News Is the U.S. Losing Its Freedom of Speech?

[Jack21222]

What if Obama had made a similar statement about something else? Would you feel comfortable if Obama stopped a book burning of Mein Kampf, or The Art of Cinema (Kim Jong Il's book)?

Obama hasn't stopped ANY book burning, that I'm aware of. Can you point to a book burning that Obama has stopped?

I'd be fine if Obama spoke out against burning Mein Kampf or The Art of Cinema. Mein Kampf might be a little different, because the Nazi party hasn't been in charge of Germany for decades.

EDIT: Furthermore, we don't have a Muslim embassy. Is it relations with the Afghan government we are trying to save?

Yes, among others. Namely Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Libya... and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Gokul43201]

But now we're off in the weeds implying that I'm racist for claiming 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. It was! Really, guys. IRA bombing really are done in the name of Christianity. So are fire-bombings of abortion clinics.

Where did I make any implication that you were racist? All I pointed out was that your argument (or maybe Sam Harris' argument) of association was clearly negligent.

I guess I should expand, or rather probe further, based on what you just added...

Really, guys. IRA bombing really are done in the name of Christianity. So are fire-bombings of abortion clinics.

So what are you saying is the implication of this? Does this provide an argument for preventing churches from being built near abortion clinics?

If some friendly neighborhood pastor wanted to build a church a few blocks away from an abortion clinic and was being pressured to relocate his church elsewhere, what would you say? And if he warned that being forced to move the church to a "politically correct" location would inflame anger and tension among the Christian community, would you call that terrorism as well?

 

[FlexGunship]

If some friendly neighborhood pastor wanted to build a church a few blocks away from an abortion clinic and was being pressured to relocate his church elsewhere, what would you say? And if he warned that being forced to move the church to a "politically correct" location would inflame anger and tension among the Christian community, would you call that terrorism as well?

If members of the Christian community threatened violence to maintain the location of the church, then yes. In that specific case, they are using the threat of violence to get what they want.

Obama hasn't stopped ANY book burning, that I'm aware of. Can you point to a book burning that Obama has stopped?

You're right. I should've said "declared a political position in opposition to the burning of books."

 

[russ_watters]

Moving the mosque is wrong, pure and simple.

It is not an Islam thing; it is a human rights thing. People who are mourning for lost loved ones in 9/11 are transferring their anger away from an act of terrorism and towards a belief system that is not responsible for their grief. They have no right to associate 9/11 with Islam, nor do they have any right to associate a mosque with direspect of 9/11. To allow them to express themselves by the moving of the mosque is to allow religious persecution back into the nation.

In a nutshell: Islam did not bring down the towers, terrorists did.

*BLINK* Dave, since the terrorist who brought down the towers used Islam as a motivation, how can a connection between Islam and 9/11 possibly be avoided?

[separate post] They can say that all they want. They do not represent Islam or Muslims.

No one ever claimed they were internationally recognized representatives of Islam, Dave - nor, obviously does any such thing exist. Maybe you should reread what you wrote in the previous quote. You said "associate" with Islam. Clearly, someone who is a self-labeled Muslim is associated with Islam. More specifically, there is a broad, umbrella "belief system" of Islam. Under that umbrella are many variants of it Islam. Islamic extremism is one of those variants. So the 9/11 bombers are associated directly with the belief system of Islamic extremism and more broadly with the overall family of belief systems of Islam.

And even if it could find a non-absurd reason to divorce 9/11 from Islam..."right"? People don't have a right to be offended? Dave, this is a free country - people have the right to think whatever they want to think. People have the right to hate Christians or Jews or Muslims or redheads for any reason they choose. People have the right to be offended for any reason. Whether it is reasonable to be offended by such things and whether someone should bow to the offended person's feelings is debateable, but we live in a PC society where people tend to allow people being offended to define what is offensive and action to be taken based on that. If we don't at least consider the feelings of people who are offended by this, we're being insensitive and we're treating people who have had a serious emotional blow with less sensitivity than we are treating blacks who want to be called "african american" and midgets who want to be called "little people" -- and Islamic extremists who are offended by burning the Koran.

This is the double-standard I've been referring to: Similar acts by the other side are not met with similar responses. We're elevating Islamic extremists to the level of an unofficial protected class, curtailing the rights of some in order to elevate extremists.

