jhay78;465620 wrote:It would help all of us if you would make up your mind here- does the NT clearly and emphatically teach Christians to be violent, or are the weak references you cited being taken out of context? If it's the former, you still have yet to produce one single instance where that is the case. Most have acknowledged that anything (Bible, Quran, etc.) can be taken out of context.

You are as bad as Believer in your comprehension skills. For the 7th time now....the Bible has references to violence...including verses in the New Testament....but the New Testament is a Holy Book that promotes peace. I NEVER said that the Bible preaches violence. Go up and scroll through my posts.

Concerning beliefs and comparisons between the two religions: One MAJOR diffence is how the sacred books were brought about. The New Testament has several authors written over hundreds of miles over about a 35 to 55 year period after Christ and for the most part is rooted in history (obvious exclusion would be a large portion of Revelation). And, as any Christian would tell you, is harmonious and without condradiction.

The Qu'ran has one author written over Muhammad's lifetime.

Interesting to say the least in my mind. Especially when you consider a second MAJOR point: Who was Jesus Christ? Muslims say one of many prophets ending with Muhammad. Christians would disagree, quoting Christ Himself, "I am the way, the truth and the life." or better still, simply stating, "I Am."

The way I see it, these two views are total opposites of each other! No good man, or prophet even, lies. They can both be wrong, but they both cannot be right.

believer;466356 wrote:You read my mind BG. I chuckled at that one!

Indeed, a very interesting observation!

Footwedge;458815 wrote: You do know that the Old and New Testaments have the same verbiage on "killing the religious enemy" correct? I will post them if you'd like.

There's the first.

Footwedge;459177 wrote:6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.

7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1086.htm

That's just 2 of the many quotes from the new testament...I can find many others...that promote utter violence against the "non believers".

There's the second- and the one I've been referring to.

Footwedge;459698 wrote:To jmog and jayh...here is the exact quote.....

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

The point being....there are quotes from both the New Testament and the Qur'an, that can be taken out of context. As far as me reading the Bible extensively....or reading the Qur'an at all...neither one applies to me. But I have read plenty of articles on the net regarding this.

My opinion is that the Muslim Religion collectively do not want to kill all of the non believers. And I also don't believe that Jesus wanted anyone killed that were non believers, as the quote above suggests.,

And there you backtracked and clarified and made it a "taking out of context" issue, after myself, believer, jmog, etc. responded to your earlier posts.

Footwedge;458815 wrote:

Footwedge;466391 wrote:Where oh where did I ever say that "Jesus endorses practicing violence"? I never said that...ever. What I said was just the opposite...but that His actions could be interpreted otherwise. Just as you have posted "out of text" nonsense on the Qur'an.

I responded to that above.

The statistics clearly show that fundamentalist Christians are in fact twice as likely to be war mongers than other Christian denominations. If you want links...just ask. It is also true that fundamental Christians parade the Islamophobe mantra....at a much higher rate than other Christian denominations. I never singled YOU out for anything...don't act as if I did.

These 2 FACTS are not ad hominem attacks...it is speaking the truth to the numbers. And from the Bible I'm familiar with, neither of these qualities are very Christianlike at all

I know you weren't singling me out- but you brought out the name-calling more than once, and I'd call that ad hominem. Even in your post here you used the term "war-monger" and "Islamophobe", as if those are standard, neutral terms used by everyone. If questioning the teachings of Islam, as expressed (in context, with proper translation) in the Quran, makes me an "Islamophobe", then so be it. I belive the Bible to be inspired by God, and teaches believers to love their neighbors and even love their enemies. Questioning is not the same as fear- and war-mongering.

Jason Bourne;466432 wrote:Concerning beliefs and comparisons between the two religions: One MAJOR diffence is how the sacred books were brought about. The New Testament has several authors written over hundreds of miles over about a 35 to 55 year period after Christ and for the most part is rooted in history (obvious exclusion would be a large portion of Revelation). And, as any Christian would tell you, is harmonious and without condradiction.

Debatable, as the Bible was written by fallible men and translated by fallible men. There were also books left out or changed to fit the churches view at the time. Many of the stories come from oral tales that were passed along that could have been altered over time. It is still a Holy Book, but I wouldn't call it harmonious.

