toldailytopic: How do you feel about building a mosque at ground zero?

[Nick_A]

Again, not the topic and not my argument.

Rather, your inability to actually demonstrate it. Now about those Muslims you keep avoiding...

You're a saint you are...patron saint of kindly elevator excursions.

And a master at defending against the unattempted attack. lain:

Feel good? Principles can and should give you satisfaction, but I'd hardly describe them that way.

Rather, it says one thing and you interpret another in keeping with your bias driven nonsense.

No one is talking about Ground Zero on this issue absent a rather creative manipulation of its meaning.

Still struggling with civil discourse I see. Noting that your self glorifying example isn't much of anything only demonstrates my lack of compassion for absurdity paraded as virtue aimed at undermining real virtue, you silly English pig-dog.

:chuckle: Again, it isn't about rights so this ham fisted attempt to turn it back to the issue no one disagrees on is so much hooey.

In order: my arguments have nothing to do with "feel good" measures, there's no such animal as this ongoing and sad intellectualism envy draped in New Age nonsense, and you are a living, breathing illustration of silly.

They were killed by terrorists who claimed Islam--just as some abortion clinics here were bombed by terrorists who claimed Christianity.

Taking your errors in order: no entitlement is sought or given, given the construction is being funded by its builders; the number of stories is immaterial; the reasonableness of that reaction and what it says about us is entirely the point and why I'm arguing for a less emotional, less forgetful (see: those Muslims) constriction of our respect and focus on where that should lead us, following our long established principles as Americans. A pity your bias won't let you see it.

Hysterically hypocritical nonsense coming from a man who had to be dragged into any consideration of victims that didn't support his mindset and then only to sneer a bit.

Political overtones are inescapable in a cultural event within the republic. Values play into but aren't established by it. Instead, the debate reflects the sort and quality of the values brought into consideration. And that's a good thing.

Again, not the topic and not my argument.

You don't have an argument. All you do is spout righteous indignation that people could remember 911 and not want a political Sharia mosque and cultural center pushing Sharia law at Ground Zero.

Rather, your inability to actually demonstrate it. Now about those Muslims you keep avoiding...

What are they being deprived of? There are mosques in the vicinity.

You're a saint you are...patron saint of kindly elevator excursions.

No, I'm a hero of the geriatric set. I allow them to be happy for an hour as they live with so much depression around them. It is something you couldn't understand.

And a master at defending against the unattempted attack.

Yes, the elderly often battle shadows. You would condemn them. I don't.

Feel good? Principles can and should give you satisfaction, but I'd hardly describe them that way.

There is no other logical way to explain your feel good principles. You are so caught up in New Age critical thinking that you no longer differentiate between fantasy and reality. You just create your own reality.

Rather, it says one thing and you interpret another in keeping with your bias driven nonsense.

No. Interfaith is the process of justifying the wretched man. From wiki.

The terms interfaith or interfaith dialogue refer to cooperative and positive interaction between people of different religious traditions (i.e., "faiths") and spiritual or humanistic beliefs, at both the individual and institutional level with the aim of deriving a common ground in belief through a concentration on similarities between faiths, understanding of values, and commitment to the world.

In other words it is the interaction of people unable to fathom the depth of their own faith, BSing about wishful thinking and feel good platitudes.

The best thing about it is that it often attracts some gullible women worth enticing into the sack with platitudes.

No one is talking about Ground Zero on this issue absent a rather creative manipulation of its meaning.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China. You cannot appreciate a horrific event as an event without thinking of how to manipulate it.

Still struggling with civil discourse I see. Noting that your self glorifying example isn't much of anything only demonstrates my lack of compassion for absurdity paraded as virtue aimed at undermining real virtue, you silly English pig-dog.

No. It means you are unaware of anything but your imagined self importance.

Again, it isn't about rights so this ham fisted attempt to turn it back to the issue no one disagrees on is so much hooey.

So if it isn't about rights or consideration what is it about?

In order: my arguments have nothing to do with "feel good" measures, there's no such animal as this ongoing and sad intellectualism envy draped in New Age nonsense, and you are a living, breathing illustration of silly.

