Merged Two Mosques to be built near Ground Zero

Monkey Ghost said:
But will he be slaughtered for it?

Brave stand. But one his political opponents can twist easily. The ads will be simple and they will work:

*heavy music, scenes of 9/11, voiceover* "Obama supported plans to build the mosque honor the 9/11 attackers at Ground Zero *gasp*"


a thirty second ad, and nobody will check the info, they'll just absorb it.
Click to expand...

I hear he's a secret Muslim.
 
Manopolus said:
1. Without 9/11, it would not have been politically acceptable for Bush to start the war.
2. For whatever reason, Bush wanted a war with Iraq (only RATIONAL resaon: they broke the peace treaty by not allowing UN inspectors into Saddam's palaces, because Saddam was paranoid he'd get assasinated or maybe valued his privacy for reasons other than hiding WMD's... on second thought, not all that rational).

Only two steps needed.
Click to expand...

OK, now I see where we differ. I think that even without 9/11, Bush and Cheney would have still gone through with plans to invade Iraq. Now, this is a skeptic board, so I have to clearly state that that claim that without 9/11, they wanted to invade Iraq is an unsupported assertion. Still, I have a belief that there was an intention to do so from the very early days of the administration.

Politically acceptable? As of 9/10/01 it was not politically acceptable. Would they have been able to make it politically acceptable? I think so, but of course, I cannot prove it.
 
Ladewig said:
OK, now I see where we differ. I think that even without 9/11, Bush and Cheney would have still gone through with plans to invade Iraq. Now, this is a skeptic board, so I have to clearly state that that claim that without 9/11, they wanted to invade Iraq is an unsupported assertion. Still, I have a belief that there was an intention to do so from the very early days of the administration.

Politically acceptable? As of 9/10/01 it was not politically acceptable. Would they have been able to make it politically acceptable? I think so, but of course, I cannot prove it.
Click to expand...

I think you might be right. History shows us that the U.S. doesn't require an attack in order to declare war. World War I is the perfect example.
 
...the one secret communist atheist antichrist kenyan muslim who is a shill for the all powerful joos and eats babies.
 
Ladewig said:
OK, now I see where we differ. I think that even without 9/11, Bush and Cheney would have still gone through with plans to invade Iraq. Now, this is a skeptic board, so I have to clearly state that that claim that without 9/11, they wanted to invade Iraq is an unsupported assertion. Still, I have a belief that there was an intention to do so from the very early days of the administration.

Politically acceptable? As of 9/10/01 it was not politically acceptable. Would they have been able to make it politically acceptable? I think so, but of course, I cannot prove it.
Click to expand...

Hell I wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11.
 
Freedom from Coercion

Ground zero for democracy is the shared covenant of agreeing to disagree nonviolently, without which freedom in diversity is impossible.

The polar opposite of democratic tolerance is the proposition that a particular belief is beyond question to the point of ascribing to itself the right to impose, by violence or subterfuge, its "truths." Islam does both, including support for ambushing and slaying non-believers (terrorism).

A totalitarian view is most definitely enshrined in the basic tenets and teachings of Islam, at its core and not just at the extreme fringes. While potent anti-violent themes ("love thy enemy") can be found at the core of Christianity to offset the arguments of its more extreme adherents, and Judaism, while intolerant, is by nature tribal and so lacks a global expansionist view, Islam preaches a view of all non-believers as lacking in rights and so any real protection from unbounded persecution, barring forced conversion. IOW, I may not subscribe to Christian nor Jewish beliefs, but feel there is a way to peacefully coexist with them in a 21st century democracy.

I would classify as sect any religious belief that does not allow for long-term, peaceful coexistence with non-believers, and does not allow its members to freely and without reprisal abandon the faith unconditionally. While a healthy democracy requires us to be open-minded and accepting of major differences, I see no contradiction in being intolerant of an aggressive sect, such as Islam, that openly preaches the antithesis of the cherished ideals that underlie democracy.

Not only would I say "no mosque at ground zero," but also no protection under the law as religion of any teaching that does not allow, indeed forbids, peaceful coexistence with nonbelievers. The right to freedom of religion (conscience) must be understood as equally guaranteeing freedom *from* religious coercion.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
Not only would I say "no mosque at ground zero," but also no protection under the law as religion of any teaching that does not allow, indeed forbids, peaceful coexistence with nonbelievers. The right to freedom of religion (conscience) must be understood as equally guaranteeing freedom *from* religious coercion.
Click to expand...

certain Christian denominations believe that Jews must and should be converted to Christianity.

do u want them to be banned from the USA?
 
Alt+F4 said:
I think you might be right. History shows us that the U.S. doesn't require an attack in order to declare war. World War I is the perfect example.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Unrestricted submarine warfare. Zimmermann telegram. That's very close to an outright attack. As close as Germany could get.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
IOW, I may not subscribe to Christian nor Jewish beliefs, but feel there is a way to peacefully coexist with them in a 21st century democracy.

I would classify as sect any religious belief that does not allow for long-term, peaceful coexistence with non-believers, and does not allow its members to freely and without reprisal abandon the faith unconditionally. While a healthy democracy requires us to be open-minded and accepting of major differences, I see no contradiction in being intolerant of an aggressive sect, such as Islam, that openly preaches the antithesis of the cherished ideals that underlie democracy.

Not only would I say "no mosque at ground zero," but also no protection under the law as religion of any teaching that does not allow, indeed forbids, peaceful coexistence with nonbelievers. The right to freedom of religion (conscience) must be understood as equally guaranteeing freedom *from* religious coercion.
Click to expand...

You don't have a single clue about the history of Islamic communities in America, do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom