A Mosque at Ground Zero?

That's an odd argument when you consider that Islamic nutjobs have threatened the lives of those publishing the cartoons. Think about that for a second: threatened with kidnap and beheading for publishing a cartoon. Is this the 21st century or the 12th? Sadly for some living under Islamic law, it's more like the 12th. 

As for the hypocrisy of Westerners, in the UK there are incitement to hatred laws which protect muslims among others from hate-filled diatribes. Ironically, the last time I saw those laws used was against hate-filled radical Islamicists who hoped to use our hard-earned liberal laws protecting freedom of speech and freedom to demonstrate to spread hatred of the host counntry they  have chosen to come to. You really couldn't make it up.

Let's be clear: there is a great deal of mistrust of Islam in the west, and there's good reason for that since Islam often seems at odds with liberal democracy. 

As for the mosque at the 9/11 site, it's a disturbing and potentially offensive idea and should be opposed.

>> Amazon wrote: “It really frustrates me because time and time again, I have provided examples of intolerant statements, and yet people are saying that I am calling the general opposition intolerant. I am simply referring to some of the statements which are completely intolerant.”

Amazon wrote: “While you may claim that many, or most, Germans are opposed to Turkey's joing the EU on economic grounds, I am not convinced that there are Germans, as well as French and other Europeans, who are not opposed on religious grounds.” <<

==

You know, I thought our conversation had ended with an understanding but these comments of yours to SirGH and YourValentine change things.

The comments you referred to repeatedly were not made by the people holding conversations with you here but by others either on this thread or in news articles. The way you’ve used those comments to make your point that Islamophobia is at play here shows that you’ve closed your eyes and ears to other arguments and are only focusing on the extreme. Though we are having a civil conversation and are explaining our views, you continue to point to those comments. It’s as if you are blaming everyone for the actions/comments of a few. Does that ring familiar?

And further, you insist that while YourValentine gave a reason of ‘economics’ for Germany not wanting Turkey in the EU, you insist there are those opposed on religious grounds as if to say that is the true reason and you have uncovered some dark secret by saying so.

To me, this reeks of paranoia and the ‘reversal of perceived prejudice’ I have previously said concerns me.

Amazon wrote:

"However you have absolutely no problem in attacking religion."

I'm not attacking religion.  I'm simply stating facts.  The word 'attack' implies that I am unjust in my commentary and puts a negative slant on it irrespective to the points I'm making in the first place.  Like I described above, you're now attacking me for pointing out the flaws and history of organized religion instead of focusing on those points themselves, effectively turning the tables and trying to vilify me instead.  It's an age-old tactic and it will never work.

Exactly how many wars have been started in the name of atheism?  The answer is zero.  Enough said.  I have every right to point out the atrocities of organized religion and not be demonized for it.

"in the West, freedom of speech has been reinterpreted as freedom to villify Islam."

There was a young Muslim woman who recently came to Canada to study at a university in Montreal, with tuition paid for in full by the government.  She showed up the first day with a full burqa on, and was told by school authorities that the burqa was not permitted on campus.  She continued to wear it for weeks and eventually got expelled, and she had the nerve to complain that her rights were being trampled on - even though she was effectively telling the country who took her in (and was paying for her education) that her values were more important than theirs.  If she likes her traditions so much, then she should have stayed at home and gotten the education there.

With stories like this in the news, so-called 'Islamophobia' is quite justified.  There is not a single other religious group with people who act like this.  On top of that, they are the only religious group trying to incorporate their laws into western countries' laws.  Sharia law is an incredibly scary thing.  They already have their own banks too.  So if Islam is being vilified and there are plenty of Muslims who emigrated to the west who very openly want to change western culture to match theirs, then maybe they deserve it.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:"The comments you referred to repeatedly were not made by the people holding conversations with you here but by others either on this thread or in news articles."


I never said they were made by those holding conversations with me. I never accused you, or Sir GH or YourValentine, of being Islamophobic. I don't see how you would claim that I did, especially when in my first response to you, I specifically said that when talking about Islamophobes, I was not referring to you.

"The way you’ve used those comments to make your point that Islamophobia is at play here shows that you’ve closed your eyes and ears to other arguments and are only focusing on the extreme."

