Moon Phase

[BT]

Here's a hint, it had nothing to do with me or my positions

But that is your position. And you have been arguing it for a month. Why deny that is your position now?

[sirs]

LOL...but its not, and never has been.  At least not the way you're trying to apply it.  Even with the hint, you still couldn't get it, could you.  Couldn't see it for how I've referenced it (Islamic intolerance) the many times previously.  Nope, Sirs has to hate Islam.  He must disdain it, dammit  He just has to, and no damn information, facts, and/or commentary contrary to that, is to be accepted, period, end of story

Just declare victory, hit <enter>, and be done with it.   

[BT]

Then whose position is it? And why do you agree with it.

But if you are more comfortable cutting and running, that's fine.

[sirs]

Then whose position is it? And why do you agree with it.

That of the Imam, and those that insist that an Islamic Mosque can not be built ANYWHERE else but in the shadow of the WTC, where thousands died in the name of Islam.  THAT's the intolerance I have referenced since the get go.  That's the grossly abhorent lack of judgement and compassion being demonstrated

But if you are more comfortable cutting and running, that's fine.

Naaaa, more like running out of excedrin from the constant banging my head on the wall of debunking the same dren you keep pulling up, when this topic is reintroduced

[BT]

Obviously the Iman is for the Mosque in the proposed location.

Why are YOU against it. Why would you advocate a position that is rooted in religious intolerance, specifically against the religion of Islam? That is what i am trying to understand.

[sirs]

Asked and answered already, and one last time, has never been about religious suppression or even intolerance.  If you can't keep up, I can't help you, at this point

[BT]

You deny but your posts say otherwise.

You try to paint the Iman as intolerant of the views of the famililies of 9-11, but you seem to have a problem decifering why these same families have a problem with a mosque being built but no such problem with a Catholic, Greek Orthodoz or protestant church being rebuilt even closer.

Why do you think that is, if not for intolerance for the religion of Islam? Or misapplied blame.

But again if you would prefer to cut and run, if you can't articulate your position so that even a six year old would understand, that's fine. 

[sirs]

You deny but your posts say otherwise.

I deny and my posts make it clear why.  You're the one that keeps twisting my position, into something it is not. 

I've used this reference before, but alas, it hasn't transited the necessary number of neurons yet.  I'll use it 1 more time, then allow you to apply your claim victory tact again, despite being shown the error of your ways, yet again. --->  Folks condemn AZ's immigration law as leading to racially profiling, when it explicity says otherwise, even making such illegal.  Those folks claim that when a hispanic gets pulled over, it's not because of a broken tail-light or expired tags, its because of racial profiling.  Much like Bt here claiming that by not supporting the Mosque being built right where its proposed to be built, it must be because of religious intolerance  The legal infractions are merely a coincidence, while the positions I've used, are also merely a coincidence.

And there probably are some of those cops, as there are those who hate islam.  I'm the cop pulling people over for the infraction.  The fact they are hispanic is besides the point.  The fact that a predominant majority of those who are illegal immigrats, happen to be hispanic or hispanic looking, is the cart behind the horse.  So if I were to question their legal status it would be because of a suspicion based not solely of their ethnicty, but of other components as well, such as lack of any ID, who they are with, where are they going, etc, AFTER having already legally pulled them over for some other infraction

I paint the Imam as I see him, and more so how he acts.  Has he shown any indication of a desire to compromise on a location??  Has he shown any indication of his concern for the feelings of those families who lost loved ones to those who used his religion as justification, while he proposes a mosque in the shadow of all those murdered?  If so, I haven't seen it.  Perhaps you can help us bt.  Perhaps you can provide some quotes or reports of his willingness to consider other locations.  Because if you can't, you help make my point of where the "islamic intolerance" really is located.  And hint, its not with me or any of my positions, since I have no problem with anyone practicing any religion, anywhere they choose here in America.  Just be ready to deal with the repercussions of really bad location choices.

That's all for now, as I'm out of excedrin.  You'll need to get someone else to bang their head for a while

[BT]

I paint the Imam as I see him, and more so how he acts.  Has he shown any indication of a desire to compromise on a location??  Has he shown any indication of his concern for the feelings of those families who lost loved ones to those who used his religion as justification, while he proposes a mosque in the shadow of all those murdered?  If so, I haven't seen it.  Perhaps you can help us bt.  Perhaps you can provide some quotes or reports of his willingness to consider other locations.  Because if you can't, you help make my point of where the "islamic intolerance" really is located.  And hint, its not with me or any of my positions, since I have no problem with anyone practicing any religion, anywhere they choose here in America.  Just be ready to deal with the repercussions of really bad location choices.

I don't see where he has to. His religion apparently has been judged and found guilty by those families, and by extension the rest of "majority" who have prejudged the religion as you have. And i think that judgment is prejudicial, bigoted and wrongheaded. You have not shown where this Iman has called for a holy war against the west. You have not shown where this Iman has encouraged terrorist acts. You have not shown where this Iman has participated in the desecration of Bibles. Yet this Iman should shoulder the same guilt as Bin Laden.

That's ridiculous.

[sirs]

Last 3 points, 1st 2 of which have been mentioned already, as has been mentioned numerous times previously, which again blows the notion of sirs supposed "Islamic Intolerance" out of the water.  If this country were being attacked by a concerted organization of "Catholic terrorists", both here & abroad, who were murdering in the name of God, and they managed to take down the Empire State Bldg, I'd be in just as much opposition of a Catholic Church wanting to be built across the street to the rubble of what was once the Empire State bldg, in which hundrdes, if not thousands had been murdered by those Catholic Terrorists.  Even if was supported by the pope.  Especially if it was a demand that that was the only place such a church could be built

So, that removes, once and for all the idea of Islamic intolerance on the part of Sirs.

2ndly, no one is claiming the Imam needed to show tolerance, so the idea that I was mandating him to is disingenuous, and likens to your flawed attempts to claim I demand a response from those where I merely reference a lack of response.  His actions, or the lack there of to which I was merely referring to, demonstrate the intolerance associated. 

Lastly, and connected with the above reference to disingenuous, it is indeed disingenuous of you to claim some "cut & run" tactic on my part, when I have consistently provided copious responses to many of your questions, often grossly repetitive as well as flawed in their premise.  I merely grow fatigued of having to consistently correct you, to the same flaws and misrepresentation.  So, trying to pull the "cut & run" merely to generate a response is.....disingenuous, given the current set of facts & reality 

[BT]

Is the Iman responsible for the actions of Bin Laden?

Yes or no?

[sirs]

See, perfect example. You've asked this already.  I've answered many a time.  Even expanded on it that Bin Laden is not a cleric, nor is the official voice is Islam.  The Pope actually is the official voice of Catholicism, and I wouldn't support a catholic church being built in the rubble of the Empire State Building, taken down by an organized group of hypothetical "Catholic Terroists"

We're done

[BT]

Perhaps you are done.

I'm not.

What Bin Laden and the Iman have in common is their religion.

What the NYC priest and the "Catholic Terrorists" have in common is their religion.

What you are doing is assigning the guilt earned by the subgroup upon the bigger group.

You are assigning guilt by association.

That by definition is prejudicial.

Back in the day the colored drinking fountain was a few feet from the whites drinking fountain.

The back of the bus is only a couple yards from the front of the bus.

The lunch counter is 30 ft from the diners back door.

It's all about location right?

[sirs]

And you are making the mistake, YET AGAIN, of trying to compare race, something no one has any control over, to that of religion, which is a choice, by any and all, including those who would mutate its message and justify murders in the name of that religion

Sorry, it doesn't wash, and NO, its not some implied advocation that Muslims must renounce their religion either  (best nip that, before that garbage gets started again)

[BT]

Prejudice is prejudice, whether it involves race creed, gender or nation of origin.

Your minimization of religious prejudice sounds like you think Hitler's actions were less evil than Tuskegee.