If a mosque shouldn't be built near ground zero because it's "insensitive," then churches shouldn't be built near gay clubs (or anything related to homosexuality), abortion clinics, Indian reserves, daycares, or anything related to magic or "witchcraft" because that too is insensitive. dk00111feel free to raise the issue and protest. as for the mosque, its insulting and insensitive.
Interesting read on mosque by ground zero.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
yeah. i dont like them. which is why obama is not getting my vote this time. he went to a muslim country and declared that america is not a christian country. nothing wrong in itself. but would someone from the middle east come to america and say their country is not a muslim country and everyone would be treated equally? dont think so. doom3lvMaybe because there is no separation of church and state over there? Are people really comparing our government to those in the middle east? In that case screw a democracy, we need a theocracy. That's proven to work so well right?
[QUOTE="thattotally"]Agreed. I think this is one of the biggest wastes of time, energy, and activist effort in recent memory.I still don't understand why there is an issue or what the general population is arguing about.
mattbbpl
As for the article itself, this portion really spoke to me:
"Through his dramatic example, Francis recovered the Christian principle of love for the enemy and showed it was possible to approach Muslims in peace and without coercion. The sultan, for his part, reflected a tradition, dating to Prophet Mohammed in the earliest days of Islam, of respect for holy Christian monks."
Oh, yes. I like that part too. St. Francis of Assisi is a pretty interesting person (by the way many people have said that the Saints are more authentically human than most people and also that they actually were pretty joyful). I think his approach has accomplished much more lasting achievement in terms of preserving the Christian presence in the Holy Land than the crusades have had. Although I don't think I'de put ashes on food that people offer me like he did (he didn't want to turn them down because that was rude and ungrateful, but he didn't want to become self-indulgent either).[QUOTE="doom3lv"]yeah. i dont like them. which is why obama is not getting my vote this time. he went to a muslim country and declared that america is not a christian country. nothing wrong in itself. but would someone from the middle east come to america and say their country is not a muslim country and everyone would be treated equally? dont think so. dk00111Maybe because there is no separation of church and state over there? Are people really comparing our government to those in the middle east? In that case screw a democracy, we need a theocracy. That's proven to work so well right? very true. but sometimes, you fight fire with fire.
If a mosque shouldn't be built near ground zero because it's "insensitive," then churches shouldn't be built near gay clubs (or anything related to homosexuality), abortion clinics, Indian reserves, daycares, or anything related to magic or "witchcraft" because that too is insensitive. dk00111how would a church near a daycare or an Indian reserve be insensitive (there are Indian Christians you know). And maybe instead gay clubs and abortion clinics shouldn't be build near churches instead.
[QUOTE="doom3lv"]yeah. i dont like them. which is why obama is not getting my vote this time. he went to a muslim country and declared that america is not a christian country. nothing wrong in itself. but would someone from the middle east come to america and say their country is not a muslim country and everyone would be treated equally? dont think so. comp_atkinsyou need to hold america to the standards that it preaches, not hold other countries to america's ( or other nations' ) standards.. guess what, not every religion will be treated equally in every nation. but then again not every nation is preaching religious freedom and tolerance. the ones that do ought to practice it. the conduct of the middle eastern countries doesn't make it okay for the U.S. to act the way, since it's wrong for the middle eastern countries to act that way. Both the U.S. and the Middle East must respect fundamental human rights such as religious liberty.
[QUOTE="dk00111"][QUOTE="doom3lv"]yeah. i dont like them. which is why obama is not getting my vote this time. he went to a muslim country and declared that america is not a christian country. nothing wrong in itself. but would someone from the middle east come to america and say their country is not a muslim country and everyone would be treated equally? dont think so. doom3lvMaybe because there is no separation of church and state over there? Are people really comparing our government to those in the middle east? In that case screw a democracy, we need a theocracy. That's proven to work so well right? very true. but sometimes, you fight fire with fire. I fight fire with water.
I think any religion in the US is and should be open to criticism. The catholic church has been under intense media scrutiny for its poor response to the actions of pedophilic priests. Most priests are not pedophiles and most have never abused children, but nonetheless, the church needed to take better actions and precautions. They deserved the criticism.
Likewise, there are several militant branches of islam - wahabism, etc. that have religous leaders who actively promote violence. While this does not represent the majority of muslims, I'd like to see more muslims take action on this. Distance themselves from such teachings and sects. I think a lot of muslims in the states mistakingly tried to remain silent during the attacks of 9/11 because they didn't want to be associated with that. I thinka better tact would have been to vocally condemn that behavior. Some did, but I'd like to see the religous leaders take more of an active stance against that.
