jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (126 posts)

Suppose

  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    Suppose it's ten years after Pearl Harbor was bombed. A Japanese-American family who was imprisoned in the US (for being of Japanese descent) wants to move into your town. Several families have sons whe died at Pearl Harbor.  Many others have sons who died in the Pacific conflict. Is it appropriate for the community to turn against an AMERICAN family  and try to make them unwelcome because of something that the Empire of Japan did - and their appearance would be a reminder of?

    OK. If you trun the family away - and they have to leave, where do they go to find a community that did NOT suffer in WWII? These are Americans with dark hair and slant eyes. Can they legitimately be persecuted everywhere?

    Here's another Suppose. Suppose ten years ago  - it came out that a cleric (I won't pick on a particular religion) was found to have been guilty of abusing children. (Does it matter if it's boys or girls?) It turns out there were dozens of child victims - and hundreds of family members traumatized by what hey found out afterwards.

    The guilty cleric was charged and tried and sentenced to life. Ten years later, the church where that cleric did his deeds wants to expand, to reach out to the community and better serve the members of the church. Should a building permit be denied because of the hurt the families suffered. Is that church to be forever vilified for the misdeeds of a man who is in jail?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That's an apt analogy.

      1. Devanni profile image57
        Devanniposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed.  Two wonderfully put analogies.

      2. KFlippin profile image60
        KFlippinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That's a Crapt Analogy.

    2. Sylvie Strong profile image60
      Sylvie Strongposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The problem with hypotheticals is in the real world we can't even have a conversation based on a set of assumed facts any more.  What if there is a cloud of innuendo that the Japanese family are spies...or are somehow affiliated with spies...or if there are suggestions that their activities during the war were unknown...or innuendo that it is unclear how their bills are being paid?  Nothing matters anymore other than our hidden feelings and beliefs and the ridiculous arguments we raise to justify them.

    3. profile image59
      C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      All good points. The details don't match exactly though. For instance in your example, 10 years after Pearl Harbor the war was over. Not the case here.
      Questions should be asked. Tough questions. It's uncomfortable, I know. We will get through this. It wont happen until we are out of these conflicts completely.

    4. goldenpath profile image73
      goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's the proximity that's in question and makes people wonder of motive.  They have the right but motive needs to be scrutinized as lives may be at stake...again.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What are the motives behind LDS members knocking on my door?  Can we ever be sure?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Because they are ordered to do so!  I have talked to some who literally abhorred the experience!  It is an act of humiliation for them, sort of a test to get them used to being subservient to the church leaders.  All cults do the same to those simpleminded enough to believe in them!

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            If they refuse to do it, are they forced to don the dreaded special underwear?

        2. Flightkeeper profile image73
          Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Given that the LDS were victims and as far as I know, haven't had extremists that:

          troll the website looking for recruits
          organized terrorist training grounds
          have committed terrorist acts overseas, or
          have emphasized as part of their religious teaching to treat others of religious persuasion as second class citizens,

          do you really want to make the comparison and commit a slur against the LDS?

    5. Bimendra gun profile image54
      Bimendra gunposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      yeah can be possible one

    6. Stump Parrish profile image60
      Stump Parrishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      In the first story I would have to state that then or now this Japanese family is going to be villified and persecuted where ever they go. Too many Americans don't bother to think things thru before reacting. That this family is an American family and has been accepted as Loyal Americans never enters the discussion. Appearance is more important to a large number of American, that the truth.

      The second senerio I would have to say that the only way you could blame the church is if they knew of the abuse, hid the abuse, or permitted the abuse to happen. The ultimate responsibility is with the individual. I don't like the way the church becomes the accused and the indvidual get's a free ride. There is entirely to much reliance on and belief in the concept of total forgiveness. I think this often gives the individual the feeling that they are above the laws of man based on their belief that the laws of God overide them. Should the church be vilified, not if they are truly innocent. Since the church did know about, hide and permit this type of abuse to go on for centuries. one can safely assume that they are again guilty and go ahead and villify them.

  2. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Good analogy, and believe it or not, I agree with you!

  3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago

    it's an apt analogy - you can't blame someone for another person's actions.

  4. Diane Inside profile image82
    Diane Insideposted 7 years ago

    I don't think it is a matter of weather a religion, or sect of people, should reach out, it is more a matter of will this action be percieved as helpful, will it mend bridges or will it cause controversy.  And we all know the answer to that in the present contorversy.

