Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine.

[kandrathe]

You seem to be under the impression that by definition this mosque/cultural center is a celebration of terrorism.

I'm allowing that there are a large group of people who are hyper-sensitive to an atrocity. Ok, how about adding a strip club, or a gun range across the street from a battered woman's shelter? We use zoning laws all the time to prevent social disharmony, even though for all other reasons there is nothing illegal about the business.

Your examples consistently conflate terrorism with Muslims and Islam as if they are intrinsically the same thing.

They are not the same. It would be the same problem if 911 were perpetrated by a rogue band of Chechen terrorists, and if a Chechen group wanted to build a Chechen community center. Not these Chechen's... These are peaceful Chechen's.

What I'm saying is, "Let's look at it from the victims point of view." The law is rational, and it clearly gives them the right to build. The people of NYC have feelings, and their victimization gives them perhaps an irrational emotional response.

It would be prejudiced to say that building a mosque here would attract Islamic terrorist violence to the neighborhood. It is not prejudiced to say that NYC's residents have a right to their feelings. The law can cram it down their throats, but I'm questioning the wisdom in doing that.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . so pardon me if I've trampled on some sacred cows.

You mean like:
Galatians 5:14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Your book, not mine.

My position is exactly the one stated by the Anti-Defamation League.

Right. Your position is the same as that of a Jewish organization on the subject of Arabs.

What percentage of Muslims applauded the destruction of the WTC, and find OBL a hero for planning it?

What percentage of American Muslims applauded the destruction of the WTC, and find OBL a hero for planning it? It’s not like the Gaza Strip Muslims are going to build and frequent the Mosque in Manhattan.

A large portion of the Muslim population deny that Arabs had anything to do with it.

A large percentage of the American population think the CIA and Mafia (maybe with some help from the FBI and Castro) assassinated JFK. Other than proving that a large percent of any population is stupid, what does this have to do with anything.

Besides, you can’t have it both ways. If Arabs didn’t think Arabs did it, then why did they celebrate it as an Arab victory?

Then there is the troubling matter of Feisal Abdul Rauf's plain covered edition of his book distributed outside the US, "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11."

Again, so what? Does he speak for all the supporters? He’s devoted his life to bridging the Islamic and Western worlds, why do you dislike him? He makes claims that you might not agree with, but they are fair claims. Are you judging him because he is a Muslim? Are you also afraid you’ll wake up with a horse’s head in your bed some morning. After all, I was born in Italy and everybody knows we’re all Mafioso.

Isn’t there something in the Constitution about no bills of attainder (maybe in article 1, section 9)? Important enough that it couldn’t even wait for the Bill of Rights? Has that been repealed? Is it now legal to judge one by one’s connections, or may the MacGregor’s resume their name?

When was the last person burned alive as a form of capital punishment?

From your first link: “It was reported on 21 May 2008, that in Kenya a mob had burnt to death at least 11 people accused of witchcraft.”

From your second link (dateline of Feb 11, 2009): “In Papua New Guinea, where about 50 people suspected of sorcery were killed in two provinces last year, a young woman was burned alive in January by villagers who accused her of being a witch.”

According to Sharia law, you'd be killed, but I might be allowed to live as a 2nd class citizen. Perhaps, you'd prefer the more tolerant of the two evils. I'm as against irrational mob mentality as you. This is why the rule of law, based on Constitutional rights, needs to prevail, over the mob mentality, or those who would seek to theocratize the law.

I agree, but I fail to see how this is in any way pertinent to the discussion. Are you implying that a Mosque in Manhattan and allowing Muslims the same freedom of religion we allow all others is going to turn the USA into an Islamic theocracy? Brings to mind the story of a little chicken.

There are many types of Christians. Many, such as the Branch Davidians, I wouldn't want building a compound near me either. I think there are many types of Muslims.

Did I miss something along the way? I thought it was going to be a Mosque. You know, like a church, or synagogue, or temple, but for Muslims. Did the NYT forget to mention the gun turrets and concrete bunkers?

But, as I stated originally, the law is the law. They have the right to do whatever they like with their land as long as it complies with local codes.

We’re not talking rights. We’re talking attitude. An attitude I heard a lot of and learned to hate in the South fifty years ago. The “Those damned n....s bought up that house on my street. Guess the law gives them the right. Now I’m going to have to sell before the neighborhood goes to hell. Hope I can find someplace to move close to a good Christian church” attitude. It still makes me want to puke.

Look. I'm not against them building the mosque. No one I knew died in the WTC. But, I recognize that some people there may be sensitive to having the appearance of "enemy" building a shrine at the sight of one of their greatest accomplishments.

I see. But for the happy accident that you weren’t personally involved, you feel mild hatred for everything Arab. Had that not be the case, you’d gladly join the lynch mob.

Morality here is the sense of what is right by the majority. If a majority of New Yorkers are against it, then I would say they are making more enemies than friends. They still have the legal right to build it, and damn the torpedoes.

From above: “I'm as against irrational mob mentality as you. This is why the rule of law, based on Constitutional rights, needs to prevail, over the mob mentality, or those who would seek to theocratize the law.”

Of course, the mob mentality of those who hate everything they do not understand is OK. After all, the New Yorkers who oppose the Mosque aren’t a mob – they can’t be, they agree with *you*.