Of course they do. You live in fantasy because you are so caught up in fantasizing rather than witnessing. It is a common problem and why everything is as it is.

"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity." Simone Weil

Since you are incapable of this quality of attention by having sacrificed it to your version of New Age critical thinking, you cannot witness. The essence of religion serves to allow a person to become capable of objective witnessing. You openly deny it in preference to flattering your egotism.

Taking your errors in order: no entitlement is sought or given, given the construction is being funded by its builders; the number of stories is immaterial; the reasonableness of that reaction and what it says about us is entirely the point and why I'm arguing for a less emotional, less forgetful (see: those Muslims) constriction of our respect and focus on where that should lead us, following our long established principles as Americans. A pity your bias won't let you see it.

No, funding will come from overseas. One hundred million won't come from passing the hat. Your tax dollars are paying for Inam Rauf to raise funds from overseas visits.

Again, you want to interpret with this New Age fantasy of yours. Inam Rauf says he wants to build bridges and you are so naive that he is selling you the Brooklyn bridge.

It isn't a matter of being less emotional but being astute enough to recognize the motives for building the mosque and by becoming capable of consideraion for others. It won't come from your fantasies.

Hysterically hypocritical nonsense coming from a man who had to be dragged into any consideration of victims that didn't support his mindset and then only to sneer a bit.

What does this mosque provide for a minority that trumps the needs of those that suffered 911 to move the mosque to another location?

Political overtones are inescapable in a cultural event within the republic. Values play into but aren't established by it. Instead, the debate reflects the sort and quality of the values brought into consideration. And that's a good thing.

That is your trouble. You cannot witness a moment and learn from it. You have to turn to politics and some sort of New Age empty platitudes that deny reality.

For some reason you have yet to come up with a good reason why the builders insist on building at a site on Ground Zero where a building was destroyed during the attack. They may have the right to build but why do it? What happened to all the bridge building? Wouldn't it be a show of good faith to move the mosque to another site in the spirit of unity?

How does your New Age critical thinking answer that basic question?

 

[Nick_A]

I don't think the feds should intervene to stop the mosque being built either, but I know Obama has been criticized for his non-handling of the situation. I just don't think that makes sense if you don't believe this is a federal matter. I'm glad we agree on that much.



What end? What means?



Wait...stripping our government of power to coerce religious devotion leaves people at risk of political manipulation? That seems backwards. And if you don't want a secular government, what do you want?

What end? What means?

There are many aims. Take Zakat for example. American law made it hard to contribute to terrorism. Yet Zakat is a duty of Muslims. Obama then seeks to allow for Zakat and funding terrorism. The end (Sharia compliance) justifies the means.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/blog/2009/06/obamas-zakat-vow-raises-troubling-questions

Wait...stripping our government of power to coerce religious devotion leaves people at risk of political manipulation? That seems backwards. And if you don't want a secular government, what do you want?

What the Constitution intended:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nick. For crying out loud can you drop it with Simone Weil and this 'new age critical thinking' crap? You're one to talk about 'ego' the way you persist with such a redundant perspective as if you're actually saying anything meaningful. You aren't.

lain:

 

[Nick_A]

Nick. For crying out loud can you drop it with Simone Weil and this 'new age critical thinking' crap? You're one to talk about 'ego' the way you persist with such a redundant perspective as if you're actually saying anything meaningful. You aren't.

lain:

You say this because you are so caught up in your ego that you are incapable, through the atrophy of your capacity for detached attention, of witnessing a moment.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You say this because you are so caught up in your ego that you are incapable, through the atrophy of your capacity for detached attention, of witnessing a moment.

No. I'm saying it because I'm tired of hearing you continually parrot a meaningless phrase as if it counts as argument. Come down off that pompous presumptive high horse and you may have some room to talk about ego.

 

[Nick_A]

No. I'm saying it because I'm tired of hearing you continually parrot a meaningless phrase as if it counts as argument. Come down off that pompous presumptive high horse and you may have some room to talk about ego.