However, this anti-islam sentiment that is growing in the US and the rest of the west is potentially dangerous. People are genuinely afraid of religous inspired violence in far greater extremes than the actual threat. Most muslim have no intention of blowing you up or conquering your country. Most in the states, came here for the same resaons most people are here - freedom. Freedom to practice their faith. Freedom to pursue their careers. Freedom to pursue happiness.
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"][QUOTE="doom3lv"]oh i care about it alright. i just dont want them abused by people from the middle east. doom3lv
Am I the only one seeing parallels with this and arguements for segregation years ago?
Also you are using some faulty logic. Not all muslims are from the middle east. There are white muslims, black muslims, asian muslims. There are muslims whose entire family have been here for a century. You are assuming all muslims apparently got on a boat and sailed over here after 9/11.
Here is a question. What do you think should be done about Islam in America? And please be specific. No vague "We shouldn't give into their demands!" or anything. If you were in charge, what would you do about it?
muslims in america are fine. i just dont want mosques and when i go out in the city, i dont want to see women in burkas. . it scares me to think one day america will turn into a muslim nation. Muslims have a right to build there mosques. And if a woman wants to wear a burka so be it. If you don't want to see such things than close your eyes.I just wish Christians had such rights in Muslim countries, but that doesn't mean American muslims should not enjoy such rights.
how would a church near a daycare or an Indian reserve be insensitive (there are Indian Christians you know). And maybe instead gay clubs and abortion clinics shouldn't be build near churches instead. Daycare: The sex scandals involving priests and the pope. Indian Reserves: How about the "convert or die" policy of many churches in colonial America? As far as gay clubs and abortion clinics go, what if they were there first? The reasoning in this thread is that religious structures should be judged by their religion's past & minorities, so I'm following the logic.[QUOTE="dk00111"]If a mosque shouldn't be built near ground zero because it's "insensitive," then churches shouldn't be built near gay clubs (or anything related to homosexuality), abortion clinics, Indian reserves, daycares, or anything related to magic or "witchcraft" because that too is insensitive. whipassmt
very true. but sometimes, you fight fire with fire. I fight fire with water.are you a muslim? in which case, of you dont agree with me.[QUOTE="doom3lv"][QUOTE="dk00111"] Maybe because there is no separation of church and state over there? Are people really comparing our government to those in the middle east? In that case screw a democracy, we need a theocracy. That's proven to work so well right?whipassmt
if you are not, then are so convinced that freedom of religion is a good thing that you will let anything happen to the people of country to protect it?
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]how would a church near a daycare or an Indian reserve be insensitive (there are Indian Christians you know). And maybe instead gay clubs and abortion clinics shouldn't be build near churches instead. Daycare: The sex scandals involving priests and the pope. Indian Reserves: How about the "convert or die" policy of many churches in colonial America? As far as gay clubs and abortion clinics go, what if they were there first? The reasoning in this thread is that religious structures should be judged by their religion's past & minorities, so I'm following the logic.not just past. when was the last time someone committed the act like a 9/11 and said Christianity made them do it?[QUOTE="dk00111"]If a mosque shouldn't be built near ground zero because it's "insensitive," then churches shouldn't be built near gay clubs (or anything related to homosexuality), abortion clinics, Indian reserves, daycares, or anything related to magic or "witchcraft" because that too is insensitive. dk00111
1. Most of those priests were ephebophiles, only 10% of the accused offenders were pedophiles (i.e. molested kids under the age of 13). 2. Actually I don't think the Church's response has been any worse than that of society as a whole, especially during the years between 1964 and 1984. 3. Actually, the over fear of Islam leading to making Muslims secondary citizens would probably only make them more likely to support terrorism, so it would make things worse.I think any religion in the US is and should be open to criticism. The catholic church has been under intense media scrutiny for its poor response to the actions of pedophilic priests. Most priests are not pedophiles and most have never abused children, but nonetheless, the church needed to take better actions and precautions. They deserved the criticism.
Likewise, there are several militant branches of islam - wahabism, etc. that have religous leaders who actively promote violence. While this does not represent the majority of muslims, I'd like to see more muslims take action on this. Distance themselves from such teachings and sects. I think a lot of muslims in the states mistakingly tried to remain silent during the attacks of 9/11 because they didn't want to be associated with that. I thinka better tact would have been to vocally condemn that behavior. Some did, but I'd like to see the religous leaders take more of an active stance against that.