No, not at all. I am simply reporting comments made by oppositional parties, including ones that you yourself quoted in your first post. You however said that it wasn't about intolerance, and you brought up the Korean churches. So, if anybody is closing their ears and eyes here, it's not me. I mean, come on, do you even concede that that among the people who oppose the mosque, some of them do so out of intolerance?

"Though we are having a civil conversation and are explaining our views, you continue to point to those comments."

Because they are IMPORTANT. You can't overlook the statements made by the people who oppose the mosque. Whether this is a civil conversation or not, there is nothing wrong with referring to comments that you yourself quoted! If they weren't important, you shouldn't have quoted them. Or should I only point to comments that you deem to be important and which help your arguments?

"It’s as if you are blaming everyone for the actions/comments of a few. Does that ring familiar?"

Oh please. I haven't blamed anyone for the 'actions/comments of a few.' That is simply false, and I could challenge you to provide an example, but there is no such example.

"And further, you insist that while YourValentine gave a reason of ‘economics’ for Germany not wanting Turkey in the EU, you insist there are those opposed on religious grounds as if to say that is the true reason and you have uncovered some dark secret by saying so."

Uh, no. I simply suggested that it was also a factor.

magicalfreddiemercury, do you even read my posts? Because I made no such implication. (I should note BTW that it isn't actually a secret.)

"To me, this reeks of paranoia and the ‘reversal of perceived prejudice’ I have previously said concerns me."

Oh, please. You know what; think what you like, because based on this post, you will anyway. You have shown that you clearly don't read my posts; and if you had read my post to Sir GH, you would have seen that the '‘reversal of perceived prejudice’ you talk about is nonsencical.

As for paranoia, considering that you read things into my posts which aren't there (the one with YourValentine being a prime example), perhaps you are the paranoid one. Regardless, at least do me the courtesy of actually reading my posts!

Sir GH wrote: "I'm not attacking religion. I'm simply stating fact."


No, you may imagine them to be facts, but simply because you believe something to be one does not make it so.

" The word 'attack' implies that I am unjust in my commentary and puts a negative slant on it irrespective to the points I'm making in the first place."

Well, perhaps I do think that you are being unjust.

"Like I described above, you're now attacking me"

When exactly did I attack you? You know, if you are going to accuse someone of attacking you, at least have some basis for it.

"for pointing out the flaws and history of organized religion instead of focusing on those points themselves"

Nonsence. I responded to your facts, such as your comment regarding those who 'simply don't like the ideology.' Yet, you aren't even resonding to my comment and are accusing me of attacking you.

"effectively turning the tables and trying to vilify me instead."

Sorry, the only person doing the vilifying here is you.

"It's an age-old tactic and it will never work."

Then why do you utilise it?

"Exactly how many wars have been started in the name of atheism? The answer is zero. Enough said."

Well, that solves it then. Everyone should now become an athiest!

" I have every right to point out the atrocities of organized religion and not be demonized for it."

Get off your high horse. Nobody is demonising you. I note that you have no problem with people being demonised because of their religion, and you do it yourself. Why aren't I surprised?

"They are currently the only religious group trying to incorporate their laws into western countries' laws."

So all the Christians who want to ban ban euthanasia, don't want gay marriage to be legalised, want abortion to be criminalised, want the Autralian government to implement a mandatory internet filter don't count? Right.

"Sharia law is an incredibly scary thing."

Parts of it are; and they are against the law. Considering that you do not live in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran, you don't exactly need to worry about those 'incredibly scary' parts.

"They already have their own banks too."

What a horrible thing. I'm sorry, is this an argument against Sharia? Because you're grasping at ignorant straws. Next you will be saying 'they already have their own schools too' or some other such nonsence.

"So if Islam is being vilified and there are plenty of Muslims who emigrated to the west who very openly want to change western culture to match theirs, then maybe they deserve it."

And you accuse me of demonising you. Nobody deserves to be villified and demonised based on their religion. Nobody.

That said, you do realise that it is a democracy? All groups, whether Muslim or Christian or secular, have the right to attempt to change the law (I'm specifically not referring to 'western culture' since I clearly have a different culture to you and western culture is not monolithic) as long as they do so in a legal manner.

Amazon wrote:

"No, you may imagine them to be facts, but simply because you believe something to be one does not make it so."

So I, along with the rest of the rational world, am imagining that the majority of major conflict in human history is due to organized religion?

