Thursday, August 5, 2010

Bewarr the Boogetymen!


kmw Ghosties 1
Originally uploaded by paynehollow
Stupidest things I've read today...

About the plan to build a Muslim center near Ground Zero...

When Christians and Jews or any other non Islamic religion can have some kind freedom of worship then I will support the ground zero mosque, until then, it is our sacred ground.

Okay, this is just weird on so many levels...

1. Whose "sacred ground?"

2. Sacred ground, how? Is this person thinking that God has somehow sanctified the site where the Twin Towers fell, making it a special area for some Christians only (ie, Christians who agree with him)?

3. I'm thinking this person knows this, but we HAVE freedom of worship, which is why the drive to stop this Islamic center is so wrong - it's contrary to our basic values as a people.

4. Is this person suggesting that, if Christians can't freely worship in Muslim countries, then we won't allow Muslims to freely worship here?? Again, contrary to our values and laws.

Aside from this fella: On what possible bases are people opposing an Islamic center near Ground Zero? During the Bush years, they kept assuring us that we weren't in a war against Muslims. With these type of people, that seems to be exactly what they're saying.

What gives?

(And the fella who provided this quote is just one of many stupid things I've read on this topic, he's not alone. I leave him unnamed to protect the silly.)

The second dumb thing (series of comments, actually) I've read today is about the Gay Marriage ban being overturned over in California Land (and, by the way, a tentative YEAYYY! for folk interested in supporting justice and marriage, whether gay or straight-ish). Hold on to your hats...

* It's about a concerted effort to undermine marriage as a whole...

* don't expect all the homosexuals to go home then and be happy, no, that will be just the beginning. The schools, read, your children, will be the next target, judicial decree in hand, then your church should your pastor finally grow a spine and decide that appeasing God's enemy to win their favor is not where it's at, and so be deemed by the enemies of God to be evil and therefore outlawed...

* Having a gay judge rule on such a matter is also irrational. He should have recused himself....

*If she loves her cat and her cat does not protest, how can they possibly deny her under her right to life and liberty and the fundamental right to marry the right to marry her cat?...


Stupid, stupider, stupidest and stupidester.

Fear-mongering is alive and sick, unfortunately.

I'll let the goofy statements stand on their own, but for this: I wonder if these folk who think that gay judges can't reasonably sit on a case involving gender orientation, do they also think that STRAIGHT judges "can't possibly be unbiased," and therefore ought to recuse themselves? If so, who shall adjudicate this case?

Does this mean that black judges can't preside over cases with ramifications for black people? That male judges can't preside over cases involving men?

Where does the stupidity of that suggestion end?

Fear-mongering and stupidity notwithstanding, tentative congratulations (tentatively) to California and those everywhere interested in justice.

====
UPDATE: Okay, so I've just got to post this additional "professional-scale" stupid comment about the proposed Islamic center in NYC, from Sarah Palin, who apparently tweeted...

“Peace-seeking Muslims, please understand. Ground Zero Mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Please reject it in the interest of healing.”

And the stupidity rolls on...

49 comments:

Alan said...

I liked Caribou Barbie's other tweet better, "Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refudiate the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real."

Heh. Refudiate. What a moron, bless her heart.

Thrilled with the CA decision against Prop Hate. Still a long road ahead, but there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Even if this doesn't get through the SCOTUS, it's only a matter of time. No matter how much hate and fear and stupidity the other side tries to spew, they're a tiny, tiny minority and demographics is not on their side. Nate Silver, the stats genius over at fivethirtyeight.com predicts that all gay marriage laws will be gone in 10-15 years, even without a win at the Supreme Court

Dan Trabue said...

You're right, it is only a matter of time. Age is against the complainers. While a majority of older folk may oppose marriage rights for all people, this is less and less true for younger folk.

I certainly expect a change within my lifetime and 10-15 years sounds reasonable, but hopefully even sooner. If this pass the Supreme Court, then state marriage bans are over, right? Or what would that mean? I'm no legal scholar, unfortunately...

Alan said...

