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

[Nick_A]

See how you are not even staying on topic? You say the victims of 911 are ONE. I said they are not ONE; rather they are individuals, some of who support this mosque. Then accuse me of using them for political advantage.:hammer:

Should the families/victims of 911 who support this mosque be considered or not?



Speculation on anyone's part who says so. Show me this "riots and killings" quote so I at least know what you are referring to.



No. I am sure they can conceive many things. It was originally going to be condos. We agree that the developers can make condos or an Islamic community center if that is what they chose to do.



Very good. Now explain the relevance of your poll.



What freedoms were lost? What laws were increased? Speaking of The Constitution, guess who it defends?



The judge was wrong. The ruling was overturned. I guess everything is alright after all. This means that Sharia is taking over the US? I don't see the connection. Is there a slippery slope somewhere that you're worried about?


Yes, I think he does. What makes you think he doesn't?

No, I do not think that he does. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise? I have seen convincing evidence that he wants to be the imam of an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan. That's about it though.



Or....Extremists will have more trouble recruiting because moderates can point at how America does not discriminate against Muslims. We already know you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist, so of course you will side with the most sensational scenario you can imagine.

Let me ask you this. If you were an Army Ranger in Afghanistan, doing your best to make friends with the local Islamic population or at least gaining their trust enough to believe that they won't try to ambush you and kill you, would you want this mosque built?



He's entitled to his opinion. If I find someone who "grew up with all this" and feels the opposite, then what? You're stuck on this popular opinion thing.

9 out of 10 people prefer new honey mustard Wheaties cereal. I didn't care for it.



Maybe because they are also a legitimately elected government. We spread the democracy, it's hypocritical to whine about the results. Why don't you denounce the IDF as a terror organization? Not saying you should, but why haven't you?



He said that? Link please.


:doh:
Are you so immature that you think some commentary from answering-islam.org says anything about this imam in New York? If I find a website that says all Christians are liars, then that proves that you're a liar, right?

All you saw were the words "Muslim" or "Islam" and you go into automated mode; dropping links from articles you found on the ol' web. You've got a lot to learn about source material and fallacious arguments.

When is amateur hour going to be over?



And, courageous?



Yes. She would. Your turn.

What do you think mysticism is?



All I originally said was "grow up and begin to think for yourself" and saying so resulted in you labeling me an advocate of "New Age critical thinking".

Do you think for yourself?



New Age critical thinker! You do think for yourself!

You are a New Age critical thinker?. Do we join a club now or something?



Or real estate development :idunno:



I guess you're moving up in the world. Yay for you for being verified. Throwing a party?



Well! Getting verified is already paying dividends I guess. Wink wink. What's the young ladies name?



Maybe a second date would be a good place to start.

See how you are not even staying on topic? You say the victims of 911 are ONE. I said they are not ONE; rather they are individuals, some of who support this mosque. Then accuse me of using them for political advantage.

Should the families/victims of 911 who support this mosque be considered or not?

I would say that the Golden Rule demands Ground Zero be free of political agendas. You say that the demand by a minority for this political cultural center with a swimming pool in it is more important than the lack of sensitivity and respect for the dead it represents to the majority. That is our difference.

Speculation on anyone's part who says so. Show me this "riots and killings" quote so I at least know what you are referring to.

Rauf said more than once that the issue about what to do with the mosque is important for national security. Imam Bridge Builder warns us numerous times that the 15 story Islamic supremacist mega mosque at Ground Zero is now a "national security issue."


"If we don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world," Rauf said. "... If we don't handle this crisis correctly, it could become something very dangerous indeed."

This crisis could become much bigger than the Danish Cartoon crisis which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world [and hundreds of non-Muslims were slaughtered.

He said again that if he knew ahead of time the controversy this would create, he wouldn't have made the plans to build the center at the currently planned site.

Basically he is saying that the Muslim people are too backwards to accept a simple statement by Imam Rauf that he made a mistake and wasn't aware how sensitive the issue is to other Americans. He cannot say tht in the spirit of peace, he will voluntarily move the mosque as a demonstration of good faith in the spirit of bridge building. I have more faith in the Muslim people.

