It's not an issue where the mosque is built. It what it represents.
This may not be relevant to this topic but I am getting a little concerned about the creeping islamification of western Sydney and the rest of the population having to cater for the needs of Muslims - "Muslim Only" days at public swimming pools and stores only selling Halal meat are only two examples.
Tolerance is a two way street. What happens about the inconvenience caused to non muslims wanting to use a public pool and not being able to? And what about if you don't want to eat Halal meat?
These two examples may not be exactly relevant to the Ground Zero mosque but it shows that tolerance is not always a two way street.
The best comment so far on this thread.
While muslims are asking for religious freedom and tolerence from us they must remind themselves as well that they must respect the laws of the land and religious freedoms of non-muslims.
Well, as long as we're straying off topic and Moony's not around may I ask a couple of questions?
Do these public pools have special days for any other groups? Do they allow groups to rent out the facilities for special occasions?
And these stores that only sell Halal meat. Are they all the stores? Are they being forced to only sell Halal meat?
I'm just wondering if it's not quite as one sided as it might first appear. I think both sides tend to do that a lot, often without even realizing it.
However Goldberg and Behar are susposed to be professsional tv talk show hosts and and they should have remained on the set and kept thier cool. They cannot allow thier personal feelings get in the way of thier jobs and doing it effectively and professionally.
If they can't handle what Billy O'Reilly says in a professional manner how would they handle a political/religios extremist?
I assume you haven't seen O'Reilly's show, where he routinely cuts off guests he disagrees with and disallows them from speaking -- not walks off and allows them to speak in his absense, but completely shuts them down.
If I hear the conservative viewpoint correctly, they're saying conservatives have the right to say what they want, and to disagree with what they want, and that is freedom of speech. But any liberal exercising the same is impeding freedom of speech.
It's not an issue where the mosque is built. It what it represents.
That's like saying that, because the Oklahama City bomber Timothy McVeigh was Catholic (and he was), that the Catholic church represents McVeigh's terrorist views and therefore Catholic churches should no longer be allowed to be built.
Replace the word Catholic with Muslim and that is exactly O'Reilly's and the Right's argument and fearmongering message.
#2893828 - 10/17/1003:03 AMRe: Why did no one object to the "Pentagon mosque"?
[Re: stomachacidmonke]
MDanel93
Hathaway of impressing you
Registered: 03/05/04
Posts: 2274
Loc: Colorado
Ya know, I'm not much of an O'Reilly fan and the way he makes his point is completely the opposite from the way I would, but nonetheless, he was correct in his statement that "Muslims killed us on 9/11." You can argue the intent and appropriateness of the statement all you want, but it was factual. Muslims killed Americans on 9/11. Plain and simple. And it's amazing how some people react to that single statement. Weird.
_________________________
My Top Fifteen Ladies: 1. S. Coffey; 2. A. Heard; 3. D. Agron; 4. E. Van Camp; 5. K. McPhee; 6. Y. Strahovski; 7. S. Keibler; 8. L. Meester; 9. B. Lively; 10. Lights; 11. R. Jones; 12. S. Black D'Elia; 13. M.E. Winstead; 14. I. Fisher; 15. E. Rossum
#2894009 - 10/17/1005:51 AMRe: Why did no one object to the "Pentagon mosque"?
[Re: foobar456]
Crux Australis
Permanent Resident
Registered: 09/22/05
Posts: 9960
Loc: Emerald City, Land of Oz
Originally Posted By: foobar456
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Originally Posted By: Crux Australis
It's not an issue where the mosque is built. It what it represents.
This may not be relevant to this topic but I am getting a little concerned about the creeping islamification of western Sydney and the rest of the population having to cater for the needs of Muslims - "Muslim Only" days at public swimming pools and stores only selling Halal meat are only two examples.
Tolerance is a two way street. What happens about the inconvenience caused to non muslims wanting to use a public pool and not being able to? And what about if you don't want to eat Halal meat?
These two examples may not be exactly relevant to the Ground Zero mosque but it shows that tolerance is not always a two way street.
The best comment so far on this thread.
While muslims are asking for religious freedom and tolerence from us they must remind themselves as well that they must respect the laws of the land and religious freedoms of non-muslims.
