[INTroJect]

Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No. Completely wrong. If you are born into a Christian or Jewish or Sabean family, then you are not a Muslim. Please Google "People of the Book" and get some correct information on this. Truly, it ain't that difficult. There are Baha'is in Iran, and they are not "People of the Book" but they are not considered Muslims either. The Powers That Be will do pretty much anything just to get us to call ourselves Muslim. If they assumed we just were they wouldn't have to try so hard, eh? There are Christians in Syria and have been ever since...Christ. There are Christians in Egypt (cf. "Coptic Church"). There are Jews in various Muslim nations as well. So obviously just because you're born in a Muslim country does not mean you're a Muslim.

???

You are just repeating something that someone said earlier and, as I have already elaborated, non-muslim groups are unrelated. Did you bother to read that before making these frivolous remarks? Come back after you have some basic background and are ready to be a know-it-all. Mmmm-kay? Give Boutros Boutros-Ghali a call and ask him for an explanation.

This goes way back to Islam 101

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you expect this statement to be taken seriously, it would help if you listed some who do and some who do not. Examples are very helpful in situations like this. Also, please distinguish whether it's something the state takes upon itself or whether it's some sort of local practice that has no force of law (not that that matters much if your dead anyway).

What would be even more helpful in situations like this would be to click on the sources that I already quoted on this subject. Here's the first...

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(source: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )

And then again with further detail...

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(hint: I put what you are looking for in bold since you missed it the first time. The list isnt exhanustive and it says that citations are needed, but what is on there isnt being disputed.)

---------- Post added 09-05-2010 at 10:42 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is, but I sorta see it in terms of the difference between your typical small town Christian Church and the Westboro Baptists. Coincidentally it's the guys like Fred Phelps, and the Creationists who actually follow the Bible closer than other Christians. Interesting note, and this should be fact-checked, but I believe Sufists (Sufies? Sufismists?) don't follow Sharia; they feel they have to go "above" it or something transcendental-like. Haven't read much about it, but from what I've understood Sufism seems to have some parallels to Buddhism.

The research that I am doing on Sufism is interesting. Some of their practices are things that I have never heard of before and I can see the possible buddhist connection because even some of the words that they use have an unfamiliar feel to them. Chapter 13 of Islam for Dummies says that "some deny its legitimacy and say that it has nothing to do with islam." But ive never heard a muslim either mention Sufism or deny connection with that mosque so its hard for me to guage where they stand on things.

[Apocynum]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The USA and Europe are both absolutely brimming with muslims. Do you think that if there were any merit whatsoever to your fears, that they would have destroyed the continents already? If all of those people thought these things you think they think, we would surely have noticed by now.

Yes. I can’t say it too many times for folks to learn. They are fighting a political war, especially considering that the Western powers have shown how readily they reply in-kind to overt military actions. They learned and successfully adapted a lot of propaganda tech from WWII. They manipulate the sympathies of the generally conflict avoiding West.

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	However, the facts of the "Ground Zero" mosque make me favor putting it up. The imam is Sufi, it's a multi-cultural center, and the only real argument against is "Muslims are bad". Plus....law's on their side, and 1st Amendment rights are usually a good thing to uphold. Bottom line, if we're going to have to put up a mosque, I think I can live with a Sufi one.

Firstly, the main imam who is supporting building the facility is sufi – he is NOT the imam who will be in charge there. We do not know who it is, if one has been chosen; and if not, how he will be chosen or by whom. So, the Islam taught there could very well not be sufi. There are already sufi critics of the plans for the center in that it does not follow the sufi principle of simplicity.

Next, I really need you to tell me where you got the info that this is a “multi-cultural center”. Everything I have read and heard (from more direct sources than various pundits) says that this is an “Islamic community center” being built as “a platform for interfaith dialogue” (says project organizers). Since they will not answer many questions, we have to guess at what is meant by ‘interfaith dialogue’. Given that they are not participating much in a natural dialogue by not answering questions, then it can be concluded that this is not the commonly presumed sense of mutually inclusive, bi-directional discussion. On the far extreme we could interpret ‘interfaith dialogue’ to mean that they simply want to educate those of other faiths to know what they need to do to become muslim.

