Welcome Guest ( Log In  ·  Register)



5 Pages < 1 2 3 4 > »  
Reply to this topicStart Poll
Mosque at Ground Zero, We've all been hearing about it
[ Standard ] · Linear+
[DoD]Quasar
post Sep 3 2010, 07:00 PM
Post #16


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






I am 1. extremely tired right now, and 2. don't want to get into a big argument so I'll just say one quick thing:

Let's say a Christian church were to have purchased the land there and were starting to build a church on it when a bunch of Muslim protesters convened outside it for days.

How do you guys think this would go over on the news?

People have the liberty to do all they want but when said liberty runs over into encroaching onto other's liberty...then said liberty has gone too far. The Muslim church has the right to religious freedom. The Protesting group has the right to freedom of speech. Both can exercise their own liberty appropriately but when the protesting group's freedom of speech encroaches on the Muslim church's religious freedom then the Muslim church no longer has that liberty. Gone too far imo.

Also, I mis-titled this thread. The mosque is actually not anywhere near Ground Zero, it's several blocks away. It's the media that has labeled it that simply for good headlines. Incorrectly.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Viper
post Sep 3 2010, 07:30 PM
Post #17


ViperBotâ„¢
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 22,033
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 6-October 04

From: Adelaide, South Australia
Member No.: 10,610






I don't see any issue if isn't on the actual site. If it were, then that would be insensitive and deliberately confrontational IMO. I support freedom of religion, but I wouldn't support a mosque on the ground zero site.

But it's a moot point, as it isn't actually at ground zero.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
StarGazeR
post Sep 3 2010, 07:44 PM
Post #18


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,386
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 26-April 05

From: USA
Member No.: 16,150






QUOTE(DoO_Quasar @ Sep 3 2010, 06:00 PM)
I am 1. extremely tired right now, and 2. don't want to get into a big argument so I'll just say one quick thing:

Let's say a Christian church were to have purchased the land there and were starting to build a church on it when a bunch of Muslim protesters convened outside it for days.

How do you guys think this would go over on the news?

People have the liberty to do all they want but when said liberty runs over into encroaching onto other's liberty...then said liberty has gone too far.  The Muslim church has the right to religious freedom.  The Protesting group has the right to freedom of speech.  Both can exercise their own liberty appropriately but when the protesting group's freedom of speech encroaches on the Muslim church's religious freedom then the Muslim church no longer has that liberty.  Gone too far imo.

Also, I mis-titled this thread.  The mosque is actually not anywhere near Ground Zero, it's several blocks away.  It's the media that has labeled it that simply for good headlines.  Incorrectly.
*



I agree with you completely on the part of the post I bolded. That is exactly what I believe, that a person should be able to do anything they want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of someone else to do as they want. These protestors can't stop the mosque from being built, they can only express their disapproval. Are you suggesting that the protestors have violated the religious freedom of these Muslims? If so, how?

Here is an arial view of where the mosque is being built in relation to ground zero. So what say you? Too close? Far enough? Moot point?
(IMG:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zm6JXvXXze4/TGgAJacKGQI/AAAAAAAAMuk/eN77T7O33H4/s1600/GroundZeroMosquelocation.jpg)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Narcotic
post Sep 3 2010, 08:10 PM
Post #19


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: AoT Gosu
Posts: 9,947
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 16-March 06

From: Italy
Member No.: 34,575






I think it isnt' absolutely a good move, there are a lot of places but right there it's just kitsch.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Sep 3 2010, 08:10 PM
Post #20


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






Well, it's not on it. And I knew that you'd agree with that because it's 100% libertarian by definition 11

Within the grounds of the current US Constitution, I agree with that above bolded part that I wrote 100%. However, some things do take away the liberties of others within the capitalist system that are not accounted for as they are not so obvious and these I have an issue with. However, I'm not in the mood for the huge debate that will ensue so you can just pretend I stopped at the bolded part :P

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Sep 3 2010, 08:13 PM
Post #21


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






QUOTE(DoD_Narcotic @ Sep 3 2010, 08:10 PM)
I think it isnt' absolutely a good move, there are a lot of places but right there it's just kitsch.
*


I believe the phrase you're looking for is "without tact" (the most polite translation of what you were going for anyways :P).

Narco, did you find that word by means of a translator, xD?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Narcotic
post Sep 3 2010, 08:24 PM
Post #22


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: AoT Gosu
Posts: 9,947
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 16-March 06

From: Italy
Member No.: 34,575






QUOTE(DoO_Quasar @ Sep 4 2010, 03:13 AM)
QUOTE(DoD_Narcotic @ Sep 3 2010, 08:10 PM)
I think it isnt' absolutely a good move, there are a lot of places but right there it's just kitsch.
*


I believe the phrase you're looking for is "without tact" (the most polite translation of what you were going for anyways :P).

Narco, did you find that word by means of a translator, xD?
*


Eheh no, it's used also here since it's a german world. I believe your is a better way to say what I wanted :)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Sep 3 2010, 08:28 PM
Post #23


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






Ok, that makes sense :P

Kitsch more so describes art that is a poor copy of the original :P

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mayh3M
post Sep 3 2010, 09:01 PM
Post #24


Lieutenant-General
Group Icon

Group: TAD Expert
Posts: 3,204
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 21-October 07

From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 59,705






QUOTE(StarGazeR @ Sep 3 2010, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE(Mayh3M @ Sep 3 2010, 02:51 PM)
The reason many muslims feel reluctant to criticise 'terrorist organisations' is due to the sympathy they feel for their fellow muslims who are on the receiving end of percieved injustices. For example consider the following thought process using the example of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

Israel, with considerable US backing invades Palestine.
Thousands of Palestinian muslim civilians are killed or displaced.
A democractically elected Hamas party was elected by the Palestinians in order to form a resistance against percieved injustice.
Whilstt entering in the extremes in many regards, Hamas have created a tough resistance and are fighting back against percieved injustice.

No need to go into the intricacies of the conflict, just showing a simple example of how most ordinary Muslims, in all likelyhood feel. This is also the reason why the imam didn't label Hamas as a terrorist organisation. As he stated in that article:

"There was an attempt in the '90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that."

- referring to the fact that whilst it is easy for one group of people to label another as something, it is much more difficult to set that assumption in stone from a critical viewpoint.

The illegal war in Iraq has had similar effects on the mentality of many Muslims, who feel that the only way to act against such injustices, is through extreme measures.
Things aren't always as simple as they first seem. Acts of supposed good, can have severe detrimental effects on the hearts and minds of people, and I'm afraid your countries foreign policy has had huge adverse effects all over the world.

Edit: And to make an important point, muslims who do feel terrorist acts are jusitified are still numerically miniscule in comparison to the whole Muslim population. Just because a muslim doesn't come out and rave about terrorism doesn't mean they advocate voilence against innocent people.
*




So they don't denounce it because they support it. I think you and I have reached a point of agreement.

I know you only added that edit after reviewing your post and anticipating my answer. You can't say "The majority doesn't speak out about terrorism because they see it as justified but the ones that see it as justified are an insignificant minority". No, you can use one, but not both. Maybe I should just stand aside and let you finish this argument you are having with yourself. I'll just hit the winner while he is still tired. :ph34r:

Telling people that oppose this mosque that Muslims have legitimate reasons for hating them is probably not the best approach. You would not last long as a jannisary. They would fire you, literally. :P
*


I think you missed my point. My point was that not everything is in clear black and white. You asked me why muslims don't come out in the masses opposing such 'terrorist orginasations', and using the example of Hamas, I told you that most muslims don't support acts of 'terrorism' perpertrated by Hamas, yet can symphathise with the defence its putting on against percieved injustices, and thus do not readily speak out. Its not so much a justification as much as a feeling of sympathy.

Its important to distinguish between a 'terrorist orgnisation' and a 'terrorist act'. So what I'm saying is that most muslims do not support 'terrorist acts' i.e., the act of violence against innocent people (since its friggin not allowed in Islamic doctrines :ph34r: ), but do sympathise with the defence an organisation labeled as a 'terrorist group' put up against percieved injustices, i.e. acts of aggression from other nations.