Do you believe the Muslim people are incapable of honoring a simple recognition of the sufferings of others?

Very good. Now explain the relevance of your poll.

The relevance is that enough people are willing to oppose a cultural center that serves as a token of victory to those wishing to further Sharia law.

What freedoms were lost? What laws were increased? Speaking of The Constitution, guess who it defends?

I'm not going to itemize how the government has acquired more power in America. If you don't believe it has, you are wrong.

Yes, I think he does. What makes you think he doesn't?

The agenda is important, you are not. You can be replaced, the agenda cannot in their eyes. It is the same in the United States now with the Alinsky agenda

No, I do not think that he does. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise? I have seen convincing evidence that he wants to be the imam of an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan. That's about it though.

I cannot translate Arabic but have no reason to doubt Walid Shoebat and his translations. It makes perfect sense.

http://www.aspenpost.net/2010/08/24/ground-zero-iman-and-shariah-law/

Or....Extremists will have more trouble recruiting because moderates can point at how America does not discriminate against Muslims. We already know you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist, so of course you will side with the most sensational scenario you can imagine.

Let me ask you this. If you were an Army Ranger in Afghanistan, doing your best to make friends with the local Islamic population or at least gaining their trust enough to believe that they won't try to ambush you and kill you, would you want this mosque built?

It just means that you believe Muslims are incapable of human consideration. As such, a simple voluntary pledge to move the mosque in the spirit of unity, peace, and human consideration is impossible for the Islamic community to comprehend but must lead to violence.

9 out of 10 people prefer new honey mustard Wheaties cereal. I didn't care for it.

It means that you are honeymustardophobic. It is nothing proper education cannot cure.

Maybe because they are also a legitimately elected government.

That is not to say it isn't a terrorist organization. I believe it is and you believe it isn't.

He said that? Link please.

Who needs a link for the obvious. Once everyone accept Imam Rauf's modern version of Sharia law, then peace is established. What is more obvious?

Are you so immature that you think some commentary from answering-islam.org says anything about this imam in New York? If I find a website that says all Christians are liars, then that proves that you're a liar, right?

Yes. A Christian first accepts that they are the wretched man and guilty of inner lies. We are sinners. It is the nature of the human condition.

All you saw were the words "Muslim" or "Islam" and you go into automated mode; dropping links from articles you found on the ol' web. You've got a lot to learn about source material and fallacious arguments.

Which of the four allowable lies do you disagree with?

What do you think mysticism is?

Mysticism is the conscious experience of higher realities. Fantasy is the result of imagination taking the place of consciousness.

All I originally said was "grow up and begin to think for yourself" and saying so resulted in you labeling me an advocate of "New Age critical thinking".

All agenda driven people are advocates of New Age critical thinking. New Age doesn't mean it is anything really new. It is an ancient human naffliction. As has been said, conscious humanity would be incapable of war. New Age critical thinking is what justifies the continuing cycles of war and peace.

Do you think for yourself?

This is what my path demands.

Maybe a second date would be a good place to start.

It cannot hurt.

A neighbour came to the gate of Mulla Nasreddin's yard. The Mulla went to meet him outside.
"Would you mind, Mulla," the neighbour asked, "lending me your donkey today? I have some goods to transport to the next town."
The Mulla didn't feel inclined to lend out the animal to that particular man, however. So, not to seem rude, he answered:
"I'm sorry, but I've already lent him to somebody else."
All of a sudden the donkey could be heard braying loudly behind the wall of the yard.
"But Mulla," the neighbour exclaimed. "I can hear it behind that wall!"
"Who do you believe," the Mulla replied indignantly. "The donkey or your Mulla?"

This is our difference. You believe the Imam and I believe the donkey.

 

[Nick_A]

That's absurd. Enabling an ignorant paranoia and treating it as though it were virtuous isn't a sign of compassion; it's a sign of something less desirable.

That is our difference. If a girl were raped and wary of white men, you would call her paranoic. I would respect her sensitivites and prove my good intentions.