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Grr. Read the thread. But at the end of the day, if there is a verse in the Koran that suggests Muslim land is always Muslim, that again wouldn't make it any different from the Bible. Surprise, surprise. (It would be particularly ironic for an Israeli to be saying that in disapproval; as Booko pointed out, isn't that exactly the philosophical basis for Israel's founding?)

*Honestly curious* I have failed my attempts to read through the whole bible; I would like to know of the passage you refer to that says any Christian land always thereafter belongs to Christians.

[phoboser]

It's a multi-cultural center with a mosque like Caesars Palace is a hotel with a casino.

[Apocynum]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's a multi-cultural center with a mosque like Caesars Palace is a hotel with a casino.

I continue to ask: what is the source for your statement that it is a "multi-cultural" center? My sources indicate it as an Islamic Cultural Center:

From the Cordoba Initiative Website:

	Since no comparable Muslim community center exists in New York City, Imam Feisal and Daisy Khan wished to create for Muslim New Yorkers something similar to a YMCA or the 92nd St. Y; and they wanted to include a space for interfaith dialogues and a separate prayer space on one of the floors.

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by Apocynum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I continue to ask: what is the source for your statement that it is a "multi-cultural" center? My sources indicate it as an Islamic Cultural Center

I apologize. It's an Islamic community/cultural center. My point was that no matter what type of center people want to call it, the mosque is the main draw, the one hundred million dollar reason, the sine qua non. The mysterious financiers aren't really that emotionally invested in the yoga room or smoothie bar, as those aren't prerequisites for interfaith "understanding".

[Imperator]

Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The research that I am doing on Sufism is interesting. Some of their practices are things that I have never heard of before and I can see the possible buddhist connection because even some of the words that they use have an unfamiliar feel to them. Chapter 13 of Islam for Dummies says that "some deny its legitimacy and say that it has nothing to do with islam." But ive never heard a muslim either mention Sufism or deny connection with that mosque so its hard for me to guage where they stand on things.

It is kinda cool, isn't it?
I really don't know where most Muslims stand with Sufism, but I do know they're as much on Al-Qaeda's shit list as the US. I think there was a recent terrorist attack against a Sufi mosque in Pakistan to illustrate that point.

That's really one of the main issues I have with mosque-opposition. It's such a visceral, emotional reaction that I don't see a lot of actual fact-checking and reasoning.

I am really on par with what Bloomberg and Ron Paul said about the issue.

	Originally Posted by Apocynum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Firstly, the main imam who is supporting building the facility is sufi – he is NOT the imam who will be in charge there. We do not know who it is, if one has been chosen; and if not, how he will be chosen or by whom. So, the Islam taught there could very well not be sufi. There are already sufi critics of the plans for the center in that it does not follow the sufi principle of simplicity.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. So even if he's not in charge, he's still 8 blocks away.....and has been there since the 80s.

Secondly, how do you know he won't be the imam in charge, if you don't know who's in charge? It just sounds like you're guessing.

	Next, I really need you to tell me where you got the info that this is a “multi-cultural center”.

Sorry, typo. Meant to say Islamic cultural center.
Although, from what I've read, all the non-mosque parts are open to the public, like any typical YMCA. I've also heard they're [now] planning to put in a 9/11 memorial.

	Given that they are not participating much in a natural dialogue by not answering questions, then it can be concluded that this is not the commonly presumed sense of mutually inclusive, bi-directional discussion. On the far extreme we could interpret ‘interfaith dialogue’ to mean that they simply want to educate those of other faiths to know what they need to do to become muslim.

1. I think they are talking. People just aren't listening.
2. Even if they're not talking, it's a little hard to reason with pitchfork-wielding angry mobs. I see no reason why they should talk until Americans can calm the fuck down and have a rational dialogue.

3. What questions aren't being answered?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Q: Why are they building it there?

A: We’d been looking for at least seven years to find a space to accommodate the growing population of Muslims in lower Manhattan. We had also been eager to contribute to the revitalization of lower Manhattan, in part because this is our area of business and also because as New Yorkers we wanted to give back to our city and help make it a better place to live [...]

The second mosque, at Warren Street, accommodated about 1,500 worshippers during Friday prayers - people had been praying on sidewalks because they had no room. They lost their space around May 2009. 



We made the move to buy 45 Park Place in July 2009 in part to offset the loss of this space. Currently, our space at 45 Park Place accommodates around 450 people every Friday. We are also easily accessible from many different parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, which was an important consideration.





Q: Who's in charge?

A: Imam Feisal will be a member of the Board of Directors and will oversee the Cordoba House, which will direct the multifaith programming within Park51.



Q: What's going to go inside?

A: Park51 will grow into a world-class community center, planned to include the following facilities:

outstanding recreation spaces and fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court)
a 500-seat auditorium
a restaurant and culinary school
cultural amenities including exhibitions
education programs
a library, reading room and art studios
childcare services
a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all

Damn muslims and their evil religion. How DARE they put a culinary school and an auditorium in the same building.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The man did a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, in case anyone is interested in more info on him, his beliefs, etc.

[titi monkey]

Hey, has anyone said this yet (Stasis comes the closest, but he [or she] uses bigger words than I do): all religions in the U.S.A. must be subordinate to the U.S. constitution. Now, all of you people arguing about the relative merits of Islam vs. Christianity (You started it. No you started it. No you were bad before we were bad, so we still have some bad left) can meditate on that for a while.

News Flash: Christians don't run the government! The first ten amendments are nothing like the ten commandments!

I just want to hear both sides say that no matter what, they won't put their religious convictions above the law of the land. I want them to promise. I want them to swear it.

The Constitution does make provisions for holding the government accountable; but be honest about how you really feel. If, as a Christian or Muslim, you want your particular brand of worship to rule the world, and force people to live by it's rules, then have the power of your convictions and just say so.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by Apocynum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I continue to ask: what is the source for your statement that it is a "multi-cultural" center? My sources indicate it as an Islamic Cultural Center: From the Cordoba Initiative Website:

The cordoba initiative website also tosses around the "multicultural" word a couple of times.

	Through multicultural programs offered by the Cordoba Initiative and ASMA, the community center would crystallize this shared vision of peace into bricks and mortar. (Source: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )




	The programs at Cordoba Initiative (CI) are designed to cultivate multi-cultural and multi-faith understanding across minds and borders. (source: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )

They probably have it other places too so I think its understandable that someone would make the connection to call it "Multicultural center". Officially, it looks like the wording they are calling it a "Muslim Community Center". (You say potato I say potato.) I am also seeing the words mosque and prayer space used interchangably. In the end they are probably going to use "prayer space" because it sounds more innocuous to the general population. (You say tomato, I say tomato.)

---------- Post added 09-06-2010 at 02:25 AM ----------

Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hey, has anyone said this yet: all religions in the U.S.A. must be subordinate to the U.S. constitution. Now, all of you people arguing about the relative merits of Islam vs. Christianity (You started it. No you started it. No you were bad before we were bad, so we still have some bad left) can meditate on that for a while. News Flash: Christians don't run the government! The first ten amendments are nothing like the ten commandments! I just want to hear both sides say that no matter what, they won't put their religious convictions above the law of the land. I want them to promise. I want them to swear it. The Constitution does make provisions for holding the government accountable; but be honest about how you really feel. If, as a Christian or Muslim, you want your particular brand of worship to rule the world, and force people to live by it's rules, then have the power of your convictions and just say so.

You dont need to worry about that titi monkey. This is a forum of INTJs, you will be hard pressed to find a bible-thumper in here. Its more like the discussion is along the lines of Islam sympathetic vs Islam unsympathetic. Or, maybe more generally, dogma tolerant vs dogma intolerant.

