Whoa man, not trying to psychoanalyze anyone. I wouldn't even know how to go about doing that. And if I did, I'm much more of a Wednesday late-morning amateur psychotherapy kind of guy. And while I can't read tone or inflection on here, I just get the sense that you really do care if there is a mosque built.

Could have fooled me, sure seems like you're trying to. Your sense is off, might want to get that looked at.

 

On a side note, nice touch on the Wednesday late-morning amateur psychotherapy thing, I like good humor tossed in an argument. I see hope for you in P&R. :thumb:

Don't think the two are comparable as I don't remember McVeigh's faith being a large contributing factor in his actions. I'm also not sure that there is a faction of Christianity that is engaged in a Holy War against another culture.

 

Amen to the bolded. It makes a big difference that a segment of the religion teaches and encourages violent acts toward America.

You don't have to be able to read minds to realize that those that oppose this are no better than the bums on the streets that hate blacks, mexicans, etc.....

 

I think you took first place in the over-exaggeration department with this one.

Amen to the bolded. It makes a big difference that a segment of the religion teaches and encourages violent acts toward America.

 

I think that you are over-simplifying religious extremists. Does it matter if it's a religion that has more followers in other countries that wages a holy war against America rather than American religious extremists that wage what some could consider a holy war against citizens of their own country? I find that people who bomb abortion clinics, walk into churches and kill a doctor in the name of Christianity to be every bit as extreme and guilty of waging a war against America. I can agree with opposing abortion. But I can't agree with using any religion to justify a violent act for any reason. Whether one person is killed or a thousand isn't relevant. It's the fact that using religion to justify violence is both extremist and terroristic.

I have read this whole thread, and find it to be an interesting debate and I pose this question...

 

What do the muslims hope to gain from building this mosque there? I believe I read that they hope to build back the burnt down bridges between their faith and the rest of America. I personally do not believe that this will happen, and there are other ways to do that.

I think that you are over-simplifying religious extremists. Does it matter if it's a religion that has more followers in other countries that wages a holy war against America rather than American religious extremists that wage what some could consider a holy war against citizens of their own country? I find that people who bomb abortion clinics, walk into churches and kill a doctor in the name of Christianity to be every bit as extreme and guilty of waging a war against America. I can agree with opposing abortion. But I can't agree with using any religion to justify a violent act for any reason. Whether one person is killed or a thousand isn't relevant. It's the fact that using religion to justify violence is both extremist and terroristic.

 

:thumb: Best post in this thread.

 

I can understand the feelings of some of the 9/11 families that don't want the mosque to be built. However, I can also understand that there are many, many Muslim Americans that had nothing to do with 9/11 that want to not be affiliated with those that did and want the freedom of religion that America promises us all.

I think that you are over-simplifying religious extremists. Does it matter if it's a religion that has more followers in other countries that wages a holy war against America rather than American religious extremists that wage what some could consider a holy war against citizens of their own country? I find that people who bomb abortion clinics, walk into churches and kill a doctor in the name of Christianity to be every bit as extreme and guilty of waging a war against America. I can agree with opposing abortion. But I can't agree with using any religion to justify a violent act for any reason. Whether one person is killed or a thousand isn't relevant. It's the fact that using religion to justify violence is both extremist and terroristic.

I agree with most of what you said, however, I do think it does make a difference in the number of people being killed and the vast difference in the numbers of violent extremists of Christians vs. Muslims.

Muslim extremists aren't only against Americans, btw.

This issue is finally starting to creep into the mainstream media more-

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/07/20/chernoff.ground.zero.mosque.cnn

 

 

I also find it interesting that the mosque being built "on Ground Zero" is actually two blocks away and has been operating as a Muslim community center for months. :lol:

Good for Newt !!! http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/21/newt-gingrich-no-ground-zero-mosque-until-saudis-allow-churches/

Good for Newt !!! http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/21/newt-gingrich-no-ground-zero-mosque-until-saudis-allow-churches/

 

That's pretty interesting.

I saw a segment a couple of days ago on the evening news, and they interviewed people on both sides of this issue. One gentleman opposing the mosque said that he felt it was a slap in the face of the families. Now, I wonder exactly why that is. It seems to me this is a religious issue. Those opposing the site of the mosque do so because the terrorists were Islamic. So, when he speaks, exactly what is the slap in the families' faces? I would assume no one opposes or would oppose a christian church located in the same general area. And, I would think that there were muslims/islamics that lost their lives in the towers that day. I'm just confused by the exact root of the supposed disrespect.

Good for Newt !!! http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/21/newt-gingrich-no-ground-zero-mosque-until-saudis-allow-churches/

 

The difference (which is significant) is that Saudi Arabia doesn't espouse religious freedom. America does. To follow Mr. Gingrich's directive would be to subvert our very own freedom of religion. As well, we then cannot preach democracy, tolerance or freedom to other countries. We will not be in practice ourselves. To do what Newt wants would be the ultimate American hypocrisy.

I am in complete opposition to putting a masque in plain sight of Ground Zero. However, I too do not think gov't has any right to decide what happens here.

The difference (which is significant) is that Saudi Arabia doesn't espouse religious freedom. America does. To follow Mr. Gingrich's directive would be to subvert our very own freedom of religion. As well, we then cannot preach democracy, tolerance or freedom to other countries. We will not be in practice ourselves. To do what Newt wants would be the ultimate American hypocrisy.

 

Not really comparable as he merely says no to one particular site which may be being built as a slap at us, if what he says about the name is correct.

The good and tolerant Muslims here in America should understand the feelings of those harmed on 9/11 and not rub more salt in the wounds of the families involved... Muslims I've spoken with think it's a bad idea...