>>They are currently the only religious group trying to incorporate their laws into western countries' laws.<<

"So all the Christians who want to ban euthanasia, don't want gay marriage to be legalised, want abortion to be criminalised, want the Autralian government to implement a mandatory internet filter don't count?  Right."

Those aren't Christian laws - they are the beliefs of certain Christians.  Quite different.

"That said, you do realise that it is a democracy?  All groups, whether Muslim or Christian or secular, have the right to attempt to change the law (I'm specifically not referring to 'western culture' since I clearly have a different culture to you) as long as they do so in a legal manner."

You're right, they have the right to attempt.  But they should not have the right to come to my country, go on social assistance or have an education paid for by the state, and blatantly tell me that my country's traditions are wrong.  If things are so great at home, then they should have stayed there.

Sir GH wrote: "So I, along with the rest of the rational world, am imagining that the majority of major conflict in human history is due to organized religion?"


I love how you use the term rational. Anyway, yes, you are imaging that the 'majority of major conflict in human history is due to organized religion.' The majority of major conflict is due to power; who has it and who wants it.

"Those aren't Christian laws - they are Christian beliefs. Quite different."

Not so different that gay marriage is still against the law and the Australian Government is attempting to implement a mandatory internet filter which is supported only by the Australian Christian Lobby. In California, gay marriage was banned after a push by the Mormon Church.

Muslims are not the only group attempting to change/preserve certain laws, Christians do it as well, and in fact all religions do. It's their right.

"You're right, they have the right to attempt. But they should not have the right to come to my country, go on social assistance or have an education paid for by the state, and blatantly tell me that my country's traditions are wrong. If things are so great at home, then they should have stayed there."

You may not like it, but that is their right.

Amazon wrote:

"I love how you use the term rational."

As do I.  The very definition of irrational is being "deprived of reason".  Convincing oneself that something they cannot see is physically real is the very opposite of reason.  I personally have no problem with people living their lives this way, and if they live fulfilling lives due to this choice, then I'm genuinely happy that this choice has done them well.  But it is still irrational.  The opposite, which is making choices based on what can be physically seen and explained without reproach, is therefore categorized as rational.

"The majority of major conflict is due to power; who has it and who wants it."

Yes, political wars were often dressed as religious wars.  But it can't be denied that different systems of belief have been known to divide people into groups in the first place, especially a thousand years ago.  To this day the Sunnis and Shiites are still killing each other in droves.

How about honour killings?  How many atheists and agnostics have felt the need to kill their own children for staying out past 9pm and "doing harm to the family name" ?

"You may not like it, but that is their right."

And it is the right of the majority to point out how ludicrous and arrogant their actions are and, more importantly, keep them out of political power.

Sir GH wrote:

How about honour killings?  How many atheists and agnostics have felt the need to kill their own children for staying out past 9pm and "doing harm to the family name" ?
==============================================

Honour killings are terrible, incomprehensible crimes and as such they make splashy headlines.  It's important to remember though that they represent a small fraction of the homicides committed against children and youth by family members.  In Canada in 2006, 36 children and youth were killed by family members (on average over the years 90% were killed by their parents), with infants at the greatest risk.  So you can almost certainly be sure more than a few non religious or non practising parents have found equally inexcusable reasons for taking the lives of their children.

Fair point.  So, of the bunch that aren't honour killings, one can only wonder how many of these people believe they're sending their children to Jesus?  Sometimes it's those package deals where the parents kill themselves too, and we later find out that they wanted the entire family to be in heaven.  All one can do is scratch their head in awe.

As it too often does, new media and the blogosphere has likely ruined any chance for this development to be considered rationally and fairly by the majority of the public.  Which, please note,  isn't to imply that rational and fair necessarily means the centre goes unopposed or is built at all.  But breathless and outraged references to a 'Mosque at Ground Zero' conjure images of  something glittering and triumphant and mocking looming over the footprint of 9/11 death and destruction. That, I think everybody would agree, would be insane. 

The reality, at least to me, seems somewhat different.  For the hell of it I used Google street view to really get a sense of what was being proposed.  The two addresses (if anybody is that geeky as well) are 1 World Trade Centre and 45 Park Place.  The WTC location is barricaded behind blue walls with references to the future WTC development written on them and the proposed community centre would replace the mostly disused 'Burlington Coat Factory' building on Park Place.  By road, the proposed community centre/mosque is is two densly built city blocks down and half a block over from the closest edge of WTC site.  Seeing the sheer amount of concrete, steel and glass between the WTC and the proposed site did make me wonder how many blocks would be enough if two isn't.  Four?  Six?  Out of the line of site?  It did start to feel arbitrary. 