I've never used that quote before. The point is that if people were capable of it, the considration it would inspire would not allow for the mosque. You cannot feel for the people and prefer to wallow in platitudes.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I've never used that quote before. The point is that if people were capable of it, the considration it would inspire would not allow for the mosque. You cannot feel for the people and prefer to wallow in platitudes.

I was referring to your 'new age critical thinking' mantra. Change the record. It is so booooooring.

:rain:

 

[Nick_A]

I was referring to your 'new age critical thinking' mantra. Change the record. It is so booooooring.

:rain:

Give me another expression that refers to the process of beginning with a fantasy conclusion and trying to use logic to defend it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Give me another expression that refers to the process of beginning with a fantasy conclusion and trying to use logic to defend it.

Nick_A's world view.

There ya go.

lain:

 

[The Barbarian]

SMAAAAAAACCCCKKKK!

 

[Town Heretic]

You don't have an argument.

See, when you write something like that all you do is call your reading comprehension into question...paralleling your more general comprehension then.

What are they being deprived of? There are mosques in the vicinity.

Didn't say they were being deprived. Didn't say there weren't mosques in the vicinity. Too bad you spend most of your time tackling issues that aren't really.

No, I'm a hero of the geriatric set.

:thumb: I'm glad to see you graduate from self praise by inference to mainlining. It's refreshingly honest of you.

I allow them to be happy for an hour as they live with so much depression around them.

Generous of you.

Yes, the elderly often battle shadows. You would condemn them. I don't.

Yeah, I spend most of my time condemning the elderly. Look, if you're going to insist on being a tool shouldn't you be able to fix something? :think:

There is no other logical way to explain your feel good principles.

Ah, your MO. Make something up you never actually support and then turn it into a catch phrase. :chuckle:

You are so caught up in New Age critical thinking

Now you're piling them on. Who knows. In time you might be able to cut and paste an entire paragraph of them while you're tackling issues unrelated to the point you're avoiding...

lain:

Re: N/A's interfaith take...

The best thing about it is that it often attracts some gullible women worth enticing into the sack with platitudes.

And, apparently, your personal conduct is in line with your language. No real surprise there. :nono:

No. It means you are unaware of anything but your imagined self importance.

Said the only one of us to call himself a hero while championing the overdog.

...It isn't a matter of being less emotional but being astute enough to recognize the motives for building the mosque and by becoming capable of consideraion for others. It won't come from your fantasies.

I haven't speculated as to the motives here. That's your wheelhouse. There's a word for you...rhymes with time to quit. lain:

What happened to all the bridge building? Wouldn't it be a show of good faith to move the mosque to another site in the spirit of unity?

No. Because the linking of this mosque to that horror is a half step removed from the sort of overly broad and unthinking nonsense that is the foundation of bigotry and lamentable bias. It is as undeserving of our respect as the victims, Muslim, Christian and others, are deserving of our compassion.

 

[kmoney]

It's lovely to see all these arguments against the mosque get obliterated.

:straight:

 

[Nick_A]

I asked TH this question knowing that he wouldn't answer it. There is no way to answer it in a coherent fashion without admitting that it is nothing but a political power play. His fantasies will not even allow him to consider it.

Apparently no one else here can either and instead prefer silliness while referring to those directly suffering of a national tragedy.

For some reason you have yet to come up with a good reason why the builders insist on building at a site on Ground Zero where a building was destroyed during the attack. They may have the right to build but why do it? What happened to all the bridge building? Wouldn't it be a show of good faith to move the mosque to another site in the spirit of unity? How does your New Age critical thinking answer that basic question?

 

[Squishes]

I asked TH this question knowing that he wouldn't answer it. There is no way to answer it in a coherent fashion without admitting that it is nothing but a political power play. His fantasies will not even allow him to consider it.

Apparently no one else here can either and instead prefer silliness while referring to those directly suffering of a national tragedy.

For some reason you have yet to come up with a good reason why the builders insist on building at a site on Ground Zero where a building was destroyed during the attack. They may have the right to build but why do it? What happened to all the bridge building? Wouldn't it be a show of good faith to move the mosque to another site in the spirit of unity? How does your New Age critical thinking answer that basic question?

It doesn't matter if it's bad taste. Bad taste is legal and should be.

 

[Nick_A]

It doesn't matter if it's bad taste. Bad taste is legal and should be.

It is more than bad taste. It is an obvious attempt to hurt American citizens that suffered the effects of 911 for political gain. The mosque site can easily be moved but than it wouldn't be hurtful. And since the political victory that includes hurting the innocent is of primary importance, the site will not be moved without a battle.

The good thing is that this anti-American victory, if it happens, will influence more people to vote these progressives out of office in November. Anyone capable of consideration will appreciate how dirty this is and know it is time to clean house.

 

[Town Heretic]

I asked TH this question knowing that he wouldn't answer it.

You haven't raised a single honest point dealing with the actual discussion that I've failed to answer. So we can add dishonesty to your other virtues...assuming that one was left out in anyone's mind by this point.

For some reason you have yet to come up with a good reason why the builders insist on building at a site on Ground Zero where a building was destroyed during the attack.

One: it isn't Ground Zero. That's a lie and I've dealt with you on it without any real response... The last time you answered with an inquiry regarding tea and the Orient. lain:

Secondly: the reason for their wanting to build isn't a mystery and has been set out. You reject its sincerity. Bully for you, but don't pretend there's been any silence on point.

They may have the right to build but why do it?

Why should they have to justify a thing you admit is their right to do? Rather, you should have to make a case as to why they shouldn't. The one you've tried to advance is horribly flawed and narrowed sensitivity to SOME of the victims of 911 who conflate Islam with the villains responsible, which is an irrational position that is an argument for therapy, not concession.

What happened to all the bridge building? Wouldn't it be a show of good faith to move the mosque to another site in the spirit of unity?

Asked and answered.

I omit the rest of your senseless parrot inquiry, since it presumes from a willfully ignorant foundation that will not hear an honest answer.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I asked TH this question knowing that he wouldn't answer it. There is no way to answer it in a coherent fashion without admitting that it is nothing but a political power play. His fantasies will not even allow him to consider it.

Apparently no one else here can either and instead prefer silliness while referring to those directly suffering of a national tragedy.

For some reason you have yet to come up with a good reason why the builders insist on building at a site on Ground Zero where a building was destroyed during the attack. They may have the right to build but why do it? What happened to all the bridge building? Wouldn't it be a show of good faith to move the mosque to another site in the spirit of unity? How does your New Age critical thinking answer that basic question?

Nick. Your questions have been answered, sawn in half, marinated in common sense and you still act as if you've actually made a point in objection with this 'new age critical thinking' nonsense. You're a humourless misrepresenting bore who doesn't know when to quit. I don't agree with TH on everything by any means but he's pulled you apart like a fly on valium here. What you think you're accomplishing is anyone's guess. It ain't much, except possibly to you, which again ain't much....

 

[Nick_A]

TH

You haven't raised a single honest point dealing with the actual discussion that I've failed to answer. So we can add dishonesty to your other virtues...assuming that one was left out in anyone's mind by this point.

This is typical of the irrationality of the blind believer. They attack in righteous indignation without any substance.

One: it isn't Ground Zero. That's a lie and I've dealt with you on it without any real response... The last time you answered with an inquiry regarding tea and the Orient.

What defines Ground Zero? It is not specific but must include that which is destroyed by an attack on a specific target. The proposed site for the Sharia mosque was made vacant by the destruction of the building that was destroyed by an attacking plane. That makes it part of Ground Zero.

Secondly: the reason for their wanting to build isn't a mystery and has been set out. You reject its sincerity. Bully for you, but don't pretend there's been any silence on point.

The question is twofold. the first part is the stated intent which of course is not the real motive. The second part is why it cannot be moved if the motive is bridge building? This is yet to be explained.

Why should they have to justify a thing you admit is their right to do? Rather, you should have to make a case as to why they shouldn't. The one you've tried to advance is horribly flawed and narrowed sensitivity to SOME of the victims of 911 who conflate Islam with the villains responsible, which is an irrational position that is an argument for therapy, not concession.