The Qu'ran has one author written over Muhammad's lifetime.

The one thing the Qur'an has over the Bible is it has not changed since it was written down shortly after the death of Mohammad. It is also rooted in pre-Islamic poetry, so it has a rhyme and rhythm. The Arabic has not changed since the revelations and the Arabic is considered "perfect", meaning it has perfect grammar, syntax, style, and rhythm, which I'll agree to as it is beautiful Arabic. So, the Bible has changed over time, depending on the will of the church and translations, whereas the Qur'an has had the same grammar and structure since its inception.
But, I'll agree that both books have had many people take the translations to mean many things over the years, both good and bad.

Interesting to say the least in my mind. Especially when you consider a second MAJOR point: Who was Jesus Christ? Muslims say one of many prophets ending with Muhammad. Christians would disagree, quoting Christ Himself, "I am the way, the truth and the life." or better still, simply stating, "I Am."

The way I see it, these two views are total opposites of each other! No good man, or prophet even, lies. They can both be wrong, but they both cannot be right.

Yeah, Muslims accept Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Moses, etc. but just disagree on the nature of the crucifixion. Your view on that is your own faith.

But, I'll add how are we sure they are both wrong or right? Is it not possible that there are numerous paths to heaven, and perhaps accepting God as the ultimate power and living a good life is one way, even if one does not see Jesus as Christ? Or, maybe he is Christ, but perhaps Mohammad was another prophet needed to bring in the Bedouins in the Arabian desert? But, that goes down to faith really. I'm just open to many different views of religion and do not see thing in black and right.

believer;465826 wrote:I don't see this mosque as a particular security threat...that's not the issue. The issue is the "in your face" aspect of building a mosque so close to the WTC site. It defies common sense and in that it sends a wrong message. It certainly does NOTHING to help rid the American psyche of the aura of the evils of radical Islam. It only exacerbates it.

I agree that technically this imam should have the right to build his mosque anywhere he chooses within the law. Common sense says build it somewhere else. The fact that he chooses this particular location is clearly designed to agitate.

If I'm not mistaken, they are choosing to expand the current prayer location that they have been in for decades into a community and cultural center. I don't think they just decided, "ok, let's move into this neighborhood". Also, it is not on Ground Zero, as has been pointed out, it is 2 blocks away and not in view of GZ.

You're entitled to your opinion, I just happen to disagree. I don't find it insensitive, if anything, I think it is great. It would be even better if non-muslim Americans embraced the mosque and showed the radical muslims that here in the US we embrace all cultures, races and religions.

Unfortunetly, this is not happening. People are not embracing this and conflict is being created. Radical Islam is winning because of that. I think it would go a long way if we showed radical Islam that we will not hate or discriminate against others as they do.

Jason Bourne;466432 wrote:Concerning beliefs and comparisons between the two religions: One MAJOR diffence is how the sacred books were brought about. The New Testament has several authors written over hundreds of miles over about a 35 to 55 year period after Christ and for the most part is rooted in history (obvious exclusion would be a large portion of Revelation). And, as any Christian would tell you, is harmonious and without condradiction.

The Qu'ran has one author written over Muhammad's lifetime.

Interesting to say the least in my mind. Especially when you consider a second MAJOR point: Who was Jesus Christ? Muslims say one of many prophets ending with Muhammad. Christians would disagree, quoting Christ Himself, "I am the way, the truth and the life." or better still, simply stating, "I Am."

The way I see it, these two views are total opposites of each other! No good man, or prophet even, lies. They can both be wrong, but they both cannot be right.

The Bible has been rewritten more times that you or I can count. Unless you're one of the people that think that god gave King James the perfect version of it.

The Bible is not infallible because the men who wrote it definitely weren't. Same with the Koran. Although it is a bit more difficult for them to disguise revisions because of the syntax, style, and rhyme that ptown described.

dwccrew;466636 wrote:If I'm not mistaken, they are choosing to expand the current prayer location that they have been in for decades into a community and cultural center. I don't think they just decided, "ok, let's move into this neighborhood". Also, it is not on Ground Zero, as has been pointed out, it is 2 blocks away and not in view of GZ.

You're entitled to your opinion, I just happen to disagree. I don't find it insensitive, if anything, I think it is great. It would be even better if non-muslim Americans embraced the mosque and showed the radical muslims that here in the US we embrace all cultures, races and religions.

Unfortunetly, this is not happening. People are not embracing this and conflict is being created. Radical Islam is winning because of that. I think it would go a long way if we showed radical Islam that we will not hate or discriminate against others as they do.

You have the unique perspective of having a foot in both cultures...and I respect that.

While you have valid points in an idealistic sense, realistically - for example - do you suppose Americans would have been ready for a Japanese cultural center to be built a couple of blocks away from the USS Arizona Memorial less than 10 years after Pearl Harbor? Today I don't think most folks would squawk too much about it.

Again it's about common sensibilities. We can "justify" this by saying it's really a couple of blocks from the WTC so what's the problem? And we can put a "in America we tolerate all religions" spin to it, but to a lot of Americans at this moment in time a mosque anywhere near the WTC site is simply pouring salt into a still-gaping wound to our nation's psyche.

Radical Islam quite frankly gives a rat's ass that we attempt not to hate or discriminate against others as they do. Rationalism, peaceful coexistence, and a "good neighbor" policy are simply NOT in that cultural mindset. Radical Islam laughs at us for these things because they see it as further proof of our spiritual and cultural weakness.

Building (or expanding) a mosque near the WTC site will be seen as a victory for Islam and will further serve to encourage them to agitate. I doubt radical Islam will think "oh hey....look how tolerant the American people are so maybe we need to start playing nice in the sandbox too."

believer;466760 wrote: Building (or expanding) a mosque near the WTC site will be seen as a victory for Islam and will further serve to encourage them to agitate. I doubt radical Islam will think "oh hey....look how tolerant the American people are so maybe we need to start playing nice in the sandbox too."

Yeah, I can see every jihadist and terrorist-in-training dropping their arms and saying, "Look how nice they were- from this point forward we shall no longer use violence to achieve our goals."

believer;466760 wrote:You have the unique perspective of having a foot in both cultures...and I respect that.

While you have valid points in an idealistic sense, realistically - for example - do you suppose Americans would have been ready for a Japanese cultural center to be built a couple of blocks away from the USS Arizona Memorial less than 10 years after Pearl Harbor? Today I don't think most folks would squawk too much about it.

Again it's about common sensibilities. We can "justify" this by saying it's really a couple of blocks from the WTC so what's the problem? And we can put a "in America we tolerate all religions" spin to it, but to a lot of Americans at this moment in time a mosque anywhere near the WTC site is simply pouring salt into a still-gaping wound to our nation's psyche.

Radical Islam quite frankly gives a rat's ass that we attempt not to hate or discriminate against others as they do. Rationalism, peaceful coexistence, and a "good neighbor" policy are simply NOT in that cultural mindset. Radical Islam laughs at us for these things because they see it as further proof of our spiritual and cultural weakness.

Building (or expanding) a mosque near the WTC site will be seen as a victory for Islam and will further serve to encourage them to agitate. I doubt radical Islam will think "oh hey....look how tolerant the American people are so maybe we need to start playing nice in the sandbox too."

That's not the point. The point is to further promote interfaith dialogue, further engage moderates in the Islamic community and dissuade them from not only joining radical groups, but also being active against the groups.
You are right that the radicals may not care, but the moderates in key country's may take as one data point in the fact that the U.S. is not as evil as the radicals say. Instead, the issue is providing a data point for the radicals.

dwccrew;466636 wrote:If I'm not mistaken, they are choosing to expand the current prayer location that they have been in for decades into a community and cultural center.

I'm just curious, where is the current prayer location located?

Footwedge;464666 wrote:


I mangled what now? I didn't mangle anything at all. My posts clearly showed how verses from either the Bible or the Qur'an can be taken out of context. Christians "co-existing" has been an extreme disappointment...if one looks at history books.

Oh come on, really?

You most certainly did NOT say a word in your first post about taking the Bible out of context, you specifically said that Jesus promoted utter violence against anyone who doesn't follow him.

Then, when we showed you how you mangled it, you changed your tune to "see, the Bible can be taken out of context too".

ptown_trojans_1;466635 wrote:Debatable, as the Bible was written by fallible men and translated by fallible men. There were also books left out or changed to fit the churches view at the time. Many of the stories come from oral tales that were passed along that could have been altered over time. It is still a Holy Book, but I wouldn't call it harmonious.


The one thing the Qur'an has over the Bible is it has not changed since it was written down shortly after the death of Mohammad. It is also rooted in pre-Islamic poetry, so it has a rhyme and rhythm. The Arabic has not changed since the revelations and the Arabic is considered "perfect", meaning it has perfect grammar, syntax, style, and rhythm, which I'll agree to as it is beautiful Arabic. So, the Bible has changed over time, depending on the will of the church and translations, whereas the Qur'an has had the same grammar and structure since its inception.
But, I'll agree that both books have had many people take the translations to mean many things over the years, both good and bad.

Christians hold the same view of divine inspiration for the Bible as Muslims do for the Quran. As for the Bible "changing", yes the OT probably went through some additions over the centuries, but the text itself was settled by the time of Christ, and the individual books were pretty much all agreed upon by then. Jews were very meticulous at copying their scriptures. As for the NT, early manuscripts match later ones to an amazing degree (considering the sheer # of them- unmatched by any other ancient literature). The individual books were pretty much settled by the 2nd century, and the ones left out were obvious frauds.

Yeah, Muslims accept Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Moses, etc. but just disagree on the nature of the crucifixion. Your view on that is your own faith.

But, I'll add how are we sure they are both wrong or right? Is it not possible that there are numerous paths to heaven, and perhaps accepting God as the ultimate power and living a good life is one way, even if one does not see Jesus as Christ? Or, maybe he is Christ, but perhaps Mohammad was another prophet needed to bring in the Bedouins in the Arabian desert? But, that goes down to faith really. I'm just open to many different views of religion and do not see thing in black and righ

Islam and Christianity, for all their similarities, are at odds with the person of Christ. Christians, and their Scriptures, regard Christ as fully human and fully divine, as the very Son of God. While Muslims regard him highly as a prophet, the issue is- prophets don't normally call themselves the Son of God and predict their own resurrections three days after dying. If Christ was right, then Islam is wrong about him being simply a prophet. If Christ was wrong (and Islam is right), then he's a terrible prophet because he lied (multiple times) about himself. There is no possible way both religions can be right on this issue.

dwccrew;466636 wrote: You're entitled to your opinion, I just happen to disagree. I don't find it insensitive, if anything, I think it is great. It would be even better if non-muslim Americans embraced the mosque and showed the radical muslims that here in the US we embrace all cultures, races and religions.

Unfortunetly, this is not happening. People are not embracing this and conflict is being created. Radical Islam is winning because of that. I think it would go a long way if we showed radical Islam that we will not hate or discriminate against others as they do.

We already embrace multiple cultures, races, and religions. I think we set the standard in that area, in fact. I don't think we need to prove anything, and I don't think radicals will change their ways no matter what we do.

I Wear Pants;466739 wrote:The Bible has been rewritten more times that you or I can count. Unless you're one of the people that think that god gave King James the perfect version of it.

The Bible is not infallible because the men who wrote it definitely weren't. Same with the Koran. Although it is a bit more difficult for them to disguise revisions because of the syntax, style, and rhyme that ptown described.

Translated, yes. Rewritten, not so much.

ptown_trojans_1;466840 wrote:That's not the point. The point is to further promote interfaith dialogue, further engage moderates in the Islamic community and dissuade them from not only joining radical groups, but also being active against the groups.
You are right that the radicals may not care, but the moderates in key country's may take as one data point in the fact that the U.S. is not as evil as the radicals say. Instead, the issue is providing a data point for the radicals.

We disagree on that point. Interfaith dialogue can be expressed in multiple ways other than building a mosque next to Ground Zero.

Footwedge;465117 wrote:I never changed a story. And your interpretation of Jesus blowing His temper is pretty poor....especially for a self proclaimed Bible expert.

Jhay erroneously claimed the the NT had no references regarding violence. I proved him dead wrong....just as I have proven you dead wrong.

For the sixth time now...since you can't seem to follow the ball here....Bioth the Qur'an and the Bible have reference to violence...INCLUDING the New Tesatment. And these statements can be misinterpreted...or taken out of context.

I personally find it disgusting that Christians on this board shit on the teachings of Christ...in painting the Muslim Religion collectively as evil. Apparently "Love thy neighbor as thyself" only applies to certain people/religions. Absolutely pathetic...and the primary reason that I view most fundamentalist Christians as utter hypocrites.

Instead of piddling all over the Bible quotes, why don't you address all the other points that I made?

You're more interested in ad hominem, than you are substance.

1. I never stated I was a Bible expert.
2 Your reading comprehension is piss poor. Go read your first post, you NOW are saying that the Bible references violence, but in your first post you said Jesus PROMOTED violence. Those 2 words have vastly different meanings. You keep ignoring that fact as well as the fact that you said you could quote numerous NT verses that PROMOTE violence.

Nobody said that the Bible didn't talk about violence, but talking about it and promoting it are 2 different things. My 7 year old understands this.

I also have not said a word about Muslims or their religion. I might be one of the few Christians who has read the whole Koran (and please don't ask me which English translation because I honestly don't remember). So don't paint me in the picture of those calling Muslims in general evil. Radical islam is just as "evil" as the idiotic Christians that bomb abortion clinics.

believer;466760 wrote:You have the unique perspective of having a foot in both cultures...and I respect that.

While you have valid points in an idealistic sense, realistically - for example - do you suppose Americans would have been ready for a Japanese cultural center to be built a couple of blocks away from the USS Arizona Memorial less than 10 years after Pearl Harbor? Today I don't think most folks would squawk too much about it.

Again it's about common sensibilities. We can "justify" this by saying it's really a couple of blocks from the WTC so what's the problem? And we can put a "in America we tolerate all religions" spin to it, but to a lot of Americans at this moment in time a mosque anywhere near the WTC site is simply pouring salt into a still-gaping wound to our nation's psyche.

Radical Islam quite frankly gives a rat's ass that we attempt not to hate or discriminate against others as they do. Rationalism, peaceful coexistence, and a "good neighbor" policy are simply NOT in that cultural mindset. Radical Islam laughs at us for these things because they see it as further proof of our spiritual and cultural weakness.

Building (or expanding) a mosque near the WTC site will be seen as a victory for Islam and will further serve to encourage them to agitate. I doubt radical Islam will think "oh hey....look how tolerant the American people are so maybe we need to start playing nice in the sandbox too."

P-town pretty much sums up how I was going to respond to your post. While I agree with you that radical Islam doesn't care much about our tolerance, it would go a long way with the worldview and moderate and peaceful muslims to stand up against radical Islam.

To answer your question about the Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor, I think it is apples to oranges. To celebrate the Japanese culture would have been different since it was the nation of Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor. The religion of Islam did not attack the WTC on 9/11, extremists who practice a warped interpretation of the religion did. So IMO, it isn't the same at all. Peaceful muslims that practice Islam the way it was meant to be practiced want to build a cultural center. Again, this is just my opinion.

ptown_trojans_1;466840 wrote:That's not the point. The point is to further promote interfaith dialogue, further engage moderates in the Islamic community and dissuade them from not only joining radical groups, but also being active against the groups.
You are right that the radicals may not care, but the moderates in key country's may take as one data point in the fact that the U.S. is not as evil as the radicals say. Instead, the issue is providing a data point for the radicals.

Also, how can you explain the current protests and outrage at mosques being built in the middle of Tennessee? Is that somehow too close to ground zero or something?

Islam didn't attack the United States. A group of terrorists who had a warped view of Islam and the world did.

The people protesting in Tenn. need to lay off the moonshine.

(best 'shine i ever had was there, though. )

But seriously, i understand the complaints about the mosque in NYC, though i don't agree.

With that said, no rational basis to stand on for the folks in Tenn., they're idiots.

I Wear Pants;467811 wrote:Also, how can you explain the current protests and outrage at mosques being built in the middle of Tennessee? Is that somehow too close to ground zero or something?

Islam didn't attack the United States. A group of terrorists who had a warped view of Islam and the world did.

Don't forget the mosque in Fla. that was pipebombed, but hardly heard about it on the news.

,What is painfully clear to me after enduring hundreds of posts on this ....is that anti Muslim sentiment has been hardened all because the 'peaceful muslims' didn't have the good enough sense to build their splashy cultural center a little bit farther away from the sensitized area where the Twin Towers fell. You can harken to high heaven that Islam is a peaceful religion...and that America by it's very Constitution is a nation of tolerance. But the people who hijacked the planes and flew them into the Towers and the Pentagon were Islamic, and attacked in Islam's name. They attacked the Cole...they attacked London and Madrid. They continue to threaten western interests. They harbor strong anti American and Jewish sentiments. That American's are sensitive to Islam is not ridiculous , nor is it necessarily religious predjudice. America behaved remarkably well after the attack on 9/11. There were no widespread reprisals against Muslim's...most appealed for calm.

Much like a big gentle dog that endures his ears pulled and gets his tail stepped on by little children playing, and tolerates it all...it is still wise for the parents to counsel their children to BACK OFF, lest the dog lose his good natured patience. I think that is what has happened here....the tolerant dog just snarled. Yeah....BAD DOG.

HitsRus;469031 wrote:,What is painfully clear to me after enduring hundreds of posts on this ....is that anti Muslim sentiment has been hardened all because the 'peaceful muslims' didn't have the good enough sense to build their splashy cultural center a little bit farther away from the sensitized area where the Twin Towers fell. You can harken to high heaven that Islam is a peaceful religion...and that America by it's very Constitution is a nation of tolerance. But the people who hijacked the planes and flew them into the Towers and the Pentagon were Islamic, and attacked in Islam's name. They attacked the Cole...they attacked London and Madrid. They continue to threaten western interests. They harbor strong anti American and Jewish sentiments. That American's are sensitive to Islam is not outrageous, nor is it necessarily religious predjudice. America behaved remarkably well after the attack on 9/11. There were no widespread reprisals against Muslim's...most appealed for calm.

Much like a big gentle dog that endures his ears pulled and gets his tail stepped on by little children playing, and tolerates it all...it is still wise for the parents to counsel their children to BACK OFF, lest the dog lose his good natured patience. I think that is what has happened here....the tolerant dog just snarled. Yeah....BAD DOG.

Again, the children are the ones doing the taunting. Should other children that are not taunting the dog be counseled? The muslims building the mosques are not the ones that brought down the towers, therefore they should not be "counseled" for anything.

So apparently all Catholics and Protestants are responsible for the violence in Ireland instead of the people who commit the acts. Just like all Muslims are at fault for the terrible acts of a few deranged on 9/11 right?

For people who are usually shouting about accountability and personal responsibility on this board many of you guys are doing the opposite in this thread. All Muslims are responsible because they didn't tell the terrorists to chill out. Well apparently every Christian was responsible for all the terrible things the KKK did then because they tolerated it.

The KKKs actions had nothing to do with Christianity other than their insane members saying it did just like the 9/11 attackers have nothing to do with Islam other than their members saying it was a part of it.

jmog;466932 wrote: Nobody said that the Bible didn't talk about violence, but talking about it and promoting it are 2 different things. My 7 year old understands this.

As for violence...Jhay did...he said that there is "no reference to violence" in the NT"....and you seconded the motion. Look it up. That is when I cited a few bible verses to debunk the claims. And as far as "promoting violence", I asked it in the form of a question....in other words..."do you think these Bible passages" might have been taken out of context"? Spin it all you want. I've reread my postings..and both of your points here are bullshit.

Just like all Muslims are at fault for the terrible acts of a few deranged on 9/11 right?

You missed the point.
They may be deranged (in your opinion but not in the minds of their followers), but they are not few, nor are they local or isolated. They are well organized, well funded, international, virulent, and most of all...numerous. To ask peacful muslims to be aware that part of non muslim America is 'sensitive' to Islam at this point in time is not an outrageous proposition.It is obvious that from reading some of the posts here and seeing demonstrations, that is reality.. Sensitivity and respect is a two way street...to ask peaceul muslims to be wary of the sesitivities of others around them is not that awful. Nobody is restricting the practice of their peaceful religion...just asking them not to build in an area that is not so sensitive.

Again, the children are the ones doing the taunting. Should other children that are not taunting the dog be counseled? The muslims building the mosques are not the ones that brought down the towers, therefore they should not be "counseled" for anything.

All children...even the ones not doing anything bad to the dog should be 'counselled' that the dog is irritated and that it would be in their best interests if they didn't get near his bone.