It reminds me of an old Internet friend I never met in person. She worked as a pastoral assistant on an Indian reservation in the Northwest. The Indians hated the whites and for good reason. Alcoholism was rampant and the young were dying from suicide and alcohol. An important man to the Indians lost a son to suicide. He came to pray. He saw her there and glared. She just stood behind with bowed head. After a while he motioned to her to come forward. He said "You are different. You are without color." She remained and supported him.

You cannot understand people like this because they put the needs of another first before their rights. You would think him paranoic and worthy of condemnation. I think highly of her.

 

[Silent Hunter]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 16th, 2010 11:23 AM

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

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

A mosque should not be built near Ground 0 . . . neither should a Christian church . . . oops . . . too late . . .

 

[WizardofOz]

I would say that the Golden Rule demands Ground Zero be free of political agendas. You say that the demand by a minority for this political cultural center with a swimming pool in it is more important than the lack of sensitivity and respect for the dead it represents to the majority. That is our difference.

Again you simply side with the majority as if that is a good reason to make a decision. You do see how you keep doing that, right?

You support the bigger mob. I support the rule of law. That is our difference.

Rauf said more than once that the issue about what to do with the mosque is important for national security. Imam Bridge Builder warns us numerous times that the 15 story Islamic supremacist mega mosque at Ground Zero is now a "national security issue."

"If we don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world," Rauf said. "... If we don't handle this crisis correctly, it could become something very dangerous indeed."

Ah, so he didn't say anything about riots or killings. I like the embellishment for added drama, it's so.....you.

This crisis could become much bigger than the Danish Cartoon crisis which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world [and hundreds of non-Muslims were slaughtered.

Could? Sure. Being vague makes it easy to not be wrong.

He said again that if he knew ahead of time the controversy this would create, he wouldn't have made the plans to build the center at the currently planned site.

So, I guess he is somewhat empathetic.

Basically he is saying that the Muslim people are too backwards to accept a simple statement by Imam Rauf that he made a mistake and wasn't aware how sensitive the issue is to other Americans.

No, that's not what he is "basically saying". I like your active imagination though.

He cannot say tht in the spirit of peace, he will voluntarily move the mosque as a demonstration of good faith in the spirit of bridge building. I have more faith in the Muslim people.

He doesn't own the building.

Do you believe the Muslim people are incapable of honoring a simple recognition of the sufferings of others?

Of course not. See how the actions of a few terrorists have tainted your view of every Muslim? See how the decision of 2 men in New York have further tainted this view? Your reasoning is fallacious.

The relevance is that enough people are willing to oppose a cultural center that serves as a token of victory to those wishing to further Sharia law.

The number of people opposed is not relevant and Sharia law has nothing to do with anything.

I'm not going to itemize how the government has acquired more power in America. If you don't believe it has, you are wrong.

I agree that they have. I want to know how they have relating directly to this mosque. Try to follow along with what we are discussing.

The agenda is important, you are not. You can be replaced, the agenda cannot in their eyes. It is the same in the United States now with the Alinsky agenda

His reputation is important. If he is lying through his teeth, we'll know soon enough.

I cannot translate Arabic but have no reason to doubt Walid Shoebat and his translations. It makes perfect sense.

http://www.aspenpost.net/2010/08/24/ground-zero-iman-and-shariah-law/

That's blind belief, my hypocritical friend.

It just means that you believe Muslims are incapable of human consideration.

Or, it means that you are incapable of answering direct questions or staying on topic. Don't put words in my mouth.

As such, a simple voluntary pledge to move the mosque in the spirit of unity, peace, and human consideration is impossible for the Islamic community to comprehend but must lead to violence.

Keeping it right where it is is the spirit of unity and peace. You say "human consideration" but only when the ones being considered are the ones you agree with.

Who needs a link for the obvious. Once everyone accept Imam Rauf's modern version of Sharia law, then peace is established. What is more obvious?

You're right, your delusional paranoia is becoming quite obvious now.

Which of the four allowable lies do you disagree with?