This is the essence of the situation. It cannot be explained to those like TH since they lack the heart to understand.

Asking the mosque to be moved to another site does not deprive anyone of anything other than the political satisfaction of having a Sharia mosque at Ground Zero.

The dispute is not with Islam since like Christianity and all the Great traditions it exists at different levels of reality. Why be against Rumi or the extraordinary Mulla Nasrudin? The problem is with the intended infliction of Sharia law on America which is the basis for attack. The Sharia mosque placed on top of Ground Zero is the symbol for increasing the influence of Sharia Law in the United States. That is the intent of the mosque at Ground Zero and the reason for resistance to the obvious call to move the mosque. To do so compromises the asserted victory at Ground Zero. Walid Shoebat was once a terrorists and knows the Sharia mindset. Take from him what you will.

http://www.shoebat.com/blog/archives/393

Asked and answered.

Obviously nothing is answered. All TH does is provide hysterics to defend a feel good position of Interfaith natural for the elitist blind believer. He has no comprehension of what those like Walid Shoebat do. Either that or he is in favor of the intent of the mosque which is furthering Sharia Law in the United States after a successful terrorist attack.

Is it any wonder why those having suffered the results of 911 resist the implementation of a building that serves to advance the cause of the attack on Ground Zero?

There are those that begin like TH but something makes them more aware. Susan Estrich is a good example. She began spouting the usual PC Interfaith BS but all of a sudden became aware of the reality of the big picture and a sensitivity to the human condition. she is an exception. Most just continue to spew the same PC nonsense.

Ground Zero Mosque a Memo on Tolerance
Friday, 20 Aug 2010 10:44 AM
Article Font Size
By: Susan Estrich

Recently, I found myself on Fox News defending the "ground zero mosque" before I'd fully thought it through. Truth be told, when someone called to set up the "hit," I thought they were talking about another mosque project I'd heard about on the radio.

So there I was, invoking the First Amendment, arguing that our enemy is terrorism, and that the only way we would ever win that fight is by gaining the support of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not our enemies and who we need to respect as friends. All true.

Then the mail started coming in. I don't need the latest Time poll to tell me that 60-plus percent of Americans are against the project. My e-mail told me that.

When I discussed it with my son later, he asked me whether I actually agreed with what I'd said on television, and the fact is that I do. Nothing I said was wrong in my book.

We can't make Islam our enemy, or we will find ourselves in a war that, frankly, terrifies me. So what's wrong with my position, and that of the president of the United States, who waded into the fight entirely of his own accord?

Just this: the convent at Auschwitz.

Some years ago, an order of nuns announced plans to build a convent at the infamous death camp, and a community I am very close to — the community of survivors and their children — strongly protested the plan. How could they? It wasn't a matter of "right."

Presumably, the nuns had as much right as anyone else to build a convent wherever they wanted. But for those who survived the Holocaust, and for those of us who are committed to preserving the memory of the millions who were lost, building a convent on the site was just not appropriate.

It wasn't about being anti-Catholic. I'm not anti-Catholic. It wasn't because I'm still smarting from what Pope Pius XII might have done but didn't. I don't want to rehearse the history of anti-Semitism, play blame games, or fan flames of mutual distrust. It just seemed very clear that of all the places on the planet to build a convent, Auschwitz shouldn't be one.

The Nazis who chose to march in Skokie, Ill., some years ago precisely because so many survivors lived there assuredly had the First Amendment right to do so. But what a hostile, negative and cruel thing to do, reinforcing yet again — as if any reinforcement were needed — just what kind of people they are.

The presence of a mosque two blocks from ground zero, in the home of a former Burlington Coat factory, clearly strikes many of those who lost loved ones on that horrible day in the same way that the convent at Auschwitz struck me. It doesn't mean that Islam is our enemy. It's not a matter of right.

Tolerance is a two-way street.

The Time poll also found that 1 in 4 Americans thinks Barack Obama is a Muslim, slightly less than the percentage of people who think a Muslim should not be allowed to be president.

Clearly, we have a long way to go on both sides of the street.


© Creators Syndicate Inc.

