>>> YourValentine wrote: We all come to this discussion with our various experiences in life and I thought this made the discussion really interesting. <<< . I agree with this and think if any comments from one side made the other rethink their position, then this has been a very productive discussion. Whether opinions have been swayed or held, the challenge has been enlightening. I know there were times I had to consider my opinion and determine why I felt as I did. The initial knee-jerk reaction is never healthy but after detailing my thoughts, I felt more sure of my position. I'm not angry with the other side, and I do feel I understand it. I'm just of a different opinion and do still believe there's opportunity for compromise. It will take a big person to come to the table for it, but I think if peace and stability is indeed the desired outcome, then it's necessary. Unfortunately, it won't happen soon since the imam is out of the state citing threats against his life. Interestingly, no one, including those protecting him (who are getting paid with US tax dollars) is saying exactly which side is issuing the threats. Neither is justified, of course, but it would be interesting to know.
john bodega · Member since
They should just build an Apple Store instead ....
Mr Mercury · Member since
It seems that this debate is still raging on. Apparently, Whoopi Goldberg and somebody else walked a chat show the other day. Personally, I think they did the right thing on this occasion. Had it been me, I might have smacked the guy in the mouth for being ignorant to the fact that not all muslims are terrorists.
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
Well, Joy said she walked off because it sounded like he was unapologetically spewing hate speech and then she came back when he apologized. I agreed with their walking off in protest but also agreed with Barbara Walters when she said they should have stayed to fight for their point of view (paraphrasing). I think it's better to talk things out than to let them sit unsettled. . Thing is, there are extreme views on both sides and at all levels and, while extremes are wrong, the display of them should not come as a surprise. When there is as much sensitivity around an issue as there is with this, the rise in tension should be expected. The original plans for the community center were not handled well by the organizers, and their naivety, if that's what it is, is truly disturbing given the state of the world right now. Perhaps the opposition overreacted, but given the still oozing wounds of 9/11, it should not have come as a surprise. However, for someone like O'Reilly to "confuse" the terms "muslims" and "extremist muslims" is irresponsible and dangerous. But then, that seems to be his MO so the women of The View, like the community center organizers, should have been prepared for the comments he made.
john bodega · Member since
Ah, quality TV viewing. Honestly - no one with half a brain would invite Bill O'Reilly on their show and think "this guy is going to be the catalyst for a good debate".
GratefulFan · Member since
I think the walk off was a mistake. Not only does America and the world not need yet another example of how not to talk about this issue, or any other for that matter, but the move was unprofessional and inconsiderate of Barbara Walters who was left to handle the immediate aftermath on her own. Now at least two of them - Joy and Bill - seem to be leveraging the tasteless event for content on their own shows. I understand the emotions that are raised very well as I have trouble not getting upset myself, but if I was on National TV and it was my job to keep it together I can assure you I'd keep it together, Bill O'Reilly or not. And as has been said, what exactly was it that they expected from Bill O'Reilly? His hyperconservative simmering angry guy schtick is well known.
john bodega · Member since
He seems to have a 24 hour hotline to the strawman argument. He keeps on about these 9/11 families that he knows, and speaks on their behalf like a total wanker. Funny, considering the times that he's upset these people that he supposedly sticks up for. He even pulled the "cut his mic" routine on one such lad who was the son of a 9/11 victim .... explain to me how that's standing up for these people.
I'm sticking to my gut feeling that any construction near that site really ought to be secular as can be. Most faiths are pretty well catered for when it comes to places of worship. Just put a Burger King there.
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
>>> Zebonka12 wrote: I'm sticking to my gut feeling that any construction near that site really ought to be secular as can be. Most faiths are pretty well catered for when it comes to places of worship. Just put a Burger King there. <<< . Or... just build a community center without any - ANY - religious affiliation. It's really so simple.
("The location is at the site where a mosque and community centre has been proposed")
I still think it's a mistake to build a mosque here.
[/QUOTE]
Which is why, two years ago when this thread was active, I explained how the area for the proposed mosque is not blocks from Ground Zero but rather that it IS Ground Zero.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
So, because the culprits of the 9/11 attacks were (bad) Muslims, we should not build any more mosques in lower Manhattan? Then I suppose they shouldn't build any churches in Oklahoma City anymore either, because Timothy McVeigh was a (bad) Christian.
We should bear in mind that Al Qaeda =/=Islam. It's a group of fanatics hijacking Islam for their own purposes. Bin Laden, for instance, was never a devout Muslim, at any point in his life. He was a secular, pretty westernized Arab who was involved in banking (no qualms about charging interest), consumed alcohol and watched pornography. In short, he did everything fundamentalists feel Muslims shouldn't do. If we start giving in to xenophobe feelings and equate all Muslims and all Islamic institutions with terror groups, the terrorists win - because if we do that, the West is indeed at war with Islam, which is what they are trying to convince the Islamic world is the case.
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote: [/b] So, because the culprits of the 9/11 attacks were (bad) Muslims, we should not build any more mosques in lower Manhattan? Then I suppose they shouldn't build any churches in Oklahoma City anymore either, because Timothy McVeigh was a (bad) Christian.
We should bear in mind that Al Qaeda =/=Islam. It's a group of fanatics hijacking Islam for their own purposes. Bin Laden, for instance, was never a devout Muslim, at any point in his life. He was a secular, pretty westernized Arab who was involved in banking (no qualms about charging interest), consumed alcohol and watched pornography. In short, he did everything fundamentalists feel Muslims shouldn't do. If we start giving in to xenophobe feelings and equate all Muslims and all Islamic institutions with terror groups, the terrorists win - because if we do that, the West is indeed at war with Islam, which is what they are trying to convince the Islamic world is the case.[/QUOTE]
This is another example of you jumping in with both feet -- in your mouth -- making insulting comments about xenophobia etc. Instead, why not try reading some of the thread and the arguments?
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
You really don't understand any of this, do you?
As you might've noticed, if you ever noticed anything other than your own narrow-minded prejudice, I followed this thread when it was still new, back in 2010, so I know pretty well what it is about.
But apparently you are such a bigot that you believe nobody has any right to even criticize the leaders of the Catholic church, but it's ok to violate the religious freedom of Muslims wholesale. I support equal treatment for everyone, regardless of race, gender, religious views, etc. You clearly don't.