There are, as I understand it, and I am no legal scholar either, several routes this could go:

1) It has to go through the 9th Circuit on appeal. If they merely uphold the overall ruling, then couples could marry again in CA.
2) If they uphold not just the ruling, but uphold precisely the same reasoning used in the decision, then couples would be allowed to marry in all states of the 9th circuit.
3) They might issue a more narrow ruling that distinguishs between states that do not have domestic partnership laws, and those that do. In those that do, they may rule that marriage and civil unions are an unconstitutional separate but equal situation. That would mean that marriage would be allowed in states that currently have domestic partnership laws like CA and WA, but not in states that ban everything outright.
4) If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, then whatever the 9th Circuit does would stand for that jurisdiction.
5) The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that marriage is a fundamental right, so there is already precedent that they would be forced to agree with Judge Walker's ruling. In addition, the Supreme Court has recently refused to make a distinction between "status" and "conduct", which makes a protected class/equal treatment argument more likely to succeed.
6) So, there are several ways the SCOTUS can rule in a narrow fashion that only impacts the 9th Circuit if they wanted to go slowly. Of course, that simply means that another lawsuit could be brought against a state that denies gay marriage arguing that it is unconstitutional for one state to allow it and one state to ban it, etc. Then that would take years to work through the system, etc...

But in any event, this is probably a decade away from ever getting to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, more of the haters will join the Church Triumphant and their kids will be more likely to vote out anti-gay bigotry without a court case. As Max Plank said, "Science advances one funeral at a time" and the same is true for society.

Alan said...

In the meantime, the 18,000 couples who got married in CA during the window of opportunity are still married, and yet somehow the world has not ended.

Bro. Dave said...

As I understand it, the proposed Muslim Community Center (not a mosque) would be located two blocks away from the site of the former Twin Towers, not at "Ground Zero". Either the haters are uninformed, or intentionally trying to mislead the rest of us.

Marty said...

"In the meantime, the 18,000 couples who got married in CA during the window of opportunity are still married, and yet somehow the world has not ended."

And neither has heterosexual marriage.

The Chairman of deacons came into my office the other day complaining about the Muslim Center. I asked him if it were a christian church would he be complaining about it. He hesitated a moment and then said "no". Then I asked "Do you believe in freedom of religion?" He replied "yes". Then I asked "for you or them"? I got a snarky smile in reply.

Needless to say that was the end of that conversation and we continued on with church business.

And I still have my job. :)

Some might ask me why would I still want my job at this church where attitudes like this abound. Well, because deep down they are good folks and I love them in spite of their prejudices. And oddly enough they love me back even when I'm painfully honest with them and them with me.

Dan Trabue said...

Bro Dave...

As I understand it, the proposed Muslim Community Center (not a mosque) would be located two blocks away from the site of the former Twin Towers, not at "Ground Zero".

More dumb - and bitterly aggressive - quotes from yesterday...

Now some f***ing trash talking barbarian jihadist imam wants to build a celebration center for our enemy as close to the site of this massacre as is humanly possible and Bloomberg and the f***ers in New York say... I also believe the commission in place to approve the plan was paid off with 30 pieces of silver. Rot in hell you worthless pieces of s**t.

Yes, they know it's not Ground Zero. Apparently anywhere in NYC is too close for them. I've asked several people expressing this sort of anger, "On what grounds would we stop them? They're buying the grounds and paying the workers to put it up - that's capitalism in action. They have freedom of religion - that's our Constitution in action. What is it you're objecting to - the Constitution or people spending their money on projects of their choosing?"

Thus far, I've received not a single answer. (Well, not a single reasonable answer. Someone DID say, "they're not a religion, they're a political movement intent on destroying the US..." or words to that effect. When asked for evidence of THAT charge, they turn silent.

I'd think that conservatives (real conservatives, anyway) would be the first to defend this project.

Doug said...

Regarding the Prop 8 ruling, ignorance of history is no excuse, though it's given a pass on the Left.

Too much to write here, so I have a whole blog post about it.

Dan Trabue said...

At your post, you say...

This is how they remake society; by lying to you until such time as they’ve built up enough steam, by whatever means necessary, to force through what they ultimately want.

What exactly do you think "they" ultimately want? What is your evidence for this? Have you been sneaking in to the Secret Gay Planning meetings?

Seriously, what is it you fear?

I keep hearing these vague slippery slope arguments without anyone giving a solid sense of what it is they fear will happen. Forced gay marriage? Hetero sex slavery and gang rapes? Children removed from homes to gay indoctrination camps? Cats and dogs living together??

What?

Alan said...

Anyone with either an ounce of intelligence or a high school diploma ought to know that a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Doug, your ignorance of what constitutes a valid argument and real evidence is no excuse.

catastrophile said...

Dan, you'll at least be happy to see this.

Kinda warms my heart.

Dan Trabue said...

Cat-man! Good to hear from you. And yes, that is heart-warming. Yeay for the GOP and Tea Party doing the right thing...

joven said...

beautiful blog..pls visit mine and be a follower.. thanks and God bless..

http://forlots.blogspot.com/

Doug said...

