

Let me make it clearer to you.

I discard the idea that *the fact that most modern terrorists are Muslims* is relevant.

If it were the other way around, that most Muslims were terrorists, then you'd have something. But it isn't that way.

No one is talking about discriminating against muslims on the basis of anything.

Legal verbal dissent against the mosque being built near to ground zero isnt discrimination.

So if I were to walk up to a black man in the street, and, protected by my freedom of speech, say "I don't think black people should live in this city", that wouldn't be discrimination?

Legal does not automatically mean non-discriminatory.

Protesting against Muslims building a mosque because a few Islamic extremists from the middle east committed a grave act of terrorism is pretty much discrimination.

 

[dwaxe]

Legal verbal dissent against the mosque being built near to ground zero isnt discrimination.

In most cases, that dissent is pure prejudice. Prejudice is the manifestation of hatred.