Bigots oppose another NYC mosque

[leftysergeant]

To be as hated by you as these people are is a pretty good endorsement as far as I am concerned.

Breitbart is worthless to society. He funded a liar in his lies to the nation. Geller is a shrieking bigot.

Mock me all you want, it won't wash the bigot off of your hands.

 

[kerikiwi]

This thread is all about left vs right. The sole purpose of the thread is to paint all conservatives with the broad brush of religious bigotry.

Incorrect. The purpose of this thread seems to be for the religious bigots to display their religious bigotry, and for the non religious bigots to point out said bigotry.

 

[Toontown]

Now, is it "bigotry" to lie about and oppose Communism, or Capitalism, or Liberalism, or to oppose these ideologies without being fully educated about them? No, because bigotry can only applied to a religion, race, ethnicity, culture, etc.

How convenient.

And wrong. If a religion is not an ideology, especially one which has repeatedly imposed itself as "theocracy", then exactly what the hell is it?

Prove that opposition to Islam is necessarily motivated by racial, ethnic, and/or cultural bigotry.

 

[kerikiwi]

How convenient.

And wrong. If a religion is not an ideology, especially one which has repeatedly imposed itself as "theocracy", then exactly what the hell is it?

Prove that opposition to Islam is necessarily motivated by racial, ethnic, and/or cultural bigotry.

Did you miss the part about lying about the supposed ideology? About being educated about what is being opposed?

 

[A'isha]

To call people "bigots" who peacefully oppose a religious ideology is itself bigoted and wrong-headed.

No, it's not.

People have a constitutionally protected right to peacefully oppose any damn ideology they don't like.

Even bigots. I agree.

Doesn't stop them from being bigots, though.

In fact, the declaration of independence claims the right of the people to actually take up arms against an oppressive ideology which attempts to impose itself on them in the form of a government. Which is precisely what Islam has done in most Islam-dominated countries. And if they should ever try that here, our armed forces are sworn by oath to take their ideologically domineering asses out.

Including many Muslim members of our armed forces, who would fight just as hard as their Christian, Wiccan, and Atheist comrades in order to keep that from happening.

As I attempted to explain to DC, your convenient, ideologically motivated definition of "bigotry" is wrong. Opposition to an ideology is not bigotry. Or else you're all bigots.

You're right, opposition to an ideology is not bigotry. But opposition to a group of people because one ascribes an "ideology" to them that is not actually theirs (and which, in all these cases, they actively oppose), and associate them with acts committed by some other group, simply because they happen to call themselves by the same 1400-year-old label?

That's bigotry.

 

[Toontown]

Incorrect. The purpose of this thread seems to be for the religious bigots to display their religious bigotry, and for the non religious bigots to point out said bigotry.

Is that a Freudian slip or an attempt at humor?

I see what you did there. You simply said what I said, while painting your side as the "non religious bigot" side.

 

[kerikiwi]

Is that a Freudian slip or an attempt at humor?

Neither. It was merely a slip-up in the use of punctuation. Don't get too excited.


ETA : I deny all responsibility for the emoticon. I didn't put it there and I can't make it go away.

 

[Toontown]

No, it's not.

Yes it is. Or you wouldn't have bothered to adjust your position.

Including many Muslim members of our armed forces, who would fight just as hard as their Christian, Wiccan, and Atheist comrades in order to keep that from happening.

What about the neo-nazi skinheads and gang-bangers in the armed forces? Do we have to kowtow their butt-headed ideologies too?

All these picky little rules. It's getting confusing. Say this, don't say that. Qualify this, don't qualify that. Think this, don't think that. And what happens when the left decides to go back to it's usual Christian-bashing? What new rationale or re-definition of "bigotry" will then spring forth?

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. Do this, don't do that. Can't you read the signs? Oh, and BTW, they change like, every other day.

You're right, opposition to an ideology is not bigotry. But opposition to a group of people because one ascribes an "ideology" to them that is not actually theirs (and which, in all these cases, they actively oppose), and associate them with acts committed by some other group, simply because they happen to call themselves by the same 1400-year-old label?

That's bigotry.

Oh, I get it. The attackers weren't really Muslims. And all those people dancing in the streets weren't real Muslims either. Only the American brand of Muslim is true Muslim. And as long as there are Muslims who either do or do not run with the herd, then it's bigoted to think it inappropriate to build a an edifice dedicated to the ideology that we wrongly believe gave rise to the Islamic terrorists who attacked us near ground zero.

