• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

Thunder supports it. ;)

Let's switch it around, shall we? Suppose the mosque was being built by a radical Wahhabist imam, who had celebrated the attacks on 9-11 and who admitted that his goal was to erect a monument to the terrorists. Would you oppose it then?

I know I would. But that wouldn't be a reason based on religion, would it?
 
GOP decided to rally the bigotted base of their party. Meanwhilel, Reid panders to the same crowd.

I'm sick of people on your side telling me that the base of my party is bigotted. It's reprehensible. It's a fallacious means of arguing your position. It should make you feel shame.

Guess what, you have bigots on your side as well. Just that they are mostly people who are bigotted against White people. You may want to deny that, but it's pretty damn obvious with much of what some people say.

Maybe Reid is actually trying to represent what his constituency wishes him to. Maybe he's got a touch of pragmatism, instead of wildly naive idealism that most on the left subscribe to.

I'm not saying the right is correct on this issue. I'm just sick of trying to read these forums while some of you on the left continually say the most reprehensible things about my side of the isle. All egotistical and elitist in your attitudes. So full of yourself, and the supposed right-ness of your beliefs. It's impossible to read that kind of stuff without taking insult. And frankly, you guys know damn well it's insulting. And you don't care, because you think it's a valid debating techinque.

It makes me sick. Why can't you guys try actually arguing with some substance? You bemoan that fact that the right does these things, but also do them yourselves. I am honest and consistent in this ****. Neither side should be doing this sort of thing. Let's stick to the facts. Not muddying the waters and poisoning the well and other fallacies.
 
Last edited:
This one is his business. He needs to make it clear to the rightwhacker radio sludge-spewers that they are not going to get away with lying about what is going on

No, leftysergeant, it's NOT the president's business to react to talk radio announcers. It belittles the office.

By the way: the vast majority of Americans agree that the people of the Cordoba initiative have every legal right to build a mosque there. The question is whether they should, morally, do it.

Whatever one thinks about the mosque, we can all agree that it is one thing to try and convince them that they should not build a mosque there. Non-Muslims insulted by Muslims practicing their religion there? Muslims insulted by non-Muslims protesting against the Mosque? Tough titties! Freedom of speech cuts both ways and isn't determined by whether someone is insulted.

It is quite another thing to threaten them if they do it, or to demand that the law stop them from doing so. Here, we have a case of using force or the law to limit freedom of worship. No go, so far as I'm concerned.
 
Last edited:
I'm sick of people on your side telling me that the base of my party is bigotted. It's reprehensible. It's a fallacious means of arguing your position. It should make you feel shame.

Guess what, you have bigots on your side as well. Just that they are mostly people who are bigotted against White people. You may want to deny that, but it's pretty damn obvious with much of what some people say.

Maybe Reid is actually trying to represent what his constituency wishes him to. Maybe he's got a touch of pragmatism, instead of wildly naive idealism that most on the left subscribe to.

I'm not saying the right is correct on this issue. I'm just sick of trying to read these forums while some of you on the left continually say the most reprehensible things about my side of the isle. All egotistical and elitist in your attitudes. So full of yourself, and the supposed right-ness of your beliefs. It's impossible to read that kind of stuff without taking insult. And frankly, you guys know damn well it's insulting. And you don't care, because you think it's a valid debating techinque.

It makes me sick. Why can't you guys try actually arguing with some substance? You bemoan that fact that the right does these things, but also do them yourselves. I am honest and consistent in this ****. Neither side should be doing this sort of thing. Let's stick to the facts. Not muddying the waters and poisoning the well and other fallacies.

--- But I came here for an argument!

--- Oh, I'm sorry, this is abuse. Next door on the left!

(Okay, okay, so I couldn't resist. Sue me.)
 
I was actually very heartened by his original comments. And I love the fact that it drew out Newt. Nice to see him taking the lead for the bigots. Kinda hard to separate his comments from the rest of the intolerant nitwits who are twisting this issue. Obama was right in his original comments. Any thinking person knows that. AQ is not Islam. AQ is not representative of Islam. The people building the mosque have nothing to do with the terrorists.

I'm not so pleased with the backtracking and hedging he did in his Florida comments, though. Take a stand, dammit, Barack! You're the President of the USA, not the President of the poll-takers in the White House. So what if you rile up the bigots. Look in the mirror, you're black. Bee ell aye cee kay. Black! They aren't going to vote for you, anyway. And you don't step into the fray on Friday and then rise above it on Saturday. That's just dumb and it's obvious pandering.

The Foolmewunz jury is still out. I thought he was finally growing a pair. Evidently his handlers still feel the need to cater to every commentator or blogger and concede ground to them.

