46
   

Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 05:59 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

...Suppose some Palestinians decided to kill themselves some American Jews. Suppose they justified it as an "object lesson" for the Israeli government, "so that it might then realize that its illegal occupation of the Gaza strip has detrimental effects on fellow Jews worldwide". Would this be morally acceptable to you? I think this justification would be a moral outrage, but the logic of your argument seems to demand that you approve.


Not morally acceptable to me, since I could be the victim of that "object lesson," not to mention I do not condone murder. And, that "object lesson" is why we hear now and again of some innocent "settlers" on the west bank were killed by terrorists. You want me to agree with murder as being an "object lesson" ? You seem to have little respect for me as an individual making such innuendos as to my morality. You fly fast and furious with your analogies. I only said I want nothing to do with Germans and its citizens as an "object lesson." And you are trying to equate murder with my phobia regarding Germany and its citizens? By the way, are you not a German citizen by birth?

Thomas just accept the fact that I am Germanophobic. Many Jews are. It is too early to let bygones be bygones. If you are a German citizen by birth, then perhaps you should desist from posting to me, since I really would prefer to interact on the forum with Americans by birth.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 06:02 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

If Muslims want sharia law, they'll encounter the same resistance Christians get when they try and institute biblical laws into our legal system. It's not an new issue for some religion to try and put it's values into law in our secular nation.

A
R
T


The fear, in my opinion, is that Christians do not have a history of violence to get their way, nor to convert folks, and Islam does. Why just this morning the news reported the Taliban taking credit for killing eight Christian health workers in Afghanistan. Some were Americans. Supposedly, they were proselytizing. How? By curing the sick?
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 06:03 pm
@failures art,
Parts of the discussion in Britain revolves around the fact that Jewish courts already exist in England. They can regulate civil disputes in accordance with Jewish law, because English law allows any third party to arbitrate in a civil dispute, provided both parties to the dispute agree upon having that party taking on the case.

-> website of the London Beth Din
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 06:12 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
Perhaps, another Hitler will think twice before deciding on a second Final Solution, based on knowing in advance that innocent people will eventually suffer from the deed?


Don't be so stupid, Foofie. That hasn't stopped the US government from continued terrorism/genocidal actions against innocent Central & South American countries.

Quote:
But, since there are those that do not want to socialize with Jews, what would be causing that? In the way of analogy is it because there is the belief that "one can take the Jew out of Jerusalem, but never take the Christ killer out of the Jew?" Do you see how fallacious, "You can take the German out of Germany but you can't take the nazi/hitler out of the German." was to state above?


Don't be so stupid, Foofie. Can you not discern sarcasm? Do you think any normal, sane person would call those who would promulgate such hatred Jewish friends?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 06:16 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Not morally acceptable to me, since I could be the victim of that "object lesson," not to mention I do not condone murder.

... that's not the notion I got from the parallel you drew between preventing the mosque on the one hand, and throwing atomic bombs onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the other---all of which you approved of.

Foofie wrote:
Thomas just accept the fact that I am Germanophobic.

There is nothing for me to accept: I couldn't care less that you're Germanophobic. But when a Germanophobe asserts he or she has no anti-German feelings, that sparks my interest.

Foofie wrote:
If you are a German citizen by birth, then perhaps you should desist from posting to me, since I really would prefer to interact on the forum with Americans by birth.

Yes, I am a German by birth. No, I will not desist from posting to you, at least not for that reason. If you want a segregated Able2know, ask Craven and Jespah to segregate it for you; if they oblige, I'll see what I'll do. Meanwhile, this is a public forum, so I'll post to everyone I have something to say to. If you can't control your phobia, that's your problem, not mine.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 06:33 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:
Parts of the discussion in Britain revolves around the fact that Jewish courts already exist in England.
They can regulate civil disputes in accordance with Jewish law,
because English law allows any third party to arbitrate in a civil dispute,
provided both parties to the dispute agree upon having that party taking on the case.

-> website of the London Beth Din
We 've had that in America, too.
In NY, under Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law & Rules,
parties to a contract can, by mutual consent, agree to arbitrate
disputes concerning that contract, and thay choose an arbitrator.
In some cases, thay have chosen Jewish authorities.

We know about that because there have been appeals therefrom
(as there r appeals from ANY arbitrator [very seldom successful])
to the judiciary of NY.





David
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 06:37 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
If you can't control your phobia, that's your problem, not mine.

Actually, that sums up my view of the whole thread perfectly. If people have anti-Muslim phobias, that's their problem, which they need to take up with their analysts. Average Muslims have no duty to accommodate such bigotry---not legally, and not even as a point of courtesy.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 06:37 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas, do u disapprove
of the American nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 06:51 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Thomas, do u disapprove of the American nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?

If the only rationale had been the kind of "object lesson" Foofie was talking about, I would. For an object lesson on the bombs' power, the US airforce should have tried sinking some uninhabited island first, and told the Japanese "we have ten more of these. You don't want them on your cities."

But on the other hand, I trust the US Air Force's reasoning power more than I trust Foofie's, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume there were additional, more respectable rationales.

And on the third hand, my approval of throwing the bombs doesn't matter for purposes of this thread. Unlike Foofie (and you I presume), I don't think the Islamic world as a whole is responsible for the 9-11 attacks in the same sense as Japan is responsible for Perl Harbor, and as Germany is responsible for Auschwitz. Accordingly, I think Foofie's analogies are spurious.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:19 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
You didn't read the article, surprise, surprise
YEs I did and I think you need to recognize the difference tween fact and spin. The historical facts are that we helped Afghanistanis beat the Russians with weapons and advisors, we then abandoned them . Were you not born or do you just avoid little bits of history?

Ever hear of the Reagan Doctrine or are you, like Sarah Palin, just treddin water?

Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:33 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Not morally acceptable to me, since I could be the victim of that "object lesson," not to mention I do not condone murder.

... that's not the notion I got from the parallel you drew between preventing the mosque on the one hand, and throwing atomic bombs onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the other---all of which you approved of.


Am I supposed to care about any "notions" you get from my post? We did not "throw" atomic bombs onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our Army Air Force dropped them. If the Axis Powers would have had the bomb first, they would have used it too, I believe.

You are not making a distinction between the immorality of an "object lesson" that could include an immoral act, and an "object lesson" that can only be argued as unethical. My object lesson of avoiding all things German is just possibly unethical, since it includes the current generation of Germans that one could argue should not be the victim for the sins of their prior generation of Germans. Fine. My dislike of all things German is unethical. Do not try to equate that to an immoral "object lesson."

However, considering the "object lesson" of the Nazis (exterminate Europe's Jewry to show the world what happens when a few Jews may have acted less than patriotically during the Weimar Republic's bad economic times) was nothing less than immoral, I can live with my unethical "object lesson" towards all things German.

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:35 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Christians do not have a history of violence to get their way, nor to convert folks


where did you go to school? you seem to have some rather enormous gaps in your knowledge base
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:40 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Christians do not have a history of violence to get their way, nor to convert folks


where did you go to school? you seem to have some rather enormous gaps in your knowledge base


Give me specifics.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:43 pm
@Foofie,
Here's some specifics: All my siblings are christians, and I'm an atheist, and they not only pray for me, but continue to try to convert me. I tell them not to waste their effort and energy on this one topic, but to no avail.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That is not the specifics I was talking about. I meant whether early Christians were converted (from paganism) at the "tip of a sword." They were not, I thought.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:52 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
In my opinion, having seen local Muslim women with burkas, and head scarves, and other garments I cannot name, I do question whether Muslims in some locales will assimilate the same way that other ethnic groups have assimilated. And specifically, I am questionning whether some Muslims in the U.S. will want Sharia law, similar to some Muslims in England?


What do you really mean by "assimilate"? Remove all traces of their Islamic identity? Hang out in bars drinking? Eat Chinese food made with pork? Or that they shouldn't continue wearing traditional Muslim garb if they want to?

The more orthodox Muslims in the United States tend to live in somewhat self contained enclaves, just as the orthodox Jews do. And you can recognize many orthodox Jews, such as the Chassids, by their particular form of dress and hats, just as you can recognize orthodox Muslims by their attire. And both groups may send their children to private parochial schools, rather than public schools. They really aren't interested in assimilating into the larger society beyond a certain point, although they really aren't interfering with that larger society either. Both orthodox Muslims and Jews want to maintain certain religious traditions and practices and values, and they won't be able to do that if they assimilate beyond a certain point.

Those reform Jews who assimilated totally in the U.S. also began inter-marrying to such an extent that there are fewer and fewer Jews today, and the same would be true for the less observant Muslims, assimilation pulls them away from their faith and you wind up with fewer and fewer Muslims with subsequent generations. One reason they want to start building these large cultural center/mosques is to try to hold on to the younger generations of Muslims and keep them from drifting away from their faith.

But Foofie, you seem to be ignoring the fact that there are many, many, many Muslims already living in the U.S., and who were born in the U.S. They blend in just fine, in case that is what you are worried about. They look, act, and dress, exactly like everyone else. They obey the laws like everyone else. They are as patriotic and loyal to this country as everyone else. Their religion is just a part of their lives, as it is for most Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. in the U.S., and it is not necessarily the dominant factor in their lives. Most of the Muslims I've known identify with their ethnic background--Turkish, Egyptian, Iranian, etc.--just as other people consider themselves Irish or Italian or Puerto Rican--and they do not regard themselves as part of some amorphous Muslim group.

And, Foofie, it sounds like you are connecting the building of a handful of mosques in the U.S. with a tidal wave of Islamic immigrants suddenly storming our shores. The Muslims are already here, they've been here for a long time, and they are going about their business, relatively unnoticed, just like everyone else. Building a few mosques isn't going to change anything, or result in a great increase in the number of Muslims, any more than building a church results in an explosion in the number of Christians.

Muslims really aren't as foreign or as exotic as you think, Foofie. You really wouldn't recognize the average Muslim if he or she sat down next to you on the bus or worked in your office. And your attitude really surprises me because it's the sort of thing that people who have no daily contact with Jews say about Jews, thinking of all of them as some sort of foreign or strange element. That's not true of most Jews and it's not true of most Muslims in the U.S.

Reading this thread leaves me feeling very sorry for Muslim Americans. How awful it must be to have to live with the kind of suspiciousness and hostility that's been expressed here.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:54 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

failures art wrote:

If Muslims want sharia law, they'll encounter the same resistance Christians get when they try and institute biblical laws into our legal system. It's not an new issue for some religion to try and put it's values into law in our secular nation.

A
R
T


The fear, in my opinion, is that Christians do not have a history of violence to get their way, nor to convert folks, and Islam does.

They define the history of violence where religion is involved Foofie. the Crusades? Spanish Inquisition? Salem Witch Trials? Irish Republican Army?

A
R
T
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:57 pm
@Thomas,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Thomas, do u disapprove of the American nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?
Thomas wrote:
If the only rationale had been the kind of "object lesson" Foofie was talking about, I would. For an object lesson on the bombs' power, the US airforce should have tried sinking some uninhabited island first, and told the Japanese "we have ten more of these. You don't want them on your cities."

But on the other hand, I trust the US Air Force's reasoning power more than I trust Foofie's, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume there were additional, more respectable rationales.

And on the third hand, my approval of throwing the bombs doesn't matter for purposes of this thread. Unlike Foofie (and you I presume), I don't think the Islamic world as a whole is responsible for the 9-11 attacks in the same sense as Japan is responsible for Perl Harbor, and as Germany is responsible for Auschwitz. Accordingly, I think Foofie's analogies are spurious.
Obviously, the 9/11 attacks were about as secret
as the Manhattan Project. Hence, "the Islamic world as a whole"
did not know of them, nor cause them. When u said "responsible",
perhaps u meant that ALL of the Moslems were not the competent,
producing CAUSE of those attacks. Clearly, that is true.

Expert military historians have estimated 1,000,000 American casualties
to have been the cost of an invasion of Japan. Nuking them obviated that.
(That is without considering the many 1000s of POWs who 'd have perished.
The Japs had said that thay 'd kill them, when we first set foot on Japanese soil.)

Last month, I was very, honored in the extreme, to have met,
thanked, and taken the hand of Major Dutch Van Kirk, the Navigator
of the Enola Gay on 8/6/45. He addressed the American Mensa
Annual Gathering in Dearborn, Michigan. Many of us had the
opportunity to line up and ask him questions. There were
quite a few attenders who said that their fathers were
scheduled to participate in the invasion of Japan
and did not expect to survive it. Thay emotionally thanked
him for their fathers' lives and for the lives of their children,
who were since brought into existence.

That was a surprize; I had not expected him to be there.
He is 89 years old.





David

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:57 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
YEs I did and I think you need to recognize the difference tween fact and spin. The historical facts are that we helped Afghanistanis beat the Russians with weapons and advisors, we then abandoned them . Were you not born or do you just avoid little bits of history?

Ever hear of the Reagan Doctrine or are you, like Sarah Palin, just treddin water?


What a brilliant synopsis, Farmer. You sure do know the difference between fact and spin.

You never answered my question. Didn't you defend the "Pancake Theory" as the reason for the twin towers collapse?

Tell me about the Reagan Doctrine. Just the facts, please.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 07:58 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Parts of the discussion in Britain revolves around the fact that Jewish courts already exist in England. They can regulate civil disputes in accordance with Jewish law, because English law allows any third party to arbitrate in a civil dispute, provided both parties to the dispute agree upon having that party taking on the case.

-> website of the London Beth Din

To help me here OE, I need some context. To what extent could a third party sentence a person? Fines? Imprisonment? Torture? Mutilation? Execution?

I'm fairly positive that the American legal framework would not allow for civil disputes to carry-out sentences that violated the state or federal law. What detail am I missing here?

A
R
T
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.82 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 08:35:46