[titi monkey]

I don't know. I reviewed the entire thread and saw a lot of "Well if it was a church..." as if that has anything to do with the issue at hand. My whole thing is about the honesty and intentions on both sides. The honest people on the "don't build it" side flat out accuse the followers of Islam as bent on world domination. The honest people on the "build it or don't build it, it's nobody's business" side say that argument is completely beside the point, and has nothing to do with the whereabouts of a religiously-funded community center. I guess, as a concerned citizen of the United States, I would like to hear from more Muslims and Muslim leaders about how they are able to tolerate liberal Western lifestyles and about their willingness to coexist with it peacefully, and live side by side with those of different faith, or no faith, and not demand any special treatment under the law not afforded to any other citizen in good standing. Same goes for any *ism as far as I'm concerned.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I got that picture from an article on the BBC website. They are not into photoshopping. But this one isnt from the BBC, does it look fake to you? [godblesshitlah]

Oh phtooey. Should I start posting Westboro Baptist pics?

Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Two organizations with the same ideals of violence. Lurk makes a strong point with the issuing of orders under the authority of the religion to kill people... from a religion of PEACE? It doesnt matter if all contemporary moderate muslims dont go marching off with sword in hand, the instruction is there and plenty of them follow it. Some members of the KKK choose to be active some choose to be inactive, perhaps they prefer to be lazy. They may personally not believe in doing it, but that doesnt speak for the ideals of the religion.

Sorry, it just doesn't work. KKK is a very specific organisation with a specific membership and specific practices. Islam is one of the major organised religions. For most "practitioners", this is just the particular superstition they grew up with.

In any event, if Islam can be compared to the KKK, so can Christianity.

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ive read buddhist texts and ive read islamic texts. One is glorifying practicioners into killing people, the other is spefically telling them not to do it. I know that you are intelligent and can see that there is an obvious difference there.

See? Now you hop back to the texts themselves. We were talking about what practitioners are doing with them many centuries later.

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Europe is getting there but the USA isnt brimming enough, yet. They are having some serious problems over there and its going to keep getting worse.

Where is there? What problems?

Originally Posted by Apocynum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes. I can’t say it too many times for folks to learn. Read “Londonistan” by Melanie Phillips (it can be had for just a couple bucks, used, online). They are fighting a political war, especially considering that the Western powers have shown how readily they reply in-kind to overt military actions. They learned and successfully adapted a lot of propaganda tech from WWII. They manipulate the sympathies of the generally conflict avoiding West. Londonistan documents and describes the techniques as they have been and are being used, now, today, in Europe and increasingly in the US.

Oh please. I was born and raised in an area where almost half the residents are Muslim, have since moved to another area where the same thing is valid, and all of this stuff is completely alien to me. 99.9% of "them" are just people like you and me, living their lives. They have a cool culture and add a lot to this city. Go live in a cabin on Greenland or something, I hear they have a lot of whites there.

[Holiman]

I thought living in the US and in our culture was so great any other group or person would want to take part even if they keep some of with own culture and add the best parts. To me that is what is great about the USA. If this isnt true and our way of life and culture doesnt influence them that way, why not, what are we doing wrong.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Apocynum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	*Honestly curious* I have failed my attempts to read through the whole bible; I would like to know of the passage you refer to that says any Christian land always thereafter belongs to Christians.

It's not the Christians who were promised anything, FYI; they really only make a cameo appearance in the Bible. Just because of logistics I'm sure. But repeatedly throughout Genesis and Exodus God promises Canaan to the patriarchs and the Jewish people. It's these passages which are the theoretical basis for Israeli settlers illegally building on Palestinian land today.

Here's one I found from the text online, Genesis 17:8-9: "And I will give unto you, and to your seed after you, the land where you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

Curious how most Christians and Jews would take that as par for the course, kind of like, oh, of course that's in our Bible, but say it's in the Koran and suddenly it has an evil, world domination tone. Like it should be followed with a string section evil: duh-duh-DUH.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your point is a non-sequitur.

Your analysis, unfortunately, erroneous. I seems that you are sending out the intellectual SWAT team on that bit but you are missing the entire string of context that it is resting on. I can see how that could happen as Arronax made the same mistake.

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A much more probable hypothetical would be people voting on the inclusion of the 10 commandments into law. Such a hypothetical is fairly useless though.

The problem with the opposing argument is it rests on the insistence that Christianity is better than Islam.[/quote]


No it doesnt, the 10 commandments are completely irrelevent. If theres any such notion, its that a secular system is better than Islam. I think you are riding on the misconception that a nay for Islam is a yay for Christanity and that is not the case by any means.

All of the rest of this that follows you are making a response to an argument that was never even made and now anyone reading this is going to have to scroll through all of that in order to see my response below...

Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

#1: That's highly debatable (I have much larger resentment, admittedly partly due to first hand experience, against the Christian religion). #2: It's irrelevant concerning the 1st amendment. #3: It's fear-based, and thus, no more than an appeal to emotion. Without even getting into detail, it should be strikingly obvious that this is neither a sound base for making a decision, nor a rational argument. Getting into detail simply draws a larger emphasis on the holes of the mosque opposition argument, or at least any mosque opposition argument I've ever seen. In any case, there is absolutely zero argument I've seen from people opposed to the mosque that gets over #2, so from that standpoint the decision is already made. What we're really arguing over now is ideology. What they should or should not do. Which in that case, I don't particularly feel the KKK should spout a message of racial purity and white supremacy, I don't particularly feel Fred Phelps should spout anti-Gay messages (or any message, frankly), I have a serious problem with the Pope's comments about condoms on both a moral and legal level, etc.

...Ok. Now that we are done scrolling through the misfired buildup and beatdown, here are some things that need to be reitereated.
-It seems you place me incorrectly as an oppositionist to the mosque(?). Theres no opposition that can be made, it would be taking a sledgehammer to our constitutional rights to prevent it.
-My statement isnt fear based, you really think an *I*N*T*J* would be making an appeal to anyone's emotions???
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Since you made an attempt, I will try to do some cliffnotes so you can join the discussion, Zibber, forgive/correct me if I am misrepresenting or describing unfairly. Zibber Said:

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	See? Now you hop back to the texts themselves. We were talking about what practitioners are doing with them many centuries later.

My dossier on Zibber shows that he, perhaps, gives more preference to his observations of the actions of the people rather than the doctrine of their religion. He is not approving of the koran (has he read it?), but he has had a large exposure to muslims and he thinks that they are fine characters. With this statement above, "we were talking about what the practitioners are doing", he is again emphasizing his stance of observing the actions of those in the religion. To oppose the religion would be to unfairly oppose the good people who identify themselves with it. After all, many of them are muslim by birth/culture anyway and dont even follow the devine instructions in that book.

I responded with:

Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Of course I hop back to the texts. Thats where my problem is. Kill me for blasphemy but I felt the same way reading that trash as I did Ann Coultier and Mein Kampf. If we were to have a 2nd constiutional convention to implement sharia law, it would be based on the text, not what we see the practitioners doing as they go about their daily lives. The results of islamic revolutions are not pleasant. They are not even intended to be. "Life is a prison for the believer and a paradise for the non-believer" (source: some line in there that im pulling from memory, I forget where it is)

Im not sure why that line I bolded is getting so much attention. My point isnt that is about to happen, but that the instructions in the Koran, whether they are following it on a daily basis or not, does have significance. If you are familiar with the Rwandan genocide, the Koran reads a lot like this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Its just pages and pages of war/subjugation/extortion against anyone who is not part of the club. However, perhaps I hold too high of importance on the significance of someone subscribing to such a doctrine. Im reading through the whole thing but I recommend just reading a few random pages and anyone will see what I am talking about. I was extremely opposite of my current position (and very well experienced on the subject) until I opened that book and saw how well it connected with my observations of some things that I had previously convinced myself were only random occurences.

Provide analysis.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If we were to have a 2nd constiutional convention to implement sharia law, it would be based on the text, not what we see the practitioners doing as they go about their daily lives.

Reality check: Muslims compose less than 3% of the US population and most of them prefer secular law. There's not going to be a constitutional convention to implement sharia.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Reality check: Muslims compose less than 3% of the US population and most of them prefer secular law. There's not going to be a constitutional convention to implement sharia.

Reality Check: It was hypothetical.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Reality Check: It was hypothetical.

You might want to avoid mentioning hypothetical situations that won't happen if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You might want to avoid mentioning hypothetical situations that won't happen if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.

Dont worry about it. The more keen will be able to follow the point and may even have something useful to respond.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Dont worry about it. The more keen will be able to follow the point and may even have something useful to respond.

What point is that exactly? Your entire argument is based on fear and all you've demonstrated is you're willing to make up implausible scenarios in an attempt to make others afraid.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	See? Now you hop back to the texts themselves. We were talking about what practitioners are doing with them many centuries later.

Perhaps I am crossing into the land of stupidly mistaken but, are there not also parts where it is telling them to lie? I really dont know how serious to take this and this isnt a theological discussion thread but the following verses

Qur'an 9:3 - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." (Dont worry about stickin it to em?) Qur'an 40:28 - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers. (lets just pretend that everything is "yay freedom and democracy!") Qur'an 2:225 - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" (And Allah says its ok to stick it to em.) Qur'an 66:2 - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths" (Go right ahead says God) Qur'an 3:54 - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." (And Allah is scheming against them anyway so what more reason is needed?)

Sounds like a whole lot of excuse to stick the mosque right there next to ground zero and then act like its all random circumstance as people get upset about it. Im drifting away from this suspicion as I dig into sufism but the evidence is there to support it.

[Takeru]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I thought living in the US and in our culture was so great any other group or person would want to take part even if they keep some of with own culture and add the best parts. To me that is what is great about the USA. If this isnt true and our way of life and culture doesnt influence them that way, why not, what are we doing wrong.

Assimilation. There is a reason why there is [insert country of origin]town in many different cities throughout America. America expects people who move to the U.S. to be assimilated. But at the same time, the U.S. makes it very hard for the immigrant to assimilate. I am not saying there aren't cities that make it easier to assimilate(like my city where 1 in 10 families are inter-racial/across ethnic boundaries,) but when you begin hearing that Black and Mexican people take the lower jobs and other issues like how Muslims are terrorists that building a mosque near the WTC is defamation, you know something is awfully wrong.

You can even compare the assimilation rate of one city over another. From there, the main difference is tolerance. As diverse as a city is, it doesn't help if the people do not intermingle. People expect results but do not help create results.

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by Takeru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can even compare the assimilation rate of one city over another. From there, the main difference is tolerance. As diverse as a city is, it doesn't help if the people do not intermingle. People expect results but do not help create results.

Excellent observation, and it goes to the very heart of all my arguments; and why, as a layman, I constantly preach the Constitution! What ethnic groups do in private is their own business, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

I wonder what you mean by "assimilation"? If the culture you bring to the United States means living in a filthy condition, killing chickens in your basement, or wiping your ass bare-handed, you can leave that in whatever place you came from, and "assimilate" to public health standards. This applies to all ethnicities (races, religions, creeds, and otherwise).

As for tolerance, feel free to express yourself, but please consider the sensibilities of others, and respect public decency laws. If you believe a minority group is being unfairly persecuted, bring it to the attention of your representatives. But keep in mind, protesting, carrying signs, and voicing your opinion is not persecution.

Of course the U.S.A isn't perfect, and certainly these things do happen; but I know of no nation more willing to admit it's faults in this area and work hard to rectify them. Native Americans get land and money; the government didn't have to honor those agreements, but it was the right thing to do (admitting the mistakes of previous governmental officials). The descendants of slaves have the exact same rights today as descendants of slave holders. Immigrants are no longer systematically mistreated as they once were - even menial jobs have OSHA standards, EPA regulations, and a minimum wage. And as I have pointed out before, Asian immigrants don't seem to have much problem getting ahead in America through their long hours and hard work.

It's sad to me that more Americans aren't being educated in fundamental law and civic duty. If more of us knew what America stands for, the better we could oversee our representatives. It feels like a never-ending struggle, but seems to be worth fighting for. I simply won't tolerate anyone or anything that fights against it.

Personally, I can't see why anyone would voluntarily join a religion with so many rules; but hey, if that's your thing, far be it for me or anyone else to tell you any different.

[Takeru]

Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I wonder what you mean by "assimilation"? If the culture you bring to the United States means living in a filthy condition, killing chickens in your basement, or wiping your ass bare-handed, you can leave that in whatever place you came from, and "assimilate" to public health standards. This applies to all ethnicities (races, religions, creeds, and otherwise). As for tolerance, feel free to express yourself, but please consider the sensibilities of others, and respect public decency laws. If you believe a minority group is being unfairly persecuted, bring it to the attention of your representatives. But keep in mind, protesting, carrying signs, and voicing your opinion is not persecution.

Assimilation in a lot of places. Assimilation in allowing the immigrant into the society without the immigrant feeling castrated by the country he is immigrating to (this is one reason you start seeing an Italian quarter, a French quarter, a Chinatown, a Japantown, etc.) Of course, this immigrant needs to also accept the fact that there are some things that shouldn't be done in America that may have been accepted by another country. This immigrant should change his situation to adapt for America BUT Americans also have to accept this fact that he/she is in contact with a different culture.

Tolerance goes as far as the immigrant accepting and following the U.S. law and customs. Tolerance in the case of Americans to accept immigrants and their customs without ridicule or name calling. Tolerance for the fact that not everyone who is [insert ethnic/religious group] acts like [insert stereotype.]

We are the host and they are the guest, we should know better than to spit out fire for those who come to America, especially for those who are willing to change to suit America's needs.

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by Takeru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Tolerance goes as far as the immigrant accepting and following the U.S. law and customs. Tolerance in the case of Americans to accept immigrants and their customs without ridicule or name calling. Tolerance for the fact that not everyone who is [insert ethnic/religious group] acts like [insert stereotype.]

I agree with that. I love the variety that different cultural traditions bring to the U.S. I love going to cultural events. There is nothing that I'm aware of in our laws that holds back someone playing by the rules. I think you're referring to social issues? I believe that we have made tremendous progress in this area.

There was a time in America when if you didn't have the help of family or friends, you had nothing. You could join a gang and be part of the problem, or you could join a voting block and be part of the solution. A lot of what we have today is due to newcomers who learned about their rights and demanded that they be respected, all with the blessing of the Constitution.

As far as changing the actions and opinions of some individuals; well, it seems some people are beyond help. But don't make the common mistake of believing that someone protesting what they perceive as an insensitive act (the Manhattan mosque), or illegal activity (the failed immigration policy in Arizona), is based in racism and intolerance. Maybe it is for some, but summarizing that the aims of the few are indicative of the whole elevates the one and insults the other.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hey, has anyone said this yet (Stasis comes the closest, but he [or she] uses bigger words than I do): all religions in the U.S.A. must be subordinate to the U.S. constitution.

I've mentioned the law a couple times. Probably not using the direct words of "US Constitution", but I know I mentioned 1st amendment somewhere. Cookie for me?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Dont worry about it. The more keen will be able to follow the point and may even have something useful to respond.

Your point is a non-sequitur.

A much more probable hypothetical would be people voting on the inclusion of the 10 commandments into law. Such a hypothetical is fairly useless though.

The problem with the opposing argument is it rests on the insistence that Christianity is better than Islam.

#1: That's highly debatable (I have much larger resentment, admittedly partly due to first hand experience, against the Christian religion).
#2: It's irrelevant concerning the 1st amendment.
#3: It's fear-based, and thus, no more than an appeal to emotion.

Without even getting into detail, it should be strikingly obvious that this is neither a sound base for making a decision, nor a rational argument.

Getting into detail simply draws a larger emphasis on the holes of the mosque opposition argument, or at least any mosque opposition argument I've ever seen.

In any case, there is absolutely zero argument I've seen from people opposed to the mosque that gets over #2, so from that standpoint the decision is already made. What we're really arguing over now is ideology. What they should or should not do.

Which in that case, I don't particularly feel the KKK should spout a message of racial purity and white supremacy, I don't particularly feel Fred Phelps should spout anti-Gay messages (or any message, frankly), I have a serious problem with the Pope's comments about condoms on both a moral and legal level, etc.

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've mentioned the law a couple times. Probably not using the direct words of "US Constitution", but I know I mentioned 1st amendment somewhere. Cookie for me? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You'll notice that I often use "U.S." or "U.S.A." instead of "America" or "Americans" because I've been told that everyone else in N. America and S. America consider themselves "Americans" too, and I agree with them.