 

[russ_watters]

You do realize that Muslims aren't a homogeneous group, right? What you're doing is like blaming the Catholic church for IRA bombings. "They're both Christian!"

Why do people always make this assumption (that someone who mentions the Islamic extremism motivation believes all Muslims are extremists) in these discussions? I've never heard anyone claim anything like that, yet it always comes up. Why would you assume that when someone says "Islamic extremist", they are assuming all muslims are extremists? It is a silly thing to believe and unless you're assuming you are arguing with complete idiots, there is no reason for you to believe that.

It's implicit in your arguments. You don't need to make the claim when you say things like:

No, it isn't. The 9/11 terrorists did act in the name of Islam and even they might have believed they were acting for all Muslims, but that does not in any way imply that all Muslims agreed with the act, nor does pointing out that they acted in the name of Islam imply that all Muslims approve.

 

[russ_watters]

It was also an act done in the name of honor by human beings. Should we prevent honorable human beings from moving into lower Manhattan? Use a sufficiently generic label, and you will catch all the fish you want (and more, but who cares about that?).

Want to list out all the atrocities committed by Americans in the name of patriotism?

Wow, Gokul, huge swing and a miss. You are making the same false assumption as Jack. Clearly not all patriots are the same and not all Muslims are the same and nothing anyone said has implied otherwise. And it isn't the OP (or I) who is applying the label, it is the terrorists themselves. And the fish? Well, you are the one throwing them into the boat!

As always, the only ones trying to paint that picture are those mischaracterizing the arguments of others.

 

[russ_watters]

2. You claim that it is terrorism to warn that such a violation of individual freedoms could result in violent backlash.

You misunderstand: That "violent backlash" is terrorism and warning of it and attempting to persuade people to change their behaviors for fear of it is the entire purpose of terrorism. Obama is bowing to the goals/threats of terrorists and trying to convince the pastor to do the same.

Now that doesn't even necessarily make Obama's position unreasonble. Obama has more people to protect than just the pastor. He has the pastor's rights and life to protect, but he also has the lives of soldiers and other civilians to protect. So his position is the safe/prudent position. But that doesn't change the fact that his position is one of the things the terrorists are trying to achieve with their threats. It would have been nice if he hadn't so openly kowtowed to the threats. Perhaps a private letter or phone call.

 

[FlexGunship]

Now that doesn't even necessarily make Obama's position unreasonble. Obama has more people to protect than just the pastor. He has the pastor's rights and life to protect, but he also has the lives of soldiers and other civilians to protect. So his position is the safe/prudent position. But that doesn't change the fact that his position is one of the things the terrorists are trying to achieve with their threats.

Rationally stated. However, the government is designed to protect our rights, the military is designed to protect our bodies. Obama should be banging the drum for individual rights and liberties; that's the defining characteristic of the United States of America.

This, of course, includes banging the drum for the rights of Muslim Americans as well.

 

[talk2glenn]

No, that isn't clear.

You have the entire federal government waging a philosophical war of rhetoric to dissuade one citizen from expressing himself politically.

How is this not tantamount to a practical violation of the spirit of the 1st amendment.

 

[Gokul43201]

Wow, Gokul, huge swing and a miss.

Wow, Russ. Nice dramatic opening!

You are making the same false assumption as Jack.

No, I am not making any assumption that there is an accusation that all muslims are terrorists (not implying here that Jack makes this assumption either). Nowhere in my argument is such an assumption required.

Clearly not all patriots are the same and not all Muslims are the same and nothing anyone said has implied otherwise.

If anything, this statement supports my argument: that any rationale used to forbid Muslims from building a mosque could as well be used in other places to forbid "patriots" from building anything symbolizing America.

 

[Gokul43201]

You misunderstand:

This is hilarious! I misunderstand? The poster I wrote that to has since acknowledged my point and has made a reasoned revision and clarification of his initial positions (perhaps independently of any posts I made). Thanks for the feedback, but I'd rather let the people I address decide whether or not I misunderstand THEIR posts.

 

[Gokul43201]

Missed some posts along the way. This was one.

A more nuanced reaction would be far more appropriate. The government should specify that it does not condone the conduct, and that it disagrees with the motivations behind it to the extent such language is necessary to protect American interests abroad.

Would that really be the only good reason to not condone an act which (IMO) is little more than an expression of hatred and disrespect for an entire community of people? I think you are underestimating the benefits of not having people going about antagonizing each other for no good reason.

