Hypocrisy Check

[Coyote]

I think you would have to admit that the Media is guilty of making it appear to be the case. The News Media sells news... typically bad news sells. No one in America gets riled up (and thus watching the news for the next "affront") at seeing Muslims decry terror, but Americans sure get pissed at seeing them celebrate the attacks on 9/11. If seeing Muslims decry 9/11 got people watching the news, you would see it. Since it doesn't sell news, you ain't gonna see it.

Immie

Thousands of Muslims protested in the streets of Tehran AGAINST the attacks, back in 2001.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran's gulf of misunderstanding with US

Yeah, I'm sure that wasn't politically motivated.

Do you think your video of the Palestinians "celebrating" might have been politically motivated?

 

[Big Fitz]

Wow, talk about a concerted effort by some to derail the basic topic of discussion and try to make it all about how Christians are bad and not the hypocrisy of putting a mosque... oops "community center for muslims" practically on top of the WTC site,

I guess you're OK with a titty bar being "practically on top".

At least, you're not complaining.

while if it was done to a muslim nation they'd have problems with a church over there.

So you think we should sink to their level? Just toss religious freedom?

Not equivalent. Again.

Answer the OP please.

 

[Big Fitz]

For Americans to rise above it ALL and embrace the idea of mosque near the site of 9/11 would be one of the most stunningly noble gestures in the history of religious freedom and tolerance...

...or, put another way, Americans aren't capable of acting out the ideals their country is founded upon.

He says of a country that just elected a black man with the middle name "Hussein".

Actually most of us didn't consider THAT a big deal. THAT was you people.

I don't give a shit if the man's name is Slartybartfast as long as he's a fiscal conservative, strong capitalist, anti-progressive and mostly a social libertarian.

 

[Coyote]

I accept that some Muslims are good people. Why won't you admit that most ME Muslims are BAD people?

Are you serious? How so? More importantly, how can you prove your assertion?

Can you offer definitive proof that they are not? No? Well then, I guess all we have is anecdotal evidence which suggests that MOST ME Muslims would like to destroy us.

Anecdotal evidence should not be confused with opinion.

From 2005: Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says

Predominantly Muslim populations in a sampling of six North African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries share to a "considerable degree" Western concerns about Islamic extremism, according to the poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization.

"Most Muslim publics are expressing less support for terrorism than in the past. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has declined markedly in some countries, and fewer believe suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam," the poll concluded. ​

Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics

Evidence does not seem to support your "most ME Muslims are BAD" claim....at all.

 

[sangha]

Wow, talk about a concerted effort by some to derail the basic topic of discussion and try to make it all about how Christians are bad and not the hypocrisy of putting a mosque... oops "community center for muslims" practically on top of the WTC site,

I guess you're OK with a titty bar being "practically on top".

At least, you're not complaining.

while if it was done to a muslim nation they'd have problems with a church over there.

So you think we should sink to their level? Just toss religious freedom?

Not equivalent. Again.

Answer the OP please.

Mindessly repeating "not equivalent" is not an argument; it is a chant. What you don't seem to realize is that on a discussion board, other people are not going to see the situation in the same way you do.

I have answered the OP, even if it is not to your satisfaction. Your satisfaction is not required. However, you haven't asnwered whether you want to toss the constitution to the side, and prohibit muslims from practicing their religion.

 

[Nonelitist]

IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site

BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

Wouldnt' it be true that most Clergy molestation is the molestation of boys? This seems to be a homosexual act.

So by saying Clergy shouldn't be allowed near children you are also stating that Gays shouldn't be allowed near schools either?

Or could it be that bashing the Clergy is just easier for you and less comfortable than bashing gays?

Of course you will come up with some convoluted explanation... but you said what you said.

 

[gslack]

Dam I wasted a good post here too....LOL

 

[Newby]

Dam I wasted a good post here too....LOL

I appreciated it!

 

[Coyote]

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

Wouldnt' it be true that most Clergy molestation is the molestation of boys? This seems to be a homosexual act.

So by saying Clergy shouldn't be allowed near children you are also stating that Gays shouldn't be allowed near schools either?

Or could it be that bashing the Clergy is just easier for you and less comfortable than bashing gays?

Of course you will come up with some convoluted explanation... but you said what you said.

Pedophilia is not homosexuality.

Nice try though.

 

[sangha]

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

Wouldnt' it be true that most Clergy molestation is the molestation of boys? This seems to be a homosexual act.

No, it's not true. If you have proof, post it

 

[Newby]

I don't expect traumatized people to think and act rationally. And I don't fault them for that.

Nice deflection of my point.

Why don't you expect the mulims to respect the feelings of the neighborhood they are trying to move into? Why is it okay for them to disrespect others without drawing your criticism?