How about a Pearl Harbor shrine to Japanese pilots lost in the battle? Or, a monument to US aviation accomplishments at Hiroshima?

You mean like the Italian shrine to the Polish dead at Monte Cassino?

It's more the lack of wisdom in the decision to build there. Especially if their stated goal is to build bridges. What it will mostly likely do is divide the population.

Yes, because it makes much more sense to build bridges far from the rivers. I’m sure that a Mosque in Beirut would do much better at getting WASPs and Arabs to commingle and understand each other.

The US has been engaged in one of the longest wars in it's history against radical jihadists, in response for perpetrating the attack on the WTC. It has to do with radical Jihad.

I’m unsure how to even begin to approach this. Perhaps by pointing out the Hundred Year’s War, or the Thirty Year’s War, or the Napoleonic Wars. Perhaps by pointing out the fact that you can’t wage war against terrorists. It requires the stupidity and ignorance of a highly uneducated public led by a moron puppet fronting for people wanting to enrich themselves to even think it. Ask the French about Vietnam and Algeria, the Germans, French, Italians about the Red Brigade, the Spanish about Basque Nationalists, or the Israelis about their daily life. They’ll be happy to tell you about the effectiveness of the military against terrorists.

Or perhaps I just should say that for someone who gets so upset when I equate Christianity with the inquisition, you’re pretty quick to equate Islam (and a Mosque in NYC) with radical Jihad.

I disagree. First, I doubt 50% of Americans were dancing in the streets when any of the most recent conflicts began.

We don’t do much dancing in the streets. Our culture is much more repressed, coming mostly from Northern Europe rather than the ‘excitable’ South. And the beginning of a conflict is not a typical time for rejoicing. But I do remember the smug and self congratulatory attitude by all the news talking heads when we entered Baghdad and later when we captured Saddam. I suspect they didn’t go out into the streets and dance, but a lot of people raised their beer and toasted the events.

Generally, most Americans are "live and let live" in their political philosophy, which when extended to foreign policy makes us mostly non-interventionists.

Did this become a discussion of alternate realities? Did the Spanish-American war, WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Balkans, Somalia, two Gulf Wars, the invasion of Afghanistan not occur in this reality? Not to mention all the puppet dictators we shored up, like Saddam, Noriega, Batista. Or the wars we supported in South and Central America, in Africa, in Afghanistan. Or our military presence for decades in Europe and Japan.

If that is non-intervention, then only conquest and occupation must qualify as intervention.

Most Americans have empathy for the grass roots freedom movement in Iran.

So? First, I doubt that that is true. Since it isn’t mentioned on Oprah or Survivor, I doubt that most Americans even know about it. And, I suspect, most of those that do are indifferent as long as it doesn’t effect the price of their lattes. But, second, even if the statement is true, so what? What does it have to do with a Mosque in Manhattan?

You actually have it backwards. Higher education, and the roots of almost every worldwide institution of higher learning are based from religion, and truth seeking.

First of all, that’s “based on”. As in that’s their foundation upon which the structure is built. Second, make up your mind. Is it ‘religion’ or ‘truth seeking’? For religion is the blind adherence to a dogma without the support of evidence and often even in the face of contrary evidence. It is the antithesis of ‘truth seeking’, the ultimate example of “I know the truth, don’t confuse me with facts.” And, yes, many older schools can trace their origins to religious institutions. When they were started, there wasn’t another organization with the power and wealth to do so. And for hundreds of years after they were started, they specialized in such esoterica as the number of angles on the head of a pin. It wasn’t till the advent of the humanists that true progress picked up from where it had been choked off fifteen centuries earlier by the advent of barbarians and Christianity.

If you want to qualify your statement to "The Vatican under pope XYZ", then you may be closer to the truth.

There you go again. “No True Christian” would behave like the majority of self proclaimed Christians have throughout history. It’s not Christianity that’s at fault, it’s just the people who profess it.

What percentage of American Muslims want to see, as Rauf proposes, that the US accommodate Sharia law? I think it would be rather small.

I suspect you misspoke? Regardless, nice scare tactic. Are you referring to stoning adulterers or to giving workers breaks so they can pray five times a day? You know, I lived in the South when the Blue Laws were still in effect. Seems they cut the fundamentalists Christians an awful lot of slack.

But, Rauf is a proselytizing Islamic missionary called upon to spread his religion based in lower Manhattan. Would he call for stoning adulterers? Probably not. Has he condemned it? No. He won't do that either, as it is clear in the Hadith. The extremist clerics are usually smart enough to remain mute, or vague on actions that would be considered illegal in their locality. It is the nature of extreme religious clerics of all faiths to leave the "interpretation" open for their adherents to act out on. Then, in response to the bombing, killings, or other reprehensible crimes, they divert the topic to the sinful nature of the culture (that deserves retribution).

Have you ever read the Bible?

Deuteronomy 17:2-5
If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.

That’s just two examples. It is the book that Judaism and Christianity are based on. And yet you’d be hard pressed to find either a Jew or a Christian who would propose those practices be reintroduced. But there are some, and they from first world nations where education and tolerance are both common. Do you really think all modern Muslims follow the Koran and the Sharia law to the letter any more than all modern Jews and Christians follow the laws in Deuteronomy to the letter?

--Pete

“. . . while others say don’t hate nothing at all except hatred . . . “

[Jester]

We don’t do much dancing in the streets. Our culture is much more repressed, coming mostly from Northern Europe rather than the ‘excitable’ South. And the beginning of a conflict is not a typical time for rejoicing. But I do remember the smug and self congratulatory attitude by all the news talking heads when we entered Baghdad and later when we captured Saddam. I suspect they didn’t go out into the streets and dance, but a lot of people raised their beer and toasted the events.

Yeah. We'd never find the idea of blowing up our ideological enemies to be hilarious. We're very solemn about the whole matter.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You mean like...

I was talking about the political correctness. I find the Phelps family an abomination, but... They stay within their legal rights, and force people to contemplate restricting free speech just to shut them up. I'm going to give you enough respect to converse with you honestly. I'm not going to couch my language for fear of offending anyone. I work all over the world, and I have friends from every major religion on the planet. I don't despise Muslims, or Hindus, or Jews, or Atheists, and I don't seek to proselytize them either. I believe in allowing each person to discover their own truths and path to goodness, as long as it doesn't involve harming others, or the destruction of the planet. I've had these conversations directly with people, and I've told them, "I think you are wrong, but I love you anyway." I have my beliefs which I've cultivated over a life time, and they may be wrong, but they are not superficial, nor malleable to please the people I'm with.

Right. Your position is the same as that of a Jewish organization on the subject of Arabs.

Ad hominem. If you want to condemn the ADL, so be it. In that statement, they highlight their history of defending Muslims from "defamation". How do you feel about what they wrote?

It’s not like the Gaza Strip Muslims are going to build and frequent the Mosque in Manhattan.

This is not just a mosque. If it were just another lower Manhattan mosque, there would be no issues. This is an Arc de Triomphe on ground zero. Yes, it might just become a new shrine to pilgrimage to pay tribute to the martyr, Mohammed Atta. Good for the tourism economy.

Other than proving that a large percent of any population is stupid, what does this have to do with anything. Besides, you can’t have it both ways. If Arabs didn’t think Arabs did it, then why did they celebrate it as an Arab victory?

It can be both. Not to the same individual, but a group can be of many minds. For many it's a statement of domination.

Again, so what? Does he speak for all the supporters? He’s devoted his life to bridging the Islamic and Western worlds, why do you dislike him? He makes claims that you might not agree with, but they are fair claims. Are you judging him because he is a Muslim?

Dawah also means "to call the dead to rise from their tombs". There are layers symbolism, not lost on muslims, in claiming to bring "dawah" from the rubble of 9/11. Dawah here also means converting Manhattan to Islam. The building of "Cordoba House", in the spirit of Abd ar-Rahman "The Immigrant" (name now changed) is also not lost on the world of Islam. Built on the ashes of Jihad conceived by Omar Abdel Rahman "The Blind Sheik", and delivered by Osama Bin Laden.

I don't dislike him, actually. I respect him, and think he does a great job. I just don't agree with him, or his goals. I believe he, like many clerics, is also somewhat subversive. I find the practice of saying one thing to America, and another to the rest of the Muslim world a bit duplicitous. I'm against the building of this Islamic shrine at that site because it is meant as a victory flag, and that offends the living who lost loved ones there. I don't have any problem with them build a mosque anywhere they please, but I do object to what can only be described as an ostentatious victory flag.

From your first link: “It was reported on 21 May 2008, that in Kenya a mob had burnt to death at least 11 people accused of witchcraft.”

The victims were dragged from their houses by a riled up mob. And, the authorities went in afterward and prosecuted the organizers, and perpetrators for their crimes. Much different than the execution being the end result of jurisprudence. No different from mob violence in Rwanda, Darfur, or other troubled areas where ignorance rules. The point I was making is that it isn't a religion that drives people to killing, it is ignorance.

Look. I'm not against them building the mosque. No one I knew died in the WTC. But, I recognize that some people there may be sensitive to having the appearance of "enemy" building a shrine at the sight of one of their greatest accomplishments.

I see. But for the happy accident that you weren’t personally involved, you feel mild hatred for everything Arab. Had that not be the case, you’d gladly join the lynch mob.

Why are you speaking for me? You really despise it when people do that to you, so why do you do it for me? I'm not against them building a mosque. If their aim was worship, then it would be great. If Rauf's aims were merely proselytizing, then I've no worries. When I say Shrine, I mean shrine. I'm not affected by 911, except as we all were affected in having our nation pump trillions of dollars into another endless war. The criminals who masterminded 911 haven't even been tried yet (even though they've begged to plead guilty), so it's a bit soon to forget about the people who might be a bit sensitive to having Saudi Arabia fund a mega Islamic complex at ground zero ( being they were also removed from the funding of the rebuilding of the new WTC).

Of course, the mob mentality of those who hate everything they do not understand is OK. After all, the New Yorkers who oppose the Mosque aren’t a mob – they can’t be, they agree with *you*.

Some are irrational (Sarah Palin), but some, like Harry Reid (I hate to say it, Harry and I are on the same side of an issue), or the ADL are being rational.

From the Ottowa Citizen, by Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, members of the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress, "The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America’s Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill."

You mean like the Italian shrine to the Polish dead at Monte Cassino?

Built by who? When? And if I remember correctly, it was Germans who occupied Monte Cassino during the WWII battle. Did the majority of local Italians object to the building of this shrine?

