Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine.

[--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 Has that been repealed?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 . . . “