HitsRus - Outstanding posts on this page. Thank you. I really like the dog analogy. Excellent.

.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.

This is basically the same point that Donald Trump made last night on Letterman.He also pointed out, as others on here have, that the goodwill generated by voluntarily moving the Mosque to a different location would yield great benefits to the Muslim community.

Lettermen wasn't buying, but that was to be expected.

HitsRus;469164 wrote: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.

So now sensitivity towards others is a must and yet usually you guys are the ones screaming "oh look, the liberals/UCLA want us to tip toe through the life without making anyone feel bad".

What happens when the people in Tennessee say they are "sensitive" to Islam at this point in time? Should they not build there either? What about in Florida?

Footwedge;469114 wrote: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.

You just keep on digging and digging a deeper hole for yourself. I looked up my original post regarding the NT and violence, and here it is:

jhay78;459100 wrote: There are certainly examples of religious wars recorded in the Old Testament carried out by the Israelites under Joshua (and later Samuel/Saul), but you can read the New Testament 1000 times forwards, backwards, in Greek, English, or whatever, and you won't find a single example of Jesus or one of his apostles instructing their followers to kill religious enemies or conduct religious wars on unbelievers. You will find mutiple verses stating just the opposite.

I did not say there was "no reference to violence". And as jmog's 7 year-old knows, referring to violence and promoting/ instructing followers to carry out violence are D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T things. You either have a really short memory, really poor reading comprehension, or are deliberately misleading in your posts.

What happens when the people in Tennessee say they are "sensitive" to Islam at this point in time? Should they not build there either? What about in Florida?

irrelevant. Tennesee or Florida is not near ground zero. Those are different issues. Certainly, the 'proposal' has made things worse.

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 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.

Wonderful post; thank you.

Newt has been nailing this issue:

http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/newt-gingrich-statement-proposed-mosqueislamic-community-center-near-ground-zero

http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/newt-gingrich-praises-anti-defamation-league-opposing-proposed-islamic-community-center-

http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/robert-spencer-praises-newts-intellectual-leadership-identifying-threat-radical-islam

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 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.

I imagine many americans felt exactly this way about US citizens of Japanese ancestry after Pearl Harbor. The "big dog" is losing his patience and they better be real careful not to piss him off. It's much easier to pick on someone when they look or act different.

And the reason you have to warn your kids about the dog is because the dog isn't smart enough to control himself. Is that really the analogy you want to use for Americans? (You know, the good christian americans. Not the pesky muslim ones.)

The Onion must have an account on this site to read this thread.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

Footwedge;469114 wrote: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.

I normally stay away from ad hominem, but you are retarded.

In post 249 you are replying to Jason Bourne, neither jmog or jhay had said a word about Bible violence at that point.

footwedge 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.

In post 264 jhay replies to you

jhay wrote:There are certainly examples of religious wars recorded in the Old Testament carried out by the Israelites under Joshua (and later Samuel/Saul), but you can read the New Testament 1000 times forwards, backwards, in Greek, English, or whatever, and you won't find a single example of Jesus or one of his apostles instructing their followers to kill religious enemies or conduct religious wars on unbelievers. You will find mutiple verses stating just the opposite.

Nowhere there does he say the NT never references violence, he said it did not promote or instruct to commit violence.

Your reply to him was the most ignorant of this thread with regards to the Bible in post 266

footwedge 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".

I'm sorry, but no human being with an IQ above 60 can read those posts and say "jhay was saying the Bible didn't even reference violent acts, I was just showing him they did".

No, you specifically stated twice that the NT, Jesus, and the apostles PROMOTED violence. When jhay and I corrected you and explained the difference, only then did you backtrack and say "see, the Bible can be taken out of context again".

Now, after showing the actual posts, if you still think you never said the NT promoted, and if you still think you didn't change your tune, then you are a moron.

I imagine many americans felt exactly this way about US citizens of Japanese ancestry after Pearl Harbor.

I brought that up about a hundred posts ago...how much different we reacted after a 'sneak' attack 60 years earlier. We rounded up innocent Japanese Americans and put them in fence enclosed camps. It shouldn't have happenned then....and nothing like that is happening now.

And the reason you have to warn your kids about the dog is because the dog isn't smart enough to control himself. Is that really the analogy you want to use for Americans? (You know, the good christian americans. Not the pesky muslim ones.)

Americans are no different than the rest of humanity...they have emotions, they act illogically, and yes not all are ivory tower residents or those educated by such. Many uneducated Americans just haven't been innoculated with the guilt of being of white European ancestry. You have to give these people a little leeway.

Hits: Let's just go over to Pro Sports and talk about The Tribe (is that OK if I mention the "Indians"? Haha!)

I saw a political cartoon today that depicted a salt shaker as the Muslim "community center" labelled "SALT" and nearby was drawn in the vacant Ground Zero property labelled "WOUND". And that explains how I feel about the situation.

Prescott;469239 wrote:This is basically the same point that Donald Trump made last night on Letterman.He also pointed out, as others on here have, that the goodwill generated by voluntarily moving the Mosque to a different location would yield great benefits to the Muslim community.

Lettermen wasn't buying, but that was to be expected.

My question is this, should we expect these people to just move their cultural center and buy a new piece of real estate? Real estate is not cheap in NYC, why should we expect them to do that when they already own a piece of real estate now and they are following the rules. Because it doesn't appease a group of people? Screw that, this is a free country and they should be able to build in the location they own presently.

HitsRus;469736 wrote:I brought that up about a hundred posts ago...how much different we reacted after a 'sneak' attack 60 years earlier. We rounded up innocent Japanese Americans and put them in fence enclosed camps. It shouldn't have happenned then....and nothing like that is happening now.

Not yet it isn't, give it time. It starts off with people wanting these muslims to voluntarily move elsewhere, then demand them to move, then demand them to leave....

A bit dramatic, but the point I am making is this could become a snowball effect. Why should these peaceful muslims that have not harmed anyone or broke any laws accomodate others feelings? Just because they are sensitive? Sorry, if a person can't differentiate between the extremists that attacked on 9/11 and American muslims, they deserve no accomodation.

It'd be like me not wanting a black person to move in next to me because a different black person killed a family member of mine. It makes no sense.

HitsRus;469550 wrote:irrelevant. Tennesee or Florida is not near ground zero. Those are different issues. Certainly, the 'proposal' has made things worse.

maybe the protestors should back off in NY and show some compassion to muslims in NY because of the backlash they are receiving in the rest of the country.

dwccrew;469884 wrote: Not yet it isn't, give it time. It starts off with people wanting these muslims to voluntarily move elsewhere, then demand them to move, then demand them to leave....

A bit dramatic, but the point I am making is this could become a snowball effect. Why should these peaceful muslims that have not harmed anyone or broke any laws accomodate others feelings? Just because they are sensitive? Sorry, if a person can't differentiate between the extremists that attacked on 9/11 and American muslims, they deserve no accomodation.

It'd be like me not wanting a black person to move in next to me because a different black person killed a family member of mine. It makes no sense.

Don’t forget what happens when these protestors find out how many muslims live and own other businesses near ground zero. I am sure a muslim can be just as effective as a terrorist from a mosque as he can be from his falafel shop if he really wanted to be. So after the mosque gets moved, let’s see what is next.

^^^hyperbole is not becoming on either side.

Glory Days;469954 wrote:maybe the protestors should back off in NY and show some compassion to muslims in NY because of the backlash they are receiving in the rest of the country.

Haha. Well played.

Take 2 tsp. of guilt...mix with bitters and water. drink slowly and completely.

Get on knees facing Washington and repeat profusely until you believe it.

" I am a white American of European ancestry. I am the cause of all the world's problems. Only I can be a racist. Only I can be a bigot. Only I am insensitive. No one else can share these distinctions because I am the cause and I own all of it. I am sorry. I am guilty. Mea Culpa Mea Culpa.

Hits you forgot: "any trace of Christianity" somewhere in all that!

Take 2 tsp. of guilt...mix with bitters and water. drink slowly and completely.

Get on knees facing Washington (please be at least more than two blocks from ground zero) and repeat profusely until you believe it.

" I am a Muslim of Arabic ancestry. I am the cause of all the world's problems. Only I can be a terrorist. Only I am insensitive. No one else can share these distinctions because I am the cause and I own all of it. I am sorry. I am guilty. Mea Culpa Mea Culpa.

My question is this, should we expect these people to just move their cultural center and buy a new piece of real estate? Real estate is not cheap in NYC, why should we expect them to do that when they already own a piece of real estate now and they are following the rules. Because it doesn't appease a group of people? Screw that, this is a free country and they should be able to build in the location they own presently.

We shouldn't expect them to do anything. If they did, they would create some goodwill that would more important and far-reaching.

Prescott;470305 wrote:We shouldn't expect them to do anything. If they did, they would create some goodwill that would more important and far-reaching.

Why should the burden be on them? I don't get that. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and other than "sensitivity" issues, which is weak really and will fade with time, why should they have to move and prove anything?

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the center has to do anything to appease people because of 9/11 since they were not involved.

^^^I am so glad you see my point....that being aware of the sensitivities of those around is a two way street.

All of this crap was precipitated by a proposal that didn't take into account the feelings that some Americans have regarding the area around ground zero. Whether these feelings are 'right' or 'wrong' is not the issue...they exist, and if we are going to claim and promote diversity, then ALL groups should be prepared to deal with them and act in such a way that does not provoke another group. You can't invoke 'diversity' and then claim 'melting pot' when it suits you.
Please understand that in no way am I defending or giving anti muslim rhetoric/activities a free pass. I am referring to a specific case...ground zero...and the special nature of that area.

The proposal to put a splashy cultural center there, brought out a lot of anger that was simmering below the surface. It polarized people on both sides. It's led to misinterpretations on both sides. What once was a rational calm has given way to emotional protests. You can't legislate away emotional reactions no matter how hard you try. Ivory tower prattling on civil ideals is useless when people feel threatened or abused.
We now have a situation where either forcing the cultural center out or forcing it in, will harden the hearts on one side or the other.
So now we have people hating on each other....when it really didn't need to be that way.

So was it really such a good idea to propose to put a mosque/cultural center on that site? A little common sense would have gone a long way.

Why should the burden be on them? I don't get that. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and other than "sensitivity" issues, which is weak really and will fade with time, why should they have to move and prove anything?

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the center has to do anything to appease people because of 9/11 since they were not involved.

Perfect example of what I mean by Ivory Tower prattling..... That makes a lot of sense for the emotionally detached elitist thinker. As a highly educated professional...I agree with you 100%. If everyone in the world would rationally think that way, we could solve nuclear proliferation in a day. We could end all wars with a stroke of a pen!

But that is not how the real world operates. People react with base emotions....to threats real and unreal....to percieved insults...and they'll defend their territory for their posterity to the death.
There is nothing logical about it and it can't be legislated away.

jmog;469720 wrote:I normally stay away from ad hominem, but you are retarded.
In post 249 you are replying to Jason Bourne, neither jmog or jhay had said a word about Bible violence at that point.
In post 264 jhay replies to you
Nowhere there does he say the NT never references violence, he said it did not promote or instruct to commit violence.

Your reply to him was the most ignorant of this thread with regards to the Bible in post 266

I'm sorry, but no human being with an IQ above 60 can read those posts and say "jhay was saying the Bible didn't even reference violent acts, I was just showing him they did".

No, you specifically stated twice that the NT, Jesus, and the apostles PROMOTED violence. When jhay and I corrected you and explained the difference, only then did you backtrack and say "see, the Bible can be taken out of context again".

Now, after showing the actual posts, if you still think you never said the NT promoted, and if you still think you didn't change your tune, then you are a moron.

Good luck trying to get through to Footwedge with all those facts and logic.