Bump 'cuz I'm hearing an echo in here. I staked out this ground early on. I seem to see a lot of people agreeing. I fear that Obama's handlers have won the day. They're content with a stalemate. I'd be surprised if he says anything else about the issue.

As to Reid?

My message: You gutless, chickens***! You're running against a teabagger supported conservative who already has the Let's Stop The Mosque ground covered. Do a mitzvah! Get up there and sell the voting public on what this country's supposed to stand for and stop selling your ass for peanuts!

And to whomever said they'd cut him some slack because if he, ahem, "clarifies" his position if he wins by a point.... I cut him no slack if he lies to get elected, especially if it's to pander to bigots and idiots.

The GOP in NV is already eating him alive on this. His was an even bigger lose/lose move than Obama's. If you support the mosque, the TB crowd goes nuts against you. If you go against the mosque, the TB crowd makes fun of you for waffling.
 
I'm sick of people on your side telling me that the base of my party is bigotted. It's reprehensible. It's a fallacious means of arguing your position. It should make you feel shame.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it shame, but I'm going to disagree that the base of the GOP is bigoted, if that helps. There's an element of bigotry in the new wave, though, particularly the Tea Party. And it'd be equally refreshing to see a few more conservatives admit it rather than apologizing for them or claiming that they're No True Tea Bagger.

Guess what, you have bigots on your side as well. Just that they are mostly people who are bigotted against White people. You may want to deny that, but it's pretty damn obvious with much of what some people say.

I don't disagree. There are idiots on the left as well as idiots on the right. There are, no doubt, racist blacks and racist hispanics and racist Polynesians and racist Asian-Americans. They won't make the bigots in the Tea Party go away, though. TQ arguments don't actually solve anything.

Maybe Reid is actually trying to represent what his constituency wishes him to. Maybe he's got a touch of pragmatism, instead of wildly naive idealism that most on the left subscribe to.
I don't want my leaders following the masses, particularly when the masses are being asses. I want my leaders to lead. I want them to take a stand. If that's wildly naive idealism, I'm guilty. I'm a product of Frank Capra's America - and I recognize that that was a fantasy world, but I can still cling to hope, can't I.

I'm not saying the right is correct on this issue. I'm just sick of trying to read these forums while some of you on the left continually say the most reprehensible things about my side of the isle. All egotistical and elitist in your attitudes. So full of yourself, and the supposed right-ness of your beliefs. It's impossible to read that kind of stuff without taking insult. And frankly, you guys know damn well it's insulting. And you don't care, because you think it's a valid debating techinque.
A bit over the top, wouldn't you say? You don't see that same cocky attitude in the conservative posters on here? Possibly because you're too busy agreeing with them. Meh, I see the exact same thing you're describing.

It makes me sick. Why can't you guys try actually arguing with some substance? You bemoan that fact that the right does these things, but also do them yourselves. I am honest and consistent in this ****. Neither side should be doing this sort of thing. Let's stick to the facts. Not muddying the waters and poisoning the well and other fallacies.

If you can maintain that perspective, we can start a movement. I'll join. But while not muddying the waters, let's not try to polish a turd and call it an ice cream sundae. There is a huge appeal here (in this issue, not in this thread) to anti-muslim/anti-islam sentiment, and the reasoned "No" vote is far outweighed by comments similarly ignorant to Newt's and which I can only describe as xenophobic and racist. Again, check out Newt's comments in the NYT article cited on Sunday. That's not a "thinking conservative". That's a stumping demagogue.
 
No, leftysergeant, it's NOT the president's business to react to talk radio announcers. It belittles the office.

It is part of the president's business to help set a moral tone for the country. Letting idiots like the Rushblob and Hannity and Savage and Levin spew and not calling them for the wothless bigots they are is not setting a moral tone, but acquiesence to evil.

By the way: the vast majority of Americans agree that the people of the Cordoba initiative have every legal right to build a mosque there. The question is whether they should, morally, do it.

How could it not be morally right? If thjere is a Muslim community in the area, they need a focal point that presents a proper image of Islam. Those non-Muslims in the area need a reminder that Islam is a part of this country, too. Shall they limit themselves to store-fronts and run-down buildings that nobody else would want as a center for their faith? Should they accept that they need to look shabby to appease maggots like the fat deaf eunuch and his foaming-at-the-mouth brothers? I hardly think so.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways and isn't determined by whether someone is insulted.

So maybe a finger in the eye of a bigot is the best thing the Umma could do for America. Build it.
 
I'm sick of people on your side telling me that the base of my party is bigotted. It's reprehensible. It's a fallacious means of arguing your position. It should make you feel shame.

