DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on January 12, 2011, 01:27:43 AM
-
nooo, not a prediction of another murderous rampage, but a prediction of tragic legislation......mark this day, where you heard it 1st. At least you'll hear of this legislation being proposed, though it'd have a snow ball's chance in hell to pass the current congress.
The legislation you ask? The left & MSM are going to use this tragic event of 5 murdered and this congresswoman being shot in the head, to push another level of "Brady-like gun legislation" The specifics I don't know, but the left is going to use this, just as they used James Brady to get the Brady Law(s) passed, to propose some form of draconian gun control and/or doing an end around of the unFairness Doctrine
Watch and wait, but you heard it here 1st
-
I didn't see this comeing.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-funeral-protest-20110112,0,7494257.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-funeral-protest-20110112,0,7494257.story)
Dispicable use of a funeral for getting attention.
Does this relate to your prediction?
-
Sir Blowhard, "you heard it here 1st"
bsb
-
Sir Blowhard, "you heard it here 1st"
bsb
do you have authority to Knight people?
-
I didn't see this comeing.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-funeral-protest-20110112,0,7494257.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-funeral-protest-20110112,0,7494257.story)
Dispicable use of a funeral for getting attention.
Does this relate to your prediction?
That's just sad.
-
>>do you have authority to Knight people?<<
I rented it. The fee is one polo pony per year to Prince Charles. For a string of ponies you can Knight the person then cut his head off if you like.
bsb
-
I didn't see this comeing.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-funeral-protest-20110112,0,7494257.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-funeral-protest-20110112,0,7494257.story)
Dispicable use of a funeral for getting attention.
Does this relate to your prediction?
That's just sad.
Yea....imagine the gross intolerance, and legislative bigotry aimed at those church folk exercising their 1st amendment rights in building a mosque anywhere they wish........ooops, wrong outrage
-
Yea....imagine the gross intolerance, and legislative bigotry aimed at those church folk exercising their 1st amendment rights in building a mosque anywhere they wish........ooops, wrong outrage
Yes it is always sad when innocent people are persecuted by the mob.
-
It is really, really probably for the best that I don't attend a funeral
of one of our soldiers where these same people are protesting.
Although these whackjobs piss me off less than Cindy Sheehan.
I see these whackjobs as plain and simple kooks, Cindy Sheehan
i see as more of an anti-American hiding behind her concerned
Mommy facade.
-
Yea....imagine the gross intolerance, and legislative bigotry aimed at those church folk exercising their 1st amendment rights in building a mosque anywhere they wish........ooops, wrong outrage
Yes it is always sad when innocent people are persecuted by the mob.
Yea, that's it
-
Yea....imagine the gross intolerance, and legislative bigotry aimed at those church folk exercising their 1st amendment rights in building a mosque anywhere they wish........ooops, wrong outrage
Yes it is always sad when innocent people are persecuted by the mob.
Yea, that's it
I think it's OK to have a law that forbids people from protesting church services or a funeral at a church. Why in the world would a group need to interfere with a church service to make a point and then call it free speech? We have so many other silly laws that this law does not interfere with free speech but does protect people to worship as our Constitution states they should be able to.
-
I think it's OK too, Kramer. I'm just a little perplexed at the lack of outrage by some, for the government to be denying what is tantamount to their 1st amendment rights in building a mosque anywhere they wish.....ooops, wrong outrage again, my bad...their 1st amendment rights to worship however & wherever they wish, and to be terribly insensitive
-
I think it's OK too, Kramer. I'm just a little perplexed at the lack of outrage by some, for the government to be denying what is tantamount to their 1st amendment rights in building a mosque anywhere they wish.....ooops, wrong outrage again, my bad...their 1st amendment rights to worship however & wherever they wish, and to be terribly insensitive
I am having a hard time making sense of this post. Could you clarify your meaning? Who is being denied their right to worship?
-
I think it's OK too, Kramer. I'm just a little perplexed at the lack of outrage by some, for the government to be denying what is tantamount to their 1st amendment rights in building a mosque anywhere they wish.....ooops, wrong outrage again, my bad...their 1st amendment rights to worship however & wherever they wish, and to be terribly insensitive
I see, so in essence you using an analogy to make a greater point. I get it!
-
I think it's OK too, Kramer. I'm just a little perplexed at the lack of outrage by some, for the government to be denying what is tantamount to their 1st amendment rights in building a mosque anywhere they wish.....ooops, wrong outrage again, my bad...their 1st amendment rights to worship however & wherever they wish, and to be terribly insensitive
I am having a hard time making sense of this post. Could you clarify your meaning? Who is being denied their right to worship?
1st amendment right to free speech & freedom of religion.
It would seem that the AZ legislature is actually taking that extra step in denying a church group from exercising their 1st amendment rights to be grossly insensitive and build a mosque anywhere they....ooops, sorry, wrong outrage again, to be grossly insensitive, dissent and criticize governmental policies, anywhere they want
Isn't that just outrageous? Complete and utter religious/political intolerance and bigotry you could even say. Right?
-
Are you are taking the Rev Phelps side on this issue?
Could you explain what the 9 year old girls funeral has to do with his message?
-
I can give you nearly 3000 explanations & funerals, that have to do with this message. And if you can't get the point I'm making, that Kramer quickly got, I don't know what to say
-
I can give you nearly 3000 explanations & funerals, that have to do with this message. And if you can't get the point I'm making, that Kramer quickly got, I don't know what to say
I am just not getting your message. Perhaps you can explain the link between the two situations.
Who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist in this analogy.
Kramer can be quite agile in his thinking, some days I can be quite slow to grasp your subtleties.
i'd appreciate any clarification your can provide.
-
Kramer can be quite agile in his thinking
Often times I'm a black or white kind a fellow with very little gray. Agile though seems to be a compliment, at least in my black or white world I will take it that way. Thank you.
-
I can give you nearly 3000 explanations & funerals, that have to do with this message. And if you can't get the point I'm making, that Kramer quickly got, I don't know what to say
I am just not getting your message. Perhaps you can explain the link between the two situations.
My apologies for the tangent to this thread. But when Plane propped it, it was a perfect road to transit
NY.....Religous group.....wants to build an Islamic mosque right at the foot of where 3000 innocents were killed in the name of that religion. Religious group had nothing to do with the killings, and have a perfect 1st amendment right to build it. Advocates that it was an inappropriate location based on the gross insensitivity to the proximity of the location, and merely that it be moved a little further, were casted as bigots, intolerant to muslims and their religion
AZ.....Religious group....proports to exercise their 1st amendment rights in earshot at funerals of 6 innocents killed, in the name of no religion. Religious group had nothing to do with the killings, and have a perfect 1st amendment right to protest Government policy.
Where's the outrage? This is actual legislation being proposed, not merely that they shouldn't build it so close.....I mean protest so close. If this were NY, this would be beyond bigotry and intolerance.......right? This is actual legislation
So, why doesn't Rev Phelps get the same latitude as that Imam?
Inapporpriate location?
Grossly insenstive?
And the difference with NY is........what again?
I hope that helped. If it didn't, you may ask for more clarification, or Kramer can fill you in
-
What government policy is this Kansas Church protesting in Arizona?
-
Probably the same policies they've been 1st amendment right protesting at all the other funerals they've protested at. Kind of an irrelevent question, I'd opine however. Dare I say "strawman"? Naaaa.......at least not yet
-
Probably the same policies they've been 1st amendment right protesting at all the other funerals they've protested at. Kind of an irrelevent question, I'd opine however. Dare I say "strawman"? Naaaa.......at least not yet
At the other funerals, military ones, they have been protesting DADT. But I'm unclear as to what government policy they are protesting at a little girls catholic funeral.
And since you brought it up:
AZ.....Religious group....proports to exercise their 1st amendment rights in earshot at funerals of 6 innocents killed, in the name of no religion. Religious group had nothing to do with the killings, and have a perfect 1st amendment right to protest Government policy.
i was hoping you could help me understand your point.
BTW these protestors are from Westboro Baptist Church (and making no secret of it) , so i would assume they are protesting in the name of Christianity or at the minimum the Baptist sect.
-
Probably the same policies they've been 1st amendment right protesting at all the other funerals they've protested at. Kind of an irrelevent question, I'd opine however. Dare I say "strawman"? Naaaa.......at least not yet
At the other funerals, military ones, they have been protesting DADT. But I'm unclear as to what government policy they are protesting at a little girls catholic funeral.
Doesn't really matter. They still have a 1st amendment right to protest, that's why the question is largely irrelevent
And since you brought it up:
AZ.....Religious group....proports to exercise their 1st amendment rights in earshot at funerals of 6 innocents killed, in the name of no religion. Religious group had nothing to do with the killings, and have a perfect 1st amendment right to protest Government policy.
i was hoping you could help me understand your point. [/color]
BTW these protestors are from Westboro Baptist Church (and making no secret of it) , so i would assume they are protesting in the name of Christianity or at the minimum the Baptist sect.
Yep. it indeed fits your criteria of critique, in claiming that not supporting the notion of a mosque being built so close to ground zero is tantamount to condemning all of the Muslim religion and/or being intolerant to Muslims. So, yea, applying your parameters, they'd be protesting in the name of Christianity
Again, largely irrelevent, but less though than the 1st effort
-
Doesn't really matter. They still have a 1st amendment right to protest, that's why the question is largely irrelevent
But you claimed that they had a right to protest government policy. So what government policy are they protesting and what does the catholic church which is holding the funeral have to do with it?
-
IT DOESN'T MATTER. They could be protesting the color of uniforms or how tight they perceive them to fit. It's irrelevent. They could be protesting because God told them to protest. It doesn't matter.
What matters is they have the 1st amendment right to build their mosque anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand........oooops, I keep interchanging the 2, being how similar a scenario they are. What's apparently supposed to matter, based on the defense of the Imam, is that they have a 1st amendment right to criticise any government policy or some apparent connection only they can see with the Government, anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand. Sure its in horrible taste. Sure, its completely inappropriate and terribly insensitive. Apparently however, any criticism is to be construed as religious intolerance & bigotry
Which again begs the question, where's the outrage at the AZ legislature by the supporters of the Imam. With the Imam, it was merely criticism by the majority of the public and most politicians, for the location choice. Here its actual legislation being proposed to prevent the building of a mosque.....ooops, my bad again, prevent them from exercising their 1st amendment right to protest where they want
-
IT DOESN'T MATTER. They could be protesting the color of uniforms or how tight they perceive them to fit. It's irrelevent. They could be protesting because God told them to protest. It doesn't matter.
What matters is they have the 1st amendment right to build their mosque anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand........oooops, I keep interchanging the 2, being how similar a scenario they are. What's apparently supposed to matter, based on the defense of the Imam, is that they have a 1st amendment right to criticise any government policy or some apparent connection only they can see with the Government, anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand. Sure its in horrible taste. Sure, its completely inappropriate and terribly insensitive. Apparently however, any criticism is to be construed as religious intolerance & bigotry
Which again begs the question, where's the outrage at the AZ legislature by the supporters of the Imam. With the Imama it was merely criticism by the majority of the public and most politicians. Here its actual legislation being proposed to prevent the buidling of a mosque.....ooops, my bad again, prevent them from exercising their 1st amendment right to protest
'Go pound sand' could be considered a racist comment today in our PC world. How would/could a person of Middle Eastern persuasion take that comment? Could hurt their feelings.
-
So true. Bt may see that as validation of my apparent intolerance of Muslims
-
If the Baptists want to protest at the same distance from the Catholic church as the Islamic Center is to be built from the site of the WTC/911 tragedy, fine and dandy.
bsb
-
Absolutely.....as long as proportion is taken into account. LARGE WTC site = Small Funeral site and LARGE Mosque site = Small protest group. Taking proportion into account, the Small group of protesters should be allowed to be far closer to the small funeral, compared to the actual distance between the Mosque and WTC, IF we're going to continue to see defense of the Imam & the building of a Mosque
I do however anticipate far more irrationalizations of how they don't compare and strawmen in the form of what policy the protesters are protesting. Again, my apologies for the tangent this has taken from the original point of the thread
-
If the Baptists want to protest at the same distance from the Catholic church as the Islamic Center is to be built from the site of the WTC/911 tragedy, fine and dandy.
bsb
What counts as "near"?
Aircraft parts from the crash landed on the Burlington building and human remains were discovered on buildings equally distant from the center point.
Near- is a concept that is diffrent for a whisper than for a bomb.
-
IT DOESN'T MATTER. They could be protesting the color of uniforms or how tight they perceive them to fit. It's irrelevent. They could be protesting because God told them to protest. It doesn't matter.
What matters is they have the 1st amendment right to build their mosque anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand........oooops, I keep interchanging the 2, being how similar a scenario they are. What's apparently supposed to matter, based on the defense of the Imam, is that they have a 1st amendment right to criticise any government policy or some apparent connection only they can see with the Government, anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand. Sure its in horrible taste. Sure, its completely inappropriate and terribly insensitive. Apparently however, any criticism is to be construed as religious intolerance & bigotry
Which again begs the question, where's the outrage at the AZ legislature by the supporters of the Imam. With the Imam, it was merely criticism by the majority of the public and most politicians, for the location choice. Here its actual legislation being proposed to prevent the building of a mosque.....ooops, my bad again, prevent them from exercising their 1st amendment right to protest where they want
Well you certainly bring up some interesting points. But alas you raise more questions. I'll take them one at a time, as i seek further clarification
What's apparently supposed to matter, based on the defense of the Imam, is that they have a 1st amendment right to criticise any government policy or some apparent connection only they can see with the Government, anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand.
What government policies was the Iman protesting, with the building of the Park51 Center?
-
First of all, sirs, you seem to be confused. No one who knows the facts has been discussing a proposal for the construction of a Mosque a block away from the old WTC site. They have however been discussing a proposal for the construction of an Islamic Center.
Being as you're a west coaster we will forgive you that misinformation this one time.
bsb
-
What government policies was the Iman protesting, with the building of the Park51 Center?
Who said they were protesting anything? They're simply exercising their 1st amendment right to build their church and practice their religion where they want. I noticed how you purposely ignored the specifics of the Mosque and now trying to make this about protesting alone. Nice try, it doesn't wash however. Using the the full quote, in context, so Bt doesn't manage to confuse anyone:
What matters is they have the 1st amendment right to build their mosque anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand........
oooops, I keep interchanging the 2, being how similar a scenario they are. (read: not identical. It's referred to as an anology. You can't simply swap anything you want)
What's apparently supposed to matter, based on the defense of the Imam, is that they have a 1st amendment right to criticise any government policy or some apparent connection only they can see with the Government, anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand
-
First of all, sirs, you seem to be confused. No one who knows the facts has been discussing a proposal for the construction of a Mosque a block away from the old WTC site. They have however been discussing a proposal for the construction of an Islamic Center.
No, there's no confusion here B. There will be a Mosque within the Cultural Center, or so I'm told. It's just easier and faster to spell Mosque vs Islamic Cultural Center.
It's been all about the same point, ever since the beginning. It has nothing to do with intolerance to religion, be it Muslim or Baptist. It has nothing to do with trying to deny anyone their 1st amendment rights. It has prescious little to do with anything outside of Location, Location, Location. An Islamic Mosque built a block away from thousands murdered in the name of Islam it too close. A protest of a funeral a mere 100yards away is too close. No one said they can't, merely that both LOCATIONS are egregiously insensitive & inappropriate. Largely, by design it would seem, as they've both facilitated exactly the appropriate outrage both have received.
-
What's apparently supposed to matter, based on the defense of the Imam, is that they have a 1st amendment right to criticise any government policy or some apparent connection only they can see with the Government, anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand
My bad. What government policy are they criticizing by building the Park51 center?
-
If the Baptists want to protest at the same distance from the Catholic church as the Islamic Center is to be built from the site of the WTC/911 tragedy, fine and dandy.
bsb
What counts as "near"?
Aircraft parts from the crash landed on the Burlington building and human remains were discovered on buildings equally distant from the center point.
Near- is a concept that is diffrent for a whisper than for a bomb.
I like your analogy.
-
I see there's another fact you seem to be missing on top of not understanding that it's an Islamic Center not a Mosque.
No one was murdered in the name of Islam. They were murdered my members of a terrorist group that happens to use a bastardized form of Islam to benefit the groups growth and prosperity.
You're not doing to well, sirs.
bsb
-
What's apparently supposed to matter, based on the defense of the Imam, is that they have a 1st amendment right to criticise any government policy or some apparent connection only they can see with the Government, anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand
My bad. What government policy are they criticizing by building the Park51 center?
Let's try again.......
the defense of the Imam is in their 1st amendment right to BUILD right where they want.
Applying THAT defense,
the defense of the Church group should be in their 1st amendment right to CRITICIZE anything/everything Government, right where they want
And of course, any criticisms of those actions by the Imam or Baptists are to be construed as religious intolerance & bigotry
Clear yet, or are you going to keep throwing mud onto the wall to see what sticks?
-
What's apparently supposed to matter, based on the defense of the Imam, is that they have a 1st amendment right to criticise any government policy or some apparent connection only they can see with the Government, anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand
My bad. What government policy are they criticizing by building the Park51 center?
Let's try again.......
the defense of the Imam is in their 1st amendment right to BUILD right where they want.
Applying THAT defense,
the defense of the Church group should be in their 1st amendment right to CRITICIZE anything/everything Government, right where they want
And of course, any criticisms of those actions by the Imam or Baptists are to be construed as religious intolerance & bigotry
Clear yet, or are you going to keep throwing mud onto the wall to see what sticks?
Ok so they aren't criticizing govt policy by building the Park51 Center. Just wonder why you said they were.
So in trying to understand your analogy.
Tucson is to NY like X is to Fred Phelps. So who is X?
-
I see there's another fact you seem to be missing on top of not understanding that it's an Islamic Center not a Mosque.
Actually the fact is I NEVER said that. I said that the plans include a Mosque WITHIN the Islamic Cultural Center. Is reading for comprehension becoming an issue with you
No one was murdered in the name of Islam. They were murdered my members of a terrorist group that happens to use a bastardized form of Islam to benefit the groups growth and prosperity.
Yea.....and? Those Terrorists weren't singing Christian hymns. In their eyes, they were doing Allah's bidding.....and Bin Laden's. In their eyes, and much of the Islamic world, they killed in the name of Islam.
You're not doing to well, sirs.
LOL...you're the one to talk
-
What's apparently supposed to matter, based on the defense of the Imam, is that they have a 1st amendment right to criticise any government policy or some apparent connection only they can see with the Government, anywhere they want, and the rest of us should go pound sand
My bad. What government policy are they criticizing by building the Park51 center?
Let's try again.......
the defense of the Imam is in their 1st amendment right to BUILD right where they want.
Applying THAT defense,
the defense of the Church group should be in their 1st amendment right to CRITICIZE anything/everything Government, right where they want
And of course, any criticisms of those actions by the Imam or Baptists are to be construed as religious intolerance & bigotry
Clear yet, or are you going to keep throwing mud onto the wall to see what sticks?
Ok so they aren't criticizing govt policy by building the Park51 Center. Just wonder why you said they were.
Probably because I didn't
So in trying to understand your analogy.
Tucson is to NY like X is to Fred Phelps. So who is X?
Math was never my strong suit, but pretty much the Imam. But it's more the group behind/surrounding Phelps, and the group behind/surrounding the Imam.
And don't start asking what policies the Imam is protesting. He isn't, because that was never the point of the anology.
-
I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, but to be clear:
You think because Phelps has the right to protest that the iman has the right to build his Park51 Center no matter the objections of the little girls family or the new yorkers who are offended?
Well i can agree with that.
And just to be clear i don't think this action by the AZ legislature will pass scrutiny from the courts.
And also to be clear, i think the iman and his group have more in common with the little girl and her family than he does with Fred Phelps. Which is why i was having so much trouble with your analogy.
-
Until I brought up the fact that it was a center, not a Mosque, you referred to it only as a Mosque. Are you trying to tell me now that you didn't mean it was a Mosque?
As for Islam. Anyone who has bothered to educate themselves in the decade since 9/11 knows that no one was murdered in the name of Islam. They were murdered in the name of a few Muslim radicals.
You are a very poorly informed individual, sirs. Purposefully so I suspect.
bsb
-
You think because Phelps has the right to protest that the iman has the right to build his Park51 Center no matter the objections of the little girls family or the new yorkers who are offended?
Well i can agree with that.
Well, we're kinda in agreement, since we can both agree they have the right, I strongly criticize their continued actions. Both are beligerent with no sense of sensitivity or care for the repercussions of their actions. Yet one is defended with its critics castigated religious intolerants & bigots. Where's the same outrage and castigation of the AZ legislature? Surely the same ones defending the Imam would be defending Phelps.
If not, why not??
It's largely the same issue....grossly insensitive & plausibly provocative location choice
And also to be clear, i think the iman and his group have more in common with the little girl and her family than he does with Fred Phelps. Which is why i was having so much trouble with your analogy.
No wonder you're having trouble, since the commonality here is in the actions and defense of those actions, pushing 1st amendment issues that can be seen as poor judgement at minimum, and perhaps purposely provocative with a great big middle finger to the U.S. and common decency, as an agenda
-
Until I brought up the fact that it was a center, not a Mosque, you referred to it only as a Mosque. Are you trying to tell me now that you didn't mean it was a Mosque?
Then you haven't been paying attention. Go back to when the Mosque debacle took on its menacing head. I frequently referred to it as a Mosque, though made clear it was a mosque within a cultural center. So, the only one confused here is you. But understandibly so. You may not have been frequenting the saloon much back then
And FYI, I'm still going to be referring to it as a Mosque, and "Mosque debacle", because most of the patrons here know what I'm referring to
As for Islam. Anyone who has bothered to educate themselves in the decade since 9/11 knows that no one was murdered in the name of Islam. They were murdered in the name of a few Muslim radicals....
...who murdered in the name of Islam. Yea, we've been over this already, as well
You are a very poorly informed individual, sirs. Purposefully so I suspect.
Oh...the irony
-
No wonder you're having trouble, since the commonality here is in the actions and defense of those actions, pushing 1st amendment issues that can be seen as poor judgement at minimum, and perhaps purposely provocative with a great big middle finger to the U.S. and common decency, as an agenda
The commonality seems to be that the protested are being protested for their religion.
-
Nope....the commonality is the protested are being protested for their location choices
-
>>And FYI, I'm still going to be referring to it as a Mosque<<
Of course you are because that's how you want to see it. You don't want to begin a process of growth. You don't have it in you. And, it's going to get you young fella. In fact it has already.
bsb
-
lol......as long as we dispensed with your confusions, I'm good
-
Nope....the commonality is the protested are being protested for their location choices
No. Phelps is the protestor. The little girl and her funeral are the protested. And the reason her funeral is being protested by Phelps is because she is Catholic.
The actions were prompted by the Westboro Baptist Church, a publicity-seeking Kansas congregation known for demonstrating at the funerals of U.S. soldiers, arguing that their deaths are retribution by God for America's acceptance of homosexuality. The church announced it would protest Green's funeral, scheduled for Thursday, because the family is Catholic.
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-funeral-protest-20110112,0,7494257.story)
-
The bottom line is knee-jerk reactions are usually wrong. Obama was wrong when he knee-jerked in favor of the Black Cambridge Professor. Congress, state Governments, or local governments passing laws within days of a tragedy isn't very smart and doesn't always work out as planned.
I think the Iman in NY and the Rev. Phelps should both get their asses kicked. If we didn't have such a pussy society lately we wouldn't need stupid laws because in the old days people knew if they did such stunts they were going to get their asses kicked or even worse. Nowadays we live in such a pathetic pussy world that when 3 inches of snow falls they call off football games!