However, it should also made loud and clear that our freedoms are fundamental and will be protected unequivocally, whether we or anybody else likes the consequences, and that no legal effort can or will be made to prohibit the pastor from burning Korans.

Agree strongly. However, I suspect if it is not stated explicitly, that might in part be because this is a no-brainer. I may easily be mistaken, but I don't think anyone of import has seriously proposed that the pastor be stopped through the force of law. Yet, I agree, that at least for the reason that the audience is international, a strong statement in support of protecting Constitutional rights be included.

 

[BoomBoom]

Obama, personally, might have an opinion, but while he's in office, he probably shouldn't share it publicly.

Haha...imagine if our presidents never gave their opinions. That's just hillarious!

He urged the Rev Terry Jones to "listen to those better angels" and call off his plan.

...this is a far cry from the tyranny and opression you were suggesting in your OP.

 

[DaveC426913]

*BLINK* Dave, since the terrorist who brought down the towers used Islam as a motivation, how can a connection between Islam and 9/11 possibly be avoided?

If I sprayed slurs on a wall saying "women go home" and claimed I did it in the name of men, does that mean that the media and public have a rational claim to blame all males? No. My claim as to why I do something doesn't say anything about anyone else I wish to include.

In the same way, terrorists can claim all they want about why they did it. So what? That does not mean Islam or Muslim are responsible. Because terrorists wish to have themselves associated with Islam does not mean the reciprocal - that Islam is associated with terrorism.

And even if it could find a non-absurd reason to divorce 9/11 from Islam

I do not grant that it was married in the first place, so no divorce needed. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the Islam beliefs (notably, the ones practiced at the mosque in question) supports these terrorists. The terrorists claiming they live under the Islam umbrella does not oblige Islam to anything.

(Good thing the terrorists didnt say they did it in the name of men everywhere. All us men would be lynched, wouldn't we?)

People don't have a right to be offended?

They are not simply offended. They are trying to get them to not put the mosque there, because they see Muslims as the root of their pain. That's not offense; that's action - persecutive action (the people wanting to build the mosque are being deprived based specifically on their belief system).

and Islamic extremists who are offended by burning the Koran

Are you suggesting extremists are the only ones hurt by this act?

 

[nismaratwork]

What does it mean to be hard, compared to soft in the first place? Now that the pastor himself has canceled this event, I'm more interested in this concept that it's good to be "hard", and bad to be "soft", and what each means. I prefer to be flexible, and able to adapt to any given situation; a hawk here, a dove there, and something in the middle for the gray areas that dominate. I distrust the notion that once we were "hard and strong" as some kind of inherently good thing. The dinosaurs were hard and strong, which allowed them unprecedented dominance... until the situation changed. Suddenly rodents and proto-meercats were ruling the earth. Obviously being of one "texture" is a terrible disadvantage in a changing world.

 

[nismaratwork]

If I sprayed slurs on a wall saying "women go home" and claimed I did it in the name of men, does that mean that the media and public have a rational claim to blame all males? No. My claim as to why I do something doesn't say anything about anyone else I wish to include.

In the same way, terrorists can claim all they want about why they did it. So what? That does not mean Islam or Muslim are responsible. Because terrorists wish to have themselves associated with Islam does not mean the reciprocal - that Islam is associated with terrorism.


I do not grant that it was married in the first place, so no divorce needed. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the Islam beliefs (notably, the ones practiced at the mosque in question) supports these terrorists. The terrorists claiming they live under the Islam umbrella does not oblige Islam to anything.

(Good thing the terrorists didnt say they did it in the name of men everywhere. All us men would be lynched, wouldn't we?)


They are not simply offended. They are trying to get them to not put the mosque there, because they see Muslims as the root of their pain. That's not offense; that's action - persecutive action (the people wanting to build the mosque are being deprived based specifically on their belief system).


Are you suggesting extremists are the only ones hurt by this act?

You make good points... you'd think a site with an excellent selection of threads, blogs and FAQs about RELATIVITY, would be more capable of understanding nuance and your points.

 

[JaredJames]

So as I understand it, Obama has said he disapproves of burning the Koran as it will anger Muslims.
But he approves of building a mosque at ground zero, even though it will anger many non-muslims.

Now, arguments of freedom aside, how can he impose such a double standard? Why is he so concerned about the views of Muslims whilst ignoring the views of the non-muslims? No, you can't judge all Muslims by the actions of a few, as everyone keeps pointing out, but then you can't judge all Christians by the actions of this pastor, so why is Obama differentiating between the two?