Harry Reid (Democrat) has come out against the building of the mosque near Ground Zero.

Question: Do you also say of him:

"...we HAVE freedom of worship, which is why the drive to stop this Islamic center is so wrong - it's contrary to our basic values as a people." Do you say that Harry Reid is against freedom of worship?

"During the Bush years, they kept assuring us that we weren't in a war against Muslims. With these type of people, that seems to be exactly what they're saying." Do you say that Harry Reid is at war with against Muslims, or does it at least seem like that's what he's saying?

"And the stupidity rolls on..." Do you say that Harry Reid is stupid?

"Apparently anywhere in NYC is too close for them." Do you also believe this about Harry Reid?

In short, do you believe everything you've said about conservatives against the Mosque location is also true about Harry Reid?

Dan Trabue said...

I haven't said anything about conservatives on this post, other than I would think that conservatives would be among the first to oppose this sort of thinking.

Reid is wrong.

Don't jump to conclusions, Doug.

Doug said...

Fine, then you've said plenty about people who opposed the Mosque, as I've quoted. I take it then that you believe these same things about the Democratic Senate Majority Leader.

Alan said...

I'm not Dan, but I would say exactly the same thing about Reid's comments as I would say about any of the other intolerant, unAmerican comments made by phony conservatives on the extreme right.

So?

Dan has said others are wrong, he's said that Reid is wrong. You're criticizing Dan for being consistent? I can't say I'm surprised. Intellectual honesty and consistency are hardly virtues among those on the right.

Dan Trabue said...

Like Alan, my comments are towards all to whom they apply. I did not specific "conservatives" or "republicans" in my criticisms because there was no need to. If the shoe fits, where it.

In fact, the ONLY people that I said really OUGHT to be standing up in opposition are CONSERVATIVES, thus, suggesting that I believe in that part of their ideals and hoping they stay true to them. That's speaking highly of conservatives, the only group I singled out in such a way here.

Alan, intellectual honesty IS a virtue amongst some on the right, we just don't meet them as much on these internets. I suspect Doug highly values intellectual honesty, for instance.

To that end: Doug, you said,

In short, do you believe everything you've said about conservatives against the Mosque location is also true about Harry Reid?

I would think that an intellectually honest fella such as yourself would, when I point out the obvious, that I had NOT said anything "about conservatives" (well, except for the positive stuff), that you would acknowledge the misstatement on your part.

A little, "my bad, you're right! You didn't single out conservatives..." goes a long way in establishing some common respect, wouldn't you agree?

Alan said...

"I suspect Doug highly values intellectual honesty, for instance."

Sorry, I was going by his use of slippery slope arguments in another thread as being direct evidence that he doesn't.

Doug said...

Well, indeed, you didn't identify, or even link to, the origins of those comments, so indeed I don't know the leanings of those you quoted. My bad, but would be helpful in the future so I can do my own lookup.

But you did mention Palin by name, and by saying "I'd think that conservatives (real conservatives, anyway) would be the first to defend this project." you sound like, by bringing up the topic of political leaning, you're finding that this was not the case, implying that those who you've been criticizing are indeed conservative.

And in fact, if you were reading those who were writing considered opinions on this from the right, rather than cherry picking some rants (and again, without links I have no idea who you chose to quote), you'd have read more of what Reid said, actually; no legal reason they can't, but just not a good idea.

Regarding whether this is somehow against freedom of religion, I like how Don Surbur said it. "We don’t have to accept burning crosses to accept freedom of expression. We don’t have to accept swastikas painted on synagogues to accept free speech. And we sure as hell don’t have to accept a mosque near the site of the destruction caused by Muslims in order to accept freedom of religion."

Oh, and there's a mosque within 2 blocks of the proposed Cordoba Center. They can freely worship here already, a few hundred feet away.

Dan Trabue said...

My bad, but would be helpful in the future so I can do my own lookup.

I was speaking of the sort of mentality represented by this sort of comment. I was choosing not to out the specific person who made such a goofy comment, to protect the guilty. I'm not interested in demonizing an individual for making goofy comments, I'm trying to talk about the ideas/ideals represented.

Make sense?

As I'm sure you've heard, many of those like Alan, Geoffrey and myself find ourselves banned from many more conservative sites with alarming frequency. In those cases, I might still be interested in talking about the (in this case) bad ideas/ideals being discussed and so, since they don't want to discuss it there, I bring the ideas here where the discussion is open.