Well, as long as we're straying off topic and Moony's not around may I ask a couple of questions?
Do these public pools have special days for any other groups? Do they allow groups to rent out the facilities for special occasions?
And these stores that only sell Halal meat. Are they all the stores? Are they being forced to only sell Halal meat?
I'm just wondering if it's not quite as one sided as it might first appear. I think both sides tend to do that a lot, often without even realizing it.
Of course schools and other social groups hire out public pools but it's the intent to separate one religion from the rest that is disturbing.
About the Halal meat question. I know that at least a few McDonalds restaurants and other fast food franchises have Halal only menus. I know it is in only certain areas that this occurs but this practice is becoming more and more widespread.
I know that certain dietary rules of Muslims and certain other Christian groups may seem restrictive but they shouldn't be forced on the rest of society.
Ya know, I'm not much of an O'Reilly fan and the way he makes his point is completely the opposite from the way I would, but nonetheless, he was correct in his statement that "Muslims killed us on 9/11." You can argue the intent and appropriateness of the statement all you want, but it was factual. Muslims killed Americans on 9/11. Plain and simple. And it's amazing how some people react to that single statement. Weird.
Muslims did NOT attack America.. no Shi’ite took part in the crimes on 9/11.. no Alawites took part in the crimes on 9/11.. no Babis took part in the crimes on 9/11.. no Azalis took part in the crimes on 9/11.. no Baha’is took part in the crimes on 9/11.. no Ahmadiyyas took part in the crimes on 9/11.. no Sufi took part in the crimes on 9/11.. no Cultural Muslims took part in the crimes on 9/11.. no Liberal Muslims took part in the crimes on 9/11.. no Kharijites took part in the crimes on 9/11.. no Ahmadiyya Qadiani took part in the crimes on 9/11.. the names of the Muslim sects that did not take part in the crimes of 9/11 would fill this page and more.. SO Muslims did NOT attack America.. it was one small sub Wahhabi sect.. and NO American Muslim of any sect took part in the crimes on 9/11.
Muslims did NOT attack America.. which is why the Pentagon felt it's right to have a mosque with in yards of the 9/11 impact point.. [ and with that we are back on topic ]
one small sub Wahhabi sect attacked America.. BUT American's abuse ALL Muslims
Record number of Muslim workers filing complaints of employment discrimination
New York Times September 23, 2010
A record number of Muslim workers are complaining of employment discrimination, from co-workers calling them "terrorist" or "Osama" to employers barring them from wearing head scarves or taking prayer breaks.
Such complaints were increasing even before frictions erupted over the planned Islamic center near ground zero in New York City, with Muslim workers filing a record 803 such claims in the year ended Sept. 30. That was up 20 percent from the previous year and up nearly 60 percent from 2005, federal data said.
The number of complaints filed since then will not be announced until January, but Islamic groups say they have received a surge in complaints, suggesting that 2010's figure will set another record. The rising number of complaints by Muslims exceeds even the amount filed in the year after 9/11.
_________________________
David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
Barbara Walters criticized her co-hosts for walking off stage during the live show.
Well done, Barbara. The left's loathsome eagerness to shut down free speech is far more chilling than O'Reilly mouthing off.
The left's loathsome eagerness to shut down free speech? When did they do that? The hosts didn't shut him down; they walked off and allowed him to spout off. Free speech doesn't mean everyone is required to listen to what you say. Just as O'Reilly has the right to mouth off, the hosts had the right to exercise their freedom of speech by making the statement of walking away from the idiot.
The way it works is:
Don't invite him back.
Make sure future invitees have the correct views.
Because of his stature, you might say the above probably wouldn't apply to O'Reilly. But would they invite him back if their two best hosts refused to appear with him and mouthed off their dirty laundry in the left-loving media? Someone of less stature (hasn't made a career of expressing awkward truths, that is) wouldn't have dared make such a remark in the first place.
It's not an issue where the mosque is built. It what it represents.
This may not be relevant to this topic but I am getting a little concerned about the creeping islamification of western Sydney and the rest of the population having to cater for the needs of Muslims - "Muslim Only" days at public swimming pools and stores only selling Halal meat are only two examples.
Tolerance is a two way street. What happens about the inconvenience caused to non muslims wanting to use a public pool and not being able to? And what about if you don't want to eat Halal meat?
These two examples may not be exactly relevant to the Ground Zero mosque but it shows that tolerance is not always a two way street.
In the UK, some schools have switched to Halal meat for all pupils without even discussing the issue. I, myself, was refused entry to a library on a women-only day (introduced to appease muslims in the area).
It's not an issue where the mosque is built. It what it represents.
This may not be relevant to this topic but I am getting a little concerned about the creeping islamification of western Sydney and the rest of the population having to cater for the needs of Muslims - "Muslim Only" days at public swimming pools and stores only selling Halal meat are only two examples.
Tolerance is a two way street. What happens about the inconvenience caused to non muslims wanting to use a public pool and not being able to? And what about if you don't want to eat Halal meat?
These two examples may not be exactly relevant to the Ground Zero mosque but it shows that tolerance is not always a two way street.
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
The best comment so far on this thread.
While muslims are asking for religious freedom and tolerence from us they must remind themselves as well that they must respect the laws of the land and religious freedoms of non-muslims.
Originally Posted By: foobar456
Well, as long as we're straying off topic and Moony's not around may I ask a couple of questions?
Do these public pools have special days for any other groups? Do they allow groups to rent out the facilities for special occasions?
And these stores that only sell Halal meat. Are they all the stores? Are they being forced to only sell Halal meat?
I'm just wondering if it's not quite as one sided as it might first appear. I think both sides tend to do that a lot, often without even realizing it.
Originally Posted By: Crux Australis
Of course schools and other social groups hire out public pools but it's the intent to separate one religion from the rest that is disturbing.
About the Halal meat question. I know that at least a few McDonalds restaurants and other fast food franchises have Halal only menus. I know it is in only certain areas that this occurs but this practice is becoming more and more widespread.
I know that certain dietary rules of Muslims and certain other Christian groups may seem restrictive but they shouldn't be forced on the rest of society.
I have been reading a couple of on-line Australian newspapers and the fears and fancies expressed by Crux Australis is a growing and wide spread fear of Islam across the world.
But what it reminds me of is the 19th century fear of Judaism..
the programs in Eastern Europe in 19th century lead to vast number of Jews emigrate to the western world.. to Britain, France, the US, Canada as well as Australia and New Zealand.. the western world found Judaism so separate and strange from their own way of life..
following on Crux Australis words of "Halal" only areas in Sydney.. the way Britain's and American's of the 19th century saw "Kosher" only areas in their cities in the same way.. was a diverse way to separate Jews from the rest of the city, as it showed that Jews did not want to integrate with any other people.
fears and distrust of Jews [ remember Jews where seen as terrorists of the 19th century.. Communism ect ] grow wherever they turn areas into Jews only parts of cities.. That fear and hate turned in time to the nightmare of Nazism becoming expectable world wide.. [ Nazism was seen as the western world main defence against Communism and Judaism.. It was only later did the world see the Nazis for what they always where ].. There are still "Kosher" only areas in the US and Britain and Australia, but given the restrictions on true integration Jews and non-Jews have lived side by side in understanding.
Yes Islam do make Muslims stand apart, in the same way as Judaism make Jews stand apart.. It took time and understanding for Jews and non-Jews to live side by side at the level that they do today
_________________________
David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
It's not an issue where the mosque is built. It what it represents.
Originally Posted By: stomachacidmonke
That's like saying that, because the Oklahama City bomber Timothy McVeigh was Catholic (and he was), that the Catholic church represents McVeigh's terrorist views and therefore Catholic churches should no longer be allowed to be built.
Replace the word Catholic with Muslim and that is exactly O'Reilly's and the Right's argument and fearmongering message.
in fact the building of the Mosque in New York and the building of St Peter's in New York in the 19th century face the same kind of hate and bigotry.. it maybe worth while for some to read about the building of St Peter's and the battle the Catholics faced.
_________________________
David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
may I ask a couple of questions?
Previous Topic
Index