Find me quotes from the Koran rather than quotes from an anti-Islamic website. That would be a great start.

A neighbour came to the gate of Mulla Nasreddin's yard. The Mulla went to meet him outside.
"Would you mind, Mulla," the neighbour asked, "lending me your donkey today? I have some goods to transport to the next town."
The Mulla didn't feel inclined to lend out the animal to that particular man, however. So, not to seem rude, he answered:
"I'm sorry, but I've already lent him to somebody else."
All of a sudden the donkey could be heard braying loudly behind the wall of the yard.
"But Mulla," the neighbour exclaimed. "I can hear it behind that wall!"
"Who do you believe," the Mulla replied indignantly. "The donkey or your Mulla?"

This is our difference. You believe the Imam and I believe the donkey.

You believe in trivial anecdotes, broad statements and simplistic thinking.

 

[Town Heretic]

That is our difference. If a girl were raped and wary of white men, you would call her paranoic.

No, I wouldn't. But I also wouldn't suggest that white men in her neighborhood move their homes in sympathy or stop plans to renovate and expand them. She'd need counselling and compassion, but that's another thing entirely than what you're calling for today.

I would respect her sensitivites and prove my good intentions.

We all know: you're a hero, a paragon of virtue, the arbiter of truth. You keep telling us, one way or another...

It reminds me of an old Internet friend I never met in person. She worked as a pastoral assistant on an Indian reservation in the Northwest. The Indians hated the whites and for good reason. Alcoholism was rampant and the young were dying from suicide and alcohol. An important man to the Indians lost a son to suicide. He came to pray. He saw her there and glared. She just stood behind with bowed head. After a while he motioned to her to come forward. He said "You are different. You are without color." She remained and supported him.

That you don't understand why this doesn't help your side of things is amazing.

You cannot understand people like this because they put the needs of another first before their rights.

That's one thing. But what you can't do is put the wrong headed conclusion of an emotional wound before what is right. And that's what you want to do, however you slice it.

You would think him paranoic and worthy of condemnation. I think highly of her.

I think he was in emotional distress and the equivalent thing for her to do in relation to what you're asking would have been to remove herself. I'm glad she didn't.

 

[annabenedetti]

I think you're dancing a little. Try my comments about abortion clinic bombings done in the name of Christianity. Should churches be pulled down nearby or congregations uprooted for the same reason? Of course not. In this country, as I noted to bybee, you're responsible for your actions, not the actions of some nut job or jobs who claim a kinship of any sort.

Actually, I haven't followed this thread, and haven't followed your comments.
WizardofOz made a reference to OK City and I thought interesting enough to follow up with a question, which no one seems to be answering. :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

52 pages? :noway:

Nick_A, you're just embarrassing yourself now (by now I mean 20 pages ago). Cut your losses and bow out. lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

I see a lot of similarities. Let's start here; why did the hijackers target the United States?

How about we start with any sort of statement McVeigh made that would have shown he did what he did invoking the name of God, or Christianity.
I'm not saying if he did or didn't, I don't know. I would like to know.

TH you're breaking my rep machine.

 

[WizardofOz]

How about we start with any sort of statement McVeigh made that would have shown he did what he did invoking the name of God, or Christianity. I'm not saying if he did or didn't, I don't know. I would like to know.

I don't think he made any statements or video manifestos. He did write a farewell letter to a friend of his, in which he wrote....

I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle, Steve. I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend.

What is the relevance?

 

[annabenedetti]

I don't think he made any statements or video manifestos.

OK, and I would think if he had, they would have been well publicized, and easy to find.

He did write a farewell letter to a friend of his, in which he wrote....

I don't think that's usable.

What is the relevance?

What did you think it was when you brought it into the discussion?

 

[WizardofOz]

OK, and I would think if he had, they would have been well publicized, and easy to find.

Check here

What did you think it was when you brought it into the discussion?

What is the relevance of him either making statements or not? You brought that up.

 

[annabenedetti]

Check here

A bit of an afterthought, hey? :chuckle:

What is the relevance of him either making statements or not? You brought that up.

Because the 911 Muslims did.

