Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine.

[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.