I said 'mostly disused' above because apparently the group making the proposal has actually been employing part of the building for meeting and downtown prayer space since last year.   So this isn't coming as a bolt from the blue.  Also, the scope of the proposed development is partly in response to pre-existing third party studies that identified a need for a multi function community centre in the downtown area so it would fill or partly fill a known community gap. Only part of the building would be dedicated to Islamic practices and outreach.  I think these are important facts, and to say they are not captured by the virtual bold 48 point  type of 'Mosque at Ground Zero' is an understatement indeed.

Still, the group has not done itself any favours in some ways.  Part of this will be financed from outside the country and it doesn't help that the reality is that terror operations funnel money in through charities.  That financing structure could have been avoided.  It doesn't help either that the centre will have some kind of memorial to 9/11 installed and will be officially opened and dedicated on September 11, 2011.  Though they were perhaps damned if they did and damned if they didn't, having that date and anniversary absconded feels a bit like biting on tin foil even if there is a rational argument that as New Yorkers and victims themselve they have as much right to it as anyone else.  Even something as trivial as the proposed number of floors - 13 - seems designed to make native westerners a bit crazy.   I belive that number's presumed unluckiness comes from the number of people at Jesus' Last Supper.  It's worth noting that the official proposal is actually for between 13-15 floors, so the media may have grabbed 13 and run with it, or it may have been put out by the developers so as not to be seen to be outbuilding the neighbourhood (a neighbouring building in Street View appears to have 13 floors). And the 'Cordoba Initiative' is all too easy to spin negatively,  as has even been seen here in this thread.  The  head of the organization has made some comments in the past that are questionable. It all adds up to a rich target for those inclined to take aim.

The gut response to this is to me less about religion and more about the mosque as a symbol of something foreign and vaguely threatening linked somehow to suffering and helplessness.  As far as the visceral rejection goes it's probably more analagous to a proposal to turn Abu Ghraib into a Hooters than it is to building a Christian church in downtown Kandahar.  The wars that 9/11 ostensibly started are still going on.  Militant Islam still wants to destroy the West.  People are still required  operate at some level of fear.  America has a right, forever, to denounce the crimes committed against her and her people and I think that's perhaps what's at the core of the resistance.  They are really being asked to dig deep here, and that needs to be understood and absolutely respected.  In the end, by the smallest margin in my own debate with myself, I guess I think they should find the moral strength and faith in their own constiution to let this happen.

PS.   To prove you read all this blah blah I want all the M & M's straightened out, except the red ones which should be rotated 90 degrees clockwise. TIA. :)

@ Amazon

Sorry but I begin to believe that you do not really know what you are talking about!

As to Turkey: if Turkey joined the EU, Turks could move into the other EU countries with no restrictions. Since mainly very poorly educated parts of the population move into EU countries, it would be a big burden for our social system. From the 3 million Turks already living in Germany 40% need social security, 40% of their children do not get any education at all, illiteracy is high, only a small minority speaks any German. When I want to emigrate into Australia I must prove that I can pay for my living, that I speak the language and that I am willing to respect the laws of the country. I suppose that makes Australians a bunch of agnostophobes.

About freedom of speech: no, I would not deny the Holocaust, neither in public or private but that is because I am not a stupid Nazi. I have doubts about that law because restricting the freedom of speech is always a problem imo but I think there are good reasons for that law: it is often the only possibility to stop Nazis.

As to the cartoons: I thought they were tasteless and unnecessary but I refuse to make my own opinion a measure for other people. I believe that much too few papers republished them after Muslims leaders publicly called for murder and two editors were actually murdered. The freedom of speech is very important and we should not let a bunch of extreme medieval fanatics have their ways. The murder threat against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theodor van Gogh - Muslims have a way to show their tolerance versus other people and cultures: burning flags in the streets, shouting hate and murder.

You are right saying that a very religious society like the USA is not so liberal concerning abortion, gay marriage etc. There are annoying extremist like "pro life" fanatics killing abortion doctors and stupid sects harrassing other people. However, in the USA it's not a church ruling, it's religious people ruling. They can be voted out of power and  a majority of people can put an end to such restrictions. But the general truth is: the more religious a country is - the less civil rights are guaranteed in the country: death penalty, suppression of gays, lack of abortion rights, discrimination of women.. ..you have that when religion has a say in the socitey. To advance as human beings we must free ourselves from any religious dominance.

YourValentine, once again I have to applaud your post. I wish one day we could meet to sit and talk.

Grateful Fan – the points you made are very well taken. You’ve expressed both sides with logic and made me sit back to question myself.  Even I, as a native New Yorker, did not check to see just how close to the footprints this center would be. However, Ground Zero is not just the footprints. Ground Zero, for New Yorkers, is the area affected by the fall of the towers. The building in question was damaged by debris as the towers fell. That changes it from being a whole two blocks away to being an actual part of the site. I doubt if emotions would be quite as high if the plans were for a building beyond the zone of damage and destruction.

I do agree the media has, as usual, chosen to spin this in a way that makes the headlines stand out. But I also agree that the Cordoba Initiative has billed this improperly thus creating a unified defense against the entire project. I fear now, wherever they may propose to build, if this option falls through, will be considered improper for one reason or another. They’ve insulted and dismissed the feelings of those they say they want to give back to. There will be no about-face from that.

>> “In the end, by the smallest margin in my own debate with myself, I guess I think they should find the moral strength and faith in their own constiution to let this happen.” <<

Legally, there is nothing to keep it from happening. However, emotions are too high when it comes to plans for Ground Zero. As I said in a previous post, it’s not just this center that is being argued. Other plans – non-religious plans – have been proposed for the area and emotions were just as high. There are those who feel rebuilding anything on or near the site is an insult to the memory of those who perished. There are those who wanted only a memorial, with the actual footprints to remain as footprints with gardens and fountains surrounding them. And there are those who wanted the towers rebuilt to their original appearance. Nothing proposed has been or will be given a unanimous thumbs up but a symbolic reminder of the attacks will receive a majority thumbs down for many years to come.

YourValentine wrote: "@ Amazon


Sorry but I begin to believe that you do not really know what you are talking about!"

Why? Because I, god forbid, disagree with you? What makes you think that YOU know what you are talking about?

"I suppose that makes Australians a bunch of agnostophobes."

When you make comments like that, it defintely proves that you do not know what you are talking about. A great number of the Australian people are anti-Islamic. I'm not saying that most are, but if you read blogs, you will find some disturbing stuff. Additionally, the current election has seen both the Prime Minister and the opposition descend into dog-whisting regarding asylum seekers. In New South Wales, there is a propasal to ban the burqa, and quite honestly, if you want to villify a group and not be censored by everyone, then all one has to do is target Muslims. There have been some disgustingly Islamophobic newspaper articles, which none of the media (particularly the conservative media which published most of these articles) condemns. There have also been some shocking comments made about Muslims, yet if a Muslim makes a controversial comment, everyone is all over it.

One journalist has noted that many of the people defending Mel Gibson's comments, and who even support his comments, attacked an Imam who made some dreadful comments about women, but which were not worse than what Gibson said and what some Christian leaders have said. Essentially Islamophobia has become an acceptable prejudice here.

In regards to Europe, yes, I am fully aware that economics is a key factor, but you can not deny that intolerance is also a factor. In Germany, Merkel's commented about how minarets shouldn't be higher than church steeples (and which other politicians have also spoken about such as Edmund Stoiber); controversy has arose over plans to build mosques in places such as Berlin, Munich and Cologne; Claus Leggewie, a political scientist at Giessen University who has written about mosques in Germany made the comment that "The protests begin on technical issues, like parking problems and noise," "But it has a cultural bias. There is a nationalist minority, which opposes immigration and especially Muslim immigration." Add to this attitudes in other nations like France, Austria & the Netherlands, and I don't think you can deny that intolerance plays a role.

(BTW, I have references for everything above, if you're interested. The reason I'm not including it in this particular post is due to issues with my computer and my time management skills, and should not be read into.)

"About freedom of speech: no, I would not deny the Holocaust, neither in public or private but that is because I am not a stupid Nazi."

So you completely missed my point. Not the first time that you overlook my point. I'm not saying that you are a 'stupid Nazi'; I'm simply pointing out that there are laws against it, and republishing the Mohammed cartoons makes you a freedom of speech coward, not some kind of hero.