This is the double standard I keep seeing, particularly in the UK.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm on my phone, so I'll keep rhetoric to a minimum, but I just wanted to express my relief that Jones has canceled his book burning.

I absolutely support his right to do it, but I'm glad it's not happening.

 

[Jack21222]

Why do people always make this assumption (that someone who mentions the Islamic extremism motivation believes all Muslims are extremists) in these discussions? I've never heard anyone claim anything like that, yet it always comes up.

Because your "side" brings up 9/11 when talking about a Sufi interfaith community center! The Sufis didn't attack us on 9/11, so why even say the words "ground zero" when discussing the construction of this community center? I can't think of any connection between this community center and Al Qaeda, other than they're both Islamic.

I can only think of two possibilities where this connection makes sense, perhaps you can provide others:

1) People believe Muslims are a homogeneous group, so if one Muslim attacks us, all Muslims should be punished (by preventing construction of their community center).

2) People are xenophobic.

I charitably ascribe the motives of the opponents of this community center to possibility 1, that they're just misguided and not xenophobic. The fact that the ONLY CONNECTION between Al Qaeda and this community center is they're both Islamic suggests to me that that's the connection that opponents are using. That connection only makes sense under those two possibilities I listed.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and you can think of another option. At the moment, I can't think of any.

So as I understand it, Obama has said he disapproves of burning the Koran as it will anger Muslims.
But he approves of building a mosque at ground zero, even though it will anger many non-muslims.

Now, arguments of freedom aside, how can he impose such a double standard? Why is he so concerned about the views of Muslims whilst ignoring the views of the non-muslims? No, you can't judge all Muslims by the actions of a few, as everyone keeps pointing out, but then you can't judge all Christians by the actions of this pastor, so why is Obama differentiating between the two?

This is the double standard I keep seeing, particularly in the UK.

I can understand why some would find a book burning offensive. I can't understand why anybody would find a community center offensive. There is no double standard, you're looking at two very different events. One is an act of destruction, the other is an act of construction.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no double standard; they are not equivalent. Nice try.

So as I understand it, Obama has said he disapproves of burning the Koran as it will anger Muslims.

Because it is an act of hate.

But he approves of building a mosque at ground zero, even though it will anger many non-muslims.

Because they have a constitutional right to freedom of religious persecution.

This is not rocket surgery, people. It is really as simple as that.

 

[turbo]

So as I understand it, Obama has said he disapproves of burning the Koran as it will anger Muslims.
But he approves of building a mosque at ground zero, even though it will anger many non-muslims.

Now, arguments of freedom aside, how can he impose such a double standard? Why is he so concerned about the views of Muslims whilst ignoring the views of the non-muslims? No, you can't judge all Muslims by the actions of a few, as everyone keeps pointing out, but then you can't judge all Christians by the actions of this pastor, so why is Obama differentiating between the two?

This is the double standard I keep seeing, particularly in the UK.

You are mis-stating Obama's position. He asked the preacher not to burn the Koran because the US was founded on tolerance and religious freedom.

Others (including Gates and Petraeus and Clinton) have weighed in and asked that Koran-burning not take place because it would only fuel hatred (and aid recruiting efforts by Taliban and others) in places where our troops are in harm's way, putting our troops in additional danger.

You are also parroting the statements of right-wing media with regard to the "mosque". Have you ever been to lower Manhattan? 2+ blocks there is not "at ground Zero" - it is a long way from the footprint of the WTC, and it is around a corner as well, so there is no line-of-sight to the site. Currently, it is an old Burlington Coat Factory building, a part of which has been used as a Muslim prayer-site for years. The notion that building a community center in the place of that old ruin would insult 9-11 victims resonates with people who are predisposed to hating Obama "because he is a Muslim" and other fools on the right, but it is far from rational. There are lots of religious buildings in lower Manhattan, many of them very impressive edifices devoted entirely to a religion. The "ground-zero mosque" is a proposed community center with meeting facilities, convention facilities, exercise facilities, etc, etc, with some space devoted to worship. The people who own that property have every right to develop it as they please. The Imam who is heading up that project is a very moderate Muslim (Sufi) who has undertaken foreign outreach/good-will missions for the Bush administration, as well as the current administration. We should all try to gain some perspective, here.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is he so concerned about the views of Muslims whilst ignoring the views of the non-muslims?

Billy wanted to eat the whole cake.
Bobby said "No, we'll each have half."
Mommy, not wanting apply a double standard by ignoring one over the other, said
"You are both equally entitled to what you want, so we'll compromise. Billy will get 3/4ths of the cake, Bobby will get 1/4. There, now it's fair."

The moral of the lesson here? Religious persecution is not a defensible stance.

 

[jgens]

So as I understand it, Obama has said he disapproves of burning the Koran as it will anger Muslims.
But he approves of building a mosque at ground zero, even though it will anger many non-muslims.

Obama only supported the right of the Muslims to build the mosque near ground zero; he never actually threw his approval to the project. Likewise, Obama said he disapproves of burning the Quran, but never said that the pastor didn't have the right to do so.

You're also over simplifying the issue. This is more than about angering a few Muslims; it's about the safety of American troops overseas and about US relations with Islamic countries. A number of high ranking government officials (including those in the military) have said that burning the Quran could put the lives of American troops at risk. It could also endanger our relations with a number of Islamic countries. You don't have to feel that these are adequate reasons to oppose the burning, but it doesn't help your case to make statements which are superficially true at best.

As one last aside here. The mosque isn't at ground zero. It's a couple of blocks away.

 

[leroyjenkens]

it's about the safety of American troops overseas and about US relations with Islamic countries.

So they're going to attack American troops because a preacher of a small church burns some books? And we want to preserve a relationship with these people?

 

[turbo]

As one last aside here. The mosque isn't at ground zero. It's a couple of blocks away.

HUGE blocks, BTW. Lower Manhattan blocks are not laid out on a scale comparable to blocks in most cities. When someone from Queens says "Yeah, he grew up on my block." they are talking about a neighborhood, not a sprawling complex of very large sky-scrapers with large footprints/building.

 

[Jack21222]

The Imam who is heading up that project is a very moderate Muslim (Sufi) who has undertaken foreign outreach/good-will missions for the Bush administration, as well as the current administration. We should all try to gain some perspective, here.

Plus he has a Master's degree in plasma physics. You'd figure that would carry some weight around here.

 

[JaredJames]

You're also over simplifying the issue. This is more than about angering a few Muslims; it's about the safety of American troops overseas and about US relations with Islamic countries. A number of high ranking government officials (including those in the military) have said that burning the Quran could put the lives of American troops at risk. It could also endanger our relations with a number of Islamic countries. You don't have to feel that these are adequate reasons to oppose the burning, but it doesn't help your case to make statements which are superficially true at best.

As one last aside here. The mosque isn't at ground zero. It's a couple of blocks away.

So basically, he shouldn't burn the book otherwise peoples lives are put in danger? OK, I can go with that and it's certainly a fair argument. But then, as pointed out previously, the threat of violence in order to get ones own way (in this case it's an indirect 'burn it and people could get hurt' or 'we'll stop talking to you') is terrorism.

Regarding my double standards, I was looking more at the outcome of both events. Both could inspire protests and potential violence from either side (muslim anger at the burning, non-muslim anger at the mosque). Something which I think should be considered more, whether or not the right to do something exists.

 

[Jack21222]

So they're going to attack American troops because a preacher of a small church burns some books? And we want to preserve a relationship with these people?

The radical recruiters are trying to portray a war between Islam and the West. Instead of attacking Afghanistan in self-defense and attacking Iraq because... whatever secular excuse was the real reason, they're trying to portray the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our aggressive posture towards Iran as analogous to the Crusades. They want this to be one big Holy War, not a bunch of little secular engagements.

Acts like burning a Quran and protesting a peaceful community center provides evidence to Al Qaeda recruiters that American troops are waging a war against Islam, and thus the recruits would attack American troops IN SELF DEFENSE.

If there were no American troops on that side of the globe, I doubt they'd care about some small church "burning some books." But, the country that is burning books and banning mosques (or attempting to do both) is the same country that is sending armed soldiers over into these countries to kill people and break things.

You can't look at these incidents in a vacuum.

So basically, he shouldn't burn the book otherwise peoples lives are put in danger? OK, I can go with that and it's certainly a fair argument. But then, as pointed out previously, the threat of violence in order to get ones own way (in this case it's an indirect 'burn it and people could get hurt' or 'we'll stop talking to you') is terrorism.

The above goes for you, too. These people didn't say "hey, some guys is burning Qurans, let's go over to America and attack them." They're saying "These American troops are in our country, but maybe they're here for our good. Maybe they'll make our lives better. Wait, their fellow countrymen are doing WHAT? Hmm... maybe they're not looking after my welfare after all."

 

[DaveC426913]

HUGE blocks, BTW. Lower Manhattan blocks are not laid out on a scale comparable to blocks in most cities.

This is missing the point.

You are attempting to placate them rather than showing them that their views are misguided and intolerant.


Article 18 - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

[leroyjenkens]

If there were no American troops on that side of the globe, I doubt they'd care about some small church "burning some books." But, the country that is burning books and banning mosques (or attempting to do both) is the same country that is sending armed soldiers over into these countries to kill people and break things.

They know the American government isn't behind any of that. If a few people do something in America, those acts don't represent America as a whole, or the government who sent the troops over there. They know that, they just want more ammunition against America.

 

[drankin]

America has definitely gone soft. A guy wants to burn some books and is condemned by every politician in the nation because it will piss off Muslims. Most people on this forum condemn the belief in God in general and will slam religion at every opportunity. But oh no don't burn the Quran. That's just hateful and mean and not what this country is about. Concerned more about how we appear to countries in which the majority of their population already hates the US. People are funny, they will intellectually convince themselves of anything that supports their self righteous bias. Got to keep up appearances. And I don't necessarily exclude myself from this statement. Just making an observation.

If it were a bible burning we'd be throwing a fund raiser.

 

[JaredJames]

DaveC please don't bring human rights into this.

I can't stand people who argue for them. Although I know they are there on a good basis, they are the reason people in prison currently have better entertainment facilities than me, an up-standing citizen. They are quickly becoming a defence for anything people do.

 

[turbo]

This is missing the point.

You are attempting to placate them rather than showing them that their views are misguided and intolerant.

You are right, of course. My point is that the right-wing is trying to portray the project as being "at ground zero" and therefore provocative. Muslims have worshiped at that site for years (and yes, there are Muslims working in the financial district, just like all over the country) and they have the right to continue to do so. My aim WRT to geography was to point out that the right-wing is trying to whip up hatred against inoffensive Muslims who are simply trying to exercise their right to practice their religion.

What if a Baha'i group wanted to establish a community center there? How low can our elected officials go in fomenting fear and hatred?

 

[JaredJames]

America has definitely gone soft. A guy wants to burn some books and is condemned by every politician in the nation because it will piss off Muslims. Most people on this forum condemn the belief in God in general and will slam religion at every opportunity. But oh no don't burn the Quran. That's just hateful and mean and not what this country is about. Concerned more about how we appear to countries in which the majority of their population already hates the US. People are funny, they will intellectually convince themselves of anything that supports their self righteous bias. Got to keep up appearances. And I don't necessarily exclude myself from this statement. Just making an observation.

If it were a bible burning we'd be throwing a fund raiser.

Exactly, take the christmas lights situation in the UK. People asked to take them down to avoid 'offending other nationalities living nearby'. The government is more interested in keeping everyone else happy and ignoring their own countries traditions.

 

[Gokul43201]

So as I understand it, Obama has said he disapproves of burning the Koran as it will anger Muslims.
But he approves of building a mosque at ground zero, even though it will anger many non-muslims.

Now, arguments of freedom aside, how can he impose such a double standard?

Even if this were true (and it's not), the primary purpose of building a mosque/Islamic cultural center is NOT to insult or anger 9/11 victims, Americans, Christians, or express disrespect toward any particular group of people. On the other hand, the primary (only?) purpose of burning a batch of Qurans is to piss off the Muslim world, or to put it politely, express disrespect towards the Islamic faith through a public event. In one case, the angering of a group of people is a by product that is regretted by the primary party, while in the other case it is the purpose. There is no real equivalency between these two situations.

A more comparable pair of situations would be the Mohammed cartoons (primary purpose is humor, pissing off is unavoidable) and the ground zero Mosque.

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC please don't bring human rights into this.

I can't stand people who argue for them. Although I know they are there on a good basis, they are the reason people in prison currently have better entertainment facilities than me, an up-standing citizen. They are quickly becoming a defence for anything people do.

Yes. Very inconvenient.

 

[Jack21222]

They know the American government isn't behind any of that. If a few people do something in America, those acts don't represent America as a whole, or the government who sent the troops over there. They know that, they just want more ammunition against America.

Who is "they?"

Sure, the RECRUITERS know. The recruiters are happy about the book burning and community center protests. I don't feel like searching for a link right now, but earlier today I read an article that quoted counter-terrorism officials saying that in the Jihadist chat rooms they're happy about these things as it give them more ammo.

The kids they're recruiting, though, might not know the difference between the US government and backwater US hicks. The US government is trying to dispel rumors that this is a war against Islam, but actions by US citizens, who vote for the US government, are providing evidence that this IS a war against Islam.

 

[rootX]

Most people on this forum condemn the belief in God in general and will slam religion at every opportunity. But oh no don't burn the Quran. That's just hateful and mean and not what this country is about.

Those threads get blocked. I don't believe people here can condemn or insult a paritcular religion as it is against the forum guidelines IIRC.

 

[DaveC426913]

I can understand why some would find a book burning offensive. I can't understand why anybody would find a community center offensive. There is no double standard, you're looking at two very different events. One is an act of destruction, the other is an act of construction.

Well said, I almost missed this one.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes. Very inconvenient.

Trust me, if I had my way, humans would have the right to air and to defend themselves if necessary. Everything should be worked for, just like every other life form on this planet.

 

[mheslep]

... when Obama said that the decision to build a mosque in Manhattan was misguided? ...

You are mistaken.

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Obama told reporters in Florida.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-Clintonian-speech-pulls-rug-from-under-mosque-supporters-100716539.html

 

[drankin]

Those threads get blocked. I don't believe people here can condemn or insult a paritcular religion as it is against the forum guidelines IIRC.

Yes, of course, but I've been here long enough to know they are rarely blocked even though they are obvious insults.

 

[turbo]

I estimate 30 minutes to thread lock. Poor Evo!

 

[drankin]

I estimate 30 minutes to thread lock. Poor Evo!

Has anyone contacted her yet? She'd lock this quicker than spit.

 

[rootX]

Yes, of course, but I've been here long enough to know they are rarely blocked even though they are obvious insults.

I disagree.

 

[Gokul43201]

You are mistaken. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-Clintonian-speech-pulls-rug-from-under-mosque-supporters-100716539.html

Correction noted and accepted. The line of questioning following that statement is retracted.

But for all practical purposes, when someone says they are not going to comment on the wisdom of a particular action, it almost inevitably conveys their disapproval. And that's why your article is titled "Obama's Clintonian speech pulls rug from under mosque supporters".

 

[DaveC426913]

Everything should be worked for, just like every other life form on this planet.

So you are an anarchist. You believe the very notion of 'civilization' is not something we are entitled to. OK.

Thing is, you live in a country where that is not the way it works. Would you consider moving somewhere where you would have to fight for everything?

No, didn't think so.

Personally, I think there is no such thing as a bona fide anarchist, only armchair anarchists.

 

[mheslep]

I can understand why some would find a book burning offensive. I can't understand why anybody would find a community center offensive. There is no double standard, you're looking at two very different events. One is an act of destruction, the other is an act of construction.

Well said, I almost missed this one.

Really? I understand disagreement, but you really contend you "can't understand" why an overwhelming majority oppose the mosque?

When asked if they "support or oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House," New Yorkers said they oppose the facility, which is expected to cost $100 million, by a 63-27 percent margin. At the same time, by a 64-to-28 percent margin, New Yorkers say Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has the constitutional right to build it.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...community-center-recognize-constitutionality/

 

[Gokul43201]

Ugh, this is going to go a little off-topic ...

Yes, of course, but I've been here long enough to know they are rarely blocked even though they are obvious insults.

If there are any direct insults, the posts should be reported. Do you report them when you see them? If not, why not?

 

[mugaliens]

Trust me, if I had my way, humans would have the right to air and to defend themselves if necessary.

We don't? Please say this isn't so! I spent twenty years in the military, laying my life on the line in defense of our Constitution and the American way of life. I'd hate to think that was all for nothing!

Everything should be worked for, just like every other life form on this planet.

Agreed. I started to say, "Last time I checked, no other animal on our planet has welfare or retirement," but that's not quite true. Communal societies from ants to dolpins and chimps always have some members who work harder than most, and others who don't work nearly hard enough, but are usually kept on because they provide some benefit to the group.