Are you more Liberal or Conservative?

[chiplee]

But then again, i would not call RonM a "moderate"....

Did you delete his post?

 

[Thai]

Did you delete his post?

No...i just assumed that it was a few pages ago?? Why? It's not there anymore?

 

[chiplee]

No...i just assumed that it was a few pages ago?? Why? It's not there anymore?

I could have sworn it was on this page of the thread (page 6) when I read it earlier and then after your post it was gone. My mistake.

 

[Thai]

I could have sworn it was on this page of the thread (page 6) when I read it earlier and then after your post it was gone. My mistake.

Ahhh, i see. I have no idea...you may want to PM him.

 

[chiplee]

You've made strong points, but we disagree on the subject of radical Islam and how large that faction is in the world.

No we don't disagree on that. I know there is a frighteningly large percentage of Muslims who support violence in defense of Islam. We disagree about whether that obvious fact constitutes justification for denying Muslims their rights in the United States. The equally obvious truth is that IT DOES NOT!!!

You want to separate the terrorists from their religion and make them into people acting individually, but doing it in the name of religion (like abortion bombers).

It's not so much that I "want" to do that. It's that that's what you do. You don't declare entire groups of people to be deserving of punishment based on the actions of individual people within that group. If we did that no one would have any freedom at all.

I see it as an entire sect of the religion that hasn't changed in centuries, that teaches hatred and death to the infidel, and they have been trying to eradicate the Jews as well as other races for thousands of years and continue to try to do so now. That is the reason I drew a comparison to Nazis earlier. I guess I should have noted that I was referring to radical Islam and not Muslim Americans, but I honestly thought that was understood in the beginning of this debate.

How could it possibly "be understood" when you constantly equate Muslims with terrorists?

You may say to me, "If you know that Muslim Americans are different than radical Muslims, why does the mosque bother you?" I'll explain... I think the vast majority of Muslim Americans don't share the terrorists' view on how to deal with the Western world, but the fact that they participate and live in a free country like America, means to me they have branched out from the main religion and made a more tolerant sect that is allowed to enjoy the comforts of living in free countries like ours. Why am I still arguing?..

I don't just mean Muslim Americans. I mean peaceful Muslims all over the world. The American example is just what fit the conversation best. The best data we have available now suggests that roughly 5% of Muslims think violence is "sometimes justifiable in defense of Islam". I've read and written extensively on the subject, and that number is improving. I strongly believe preventing this Mosque from being built would be a setback to that progress.

I am a realist and the fact that these Muslim Americans want to stir the pot of controversy and put their mosque there makes me question them and their motives. And it's offensive because I believe it's meant to be offensive. 2 blocks is just the closest they could get. If they could plop it down right on top of the twin towers site, they probably would.

I'm a realist, too. The reality of this situation is that religious freedoms are guaranteed to American citizens. The only thing that has made it possible for "them" to stir the pot is the fact that confused Americans stepped up to try to stop them from exercising their rights. Most Americans want their own rights defended, but don't mind stepping all over the rights of others.

As much as you may not think I'm capable, I do see your point that Muslims Americans should be able to enjoy the freedom of placing a mosque wherever they want to. If that was your main goal in this, then consider that a success chiplee. However, IMO their choice of location isn't just by chance and I'll stop being offended by it when I get a good explanation of why they want it there.

Then you should have started the conversation by stating that you were withholding judgment until better information came in about the motivations of the individuals trying to build the Mosque. You came out guns blazing about the stupidity and disrespect of the president.

They know it's a touchy subject. I'm arguing what the motive is behind it, not if they have the right to do it. The fact that the president fully supports it as opposed to just not taking a stand either way makes me question him. Why doesn't he think it's such a great idea?

To my knowledge the president has been basically quiet about it.

If you are Muslim reading this and love this country as much as I do, I mean no offense and I'm not saying that you're not every bit as patriotic as the next American. But I ask you this: Why do you want to put it right there? If you are just stirring the pot, then that offends me and millions of other Americans. But if you give me a good reason, I may be led to change my mind.

Why do you assume every Muslim reading this wants "to put it right there"? Do you think it was a consensus vote where all Muslims got together and decided to really stick it to those Christian Americans? I still contend that being offended by a Mosque means you haven't fully disassociated terrorism from those peaceful Muslims you just said you meant "no offense" to.

I appreciate the concessions you've offered, but I submit to you that we're on the same team with regard to tolerating terrorists. There's just no place in this country (or the world) for denying the rights of entire segments of society on the basis of the actions of individuals or even groups within those segments. Terrorism, wherever it exists, is born of socio-economic factors and desperation. What causes Islam to produce more terrorists is simply that the Islamic regions of the world happen to also be the less affluent regions of the world. They would just as happily use the bible to justify their violence if that happened to be their religion. Objecting to the building of a Mosque in response to Islamic terrorist activity is exactly like objecting to the building of a Church in response to Christian terrorist activity. It's just not an appropriate response.

 

[brian2sun]

No we don't disagree on that. I know there is a frighteningly large percentage of Muslims who support violence in defense of Islam. We disagree about whether that obvious fact constitutes justification for denying Muslims their rights in the United States. The equally obvious truth is that IT DOES NOT!!!

Not arguing their right, but rather their motive.

It's not so much that I "want" to do that. It's that that's what you do. You don't declare entire groups of people to be deserving of punishment based on the actions of individual people within that group. If we did that no one would have any freedom at all.

Again, the Christian church does not recognize them as having any part of the church. Much of the Islamic "church" especially in the Middle East does in fact recognize the terrorists as faithful Muslims and supports their pathetic behavior. We will probably never agree on this comparison so I think we can just put it to sleep.

How could it possibly "be understood" when you constantly equate Muslims with terrorists?

Because the terrorists we are referring to are all Muslims. It's like this: "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares." The terroroists we are talking about are all Muslims, but of course not all Muslims are terrorists.

I don't just mean Muslim Americans. I mean peaceful Muslims all over the world. The American example is just what fit the conversation best. The best data we have available now suggests that roughly 5% of Muslims think violence is "sometimes justifiable in defense of Islam". I've read and written extensively on the subject, and that number is improving. I strongly believe preventing this Mosque from being built would be a setback to that progress.

I didn't just mean Muslim Americans either, that's why I said,

but the fact that they participate and live in a free country like America, means to me they have branched out from the main religion and made a more tolerant sect that is allowed to enjoy the comforts of living in free countries like ours.

I also believe that # is much higher than 5%. You could be right that preventing it could be a set back to the progress.. or it may show us their true motives.. I don't know, but I do agree with you on the stand point of not denying religious freedom because I want to uphold the Constitution also.

I'm a realist, too. The reality of this situation is that religious freedoms are guaranteed to American citizens. The only thing that has made it possible for "them" to stir the pot is the fact that confused Americans stepped up to try to stop them from exercising their rights. Most Americans want their own rights defended, but don't mind stepping all over the rights of others.

I disagree, not about their rights, but I disagree that "confused Americans" stirred the pot. Not every American is actively trying to stop them. Many just want an explanation because it's not something that the vast majority of Americans want there. I will maintain that there is an ulterior motive for the Muslim community wanting it there and they stirred the pot by creating controversy in the 1st place. They don't seem to recognize (or don't care) that doing this may upset and insult many other Americans in the country. Do they have the right to do it? Yes. Will it help or hurt their struggle to be accepted in America? I believe they are hurting themselves in that regard.

Then you should have started the conversation by stating that you were withholding judgment until better information came in about the motivations of the individuals trying to build the Mosque. You came out guns blazing about the stupidity and disrespect of the president.

I am allowed to change my mind. I still think the President is stupid for many reasons so that hasn't changed. But, on the subject of the mosque, I didn't know at the time that other info would be coming along that might compel me to think further about the issue. I appreciate your arguments and I think conversations like these build knowledge and better people.

To my knowledge the president has been basically quiet about it.

Actually I did hear a tape of him defending his argument for their right to build it, but he said himself that he was not commenting on the wisdom of it. That may mean that even he isn't convinced this is a good thing for America. But I don't think we will probably ever know because he has consistently been vague about stating most of his beliefs IMO.

Why do you assume every Muslim reading this wants "to put it right there"? Do you think it was a consensus vote where all Muslims got together and decided to really stick it to those Christian Americans? I still contend that being offended by a Mosque means you haven't fully disassociated terrorism from those peaceful Muslims you just said you meant "no offense" to.

I don't assume that every one of them wants it there, but I was asking for a Muslim American's view of why the "church" as a whole wants it built. I think most Muslim Americans would probably have a better insight into the reasons why than you, I, or any other person not of that religion may have. The action of putting it there while knowing that most Americans do not want it there is what is offensive - because blood was spilt there. That is not me or anyone associating Muslim Americans with terrorists, it's not my fault that Islam and terrorism have a strong association throughout history and still do today - unlike the current stance of Western religions with regards to terrorism.

I appreciate the concessions you've offered, but I submit to you that we're on the same team with regard to tolerating terrorists. There's just no place in this country (or the world) for denying the rights of entire segments of society on the basis of the actions of individuals or even groups within those segments. Terrorism, wherever it exists, is born of socio-economic factors and desperation. What causes Islam to produce more terrorists is simply that the Islamic regions of the world happen to also be the less affluent regions of the world. They would just as happily use the bible to justify their violence if that happened to be their religion. Objecting to the building of a Mosque in response to Islamic terrorist activity is exactly like objecting to the building of a Church in response to Christian terrorist activity. It's just not an appropriate response.

I believe we are on the same team with regard to tolerating terrorists as well. Blaming terrorism on 3rd world conditions isn't completely cutting it for me though. There are still lots of 3rd world countries that do not participate in terrorism. Islam's close association with terorism comes from their history and the teachings of those radical sects of the Muslim religion. Maybe they would just as happily use the Bible to justify terrorism, but that is not the case, they use the Koran. And they are a lot bigger of a concern to the world than a few rogue "Christians" that the church doesn't recognize anyways. Western religions currently aren't terrorizing the world on a scale that's even close to being comparable.

Here is a video that I thought was interesting. It's not necessarily my view and I don't think it supports their constitutional rights, but I think it's relevant just because many if not most Americans feel similarly and there may be some truth to what he is saying... (which is, is this to spite America and is it the best for the future of America?) Ultimately that is the most important thing IMO.

YouTube - Of Mosques and Men: Reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque

 

[chiplee]

Here is a video that I thought was interesting. It's not necessarily my view and I don't think it supports their constitutional rights, but I think it's relevant just because many if not most Americans feel similarly and there may be some truth to what he is saying... (which is, is this to spite America and is it the best for the future of America?) Ultimately that is the most important thing IMO.

YouTube - Of Mosques and Men: Reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque

I'm content with the conversation there really. Frankly, I think you did a nice job of considering the arguments I was presenting. The truth is I effing HATE Islam, and I think its leaders are entirely too tolerant of violence. I took a liberty earlier that you didn't call me on when I said they "denounce" extremist violence in defense of Islam. There have been a few brave Muslim leaders who have stepped up to do that, but it took years after 9/11, and it was only a couple. It should have been every one of them, and they should have done it instantly and publicly. The fact that they didn't says A LOT about the nature of that disgusting religion.

Again, though, the extent to which Christianity is "less disgusting" is strikingly similar to the extent to which it is "more mature." In other words, Christianity was just as ugly when it was 1600 years old, so I really don't want to hear from Christians about how bad Muslims are. Religious people are all part of the same big self deception problem to me.

I argue in favor of the mosque primarily because of the weakness of the arguments against it. For example, arguments against the mosque have to be made from a secular perspective to deserve to be heard. You can't say something like this; "Our religion is peaceful, so we get to build a church, but your religion is hateful so you can't build your mosque." Nope, sorry. The whole of Islam isn't hateful so unless the whole of Christianity is utterly peaceful then that argument isn't worth anyone's time. In fact, to me, unless they're willing to say literally NOTHING about religion, no religious person has the right to argue against the Mosque being built what-so-ever, and that goes especially for homeboy in the video there. But then I don't think religious people should be allowed to talk at all so I'm a bit of an extremist myself in that regard.

 

[brian2sun]

I appreciate that. I agree that most if not all religions have sickeningly violent pasts and I would venture to say that the majority of history's wars have been fought over them. Some have been tamed down over the years, but they're all supposed to be about love and spirituality - not war and bloodshed. Probably one of the biggest ironies in this world. You argued your points very intelligently and I gained some insight into the issue from you and 004Gunner. I think it's especially nice to talk to soldiers like yourselves and hear your perspectives. And thank you for your service.