"I have doubts about that law because restricting the freedom of speech is always a problem imo but I think there are good reasons for that law: it is often the only possibility to stop Nazis."

I completely agree. I think that in regards to freedom of speech, one should be able to say what they like, but hate speech should not be allowed. I'm personally all too aware of how hate speech can descend into violence and persecution.

"As to the cartoons: I thought they were tasteless and unnecessary but I refuse to make my own opinion a measure for other people."

I'm not saying that you should, yet you say that you support the republication. On this post, below, you say that 'I believe that much too few papers republished them.' You aren't simply refusing to make your 'own opinion a measure for other people.'

"I believe that much too few papers republished them after Muslims leaders publicly called for murder and two editors were actually murdered."]

Yes, and it was tragic and indefensible. But that does not justify the republication. What does it prove? That you believe in freedom of speech? Well, yes, but only when it suits you.

"The freedom of speech is very important and we should not let a bunch of extreme medieval fanatics have their ways."

Yet you are willing to allow the government to ban aspects of 'free speech.' Do you not see the inconsistency? This 'bunch of extreme medieval fanatics', although brutal and very public, aren't a threat to you.

BTW, you said that you would not deny The Holocaust because you are not a 'stupid Nazi' (which I never said you were) yet you believe that too few papers republished the cartoons, even though you are almost certainly aware of the offensive nature of the cartoons. What does that make you? A stupid Islamophobe? I'm not saying that you are, but do you not see the inconsistency?

The truth is that there is no society in which there is absolute freedom of speech, and most people are selective. But being humanly selective does not justify republishing horrible cartoons because you want to prove that 'the freedom of speech is very important'! That is just pure hypocricy.

"The murder threat against Salman Rushdie"

I don't have enough space to talk about Rushdie, but many conservatives love to proclaim how it was some kind of freedom of speech test. It wasn't. It was originally about power (the Ayatollah wanting to gain dominance of the Islamic world), and it was also about a narcissistic writer. There were questions of freedom of speech, yes, but it was selective and ultimately to call it a test of freedom of speech missed the point. It should be noted as well that when Rushdie got his knighthood, it was following some troubles the UK was having with Iran.

"the murder of Theodor van Gogh"

Shocking. No matter what he believed, his murder can not be defended. But we are talking about one murder here. Conservatives always point to this, but the reality is that as terrible as it was (and as brutal as it was), it was still one murder. The thing about such murders is that they are deliberately brutal so as to cause fear. But the brutal nature does not increase the threat. It's like with 9/11. That did not change the fact that it's still safer to travel by plane than by car.

"Muslims have a way to show their tolerance versus other people and cultures"

No, extremists do. I don't know or care what you think about Muslims, but failing to draw a distinction between Muslims and extremists is ignorant at best.

"burning flags in the streets, shouting hate and murder."

Yes, there are people who burn flags in the streets (not just Muslims BTW, Indians also do for instance), but, and you may not agree, IMO that in itself does not indicate intolerance.

As for shouting hate and murder, we are talking about extremists.

"You are right saying that a very religious society like the USA is not so liberal concerning abortion, gay marriage etc. There are annoying extremist like "pro life" fanatics killing abortion doctors and stupid sects harrassing other people. However, in the USA it's not a church ruling, it's religious people ruling."


It's not a church ruling, no, but nor is it a religious people ruling. Jews and Muslims don't necesarilly believe in the things that Christians do. Certainly, within Judaism, we aren't as concerned by these moral issues as Christians are (abortion, euthanasia, pornography, prostitution etc...).

"They can be voted out of power and a majority of people can put an end to such restrictions."

In theory, yes, although it's debatable to what degree the majority can really put an and to such restrictions. Nonetheless, it is a democracy, which also means that Muslims can attempt to promote or push some of their beliefs.

"But the general truth is: the more religious a country is - the less civil rights are guaranteed in the country: death penalty, suppression of gays, lack of abortion rights, discrimination of women.. ..you have that when religion has a say in the socitey. To advance as human beings we must free ourselves from any religious dominance."

Can't we simply allow all groups to have an equal footing? Including religious groups?


magicalfreddiemercury, why aren't I surprised that you would applaud a response to me but not bother responding to my response to you?