You brought in OK City, seemingly as if you could equate McVeigh/churches in OK City with 911/mosque near Ground Zero. Am I wrong?

 

[WizardofOz]

Because the 911 Muslims did.

I know but how is it relevant?

You brought in OK City, seemingly as if you could equate McVeigh/churches in OK City with 911/mosque near Ground Zero. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong. Are you saying that McVeigh doesn't represent Christians everywhere?

 

[Town Heretic]

Actually, I haven't followed this thread, and haven't followed your comments.

Thought that might have been the case, which is why I gave you the bit again.

WizardofOz made a reference to OK City and I thought interesting enough to follow up with a question, which no one seems to be answering. :idunno:

I actually did if you think about the implications of my abortion clinic bombing illustration.

 

[Nick_A]

WizardofOz

Again you simply side with the majority as if that is a good reason to make a decision. You do see how you keep doing that, right?

You support the bigger mob. I support the rule of law. That is our difference.

I support the majority because they have a sense of ethics that your agenda does not allow you to feel. They support their psychologically injured friends and fellow citizens in the spirit of patriotism. You support the legal right to rub it in.

Ah, so he didn't say anything about riots or killings. I like the embellishment for added drama, it's so.....you.

If he asserts that there could be consequences more severe than what occurred over that silly cartoon, it implies something worse than losing at tiddlywinks.

So, I guess he is somewhat empathetic.

He admits that he made a mistake. You don't. You insist he was right since he had the legal right to do so.

No, that's not what he is "basically saying". I like your active imagination though.

So what in your mind is he saying? If the Muslim people won't applaud an Imam admitting he was wrong and making matters better by moving the mosque in the cause of peace, what does it mean to you?

He doesn't own the building.

No, but he is the Imam. If he wants to do the right thing, the owner will just sell the building to Donald Trump for a profit.

Of course not. See how the actions of a few terrorists have tainted your view of every Muslim? See how the decision of 2 men in New York have further tainted this view? Your reasoning is fallacious.

No. It just means you are unaware of the depth of esoteric Islam and just battle over the exoteric level of the teaching.

The number of people opposed is not relevant and Sharia law has nothing to do with anything. It would be kind of hard for a Sharia mosque not have anything to do with an interpretation of Sharia law.

That's blind belief, my hypocritical friend.

True. But I have not read anyone claim that Walid's translations are not accurate.

Or, it means that you are incapable of answering direct questions or staying on topic. Don't put words in my mouth.

Is the Muslim community capable of applauding an Iman admitting a mistake and doing the right thing in the cause of peace and unity?

Keeping it right where it is is the spirit of unity and peace. You say "human consideration" but only when the ones being considered are the ones you agree with.

Get real. We are referring to a Sharia mosque and cultural center with a swimming pool. How does this reflect the pain and suffering of 911?

You're right, your delusional paranoia is becoming quite obvious now.

It gets worse. Do you deny that Imam Rauf desires to modernize Sharia and make it acceptable to the West?

Find me quotes from the Koran rather than quotes from an anti-Islamic website. That would be a great start.

Do you deny Tagiyya and Kitman?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:
Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

You believe in trivial anecdotes, broad statements and simplistic thinking.

You insult the most wise Mulla Nasreddin's observations as "trivial anecdotes." It is no wonder that you do not understand the complexity of the Ground Zero mosque issue.

 

[Nick_A]

No, I wouldn't. But I also wouldn't suggest that white men in her neighborhood move their homes in sympathy or stop plans to renovate and expand them. She'd need counselling and compassion, but that's another thing entirely than what you're calling for today.

We all know: you're a hero, a paragon of virtue, the arbiter of truth. You keep telling us, one way or another...

That you don't understand why this doesn't help your side of things is amazing.

That's one thing. But what you can't do is put the wrong headed conclusion of an emotional wound before what is right. And that's what you want to do, however you slice it.

I think he was in emotional distress and the equivalent thing for her to do in relation to what you're asking would have been to remove herself. I'm glad she didn't.

No, I wouldn't. But I also wouldn't suggest that white men in her neighborhood move their homes in sympathy or stop plans to renovate and expand them. She'd need counselling and compassion, but that's another thing entirely than what you're calling for today.

No. You refuse to recognize the issue and use typical feel good words expressing Interfaith swellness. You refuse to differentiate between the needs of an individual and that of a community. It just means being a decent human being and being considerate towards the sufferings of others.

We all know: you're a hero, a paragon of virtue, the arbiter of truth. You keep telling us, one way or another...

That is how far we have sunk. Just trying to be a decent human being in this day and age is considered a paragon of virtue.

Matthew 5:

37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

That was before all these Interfaith show offs begn spouting politically correct shtick which are horned friend gladly helps us with.

That you don't understand why this doesn't help your side of things is amazing.

How can you comment on understanding when you do not understand?

That's one thing. But what you can't do is put the wrong headed conclusion of an emotional wound before what is right. And that's what you want to do, however you slice it.

The issue is not about legal rights. it is about doing the "right thing." Even the Imam admits it was the wrong thing to do. But you are stuck in this meaningless Interfaith pseudo Intellectual silliness.

My friend stayed away from his space and conducted herself in a respectful manner until invited her to enter. It is the same idea with the mosque. If there is an intentional attempt to build bridges then the first thing one does is to respect another's space. If one wants to push their agenda, they purposely get into their face and calling them wrong for opposing their intentions.

Actions speak louder than words. Imam Rauf's resistance to moving and his associated threat that it would cause trouble, has proven his intent.

 

[annabenedetti]

I know but how is it relevant?

I'm saying that unless you can show that McVeigh acted in the name of God/Christianity it was not relevant for you to bring OK City into the conversation in the first place.
So - I questioned the relevance when you did - and now you're asking me how it's relevant? :idunno:

No, you are not wrong. Are you saying that McVeigh doesn't represent Christians everywhere?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

 

[The Barbarian]

I suppose we should then accord Muslims the same consideration.

 

[Town Heretic]

No. You refuse to recognize the issue and use typical feel good words expressing Interfaith swellness.

A powerful declaration. And that's about the whole of it. No response to the argument or attempt to pull any of it apart. Instead, this...

You refuse to differentiate between the needs of an individual and that of a community.

Not even remotely true, though we've both been talking about groups of individuals.

It just means being a decent human being and being considerate towards the sufferings of others.

No, it doesn't. At best you're practicing a misguided and selective sensitivity. I've set out the reasons for both designations prior.

That is how far we have sunk. Just trying to be a decent human being in this day and age is considered a paragon of virtue.

You don't do inferential sarcasm then...I don't find your position virtuous.

Matthew 5: 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Not something I've ever argued against. You don't need an oath to bind you.

That was before all these Interfaith show offs begn spouting politically correct shtick which are horned friend gladly helps us with.

That bit of scripture doesn't have anything to do with the point you're trying to twist it to fit. :nono:

How can you comment on understanding when you do not understand?

I actually explained why your example was a massive failure.

The issue is not about legal rights.

I know. That's why I'm not arguing over the legal right.

My friend stayed away from his space and conducted herself in a respectful manner until invited her to enter.

Actually, her very presence shocked him and, in stead of kowtowing to his reaction she stayed. However humbly she might have presented her determination, she remained.

It is the same idea with the mosque. If there is an intentional attempt to build bridges then the first thing one does is to respect another's space.

Nope. His son's funeral was ground zero. She knew how he felt, but she felt it was right for her to pay her respects. You're trying really, really hard to overcome a thing you didn't think through.

That appears to be your M.O.

If one wants to push their agenda, they purposely get into their face and calling them wrong for opposing their intentions.

Sounds like the anti mosque crowd to a tee.

 

[annabenedetti]

I suppose we should then accord Muslims the same consideration.

I'm talking about something specific, digressing somewhat from the main conversation, (which I wasn't pursuing), which is WizardofOz thinking that OK City should be brought into the discussion re: barring churches in the vicinity based on the idea that McVeigh was a Christian terrorist. I asked for some backup to that implication.