Susan Estrich found a way to "understand." She is the exception to the elitist mindset. But still, a welcome exception. She became capable of feeling for others outside of her normal psychological limits. It seems easy in theory but as we have seen, difficult in practice when spouting feel good platitudes is so attractive.

 

[Town Heretic]

...This is typical of the irrationality of the blind believer. They attack in righteous indignation without any substance.

Unsubstantiated drivel and, worse, cut and pasted drivel to boot. :think: Though maybe you could start a cottage industry...if there's a market for canned drivel outside of talk radio.

What defines Ground Zero?

It was initially used to describe "that part of the ground situated immediately under an exploding bomb, especially an atomic one" in the wake of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After 9/11 its use was expanded to reference the place where the World Trade Center towers stood.

It is not specific but must include that which is destroyed by an attack on a specific target.

No, but you'd have a problem even then, since the building was damaged, not destroyed and is being used.

The question is twofold. the first part is the stated intent which of course is not the real motive. The second part is why it cannot be moved if the motive is bridge building? This is yet to be explained.

Rather, the question is why should it be rationally opposed and moved at all.

This is the essence of the situation. It cannot be explained to those like TH since they lack the heart to understand.

Do you throw confetti into the air when you self celebrate like this? :think: I think I liked it better when you cut out the middle man and sang your praises more directly, like when you called yourself a hero...but that's just me. Maybe this is the best way to display your humility as well. :chuckle:

Asking the mosque to be moved to another site does not deprive anyone of anything other than the political satisfaction of having a Sharia mosque at Ground Zero.

That's wrong, since it kowtows to an impulse that denigrates their faith by confusing it with the villainy of those who brought down the WTC towers.

The dispute is not with Islam since like Christianity and all the Great traditions it exists at different levels of reality.

Forgetting your overreaching nonsense at the end, if true there's no reason at all to ask them to move and every reason to encourage them to build.

...The Sharia mosque placed on top of Ground Zero

Which it isn't.

is the symbol for increasing the influence of Sharia Law in the United States.

No and the vast majority aren't objecting to it on anything like those grounds. So we come to it. You don't give a fig for anyone's sensitivity. You're at this over your own issues and are willing to use the greater clamor to advance them, which explains your insensitivity to the Muslims who perished on 9/11 neatly enough. Their cause doesn't align with your actual motivation....

Fraud. Here you go again.

Obviously nothing is answered. All TH does is provide hysterics to defend a feel good position of Interfaith natural for the elitist blind believer

You need a better education or dictionary and an argument wouldn't hurt either. oly:

There are those that begin like TH but something makes them more aware.

He said, as his arm grew even stronger for the indirect patting of his own back.

Susan Estrich is a good example. She began spouting the usual PC Interfaith [redacted profanity]

You have a foul mouth and a mean posture and that's about the whole of it. No, she just lost her nerve along with her ability to understand the distinction between the two examples.

Tolerance may be a two way street, but what is being suggested promotes the antithesis of tolerance, is the enemy of those who can distinguish between an aberration and the rule.

Susan Estrich found a way to "understand."

Rather, she almost understood, which is more than can be said for you, even if her failure is as useless for all that.

 

[kmoney]

I asked TH this question knowing that he wouldn't answer it. There is no way to answer it in a coherent fashion without admitting that it is nothing but a political power play. His fantasies will not even allow him to consider it.

Apparently no one else here can either and instead prefer silliness while referring to those directly suffering of a national tragedy.

For some reason you have yet to come up with a good reason why the builders insist on building at a site on Ground Zero where a building was destroyed during the attack. They may have the right to build but why do it? What happened to all the bridge building? Wouldn't it be a show of good faith to move the mosque to another site in the spirit of unity? How does your New Age critical thinking answer that basic question?

Why build bridges when moving the mosque would be building it to people who can't differentiate between the terrorists who attacked us and the non-extremists who are behind this mosque and cultural center?

You have been talking a lot about the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them to unto you. How about this one: I wouldn't want to be asked to do something because people are prejudiced against me due to their inability to separate me from terrorists. lain: