Lincoln Jealous
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 3,122
- Reaction score
- 17
if that mosque was such a big deal, people would be protesting everyday, i walked by there yesterday and it was dead
'Ground Zero mosque'? The reality is less provocative
- Thread starter hrmwrm
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Nice try fox, but you're purposely evading the point I'm making - it was the GOVERNMENT that we fought against, and it still is today. Also, your misdirection is either deliberate or out of ignorance - kamikaze dive bombers didn't appear until the end of the war - and certainly not at Pearl Harbor.
Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and others constitute our enemies - whether we trade with SA or not. They are the evil that needs to be dealt with. If we would just take a page from Jefferson we'd smother the problem and set it back another 50 years.
Well it's a big deal to me, and it isn't a political issue - this is a war and we were attacked. Now they're rubbing our faces in it. I say fine, do it at your peril.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
So by your logic, the majority of the thousands of Mosques built in the US are at sites where "jihad-type victories" occurred. Got it.
:bsflag: Really? Cheering in the streets was occuring ALL OVER THE WORLD when WTC collapsed?? Please provide a citation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks
So a few crowds of cheering Palestinians were filmed from a handful of isolated locations, and this qualifies as "all over the world" to you? Good to know I'm dealing w/ another rational thinker here.
cammerfe said:
I DO agree that those creating the "in-your-face" opposition to the Park 51 Mosque (the tea-baggers, right-wing whackos, Palin, Gingrich, et al) need to get a "2x4 up-side the head" to use your words. They are either tyrants who hate the principles upon which America was founded, or are too dumb to realize their intolerant actions effectively HAND VICTORY TO THE 9/11 TERRORISTS and are the perfect excuse for the incitement of another terrorist attack. I'd bet nothing would make those types of people happier than to see the US attacked 9/11-style again so they could blame it on Obama.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
The only people "rubbing our faces" in this controversy is the right-wing whack jobs mongering fear of Muslims. Nobody said you have to like it, only that you must respect our OWN US CONSTITUTION at all times, not just when it's convienient for you or when you like it.
So by your logic, the majority of the thousands of Mosques built in the US are at sites where "jihad-type victories" occurred. Got it.
That is not what he was saying at all.
Sorry - right - latter part of WWII - I stand corrected.
So, is the evil the country or the religion Foss - if we remove those, what will Egypt do? Do we destroy Egypt as well? Then, once we destroy Egypt, who next is in line...Turkey? After that Malaysia? With their Muslim majority won't they be in question as well. Wouldn't their policies dictate that if the US has destroyed countries just because of their religious affiliations they would be next in line...
We cannot have a religious war. That is why this has been so difficult all along, for all the administrations involved.
So, it isn't political - is it personal now foss - or religious to you? Who attacked us - Muslims - so now you retaliate against who? Muslims? Where? We didn't choose well last time - will we do better this time?
Do you ever stop to consider the implications of the false dichotomies you draw?
If, as you are insinuating, we can only go to war with nations, then we are prohibited from combating terrorism.
How would you propose that we deal with a strict theocratic ideology that preaches war against non-believes when that war takes the form of terrorist acts and attempts to incrementally subvert the culture of the countries to impose that ideology?
You declare war on terrorists - extremists - whether they be religious extremists or political extremists or some combination of both. Declare war on the guy that works in a factory down the street - good luck with that shag.
All muslims do not condone the actions of terrorists, in fact, few do. But, you would be happy declaring war on them all, because you believe that all muslims believe in the strict theocracy that some muslims adhere to?
I still don't see end game here Shag.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Then if I understand correctly, what we must do, since we can't wage war against those who would destroy us, is to lay down with rump in the air and moan, "Stick it to me'.
No thanks! Again, there's none so blind as those who will not see.
KS
No thanks! Again, there's none so blind as those who will not see.