Yes, these particular comments originated from more "conservative" sites, but the ideas presented are not necessarily limited to conservatives (or those calling themselves conservative), so I was speaking to the bad ideas - whoever would champion them.

Fair enough?

Alan said...

The fact that you think a mosque is the same as a burning cross or a swastika is very, very telling.

Folks on the extreme right have been complaining for 9 years, "Where are the moderate Muslims?!"

Well, here they are.

Yet now the extreme right is still throwing a fit. A cynical person might think that's clear evidence that the issue is is not about moderate vs. fundamentalist Islam, but simply about the extreme right's hatred of all things Muslim, regardless of their ideology. But I'm sure that's incorrect, right Doug? Of course not, such intolerance from the right would be completely unfounded based on US history.

In fact, if people of any political stripe were to be actually interested in dialogue with, and support of moderate Islam, it seems to me that this would be the perfect place to have a mosque as an important symbol of that desire for peace. Regardless, this is America, not the Christian Republic of Christianistan, so unless there's a problem with zoning, they have the right to build it wherever the heck they want.

Don't like it? Tough. This is America. You don't have the right to not be offended, regardless of whatever phony fast-food "issues" Palin and Co. decide to cook up this week. Deal with it.

Dan Trabue said...

So, how about you, Doug? Do you agree that blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few extremists is wrong?

Why would we oppose letting some person spend their money (ie, capitalism) to promote understanding and/or their religion (ie, freedom of consciousness and speech)?

Or, are you amongst those who fully support their FREEDOM to build here, but who just think it is a bad idea because they're Muslims?

If so, why is it a bad idea for unrelated Muslims to build an Islamic center or mosque here?

Alan said...

BTW, Dan, you are right that not everyone on the right is an exemplar of a lack of intellectual integrity and consistency. Ted Olson, former Solicitor General for the Bush Administration, whose wife was a passenger onboard the plane flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 recently stated:

"I do believe that people of all religions have a right to build edifices, or structures, or places of religious worship or study, where the community allows them to do it under zoning laws and that sort of thing, and that we don't want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith. And I don't think it should be a political issue. It shouldn't be a Republican or Democratic issue, either. I believe Gov. Christie from New Jersey said it well -- that this should not be in that political, partisan marketplace."

Now there's a consistent and intellectually honest real conservative. I guess they do exist, but like unicorns, they're just very, very rare. :)

Doug said...

Yes, these particular comments originated from more "conservative" sites, but the ideas presented are not necessarily limited to conservatives (or those calling themselves conservative), so I was speaking to the bad ideas - whoever would champion them.

Fair enough?


Indeed, fair enough. I'd also suggest that, if it's the idea and not the ideology you're against, examples from both sides would go a long way to indicate your "bipartisaness".

Why would we oppose letting some person spend their money (ie, capitalism) to promote understanding and/or their religion (ie, freedom of consciousness and speech)?

I'm not, strictly speaking. And the considered conservative opinions on the topic aren't against it for those reasons. Straw man. Much like Obama's "it's not unconstitutional" straw man.

...why is it a bad idea for unrelated Muslims to build an Islamic center or mosque here?

What I find interesting is that liberals, who profess to care so much about offending other people and consider themselves supremely sensitive to the feelings of others, can't possibly understand why the families of the victims might have a bit of a problem with erecting what is essentially a monument to Islamic conquest. (And conquest over Christians specifically.) I explain all that in my blog post on the subject.

You don't have the right to not be offended...

Boy, Alan, I wish the Left would learn that lesson. Still, at least the Left ought to understand where the emotion is coming from instead of treat it as some sort insanity.

Dan Trabue said...

I'd also suggest that, if it's the idea and not the ideology you're against, examples from both sides would go a long way to indicate your "bipartisaness".

Since I did not identify these as coming from Right-ish sites, I'm not sure how that is relevant. I was criticizing that mindset, whoever it came from. I did not say that this was a problem for conservatives, just that they seem to be the ones who'd be most opposed to this sort of thinking, by their ideals (although liberals ought to, as well, by their ideals).

Dan (me) said earlier...

If the shoe fits, where it.

Dang, I hate typos/mindfarts.

Dan Trabue said...

Doug...

What I find interesting is that liberals, who profess to care so much about offending other people and consider themselves supremely sensitive to the feelings of others, can't possibly understand why the families of the victims might have a bit of a problem with erecting what is essentially a monument to Islamic conquest.

?

You sound mostly reasonable, Doug, then you say something like this. A "monument to Islamic conquest"?? How so?

