Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right, he bombed it for political reasons having to do with objections to federal government actions and policies, so should there be no federal government-related sites there or near there?
If everyone is happy with one's choices, one's expression, one's speech, etc., then there is absolutely no need for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Choice protections in law. Those are necessary precisely because some folks may not be at all happy with what you choose to do or say. That's just the point in this issue, too.
Someone refraining from saying something because they're worried that other folks may react negatively to it is someone on a course for removing those freedoms, because they believe that everyone should be happy, not offended, etc. all the time.
So then there's nothing wrong with drawings of Mohammed, eh? They will get you KILLED, but freedom of speech gives us the right, and we should NEVER back down. I think not!
Hmmm, this sounds familiar ... we have the legal RIGHTS to draw such pictures, but maybe it's not a good idea to do so.
So then there's nothing wrong with drawings of Mohammed, eh?
Of course not.
Quote:
They will get you KILLED,
Someone taking that type of physical action in response to an expression like that is the person in the wrong.
Quote:
Hmmm, this sounds familiar ... we have the legal RIGHTS to draw such pictures, but maybe it's not a good idea to do so.
Not exercising freedom of expression because you're afraid that someone is going to break the law in response isn't a good idea. That's letting someone control you via fear; it's essentially being controlled by terrorism (but in a very broad sense of that term). Let's do a better job policing things that should be illegal instead.
If you read the thread, then you would have seen why this argument doesn't hold water. Timothy McVeigh didn't bomb the federal building in Oklahoma City for religious reasons.
As for the constitution, myself and others have pointed out that the builders of this mosque do have the right to build it at the site. But we also have the right to speak out against it...and for very specific reasons.
It is not an argument, it is a position, and does not have to "hold water". The posts in this thread, including yours, are not strong enough, or follow a line of reasoning that I feel is sound enough, to make me reconsider my position. If you need examples of religious extremism from ALL religions just Google it. It will keep you busy for the remainder of your life. The religion of Islam does not preach violence. The people who carried out these acts, in my opinion, are the SAME as Timothy McVeigh. To recognize them as anything but brainwashed, disillusioned, radical cult members is just plain wrong.
To your second point, this thread is not about your right to speak about anything, its about whether a church should be built near ground zero and there are already 3 churches nearby as well as a Jewish Museum/Cultural Center. I'm sure there are crazy people that visit all of those regularly, so it doesn't bother me that another one will be added to the mix.
Last edited by Goldendoodle1969; 09-13-2010 at 06:41 AM..
It used to be that when people wanted advice on religious and spiritual matters and how they affected the world they looked to the Reverend Billy Graham for his gentle and uplifting wisdom and maturity on such matters. Now it seems like the Imam whatever-his-name is now the self-appointed supreme "gem of wisdom" when it comes to such matters. My, oh my, how times have changed (and not necessarily for the better).
It is not an argument, it is a position, and does not have to "hold water".
Yes you do have the right to post whatever you want, no matter how irrelevant or weak your argument is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdstyles
The posts in this thread, including yours, are not strong enough, or follow a line of reasoning that I feel is sound enough, to make me reconsider my position. If you need examples of religious extremism from ALL religions just Google it. It will keep you busy for the remainder of your life. The religion of Islam does not preach violence. The people who carried out these acts, in my opinion, are the SAME as Timothy McVeigh. To recognize them as anything but brainwashed, disillusioned, radical cult members is just plain wrong.
There's no doubt that these people are nuts. But the 9/11 hijackers were educated and well off. Obviously religion contributed to them going off the deep end. Let's not pretend religion had nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdstyles
To your second point, this thread is not about your right to speak about anything, its about whether a church should be built near ground zero and there are already 3 churches nearby as well as a Jewish Museum/Cultural Center. I'm sure there are crazy people that visit all of those regularly, so it doesn't bother me that another one will be added to the mix.
The religion of those churches and the Jewish center didn't play a role in the attack so once again, your point is irrelevant.
I brought up the constitution because I wanted to acknowlege that they do have the legal right to build the mosque. This is the main argument from supporters. But I have the right to express my opposition just like you have the right to express your support. The nutty pastor in Florida has the right to burn the Koran, but you and me have the right to speak out against it.
No, no NO!!! bradykp wasn't talking about THOSE studies/polls. They are all FLAWED. What he/she can't seem to find is the ACCURATE one that says most people think the mosque at this location is a really great idea.
In defense, MY google can't find that ONE, either.
Maybe he could email Imam Feisal and ask for a copy of the study that was done by the Cordoba House Initiative???? LOL
i'll take a look at the polls. again - as i said, polls typically are asked a certain way, and that certainly effects the results. so it's hard to determine what the majority really believe. in the Q poll you referenced first, 52% of new yorkers didn't support building the mosque. I'll take a look at the questions later. Q runs pretty good polls, so that should be taken to mean something.
I was asking an honest question because people keep throwing these comments around as facts, and I just haven't seen much to support it personally.
Yes you do have the right to post whatever you want, no matter how irrelevant or weak your argument is.
There's no doubt that these people are nuts. But the 9/11 hijackers were educated and well off. Obviously religion contributed to them going off the deep end. Let's not pretend religion had nothing to do with it.
The religion of those churches and the Jewish center didn't play a role in the attack so once again, your point is irrelevant.
I brought up the constitution because I wanted to acknowlege that they do have the legal right to build the mosque. This is the main argument from supporters. But I have the right to express my opposition just like you have the right to express your support. The nutty pastor in Florida has the right to burn the Koran, but you and me have the right to speak out against it.
So I think your argument is weak and you think my position is weak. I know mine is more enlightened, you know yours is more enlightened.
Arguing over where to put religious temples and houses of worship has been going on for 1000s of years. These are the petty squabbles that have defined the Middle East. I think it's nonsense there and nonsense when it goes on here.
Not really sure what you're trying to say here. You originally asked "has anyone (in media, on message boards, through organizations) been able to even remotely quantify how many people are supposedly against this?" But you say a poll by a media company like the NY Times doesn't cut it? Why not?!?! Your question is EXACTLY what the NY Times Poll was trying to quantify. Fair representation is always an issue, with ANY type of study, and that's why the people who run polls and studies put the results through a statistical analysis (which was done for the NY Times Poll). These analyses tell you the margin of error and statistical significance of the results, given the sampling size against the entire population. Whether or not you accept the results is up to you. I believe the number was close to what I see in this very thread. There are a few supporters here, who write the vast majority of replies (including insults for anyone with a slightly opposing viewpoint).
polls are often biased, in my opinion, and the order the questions are asked skews the results of the polls. so i'd rather a survey of people than a poll as a statistical sample.
sorry if i want to be more accurate, but I do.
i work in audit, so i understand statistical sampling and I understand extrapolating the results.
with a poll, you can extrapolate the results of a specific series of questions, that doesn't translate to results showing a specific senteminent, rather it shows the sentiment that results from that series of questions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