KS
This narrative is very persuasive. It is emotionally appealing and clearly lays out where the right and the wrong are on this issue. It is a very effective piece of rhetoric because it is simple and it plays on more primitive instincts by giving an "enemy" to focus on; in this case those who support "stepping on the rights of a specific group". For those who are gullible and/or rather emotional and conformist in their thinking, it is a very effective "ready-made" viewpoint to subscribe to. However, any objective critical analysis shows this narrative to be specious; a narrative based on half-truths, equivocation, distortion and misdirection.
The biggest problem with this narrative lies in the area of language. In the name of political expedience, this narrative defines down and corrupts the notions of "punishment", "tolerance", "rights" and, specifically "religious liberty".
Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group. Inflicted unpleasantness without authority is not punishment, but is characterized as something else.
There is nothing authoritative in the majority of a society simply expressing their disagreement. So punishment can only be used metaphorically when referring to the disapproval of others. However, the implications being drawn from that "punishment" (infringement of rights) can only be logically drawn from a literal understanding of that term. In short, the idea of punishment is being implicitly redefined to include both the metaphorical and the literal.The logical implications of this equivocation are worth noting. If metaphorical punishment, specifically of simply strong verbal disapproval, can be viewed as an infringement on rights, then what happens to the right to free speech? Whatever "right" was being infringed upon by that verbal disapproval would inherently conflict with the right to free speech. This leads to the next concept of rights.
All rights have limits. Finding where one right ends and another begins can be rather challenging and is typically a task for the courts, typically on an individual basis. However, what is being asserted here is well outside of that gray area between rights. This narrative infers that the right to religious liberty trumps the right to free speech. This is not an assertion at the individual level, but at the categorical level. Not justification is given as to why, in this instance, religious liberty should trump a right to free speech. However, most of the people asserting this see no problem with religious intolerance when it comes to Christianity.
Which brings us to religious liberty. The first amendment gives us both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause (guaranteeing that there shall be no government established religion). As originally written, these clauses were restrictions only on the Federal Legislature. However, they have been "incorporated" to the states and now serve as a restriction on every level of government. There are also implications, specifically with the Free Exercise Clause for businesses. However, the religious liberties being protected have limits which this narrative ignores. In inferring that the right to religious liberty trumps the right to free speech, the narrative is inferring that religious liberty is near absolute. This is reflected when certain politicians, like Bloomberg, explicitly claim that the people building this mosque have the right to worship whenever then want and wherever they want. As this article puts it;
If freedom of religion means anything in the United States, it means that Muslim-Americans have a right to congregate and worship wherever they please -- including places those with vivid memories of 9/11 may find distasteful.
Think about that for a minute. They have the right to worship wherever they want. Does that mean that a Muslim can come into my house and worship even if I don't want him to? What about private property rights?The point of all this is that this narrative is redefining rights, and specifically broadening the idea of the right to worship in a politically convenient way without regard for the true nature and scope of those rights. And finally we come to the issue of tolerance.
"To tolerate is first to condemn and then to put up with"
or for more thorough explanation:"Toleration is intentionally allowing, or refraining from preventing actions which one dislikes or believes to be morally wrong. Questions of toleration arise in circumstances which are characterized by diversity, coupled with a dislike or disapproval. These circumstances serves to distinguish toleration from liberty, and from indifference, where there need be no reference to dislike/. Moreover, toleration requires that the tolerator have power to intervene, but refrain from using that power"
Considering the law in this area, the building of the Mosque cannot be prevented simply because of the condemnation of many or even most. Both sides of this issue know this and accept this. So, this is not an issue of tolerance.But the narrative in question doesn't assume this understanding of tolerance. It is, again, implicitly redefining tolerance to include active support of what one may view as immoral behavior worthy of condemnation. This is not tolerance, but an expectation of one eschewing their own principles and viewpoints in favor of others. Subsequently, any disagreement with the Mosque is inherently intolerant.
Essentially, this narrative redefines and distorts concepts to reframe the debate into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Public sentiment is decidedly on one side of this debate and those on the losing side want to change the debate so they can win by default. While this narrative may be appealing to some, any objective critical examination shows this narrative to be a lie, cheap demagoguery and an act of desperation.
Which is precisely what we have done.
However, all political wars (which includes all modern wars) are first and foremost, wars of ideas. Refusing to acknowledge the fact that those ideas come from a religion is foolish and dangerous.
Like Nevile Chamberlain ignored the threat of Hitler even while Churchill was preaching of that threat for anyone willing to listen, ignoring the threat of Shariah law and refusing to acknowledge both how integrated Shariah law is in Islam and how ubiquitous it is in Islamic culture is to underestimate and misdiagnose the problem. How many lives could Chamberlain have saved had he (and the rest of Europe) acknowledged the threat of Hitler early and put a stop to it? In the 21st century, where Islamic terrorists who recognize no national border are looking to get nukes, how much more dangerous is it to underestimate and misdiagnose a threat?
You want to focus on endgame, what is the endgame in that scenario?
Thank you - for the 'very persuave' part - it was a good moment... However - half truths and specious, I doubt it... but lets look into that...
I don't remember specifying religious liberty - I believe I have throughout this argument used a combination of religious liberty, property rights, and freedom of speech.
So you didn't see the quotes around punishment - got it. I'll explain... when you use quotes around a word as I used it, they indicate that this is not how the term is usually used - as Wiki states...
Quotation marks are also used to indicate that the writer realizes that a word is not being used in its current commonly accepted sense.
The call by others to not allow the building of the mosque could lead to a punishment - the words of those who are speaking out against the mosque alone wouldn't constitute punishment - only if some sort of action, such as forcing the mosque to move by the local government, would that be considered as a punishment of sorts. If it comes to be that mosque is forced not to build there, by government decree, it is punishment. If they bend to public opinion it is not.
Those that state they don't want a mosque built there because of some perceived idea that it would be a desecration some sort of American war memorial may say that as much as they want - that is freedom of speech. However, once they ask for government intervention, that is infringing on a right. You don't ask that the government stop hate speech (or at least I don't), I know that would be infringing on rights. I don't want the government to silence anyone, whether they are disgusting scum or not. Nor do I want the government to stop a religious group from building a church based on their religious beliefs. The people protesting this wouldn't blink if a synagogue, temple, or catholic church was being built on this site, nor would they be asking the government to stop the building of any of those structures. And if a group of Muslims were asking the government to stop a synagogue from being built on this site - it would be just as wrong.
Shag - do you believe that the government should bend to the people who want them to stop the building of this mosque? Should the government not protect the rights of those who cannot protect it themselves?
Well, talk about straw man - in your house shag - hardly. Can the Dairy Queen down the street be sold to an Islamic group and a mosque erected - yep, if the zoning allows for a church to be built on that site.
What about private property rights? That group owns that land, it is their property at this point. The zoning allows for a church, why can't one be built there? Only ones that 'we allow'? Ones that past a Christian litmus test? No shag - if a Christian church could be built there, then so can a mosque, a coven, a temple to Zeus, it really makes absolutely no difference. Just as you can say no to allowing a Muslim into your home, the property owners in this case can say yes to a Mosque being built on land that is zoned for a church.
I don't believe I have included the 'tolerance' viewpoint in my narrative shag... However, I have included that although we might understand the reasons Americans' don't like the idea of a mosque being built in this location, Americans' need to understand why those reasons aren't 'reason enough'. I included early on that I might think it isn't a great idea to build one there - but, I will not protest that they shouldn't.
So shag - public sentiment is correct? The government should not allow a mosque to be built in this location? That is the question you need to ask. There is no cheap demagoguery there, no act of desperation.
What are your constitutional guidelines here shag - so we know that when this question comes up again, those same constitutional guidelines can be adhered to. We need to make sure that those guidelines go along with the idea that here in America we don't see color, race, gender or religion when we create and enforce our laws. That our government doesn't bend to the pressure of the majority, but instead, upholds rights for all, blind to those differences.
I am not denying that this is a religious issue - about religious ideals. I am just stating the United States cannot engage in a holy war.
Plenty - but it is easy to fight the Germans - in this case they all lived in one place. Defeat Germany. Plain, simple, concise.
How do you defeat Islam shag? How would you defeat Christianity?
When you answer my endgame question I will answer yours shag.
Foxy your entire post does nothing but parse and distort what I am saying. I will give you one example:
Here is what I said in post #61:
Note the underlined portions. Here is the quote of yours from post #29 that I was responding to.
In post #61 I acknowledged the fact that you were using it in a metaphorical sense. You intentionally ignored that fact in your snarky little response that insinuated I claimed you were using it only in a literal sense.
The point I made was not hard to grasp. In the context of your post (#29) you were using it in both the literal and the metaphorical sense; you were equivocating. Your response was to set up a straw man to undercut that point instead of confronting it. The rest of the post is simply more of the same; attempts to undercut, subvert and delegitimize.
If you were here to discuss things honestly, great. I would love to have a civil, honest conversation on the merits of the arguments. But since all you have to offer are attempts to undercut honest dialog, I don't see any reason to waste my time on you.
Here is what I said in post #61:
Note the underlined portions. Here is the quote of yours from post #29 that I was responding to.
In post #61 I acknowledged the fact that you were using it in a metaphorical sense. You intentionally ignored that fact in your snarky little response that insinuated I claimed you were using it only in a literal sense.
The point I made was not hard to grasp. In the context of your post (#29) you were using it in both the literal and the metaphorical sense; you were equivocating. Your response was to set up a straw man to undercut that point instead of confronting it. The rest of the post is simply more of the same; attempts to undercut, subvert and delegitimize.
If you were here to discuss things honestly, great. I would love to have a civil, honest conversation on the merits of the arguments. But since all you have to offer are attempts to undercut honest dialog, I don't see any reason to waste my time on you.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Again with the false choice...I've specified TWICE now that it's the GOVERNMENTS. Do you deliberately ignore things I say just so you can perpetuate your propaganda?
Yes, yes, I know you love to use red herrings and then appeal to emotion mixed with appeal to ridicule. Try to stay on topic, k? Which one of those countries is training terrorists to blow themselves up? If your government trains terrorists to strike the US or her allies, you are an enemy. Period.
If, as Islamic Libya has done, you back off of your delusions of grandeur and abandon your plans to destroy Israel or the West, you will be left alone.
This is real simple stuff, fox. It's so like you to try to muddy the water and overcomplicate and distort the issue rather than confront it plainly.
You keep asserting this, but you keep failing to make even a feeble case why this is. You just cling to your appeasement strategy to the bitter end, eh? Again, Jefferson went after the muslims and won. He has laid out the blueprint - use force on the GOVERNMENTS and they will cave. When they cave, the money dries up. 50 years later, you do it all over again. The fact that few Presidents have tried this policy of direct and bold confrontation in no way undermines its effectiveness.
There you go again with the straw man and the bigot implication, fox...It's patriotic to me. You just don't understand that Islam is a complete process including the religion and the government.
I don't care what or whom you worship, as long as you don't go around killing my countrymen or my allies. If you want to be a despot, go ahead. You'll get yours eventually. America is the exception to the despotism and malevolent and enslaved societies around the world. We can be the example, but you point a gun at me and your ass is grass. Got it?
You imply that I'm a bigot one more time and I'll send an official complaint to Joey, since that's apparently how we're doing things these days. I'm sick of your backhanded little insults.
Interesting point. Hadn't thought of that...
Lincoln Jealous
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 3,122
- Reaction score
- 17
we all need to just give up on life and let 3rd world countries take control of the united states, based on statistics, its bound to happen to us sooner or later.
what we should focus on, is popping up a couple churches in iraq!
what we should focus on, is popping up a couple churches in iraq!
Where? You 'front hand' insult me all the time, and I never, ever have made an official (or otherwise) complaint to Joey about anything other than people using my real name... However, I never said, nor implied that you were a bigot - I am sorry if you mistakenly took something I wrote as saying that.
And as far as "to the shores of Tripoli" - I believe Jefferson didn't win the first Barbary War - the sides ended up exchanging prisoners, and the US paid the Muslims not to attack our ships any longer. In fact that is how he handled the Muslims from when he was an Ambassador - pay them off.
So, not fighting Egypt - why not - their government is tied with Islam, they have financed terrorists in the past, and because they are still an Islamic state, they probably will in the future. Do you wait until the bomb is delivered or are you going to be proactive? You seemed to indicate before that we need to handle this before the bomb is delivered from across the Mexican border. Which Islamic state will it come from - they almost all use some form of Shair'ah, they all follow the Qur'an, how do you tell the good ones from the bad ones. Their leaders threatening us? Shouldn't you follow the terrorist cells - and not just the brass? I thought at least we should have learned that lesson by now.
Shag - I am not ignoring you - I am taking some time to wrap a couple of brain cells around this... You are responding to me a'la college dissertation. Fine if you are turning it in for a grade, not so great if I have to make heads or tales of it first.
I think I know where you are going with this - but, I need a little time to answer... sorry...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Don't read much history, fox? Hm, too bad. If you did, you would know that that was only the FIRST Barbary war - and that makes a very good point, which is that if you don't defeat your enemy, but rather negotiate with him, he will likely not cease the action that caused the war in the first place.
In the Second Barbary War, we finished them off, shelling Algiers until the Dey capitulated. Again, proof that force, and THEN diplomacy AFTER winning the war, is the way to go about defeating these people. You will also (probably VERY reluctantly) have to acknowledge that Jefferson didn't declare war on ISLAM during this conflict, but rather dealt with the GOVERNMENT that was causing the trouble (which is the point I'm trying to make that you keep EVADING) - hence my policy is in accordance with Jefferson's strategy. You can quibble all you want about ransoms, but the bottom line is that we were negotiating from a position of strength, having demonstrated a willingness to take casualties and deal out damage before we ever sat down at the table.
These people only understand one thing: force.
I've stated my position. If Egypt's behavior falls under my policy, then they get dealt with too. You keep trying these straw men, and it won't work. It's actually rather pathetic watching you flail about trying to find flaws in it, given your appeasement strategy that NEVER works.
Addendum: I see you keep editing your post, fox. I'll just ignore your revisions and let my response stand.
I believe the second Barbary War was during Madison...
(edit) Not Jefferson, you might want to glance at that history book again Foss...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Irrelevant, fox. My statement stands. Again, you strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel...
However you made such a huge deal about Jefferson - if you get who lead the nation wrong at that time, and what war we are talking about, gosh Foss - what other 'details' could you be getting wrong.
Between not really understanding how Jefferson dealt with the Pirates, and then claiming his 'victory' over them is what we need to emulate, you really need to get those points correct. I thought you were advocating paying them off - like Jefferson did in the only Barbary war he was involved in.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Since you haven't been able to move me off my point - I will presume ZERO.
Fox, you specialize in trying to distract from the main point by nitpicking irrelevant points, and then you fail to deliver on your assertions. Since you have failed to address my main point, I will assume you don't understand it well enough to discuss it coherently.
And as usual you gloss over the details which I've already laid out in an attempt to distort my post for your own benefit. It's you that doesn't understand, and it's you that is attempting to distract from the main point I'm trying to make - presumably because you have no answer for it.
From this point, I will not respond to any more of your posts until you address my main point directly.