Hey. I can buy that. AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM! I've always thought American Muslims are special.

But who is going to fund that huge phallic symbol of a mosque, which just coincidentally just has to be built as near to ground zero as possible? Because it's beginning to look extremely doubtful that even a majority of American Muslims favor building a 100 million dollar mosque 600 feet from ground zero:

http://bigpeace.com/jmwaller/2010/08/24/more-muslims-speak-out-against-ground-zero-mosque/

So, are all these Muslims being bigoted against themselves?

 

[kerikiwi]

Yes it is. Or you wouldn't have bothered to adjust your position.



What about the neo-nazi skinheads and gang-bangers in the armed forces? Do we have to kowtow their butt-headed ideologies too?

All these picky little rules. It's getting confusing. Say this, don't say that. Qualify this, don't qualify that. Think this, don't think that. And what happens when the left decides to go back to it's usual Christian-bashing? What new rationale or re-definition of "bigotry" will then spring forth?

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. Do this, don't do that. Can't you read the signs? Oh, and BTW, they change like, every other day.



Oh, I get it. The attackers weren't really Muslims. And all those people dancing in the streets weren't real Muslims either. Only the American brand of Muslim is true Muslim. And as long as there are Muslims who either do or do not run with the herd, then it's bigoted to think it inappropriate to build a an edifice dedicated to the ideology that we wrongly believe gave rise to the Islamic terrorists who attacked us near ground zero.

Hey. I can buy that. AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM! I've always thought American Muslims are special.

But who is going to fund that huge phallic symbol of a mosque, which just coincidentally just has to be built as near to ground zero as possible? Because it's beginning to look extremely doubtful that even a majority of American Muslims favor building a 100 million dollar mosque 600 feet from ground zero:

http://bigpeace.com/jmwaller/2010/08/24/more-muslims-speak-out-against-ground-zero-mosque/

So, are all these Muslims being bigoted against themselves?

You are becoming somewhat incoherent, but there is still visible a veritable haystack in that rant, not to mention the odd internal contradiction.
The point of the 'bigotry' label is that the ideology you attack is detested by huge numbers of people, including those you accuse of adhering to that ideology.
Islam is not monolithic.

 

[Toontown]

Breitbart is worthless to society. He funded a liar in his lies to the nation. Geller is a shrieking bigot.

Mock me all you want, it won't wash the bigot off of your hands.

You talking to me?

Lefty, you seem to be obstinately and intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices. To the point where you actually wish people you dislike or disagree with to suffer horribly in the fires of hell for all eternity. And I can provide multiple quotes on that.

In that sense, you're a lot like the god you worship, but without the purported supernatural POWAH!

 

[Toontown]

You are becoming somewhat incoherent, but there is still visible a veritable haystack in that rant, not to mention the odd internal contradiction.
The point of the 'bigotry' label is that the ideology you attack is detested by huge numbers of people, including those you accuse of adhering to that ideology.
Islam is not monolithic.

Who did I accuse of adhering to "that ideology"? I'll need a quote.

I think what I've actually done is accuse leftists of bigotry for accusing everyone who is opposed to building the GZ mosque of being bigots.

And the really funny part is, I'm not even accusing Muslims of that peculiar form of bigotry, because it looks like most Muslims oppose building the mosque.

Once again, the whole bruhaha is mostly just a bunch of lefties all isolated out in la-la land, pointing politically motivated fingers and going "la, la, la".

 

[Toontown]

Sorry to break up the party, guys, but George Soros is repeatedly jamming my broadband connection. He's been hard at it for most of the week.

 

[leftysergeant]

You talking to me?

Lefty, you seem to be obstinately and intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices. To the point where you actually wish people you dislike or disagree with to suffer horribly in the fires of hell for all eternity. And I can provide multiple quotes on that.

Actually, I would like Breitbart and Geller to suffer right here and now. They've earned it.

 

[leftysergeant]

What about the neo-nazi skinheads and gang-bangers in the armed forces? Do we have to kowtow their butt-headed ideologies too?

Of course not. They are terrorists.

And what happens when the left decides to go back to it's usual Christian-bashing? What new rationale or re-definition of "bigotry" will then spring forth?

Most liberals I know only oppose the Christian extremists who get in our faces, or the war mongering fundies who don't want the Muslims or other religious minorities to ever have a place to worship in America.

http://bigpeace.com/jmwaller/2010/08/24/more-muslims-speak-out-against-ground-zero-mosque/

So, are all these Muslims being bigoted against themselves?

Care to show us something to support that crap besides the word of a sub-human internet troll who never uttered an honest sentence in public?

 

[A'isha]

Yes it is. Or you wouldn't have bothered to adjust your position.

I haven't changed anything. You made a strawman assumption about my position, and I simply explained how that strawman was incorrect.

What about the neo-nazi skinheads and gang-bangers in the armed forces? Do we have to kowtow their butt-headed ideologies too?

Oh, boy, another strawman. I don't recall saying anything at all about 'kowtowing". I merely said that American Muslims have have the same right to their Constitutionally-protected freedoms, including freedom of religion, as Jews, Christians, and even Atheists do, and there are many Muslims in our armed forces who have fought and died to help protect those rights for all Americans.

If you think that's "kowtowing", you're going to have to explain that a little bit more, because otherwise it looks like a complete non sequitur.

All these picky little rules. It's getting confusing. Say this, don't say that. Qualify this, don't qualify that. Think this, don't think that. And what happens when the left decides to go back to it's usual Christian-bashing? What new rationale or re-definition of "bigotry" will then spring forth?

Ah, right. Thanks for reminding me that you still haven't shown any evidence of "the left" protesting the construction of churches and trying to find legal means to stop that construction.

You do have some, right?

Oh, I get it. The attackers weren't really Muslims. And all those people dancing in the streets weren't real Muslims either. Only the American brand of Muslim is true Muslim. And as long as there are Muslims who either do or do not run with the herd, then it's bigoted to think it inappropriate to build a an edifice dedicated to the ideology that we wrongly believe gave rise to the Islamic terrorists who attacked us near ground zero.

Hey. I can buy that. AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM! I've always thought American Muslims are special.

That's a strawman of Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man proportions. I, of course, was saying the exact opposite of what you're saying: all of them are Muslims, the same way that Fred Phelps and Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Shelby Spong and Jack Chick and Barack Obama and George W. Bush are all Christians. And you can't say anything about what "ideology" one group of Muslims follows by looking at what "ideology" a completely different group of Muslims follows, any more than you can tell what "ideology" a Catholic follows by looking at what the preacher of a Southern Baptist megachurch follows.

But please, tell me more about how the "ideology" of the Nur Ashki Jerrahi order of Sufism that the "Ground Zero Mosque" organizers and imam belong to is similar to the "ideology" of the Wahhabi (Salafi) Sunni sect that the 19 al-Qaeda hijackers belonged to.

Please be as specific as you can when describing these similarities in "ideology", and don't forget to cite your work.

But who is going to fund that huge phallic symbol of a mosque, which just coincidentally just has to be built as near to ground zero as possible? Because it's beginning to look extremely doubtful that even a majority of American Muslims favor building a 100 million dollar mosque 600 feet from ground zero:

http://bigpeace.com/jmwaller/2010/08/24/more-muslims-speak-out-against-ground-zero-mosque/

So, are all these Muslims being bigoted against themselves?

No, they're just saying that they should bow to bigotry, saying "Americans still blame all of Islam for 9/11, so we should be more sensitive to that" That doesn't really help your position that it's possible to oppose the mosque for reasons that don't involve bigotry.

And in any case, I'm kind of doubtful as to the veracity of that article, since it calls Stephen Schwartz a "Shi'ite Muslim". He's a Sufi, who claims to follow a specifically Sunni branch of fiqh, or theological jurisprudence.

 

[kerikiwi]

And in any case, I'm kind of doubtful as to the veracity of that article, since it calls Stephen Schwartz a "Shi'ite Muslim". He's a Sufi, who claims to follow a specifically Sunni branch of fiqh, or theological jurisprudence.

Not to mention that the article quotes a muslim saying that muslims should adhere to the laws ansd customs of their host society, and not enter into conflict. The conflict in question is caused by the bigots who equate all muslims with those who perpetrated the atrocities.
Avoiding that conflict in no way means that it is not founded in bigotry.

 

[leftysergeant]

And in any case, I'm kind of doubtful as to the veracity of that article, since it calls Stephen Schwartz a "Shi'ite Muslim". He's a Sufi, who claims to follow a specifically Sunni branch of fiqh, or theological jurisprudence.

Frankly, all one needs to know to test the reliability of the source is to read the name on the banner on their front page.

If Breitbart ever posted anything related to an external reality, I missed it.

 

[Toontown]

Messenger attack. You really need that not to be true, don't you.

