Critical thinking and political matters.

Thomas wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

1. You miss the point. My point is that this is not an attack on the religious freedom of Muslims (or anyone else) since if a non-religious organization had done the same thing there would have been the same kind of opposition to it.

I'm unclear on what you would regard as "a non-religious organization" doing "the same thing". Can you give an example?

Example? Murdering 3.000 people. How about that?

It was a good analogy to bring to light the bigotry that abounds, by some.

And in America this is often settled by controversy

Controversy does not settle anything but rather it is controversy which must be resolved,

either by finding a middle ground between two contested opinions
or by investigating the cause of the crisis.

kennethamy wrote:

Thomas wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

1. You miss the point. My point is that this is not an attack on the religious freedom of Muslims (or anyone else) since if a non-religious organization had done the same thing there would have been the same kind of opposition to it.

I'm unclear on what you would regard as "a non-religious organization" doing "the same thing". Can you give an example?

Example? Murdering 3.000 people. How about that?

Okay, and what's the equivalent of the mosque that the non-murderous superset of this non-religious organization would be erecting?

Intrepid wrote:

It was a good analogy to bring to light the bigotry that abounds, by some.

I saw the beauty of its showing the point of false representation; that Tim McV. did not represent the Army,
and Atta did not represent ALL of the Moslems
and that if he had alleged that he did, that allegation woud have been false.

I was not taking cognizance of any particular opinion, such as "bigotry",
which seems to be strongly held opinions of which modern liberals disapprove and therefore,
are illegitimate and must not be believed because the liberals don't like those opinions,
so u shoud adopt opinions that liberals LIKE.
I don 't buy that.






David

That is a VERY GOOD analogy for the point of vu
that exculpates Moslems, as a whole, from the evil of 9/11/1; nice job.

That is a VERY GOOD analogy for the point of vu
that exculpates Moslems, as a whole, from the evil of 9/11/1; nice job.

So you are saying you blame muslims as a whole for 9/11?

No, Atta did not. But Atta did do it in the name of Islam, and because he was (he thought) defending Islam

On the other hand, McVeigh did not do it in the name of the Army

kennethamy wrote:

On the other hand, McVeigh did not do it in the name of the Army

okay what if they wanted to build a trailer park near the memorial







think about it

The Shriners have temples all over the United States (and maybe, all over the world). But what difference would that make? Suppose that the Book of the Month Club proposed a new office building right next to the site where a group of members who thought that people were not buying enough books from the Book of the Month Club, and that summer reading was going down as a consequence, did the same thing the 9/11 terrorists did.

The belief that opposition to the mosque is an attack of religious freedom simply will not stand up to examination: The argument: If any group, religious or non-religious had done the same thing done by the 9/11 terrorists, the erection of a building on a site near the attack would have met with the same opposition. Therefore, it is just an accident that the opposition to the mosque is opposition to a religious structure. QED

kennethamy wrote:

The Shriners have temples all over the United States (and maybe, all over the world). But what difference would that make? Suppose that the Book of the Month Club proposed a new office building right next to the site where a group of members who thought that people were not buying enough books from the Book of the Month Club, and that summer reading was going down as a consequence, did the same thing the 9/11 terrorists did.

The belief that opposition to the mosque is an attack of religious freedom simply will not stand up to examination: The argument: If any group, religious or non-religious had done the same thing done by the 9/11 terrorists, the erection of a building on a site near the attack would have met with the same opposition. Therefore, it is just an accident that the opposition to the mosque is opposition to a religious structure. QED

Why would there be opposition to the BOMC bulding nex to this site? It is clear that anyone who flew planes into a building in order to increase summer reading is absolutely cuckoo. Clearly, BOMC should not in any way be blamed for such insane behavior.

And any lawyer making your argument before the Supreme Court in order to deny that legal action taken against the building of the proposed Muslim community center is an infringemnt of their freedom of religion would likely be considered insane also.

For a little more sanity and common sense on this issue, I would recommend this article on the background of Feisal Abdul Rauf:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imam.html?_r=1&hp

The Shriners have temples all over the United States (and maybe, all over the world). But what difference would that make? Suppose that the Book of the Month Club proposed a new office building right next to the site where a group of members who thought that people were not buying enough books from the Book of the Month Club, and that summer reading was going down as a consequence, did the same thing the 9/11 terrorists did.

Since I read the New York Times each day (I have a subscription to it) I have already perused the article you linked. First of all, the newspaper, I notice, has not given a complete account of the things Rauf has said, some of which are very disturbing.

because it (1) tends to symbolize defiance, and (2) justification of the attacks. And (3) offend and hurt people who were harmed by the attack.

kennethamy wrote:

On the other hand, McVeigh did not do it in the name of the Army

okay what if they wanted to build a trailer park near the memorial







think about it