Finally, no where did I say its a legitimate justitfication of support for terrorism in any of my posts. You asked me why muslims don't speak out. I attempted to answer. Thats all. On the initial point of freedom to protest, we agreed. :)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
StarGazeR
post Sep 3 2010, 09:45 PM
Post #25


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,386
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 26-April 05

From: USA
Member No.: 16,150






QUOTE(Mayh3M @ Sep 3 2010, 08:01 PM)
I think you missed my point. My point was that not everything is in clear black and white. You asked me why muslims don't come out in the masses opposing such 'terrorist orginasations', and using the example of Hamas, I told you that most muslims don't support acts of 'terrorism' perpertrated by Hamas, yet can symphathise with the defence its putting on against percieved injustices, and thus do not readily speak out. Its not so much a justification as much as a feeling of sympathy.

Its important to distinguish between a 'terrorist orgnisation' and a 'terrorist act'. So what I'm saying is that most muslims do not support 'terrorist acts' i.e., the act of violence against innocent people (since its friggin not allowed in Islamic doctrines  :ph34r: ), but do sympathise with the defence an organisation labeled as a 'terrorist group' put up against percieved injustices, i.e. acts of aggression from other nations.

Finally, no where did I say its a legitimate justitfication of support for terrorism in any of my posts. You asked me why muslims don't speak out. I attempted to answer. Thats all. On the initial point of freedom to protest, we agreed.  :)
*




I don't think I missed anything. I don't care whether a person is trying to kill me, supports efforts to kill me, or is only sympathetic towards people trying to kill me. All three of those people are my enemy. It is black and white. I don't want any of those three groups of people anywhere near me.

Surah 9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).

Surah 9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


Doesn't sound too peaceful to me but according to this we will be OK as long as we can get them to sign really really long treaties. :P

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mayh3M
post Sep 3 2010, 10:03 PM
Post #26


Lieutenant-General
Group Icon

Group: TAD Expert
Posts: 3,204
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 21-October 07

From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 59,705






lol @ skepticsannotatedbible.com; where they take verses as standalone, completely out of context.

Anyway the first paragraph of your reply has made clear your line of thinking. Nothing I say is going to change your hardline :) So be it.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
StarGazeR
post Sep 3 2010, 10:40 PM
Post #27


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,386
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 26-April 05

From: USA
Member No.: 16,150






QUOTE(Mayh3M @ Sep 3 2010, 09:03 PM)
lol @ skepticsannotatedbible.com; where they take verses as standalone, completely out of context.

Anyway the first paragraph of your reply has made clear your line of thinking. Nothing I say is going to change your hardline  :) So be it.
*




Never heard of that site. I got those verses from here. I read the verses prior and after those, but if you feel I have been unfair by only quoting those two, feel free to put it in context or anyone reading this can just go read it themselves, in context, and decide for yourself.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mayh3M
post Sep 3 2010, 10:56 PM
Post #28


Lieutenant-General
Group Icon

Group: TAD Expert
Posts: 3,204
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 21-October 07

From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 59,705






Its not just about reading a few verses prior and after. But yeah as you said, I'll let those people who are genuinely interested go and seek out stuff on their own - just pleas refrain from bias sources or sites with an agenda.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
StarGazeR
post Sep 3 2010, 11:30 PM
Post #29


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,386
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 26-April 05

From: USA
Member No.: 16,150






QUOTE(Mayh3M @ Sep 3 2010, 09:56 PM)
Its not just about reading a few verses prior and after. But yeah as you said, I'll let those people who are genuinely interested go and seek out stuff on their own - just pleas refrain from bias sources or sites with an agenda.
*




Don't tell me what sources to use. Truth is truth, regardless of whether or not you like the source. I told you I have not even heard of the source you thought (mistakenly) that I had used. Do you think the University of Southern CA has an agenda? If they do it probably doesn't fall in line with my views much. :lol:

Here, go look for yourself.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/en...s/muslim/quran/

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Sep 4 2010, 12:55 AM
Post #30


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441
AOC Replays: 0
Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






QUOTE(Mayh3M @ Sep 3 2010, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE(StarGazeR @ Sep 3 2010, 11:08 PM)
QUOTE(Mayh3M @ Sep 3 2010, 02:51 PM)
The reason many muslims feel reluctant to criticise 'terrorist organisations' is due to the sympathy they feel for their fellow muslims who are on the receiving end of percieved injustices. For example consider the following thought process using the example of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

Israel, with considerable US backing invades Palestine.
Thousands of Palestinian muslim civilians are killed or displaced.
A democractically elected Hamas party was elected by the Palestinians in order to form a resistance against percieved injustice.
Whilstt entering in the extremes in many regards, Hamas have created a tough resistance and are fighting back against percieved injustice.