It's more the lack of wisdom in the decision to build there. Especially if their stated goal is to build bridges. What it will mostly likely do is divide the population.

Yes, because it makes much more sense to build bridges far from the rivers. I’m sure that a Mosque in Beirut would do much better at getting WASPs and Arabs to commingle and understand each other.

If they wanted to build a bridge, then proceed with the community center with a multi-cultural appeal with a mosque, a synagogue, and a non-denominational christian church. Here all the faiths of the book can co-exist and get to know each other.

The US has been engaged in one of the longest wars in it's history against radical jihadists, in response for perpetrating the attack on the WTC. It has to do with radical Jihad.

I’m unsure how to even begin to approach this. ... They’ll be happy to tell you about the effectiveness of the military against terrorists.

We agree. I'm against war, except for defense. I'm also similarly against the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and the war on any non-organization. Currently, I'm especially against Obama's politicization and escalation of the war in Afghanistan. This is how we muffed up Vietnam. We couldn't win, and we wouldn't leave.

Or perhaps I just should say that for someone who gets so upset when I equate Christianity with the inquisition, you’re pretty quick to equate Islam (and a Mosque in NYC) with radical Jihad.

But, I'm not. I'm not against a mosque. I'm against the Shrine.

I suspect they didn’t go out into the streets and dance, but a lot of people raised their beer and toasted the events.

At the outset I thought of the potential dead, and I didn't think the casualties were worth the potential gains. I was glad to see Saddam deposed, but it was not worth the immediate costs. Then, due to the insurgency, it was a huge net loss, and a monumental investment of money which benefited the future Iraq (and Middle East) much more than the future America. But, we're not out yet, and the whole thing might still fall apart. Then, it will have been a total waste.

If that is non-intervention, then only conquest and occupation must qualify as intervention.

Generally, I find that the American people have to be deceived in order for them to give their assent. Once the deception is revealed, the majority calls for an end to the war.

What does it (Iranian Freedom) have to do with a Mosque in Manhattan?

Other than revealing the chink in their armor (Coke, Levis, Rock n' Roll), I think it shows that the people in the US understand the difference between democracy and totalitarianism. I think the worlds people understand the potential of a global (totalitarian, Junta, monarchy) theocratic Caliphate, such as what is represented by many Islamic countries ruling structure. Contrast that with the current world's powers attempting to reinforce the crumbling remnants of European empires.

There you go again. “No True Christian” would behave like the majority of self proclaimed Christians have throughout history. It’s not Christianity that’s at fault, it’s just the people who profess it.

I'm reserving the right to engage in the defense of Christianity at a later date. Currently, we've opened too many cans of worms to spar on this one again, now.

What percentage of American Muslims want to see, as Rauf proposes, that the US accommodate Sharia law? I think it would be rather small.

I suspect you misspoke? Regardless, nice scare tactic. Are you referring to stoning adulterers or to giving workers breaks so they can pray five times a day?

Well, how about Raufs own words. Don't worry little frog, the water is not hot, it's just warming.

But, Rauf is a proselytizing Islamic missionary called upon to spread his religion based in lower Manhattan. Would he call for stoning adulterers? Probably not. Has he condemned it? No. He won't do that either, as it is clear in the Hadith. The extremist clerics are usually smart enough to remain mute, or vague on actions that would be considered illegal in their locality. It is the nature of extreme religious clerics of all faiths to leave the "interpretation" open for their adherents to act out on. Then, in response to the bombing, killings, or other reprehensible crimes, they divert the topic to the sinful nature of the culture (that deserves retribution).

Have you ever read the Bible?

Yes, I have.

That’s just two examples. It is the book that Judaism and Christianity are based on. And yet you’d be hard pressed to find either a Jew or a Christian who would propose those practices be reintroduced. But there are some, and they from first world nations where education and tolerance are both common.

Mohammad in fact, copied what worked from Christianity and Judaism, and layered on his own "visions". The passages you cite were from ancient Judaic Law, "the unanimous opinion of modern biblical criticism is that Deuteronomy is not the work of Moses, as is the traditionally held opinion, but that it was, in its main parts, written in the seventh century B.C., during the reign of Josiah." In other words, a "found" lost work of Moses written to impose new laws on the people. Modern Christians and Jews read the works in the context of who and how they were written.

Do you really think all modern Muslims follow the Koran and the Sharia law to the letter any more than all modern Jews and Christians follow the laws in Deuteronomy to the letter?

I'm basing my opinion on what I see practiced in the world today. I'm basing on the fact that a Fatwah from a cleric a world away will cause hit men in Denmark to attempt to carry out a death sentence. While there may be modern Muslims who are willing to examine the Koran, Hadith, and Sharia in context, in general, I'm finding currently that fundamentalism rules. The modern enlightened ones are silent, or perhaps do not exist.

[Jester]

Well, how about Raufs own words. Don't worry little frog, the water is not hot, it's just warming.

Two points. One: did you read that article? Because it doesn't seem to contain anything like what you imply.

The other: a frog in a pot of warming water will jump out when it becomes uncomfortably hot. A frog thrown in a pot of boiling water will die instantly. Not only is the metaphor a paranoid affirmation of the slippery slope argument, it is also dead wrong.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

One: did you read that article? Because it doesn't seem to contain anything like what you imply.

Yes. The article is telling us that Sharia is not a threat. Don't worry.

Not only is the metaphor a paranoid affirmation of the slippery slope argument, it is also dead wrong.

How can facts be paranoid? I'm saying that the unified approach by all Islamic clerics for Sharia imposition, in Canada, in the US, in Europe, is to slowly ease into it, as has been happening in the (Re-) Islamification of Turkey, Indonesia, and elsewhere. As of 50 years ago, Sharia was a tribal anachronism practiced like head hunting, or voodoo. Now, emigration and fundamentalism has brought it as an issue in almost every western nation. The Ataturks are losing, and the Caliphate is winning.

[Jester]

Yes. The article is telling us that Sharia is not a threat. Don't worry.

It sounds to me like you're giving Muslims a non-choice: if they say extreme things, they're extremists, and if they say moderate things, they're just lulling you into complacency so they can be extreme. What is he supposed to tell you, that his religion is in fact utterly incommensurable with the modern world, and that you should throw him and his co-religionists out of the country?

Or put another way, a Christian, when confronted with "god's law" according to the Bible, filled to the brim with slavery, child abuse, genocide, war crimes, self-flagellation, intolerance, racism, and assaults on innocent fig trees, should tell you that the Bible is a threat? Or should they tell you that context matters, and that these things can be interpreted in a way that makes them not harmful? Because that appears to be what Mr. Rauf is saying.

I don't like any of it. But it's biased to accept the mealymouthed excuses of one religion, but not another.

How can facts be paranoid?

Metaphors. It is the metaphor that is paranoid. Everything is boiling frogs if you look at it the right way. Any compromise, however innocuous, is unacceptable, because "the water is heating up." All moderates are the enemy, because they're just a cover for extremists.

Unless, of course, we're talking about a group we like. Then we can throw out all the untrue Scotsmen.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

First, just a friendly request. Please use a few line breaks in your posts. They read fine on the board, but when I go to answer, they become a continuous unit, with quote tags in-line. On a big post like this one, it takes me about five minutes just to go through it and break apart the quotes just to keep track of the flow. Your choice, of course, but I would appreciate it

. . . but a group can be of many minds.

Yes, it can. And the anti-Muslim attitude is based on condemning the group for the minds of some.

I believe he, like many clerics, is also somewhat subversive.

Every religious leader is subversive, if by subversive you mean desiring all to believe as he does. The conviction that you are right and everyone else is wrong is the basis for being a religious leader. Some are more tolerant than others.

The point I was making is that it isn't a religion that drives people to killing, it is ignorance

It is religion. It may be an ignorant religion, but it is not the ignorance that causes them to believe in witchcraft, it is their ignorant world view of how the universe works that causes the belief. And that belief is their religion.

I'm not against them building a mosque. . . . When I say Shrine, I mean shrine.

I see. A Mosque is OK, a Shrine is not. And you get to decide which is which?

From the Ottowa Citizen, by Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, members of the board of the . . .

I do not know anything of that group, their affiliations, their religious beliefs. I do know that Islam is fragmented into many mutually antagonistic groups. Without a hell of a lot more information, which I just will not bother to get, I cannot tell if that letter is on the level or the equivalent of the JW giving public advice to the Catholics.

If they wanted to build a bridge, then proceed with the community center with a multi-cultural appeal with a mosque, a synagogue, and a non-denominational christian church. Here all the faiths of the book can co-exist and get to know each other.

I’m for that. However, I don’t see why the Muslims should pay for places of worship for other religions. But if all are willing to do this, then that indeed would be a bridge.

This is how we muffed up Vietnam. We couldn't win, and we wouldn't leave.

Yes. But another rant completely. One in which I suspect we would be singing in harmony.

Generally, I find that the American people have to be deceived in order for them to give their assent. Once the deception is revealed, the majority calls for an end to the war.

Then they are deceived often and easily.

Well, how about Raufs own words

?
I’m with Jester.

But, Rauf is a proselytizing Islamic missionary called upon to spread his religion based in lower Manhattan.

I’ve never had an Islamic missionary knock on my door. I’ve had quite a few Christian ones of one stripe or another. I’m sure that I’ll be able to resist the sales pitch of the one with my experience of the other.

. . . "the unanimous opinion of modern biblical criticism is that Deuteronomy is not the work of Moses, as is the traditionally held opinion, but that it was, in its main parts, written in the seventh century B.C., during the reign of Josiah."

So, the Bible should be our guide. But only the parts we like?

In other words, a "found" lost work of Moses written to impose new laws on the people. Modern Christians and Jews read the works in the context of who and how they were written.

By ‘modern’ do you mean ‘those with a modern outlook’ or ‘those who are our contemporaries’? Because there are many people alive right now who are fundamentalist in their religion and obey Deuteronomy to a large extent.

The modern enlightened ones are silent, or perhaps do not exist.

Or perhaps just aren’t newsworthy?

This says it better than I can.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . assaults on innocent fig trees, . . .

No, fig trees have rights. From Deuteronomy 20:19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them?

Now, people on the other hand: (Deuteronomy 20:16) However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

So, quit spreading those lies. It's only people and livestock (and the occasional pet) that god hates, he loves trees.

--Pete

[Jester]

So, quit spreading those lies. It's only people and livestock (and the occasional pet) that god hates, he loves trees.

I guess Jesus didn't get the memo?

On the other hand, he also didn't exterminate any ethnic groups, so I guess it's one step backward, two steps forward.

-Jester

Afterthought: Jebusites? Simpsons did it!

[--Pete]

Hi,

I guess Jesus didn't get the memo?

What do you expect, he was a rebel.

On the other hand, he also didn't exterminate any ethnic groups, . . .

No, but his followers sure have tried.

. . . so I guess it's one step backward, two steps backward.

Fixed.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

First, just a friendly request. Please use a few line breaks in your posts. They read fine on the board, but when I go to answer, they become a continuous unit, with quote tags in-line. On a big post like this one, it takes me about five minutes just to go through it and break apart the quotes just to keep track of the flow. Your choice, of course, but I would appreciate it

No trouble. It would be easier for me too. I actually have to go to extra pains to remove all the blank lines (for compactness), and when I edit it is hugely hard to figure out the breaks for me too.

And the anti-Muslim attitude is based on condemning the group for the minds of some.

Some of the anti-Muslim attitude... One can be against an ostentatious Islamic (victory) shrine being built at GZ, and not be against Islam, or Muslims. My point is that even many Muslims are against the "mischief" of being insensitive.

Every religious leader is subversive, if by subversive you mean desiring all to believe as he does. The conviction that you are right and everyone else is wrong is the basis for being a religious leader. Some are more tolerant than others.

By subversive, I mean deceptive. He seems to say one thing in English, and quite another thing in Arabic.

It is religion. It may be an ignorant religion, but it is not the ignorance that causes them to believe in witchcraft, it is their ignorant world view of how the universe works that causes the belief. And that belief is their religion.

We won't get anywhere on this one. Every day after my morning coffee I take a dump religiously. Some people are religiously ignorant, but it is the ignorance which engenders their fear. The news articles concerning these witch hunters doesn't clarify how they justify their ignorance. But, you and I know it is their ignorance whether it be based on their tribal shamanism, Islam, or Christianity, which has caused them to organize a mob to roast accused witches and sorcerers.

I see. A Mosque is OK, a Shrine is not. And you get to decide which is which?

Look, again, it is not against any law, and the local planning commission has given them the go ahead. Nothing stands in their way, except for the majority of public opinion that building an Islamic mega-center (Mosque, Shrine, Community Center, Flag of Victory) is extremely insensitive to the community. I happen to be on the side of saying that, if most of the people of the community are against it, then they should be sensitive to the community. That is bridge building. Otherwise, it would tend to be seen as giving the community the middle finger. Most planning commissions generally will not oppose anything which may result in an extensive lawsuit. Even in my community, when a developer comes forward with a plan, there needs to be concrete grounds for opposing a development. Otherwise, after a few million dollars down the drain, they will get an judgment against the municipality and proceed anyway. That's property rights. Those with the deep pockets, get property rights.

Where I grew up, in the middle of nowhere, one of my gung-ho, former marine, gun nut neighbors (nickname Sarge) bought up about 250 acres of wood land to turn into an extensive paint ball commando range. At first, organized by some anti-gun people, the community rose up against it. But, he and some more eloquent spokesmen had a number of public meetings where everyone who had issues with it came forward and we all discussed it. He was granted a provisional land use permit by the township, which to me, gave him community permission to do what he already had the right to do.

I do not know anything of that group, their affiliations, their religious beliefs. I do know that Islam is fragmented into many mutually antagonistic groups. Without a hell of a lot more information, which I just will not bother to get, I cannot tell if that letter is on the level or the equivalent of the JW giving public advice to the Catholics.

Here's their Wiki bios, so judge for youself;

Raheel Raza Wikipedia

Tarek Fatah Wikipedia

They seem more like Islamic versions of Jester. And, no insult meant by that, just that they are liberal, and somewhat progressive. Which leads me to another thought... Since when have liberals, and progressives been supportive of promoting religion? How would they react if the FLDS, Moonies, or the JW's wanted to build a $130 million dollar mega-plex in the heart of Manhattan, and their religious leader was on the FBI's payroll and sent by the State Department on good will liaison missions around the globe?

I’m for that. However, I don’t see why the Muslims should pay for places of worship for other religions. But if all are willing to do this, then that indeed would be a bridge.

I agree. And, I'm sure if they asked for, or were open to an outreach like that, it would be met in good faith.

Then they are deceived often and easily.

They are. Even the most noble of them all, WWII, and the infamous "remember Pearl Harbor". We pretty much drove the Japanese to war in WWII by forcing the British to end trade relations with them. The Gulf of Tonkin deception. "Bully" Teddy Fraggin Roosevelt charging up Kettle Hill, and remember the Maine (deception).

I’ve never had an Islamic missionary knock on my door. I’ve had quite a few Christian ones of one stripe or another. I’m sure that I’ll be able to resist the sales pitch of the one with my experience of the other.

We haven't faced the level of Islamification that the Europeans have. But, look to Thailand, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Malmo, etc, etc, for the impact of the Islamic Revival when a tipping point occurs. Even in our secular societies, an underground 2nd tier of Islamic authority can through fear and intimidation subjugate the non-Islamic population into Dhimmitude. Full legal sanction of Sharia would follow tacit complicity. Maybe it can't happen here. But, I bet they thought that way in London, and in Marseilles in the past as well.

So, the Bible should be our guide. But only the parts we like?

There are many views on the inerrancy, infallibility, and interpretation. Most view it as a sacred text that inspires divine enlightenment, but one that needs each text to be viewed in context of the period, culture, and body of knowledge existent at the time of its writing. Personally... I need all that, and an understanding in as close to the original language as is possible (Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, etc). Much of it gets distorted and lost in translation, and further taken out of context to the point of ridiculousness. For Christians, the Old Testament is mostly added for reference, to support the context of the New Testament. Christians acknowledge the "covenant" that God had with Israel, but substitute it for the new "covenant" brought to mankind by Christ. Even the ten commandments, not to mention all the old blood sacrifice mumbo jumbo, and old laws from Deuteronomy were replaced by Christs teaching. Paul's letters to the Galations, and the Romans clarify that we are justified by faith, and not by strict adherence to the law. In the simplest form, to express your love of God, you will weigh and attempt to choose "Good", but in that we are imperfect, forgiveness exists for those who are contrite. Christ's rebellion against ascetic Judaism was to reject passionless legalism for heartfelt love, of God, and each other. So, the shorter answer is; The Bible is only a tool for teaching, but was meant to be used by those schooled in its use. Grabbing many guides can be similarly misused and misread by laymen who don't understand its context how to apply it.

By ‘modern’ do you mean ‘those with a modern outlook’ or ‘those who are our contemporaries’? Because there are many people alive right now who are fundamentalist in their religion and obey Deuteronomy to a large extent.

Those with a "modern outlook". But, you are correct. There are some who refuse to accept reality, or obvious truths. They have to invent ludicrousness to fit reality into their worldview (e.g. God planted dinosaur bones to confuse us, 99 hot chicks await you in heaven).

Or perhaps just aren’t newsworthy? This says it better than I can.

Perhaps not newsworthy, or unwilling to stand up as a target for murder by fanatics. We need a strong voice denouncing the fundamentalist revival of Al-Wahhab, Ibn Taymiyyah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Sufi influences or not, Imam Feisal Rauf also supports the views of the more radical fundamentalists (more). Perhaps he also is building bridges within the waring factions of Islam. When he's talking their language, it makes me nervous.

[Jester]

We haven't faced the level of Islamification that the Europeans have. But, look to Thailand, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, etc, etc, etc, for the impact of the Islamic Revival when a tipping point occurs. Even in our secular societies, an underground 2nd tier of Islamic authority can through fear and intimidation subjugate the non-Islamic population into Dhimmitude. Full legal sanction of Sharia would follow tacit complicity. Maybe it can't happen here. But, I bet they thought that way in London, and in Marseilles in the past as well.

This is where I get a strong flavour of paranoia. You're talking about what you obviously see as a process that we can understand from known examples. But you are throwing together an enormous range of examples, and stretching them far beyond their limits.

What happens in Turkey, Indonesia, or Iran, all countries that are Islamic, and have been for five centuries, is not the endpoint of some continuous process that applies to the UK or France. There is no encroaching process of Dhimitude, if that concept even has any applicability at all in the modern world. There is no takeover, no tipping point. In Islamic countries, more religious political groups dominate sometimes, and less religious ones at other times. (You'd think the US would be quite familiar with that process.) In non-Islamic countries, there is no Sharia law, except in some places as a part of a religious tribunal system, and *strictly subservient* to the existing legal structure. They are not "taking over". I don't like them either, but neither do I buy the idea that this is some uniquely dangerous problem.

You say this has happened:

Even in our secular societies, an underground 2nd tier of Islamic authority can through fear and intimidation subjugate the non-Islamic population into Dhimmitude.

Where? When? This is a paranoid fantasy, propagated to get us properly hating the designated enemy of the month. It's not much different from McCarthyism.

You object strenuously when Pete tells you you're being discriminatory. But I'm afraid I have to agree: this smells.

-Jester

Afterthought: The notion that I am, in any meaningful sense, like the two moderate Muslims you describe, is risible. We are all Canadian, and roughly speaking, on the left. Me and about ten million other people.

[kandrathe]

You say this has happened:

Even in our secular societies, an underground 2nd tier of Islamic authority can through fear and intimidation subjugate the non-Islamic population into Dhimmitude.

Where? When? This is a paranoid fantasy, propagated to get us properly hating the designated enemy of the month. It's not much different from McCarthyism.

You object strenuously when Pete tells you you're being discriminatory. But I'm afraid I have to agree: this smells.

Has it happened (underground) in parts of Europe, yes. Is it happening in parts of Europe, yes. I'm sure if I or you dig around the news enough you will find those who are punished in Denmark, or London, Germany, or the Netherlands justified by Fatwah, or Sharia. The perpetrators of the murders, and Sharia justified punishments are not seen as criminals, but as praiseworthy adherent Jihadists.

Consider Malmo. Consider Theo Van Gogh. Consider honor killings in Canada, in the US, in most of Europe. Consider Sabatina James. Consider the threats over Danish Cartoons, or South Park.

If I'm discriminatory, it is brutality and Sharia that I'm against. I'm against people who do not accept my, or your, or Pete's lifestyle at face value, and want us to conform to their rules of "decency". The fine line here is in accepting them when they are conforming to our notions of society, but rejecting what I consider barbarism. If Rauf denounces the implementation of Sharia in America, then I could support him. As it stands, he wants to implement Sharia courts here, and I won't support that, or him until he clearly changes his position.

