in the case of the three people I mentioned, I believe it was part of their conversion to Islam

though like you mentioned a few posts up, they're "Western Muslims" so I'm sure the radical Muslims would view them as traitors/infidels anyway

You would hope someone like Muhammad Ali would be viewed in a good light by them just because of all the philanthropic things he did for so many years all around the world...but while you and I might view that in a positive light, I doubt radical Muslims would care

5/17/2010 5:55:19 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure that's somewhat their actual point. To decry extremism on both sides..."

Yea, like there's some equivalence between the sides.

5/17/2010 6:52:26 PM

Quote :

"This is the most clearest proof yet youre not actually a libertarian, youre just another conservative."

I'm not saying the gov't should be used to stop the building of the Cordoba House. It's their land, they can do what they want with it.

I'm just saying it's an inappropriate location. New Yorkers can still remember quite vividly their family and friends being slaughtered by Muslim radicals. (Sorry Eric Holder, but that's who they were.)

If Rauf really wants people to feel better about Muslims, he should move his mosque further away from ground zero of the worst Muslim attack ever on U.S. soil.

5/17/2010 11:17:53 PM

^ that's idiotic.

Why should presumably normal non-radical muslims adjust their behavior because of past actions of radical muslims? We are the land of religious freedom, we're supposed to be the example to the theocratic muslim societies at what a truly great country looks like, but instead you want us to act and think as weakly as they want their citizens to think.

5/17/2010 11:24:01 PM

Quote :

"Why should presumably normal non-radical muslims adjust their behavior because of past actions of radical muslims?"

Because they might offend someone, and thats what this country is about nowadays

Not doing what you want because it might hurt someone's feelings

I'm sure you've liked it in the past when it agreed with your opinion

5/18/2010 12:02:30 AM

I don't care if peoples' feelings are hurt because they're prejudiced.

5/18/2010 12:06:04 AM

except when it agrees with your opinion

Why should presumably normal American kids adjust their tshirts because of past actions of the French Army

I don't care if the Mexicans feelings are hurt because they're prejudiced against America

thats hyperbole by the way

the point is its still offensive to the people who had friends and family members die 2 blocks away...like it or not, thats the America we live in nowadays

or think all of the New Yorkers against the mosque in that location are xenophobe racist bigots...and not possibly people a lot more closely affected by 9/11 than you or I

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 12:12 AM. Reason : .]

5/18/2010 12:08:34 AM

^ i have no idea what you're referring to .

Quote :

"the point is its still offensive to the people who had friends and family members die 2 blocks away...like it or not, thats the America we live in nowadays "

so you don't think any muslims died in the 9/11 attacks?

I'm glad too we live in an America where we don't have to bend to the will of idiots on our own property.

5/18/2010 12:13:44 AM

Quote :

"so you don't think any muslims died in the 9/11 attacks?"

of course there were...but that doesn't change the fact that some people could still be offended by a mosque 2 blocks from ground zero

people get offended and get legal action taken for FAR less important/damaging things than 9/11

Quote :

"I'm glad too we live in an America where we don't have to bend to the will of idiots on our own property."

I don't know what this has to do with our own property, but you're pretty naive if you don't think we live in an America where we have to bend to the will of idiots

5/18/2010 12:17:13 AM

Quote :

"but that doesn't change the fact that some people could still be offended by a mosque 2 blocks from ground zero"

Of course they'll be offended. There are lots of racist and prejudiced people

But if i were building the mosque, i wouldn't care.

Are you offended by the mosque?

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 12:20 AM. Reason : ]

5/18/2010 12:18:34 AM

Personally I don't give a shit about the location of the mosque

But I'm certainly not surprised that some New Yorkers who witnessed the worst Muslim attack on US soil in history 9 years ago might be uncomfortable with a mosque two blocks from ground zero

And I will say again, thats what happens in America nowadays...people get offended, complain, and things change...at least for some people

5/18/2010 12:20:44 AM

So IOW, you have no actual commentary on this issue.

5/18/2010 12:21:28 AM

what groundbreaking ideas are you bringing to the thread?

I'm simply pointing out some Americans might be offended about a mosque 2 blocks from where the 9/11 attacks occured, and that that influences policy and other legal actions

what are you arguing?

5/18/2010 12:22:05 AM

It's dumb for people to get offended.

Why respond to the acts of idiot terrorists by adopting their close minded mentality of intolerance?

5/18/2010 12:24:18 AM

I agree with that post 100%

I would also argue you could substitute a lot of groups of people for the word 'terrorists' in your 2nd sentence, including the group of people 'idiots'

Which is why I think its so fucking stupid that all these frivolous lawsuits and huge matters creep up when other people get offended, whether they perceive it to be religious, cultural, racial, whatever

But many people seem to have double standards in this regard...supporting one group of people when they claim to be offended...not caring about another group when they claim to be offended

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 12:27 AM. Reason : i just noticed that "idiot idiots" is redundant, but the point remains]

Although actually now I think you only mean people getting offended in this instance is dumb and not in instances in general, in which case we still are a long ways apart

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 12:29 AM. Reason : .]

5/18/2010 12:26:40 AM

ha why would i broadly say anyone getting offended ever is dumb? that's completely irrational... i can't predict what all scenarios would be.

and the statement:

Why respond to the acts of idiot ________ by adopting their close minded mentality of intolerance?

doesn't apply to all scenarios where people get offended anyway.

5/18/2010 12:33:22 AM

i would just repeat this

Quote :

"the point is its still offensive to the people who had friends and family members die 2 blocks away...like it or not, thats the America we live in nowadays"

5/18/2010 12:36:16 AM

i somehow doubt people being offended is new to modern America too.

5/18/2010 12:39:49 AM

We've already got the right answer in this thread.

Build that motherfucker right next door to ground zero.

Honestly I'd say build it on ground zero, but clearly we've got plans for that...maybe...I guess. Coulda fooled me.

But what is a bigger middle finger to the entire radical world than us saying, "Yeah, OK, let's throw up a Mosque right there."? There isn't one! What the fuck is al Qaeda, etc. gonna say after that? "Well, in response to our righteous murder of their people, they, uh, built one of our holy places next door. Yay us...?"

5/18/2010 5:17:34 AM

^They'd call it a false Mosque full of liars and heathens, probably. I mean, a rec center? That's almost as bad as being able to see a woman's uncovered head!

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 6:01 AM. Reason : .]

5/18/2010 6:01:01 AM

Quote :

"But what is a bigger middle finger to the entire radical world than us saying, "Yeah, OK, let's throw up a Mosque right there."? There isn't one! What the fuck is al Qaeda, etc. gonna say after that? "Well, in response to our righteous murder of their people, they, uh, built one of our holy places next door. Yay us...?""

I think there are two precarious assumptions here. First, that the jihadists are even capable of detecting the irony. Second, that we should be promoting the spread of Islamic institutions throughout the United States. And by "we", of course, I don't mean the government. I mean citizens who have the constitutional right to criticize and oppose any ideology, religious or otherwise.

[Edited on May 18, 2010 at 9:37 AM. Reason : ]

5/18/2010 9:36:51 AM

Quote :

"so you don't think any muslims died in the 9/11 attacks?"

yep, they were flying the planes

5/18/2010 10:19:32 AM

Freedom of Religion applies to everyone. Even if you dont like their religion. Its what this country was founded on.

They should be able to build wherever they want, however they should be prepared to accept whatever consequences and negativity that comes from the surrounding community for being douches and not understanding that their building of said mosque is going to be viewed as at least mildly inappropriate.

5/18/2010 10:23:07 AM

Quote :

"But what is a bigger middle finger to the entire radical world than us saying, "Yeah, OK, let's throw up a Mosque right there."?"

I agree with Penn & Teller on this one. Build the mother fucking twin towers back up exactly like they were before (well, maybe update them to current code or whatever).

5/18/2010 10:37:49 AM

Exactly. Just like freedom of speech allows us to draw pictures of mohammed, if we do so, we may suffer legitimate social consequences because polite society frowns on the deliberate antagonization of other people.

So, when they build the mosque, I don't want to hear any crying about slurs or dirty looks. This is what happens when you antagonize people. They react.

5/18/2010 10:38:55 AM

Quote :

"They'd call it a false Mosque full of liars and heathens, probably."

True. But it legitimizes us -- most importantly, in the minds of American Muslims.

Quote :

"So, when they build the mosque, I don't want to hear any crying about slurs or dirty looks. This is what happens when you antagonize people. They react."

Yes, people will react like that. But it sounds like you are encouraging/hoping for them to react like that. Even aside from the stupidity and bigotry in that tone, there's the simple fact that non-Muslim Americans sneering at Muslim-Americans isn't going to produce a good outcome. If Americans hadn't been sneering bigots to Sayyid Qutb we probably never would've had a 9/11.

5/18/2010 1:47:47 PM

come on Grumpy. radical Islam and the West have been on a steady collision course for years...primarily because of the way people like Qutb view America's riches, women, sin and religion...not racism

from wiki

Quote :

"Visit to America This turning point resulted from Qutb's visit to the United States for higher studies in educational administration. Over a two-year period, he worked in several different institutions including what was then-Wilson Teachers' College in Washington, D.C. and Colorado State College for Education in Greeley, as well as Stanford University[18]. He also traveled extensively, visiting the major cities of the United States and spent time in Europe on the return journey to Egypt. On his return to Egypt, Qutb published an article entitled "The America that I Have Seen." He was critical of many things he had observed in the United States: its materialism, individual freedoms, economic system, racism, brutal boxing matches, "poor" haircuts,[4] superficiality in conversations and friendships,[19] restrictions on divorce, enthusiasm for sports, lack of artistic feeling,[19] "animal-like" mixing of the sexes (which went on even in churches),[20] and lack of support for the Palestinian struggle.[21] He noted with disapproval the sexuality of American women:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

5/18/2010 3:17:42 PM

Quote :

"“Jazz” music is [the American's] music of choice. This is that music that the Negroes invented to satisfy their primitive inclinations, as well as their desire to be noisy ..."

5/18/2010 3:20:56 PM

Quote :

"If they own the land, can you really say anything?"

5/18/2010 3:31:13 PM

Quote :

"If Americans hadn't been sneering bigots to Sayyid Qutb we probably never would've had a 9/11."

Wow.

5/18/2010 10:37:29 PM

Yeah that post was pretty...batshit retarded...sadly I think he was serious

5/18/2010 10:39:09 PM

Major events don't just have proximate causes, usually.

Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda's view of the world didn't generate out of nothing. Nor did Khomeni's revolutionary Islam.

Both of these things have major roots in Islamic revivalism.

Islamic revivalism has major roots with a small handful of early 20th century thinkers. Qutb featured very largely among these. The man had been pro American until he came here and got treated like an asshole because he was brown and Muslim.

Obviously there are many circumstances that led us to our current situation. But one has to think that, had we removed one of the prominent issues early on by not being dicks, we could have created a better situation for everybody involved.

---

I'm on this board enough that everybody should be clear on my policy towards Islamists in the true sense of the word: bomb them into total annihilation. But there is a very, very wide gulf between "Let's fuck up some Islamists" and "Let's fuck with some Muslims."

And -- before I'm accused of it -- let me say that my post above the line was not a "blame America" line. We can't be held responsible for things our grandparents did. We can, however, take lessons from mistakes they made. People here acted like shit-heads to Sayyid Qutb. In large part as a result, he went from liking America to preaching its destruction. His teachings have filtered down into every major Islam-related anti-American philosophy since. It doesn't take a genius to say, "Wow, maybe we shouldn't be total assholes to Muslims"

5/19/2010 3:32:43 AM

I disagree. I am an asshole to southern baptists. Muslims do not get special treatment.

5/19/2010 7:44:24 AM

I only have a problem with this:

Quote :

"Islamic revivalism has major roots with a small handful of early 20th century thinkers. Qutb featured very largely among these. The man had been pro American until he came here and got treated like an asshole because he was brown and Muslim."

because I havent seen it anywhere. do you have a link?

you are implying that racism was the root of his militant thinking and I disagree with that. from his writings he was disillusioned with the Western culture and even racist himself. he was pro American until he came here and some women with 'ample breasts' and 'seductive looks' made his dick hard in a non-pious fashion. he had no idea what American was before that.

5/19/2010 8:16:39 AM

Quote :

"Let them build their mosque at Ground Zero Why is it government's business whether or not Muslims build a mosque near Ground Zero? It isn't. It's called liberty. Whether or not Muslims should build it is another matter alltogether. They shouldn't. Liberty must, by definition, mean the freedom to do stupid things - like build a mosque in the most inappropriate place on the planet. As stupid as this is, it is far more dangerous bringing to bear the power of government to stop organized religions from doing stupid things. So, when we speak of "stopping the mosque" what exactly do we mean? If you mean convincing the builders to stop it of their own free will then power to the movement. If we are speaking of pressuring government officials - including zoning boards - to use force to stop a religion from assembling where they wish, then we have clearly crossed a line. Using force for or against a religion is evil defined. Which is why I oppose Islamism as the evil it is: because it uses force both in support of itself (prohibitions against leaving on threat of violence) and against non-Muslims (jihad, no freedom of speech). The real answer is to get rid of zoning permitting boards alltogether. That way, we can open The Museum of the Islamic Holocaust next door to the mosque documenting the tens of millions killed in the name of the mosque next door. As it is, I'm afraid a zoning board might find that just as "insensitive" as we find the mosque itself. "

[Edited on May 19, 2010 at 8:40 AM. Reason : *]

5/19/2010 8:39:48 AM

Islamic Holocaust in the name of the newly built mosque? wtf

Post the source so I can avoid it like the plague.

5/19/2010 8:46:15 AM

Um.. no. They were saying they should build a museum for that next door to the mosque, since they seem hell bent on killing their own people.

5/19/2010 8:54:52 AM

Quote :

"And -- before I'm accused of it -- let me say that my post above the line was not a "blame America" line."

But it pretty clearly was that, as well as a fairly ridiculous analysis of Qutb's problems with the US.

5/19/2010 9:27:10 AM

^^Automatically associating a new mosque with extremism is just the kind of thoughtless bigotry that I would like to avoid.

5/19/2010 10:06:03 AM

Quote :

"Build that motherfucker right next door to ground zero. Honestly I'd say build it on ground zero, but clearly we've got plans for that...maybe...I guess. Coulda fooled me."

Someone made a point on the radio that historically, especially throughout the Crusades, that when muslim invaders conquered a nation or area, the first thing the did was build a mosque at the site of the victory, center point of town, or holy sights. There are many examples out there.

Also, there are a few details that i havent seen in the discussion that are causing the uproar.
1) The grand opening for said mosque is scheduled for 9/11/2011, the tenth anniversary of 9/11
2) The site of the mosque was purchased for $4.85 million in cash. The source of the cash is unknown. The total cost of this mosque is estimated to be $150 million. Allegedly the Saudies have been approached to sponsor the building, as the group heading the initiative only have assets of $1 million. The sensitivity here is that 9? of the 18 highjackers were Saudi.
3) Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf who helped found the Cordoba initiative after 9/11, is on record as telling CNN, right after the 9/11 attacks, "U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We (the U.S.) have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. Osama bin Laden was made in the USA."

Point is that there are a lot of sensitivities here than simply a mosque is being built 2 blocks from Twin Towers site.

Im not opposed to the mosque being built, but there are ways to go about it, such as not have the opening on 9/11 and promote the mosque as one that is against islamic extremism.

5/19/2010 12:46:11 PM

Quote :

"because I havent seen it anywhere. do you have a link?"

I have "Unholy War: Jihad and the Struggle for Islam," by John L. Esposito, as assigned by a class last semester.

Quote :

"It would be difficult to overestimate the role played by Sayyid Qutb in the reassertion of militant jihad."

Quote :

"He was appalled by [America's] materialism, sexual permissiveness and promiscuity, free use and abuse of alcohol, and its racism, which he directly experienced because of his dark skin."

That's what I've got.

Quote :

"But it pretty clearly was that, as well as a fairly ridiculous analysis of Qutb's problems with the US."

I said that the racism thing was one of many circumstances that led us here, and that maybe if Americans hadn't demonstrated it so much to the guy maybe he wouldn't have been so pissed off at us when he went home. I stand by both those statements.

Moreover, your missing the point. Regardless of whether or not you agree with my analysis of Sayyid Qutb's motivations, hopefully you agree with these premises:

1) Racism/religious bias is bad.
2) Sneering at people, insulting them, and treating them like second-class citizens makes them angry.
3) We already have more than enough angry Muslim people and probably shouldn't go out of our way to make more.

Quote :

"Someone made a point on the radio that historically, especially throughout the Crusades, that when muslim invaders conquered a nation or area, the first thing the did was build a mosque at the site of the victory, center point of town, or holy sights."

Yeah, and every time the Christians went to Jerusalem in the Crusades we killed all the Muslims and burned the Jews in their synagogues. Meanwhile, the Muslims were being some of the most tolerant people around (not that the bar was set very high).

Now, onto your points:

1) If this is true then I agree, that's pretty goddamn stupid.
2) Saudi Arabia has more money than God, I'm not surprised they've been approached. And the hijackers were specifically selected to overrepresent Saudi Arabia with the intent of damaging our relations. (I remember reading this a couple of years ago. No, I don't have a link.)
3) The wording in that is a bit harsher than I'd use, but his point isn't particularly extremist or anti-American. It's basically what I'm saying: "When you act like dicks to somebody for a long time, you can't really be surprised when they take a swing at you."

5/19/2010 3:06:27 PM

Quote :

"1) Racism/religious bias is bad."

I certainly don't agree that religious bias is bad. While I think all religions are ridiculous, it would be intellectual suicide for me to just arbitrarily act as if all religions all equal, particularly as they relate to society and politics.

And just to reinforce the point, I don't accept that Qutb's problems with the West were derived from some prejudice he experienced in the US. He disliked the US before he came here, mostly because of its support for the Jews in Israel, and his later criticism of the West was almost entirely to do with sex.

Quote :

"Sneering at people, insulting them, and treating them like second-class citizens makes them angry."

Well, as the reaction to the drawings of Muhammad illustrates, it doesn't take a whole lot for religious people to play the victim.

Quote :

"3) We already have more than enough angry Muslim people and probably shouldn't go out of our way to make more."

I think capitulation in the face of bullying would be a terrible path to follow.

[Edited on May 20, 2010 at 12:41 AM. Reason : ]

5/20/2010 12:41:27 AM

Quote :

"I think capitulation in the face of bullying would be a terrible path to follow. "

Treating people who are otherwise productive members of society with respects, despite the fact that they're muslims, isn't "capitulation."

There are TONS and TONS of "moderate" muslims, and probably most muslims even in Afghanistan are moderate. You can't take the words of their leaders to represent the entire community, just like Palin doesn't represent a majority of Americans.

The fact of the matter is that events don't exist in vacuums. As GrumpyGOP correctly pointed out, MAYBE things in history were caused by other things in history? American does lots of things right, but our foreign policy in the recent past hasn't been perfect. This doesn't excuse mass murder, but it helps to know when trying to fix those problems.

5/20/2010 12:46:37 AM

Quote :

"You can't take the words of their leaders to represent the entire community"

Then why are they following the extremists that you yourself describe as being their leaders?

5/20/2010 1:34:12 AM

Quote :

"He disliked the US before he came here"

Really? Everything I've read described him as being "pro-Western" and "pro-American" before his visit.

Certainly he mentions sex and Israel/Palestine a lot, but they're not the only things he mentioned.

Quote :

"it would be intellectual suicide for me to just arbitrarily act as if all religions all equal"

No, it's relatively easy to act as though all religions are equal. There are plenty of people of every religious stripe who don't really involve their spiritual beliefs with their political actions. There are pro-abortion Catholics and anti-jihad (in the popular sense of the word) Muslims.

Quote :

"Well, as the reaction to the drawings of Muhammad illustrates, it doesn't take a whole lot for religious people to play the victim."

So I guess we should go hog-wild in treating them like shit?

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of the Muhammad-drawing thing. And I'm certainly not saying that the government should punish anybody who sneers or is unpleasant around a Mosque near ground zero. I'm just saying it probably isn't in their best interest to do so -- especially when there is no good reason for it. The cartoon thing? At least that's pro-free speech. Sneering at Muslims coming out of a Mosque just because they're Muslim is a dick move with no tangible benefit. All it says is, "We don't want you here," and that's bullshit.

Quote :

"I think capitulation in the face of bullying would be a terrible path to follow."

If the Mosque presents extremist views, by all means protest the fuck out of it.

If it's just a place where normal American Muslims go to pray, socialize, and have meetings, then we're not capitulating, because it wasn't non-extremist Muslims who fucking attacked us.

5/20/2010 4:54:15 AM

Quote :

"Really? Everything I've read described him as being "pro-Western" and "pro-American" before his visit."

He hated Europe because of its colonial legacy. He was disillusioned with the U.S. because of its support of Israel. I don't think he was ever in favor of Western liberalism, but I'd be open to some suggested reading here.

Quote :

"No, it's relatively easy to act as though all religions are equal."

I suppose it is easy to act that way. The dogmatic multiculturalists prove this at every turn. And, indeed, it is our government's responsibility to conduct itself as if this were the case. As for the rest of us, I think we're well within our rights to acknowledge that religions, from their foundational texts to the varying contemporary interpretations of those texts, are very substantively different. You can't ask me to call an elephant a giraffe just out of fear that I might offend either party.

Quote :

"So I guess we should go hog-wild in treating them like shit?"

That wasn't my point at all. I was pointing out that religious people, and particularly Muslims, have a tendency take offense at practically anything. That women walk around uncovered is enough to infuriate many Muslims, especially in their home countries, to the point of violence. In other words, good luck not offending them. You've probably already done so a dozen times in this thread alone.

[Edited on May 20, 2010 at 9:25 AM. Reason : rarefactions?]

5/20/2010 9:24:34 AM

Quote :

"As for the rest of us, I think we're well within our rights to acknowledge that religions, from their foundational texts to the varying contemporary interpretations of those texts, are very substantively different."

OK, let me rephrase. Religions may differ substantively, but you don't harass a religion, you harass people within that religion. And people, I think, have pretty similar distributions in any large organization. There are some assholes and some regular people.

There is, I think, some space between being biased against a religion and being biased against a person because they practice that religion. The Orthodox Church I went to did a pretty tolerable job of getting me to bristle at the mention of Catholicism, but my best friend's Catholic.

Quote :

"That wasn't my point at all. I was pointing out that religious people, and particularly Muslims, have a tendency take offense at practically anything."

Sure. Still no reason to go out of our way to make sure offense is taken.

A bunch of people get super angry over a cartoon? They're being assholes, and if it keeps up we'll smack them around.
A bunch of people get angry because we're treating them like shit? We're being assholes, and if it keeps up we'll get smacked around.

----

You keep trying to drag this conversation way off point. It was suggested that Americans could -- and should -- hurl slurs and abuse at Muslims in New York. I said that we shouldn't do that. So should we or should we? I wouldn't mind hearing you say, point blank, that we should start treating Muslims like second-class citizens. At least then I'd know for sure that I was dealing with a piece of shit instead of having to speculate about it.

5/20/2010 2:25:52 PM

Quote :

"Religions may differ substantively, but you don't harass a religion, you harass people within that religion. And people, I think, have pretty similar distributions in any large organization. "

Well, I don't know how you criticize an ideology without criticizing its proponents, in particular its most fervent and devout proponents. And no, I would not say that the most fervent and devout Muslims are at all similar to the most fervent and devout members of, say, the Quakers.

Human beings may be predisposed to fall into a natural distribution of personalities, but when you divide those human beings into groups, and give each of them a substantively different ideology to follow, those groups are not going ultimately look like carbon copies of each other. Any serious person should be able to acknowledge that.

Quote :

"You keep trying to drag this conversation way off point. It was suggested that Americans could -- and should -- hurl slurs and abuse at Muslims in New York. I said that we shouldn't do that. So should we or should we?"

Nothing I've said would even remotely suggest that we should.

And no, I wasn't dragging the conversation off topic. I was responding directly to your suggestion that 9/11 happened because Americans are bigots, and later to your suggestion that we should "act as though all religions are equal."

5/20/2010 2:50:40 PM

Quote :

"I was responding directly to your suggestion that 9/11 happened because Americans are bigots"

This is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. 9/11 happened "because" of a lot of causes, proximate and distant. However, I do stand by my assertion that a very influential man having had a better experience in this country might have removed a likewise major distant cause of 9/11. This cause could have been important enough that removing it might have prevented the event decades later.

Quote :

"later to your suggestion that we should "act as though all religions are equal.""

Also a misrepresentation. I said that bigotry is bad. You, evidently, disagree, as you've made it very clear that we should treat different religious groups differently. I mean, it's against the Constitution and everything America stands for, but you're entitled to think it, I guess.

Quote :

"And no, I would not say that the most fervent and devout Muslims are at all similar to the most fervent and devout members of, say, the Quakers."

That's clever -- pick one of the handful of denominations on the planet in which it's almost impossible to be "fervent." Not only that, but compare a tiny portion of one religion to the entire vastness of another. There are about 360,000 Quakers. There are a billion Muslims. There are almost three thousand times as many more Muslims, so they've got a shit-ton more opportunity to develop an asshole faction.

I would say that the most fervent and devout Muslims are similar enough to fervent and devout members of remotely comparable religious groupings -- Catholic, Protestant, Hindu.

5/20/2010 5:09:22 PM

ITT GrumpyGOP realizes that seemingly small actions can seem to have large impacts. IOW, GrumpyGOP discovers chaos theory ITT.

5/20/2010 5:22:12 PM