No need to go into the intricacies of the conflict, just showing a simple example of how most ordinary Muslims, in all likelyhood feel. This is also the reason why the imam didn't label Hamas as a terrorist organisation. As he stated in that article:

"There was an attempt in the '90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that."

- referring to the fact that whilst it is easy for one group of people to label another as something, it is much more difficult to set that assumption in stone from a critical viewpoint.

The illegal war in Iraq has had similar effects on the mentality of many Muslims, who feel that the only way to act against such injustices, is through extreme measures.
Things aren't always as simple as they first seem. Acts of supposed good, can have severe detrimental effects on the hearts and minds of people, and I'm afraid your countries foreign policy has had huge adverse effects all over the world.

Edit: And to make an important point, muslims who do feel terrorist acts are jusitified are still numerically miniscule in comparison to the whole Muslim population. Just because a muslim doesn't come out and rave about terrorism doesn't mean they advocate voilence against innocent people.
*




So they don't denounce it because they support it. I think you and I have reached a point of agreement.

I know you only added that edit after reviewing your post and anticipating my answer. You can't say "The majority doesn't speak out about terrorism because they see it as justified but the ones that see it as justified are an insignificant minority". No, you can use one, but not both. Maybe I should just stand aside and let you finish this argument you are having with yourself. I'll just hit the winner while he is still tired. :ph34r:

Telling people that oppose this mosque that Muslims have legitimate reasons for hating them is probably not the best approach. You would not last long as a jannisary. They would fire you, literally. :P
*


I think you missed my point. My point was that not everything is in clear black and white. You asked me why muslims don't come out in the masses opposing such 'terrorist orginasations', and using the example of Hamas, I told you that most muslims don't support acts of 'terrorism' perpertrated by Hamas, yet can symphathise with the defence its putting on against percieved injustices, and thus do not readily speak out. Its not so much a justification as much as a feeling of sympathy.

Its important to distinguish between a 'terrorist orgnisation' and a 'terrorist act'. So what I'm saying is that most muslims do not support 'terrorist acts' i.e., the act of violence against innocent people (since its friggin not allowed in Islamic doctrines :ph34r: ), but do sympathise with the defence an organisation labeled as a 'terrorist group' put up against percieved injustices, i.e. acts of aggression from other nations.

Finally, no where did I say its a legitimate justitfication of support for terrorism in any of my posts. You asked me why muslims don't speak out. I attempted to answer. Thats all. On the initial point of freedom to protest, we agreed. :)
*


This makes perfect sense.

QUOTE(StarGazeR)
I don't think I missed anything. I don't care whether a person is trying to kill me, supports efforts to kill me, or is only sympathetic towards people trying to kill me. All three of those people are my enemy. It is black and white. I don't want any of those three groups of people anywhere near me.

You did not evaluate what Mayh3m wrote correctly or you would see that the group Mayh3m described (Hamas) is not trying to kill you, does not support efforts to kill you, and is not sympathetic to anyone trying to kill you.

Also, taking lines from scripture never seems to find the whole truth. For one, you can find countless lines of atrocities in many Christian Bibles that when not understood properly or not fully realized seem just ridiculous. Many Old Testament verses are beyond abhorrent until fully realized by the New Testament. If the Muslim religion has something similar to a Christian Catechism, I recommend you take lines from there instead as they are up to date, spelled out clearly, and there should be very little dissension on the true meaning of what the Catechism indoctrinates as opposed to anything you will find in Muslim scripture.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicTopic Options
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 




Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 03:06 AM
About Us  ·   Advertising  ·   Contact Us  ·   Terms of Use  ·   Privacy Policy