Jump to content

Masjids in Manhattan II cookies to Raidne


Bellis

Recommended Posts

Almost certainly, but I've always viewed religion as a series of rules/set beliefs. Jumping from one religion or sect to another just because it fits your own personal views better never jived with my mind. If I were wanted my faith to reflect my own views, then I'd start my own, not follow another that just marginally fits me better than the one I'm currently in.

We may have to agree to disagree that being a woman or a homosexual is a lifestyle choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may have to agree to disagree that being a woman or a homosexual is a lifestyle choice.

wat.

I meant:

a. Islam does not accept homosexual sex.

b. Islam does accept homosexual sex.

If you're of the latter persuasion, you're altering the religion to suit your views. It's not a matter of life-style choice. The Prophet himself in various hadiths refers to homosexuality as being natural, but as something that homosexuals must not act upon. There's that one hadith where the prophet said that a homosexual that did not act upon their lusts would be granted the same rewards as a martyr.

It's like fasting during Ramadan, except they have to do it their entire lives, because religion is prescriptive, not subjective.

Like, this is one of the themes in Bakker's books, that people miss. Objective morality and religion. As far as Abrahamic religions are concerned, it doesn't matter if the two men/women are consenting adults and there's no harm being done. The act is sinful regardless of intent, or consequences. Because as far as these religions are concerned, morality is objective, physical law.

Bakker himself got the idea for a world with objective morality by looking at Old Testament Israel. Obviously, irl, morality is not objective, but within the LARP that is religion, it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're talking about a minority here.

Could be, but after the "death panels" of last August, I definitely need to see some evidence because I swore to never underestimate the legs of misinformation, no matter how ridiculous, again. In this case, that the "ground zero" mosque is actually two blocks from ground zero, and so forth. In my own little personal circle, both my Dad and my coworker changed their minds because they didn't realize that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the previous thread:

FLOW,

That it was, but let's leave the issue of legality on the side for a moment and simply focus on how it made people feel. (Pretend for a moment that Rosa Parks' action was technically legal, for argument's sake.)

If we take the line of reasoning currently advanced by the mosque opponents, then Rosa Parks should have forseen the shit storm that her action was bound to cause, since it was offensive to white folks. And clearly, if Martin Luther King hoped to achieve his dream of racial harmony, then he and the blacks should have refrained from causing such needless controversy, which was bound to result in the exact opposite of the racial harmony they were supposedly seeking.

You're mixing means and ends. MLK wasn't seeking just peace and harmony. He could have had that by encouraging blacks to stay in the back of the bus. He wanted change and equality, and his preferred method was peace and nonviolence. But because peace and harmony without the Civil Rights Act was not acceptable.

On the other hand, this mosque supposedly had as its goal not to make a First Amendment statement, or to change the legal status quo, but to bring two bickering parties closer together. Now I've come around to the point where I don't believe that at all. I think he's largely an opportunist -- not an ideological radical, though -- and this was a chance for him to greatly increase his own profile/status both in the U.S. and with moslems with money overseas. He wanted to be the guy who built the big "come together" Mosque near ground zero. When push came to shove, though, he decided not backing down and losing support among moslems he was trying to impress was more important than the whole peace/harmony thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I've come around to the point where I don't believe that at all. I think he's largely an opportunist -- not an ideological radical, though -- and this was a chance for him to greatly increase his own profile/status both in the U.S. and with moslems with money overseas. He wanted to be the guy who built the big "come together" Mosque near ground zero. When push came to shove, though, he decided not backing down and losing support among moslems he was trying to impress was more important than the whole peace/harmony thing.

Lol, obviously anyone who doesn't conform meekly to my ridiculous bigotry-fuel demand is an opportunist!

I see that the goalpost has been shifted again, with character-assasination returning as a tried-and-true tactic for rightwing hacks since the facts don't agree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wat.

I meant:

a. Islam does not accept homosexual sex.

b. Islam does accept homosexual sex.

If you're of the latter persuasion, you're altering the religion to suit your views.

I don't want to thread-drift this further, especially since this is probably not the board for it. I would encourage you, if interested, to look up the works of Scott Kugle.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Homosexuality-Islam-Critical-Reflection-Transgender/dp/1851687017

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, they probably should have foreseen that. But considering even Laura Ingraham was supporting them a year ago, maybe they did not imagine the current level of assult from the right wing media.

I had to read up on this. Yeah, I mean, you're never safe, but they definitely received positive feedback from across the political spectrum on the project. This didn't start to go bad until May, when this Gellar's group, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), launched their "Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!"

Pushing back against the extremists is what we said we wanted from moderate muslims. Bush agreed, the Pentagon agreed, the Pentagon even put its money where its mouth was. Now, nine years later, we let a group like SIOA and some election minded politicians convince us to flip our shit? :owned:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I thought I'd throw in a quote from Imam Rauf's eulogy for Daniel Pearl:

Wow, what an extremist asshole. Note how he did not say that Hamas is a terrorist organization!!! :rolleyes:

Oh ya total scumbag. /sigh God people suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NYTimes also did a piece covering the proposed project from Dec 8, 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1

Laura Ingraham herself even interviewed Daisy Khan on Dec 21, 2009 and gave her approval as Salon’s Justin Elliott has uncovered in his research:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/16/laura-ingraham-mosque/

Ingraham now has total amnesia over that and is currently one of the most vocal fear-mongers out there about the subject. It's really disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this was posted at the end of the last thread...if so, it is still worth linking again.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

Moral of the story:

If you are fine with or support the community center then stop watching Fox News.

If you are against the community center then stop watching Fox News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hallowed ground zero"?

this is the fundamental error of the entire controversy, wherein the WTC site has become malachor V, apparently causing an ontological fissure into which pours all sense and decency, and issues thence an aura of infallibility, such that even while the holocaust museum has been opposed by some of these agitated teabaggers, they seek to appropriate the WTC site (ground zero is a completely moronic term for it, as 9/11 bears no reasonable relationship at all, except in the minds of fascists and fucktards, to the nuking of hiromshima) as a theatre for their bizarre theolocal histrionics, autocathartic and autolethean libation bearing, and more or less ludicrous revanchist demonstrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was of the opinion that this whole issue was a tempest in a teapot engineered by the media and politicians to create drama and take attention away from more pressing issues.

That may have been how it started, (by Sarah "Refudiator" Palin) but Glenn Greenwald is beginning to convince me that a little more is at stake:

The "mosque" debate is not a "distraction"

He begins by linking to then discussing the utterly foul video of bigoted ("mouth breather") protesters assaulting a black man simply because he appears Muslim. He then goes on to say:

If Park51 ends up moving or if opponents otherwise succeed in defeating it, it will seriously bolster and validate the ugly premises at the heart of this campaign: that Muslims generally are responsible for 9/11, Terrorism justifies and even compels our restricting the equals rights and access of Americans Muslims, and more broadly, the animosity and suspicions towards Muslims generally are justified, or at least deserving of respect. As Aziz Poonawalla put it: "if the project does fail, then I think that the message that will be sent is that bigotry and fear of Muslims is not just permitted, it is effective."

That's exactly the message that will be sent, and that's what makes this conflict so significant. Obviously, not all opponents of Park51 are as overtly hateful as those in that video -- and not all opponents are themselves bigots -- but the position they've adopted is inherently bigoted, as it seeks to impose guilt and blame on a large demographic group for the aberrational acts of a small number of individual members. And one thing is certain: if this campaign succeeds, it will proliferate and the sentiments driving it will become even more potent. Hatemongers always become emboldened when they triumph.

I now believe, if we are ever going to triumph over fundamentalist terrorism, it is crucial that this CULTURAL COMMUNITY CENTER gets built.

Whatever the guise, all those who oppose it's construction are giving into fear, emboldening terrorism, and killing the very freedom that makes the US a great place to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an American, so maybe I am talking out my arsehole here, but there's a thing called the First Amendment, and if I am not wrong, property rights are considered paramount in this country.

So, given that, this whole story is massively ridiculous and we should move on, let the muslims build their mosque/community centre, and quite frankly who gives a stuff. The moment the guy starts talking about killing infidels and training suicide bombers is when I begin to worry, but I haven't seen anything worth worrying about yet.

I generally don't mind listening to Neal Boortz, but when he starts banging on about this place being a monument to conquest, I start to worry about his sanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story that Annelise shared is critical:

If it's two block away from "ground zero" why do so many insist on using the phrase "ground zero?" Because it does make a difference to many people. People on the left are happy to concede that the center is near "ground zero,"

I assume you're talking about the 50% or so (recalling an old poll from memory) of people on the left who support it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this was posted at the end of the last thread...if so, it is still worth linking again.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

Moral of the story:

If you are fine with or support the community center then stop watching Fox News.

If you are against the community center then stop watching Fox News.

I would have John Stewart's children if it was at all biologically possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hallowed ground zero"?

this is the fundamental error of the entire controversy, wherein the WTC site has become malachor V, apparently causing an ontological fissure into which pours all sense and decency, and issues thence an aura of infallibility, such that even while the holocaust museum has been opposed by some of these agitated teabaggers, they seek to appropriate the WTC site (ground zero is a completely moronic term for it, as 9/11 bears no reasonable relationship at all, except in the minds of fascists and fucktards, to the nuking of hiromshima) as a theatre for their bizarre theolocal histrionics, autocathartic and autolethean libation bearing, and more or less ludicrous revanchist demonstrations.

I linked to a video back in the last thread on the BBC website that somewhat addresses this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11070481

If you don't walk past Ground Zero every day, and you don't wander around the neighbouring few blocks (as of course I don't, and I don't imagine many others here do) it's hard to have an accurate impression of the character of the area. But that's absolutely crucial to the point about sensitivity, not to mention this idea that 'they should/must have known this would be controversial'.

If you watch the video, you see vibrant, bustling, perfectly normal city life all around the area. You don't 'hallowed ground', and you see anything to suggest that a building like this would be out of place at all. It's not like Ground Zero is out in the middle of nowhere: it's in a place where tens of thousands of people carry out their normal, everyday lives within two blocks. I see no reason why Muslims shouldn't be among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

I think he's largely an opportunist -- not an ideological radical, though -- and this was a chance for him to greatly increase his own profile/status both in the U.S. and with moslems with money overseas. He wanted to be the guy who built the big "come together" Mosque near ground zero. When push came to shove, though, he decided not backing down and losing support among moslems he was trying to impress was more important than the whole peace/harmony thing.

That is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Have you actually read any of the linked information that's been posted? Have you been to the Cordoba Center's website? I really think that they are actually pretty much horrified at all the publicity, and the nature of the publicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Have you actually read any of the linked information that's been posted? Have you been to the Cordoba Center's website? I really think that are actually pretty much horrified at all the publicity, and the nature of the publicity.

It shouldn't be too hard to build a mad libs-style Bullshit Excuse Generator to mimic FLoW's ever-shifting and increasingly dumb and desperate contributions to this debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

In a world where people who aren't even giving comments to the press can be labeled opportunists, I am overwhelmed with the possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...