However, this anti-islam sentiment that is growing in the US and the rest of the west is potentially dangerous. People are genuinely afraid of religous inspired violence in far greater extremes than the actual threat. Most muslim have no intention of blowing you up or conquering your country. Most in the states, came here for the same resaons most people are here - freedom. Freedom to practice their faith. Freedom to pursue their careers. Freedom to pursue happiness.
sonicare
1. Most of those priests were ephebophiles, only 10% of the accused offenders were pedophiles (i.e. molested kids under the age of 13). 2. Actually I don't think the Church's response has been any worse than that of society as a whole, especially during the years between 1964 and 1984. 3. Actually, the over fear of Islam leading to making Muslims secondary citizens would probably only make them more likely to support terrorism, so it would make things worse.so you suggest everyone should just put up with the fact because otherwise, they would terrorize us?[QUOTE="sonicare"]
I think any religion in the US is and should be open to criticism. The catholic church has been under intense media scrutiny for its poor response to the actions of pedophilic priests. Most priests are not pedophiles and most have never abused children, but nonetheless, the church needed to take better actions and precautions. They deserved the criticism.
Likewise, there are several militant branches of islam - wahabism, etc. that have religous leaders who actively promote violence. While this does not represent the majority of muslims, I'd like to see more muslims take action on this. Distance themselves from such teachings and sects. I think a lot of muslims in the states mistakingly tried to remain silent during the attacks of 9/11 because they didn't want to be associated with that. I thinka better tact would have been to vocally condemn that behavior. Some did, but I'd like to see the religous leaders take more of an active stance against that.
However, this anti-islam sentiment that is growing in the US and the rest of the west is potentially dangerous. People are genuinely afraid of religous inspired violence in far greater extremes than the actual threat. Most muslim have no intention of blowing you up or conquering your country. Most in the states, came here for the same resaons most people are here - freedom. Freedom to practice their faith. Freedom to pursue their careers. Freedom to pursue happiness.
whipassmt
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]I fight fire with water.are you a muslim? in which case, of you dont agree with me.[QUOTE="doom3lv"] very true. but sometimes, you fight fire with fire. doom3lv
if you are not, then are so convinced that freedom of religion is a good thing that you will let anything happen to the people of country to protect it? I'm not Muslim. But if you take away the rights of Muslim Americans you weaken their loyalty to America and make them more sympathetic to our enemies. Of course we have a right to defend our nation, but we can't persecute all Muslims just because a small percentage of them are terrorists.
[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="doom3lv"]yeah. i dont like them. which is why obama is not getting my vote this time. he went to a muslim country and declared that america is not a christian country. nothing wrong in itself. but would someone from the middle east come to america and say their country is not a muslim country and everyone would be treated equally? dont think so. whipassmtyou need to hold america to the standards that it preaches, not hold other countries to america's ( or other nations' ) standards.. guess what, not every religion will be treated equally in every nation. but then again not every nation is preaching religious freedom and tolerance. the ones that do ought to practice it. the conduct of the middle eastern countries doesn't make it okay for the U.S. to act the way, since it's wrong for the middle eastern countries to act that way. Both the U.S. and the Middle East must respect fundamental human rights such as religious liberty. agreed.. but you cannot use another nation's intolerance of religion as an excuse to be intolerant yourself when you nation is the one preaching tolerance.
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]how would a church near a daycare or an Indian reserve be insensitive (there are Indian Christians you know). And maybe instead gay clubs and abortion clinics shouldn't be build near churches instead. Daycare: The sex scandals involving priests and the pope. Indian Reserves: How about the "convert or die" policy of many churches in colonial America? As far as gay clubs and abortion clinics go, what if they were there first? The reasoning in this thread is that religious structures should be judged by their religion's past & minorities, so I'm following the logic. but then we wouldn't be able to put any government buildings near the Indian reserves or daycares either (governmental personnel have molested more children than have church personnel, for instance in Connecticut only three Catholic priests have been accused of sex abuse in the past 18 years, meanwhile around 16 state-paid foster parents have molested children in the past year).[QUOTE="dk00111"]If a mosque shouldn't be built near ground zero because it's "insensitive," then churches shouldn't be built near gay clubs (or anything related to homosexuality), abortion clinics, Indian reserves, daycares, or anything related to magic or "witchcraft" because that too is insensitive. dk00111
[QUOTE="whipassmt"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] you need to hold america to the standards that it preaches, not hold other countries to america's ( or other nations' ) standards.. guess what, not every religion will be treated equally in every nation. but then again not every nation is preaching religious freedom and tolerance. the ones that do ought to practice it.comp_atkinsthe conduct of the middle eastern countries doesn't make it okay for the U.S. to act the way, since it's wrong for the middle eastern countries to act that way. Both the U.S. and the Middle East must respect fundamental human rights such as religious liberty. agreed.. but you cannot use another nation's intolerance of religion as an excuse to be intolerant yourself when you nation is the one preaching tolerance.i agree with you. i was wrong. but i cant help it. when i read the news, and hear about how women are beaten, forced to wear the burka (dont listen to the they-do-it-by choice argument), and their noses cut off, stoned to death, i cant help but not want them in this country.
[QUOTE="dk00111"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] how would a church near a daycare or an Indian reserve be insensitive (there are Indian Christians you know). And maybe instead gay clubs and abortion clinics shouldn't be build near churches instead.Daycare: The sex scandals involving priests and the pope. Indian Reserves: How about the "convert or die" policy of many churches in colonial America? As far as gay clubs and abortion clinics go, what if they were there first? The reasoning in this thread is that religious structures should be judged by their religion's past & minorities, so I'm following the logic.not just past. when was the last time someone committed the act like a 9/11 and said Christianity made them do it? Islam didn't make Al Queda carry out 9/11, it was done in the name of Islam. Kinda like how the WBC do what they do in the name of Christianity. Kinda like how people bomb abortion clinics in the name of Christianity. Kinda like how people want to take away the rights of others because this is a "Christian nation."doom3lv
not just past. when was the last time someone committed the act like a 9/11 and said Christianity made them do it? Islam didn't make Al Queda carry out 9/11, it was done in the name of Islam. Kinda like how the WBC do what they do in the name of Christianity. Kinda like how people bomb abortion clinics in the name of Christianity. Kinda like how people want to take away the rights of others because this is a "Christian nation."yes christianity is a terrible religion. feel free to hate it.[QUOTE="doom3lv"][QUOTE="dk00111"] Daycare: The sex scandals involving priests and the pope. Indian Reserves: How about the "convert or die" policy of many churches in colonial America? As far as gay clubs and abortion clinics go, what if they were there first? The reasoning in this thread is that religious structures should be judged by their religion's past & minorities, so I'm following the logic.dk00111
you do realize that school faculty and staff are actually more likely to molest a minor than a priest is, right? That's irrelevant and besides the point.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Here's a little thought experiment. A Catholic church is being built down the street from an elementary school, where a few of the students who attend said school are victims of being sexually abused by a Catholic priest who has absolutely no connection to the aforementioned church that is being built besides the fact that he is Catholic. The local community is outraged by the construction of the church and demands that it be built somewhere else. Is the local community guilty of bigotry towards Catholics or are the people behind the construction of this church guilty of insensitivity? Which party is in the wrong?whipassmt
[QUOTE="dk00111"]Islam didn't make Al Queda carry out 9/11, it was done in the name of Islam. Kinda like how the WBC do what they do in the name of Christianity. Kinda like how people bomb abortion clinics in the name of Christianity. Kinda like how people want to take away the rights of others because this is a "Christian nation."yes christianity is a terrible religion. feel free to hate it. I'm not saying it's a terrible religion, I'm trying to make the point across that you shouldn't judge others by their minority extremists.[QUOTE="doom3lv"]not just past. when was the last time someone committed the act like a 9/11 and said Christianity made them do it?doom3lv
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]you do realize that school faculty and staff are actually more likely to molest a minor than a priest is, right? That's irrelevant and besides the point. I liked that analogy. I posted it on my facebook if you don't mind. :P[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Here's a little thought experiment. A Catholic church is being built down the street from an elementary school, where a few of the students who attend said school are victims of being sexually abused by a Catholic priest who has absolutely no connection to the aforementioned church that is being built besides the fact that he is Catholic. The local community is outraged by the construction of the church and demands that it be built somewhere else. Is the local community guilty of bigotry towards Catholics or are the people behind the construction of this church guilty of insensitivity? Which party is in the wrong?-Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] you do realize that school faculty and staff are actually more likely to molest a minor than a priest is, right?That's irrelevant and besides the point. I liked that analogy. I posted it on my facebook if you don't mind. :P As long as I get those royalty checks everything is A-OK :Pdk00111
I liked that analogy. I posted it on my facebook if you don't mind. :P As long as I get those royalty checks everything is A-OK :P Sure, just give me a bank account #, a credit card #, a Social Security #, and your name and I'll set it up. :P[QUOTE="dk00111"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] That's irrelevant and besides the point.-Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] the conduct of the middle eastern countries doesn't make it okay for the U.S. to act the way, since it's wrong for the middle eastern countries to act that way. Both the U.S. and the Middle East must respect fundamental human rights such as religious liberty.doom3lvagreed.. but you cannot use another nation's intolerance of religion as an excuse to be intolerant yourself when you nation is the one preaching tolerance.i agree with you. i was wrong. but i cant help it. when i read the news, and hear about how women are beaten, forced to wear the burka (dont listen to the they-do-it-by choice argument), and their noses cut off, stoned to death, i cant help but not want them in this country.
being Muslim, 23 years old, and raised in the most conservative Arab country there currently is (Saudi Arabia) where not only the laws but socially it is very conservative....
I can vouch for the "They do it by choice" argument...
mind you my sister and mother don't wear the hijab regularly. in Saudi they have to wear it in public, in private they don't. we cross the border to more liberal Bahrain or Kuwait and the hijabs come off. No one. not me, not my father, not my brothers, not my uncles, not my grandfather, not my great uncles are forcing them..
Only time you'd ever see my mother and sister wear hijab in America would be at Friday prayers at the Mosque, because it's customary clothing for women. granted for men it's whatever is your formal clothes, but you'd be surprised by how many Pakistani, Indians come in their native clothes, or Somalis come wearing their thobes.
my aunt in law, wear the hijab, niqab, and even the gloves, goes all the way over board. you could say 'she got religious' but my female cousins don't think the same way about it. but she has always insisted on wearing it, even if she wants to go visit my family in the USA, she's insisted on it. and my dad has told her she'd be making a bigger scene for herself if she went walking around USA like that, but she won't listen to us.
I don't agree with making laws to make religious practices compulsory at all. As i often tell people (Muslims in the American community, or in the Middle East). "What is the value of ones faith, if the law is designed to force people to do it..."
and there being a no-choice option, has no real bearing on whether a woman has to wear it or not in the religious text (The only explicit thing mentioned in the Quran is for women to cover their bosums). It has a lot more to do with a deeply patriarchal paternalistic culture of the Arabs. That will change - and i see it changing - with the advent of globalization and rising living standards.
[QUOTE="doom3lv"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] agreed.. but you cannot use another nation's intolerance of religion as an excuse to be intolerant yourself when you nation is the one preaching tolerance.SaudiFuryi agree with you. i was wrong. but i cant help it. when i read the news, and hear about how women are beaten, forced to wear the burka (dont listen to the they-do-it-by choice argument), and their noses cut off, stoned to death, i cant help but not want them in this country. being Muslim, 23 years old, and raised in the most conservative Arab country there currently is (Saudi Arabia) where not only the laws but socially it is very conservative.... I can vouch for the "They do it by choice" argument... mind you my sister and mother don't wear the hijab regularly. in Saudi they have to wear it in public, in private they don't. we cross the border to more liberal Bahrain or Kuwait and the hijabs come off. No one. not me, not my father, not my brothers, not my uncles, not my grandfather, not my great uncles are forcing them.. Only time you'd ever see my mother and sister wear hijab in America would be at Friday prayers at the Mosque, because it's customary clothing for women. granted for men it's whatever is your formal clothes, but you'd be surprised by how many Pakistani, Indians come in their native clothes, or Somalis come wearing their thobes. I don't agree with making laws to make religious practices compulsory at all. As i often tell people (Muslims in the American community, or in the Middle East). "What is the value of ones faith, if the law is designed to force people to do it..." and there being a no-choice option, has no real bearing on whether a woman has to wear it or not in the religious text (The only explicit thing mentioned in the Quran is for women to cover their bosums). It has a lot more to do with a deeply patriarchal paternalistic culture of the Arabs. That will change - and i see it changing - with the advent of globalization and rising living standards. that is highly noble of you. but i think you would judge women who dont wear it. at least you would judge muslim women who chose not to wear it. i think it will depend on how you raise your kids. chances are you will tell them not worshipping the koran is wrong and women must treat men as their superior.
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] since when did I say Islam oppresses women? Also it's not really banning gay marriage and adoption since it does not make them crimes, it only defines marriage one way. Also I would say in adoption the good of the children comes before any "rights" of the prospective "parents".
whipassmt
I never said you did, but you directly replied to a post that replied to someone saying that. :|
And yes, it is banning.
to prohibit, forbid, or bar
And there really arn't any credible studies I've seen that show children have it better being in orphanages than with gay parents. Almost all of the anti-gay movement seems to be composed of religious fundamentalists. I haven't met alot of anti-gay atheists. refusing to endorse something is not the same as banning it. And as for children being raised with two dads or two moms, I imagine they would face considerable teasing among other things, not to mention being deprived of a dad or a mom. Also we have to take into consideration that when gay marriage/adoption is legalized these religious institutions are sometimes forced to cooperate with it- for instance Catholic Charities in Massachussetts was forced to shut down it's adoption clinic by the gov't because they wouldn't adopt to gay couples.
Also just because someone opposes the homosexual inclination does not mean that they oppose the people who have such an inclination. In fact, many people with such attractions do indeed resist and oppose the attraction.
....Working actively to stop homosexual couples from marrying or adopting is basically the definition of oppose. To be against and work against something, which many churches do (rallying their people. Donating money to campaigns).
Again, I have seen no valid data that correlates that children of homosexual couples are worse off. Children will be teased about everything.
No church is forced to marry homosexual couples.
Trying to work actively so a certain group has less rights than another. That seems pretty clearly oppression. Spin it any way you like.
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"][QUOTE="doom3lv"]oh i care about it alright. i just dont want them abused by people from the middle east. doom3lv
Am I the only one seeing parallels with this and arguements for segregation years ago?
Also you are using some faulty logic. Not all muslims are from the middle east. There are white muslims, black muslims, asian muslims. There are muslims whose entire family have been here for a century. You are assuming all muslims apparently got on a boat and sailed over here after 9/11.
Here is a question. What do you think should be done about Islam in America? And please be specific. No vague "We shouldn't give into their demands!" or anything. If you were in charge, what would you do about it?
muslims in america are fine. i just dont want mosques and when i go out in the city, i dont want to see women in burkas. . it scares me to think one day america will turn into a muslim nation.And I'm sure some don't want to see churches or see you wearing a cross. We can't all have our ways.
yeah. i dont like them. which is why obama is not getting my vote this time. he went to a muslim country and declared that america is not a christian country. nothing wrong in itself. but would someone from the middle east come to america and say their country is not a muslim country and everyone would be treated equally? dont think so. doom3lv
America is not a christian country. It is not a theocracy. The government is forbidden from making an offical religion. There for we are not a christian country.
[QUOTE="SaudiFury"][QUOTE="doom3lv"]i agree with you. i was wrong. but i cant help it. when i read the news, and hear about how women are beaten, forced to wear the burka (dont listen to the they-do-it-by choice argument), and their noses cut off, stoned to death, i cant help but not want them in this country.doom3lvbeing Muslim, 23 years old, and raised in the most conservative Arab country there currently is (Saudi Arabia) where not only the laws but socially it is very conservative.... I can vouch for the "They do it by choice" argument... mind you my sister and mother don't wear the hijab regularly. in Saudi they have to wear it in public, in private they don't. we cross the border to more liberal Bahrain or Kuwait and the hijabs come off. No one. not me, not my father, not my brothers, not my uncles, not my grandfather, not my great uncles are forcing them.. Only time you'd ever see my mother and sister wear hijab in America would be at Friday prayers at the Mosque, because it's customary clothing for women. granted for men it's whatever is your formal clothes, but you'd be surprised by how many Pakistani, Indians come in their native clothes, or Somalis come wearing their thobes. I don't agree with making laws to make religious practices compulsory at all. As i often tell people (Muslims in the American community, or in the Middle East). "What is the value of ones faith, if the law is designed to force people to do it..." and there being a no-choice option, has no real bearing on whether a woman has to wear it or not in the religious text (The only explicit thing mentioned in the Quran is for women to cover their bosums). It has a lot more to do with a deeply patriarchal paternalistic culture of the Arabs. That will change - and i see it changing - with the advent of globalization and rising living standards. that is highly noble of you. but i think you would judge women who dont wear it. at least you would judge muslim women who chose not to wear it. i think it will depend on how you raise your kids. chances are you will tell them not worshipping the koran is wrong and women must treat men as their superior. Ironic after i just told you my own sister and mother don't wear the hijab all the time. would that not be hypocritical of me to judge OTHER non-related Muslim women who opt to not wear the hijab? I was raised by a mother who was a former Lutheran, I got to study the Quran (won awards for it as well), and i have a Bible, Torah (english), and a Catholic Catechism (sp). I will raise my children to be Muslim as best as i can, but with an open mind like i was tought as well. but if they came to me said "baba, i think i'm gay yeah i'd have a hard time getting used to that reality, but i neither have the gall' nor the heart to disown my own children. or if they came to me when they're adults and they gave me a well reason'd why they were going to Athiest or a Christian or whatever. yeah, other people (namely my parents) would see that as a failure on my part to properly bestow on them Islam. but i can't help that fact, if the child really knows what he/she is talking about then they've made their decision.
[QUOTE="doom3lv"]yeah. i dont like them. which is why obama is not getting my vote this time. he went to a muslim country and declared that america is not a christian country. nothing wrong in itself. but would someone from the middle east come to america and say their country is not a muslim country and everyone would be treated equally? dont think so. Pixel-Pirate
America is not a christian country. It is not a theocracy. The government is forbidden from making an offical religion. There for we are not a christian country.
Only on paper and formally. You might as well be.
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
[QUOTE="doom3lv"]yeah. i dont like them. which is why obama is not getting my vote this time. he went to a muslim country and declared that america is not a christian country. nothing wrong in itself. but would someone from the middle east come to america and say their country is not a muslim country and everyone would be treated equally? dont think so. Espada12
America is not a christian country. It is not a theocracy. The government is forbidden from making an offical religion. There for we are not a christian country.
Only on paper and formally. You might as well be.
If we were a christian nation, we wouldn't allow abortions, allow divorce, allow people to work on the sabbath, allow people to practice other religions, allow non0christian places of worship to be built, allow pornography. Christianity would be taught as fact in schools as well.
I also think they should compromise and put it somewhere else. Just a couple questions need to be asked. Why exactly do they need to put it there? And why did they even do so KNOWING the current state of American society and especially hatred toward muslims? It seems as though they are simply doing it to provoke others and no other reason.
If we were a christian nation, we wouldn't allow abortions, allow divorce, allow people to work on the sabbath, allow people to practice other religions, allow non0christian places of worship to be built, allow pornography. Christianity would be taught as fact in schools as well.
Pixel-Pirate
How many non-christians have been elected to the office with the people's knowledge of his lack of faith or his other faith?
Here's a little thought experiment. A Catholic church is being built down the street from an elementary school, where a few of the students who attend said school are victims of being sexually abused by a Catholic priest who has absolutely no connection to the aforementioned church that is being built besides the fact that he is Catholic. The local community is outraged by the construction of the church and demands that it be built somewhere else. Is the local community guilty of bigotry towards Catholics or are the people behind the construction of this church guilty of insensitivity? Which party is in the wrong?
-Sun_Tzu-
I'll start by stating that I am a devout Roman Catholic, so perhaps I am biased on the matter. I think that it would possibly be a degree of both insensitivity by those whom wish to build their place of worship and bigotry/ignorance by those whom oppose the building. I find bigotry to be in the wrong, and insensitivity not to be so. The sensitivity concerns expressed by those who oppose the mosque/hypothetical church seem to be unintentionally (or so I hope...) misdirected towards those not responsible in any way for previous misdeeds of others. As I find the basis for the sensitivity of those in opposition to construction to be somewhat less than rational, I think that being insensitive towards those concerns is ultimately justified.
Moving on to a slightly separate area of discussion, regardless of which party is in the wrong from that point of view, I would defend the legal right for both the mosque and the church to be built. I think that this matter is without any reasonable doubt falls under the freedom of religion. The freedom to practice one's faith where they wish should be defended, bigotry or justified sensitivity. I could go into the arguments by which I have arrived at this point of view, but it would take pages to develop, and I doubt that you disagree.\, so I'll rest my case.
This was an interesting perspective on the issue that I hadn't thought of before. Fortunately, my opinion didn't need to change from that analogy. I get this feeling that the post was directed at Snipes.
[QUOTE="doom3lv"]its good to know they arent even thinking about it or even feel mildly guilty.gaming25Why should they? What is there to be "guilty" about? Let me put it this way. If I am a muslim and 9/11 happened someone claimed they did it in the name of true islam, I would take a closer look at islam and possibly question my allegiance to that religion.
muslims seem to believe that their religion is above and beyond criticism.
it isn't.