  5. profile image0
    pcoachposted 7 years ago

    Stupid is as stupid does, comes to mind. You all would sacrifice the needs of many as opposed to the few. Thank God you aren't in charge.  Listen, if you hate America, which is clearly where this leads, then get out of it and its politics.  I hear you folks using hypotheticals. Where is your doggone reality?

    Did any one of you fight for this country?  Did anyone of you serve in the military to show your allegiance for this country?  Do any of you have a kind word at all for YOUR COUNTRY?

    Call me crazy and undoubtedly you will, but I did not serve this country and put my life on the line so that the likes of "you" could mislead all races while I was gone. Where is the integrity we knew? Integrity was all I had to hold onto when I was in the field. So tell me again, people, give it to me straight because I can't wait to help you figure it out! Actually, looks like the gov't will do it for me, in which case now I know whose home I should avoid protecting!!!!  Please by all means, speak up!

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I am a veteran. I was offshore for the evacuation of Saigon.

      Been around - seen a lot - and I served. You ask if I have kind words for this coutnry - many. You wonder if I will bend the principles of this country to accomodate bigots and fear. No

    2. profile image0
      pcoachposted 7 years ago

      Who do you think protects your right to talk crap in this hub? Really!  Who?
      ANSWER: The United States Military, all brances, SIR!
      Who protects and continues to protect your right to say whatever you damn well please in this country, the great USA

      1. Stump Parrish profile image60
        Stump Parrishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The US Military also protects the rights of the KKK, the White Supremists, And the Westboro Baptist Chruch, whats your point?

    3. alternate poet profile image63
      alternate poetposted 7 years ago

      Now that you have quit waving that flag around - hypothetical situations are good for discussion because they don't bring on excessive patriotism and then issues can be discussed coolly and considerately.

      In answer to the question they are two different scnario's.  The American (ex-Japanese) family is not responsible for the actions of a country they have left previously.
      The church on the other hand is.  They, as in the bosses of that church, are in the position of the company CEO who is responsible for the actions of his company.  And we all saw the lynch mob for the CEO of BP recently ?

      1. profile image0
        cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



        yikes how can patriotism be "excessive"?

        of course we shouldn't shun or cast out our own countrymen, nor should we label a church as wrong because of a bad priest. what, should we shut down all churches? that is ridiculous.

        1. raisingme profile image91
          raisingmeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Ask Germany that question

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Good point.  The similarities are eerie.  Goebbels would have been a good fit as a FoxNews contributor. Repeat your lies often enough and people will start believing them.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              The similarities don't exist.

              But keep saying they do because...

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Keep telling yourself that.  If you don't acknowledge the lies they don't exist.

                Obama is a Muslim...

                Obama is a socialist....

                Fox is a legitimate news source.....

                Sarah Palin is verrry intelligent.....

                WMDDDD...WMDDDDDD....WMDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

                You are getting sleeepy....sleeeeepy

              2. alternate poet profile image63
                alternate poetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You don't have a brown shirt in some closet somewhere do you ?  There was much more to the Nazi takeover of the government in Germany than the street beatings etc,  it started with shouting down the opposition, denying simple truths - then beating annyone who pointed out they were wrong.  Many posters on here are more than halfway through this routine, I guess it becomes a duty to oppose them in the end, however boring it becomes.

                1. Misha profile image75
                  Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Interestingly enough, this refers to both sides smile

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              i didn't know that fox news was owned and operated by the government...

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The Nazis were not initially "the government" either.

              2. Stump Parrish profile image60
                Stump Parrishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Actually the second biggest shareholder in the parent company that owns Fox news is a Saudi Prince.

          2. profile image59
            C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The nationalist component of WWII Germany was not the problem. It was progressive ideology, eugenics in particular that caused the problems. Nationalism is not exactly the same as patriotism.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              nationalism was not the problem and eugenics is part of a progressive ideology?

              ...I'm going to take my unicorn to the vet, tomorrow's Sunday after all.

              1. profile image59
                C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Yea, you know that whole "LETS BUILD A SUPPER RACE" idea? Nationalism had NOTHING to do with that. Hitler used Nationalism to get support, then....well you know how it ended...

                By the way say hello to Dr.  Sanger while your there!

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  No really sure what a "supper" race is, but more importantly you are not following the sequence of the discussion (or raisingme's point).  Hitler came to power by proselytizing extreme, misguided patriotism and hatred for the politically disenfranchised, mush as neocons do today.  Jews were Hitler's scapegoats, Muslims and Mexicans are Palin's.

            2. Reality Bytes profile image92
              Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Eugenics was applied and thought of in the United States years before the Third Reich ever thought of coming to power.

              1. profile image59
                C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                actually eugenics were not unique to either. The US had applied it to mentally handicapped persons post civil war through the 30's. Just like many countries had. Different paths were taken from there. Eugenics was developed in Europe. The idea is as old as Darwin. In fact its origins come from Darwins's cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Its the next "logical" step to Darwin's theory. Strictly scientifically speaking. Personally speaking I find the whole idea SICK! The origins of man are NOT scientifically pertinent. It's more historical than scientific.

                1. Reality Bytes profile image92
                  Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes:

                  "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."

        2. Stump Parrish profile image60
          Stump Parrishposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The patriot Act comes to mind. The country was feeling quite Patriotic and allowed our Government to take away a lot of our rights.

          There is a quote by Sinclair Lewis that warns of one problem with excessive patriotism...When fascism come to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross., 1835.

    4. profile image0
      pcoachposted 7 years ago

      Stupid is as stupid does, comes to mind. You all would sacrifice the needs of many as opposed to the few. Listen, if you hate America, which is clearly where this leads, then get out of it and its politics.  I hear you folks using hypotheticals. Where is your doggone reality?
      What the hell do you need a hypothetical for?

      Did any one of you fight for this country?  Did anyone of you serve in the military to show your allegiance for this country?  Do any of you have a kind word at all for YOUR COUNTRY?

      Call me crazy and undoubtedly you will, but what have any of you done for your country lately? Your country, the USA, what have you done for it lately?

      One of you and I don't care which one said, "...will this action be perceived as helpful."

      Well what do you think, moron? Is it helpful to say it's okay to build a mosque at or near Ground Zero when so many families are still trying to get over the fact that someone actually did this to us?  Al-Queda did this to us.  We don't want the Mosque there. It is a tribute and a monument to the living hell that Al-Queda has been able to effect on this country. That is what is important to Islam. If you don't get it now, you never will.

      What a bunch of lame imbecils Americans have become and that's coming from an American!!!!!  Please, go on with your rhetoric PROGRESSIVES. You all (meaning the liberals/progressives spouting off in here) are a sad group who will ultimately be stomped down by, oh, look, people like me! What a miserable mess your input has been. Progressives, go home! We neither need nor want you here.

      1. alternate poet profile image63
        alternate poetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        you are clearly not answering the question and maybe don't even understand it, your answers bear no relevance to the OP,  would you mind awfully popping off somewhere else to rant on - theres a good chap.

        1. profile image0
          pcoachposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Oh do tell me the question because no one heretofore has come remotely close to answering the initial "question" (you call it question, I call it a joke - it was never a question, and if it was, who answered it?).  Your infomation is only as good as the guy you are getting it from. Now that's a quote. Got a clue all you incredibly brilliant _)*)*_)(*-009098()*

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I feel only sorrow that you are so full of anger and fear.  It must be difficult living that way.  Remember, liberals and progressives are among your fellow combat veterans; many were maimed and killed fighting for their country.

        Peace.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You need to be "house broken" if you expect any credibility in HubPages forums.

        1. Shadesbreath profile image87
          Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yep, he does.

    5. profile image0
      pcoachposted 7 years ago

      You all are blowing my mind that your sympathy lies with Japan! Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.  What is wrong with you people? Oh, please speak up because the Idiocy infection has gone much farther than anyone thought and it needs to be contained!

    6. profile image0
      pcoachposted 7 years ago

      AlternatePoet:  I will let that slide this time but do not degrade me because of what I believe. I fought for your right to speak your miserable mouth, and I do mean miserable.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Listen to the hateful vitriol.

        " Idiocy infection has gone much farther than anyone thought and it needs to be contained!"

        "I fought for your right to speak your miserable mouth, and I do mean miserable."

        "Progressives, go home! We neither need nor want you here."

        This is what the country will become if moderates don't realize that freedom of religion was intended to protect unpopular minority religions - because there is no need for a law to protect the dominant sect. Freedom of speech is intended to protect unpopular ideas and new ideas - because there is no ned to protect the most popular way of thinking.

        Decide if you want to be associated with the hate - of if you want to embrace the ideas of the founding fathers.

      2. Joe Badtoe profile image60
        Joe Badtoeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Wow!

        You're some dude with issues!

        Stop blaming everyone else for your inability to debate intelligently about smething that you happen to disagree with. Your patriotism is blinding your capacity to understand anything other than your own cemented view on all things American.

        Feel free to attack me with your collection of colorful language.

        1. Joe Badtoe profile image60
          Joe Badtoeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          ops should've said my earlier response was aimed at PCOACH who seems to be unable to grasp reason.

      3. Ron Montgomery profile image59
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You were in the British army?

    7. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 7 years ago

      I suppose this is yet another thread about building a Mosque in Manhattan. There is nothing preventing them from doing so. It;s entirely up to the developers, all they need is the money and from what I under stand the US State department has paid for Imam Rauf to travel to the Middle East and raise the 100 million dollars for the project. I suppose there isn't anything wrong with that, no violation of church and state or anything.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I have yet to see any facts supporting the claim that the State Department is paying for the travel of the imam. I undrstand he's done dome anti-terrorism work with the FBI. I have no idea if that's a factor.

    8. Shadesbreath profile image87
      Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago

      They do have the legal right to build that mosque.  I think that the people pushing to get it there were either amazingly naive to think it wouldn't be seen by most American's as an insult, or they want it to be an insult. 

      The real question is whether we let them force us to abandon our principles. 

      As much as I think it is a horrendous idea for them to build there, I think we must practice what we preach.  If we don't, America is a lie.

      I also hope a bunch of dumb rednecks don't go messing with it, perpetrating vandalism or what I would call "reverse-terrorism."  All that would do is make the case of the idiot who suggested they build it there in the first place.  He could stand before his congregation and defiantly proclaim, "You see, they hate us.  It's us against them."

      Hopefully the stupid and unenlightened on both sides will not ultimately decide how this all plays out.

    9. profile image59
      C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago

      Suppose the Mosque would be funded by foriegn groups identified by our Government as Terrorist organizations?

      1. Shadesbreath profile image87
        Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'd call that a red herring, but I'll bite.  So, if that's the case, the govt. could freeze the assets or take whatever legal action was needed.  We have laws about known terrorist organizations operating here.

        So, with that addressed, it gets back to the actual issue regarding a mosque at that site. The people wanting the mosque would get different funding and we're right back where we left off: testing our commitment to our ideals.

        1. profile image59
          C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yep, it sure does. Lots of things are perfectly legal that can lead to horrible consequences. How many things look good on paper? The best laid plans of mice and men....

          Are we headed for a tit for tat game scenario like the Israelies and Palestinians?

          How will this effect Muslims in the rest of the country?

          1. Shadesbreath profile image87
            Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think the Constitution does more than "look good on paper."  I can't stop you from dismissing that great document, that incredible set of ideals, as nothing more than "best laid plans of mice and men," but I can vehemently disagree. 

            This country became great because it followed the ideals written into that document.  True we did it in staggering, paradoxical steps, and have even gone backwards at times. 

            We will be going backwards if we toss off parts of it that we suddenly find inconvenient because some self-righteous, inconsiderate people are purposefully choosing to exercise THEIR rights as a way rub their hatred for us in our face.  They are defying us in order to prove we are hypocrites.

            If we're going to set aside freedom of religion and the right to private property because we think someone is an A-hole, well, we become a tyranny of the majority, and in so doing, we prove everything those people building that mosque are counting on us to prove.

            The only way to defeat them is to let them build it, and protect their freedom as we would our own.  Their victory in the moment of building it will be a defeat of the ideology of hate that inspired the placement of the mosque to begin.  The people who attend that mosque will be forced to see that America really is its ideals.  They will see that it is not described by the lies told to them, the lies that made them so hungry to shove that mosque into the wounds of the larger American populace.

            If you are a Christian, you might even say that THIS is exactly what is meant by "turn the other cheek."

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I think you have something there.

            2. profile image59
              C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Boy did you misunderstand! I wasn't speaking of the Constitution. The whole point of the Constitution is FREEDOM!
              I was speaking of the Mosque developers. They stand on solid ground legaly. The question they have to ask themselves is "AT WHAT COST?" Those are the questions zoning commissions and City Planners are supposed to consider, not the legality.

            3. profile image59
              C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Your giving a lot of unsophisticated and ANGRY people a lot more credit than they may very well deserve.

            4. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I totally agree! Do I wish a different location had been chosen for the mosque? Yes. But I strongly believe in the Constitution. Besides, we can't blame all Muslims for the terroristic acts of a few extremists.

              When I first heard of this, I was against it, but since then, I've thought long and hard and have changed my mind.

              1. profile image59
                C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Again, this person totally misunderstood my comments. I wasn't speaking against the Constitution.

              2. Flightkeeper profile image73
                Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I agree with what Shadesbreath said about defeating them by letting them build it, but I agreen only to a certain point.  If they do build it, it will just keep reminding people about how some muslims can be insensitive. If there was an example about how not to build cultural bridges, this would be it.  In addition, there's a lot of suspicion regarding the funding of this mosque.  If they're going to rebuild it to a 13-story building, where's the money going to come from and how will it influence the way it's run?  Currently the imam claims he comes from some sufi tradition, who knows if that's true or whether it'll last.

                1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                  Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  "In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office.

                  Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms."

                  It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture..."

                  more at -  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/1 … 85071.html

                  The imam is one of the good guys - and we do the efforts of counterterrorism a disservice by presuming otherwise. Islam is not going away in the US or the world. It will change as all religions do. If we want Islam to be moderate in the US (as it almost entirely is in the US) and become MORE moderate elsewhere in the world - it's in our interest NOT to persecute the good guys.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                    Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Wasn't Osama Bin Laden considered a good guy during Afghanistan's war with the Soviet Union?

                    We all know America never makes a mistake in judgemnt.

                    1. alternate poet profile image63
                      alternate poetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      Osama Bin Laden  WAS  a good guy during the resistance of the afghanistan people against the USSR.

                      The US backed him financially and with weapons and with political recognition.  He and his organisation were credited with some success in their Arabic possition of helping defend Afghanistan against the occupying forces of the USSR.  I believe (hearsay for me) that he and his family were the guests of the Bush family at different times - because he was ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS.

                      Only one thing changed in everything that surrounded Bin Laden to change his description from good to bad.  For those people who like to argue that there is god and objectivity - this is a perfect description of subjectivity.

                  2. Flightkeeper profile image73
                    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    So where do you think he'll get the money to fund his mosque?

                    1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      ACORN

    10. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 7 years ago

      CJ, I wasn't referrencing you. I just like what SB said.

      1. Dave Barnett profile image54
        Dave Barnettposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I am with the toppers on this. REALLY good supposin'. This is supposed to be a Community Center. Can it function in that capacity if it is the focal point of divisiveness. Further, historically, Muslims have placed mosques on, or as near to where they have scored amajor win, hence, the first name that was chosen. Cordoba. Read your pre-colombian Spanish history for a more detailed background. Are you so willing to allow this if there is even a glimmer that it would serve as a rallying point? People in the U.S. are denied religious freedom all the time, it is part of the reason why some say we have already lost many of the rights others think we still have. We face great danger, and my fear is that the mosque is a Victory over the infidel red flag.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this



          http://www.wnd.com/images/story/cp_flag2.gif

        2. Shadesbreath profile image87
          Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So you think it's better if we abandon the core ideals of our country to deny them something as nebulous as a "rallying point?"

          Don't you see, the fundamentalists that hate America win either way.  They either get a little victory in that mosque, or they get a HUGE one by proving they can manipulate us like puppets despite them being a tiny, tiny group and us being a huge country with global influence.

          They don't have planes and tanks and all that, so for them, victory has to be a matter of outplaying us strategically. If they can make us throw down everything our nation stands for, they get a rallying CRY for all of the Islamic world:  "America hates you and will break its own laws, abandon its promises and ideals JUST to keep Muslims from being equal."

          If we let them build it, what is the rally cry then?  "America is a land of laws and tolerance.  Those bastards practice what they preach, even in the face of our insensitivity!"

          I'm not sure that second one is going to bring in as many fundamentalist converts as the first one.

          And besides, the 9/11 terrorists created a "rallying point" for Americans when they few into those buildings.  Our rallying point is New York. All of it.  So, big deal if some fundamentalist a-holes (assuming they even are fundamentalists) get a little building in the shadows of ground zero.  So what?  Lots of nasty little things live in the shadows of New York.

    11. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

      FK:  "So where do you think he'll get the money to fund his mosque?"

      Dave Barnett:  "We face great danger, and my fear is that the mosque is a Victory over the infidel red flag."

      Do you think that, given the high-profile nature of this issue, that U.S. intelligence agencies are not investigating and monitoring every person and every funding source involved?

      1. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "Do you think that, given the high-profile nature of this issue, that U.S. intelligence agencies are not investigating and monitoring every person and every funding source involved?"

        Do you think given the US track record on intelligence they might screw it up?

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Consider the evidence over the long haul.


          Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has witten several books. HIs views ARE moderate. He's Sufi - I will leave it to you to do the check but it's not a violent militant branch of Islam.

          Check the web site for the project.

          http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/our-mission

          There's nothing militant there The current location of the mosque is a basement so small it can only accomodate 20% of their members at one  time.

          The wingnuts havetold some outright lies about the 'mosque'. It's betwe2n 2 and 4 blocks from ground zero, depending how you measure it. It won't look like a  'mosque' from the outside. It won't be visable from Ground Zero - much less tower over it. Strictly speaking it doesn't qualify as a 'mosqe' because it will have basketball courts and a swimming pool and a  theatre - as well as a worship area.

          I am willing to discuss differing points of view, but try to come up with evidence not paranoia.  There's wingnut poiticians trying to harves future votes by sowing the seeds of hate and fear.

          1. alternate poet profile image63
            alternate poetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Well put.  I wonder why it is that the rabid right, or wingnuts, do not want to see any moves toward peace or any efforts toward repairing relationships.  I can understand what the rich right get from prolonging hatred and division but what exactly do the foot soldiers get ?

            Division among the 'mass' is what keeps the very rich easily insulated at the top of the piles of wealth, but what do the raggedy little big mouths get from keeping up the barrage of denial and hostility and downright lies.   This building is clearly a peace move from proven peaceful intelligent people with openly transparent funding plans, I guess there will also be a christian church in the vicinity ?  Are we supposed to object to that on the grounds that the christian right is what has swung the various elections for the more aggressive presidents who caused the whole scenario of which the attack on the US was one small part ?

        2. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, no, I don't think they will screw it up.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image73
            Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Times Square Terrorist and Christmas Terrorist anyone?

          2. alternate poet profile image63
            alternate poetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Of course they won't screw it up - they will lie and distort whatever they want (they can because it is secret and only they know)  like they did with Iraq.  They will come out with whatever they want to - and serve it up with a few bits of real proveable evidence that they will 'disclose' and hide the rest so that you never get to hear it and so jump to the wrong conclusion.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I hear what you're saying, but I just want to point out that it wasn't the people who gathered the intelligence who distorted it.

              1. alternate poet profile image63
                alternate poetposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Of course not - and in the UK the only 'expert' who stood up and spoke out against the bu****it that was coming out of government in the run up to the shameful invasion of Iraq mysteriously committed 'suicide' - in the UK they have just started screaming about the cover up of the inquest again.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Working in intelligence is a dangerous and thankless job.

        3. Joe Badtoe profile image60
          Joe Badtoeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It's the world's greatest contradiction

          Intelligent Services in any country are very adept at screwing up and costing lives in the process.

          You employ smart people from elitist Universities and then condition them to believe what they're told - just like the allegedly uneducated followers of fanatics

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, you are very wrong about pretty much everything in this post.  It is usually not the gatherers of intelligence who screw it up; it is those who have to deal with the politics of the intelligence.

    12. Arthur Fontes profile image88
      Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

      Does everyone who supports this mosque also support Nativity scenes at Christmas?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        On private property yes.  On public property no.

        1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
          Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with that.

        2. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You stole my answer!

        3. Shadesbreath profile image87
          Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          How does putting up cardboard images of the nativity count as analogous to putting up a mosque?  Are you saying the mosque is only going to be a temporary decoration or something?

          1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
            Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this



            No the comparison is religious freedom.  I have been observing attacks on all religion for many years.  All of a sudden those opposed to religion are standing up for this single issue.  Just curious if these people will support every infringement on religious freedom or just the ones that have been politicized.

            1. Flightkeeper profile image73
              Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You wrote a mouthful Arthur.

            2. Shadesbreath profile image87
              Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I think people need to be reasonable and not always looking for something to be offended by.  Period.

              1. When one of our local malls took down a Christmas tree at the first whiff of a complaint from a Jewish organization, I was pissed. If the Jewish people were offended by that tree, they could go shop somewhere else.

              2.  The pulling down of the ten commandments and stuff like that off of public buildings.  That's ridiculous.  This country WAS built out of a Christian majority.  Why should we pretend it wasn't all of a sudden.  If we're going to do that, then we have to pull down all the Greek and Roman deities too. Justice is a figure from a religion too.

              3. The pledge of allegiance.  If you don't want your kid to say God, have him not say it.

              I do think that having prayers before city council meetings is crossing the line.  Yes, the non-believers can stand there with their thumbs in their keesters while the awkward thing goes by, but in that instance, why can't the religious people pray at home, since it's a GOVERNMENT meeting, not a church meeting.

              So, that's where I am on it.  Put the nativity up.  I think they're cool.  It's a part of history.  I just see them as a decoration that embodies a part of the holiday.  Just because I don't think the baby was magically implanted doesn't mean the story itself isn't a massively influential part of our cultural history.

              1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
                Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this



                I feel the same way.  I like Hanukkah decorations as much as I like Christmas decorations.  I find when you learn more about what a fellow human being holds for beliefs, the easier it is to understand why he/she acts the way that they do.  I love to share in other cultures and learn as much as I can.  I own a Qu'ran that I can see from where I am sitting.  I do not believe I have ever been involved in a religious argument in real life ever.

              2. Sylvie Strong profile image60
                Sylvie Strongposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                While I don't doubt that a majority of the people living here were Christians at the founding of our nation, most of the "founding fathers" were not.  They were Deists.  People like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.  This was a common belief system among the intellectual elites during colonial times.  Their views may have a great deal to do with why they embedded a separation of church and state in our Constitution (through the Establishment clause and the 1st amendment).  There is, of course, a mechanism to change the Constitution if we want to make this a Christian nation. 

                BTW, on an unrelated note, although Sarah Palin and the tea party movement often both rail against intellectual elites and invoke our founding fathers...they would have literally hated our founding fathers because a great many of them were godless intellectual elites.

                1. Misha profile image75
                  Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  The more I read your posts, the more I enjoy them. And thank you for finally breaking them down into more or less decent size paragraphs - which actually makes them readable. smile

                  1. Sylvie Strong profile image60
                    Sylvie Strongposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry about the paragraph size.  You should have said something sooner.  smile

                    1. Misha profile image75
                      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      LOL You positioned yourself as a savvy Internet dweller, I thought you know what you were doing and were doing it on purpose - though unclear to me purpose. tongue

                2. profile image59
                  C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Apparently you haven't read much history. There is no way you can read the leters of the founders you just mentioned and NOT come away with anything other than Christian. Their religious views had nothing to do with "Separation of Church and State" It had to do with their recent experiences in Europe.

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course you can, but it requires comprehension not just reading.  Most of the founders were Deists.

                    1. profile image59
                      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      most of the founders were active members of christian churches. In fact many were elders.

                      1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
                        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                        That doesn't make them believers.  Their writings indicate otherwise.  There were social and political reasons then as now for church attendance and participation that had nothing to do with belief or adherence to doctrine.

                        Modern Christians who seek to have their rules written into law like to claim a Christian basis dating back to the founding; the facts are in conflict with that claim.

                        http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

            3. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              This is a constitutional issue, Arthur!  It just happens to be religious in nature.  I would even take up for the Mormons in this one!  Or for the Shakers, if they hadn't believed in no sex and went extinct a while back!  I wish all faiths had their rules!

            4. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              On the subject of 'infringement on religous freedom' - I wholheartedly support freedom of religion. ALL religions - equally. But I object to the concept that some religions are more equal than others. My read of recent SC decisions is in accord with this view. The legal trend is frustratiing to those who think that all religions are equal but christianity is more equal because it's more popular.

              If, for example, the issue was that a law was passed which prohibited a Catholic Church in Salt Lake City - I would be outraged, not because I'm for Catholics or against Mormons but because it would be wrong and illegal. If Israel fell out of favor in the US, which I'm not predicting, I would be opposed to anti-semitism.

              Separation of Church and State protects everyone. If they permit Christianity to be taught in public schools, they must also permit Wiccans to teach witchcraft. I find both equally inappropriate and I'm satisfied with the status quo. But be careful about wanting a ban overturned - the side effects of equal application can bite you on the butt.

              1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
                Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this




                Except for the government regulated and incredibly powerful worship of Mammon.  There is no seperation with that religion.


                Shhhh!  Don't tell anyone that all government does sponsor a religion.

                smile

              2. Pcunix profile image88
                Pcunixposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I wish they would teach the history of religion in schools - show the Christians where their myths came from.

                1. habee profile image91
                  habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I taught in a very conservative high school in South GA. Christianity was not taught. Religious writings were taught as examples of literature, including writings from the Christian Bible, the Qur'an, Taoism, Confucius, Jabo, the Talmud, and other religious writings. These were examined as literature, however, and not taught as religion.

      2. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

        This topic is really a prime example for why the framers of the Constitution worded it like they did.  Religion and government does not blend well.  Righteous indignation versus absolute surety!  You decide which is which!

      3. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 7 years ago

        The framers knew what they were doing!

        Nativity scenes? I agree that they're fine on private property. I think they're okay on public property as long as other religions can get "equal billing." I'm a Christian, but fair is fair!

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          We both are worth a dollar apiece!  Cool!

          1. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Duh! It took me a sec to understand! I blame it on my medications.

            It's been a long time since I charged just a dollar, though!

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I know!  You charged $1.25 for a long time!

              1. habee profile image91
                habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I've gone up to $2! You'll have to get a part-time job now!

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I know!  Being a pimp isn't all it's cracked up to be!

                  1. habee profile image91
                    habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you still have that pimp hat? Wasn't it purple??

                    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                      PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      OMG, we just sold a purple pimp hat at our garage sale.  Was that you, Randy?

        2. Shadesbreath profile image87
          Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The problem with equal billing is what usually happens is someone puts up a nativity and then someone from some other faith comes along and pitches a fit, wanting "equal billing."  So then, the limited space, not to mention aesthetic reality, are destroyed by jamming a bunch of "me too" crap into the display or the area. 

          The real issue is that, had the "OMG I'M LOOKING FOR WAYS TO BE OFFENDED" crowd been REALLY interested in displaying, they would have requested access in ADVANCE and their display would have been put up because they wanted it up all along rather than being put up BECAUSE someone else thought of it first and planned ahead.

          I'm fine with equal access.  I don't think Johnny-Come-Lately the Whiner should get equal anything, regardless of his/her religion.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Which explains the basic premise behind banning them altogether on public property. There's no way to ensure equal access to all faiths - or non-faith.  If your religion compels you to display visual evidence of your faith, pass the collection plate, buy a lot and have at it - subject to local ordinances and HOA covenants of course. smile

            1. Shadesbreath profile image87
              Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You might be right.  It would be a shame if as a society we have to be that petty, but that may be how it ends up.  We have a tendency to let the singular minority have too much power in all the wrong moments with the same regularity that we let the majority rule have too much power in all the wrong moments too.

            2. KFlippin profile image60
              KFlippinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Is it not so very interesting that this was not an issue as short a time ago as 20 years or so.....amazing....did our laws change?  Or did our popuation?  Or did our Political Power Centers/Power Brokers?

      4. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

        Ok , lets suppose that your wife carries a cell phone  or looked at another man with a wanting in her eyes , or that your daughter wants to marry a baptist , or refuses to dress acording to sharia law. Is it ok then to bury them  half in the ground and throw stones at them until they're dead.  What if someone says your daughter can not attend school , is it then Ok to let them build a  mosque next  to your house.  God I love you peoples reasoning ,  pearl harbor  equals ground zero, right! Men ,[Women] of common sense are a dieing breed.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Reading this, I have to wonder if a horse's *back* is the appropriate location? But you are in the right quadrent.

          Please tell me ehere in America any Moslems conducted a stoning? Because I *CAN* show you where good Christians in America burned 'witches'. The idea of taking the most violent international incidents and trying to apply them to American Moslems is the height of bigotry and ignorance.

          While I heartily support your right to your own opinion - and your right to speak it publicly - I reserve the same rights and I will call it what it is when it's hateful, bigoted and un-American. The first phrase of the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It's the FIRST right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

          By all means, continue to spew your bile in it's most extreme form. Most Americans have a sense of fairness, and they will quickly recognize Islamaphobia as a hate movement they don't want to be part of.

       
      working