-
Nope....the commonality is the protesters are being protested for their location choices
No. Phelps is the protestor. The little girl and her funeral are the protested. And the reason her funeral is being protested by Phelps is because she is Catholic.
I missed the protester/protested, my bad. I fixed it above. He has a 1st amendment right to protest whatever, wherever. The Imam has a 1st amendment right to build "a mosque", wherever. It's their LOCATIONS that make each act a horrid example in judgement & insensitivity.
But I'll throw you this bone, Phelps REASON for protesting makes his location choice less an issue, ironically making the Imam's MORE an issue. But the AZ legislation being proposed isn't to prevent him or his reasons for protesting, merely the LOCATION
Which brings us full circle, yet again
-
Nope....the commonality is the protesters are being protested for their location choices
No. Phelps is the protestor. The little girl and her funeral are the protested. And the reason her funeral is being protested by Phelps is because she is Catholic.
I missed the protester/protested, my bad. I fixed it above. He has a 1st amendment right to protest whatever, wherever. The Imam has a 1st amendment right to build "a mosque", wherever. It's their LOCATIONS that make each act a horrid example in judgement & insensitivity.
But I'll throw you this bone, Phelps REASON for protesting makes his location choice less an issue, ironically making the Imam's MORE an issue. But the AZ legislation being proposed isn't to prevent him or his reasons for protesting, merely the LOCATION
Which brings us full circle, yet again
Not really. The Iman isn't protesting anything. He is being protested, and he and the little girl share commonality because their religion offends the protestors.
-
The Iman isn't protesting anything. He is being protested, and he and the little girl share commonality because their religion offends the protestors.
Oh ye of little memory......"And don't start asking what policies the Imam is protesting. He isn't, because that was never the point of the analogy"
-
Oh ye of little memory......"And don't start asking what policies the Imam is protesting. He isn't, because that was never the point of the analogy"
Interesting.
But you do agree he is being protested?
-
No, he's being criticized, just as Phelps is
-
No, he's being criticized, just as Phelps is
You are joking ?
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS307US307&biw=1024&bih=557&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=ground+zero+mosque+protest&aq=f&aqi=g3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= (http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS307US307&biw=1024&bih=557&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=ground+zero+mosque+protest&aq=f&aqi=g3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)
-
Cool......Criticized AND Protested. Very appropriate. Referring back to BsB issues on proportion, my guess, is if Phelps had a congregation and scope the size of what the Imam has in putting together this "mosque", he too would have protesters as well
-
Cool......Criticized AND Protested. Very appropriate. Referring back to BsB issues on proportion, my guess, is if Phelps had a congregation and scope the size of what the Imam has in putting together this "mosque", he too would have protesters as well
He does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Counter_protests).
-
Perfect proportions. Small for Phelps, large for the Imam. I thank you for sharing them
-
No problem
How's that quest for outrage going?
-
Still waiting
-
Patience is a virtue.
-
While confusion remains a current reality. This is actual legislation being proposed, not merely that they shouldn't build it so close.....I mean protest so close. If this were NY, this would be beyond bigotry and intolerance. This is actual legislation
So, why doesn't Rev Phelps get the same latitude as that Imam?
-
Sirs: The analogy that you use here is flawed. I see your point, but I disagree with it.
Your basic premise is that if Muslims can build a Mosque (ICC or whatever) near Ground Zero then WBC should be able to hold protests near a child's funeral. You suggest that the expression of religious freedom by building an edifice is equal to the expression of religious freedom by protesting. You further assert that proximity to Ground Zero is analagous to proximity to the funeral.
I disagree with both analogies. Building a Mosque, Church, Temple, Cultural Center or what have you is a normal function of any religious organization. It is a maintenance activity, if you will. If someone is building a church in your neighborhood, you would not take any special note of it. You MIGHT be more interested if it were a Mosque, or a Mormon Temple, or a Church of Scientology or some other controversial sect simply because of the controversy itself. But there is nothing inherently offensive about raising a religious edifice. Protesting in a very disgusting way is, however, not a normal "maintenance" activity. It is an active attempt to disrupt proceedings, draw attention to your cause, and actively confront others. It is INTENTIONALLY in-your-face, while church building is only incidentally so (if at all). So I do not agree that building a Mosque is analogous to protest activities.
For the second point, proximity to an area which has a special meaning is not analogous to proximity to a specific activity. The former, even if intentional, is simply choosing a location. The latter is choosing an ACTIVITY. The protest would have no significance if it were held in the same place a day later. it is targetting a PERSON (in this case the child) instead of an organization - such as a government or a religion - or perhaps a policy. As such, it is far more offensive than than simply building an edifice.
FTR I support, however reluctantly, the WBC's right to protest at funerals on first amendement grounds. I do not, however, equate the actions of the WBC iwith those of the members of a faith simply trying to build a place of worship and cultural information. The latter activity I find to be appropriate, resposnsible and positive, even though some find the location distasteful. The former has no merit whatsoever, and may be defended only on the grounds that even idiots have the right to speak.
-
But see Pooch, you've missed the point that makes the analogies dead on. No one is arguing that folks can't build a religious center, as it is a normal "maintanance function" of a religious organization nor don't have a 1st amendment right to build it as a part of practicing their religion. No one is arguing folks don't have a 1st amendment right to protest
The point is the locations. You kinda referenced them, then pushed them asided to explain why the analogies are flawed. I agree, if you remove the location component, there is no analogy. But since my whole point of contention with "the Mosque" has been its location, the analogies are dead on, since it's the location of the protest that's equally egregious. "Proximity" though is a good qualifier, to this debate, and I apprecate your injecting it
But I stand by the accuracy of the analogy, and perplexed as to why the Imam gets a pass while Phelps is appropriately condemned. And equally perplexed at how critics of the Imam are casted as religious bigoted intolerants, but no such term is being appled to critics of Phelps?
-
Perhaps this will help.
Phelps has responsibility and control over his own actions.
You are holding the Iman responsible for the actions of others, not his own actions.
It really is surprising that a personal responsibility conservative such as yourself can't see this.
-
Perhaps this will help. Phelps has responsibility and control over his own actions. You are holding the Iman responsible for the actions of others, not his own actions.
Phelps didn't murder anyone either. No, I'm holding the Imam responsible for chosing a location that is inappropriate, just as I am of Phelps.
It really is surprising that a personal responsibility conservative such as yourself can't see this.
Couldn't see it any clearer. I'm surprised you can't, though perhaps your tack to the center is clouding that ability a tad
-
Phelps didn't murder anyone either.
Who said he did?
No, I'm holding the Imam responsible for chosing a location that is inappropriate, just as I am of Phelps.
Why is it inappropriate? Because he is Muslim? That's like saying Brass is guilty of shooting Gifford because Loughner was an atheist, or you are guilty of the Gifford shooting because you are white.
Sloppy thinking if you ask me, and all a symptom of the identity politics you railed against in the Williams thread. You are a walking contradiction. Perhaps you should embrace your inner liberal whilst you place people in their appropriate bins.
-
Phelps didn't murder anyone either.
Who said he did?
No one. I'm referencing the anaolgy and the "actions of others", that you tried to inject. The Imam wasn't responsible for the actions of the terrorists, just Phelps wasn't responsible for the actions of a 22yr old murderer
No, I'm holding the Imam responsible for chosing a location that is inappropriate, just as I am of Phelps.
Why is it inappropriate? Because he is Muslim?
You WOULD like that wouldn't you. That's been your bee in the bonnet all along. And here's been a perfect opportunity to demonstrate how wrong you were the 1st go around, when you tried it. This has already been addressed, and its NOT about him being a Muslim, and never has. It's NOT about Phelps being a Baptist Christian, and never has. The Imam could be Jewish, he could be a Baptist Christian, he could be an Atheist, he could be a Romulan that was wanting to build an Islamic Cultural Center in such close proximity, to where 3000+ were killed in the name of Islam, by Islamic radicals
No manner of you spouting that same nonsense is it ever going to be about their religion, or some ill-perceived egregiously flawed notion of intolerance to the Muslim faith.
But by all means, keep digging that hole
Sloppy thinking if you ask me, and all a symptom of the identity politics you railed against in the Williams thread.
Good thing that's not why now, isn't it
-
You WOULD like that wouldn't you. That's been your bee in the bonnet all along. And here's been a perfect opportunity to demonstrate how wrong you were the 1st go around, when you tried it. This has already been addressed, and its NOT about him being a Muslim, and never has. It's NOT about Phelps being a Baptist Christian, and never has. He could be Jewish, he could be a Baptist Christian, he could be an Atheist, he could be a Romulan that was wanting to build an Islamic Cultural Center in such close proximity, to where 3000+ were killed in the name of Islam, by Islamic radicals
No manner of you spouting that same nonsense is it ever going to be about their religion, or some ill-perceived egregiously flawed notion of intolerance to the Muslim faith.
But by all means, keep digging that hole
Why would a Baptist build a mosque?
-
You'd have to ask a Baptist.
-
I'm asking you.
-
I'm not a Baptist.
Here, let's put it another way, for even greater comprehension
A group of Christian zealots, who advocate the killing of abortion doctors, hijack several planes, and take down the WTC. Rev Schuler wants to build a massive Crystal Cathedral #2, at the doorstep of the rubble that once was the WTC. It would be an inappropriate location choice
A group of radical scientologists, determined to wake the world up, and to better appreciate scientology, hijack several planes and take down the WTC. David Miscavige decides he wants to build a brand new Church of Scientology, in the shadow of once was the WTC. It would be an inappropriate location choice
A group of Atheist terrorists, decide the country is becoming too spiritual, and hijack several planes, subsequently taking down the WTC. Frank Zindler feels compelled to build a shrine, in the name of Atheists, with a desire to bring harmony (& Godlessness) to all, at the foot of what was once the WTC. It would be an inappropriate location choice
Do you see yet, why this has nothing to do with the Imam being a Muslim, or anything to do with the Muslim religion, yet??
-
When you see a mosque do you think 9-11?
-
No
-
So there is no symbolism in a mosque, as it relates to 9-11, per se?
-
Not sure where you're going Bt. No, I don't equate Muslims with 911. Nor do I don't equate a mosque with 911. Nor do I equate an Islamic Cultural Center with 911.
I do equate Islamic Terrorists with 911
-
Until I brought up the fact that it was a center, not a Mosque, you referred to it only as a Mosque. bsb
There is a distinction, where is a diffrence?
-
But see Pooch, you've missed the point that makes the analogies dead on. No one is arguing that folks can't build a religious center, as it is a normal "maintanance function" of a religious organization nor don't have a 1st amendment right to build it as a part of practicing their religion. No one is arguing folks don't have a 1st amendment right to protest
The point is the locations. You kinda referenced them, then pushed them asided to explain why the analogies are flawed. I agree, if you remove the location component, there is no analogy. But since my whole point of contention with "the Mosque" has been its location, the analogies are dead on, since it's the location of the protest that's equally egregious. "Proximity" though is a good qualifier, to this debate, and I apprecate your injecting it
But I stand by the accuracy of the analogy, and perplexed as to why the Imam gets a pass while Phelps is appropriately condemned. And equally perplexed at how critics of the Imam are casted as religious bigoted intolerants, but no such term is being appled to critics of Phelps?
No I didn't miss the point. I called the point inaccurate - and it is. Pehelps is not protesting a location - he is protesting an activity. Since you make a false analogy, your question about why people are upset is without logical basis. People are upset with Phelps because he is protesting an ACTIVITY - not a location. %The arguments against a mosque at the ICC site are based only on religious bigotry and nothing else. the fact that people cannot see this in their arguments does not negate the cccuracy.
-
BUT ;-) The issue remains the location. Phelps isn't protesting a location, just as the Imam is not. It's their location choices, at issue, backed up by their 1st amendment rights. Doesn't matter what Phelps is protesting, because largely the issue with him IS his location. If he were to protest the 9year old's funeral in....Indiana, yea, he'd get some grief, but AZ wouldn't be looking to legislate a block to his 1st amendment right to protest.
The fact that the arguement against the Imam building his mosque is directly related to the proximity to the WTC site, again is founded in location & acute lack of sensitivity, and prescious little to do with him being a Muslim. Made all the more valid in how there's no such protest the further away from the WTC he gets....--> LOCATION. And as I've referenced before, the same non-support of a Christian structure would be present, if the WTC had been brought down by a bunch of Anti-abortion Christian zealots....or if some massive "Green" facility were to be built in the name of mother Earth, yet the WTC had been brought down by a bunch of self-proclaimed ELF terrorists.
So no, the anology remains dead on, I'm afraid.
-
This is very simple. If they have the right sensitivity wise to build their center in Dogpatch Alaska they have the same right sensitivity wise a block from ground zero. In fact even more so. Many of those who oppose the building of the center near ground zero have claimed Al Qaeda attacked us because they don't like the freedoms we have. Obviously then, the thing to do is show them how free we are and not just allow the center to built at the proposed location, but URGE it. WE ARE A FREE COUNTRY! IF SOME OF YOU ASSHOLES WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS HAD ACTUALLY SACRIFICED FOR OUR FREEDOM MAYBE YOU'D GET THE POINT! WE DON'T TURN OUR FREEDOMS ON AND OFF. THEY REMAIN ON 24/7 PUBLIC OPINION BE DAMNED!!
Are we going to not allow a Korean restaurant to be built across te street from a VA hospital because their might be Korean War vets in the hospital? GET A GRIP.
bsb
-
I think that if Phelps were to stage his protests right in frount of the White House I would not mind them so much.
The "Reverend"(haha) Phelps chooses venues for protest for maximum impact and minimum returns of respect.
I find the comparison apt not because it is exactly the same , but because it is diffrent enough to make the simular principal stand out.
-
Well the more i listen to Sirs argument the more i realize that the 9 year olds family is showing extreme insensitivity in holding the funeral so close to Phelps protest.
Location Location Location
-
Well the more i listen to Sirs argument the more i realize that the 9 year olds family is showing extreme insensitivity in holding the funeral so close to Phelps protest.
Location Location Location
Exactly , if you were to change the time and/or place of either ,to avoid the juxtaposition, the impact would be exponentially reduced.
-
Well the more i listen to Sirs argument the more i realize that the 9 year olds family is showing extreme insensitivity in holding the funeral so close to Phelps protest.
LOL....yea, that's it