When Michael Steele can denounce the fat deaf junky without having to do a mea culpa, I will concede to the GOP some moral ground higher than a cockroach's basement.

Maybe Reid is actually trying to represent what his constituency wishes him to. Maybe he's got a touch of pragmatism, instead of wildly naive idealism that most on the left subscribe to.

He's going too far to appease the shrieking monkeys.
 
How could it not be morally right?

Imagine they were building a huge church right next to a place where Christian fundamentalists tortured and killed a bunch of gay people -- and set the opening date of the church on the anniversary of the murder, to boot.

Imagine if one opened an "America World" amusement center next to the ground zero of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima.

Or, to give another example which actually happened, imagine they opened a Christian monastery in Auschwitz, the site of the greatest mass murder of Jews in history to date. (The pope listened to criticism and closed it).

In none of these case is there any legal problem. It might well be no intent to minimize or belittle the suffering of others (certainly, in the third case, nobody serious claimed this was some conspiracy to somehow make Auschwitz's horrors less "Jewish").

And yet it might well be morally inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
Thunder supports it. ;)

Let's switch it around, shall we? Suppose the mosque was being built by a radical Wahhabist imam, who had celebrated the attacks on 9-11 and who admitted that his goal was to erect a monument to the terrorists. Would you oppose it then?


I'll take that as a retraction of the blinded by belief accusation.
 
Thunder supports it. ;)

Let's switch it around, shall we? Suppose the mosque was being built by a radical Wahhabist imam, who had celebrated the attacks on 9-11 and who admitted that his goal was to erect a monument to the terrorists. Would you oppose it then?

what a stupid question. all Muslims celebrated 9-11 and the Mosque IS a monument to the terrorists.

don't you listen to Laura Ingraham and Hannity?
 
No, leftysergeant, it's NOT the president's business to react to talk radio announcers. It belittles the office.

someone please shoot me, for I am in full agreement with Skeptic.

let me check the window for any flying pigs.
 
GOP Governor of NJ Chris Christie is saying the issue should stay out of politics, and Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid is against the Mosque.

You know the world is going crazy now.
 
Nice little article from yesterday.

Islam in Two Americas

NY TIMES
By ROSS DOUTHAT
OP-ED COLUMNIST
August 15, 2010

There’s an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.

But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well. It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora — and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.

These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. And they’re in tension again this summer, in the controversy over the Islamic mosque and cultural center scheduled to go up two blocks from ground zero.

The first America, not surprisingly, views the project as the consummate expression of our nation’s high ideals. “This is America,” President Obama intoned last week, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” The construction of the mosque, Mayor Michael Bloomberg told New Yorkers, is as important a test of the principle of religious freedom “as we may see in our lifetimes.”

The second America begs to differ. It sees the project as an affront to the memory of 9/11, and a sign of disrespect for the values of a country where Islam has only recently become part of the public consciousness. And beneath these concerns lurks the darker suspicion that Islam in any form may be incompatible with the American way of life.

This is typical of how these debates usually play out. The first America tends to make the finer-sounding speeches, and the second America often strikes cruder, more xenophobic notes. The first America welcomed the poor, the tired, the huddled masses; the second America demanded that they change their names and drop their native languages, and often threw up hurdles to stop them coming altogether. The first America celebrated religious liberty; the second America persecuted Mormons and discriminated against Catholics.

​
I recommend reading the full thing. I am proudly part of the first American and I loathe the second America.

Perhaps you should have read the rest of the article:

By global standards, Rauf may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.
 
I'll take that as a retraction of the blinded by belief accusation.

Dodge noted. Answer the question: Would you oppose the mosque if it was being built by a radical Wahhabist imam who celebrated the attacks and admitted that his goal was a monument to the terrorists?
 
Dodge noted. Answer the question: Would you oppose the mosque if it was being built by a radical Wahhabist imam who celebrated the attacks and admitted that his goal was a monument to the terrorists?


Beats me. When that situation arises, I'll decide.

ETA: But in any case, I would not oppose on constitutional/legal grounds.
 
Last edited:
Dodge noted. Answer the question: Would you oppose the mosque if it was being built by a radical Wahhabist imam who celebrated the attacks and admitted that his goal was a monument to the terrorists?

one can asssume that the FBI would be all over this Immam, searching for terrorist ties, which he would most likely have.

but if he didn't, and was just a dick, I would have issues with such an Immam building a Mosque anywhere in the USA. We don't need bigots building houses of worship.

could we stop it legally? probably not.

though I think the Muslim community would demand that such a mosque not be built.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you should have read the rest of the article:
...the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.

I guess that's up to those building the mosque to decide for themselves, right?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom