A Mosque at Ground Zero?

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

I can't speak to why you are not surprised but I did not respond because you accused me of not reading your messages when I had written what felt like tomes in response to each of them. What I see in your posts is not what you say you intend, therefore responding seemed a waste of time for each of us.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "I can't speak to why you are not surprised"


I'm not surprised because you have spoken about having civil discussion, yet you clearly aren't interested. Your last post to me proves that you aren't interested, as does the fact that you applaud a post which was a direct response to me (and was insulting). I wouldn't do the same to you, but I guess we have differing views on how to be civil.

"but I did not respond because you accused me of not reading your messages when I had written what felt like tomes in response to each of them."

I 'accused' you of not reading my message in regards to your last post to me, which was absurd, and which indicated that you don't read my posts. Especially since you only criticised me after my posts to Sir GH and YourValentine, and how you got your interpretation from those two posts, I'll never know.

"What I see in your posts is not what you say you intend,"

What you see is irrelevent. If you claim to see things, and I tell you they are not there, then they are not there. It does not matter what you 'see'. Otherwise, I could do the same to you. If I accuse you, for example, of hating Islam, and you say that the reason for your opposition to the mosque has nothing to do with your feelings about Islam, then I have to accept it.

I guess what annoys me is that you don't even acknowledge that you are wrong (such as all the things you accused me of being in that post), or that the things you accuse me of being (having closed my eyes and ears to other arguments for example) could be directly applied to you, yet you don't even acknowledge it. If we are, to quote you, having a 'civil conversation,' then if you are wrong, it is the least you could do. I did so with you, but clearly we have a different interpretation of what constitutes a 'civil conversation'. But of course we do. You don't seem to consider referring to relevent statements which you yourself quoted in your original post to be appropiate in a 'civil discussion.' I guess because those quotes don't help your case.

"therefore responding seemed a waste of time for each of us."

Clearly, it is. I agree. However, when you respond to someone who specifically responds to me (and even insults me) and applauds that post, to describe that as passive-agrressive is an understatement.

I wonder what the illustrious forked tongued Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf thinks of this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/18/ap/middleeast/main6689021.shtml

We need to be more tolerant of Islam. We need to be more tolerant of Islam.

>>Amazon wrote: I'm not surprised because you have spoken about having civil discussion, yet you clearly aren't interested. << Right. Disinterest must be what fueled four pages of conversation.    >>Your last post to me proves that you aren't interested, as does the fact that you applaud a post which was a direct response to me (and was insulting). I wouldn't do the same to you, but I guess we have differing views on how to be civil. << The post I applauded was filled with facts and on-point topics I found interesting and persuasive. If you’re speaking of the first line in that post where it was said you didn’t know what you were talking about… in all honesty, I didn’t spend more than a second on it. It’s a discussion. I’m a New Yorker. Telling someone they don’t know what they’re talking about is as common as saying hello. If YOU found it insulting, then I apologize for applauding that part of the post. >> I 'accused' you of not reading my message in regards to your last post to me, which was absurd, and which indicated that you don't read my posts. Especially since you only criticised me after my posts to Sir GH and YourValentine, and how you got your interpretation from those two posts, I'll never know. << I explained how I got my interpretations from those two posts in that post. Your response was that you felt the comments you quoted were IMPORTANT. My point is that you mentioned them repeatedly as if they – and only they – were what mattered because they were that over the top. And I agree they were over the top. However, I chose not to give credence to those comments because they are not in line with my thoughts and I felt expressing my own views in our conversation made more sense than trying to explain, understand or debate the comments of others. What I find extremely interesting here is how there are four pages in this thread and yet the few lines that were offensive are the lines you focused on – which is why I said you closed your eyes and ears to other arguments and only focused on the extreme. The reason that is so interesting is because of the argument that only a small portion of muslims (extremists) are responsible for 9/11 while the majority had nothing to do with it… and yet for the west to focus on that small portion is considered intolerant or islamophobic. I don’t know whether you’ll see that paradox, but it’s plain as day to me. Which is why I still stand by the comment I made (which SirGH explained so eloquently) and that you deemed “nonsensical”. >> What you see is irrelevent. << Well, now, that’s not very civil of you, is it? >> I guess what annoys me is that you don't even acknowledge that you are wrong. << Because I don’t think I’m wrong any more than you think you are. Which is why we originally ended our conversation with appreciation (or so I thought) for each other’s opinions even though we still disagreed with each other. However, I found your comments on this thread after that disturbing and said so. >>You don't seem to consider referring to relevent statements which you yourself quoted in your original post to be appropiate in a 'civil discussion.' I guess because those quotes don't help your case. << Yes. That must be it.

@Amazon

First of all I am sorry that you feel offended about me saying that you do not know what you are talking about. I did not mean to offend you - I just think you do not know what is going on in the EU or my country to make assumptions about intolerance vs Muslims. I tried to explain what is going on with examples and analogies but apparently you did not take this well for some reason.

For example, I tried to make you see that the immigration laws of your country, which are normal for every country with a normal immigration policy, can be called "agnostophobic" , i.e. discriminatiing of agnostic people when in fact they are the same for everybody. Just as well can you call Germany refusing to admit Turkey into the EU "anti-Islamic" simply disregarding all the  reasons behind that attitude. Not all Turks are Muslims as you know.

Interesting what you have to say about the freedom of speech issue: See  I talk about my country: here we think holocaust denial is offensive and a cartoon about a person is not. The prophet Muhammad was not God, he was a person and being offended about a cartoon is simply ridiculous. However, any country have their own ways, so if a country bans Muhammad cartoons, let them have laws dealing with that. What I cannot accept is people rallying in the streets and calling for blood and murder if a Danish cartoonist exercises his right to freedom of speech in full compliance with Danish laws. What I cannot accept is when Mullahs call for murder and hatred and no Muslim community in my country distances itself from these outbursts of hatred and violence. It's totally beside the point to call for "tolerance" and at the same time call for murdering people who happen to have another point of view!

You said about Salman Rushdie: "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's about a religious leader calling for murder - it's not about power, narcissm , it's about cruel bloody murder and there is no excuse. sorry.

You said about Theodor van Gogh: "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."

I am not conservative but I happen to think that one murder is one too much to accept and to say that 9/11 is basically a statistic problem just shows how very double-standard your whole argumentation is! You call a whole country "islamophobic" because one politician says something about the height of a minaret but at the same time you rationalize hatred killings and terrorism. That is exactly the hypocrisy that makes me angry when discussing "religious tolerance" with Muslims: they use the freedom and liberal laws of my country against me claiming more "tolerance"  and complaining about  discrimination - when in fact they enjoy all the rights in a democracy like anyone else - while at the same time they downplay murder, intolerance, terror. I know that not all Muslims are like that but I do not see many Muslim organisations call for peaceful togetherness. It's always fingerpointing to the non-Miuslims and I am sick and tired of that.

Dear Magicalfreddie - I would love to meet you in person, as well. Maybe some day:-)

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "Right. Disinterest must be what fueled four pages of conversation."


Oh please. If yu accuse someone of being paranoid, and of being closed minded, the least you can do is respond.

"The post I applauded was filled with facts and on-point topics I found interesting and persuasive. If you’re speaking of the first line in that post where it was said you didn’t know what you were talking about… in all honesty, I didn’t spend more than a second on it. It’s a discussion. I’m a New Yorker. Telling someone they don’t know what they’re talking about is as common as saying hello. If YOU found it insulting, then I apologize for applauding that part of the post."

Well, thanks, but it's more that you would applaud a post which was a direct response to me, and which quite frankly weren't to do with the topic.

"I explained how I got my interpretations from those two posts in that post."

And your interpretation is wrong.

"Your response was that you felt the comments you quoted were IMPORTANT. My point is that you mentioned them repeatedly as if they – and only they – were what mattered because they were that over the top."

I mentioned them (which you your yourself quoted) as examples of intolerance. I wouldn't have had to if you could acknowledge that some people opposed to the project do so out of intolerance. But you can't do that.

"And I agree they were over the top. However, I chose not to give credence to those comments because they are not in line with my thoughts and I felt expressing my own views in our conversation made more sense than trying to explain, understand or debate the comments of others."

I never said they were in line with your thoughts, but then we wasn't merely discussing your thoughts, were we?

"What I find extremely interesting here is how there are four pages in this thread and yet the few lines that were offensive are the lines you focused on – which is why I said you closed your eyes and ears to other arguments and only focused on the extreme."

I can say the same about you. You have never conceded that some people opposed to the project do so out of intolerance. You absolutely closed your eyes and ears to other arguments and only focused on one extreme.

"The reason that is so interesting is because of the argument that only a small portion of muslims (extremists) are responsible for 9/11 while the majority had nothing to do with it… and yet for the west to focus on that small portion is considered intolerant or islamophobic."

Well, yes. But I don't think that's controversial. Should I consider Americans to all be evengelical christian fanatics like Bush?

"I don’t know whether you’ll see that paradox, but it’s plain as day to me."

Oh, please. You just can't acknowledge that some New Yorkers are intolerant. You know, everything that you say about me here can be said about you.

"Which is why I still stand by the comment I made (which SirGH explained so eloquently) and that you deemed “nonsensical”."

Here is what I said to Sir GH. 'As I have constantly said (all to no avail it seems), it is not intolerant to oppose the mosque, but many of the statements to justify the opposition to it are. 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.'

It is nonsence. But you know what, think what you like. I think you're an extremist yourself. You can try to deny it, but I won't listen.

" Well, now, that’s not very civil of you, is it?

No less civil than when you said 'Yes. Those were my exact words. Re-read my statement and you’ll see that. Oh, wait. I didn’t say that at all, did I?' I can tell you whether your interpretation of what I say is correct, just like you can tell me whether my interpretion of you is correct. If you are wrong, then have the courtesy of acknowledging it. Otherwise, maybe I will suspect that you are an Islamophobe. Or can you only misinterpret me?

"Because I don’t think I’m wrong any more than you think you are."

You are wrong when it comes to your interpetations of me.

"Which is why we originally ended our conversation with appreciation (or so I thought) for each other’s opinions even though we still disagreed with each other."

This is not about our points of view. This is about you writing a post to attack me, and how those attacks were all false, unfair and hypocritical.

"However, I found your comments on this thread after that disturbing and said so."

That is what it is about. You, for some absurd reason, found my comments disturbimg (LOL). I explained that they weren't, and that many of them could be absolutely applied to you. You are yet to acknowledge that you are wrong about those charge and that many of them are hypocritical.

"You don't seem to consider referring to relevent statements which you yourself quoted in your original post to be appropiate in a 'civil discussion.' I guess because those quotes don't help your case."

"Yes. That must be it."


Well, you should have acknowledged at least once that some people are intolerant. But no, you are closed to all other arguments.

>> Amazon wrote: No less civil than when you said 'Yes. Those were my exact words. Re-read my statement and you’ll see that. Oh, wait. I didn’t say that at all, did I?' << I stand by that comment, which is in fact civil, as it was a direct response to your suggestion that I said muslims should ‘disappear’. Clearly, I did not say that and so you agreed you leaped before you looked. >> You are wrong when it comes to your interpetations of me. << So you’ve said, to which I say the reverse is true. You’ve also said we will never agree. On that point, we do agree. And so goes the state of the world.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "Amazon wrote: No less civil than when you said 'Yes. Those were my exact words. Re-read my statement and you’ll see that. Oh, wait. I didn’t say that at all, did I?'


"I stand by that comment, which is in fact civil"

You can stand by it, but you can not claim it is civil. It is certainly no more civil than my telling you that your interpetations of me are wrong. magicalfreddiemercury, you don't know me. I think I know better than you whether your interpretations of me and what I say are accurate.

" as it was a direct response to your suggestion that I said muslims should ‘disappear’. Clearly, I did not say that and so you agreed you leaped before you looked."

I did agree. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that your interpretations of me are false. One example; you accused me of arguing that intolerance is the 'true reason' for arguing that Turkey was denied EU entry, when it is one of several reasons, and that I had acted as if I have 'uncovered some dark secret by saying so.' That is false, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Then there all the other charges you levelled towards me in that absurd post.

I'm not asking for an apology or anything like that. I am simply asking you to treat me like you want to be treated. That is, if you have an incorrect interpretation of what I say, acknowledge it.

"You are wrong when it comes to your interpetations of me. <<"

"So you’ve said, to which I say the reverse is true."

Uh, you can't say the reverse is true, when I actually know much better than you what I think and what I intend to say.

You know what, two can play at this game. I think that the reason you oppose the mosque is because you are Islamophobic. You may deny it, but I say that this is true (and since you know me better than I know myself, you may trust than I know you better than you know yourself)!

"You’ve also said we will never agree. On that point, we do agree. And so goes the state of the world."

I'm not asking you to agree. I couldn't care less whether you are for the mosque or not. That is not what this is about, and you know it. This is about you levelling false and hypocritical charges at me, and about you not willing to play by the rules you expect others to play by!

>>Amazon wrote: "You are wrong when it comes to your interpetations of me. "So you’ve said, to which I say the reverse is true." Uh, you can't say the reverse is true, when I actually know much better than you what I think and what I intend to say. << It’s responses like this that prove my statement since my statement did not mean what you assumed but rather  “the reverse is true” meant that You are wrong in YOUR interpretations of ME. But it doesn’t really matter, does it, since it’s all about perception. To me, you appear intolerant and prejudice against those whose views differ from yours. To you, I’m islamophobic, hypocritical and ignorant. We could each spend yet more time trying to show how we are not as the other believes, but it is my guess that would only deepen our opinions on one another. >>  I'm not asking you to agree. I couldn't care less whether you are for the mosque or not. That is nowt what this is about, and you know it. This is about you levelling false and hypocritical charges at me, and about you not willing to play by the rules you expect others to play by!  << Actually, it’s about a mosque at Ground Zero, but what do I know, I only started this thread.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "It’s responses like this that prove my statement since my statement did not mean what you assumed but rather “the reverse is true” meant that You are wrong in YOUR interpretations of ME."


So you acknowledge that your interpretations of me are wrong?

"But it doesn’t really matter, does it, since it’s all about perception."

The perception does not always match the reality. If I show that the reality is different, then you must acknowledge that you are wrong. But you never will.

"To me, you appear intolerant and prejudice against those whose views differ from yours."

Good for you. After all this, I think that coming from you, that is a compliment. Unlike you, I have acknowledged that I was wrong. You never have. (I had hoped that even having provided you with an example, you would acknowledge it, but it's obviously beyond you.)

"To you, I’m islamophobic, hypocritical and ignorant."

Here's the thing. While I do think that you're hypocritical (and you're entitled to show why you are not) and ignorant (and, again, you're entitled to show that you're not), I don't necessarily believe that you're Islamophobic. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. However I brought it up to show that if you can misinterpret me, then I can misinterpret you. But, yet again, you fail to see the point.

"We could each spend yet more time trying to show how we are not as the other believes, but it is my guess that would only deepen our opinions on one another."

No, I'm not going to be spending much more time 'conversing' with you. You can respond to this or not, and I can't say whether I will respond should you respond to me, but this shows that discussing such an important issue with you was a waste of time. You clearly don't like disagreement, you're passive-aggressive, and you are completely unwilling to acknowledge when you're wrong.

"Actually, it’s about a mosque at Ground Zero, but what do I know, I only started this thread."

Oh, god. You do know that it's an expression? Why do I bother with you?

YourValentine wrote: "@Amazon


First of all I am sorry that you feel offended about me saying that you do not know what you are talking about. I did not mean to offend you - I just think you do not know what is going on in the EU or my country to make assumptions about intolerance vs Muslims."

Thanks, however I actually know alot about what is going in Germany and the EU. You may not like my making comments about your country, but intellectually I am entitled. I am also morally entitled, since my family comes from Germany and Austria (and they left in unpleasant circumstances), and I still have family in Germany and Austria. I don't mind if you want to comment on Australia (which you do), but I make no apologies for commenting on Germany and other EU nations.

"I tried to explain what is going on with examples and analogies but apparently you did not take this well for some reason."

No, it's not that. I mean, yes, partly it's your tone, but also I don't really agree with you.

"For example, I tried to make you see that the immigration laws of your country, which are normal for every country with a normal immigration policy, can be called "agnostophobic" , i.e. discriminatiing of agnostic people when in fact they are the same for everybody."

As it happens, there are quite a few people here who would accept Zimbarbwe white farmers over Muslim/Sri Lankan asylum seekers. The truth is that Australia is like any country in that there are widely differing viewpoints. Nonetheless, considering that the overwhelming majority of our 'illegal' (a term I hate) immigrants come from Europe, and people are up in arms over a few hundred people that come in leaking boats, it's not really accurate to say that the laws are the same for everybody.

"Just as well can you call Germany refusing to admit Turkey into the EU "anti-Islamic" simply disregarding all the reasons behind that attitude."

I also stated reasons why you can not discount intolerance. Reasons you have not responded to.

"Not all Turks are Muslims as you know."

Yes, of course, but the overwhelming majority are.

"Interesting what you have to say about the freedom of speech issue: See I talk about my country: here we think holocaust denial is offensive and a cartoon about a person is not. The prophet Muhammad was not God, he was a person and being offended about a cartoon is simply ridiculous."

There are many things that one might not find offensive, but one wouldn't say anyway. I don't really find anti-German jokes to be offensive, but I would never tell such a joke in front of you. I also personally consider Holocaust denial to be much more offensive than the Muhammed cartoons, however there are many Muslims who disagree. Whether or not one thinks that something is ridiculous is a little beside the point.

"However, any country have their own ways, so if a country bans Muhammad cartoons, let them have laws dealing with that."

As I said in my earlier post to you, no society has complete freedom of speech, not even America with its First Ammendment. That's fine with me. What I object to is when you talk about striking a blow for freedom of speech, when the real freedom of speech no-go areas in Germany involve Holocaust Denial, and you completely ignore it. Be inconsistent if you like, everyone is inconsistent, but don't pretend that the editers who republished the cartoons are some of freedom of speech heroes or that you're protecting your freedom of speech. They aren't and you aren't.

"What I cannot accept is people rallying in the streets and calling for blood and murder if a Danish cartoonist exercises his right to freedom of speech in full compliance with Danish laws."

You don't have to, but republishing the cartoons doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that you have freedom of speech. The Danish cartoonist (whose purpose BTW was to provoke) may have been exercising his freedom of speech, but he didn't prove anything. He certainly didn't add anything to intellectual debate.

" What I cannot accept is when Mullahs call for murder and hatred and no Muslim community in my country distances itself from these outbursts of hatred and violence.

I can not speak for the Muslims communities in Germany. I can simply say none of the Muslims I know support murder.

"It's totally beside the point to call for "tolerance" and at the same time call for murdering people who happen to have another point of view!"

Well, we are talking about extremists here. I mean, do you really want extremists to set your standards? Plus, the people who call for tolerance are not always the same people murdering people for having a different point of view.

" "You said about Salman Rushdie: "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's about a religious leader calling for murder - it's not about power, narcissm , it's about cruel bloody murder and there is no excuse. sorry."

Did I ever say there was any excuse? Anyway, I stand by what I said.

"You said about Theodor van Gogh: "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.""

"I am not conservative but I happen to think that one murder is one too much to accept"

I'm sorry, but that is a bit silly. What do you want me to say? That no, one should accept murder? Come on. The reality is that murders occur. However, when attempting to draw a conclusion from said murders (which is what you did), it does kind of matter how many relevent murders occur. For example, if someone argued that Germans hated Muslims so much that they were willing to murder them, but pointed to just one murder, don't you think that the fact that just one murder occured negates their argument?

As I pointed out, it was an incredibly brutal murder (deliberately, so as to enhance the fear), but it does not increase the threat of said murders occuring.

" and to say that 9/11 is basically a statistic problem just shows how very double-standard your whole argumentation is!"

I don't recall saying that 9/11 was basically a statistic problem. Please, reread what I said. I stated that the fact that 9/11 occured does not change the fact that it's still safer to travel by plane than by car.

"You call a whole country "islamophobic" because one politician says something about the height of a minaret"

Do you even read what I say? One, I have never called Germany Islamophobic. Two, I referred to more than simply Merkel's comment. There is intolerance, and yes Islamophobia, in Germany. I made several references to that. But I never said that the entire country was Islamophobic.

"but at the same time you rationalize hatred killings and terrorism."

You mention anger below, well, this makes me angry! When the hell did I ever rationalize hate killings and terrorism? I never did it! READ MY POST!

"That is exactly the hypocrisy that makes me angry when discussing "religious tolerance" with Muslims:"


What hypocricy? Instead of accusing me of nasty things, maybe you could bother reading my posts!

Not that it matter BTW, but I'm not Muslim. I'm Jewish. Anyway, I don't really think you should be talking about hypocricy. Puting aside the fact that you completely falsified what I said, you bang on about free speech, but only when it suits you. You say that you wouldn't deny The Holocaust (which is beside the point) because you're not a 'stupid Nazi' yet you think that more newspapers should have republished the cartoons!

"they use the freedom and liberal laws of my country against me claiming more "tolerance""

Oh please. Ordinary Muslims are not using freedom and liberal laws against you. As for tolerance, all they want is to be treated as equal members of society. You know, you talk about freedom and tolerance, but you don't show tolerance and you don't show that you know what freedom is. Just so you know, even if you think that the Mohammed cartoons are ridiculous (on which many would disagree), wanting more newspapers to republish them, which proves nothing, does not demonstrate tolerance.

" and complaining about discrimination - when in fact they enjoy all the rights in a democracy like anyone else - "

So you deny that they suffer from discrimination? Right, whatever you say.

"while at the same time they downplay murder, intolerance, terror."

Do you not see the difference between ordinary Muslims (many of whom just want to get on with life) and extremists?

" I know that not all Muslims are like that but I do not see many Muslim organisations call for peaceful togetherness."

I can't speak for German Muslim organisations, however it is certainly true that should look towards individuals rather than organisations.

"It's always fingerpointing to the non-Miuslims and I am sick and tired of that."

Well, many Muslims would argue that they are sick and tired of being villified and discriminated against.

I was disturbed by the near Ground Zero location. And then I read the facts. The place of worship is simply part of the design (thanks for the facts, FAUX News)

I feel for the people in Hamtramck, Michigan, whose mosque tolls their bell five times a day.

I also feel for my friends south of Kalamazoo, Michigan, who had a Pentacostal building put up in the lot next to their quiet 20 acres, who scream and yell and sing and play the organ up to midnight every day.

Then again.....reading history.....the Mormons built a ton of worship buildings in Utah, the Catholics in....., the Methodists in...the Protestants in..............

Amazon wrote:

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

No, never.  The more we free ourselves from organized religion, the more society will move forward.  As long as people look to ancient scriptures for their morals and beliefs, certain parts of society will remain in the middle ages.  There is not a single positive thing that organized religion can do for society today that cannot be accomplished secularly.  Organized religion ultimately brings forth divisiveness, and as a result billions of people think they have all the answers, which they don't.  If people want to live their lives this way, then great, but this kind of mentality should never be making decisions that affect everybody.

"Well, many Muslims would argue that they are sick and tired of being villified and discriminated against."

If they continue to associate themselves with islam it's their own fault.  They can always choose another spiritual path if they don't like certain things that come to accompany it over time.  All the same I have no sympathy for catholics who hate being 'discriminated' against because the church has covered up child molestation for centuries.  It's their choice to stay catholic, so they should be prepared to take the heat when it comes.

Every minority likes to play the "race card" and claim that everyone discriminates against them.

Lebron James earns millions for playing basketball, but when the cleveland Cavalier's owner calls Lebron on his obnoxious handling of the free agency circus, Jesse Jackson says Lebron is being treated like a slave.