Because they aren't disrespecting anyone.

Yes, they are.

 

[Foxfyre]

He says of a country that just elected a black man with the middle name "Hussein".

Actually most of us didn't consider THAT a big deal. THAT was you people.

I don't give a shit if the man's name is Slartybartfast as long as he's a fiscal conservative, strong capitalist, anti-progressive and mostly a social libertarian.

Good point. Many of us had no problem with a President who happened to be black. Who cares what color somebody is.

Many of us, however didn't want a BLACK president whose blackness would be thrown in our face by the Left who would frame every criticism and comment as racist. Of course such focus on race makes those on the Left the racists, but they can't see that. Most of us are and want to be color blind so far as our evaluation of people go. Racism will never be defeated so long as people keep making it an issue.

Most of us don't care one way or the other if an Islamic cultural center is built and are quite happy for that to happen. But we don't see why it has to be in a place that reminds people in a painful way of a particularly tragic event in our history. As constant reminders of racism keep racism front and center and an issue, I would think constant reminders of the forces causing 9/11 would not be helpful in healing those wounds.

I wish the Muslim people could see, understand, and accommodate that even as they know they are free to build their center anywhere they can get a permit to do so. Should they see it that way, I think it would go a long ways to help the healing.

 

[Big Fitz]

Actually most of us didn't consider THAT a big deal. THAT was you people.

Ahhhh......but it was YOU that tried painting with the wide brush.

I merely aimed the bristles in the right direction for you.

*** "aren't capable of acting out the ideals their country is founded upon"***
....that all men are created equal.....

The ideals were acted upon.

Not by the people who are calling for ending religious freedom by limiting where religious institutions can be located.

There is no precedent that says you must be allowed to build a church/synogogue/temple/mosque anywhere you want. As a matter of fact, many local communities have made zoning laws barring religious buildings in areas for all sorts of reasons from commercial, tax reasons and traffic reasons. There is nothing out there that says this islamic mosque/community center/massage parlor must be built in this area.

This does not trample on anyone's freedom to worship. Your attempt at association fails yet again.

Now, Sangha, let's ask another question.

Will you now, denounce publically, Islamic sects, Wahabbist organizations and their supporters who are using violence, fomenting terror and killing innocents of all religions world wide for the sake of spreading Islam and Sharia law as un-islamic perversions of your religion?

Will you do this publically, yes or no?

 

[Newby]

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

Wouldnt' it be true that most Clergy molestation is the molestation of boys? This seems to be a homosexual act.

No, it's not true. If you have proof, post it

Why didn't they molest little girls?

 

[sangha]

No, it's not true. If you have proof, post it

Why didn't they molest little girls?

They did.

Why do you ignore the molestation of young girls?

 

[Big Fitz]

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.

Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.

Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history? Are grass root opponents of the mega church Christophobes, or just citizens seeing this as highly inappropriate?

Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.

Bad comparison- had such an event occurred the Christians of Malaysia would have been exterminated in 2001.

Best example I could think of at the time. You needed 2 of the world's tallest buildings side by side to make it work to be a good part equivalent. But, assuming they did allow a modicum of religious freedom in that nation... the example still holds fairly well if you accept the theory on face value instead of quibbling over minutia looking for a way out.

 

[gslack]

Shameless repost below because I don't think but one of you read it..... I am no master with a pen but it deserves some comment....

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.

Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.

Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history? Are grass root opponents of the mega church Christophobes, or just citizens seeing this as highly inappropriate?

Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.

Forgoing all the absolutisms and extreme polarized thinking I have read from so many of the more negative responses to this OP. I decided to go straight to the source rather than respond to some one else's response..

I would first ask each and everyone of you who gave such extreme absolutes about this; what is the real purpose of this mosque or center? Is it for the Muslims and Islamic religious people in the area, OR is it an attempt to placate and coddle them? Frankly if I were a Muslim I would find it an insult, and i feel the largest majority would feel the same way. If they truly are as righteous as they claim, they very well should find it an affront to their religion...

I would next ask, why do we feel the need to build such a thing in such a manner and proximity to a place associated so negatively to Islamic religious extremism? It would seem to me placing any religious structure in such a place and manner would be counter productive. Wasn't the entire problem started by fundamental differences in culture and religion? Sure oil and money were a very big part but wasn't the start of it a simple religious view and cultural opposing position? Christianity has been the bane of Islam (and vice-versa) for far longer than Oil was an issue, and both sides enslaved one another at various points in Southern European and Middle Eastern history. So in essence that is the start of all of this...

I cannot understand what one would hope to gain from such a task... Place a Christian or Muslim structure there and you further the problem that brought this about. Any religious structure would be an affront to someones religion, and to try and placate with a structure serving no other purpose than that would be the ultimate insult.. To do so would be calling them (either one) ignorant and a fool...

I wish someone could explain to me when and how a display of another persons religious faith became offensive... How is it offensive to give someone the same respect and decency you would wish to receive in turn regarding your own religion? When did wishing some one good tidings and praise from your preferred religion become an affront to your own faith? Is your faith so fragile you cannot accept the best wishes from another faith without harming your own? If so I believe it is not their faith that is the problem, but your own...

Frankly I care little for any organized religion. I have my own reasons for this, and they will remain personal. Along with my own personal reasons, I have logical, and spiritual ones which prevent me from pursuing a religion of any kind.

However I may be opposed to religion, I am even more opposed to infringing on ones right to their own religion, and their right to express their faith freely and without ridicule or oppression. And most importantly, I do not take offense when I see a Christmas tree or a Prayer rug, nor do I fear either. Because neither is an attack upon me or my rights, but an expression and celebration of their own rights.... And I like that...

That is one of the very principles our founders spoke of longingly so many years ago... Sure actually doing it and its application took a few hundred years, but nothing worth having is easy to attain. And certainly we still struggle with these principles today, but thats what's important. The struggle... For without struggle in all things life loses its value, people lose their worth, and we become filled with the inconsequential and material gain...

We say we want freedom... But we fear others freedom... We say we want equality... But we strive for differential treatment... We say we want religious freedom... But we deny others this same freedom in the fear it will infringe upon our own... Why do we do these things? Perhaps its as simple as forgetting what our freedoms mean on a personal level. Or perhaps, its a symptom of a lifestyle focused on the so-called reward instead of the journey or task to get that reward....

A very wise man once told me, "It's not the story but the telling, just as it's not the life but the living." I sure hope he is right on that because I feel whatever reward there is at the end of life, it will be worthless without a life worth living to give it value...

This has gotten far longer than I intended, so I will end this little rant by saying... If you find a display of religious faith threatening, than your faith is in question not theirs. And if you desire to placate a religion, you will not make new friends of that religion but enemies of it and the others you did not placate to....

 

[Big Fitz]

Nice deflection of my point.

Why don't you expect the mulims to respect the feelings of the neighborhood they are trying to move into? Why is it okay for them to disrespect others without drawing your criticism?

Because they aren't disrespecting anyone.

Yes, they are.

As Glenn Beck pointed out yesterday on his radio show, that is a continuation of the Muslim Brotherhood plan created in the 1920's to conquer the world by spreading Sharia law.

1. Move into an area, and saturate it completely.
2. As troubles happen, foment more outrage by demanding the local law inforcement let the muslim community deal with it "Their Way". This means demands for official recognition of Sharia Law.
3. Expand the area that Sharia Law will be allowed to act as law of the land until it IS law of the land.

I see pockets all around the twin cities of insular muslim communities that are fairly hostile towards those who are obviously not muslim. I have seen all muslim schools and you can look up the news where young boys are being recruited there for Al Shabab and shipped back to fight in the Somali civil war. It's happening because the goal is a world Calphate.

This is not a war on terror. This is the 14th Crusade that was started almost 100 years ago in the minds of muslims, but we in the west have ignored that it was even happening, at least until the fall of the Shah and Muslim global terrorism began.

This is why the whole thing is a false dialectic and choice. The best weapon they have is a word: Islamophobe. Disagree with them, you are an islamophobe. Dare stand up against their plans, you hate all islam. Question the Qu'ran and you should be put to death as an infidel and islamophobe.

So now, I want a hypocrisy check. If the horror was visited on a muslim nation by radicalized Christians and then years later more Christians wanted to put a church on/near the spot... oh my bad.... a COMMUNITY CENTER... nudge nudge wink wink... does the muslim nation and people have the right to be outraged or say no?

Or are they just racist Christophobes?

 

[Newby]

Why didn't they molest little girls?

They did.

Why do you ignore the molestation of young girls?

What was the ratio? Where are the numbers? I'm sure you have them since you're so concerned. I've seen the majority of complaints filed were from the molestation of boys. Are you insinuating that had nothing to do with the priests in question being homosexual?

 

[sangha]

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.

Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.

Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history? Are grass root opponents of the mega church Christophobes, or just citizens seeing this as highly inappropriate?

Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.

Bad comparison- had such an event occurred the Christians of Malaysia would have been exterminated in 2001.

Best example I could think of at the time. You needed 2 of the world's tallest buildings side by side to make it work to be a good part equivalent. But, assuming they did allow a modicum of religious freedom in that nation... the example still holds fairly well if you accept the theory on face value instead of quibbling over minutia looking for a way out.

Malaysia has a long record of religious tolerance and their constitution gaurantees religious freedom.