[--Pete]

Hi,

We are all Canadian, and roughly speaking, on the left. Me and about ten million other people.

Only when I'm facing East.

Other than that, I'm done. Kandrathe, you seem to be worried about Islam. I am too. The difference is, I'm no more worried about Islam than I am of every other religion. To me, the more religions there are, and the more each is diluted, the weaker they become and the better off the human race is. Allow them all. Protect them all. And let the familiarity with them all lead people to the truth.

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

This is where I get a strong flavour of paranoia. You're talking about what you obviously see as a process that we can understand from known examples. But you are throwing together an enormous range of examples, and stretching them far beyond their limits.

I also see an example of when someone seems to be ignorant about something, they seem to get louder and more insistent that they're right.

(Hint, I'm not talking about your post.)

Where? When? This is a paranoid fantasy, propagated to get us properly hating the designated enemy of the month. It's not much different from McCarthyism.

You object strenuously when Pete tells you you're being discriminatory. But I'm afraid I have to agree: this smells.

For what little ducats it's worth, I grew up in one of the 'scary' countries mentioned here. No, I'm not a muslim. I did remember getting told by someone in school that I was going to hell because I'm not a muslim. I remembered some people threw stones at me because of my perceived 'otherness'*. *That otherness does not only include whether or not I was muslim, there are many complex factors at play. My family had to move houses because the nearby mosque was blaring prayer calls at 5 am.

So understand that I'm pretty far from an islam apologist or blind sympathizer. Nor am I some PC defender of 'sacred cows'. (Though funny how some folks are all 'I'm just telling the truth without the PC BS', but when it comes to -their- sacred cows, suddenly we all need to respect and kowtow to their holy bovines.)

But understand this. Anyone that starts blathering that Islam (or any other religion) is one monolithic front and is a 100% reliable indicator of evil intent, is talking out of their ass. IMO of course. (After all I only spent most of my childhood in a country where it had muslim majority, what do I know compared to someone who gets his info from political talking points. Not much, obviously.)

Things are much more complex than Muslim=Goldstein=Enemy!!!11 It's a sure bet IMO anyone that seriously spouts teabag talking points is either being intellectually lazy, or ignorant beyond belief.

But more important than that, it fails so flakking hard from a pragmatic point of view. This kind of ignorant fear based thinking does not produce anything worthwhile. It doesn't make anyone safer, it doesn't pinpoint the bad guys with any reliable metric.

Unless you happen to think that things like internment camps for Japanese American citizens are a good thing, only foul things can be the end result of this kind of 'thinking'.

But hey, what am I saying. We're beyond all that now right, it's 2010. No need for barbaric backwards internment camps. Why not visit every muslims in the west, and inject them with a microchip RFD tag. Similar to pets. That is way more reliable than some insanely stupid idea like requiring them to have special ID's. (Soooo ww2 passe')

That way, we can track wherever they are. And more importantly, screen out the moderates from the fanatics. If they object to RFD tagging, they're obviously fanatics. Tag and bag. If they don't, well they're just hiding in plain sight and biding their time, at least we have them tagged.

There. Solved the sticky Islam problem. Next.

[kandrathe]

But more important than that, it fails so flakking hard from a pragmatic point of view.

Well, I hope you understand that my objection is not to all things Islam. I hope it is PC to criticize an Imam for what he actually says, and question his project for what many people feel it symbolizes. His lawyers are negotiating now with the Governor, so we'll see if he's willing to move his mosque out of the close proximity to where a bunch of jihadists murdered the most number of people in the US ever.

What Islamic nation, BTW?

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe, you seem to be worried about Islam. I am too. The difference is, I'm no more worried about Islam than I am of every other religion. To me, the more religions there are, and the more each is diluted, the weaker they become and the better off the human race is. Allow them all. Protect them all. And let the familiarity with them all lead people to the truth.

Fair enough. And... for the record, I'm concerned about extreme Christianity, and Judaism as well.

We didn't get into a discussion concerning Rifqa Bary, the Islamic girl who converted to Christianity, and then accused her parents of plotting to murder her. It was a case tangentially similar to the FLDS case we discussed a long time ago, where a child(ren) was removed from (hostile) parents without due process. I hope it is clear I'm trying to be consistent, where the issue is the fair application of secular law. Separation of church and state would suggest that the State should be tolerant of all religious practices, except where they violate State, and local laws, whether that be the age of marriage, or the murder of apostate children.

But, all this started from an off the cuff remark I made about the mosque as a case where there was a legal position, and a moral position which may be at odds. No one seems to care about Google selling out Net Neutrality, I guess.

[Jester]

But, all this started from an off the cuff remark I made about the mosque as a case where there was a legal position, and a moral position which may be at odds. No one seems to care about Google selling out Net Neutrality, I guess.

This is invariably the problem I had with Sirian, way back when.

If you want to discuss issue X, discuss issue X. Don't bring up controversial issues Y, Z, and Q as "examples" in the process. You'll derail the conversation. As I'm sure our dear readers have noticed, I'm happy to fixate obsessively on a topic. But, like Highlander, there can be only one.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

No one seems to care about Google selling out Net Neutrality, I guess.

If you want to discuss issue X, discuss issue X.

The irony here is that Google/Net Neutrality was the original topic. And, yes, I more or less don't care.

--Pete