Why would the families (including dozens or hundreds of Muslim families) have problems with Muslims unrelated to the terrorists building a community center near GZ?? THAT is my question that I hear no reasonable answers to.

The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 were mostly brownish, mostly Saudi Arabians, mostly bearded (I'm guessing) and mostly Muslim.

Does that mean that "the families" would be opposed to Saudis putting up a building near GZ? Men with beards? Dark-skinned people? Why are you choosing just the Muslim part of those commonalities and saying it would be offensive for someone with that trait (never mind that they are in no way related to those men, beyond sharing a religion) to build near GZ?

Eric Rudolph (the abortion bomber) was a Christian (nominally, anyway) very involved in some whacked out rightwing religious group. Does that mean that if a Christian wanted to build something near one of the abortion clinics he bombed, that people would be rightly offended by that?

That would make no sense, that's what I'm saying. Can you tell me how that makes any sense at all?

Alan said...

The "Islamic conquest" meme is direct from the Limbaugh talking points. Nicely done, Doug. Care to consider what the people in charge of this actually have to say for themselves?

Nah, probably not worth it. Newspeak is so much better than oldspeak, don't you think?

"Still, at least the Left ought to understand where the emotion is coming from instead of treat it as some sort insanity."

Blah, blah, blah. I'm not "the left" neither is Dan, nor did we ever say anything about anyone being insane. Care to knock that straw man down for me? You could use the chip on your shoulder, if you're need something to throw.

I understand the emotion, I just don't think we should decide such things on that basis. In fact, that's exactly why we have laws ... something so-called conservatives are supposed to know something about.

Fact is, the majority of people who are whining about this are not people who knew people who were in the WTC on 9/11. Most of them are just talking heads. Most of the rest are simpleton bloggers following the talking points. They probably have never been to NYC, let alone the WTC, and will probably never go. Even if they did go, they'd be unlikely to stumble across this Mosque, even if they were looking for it (which they won't be.)

So for those, the majority who have no connection to the WTC at all, why do they care? Why are they writing a zillion blog posts and comments about something that affects them not at all? What the heck, for example, does Sarah Palin know about any of this, and why would she care?

Normal people may form opinions about things that don't affect them, but they don't completely lose their minds about it. I've been to the site many times, and know several people who were in and around the area on 9/11, though I don't personally know anyone who died. Like most normal people, I have an opinion on this, but like most normal people, I don't think that the law should bow to my personal opinion.

So why do these people who have no connection to the matter care enough to complain and scream for going on 3 weeks straight now? It's either because they've got nothing better to do, or because they're bigots, or they're just looking to score cheap political points on a made-up issue. Or a little from column A, a little from column B, and a little from column C.

Alan said...

BTW, it's interesting that we have all this fall out over a mosque. I wonder if we'd see the same opposition to a new Catholic church being built ... well, anywhere Would these same phony conservatives be outraged? Would Palin tweet that catholics should "refudiate" the building of a new cathedral to child molestation?

I highly doubt it.

Dan Trabue said...

Good points, Alan. I had heard about this Islamic Center thingee and had paid VERY little attention to it, figuring that it was NYC's business, not mine. I only got involved when I began noticing more and more radical and (what seems to me) opposition to it. And not just this building, but the whole notion of Muslims "daring" to think it was okay to build here.

One recent analogy I saw was enlightening. A non-Christian fella said (trying to be reasonable, I think)...

"What if some QUAKERS were to commit mass murder at a place. Then, later on, some Lutherans want to build a Church there. This causes the Quakers to rejoice, 'yeay! They're building a Christian monument at that place where our fellow Quakers/Christians killed people!'

Don't you see how some people might be offended at the Lutheran church proposal??" he asked.

??

No, who WOULD be offended? What do Lutherans have to do with Murderous Quakers (a rather silly idea, but that's his suggestion)? Yes, they're both Christian groups, but that's where the similarities end.

It would be wrong to punish the Lutheran Christians for the deeds of the Quaker Christians to whom they're not related at all, don't you agree, Doug?

It's when I started reading this more outlandish stuff in place after place (yes, conservative place after conservative place, AND with folk like Reid) and in emails asking me to sign petitions that I felt I had to at least say something about this silliness.

Dan Trabue said...

Whoops, left out a word...

I only got involved when I began noticing more and more radical and (what seems to me) ridiculous opposition to it.

Alan said...

There are already about a dozen mosques not far from the WTC site and Muslims hold services 5 days a week in the Pentagon chapel. Yet no one has bothered to scream about those things. But then, it wasn't the summer before a midterm election either.

