WTC Mosque Part Four!!!
- Thread starter Forty-Two
- Start date
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
It is not only a parody of news media. They frequently parody others as the recent clip about Murfreesboro and militant Muslims shows.
Colbert is nothing but parody. He is supposed to be the quintessential Fox News reactionary talking head.
It most certainly does. He makes it quit clear that he is referring to fundamentalist Muslim countries, not the US.
Since you seem to enjoy Huffington Post articles so much, try this one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/sharia-law-not-in-america_b_653250.html
Once again, if there was any element of truth to your claims that Imam Rauf wants to bring Sharla law to the US that it would be all over the media, especially Fox News. Yet you cannot find any reference.
Perhaps you didn't understand. You weren't supposed to come up with a propaganda youtube video obviously taking his statements out of context. You were supposed to state exactly which book of his you read and what exact statements by him in that book show that he was bringing Sharia law to the US.
Obviously, nobody else does. Which brings up the question of why you continue to try to bring him up in these discussions if it isn't an attempt to discredit me by trying to associate him with me.
Because I have no opinion about him and it is obviously completely irrelevant to this discussion.
It is ironic you frequently create strawmen of my positions while claiming you don't that you now feel others need "education" in this matter. Once again, I can see no other reason for you to continue to bring this individual up in threads where it is obviously not germane.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
In all fairness, you do have a habit of over-using the term. Many of the "strawmen" you identify are actually examples of Reductio ad absurdum; while a failed Reductio may appear similar to a strawman (or a Reductio that you simply do not like...), they are actually quite distinct. In either case, though, the proper response is refutation and clarification, not condemnation.
And this applies to the forum-at-large. It's a term we're altogether too fond of, and we are steadily devaluing it.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Deliberately putting words into someone's mouth which they never stated so you can try to discredit them isn't a Reductio ad absurdum. Neither is falsely trying to compare someone to another individual merely because we expressed the same opinion regarding blowback. Millions of other people share the exact same view.
Once again, why bring up Ward Churchill merely because I suggested building on mosque on Ground Zero?
Once again, why bring up Ward Churchill merely because I suggested building on mosque on Ground Zero?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I think that you may be missing the point somewhat.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
The point is that it is based on logical fallacies. Simply because I think there would be nothing wrong with building a mosque on "Ground Zero" as a fitting trubute to the Muslims who died on 9/11 isn't related to Ward Churchill whatsoever, at least as far as I can see.
Tolerating moderate Muslims will help the extremists come to power!
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Unless you are quite the mind reader, you dont know this.
Continually bring him up? Huh?
You have no opinion about him what-so-ever?
How can that be?
Surely you have an opinion about what he said in regards to the victims of 9/11? Why would you appear apathetic to that?
No, the irony there is simply how often you are in error in claiming something is a strawman. Its gotten to the point where even people who normally take your side of an argument feel compelled to point it out. You want to remain in denial about it, thats your business.
I dont continually bring him up, and have only mentioned him a single time in this and the other mosque threads. I also felt the question germane due to the topic.
Absolutely.
Again there Form...it was a question in regards to your opinion on something. Not a statement. It was actually an opportunity for you to clarify your opinion. Generally, thats a good thing.
And no, I dont think 'millions' agree with Ward Churchill at all.
Does that 'fitting tribute' include the muslim hijackers that died on the planes since they are included in that number?
'Course. This whole thing is really a Muslim conspiracy to place a victory monument to the hijackers near the site of the WTC.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
'Course. This whole thing is really a Muslim conspiracy to place a victory monument to the hijackers near the site of the WTC.
Nah, I will go on the record as I dont think that at all.
But I do think that some fanatics will indeed view it as a 'victory mosque' whatever the reason for its construction. Some fanatics will indeed use it as a propaganda tool regardless. I think thats fairly self-evident, dont you?
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
which article r u speaking of, the imam's article in which he states:
"The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.
In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith.
or perhaps it was the independant UK article which stated:
The existence of these courts is controversial, and some rulings recorded on fatwa sites clearly conflict with British law for instance, that a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts, and if she does, her children should be taken away from her; or that a wife should normally obey a man's summons to have sex; that a divorced wife has no property rights; or that homosexuality should be severely punished. which u called "patently absurd"
i have no problems with muslims that are against sharia law like this one (remember, u made fun of them) and these folks
that is very funny since if i were to use a fox news link, u would do a "dismiss/smear", just as u did on the video from the last post.....no, the only possibly credible sources would then be the huffington post, granma and....the daily shows
w john stewart
if his own words mentioned above dont convince u, how about from his own book:
Chapter 3: Whats Right with America... Imam Rauf states, If there is any quarrel Muslims have with America, it is that the United States does not always live up to its own ideal of ethics and values. In sub-chapter America: A Sharia-Compliant State, Rauf states (w)hat I am demonstrating is that the American political structure is Shariah compliant, for a state inhabited predominantly by Muslims neither defines nor makes it synonymous with an Islamic state. It can become truly Islamic only by virtues of a conscious application of the sociopolitical tenets of Islam to the life of the national, and by an incorporation of those tenets in the basic constitution of the country.‟ By the same token, a state that does incorporate such sociopolitical tenets has become a de facto Islamic state even if there are no Muslims in name living there, for it expresses the ideals of the good society according to Islamic principles. For America to score even higher on the Islamic‟ or Shariah Compliance‟ scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation‟s practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws 86).
perhaps u didnt read.....
which article r u speaking of, the imam's article in which he states:
"The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.
In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith.
or perhaps it was the independant UK article which stated:
The existence of these courts is controversial, and some rulings recorded on fatwa sites clearly conflict with British law for instance, that a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts, and if she does, her children should be taken away from her; or that a wife should normally obey a man's summons to have sex; that a divorced wife has no property rights; or that homosexuality should be severely punished. which u called "patently absurd"
i have no problems with muslims that are against sharia law like this one (remember, u made fun of them) and these folks
that is very funny since if i were to use a fox news link, u would do a "dismiss/smear", just as u did on the video from the last post.....no, the only possibly credible sources would then be the huffington post, granma and....the daily shows
w john stewart
if his own words mentioned above dont convince u, how about from his own book:
Chapter 3: Whats Right with America... Imam Rauf states, If there is any quarrel Muslims have with America, it is that the United States does not always live up to its own ideal of ethics and values. In sub-chapter America: A Sharia-Compliant State, Rauf states (w)hat I am demonstrating is that the American political structure is Shariah compliant, for a state inhabited predominantly by Muslims neither defines nor makes it synonymous with an Islamic state. It can become truly Islamic only by virtues of a conscious application of the sociopolitical tenets of Islam to the life of the national, and by an incorporation of those tenets in the basic constitution of the country.‟ By the same token, a state that does incorporate such sociopolitical tenets has become a de facto Islamic state even if there are no Muslims in name living there, for it expresses the ideals of the good society according to Islamic principles. For America to score even higher on the Islamic‟ or Shariah Compliance‟ scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation‟s practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws 86).
perhaps u didnt read.....
None of which matters, because we have separation of church and state. And the only people who could possibly take that away are the fundamentalist Christians that prefer to pretend that America is a Christian nation.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Dude, if the mosque is NOT built, fanatics will use that as a propaganda tool as well. It doesn't matter what you guys do, the U.S. is the "great satan" - obviously being incapable of doing any good, from the point of view of the fanatics.
You can't use that as a justification to not build the mosque.