Sorry, leftie. I'm not privy to your Little Black Book of Liars in which you have penned the names and possibly the addresses of everyone you consider to be liars. In fact, I'm not a full-time political hack like many of you, so I haven't even started my own Little Black Book. So it is entirely possible that I might, from time to time, simply for the sake of convenience, support the glaringly obvious with a link to some source you personally disapprove of. For this, I offer no apology, and no promise to do better in the future.

Of course, it is your assertion that what's-his-face lied, and so it is your responsibility to prove he lied. Not my responsibility to prove the negative.

But as far as the current bone of contention goes, you can simply google "American Muslims opposed to GZ mosque", and you will become the immediate beneficiary of a number of choices of whom to believe or not believe, as your political propensities require. I've listed the first few for you, in case you're too lazy or irritated to google them yourself. If none of these are to your liking, well, I suppose you'll just have to suffer in your self-imposed informational gulag.


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/la...s-arabs-more-opposed-gz-mosque-american-media

"According to a recent survey by the Arabic online news service Elaph (Arabic version here), 58 percent of Arabs think the construction should be moved elsewhere. And according to a Media Research Center study released last week, 55 percent of network news coverage of the debate has come down on the pro-Mosque side."

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/la...pposed-gz-mosque-american-media#ixzz13n7K47kK

http://www.5tjt.com/international-news/8139-muslim-scholar-says-dont-build-gz-mosque

"A respected Muslim scholar has a message for those planning to build an Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York: It's a bad idea, and a window on sharply differing thinking among Muslims worldwide on how to best go about promoting Islam - and peace.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, in Phoenix, a former Muslim U.S. Navy Commander, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Friday sharply critical of the planned Islamic center, urging organizer Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Muslims all over the world to show compassion and understand the American separation of church and state.

Special Section: Sept. 11 Remembered

Jasser says the Islamic Center as conceived is more about making a political statement that will seriously divide communities than about bringing them together.

He wrote, "We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state." He continues, "American freedom of religion is a right, but … it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero. … Islamists in 'moderate' disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims (as) separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam.""

 

[Thunder]

Folks, this thread is about a mosque in Brooklyn...not the GZ mosque.

Anyone got any logical or rational or non-bigoted reasons, why a new mosque should not be built in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn?

No? Thought not.

 

[kerikiwi]

Messenger attack. You really need that not to be true, don't you.

Sorry, leftie. I'm not privy to your Little Black Book of Liars in which you have penned the names and possibly the addresses of everyone you consider to be liars. In fact, I'm not a full-time political hack like many of you, so I haven't even started my own Little Black Book. So it is entirely possible that I might, from time to time, simply for the sake of convenience, support the glaringly obvious with a link to some source you personally disapprove of. For this, I offer no apology, and no promise to do better in the future.

Of course, it is your assertion that what's-his-face lied, and so it is your responsibility to prove he lied. Not my responsibility to prove the negative.

But as far as the current bone of contention goes, you can simply google "American Muslims opposed to GZ mosque", and you will become the immediate beneficiary of a number of choices of whom to believe or not believe, as your political propensities require. I've listed the first few for you, in case you're too lazy or irritated to google them yourself. If none of these are to your liking, well, I suppose you'll just have to suffer in your self-imposed informational gulag.


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/la...s-arabs-more-opposed-gz-mosque-american-media

"According to a recent survey by the Arabic online news service Elaph (Arabic version here), 58 percent of Arabs think the construction should be moved elsewhere. And according to a Media Research Center study released last week, 55 percent of network news coverage of the debate has come down on the pro-Mosque side."

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/la...pposed-gz-mosque-american-media#ixzz13n7K47kK

http://www.5tjt.com/international-news/8139-muslim-scholar-says-dont-build-gz-mosque

"A respected Muslim scholar has a message for those planning to build an Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York: It's a bad idea, and a window on sharply differing thinking among Muslims worldwide on how to best go about promoting Islam - and peace.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, in Phoenix, a former Muslim U.S. Navy Commander, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Friday sharply critical of the planned Islamic center, urging organizer Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Muslims all over the world to show compassion and understand the American separation of church and state.

Special Section: Sept. 11 Remembered

Jasser says the Islamic Center as conceived is more about making a political statement that will seriously divide communities than about bringing them together.

He wrote, "We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state." He continues, "American freedom of religion is a right, but … it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero. … Islamists in 'moderate' disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims (as) separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam.""

Has anyone here claimed that no Muslims are opposing 'the mosque'?