Anyone who can't see this for the stoopid political gambit that it is seems (at best) hopelessly naive. The rest just like being meddlesome, I suppose. Being busybodies is, after all, the right wing's favorite hobby. They're never happy unless they're complaining about nothing, making molehills into mountains, and generally sticking their noses into other people's business.

Alan said...

BTW, for Doug's benefit, because we know how sensitive and easily offended he is, I'll say that last comment also applies to liberal panderers like Reid. If 50% of people have no problem with building Cordoba house at the proposed site, are we really supposed to believe that Reid is in the half that do not approve of it?

Really?

He's a politician in a tight senate race with a wingnut, he'll say anything at this point.

Doug said...

Alan: The "Islamic conquest" meme is direct from the Limbaugh talking points.

Ah, the tried and true "Rush Limbaugh said it, therefore your argument is invalid" tactic.

Alan: I'm not "the left" neither is Dan, nor did we ever say anything about anyone being insane.

Which is why I said "the Left" and not "you". We're all just arguing against ideas, not people, right?

OK, not "insane". "Stupid", "silly" and "wierd", as per Dan.

Alan: So for those, the majority who have no connection to the WTC at all, why do they care?

So caring about a tragedy that did not personally affect you is, what, wrong?

Alan: Normal people may form opinions about things that don't affect them, but they don't completely lose their minds about it.

Ah, so you do think they're insane. Stop beating around the bush; tell us what you really feel.

Alan: Like most normal people, I have an opinion on this, but like most normal people, I don't think that the law should bow to my personal opinion.

Straw man. Opponents are not trying to change the law.

Alan: I wonder if we'd see the same opposition to a new Catholic church being built ... well, anywhere

Asking that question shows that you really don't understand the issue.

Alan: There are already about a dozen mosques not far from the WTC site and Muslims hold services 5 days a week in the Pentagon chapel. Yet no one has bothered to scream about those things.

That, too. The issue is not mosques near GZ. It's another one (and, as you note, not needed), by a group who's name invokes the Spanish Calliphate, that, given all this, looks quite suspicious, especially their reluctance to engage in discussion.

Alan: If 50% of people have no problem with building Cordoba house at the proposed site, are we really supposed to believe that Reid is in the half that do not approve of it?

Well, more like 39% have no problem with it, so Reid is in the 61%. Just sayin'.

Alan said...

"Ah, the tried and true "Rush Limbaugh said it, therefore your argument is invalid" tactic. "

Actually, no. Not even close. Let me write more slowly so you can keep up. ;) the Islamic Conquest meme has been shown to be false. That your overlords Limbaugh et. al. continue to beat that dead horse is neither here nor there, nor does mentioning them make it any less true that their interpretation of the name is not the reason for the name. Got it that time? Care to try again?

Or are you still defending your ridiculous, outrageous and hateful comments that this mosque is the same as a swastika or burning cross?

"So caring about a tragedy that did not personally affect you is, what, wrong? "

Again, no. Perhaps instead of fisking my comments for straw men that aren't there, you could instead try making comments of your own without building new ones. This isn't about 9/11. This is about a building. Yes, being unable to separate one from the other is, while perhaps not wrong, certainly not indicative of rational adult thinking.

BTW, a bit of a tangent, but I wonder how many Muslims are currently employed building the new building at Ground Zero. Do you think they should be fired?

"Asking that question shows that you really don't understand the issue."

LOL. Right. You don't like the analogy because it's too dead on. Nice evasion. So much for intellectual honesty, eh? Or perhaps you just think that victims of 9/11 are more deserving of your sensitivity than victims of child abuse.

"Ah, so you do think they're insane."

No I don't. Stop lying. Check that book you've got propping up the broken leg of your couch, the one marked "Bible" and see what it has to say about bearing false witness,.

So tell us, oh great defender of public sentiment.... How far away from Ground Zero is appropriate? You see, since I am a Christian and do not worship "sacred ground", unlike you I am unfamiliar with the traditions surrounding it. So can you tell me what the boundary is around sacred ground? Two blocks? Ten? 40? New Jersey?

Alan said...

"Straw man. Opponents are not trying to change the law."

Who are you, Neil now? ROFL. Please. The last thing we need is another one of them.

BTW, a FOX news poll says that 34% of people think they don't have the *right* (as opposed to it just being a bad idea) to build there.

Try again.

Alan said...

BTW, have you ever been to the site of this proposed Mosque, Doug?

Did having a Burlington Coat Factory just a little ways away from Ground Zero seem like a more fitting and appropriate way to honor the fallen than a mosque?

After all, what did they all die for, if not our right to reasonably priced unfashionable outerwear?

Doug said...

Or are you still defending your ridiculous, outrageous and hateful comments that this mosque is the same as a swastika or burning cross?

Stop being emotional and inflammatory about this and consider what I said. I'm being accused of, or at least asked if I am, against freedom of religion solely because I'm voicing the idea that perhaps this mosque in this place isn't the right thing to do. But I can be both -- against the mosque and religiously tolerant -- in the same way I can be for other ideals and still ask for limitations on them.

I can be for freedom of speech, but also support banning yelling "Fire" in a theater when there isn't one. And this issue isn't even on of law; for me, at least, it would be asking them to reconsider or at least get involved in some constructive dialog. If they choose to do it, that's the end of it, for me. So far, they're choosing not to.

For others, it's more of an emotional appeal, especially those living in NYC and those who lost loved ones. The irony is, the alleged tolerant ones here are the ones insulting them with silly questions that this may all be about brown skin or men with beards, or about precise distances. Please guys, the wheels are falling off this discussion.

And you wonder why other site ban you?

Doug said...

When I said "So far, they're choosing not to", I meant get involved in constructive dialog. I re-read that and it wasn't clear.

Alan said...

"And you wonder why other site ban you?"

Actually, no I don't. Nor do I care. That was Dan who brought that up, not me.

"Stop being emotional and inflammatory about this and consider what I said."

I'm being neither emotional, nor inflammatory. Mocking, yes. Emotional? Not a bit. I don't live there. I can separate my opinions on the matter from what should be done, which is a legal issue not an emotional one.

But that you, who compared a house of worship to a swastika and a burning cross could accuse anyone else of being emotional or inflammatory is the funniest and silliest thing I've read all day. Seriously, thanks for that. Best laugh of the day. I honestly LOL'd.

Again, I'd love to see some suggestions of what sorts of things *are* appropriate next to ground zero. A Starbucks? A TGI Fridays? Heck, what tourist to sacred ground wouldn't want to relax at a Hard Rock Cafe afterward?

And, in the event someone wants to build a mosque, Doug, where should they locate it. How far away is OK. Since you claim that you're not against building it, just not building it in next to sacred ground on the equally sacred Burlington Coat Factory location, how far away do they need to be? If you're for building this somewhere, then it is a completely reasonable question to ask what is a respectful distance? 3 blocks is too close, but 4 is just fine? Or can we be more specific and get down to feet or inches?

I'm not insulting anyone who actually has any skin in this game, Doug. Just you. If anything is offensive, it should be you suggesting that my asking you tough questions is somehow illustrative of a lack of respect for other people who actually did lose someone. I don't think they nominated you to be their representative, so perhaps you should stop trying to steal the part. After all, who are you to claim insult for them? BTW, if you were really sensitive to the feelings of those whose loved ones died in the WTC, you might realize that some of them are in favor of the building of this mosque, and not just assume that they're all a monolithic entity. But then, that would involve nuance and actual caring rather than political posturing.

I can be tolerant of the views of those who lost friends and family in 9/11. In fact, I don't just tolerate it; I empathize with them. But that doesn't mean I think they're right. What I've written here has nothing to do with them, but rather the vultures (on any side of the ideological divide) who seek to score cheap political points on the backs of the victims of 9/11 a few months prior to an election.

Doug said...

But that you, who compared a house of worship to a swastika and a burning cross could accuse anyone else of being emotional or inflammatory is the funniest and silliest thing I've read all day.

I explained myself, I gave the underlying principle, and offered a similar analogy. You chose to ignore it completely and get back to the mocking and silly questions, which seems to comprise the majority of your writing.

Which is why I have often just ignored you and not responded in other threads. You have made me regret breaking that promise to myself yet again.

Alan said...

So, Doug.... Now that I've had some fun riling you up and destroying your arguments, if you're actually not just hopping on the bandwagon of political expediency (and I think that you are, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt...) and if you really are just trying to be sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11, I wonder if you can understand how people who have seen significant discrimination in their lives might look at this situation very differently instead of painting us all as intolerant.

Here's some truth you can't dispute: not building this mosque is not going to bring back the dead.

And not building it seems to some of us like obvious racial and religious discrimination. Building it might seem sh*tty for some; not building it might seem sh*tty for others. But 9/11 is in the past and can't be fixed now. The greater good is served by moving on.

It doesn't mean that building the mosque is going to make grieving any easier for 9/11 families. But having experienced my fair share of death, I have a hard time believing that not building that mosque is actually going to make grieving any easier, either. Trying to fix one wrong with another wrong never ever works.

So build it and move on.

As an aside, if you can't see the political side of this is a complete load of opportunistic crap, I honestly don't even know what to say to that.

Alan said...

"Which is why I have often just ignored you and not responded in other threads. You have made me regret breaking that promise to myself yet again."

Well anytime you forget and need another thorough pasting to learn the lesson, let me know, I'm only too happy to provide. ;)

Alan said...

BTW, Doug, for future reference I would suggest that, if you're entire argument is based on a particular condition (eg. nearness to "sacred ground") then you might consider possible reasonable objections to the basis of that argument (ie. "how near is too near?")

Or you can just keep calling them silly because you don't have an answer. But anyone clever enough to, well, read basic English ought to be able to see right through that common ruse. Now maybe you're not used to such people, but the internet is a big place and you're bound to run into a few folks like myself who aren't dazzled by such remarkable and amazing rhetorical flourishes as calling something you simply don't want to answer "silly."

Just a little free advice. :)

Susannah said...

"The Chairman of deacons came into my office the other day complaining about the Muslim Center. I asked him if it were a christian church would he be complaining about it."

Heh, funny Marty, somehow I don't think the guys were screaming 'Glory Hallelujah, Praise Jesus' while they murdered 3,000 innocents...your point is moot. Thus the snarky smile you received. Of course you still have your job. Your boss believes in the American way; just as I do.

"can you imagine any of these inbred slack-jawed yokels ever going to NYC?"
Oh, now there's a peace-loving, tolerant , forward-thinking attitude for ya! It's SO rich, how you folks 'tolerate' anyone & everyone...as long as they agree with YOU. And then, by the same hand, turn & chastise/preach tolerance to the "bigots" who simply have a different opinion. (Btw, this "yokel" has been to NYC several times, dined @ "Windows on the World" @ the top of the WTC, visited Ground Zero, vacationed in Wash. DC and traveled to Europe! Can you just believe it?!)

"Peace-seeking Muslims, please understand. Ground Zero Mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Please reject it in the interest of healing.

'Didn't know that SP said this, but it's excellent.

If the Left really wants "tolerance", they will argue (using your carefully crafted definition) for the Mosque-Muslims to show the best of 'tolerance' to a grieving community & graciously agree to move their plans to a less contentious location. THAT's what they - in the name of healing/bridge building - should do. It's not a question of can they do this, but should they. (Fyi, not unlike the notion: just because you can abort a fetus, doesn't mean you should do it, for the sake of all parties affected.)

This is not - I repeat: NOT - about freedom of religion. Build the Community Ctr/Mosque! But be kind, & move it elsewhere. "2 blocks from Ground Zero" is nothing in NYC.

The historical backdrop is chilling. To Marty, who compared this to a Christian church being built: historically, 'Christians' have built memorials at places where Saints have died. Versus 'Muslims' having historically built memorials/mosques at places of VICTORY or CONQUEST.

It smacks of victory lap, & we -- who don't have our heads in the self-satisfied, smug, intellectual clouds -- all 'get' that.

"Here's some truth you can't dispute: not building this mosque is not going to bring back the dead."
No kidding. But in the name of their allah (or whomever), have these people no understanding of the nature of grief?? That ramming a hot poker into the wound doesn't "help build bridges and foster understanding between religious communities."

THAT'S the whole problem with this thing. THAT's why people are opposed to it. To say that it's a 'freedom of religion' thing is to make a mockery of the platitudes of our nation, and the decency of her people.

I'm done here; good day.

Alan said...

Heh. Love the "Good day" part.

I said good day sir! LOL

Too bad you can't somehow do a window-rattling door slam in the blogosphere, that really would have been the cherry on the top of that ridiculous rant.

I said GOOD DAY SIR! *slam*

Dan Trabue said...

Good day to you, too, Susannah.

Stop by some time for an actual visit.

What's that from, Alan? "I said Good DAY, SIR!" I recognize that but can't place it?

Alan said...

A Christmas Carol, when Fred stops by the counting house to wish his dear Uncle Ebenezer a Merry Christmas.

Alan said...

Oops, I lied. It wasn't A Christmas Carol. Scrooge actually says, "Good afternoon!!"

It's from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The scene near the end, when Charlie and Grampa Joe have finished the tour and Wonka berates them for stealing fizzy lifting drinks.

Whew. Glad we cleared that up! :)