[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="doom3lv"]its good to know they arent even thinking about it or even feel mildly guilty.doom3lvWhy should they? What is there to be "guilty" about? Let me put it this way. If I am a muslim and 9/11 happened someone claimed they did it in the name of true islam, I would take a closer look at islam and possibly question my allegiance to that religion.
muslims seem to believe that their religion is above and beyond criticism.
it isn't.
Stay on topic. This is 9 years after 9/11 about a community center being build 3 blocks away from ground zero.
[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="doom3lv"]its good to know they arent even thinking about it or even feel mildly guilty.doom3lvWhy should they? What is there to be "guilty" about? Let me put it this way. If I am a muslim and 9/11 happened someone claimed they did it in the name of true islam, I would take a closer look at islam and possibly question my allegiance to that religion.
muslims seem to believe that their religion is above and beyond criticism.
it isn't. So if I go out, shoot up a few schools, blow up some buildings, and poisoned the water of NYC, and came out and claimed I did it in the name of "true Christianity", would you question your allegiance to Christianity? I'm not seeing your point here...
Let me put it this way. If I am a muslim and 9/11 happened someone claimed they did it in the name of true islam, I would take a closer look at islam and possibly question my allegiance to that religion.[QUOTE="doom3lv"][QUOTE="gaming25"] Why should they? What is there to be "guilty" about?dk00111
muslims seem to believe that their religion is above and beyond criticism.
it isn't. So if I go out, shoot up a few schools, blow up some buildings, and poisoned the water of NYC, and came out and claimed I did it in the name of "true Christianity", would you question your allegiance to Christianity? I'm not seeing your point here...You? Obviously not. If a devout Christian did, yeah. I would. No doubt about it. I would look into the faith and see if my trust is misplaced.
Something the muslims never even consider.
Oh wait, there are 1 billion people practicing the religion. Well if majority was always right, we would still have slavery wouldn't we?
[QUOTE="dk00111"]So if I go out, shoot up a few schools, blow up some buildings, and poisoned the water of NYC, and came out and claimed I did it in the name of "true Christianity", would you question your allegiance to Christianity? I'm not seeing your point here...You? Obviously not. If a devout Christian did, yeah. I would. No doubt about it. I would look into the faith and see if my trust is misplaced.[QUOTE="doom3lv"] Let me put it this way. If I am a muslim and 9/11 happened someone claimed they did it in the name of true islam, I would take a closer look at islam and possibly question my allegiance to that religion.
muslims seem to believe that their religion is above and beyond criticism.
it isn't.doom3lv
Something the muslims never even consider.
Oh wait, there are 1 billion people practicing the religion. Well if majority was always right, we would still have slavery wouldn't we?
His point is that it is the the person's responsibility if they did those things, not the religion's.
You? Obviously not. If a devout Christian did, yeah. I would. No doubt about it. I would look into the faith and see if my trust is misplaced.[QUOTE="doom3lv"][QUOTE="dk00111"] So if I go out, shoot up a few schools, blow up some buildings, and poisoned the water of NYC, and came out and claimed I did it in the name of "true Christianity", would you question your allegiance to Christianity? I'm not seeing your point here...
gaming25
Something the muslims never even consider.
Oh wait, there are 1 billion people practicing the religion. Well if majority was always right, we would still have slavery wouldn't we?
His point is that it is the the person's responsibility if they did those things, not the religion's.
Guns don't kill, people do, so lets not regulate guns. Its the responsibility of the person, right? Its not the guns fault. So why regulate?Same logic. Its obvious something about this religion is making some people go homicidal. So I am saying, take a closer look at it and the people who practice it.
[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="doom3lv"]You? Obviously not. If a devout Christian did, yeah. I would. No doubt about it. I would look into the faith and see if my trust is misplaced.
Something the muslims never even consider.
Oh wait, there are 1 billion people practicing the religion. Well if majority was always right, we would still have slavery wouldn't we?doom3lv
His point is that it is the the person's responsibility if they did those things, not the religion's.
Guns don't kill, people do, so lets not regulate guns. Its the responsibility of the person, right? Its not the guns fault. So why regulate?Same logic. Its obvious something about this religion is making some people go homicidal. So I am saying, take a closer look at it and the people who practice it.
People have, and muslim faith does not condone suicide attackers.
Two things that we can compare.
Mosque at Ground Zero - Church near Elementry School
Some catholic priests sexually abused some children, sure but does that mean the religion says so? no, does that mean you should punish another catholic person by not allowing to build a church near a school? no.... (I didn't mean to offend anyone)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment