Obama's support for Ground Zero Mosque

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

because Del likes to point out that pedophiles are homosexuals every single time he posts about it.

maybe he had bad experiences growing up as a Catholic boy?

Lori my comments of pedophilia and homosexuality in the same post have been strictly limited to Catholic priests, who I imagine in 12 years of school I've had a good deal more experience with than the average.

These 'predator' priests NEVER had anything to do with groups whether they be jocks or band members. They always concentrated on the outcasts who they sensed to be weak. It got so easy, within a few weeks of starting an all-boys Catholic high school the pedophiliac priests were just a wee bit easier to identify as their 'victims' IMO. And though Priests who were associated with churches, schools and parishes I've belonged to have been guilty not a single girl has been involved. And lets thank the lord for that.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Lori my comments of pedophilia and homosexuality in the same post have been strictly limited to Catholic priests, who I imagine in 12 years of school I've had a good deal more experience with than the average.

These 'predator' priests NEVER had anything to do with groups whether they be jocks or band members. They always concentrated on the outcasts who they sensed to be weak. It got so easy, within a few weeks of starting an all-boys Catholic high school the pedophiliac priests were just a wee bit easier to identify as their 'victims' IMO. And though Priests who were associated with churches, schools and parishes I've belonged to have been guilty not a single girl has been involved. And lets thank the lord for that.

i feel like i waste my time when i post fact-filled studies that belie comments like these, since these statements continue. who wants the truth when it's so much more fun to stick to the same old statements? oh well...

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i feel like i waste my time when i post fact-filled studies that belie comments like these, since these statements continue. who wants the truth when it's so much more fun to stick to the same old statements? oh well...

ignoring the fact we're talking about catholic priests

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

ignoring the fact we're talking about catholic priests

i know that's who you're talking about. i also know the last time you started in about 'homosexual pedophiles' i posted the study that showed pedophiles in the vast majority of cases are not homosexual-they aren't attracted to men or women. they are attracted to children. and yes, priests have molested girls, but the vast majority are victims are boys. knowing how the catholic church operates, priests have far more opportunities to be alone with boys than with girls, hence the skewed numbers.
so, again, thanks for reading that a few weeks back. it shows you pay attention to the posts others put up here, and don't mind learning something you may not have known.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i know that's who you're talking about. i also know the last time you started in about 'homosexual pedophiles' i posted the study that showed pedophiles in the vast majority of cases are not homosexual-they aren't attracted to men or women. they are attracted to children. and yes, priests have molested girls, but the vast majority are victims are boys. knowing how the catholic church operates, priests have far more opportunities to be alone with boys than with girls, hence the skewed numbers.
so, again, thanks for reading that a few weeks back. it shows you pay attention to the posts others put up here, and don't mind learning something you may not have known.

Again we're talking about apples and oranges. If your interpretation of the study relating to the Catholic church problem had validity the number of assaults would decrease, as the children got older not increase. Especially when 'children' hit puberty and started to become adults like in high school. I guess as ugly as the crime is so are the facts.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Again we're talking about apples and oranges. If your interpretation of the study relating to the Catholic church problem had validity the number of assaults would decrease, as the children got older not increase. Especially when 'children' hit puberty and started to become adults like in high school. I guess as ugly as the crime is so are the facts.

the study i am talking about is the one regarding the fiction of homosexuality leading to pedophilia. there is no link between the two at all.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the study i am talking about is the one regarding the fiction of homosexuality leading to pedophilia. there is no link between the two at all.

Then the abuse problems in the Catholic church have much more to do with homosexuality and much less to do with pedophilia. Which is what I suspected all along.

Because as you’ve stated if it were pedophilia it seems there would be far more assaults on 8yr olds (easier, more attractive victims) than say 15yr olds and girls would make up more than just a fraction of victims as they do now.

BTW I've heard all the priest little boy jokes I can handle but NEVER heard the priest and a little girl one.

[Danzig]

back to the original topic, not that i mind anyone going in a different direction when the mood strikes...

an informative piece from william dalrymple, in the new york times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/op...lrymple&st=cse


i suggest reading it, it helps to understand that although there is islam, there are differing attitudes and branches of the religion.

an excerpt:

For such moderate, pluralistic Sufi imams are the front line against the most violent forms of Islam. In the most radical parts of the Muslim world, Sufi leaders risk their lives for their tolerant beliefs, every bit as bravely as American troops on the ground in Baghdad and Kabul do. Sufism is the most pluralistic incarnation of Islam — accessible to the learned and the ignorant, the faithful and nonbelievers — and is thus a uniquely valuable bridge between East and West.

another:

While the West remains blind to the divisions and distinctions within Islam, the challenge posed by the Sufi vision of the faith is not lost on the extremists. This was shown most violently on July 2, when the Pakistani Taliban organized a double-suicide bombing of the Data Darbar, the largest Sufi shrine in Lahore, Pakistan’s second-largest city. The attack took place on a Thursday night, when the shrine was at its busiest; 42 people were killed and 175 were injured.


the last paragraph:

Sufism is an entirely indigenous, deeply rooted resistance movement against violent Islamic radicalism. Whether it can be harnessed to a political end is not clear. But the least we can do is to encourage the Sufis in our own societies. Men like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf should be embraced as vital allies, and we should have only contempt for those who, through ignorance or political calculation, attempt to conflate them with the extremists.

[Riot]

Nice article, wrong thread. Post it over in Islamophobialand.

[clyde]

You are enough to attract a suicide i-net virus bomber.

[Danzig]

william saletan on the proposed center, from slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2264754/

Sensitive Conservatism
Is a mosque near Ground Zero "insensitive"?
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Aug. 23, 2010, at 8:11 AM ET


One by one, the arguments against the proposed Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero have collapsed. A "13-story mosque"? No such plan. "At Ground Zero"? Wrong again. The imam's radical politics? A myth. His shadowy jihadist financiers? Imagined. His failure to denounce terrorism? Debunked. The "angry battle" he's "stoking"? Please. The guy isn't even returning phone calls. The anger and stoking have come from the other side.

So the mosque's opponents have fallen back on one last argument: sensitivity.



love this line:

With the exception of Palin, these are not stupid people.

an excerpt:

It's natural to be angry at Muslims for 9/11. In fact, it's natural to want to kill them. We've hated and killed each other for centuries. You kill us; we kill you. The "you" is collective. You aren't exactly the infidel who slew my grandfather. But you're close enough.

Seen against this backdrop, the mosque fight represents enormous progress. We aren't talking about killing Muslims or banning their religion. We're just asking them not to build a mosque near the place where they murdered thousands of our people. "Putting the mosque at a different site would demonstrate the uncommon courtesy sometimes required for us to get along," Hughes suggests. In turn, "this gesture of goodwill could lead us to a more thoughtful conversation to address some of the ugliness this controversy has engendered."

But if our revulsion at the idea of a mosque near Ground Zero is irrational—if it's based on group blame and a failure to distinguish Islam from terrorism—then maybe it isn't the mosque's planners who need to rise above their emotions. Maybe it's the rest of us.

Once we recognize the sensitivity argument for what it is—an appeal to feelings we can't morally justify—there's no good reason why the Islamic center shouldn't be built at its planned site, in the neighborhood where its imam already preaches and its members work and congregate. Asking them to reorder their lives to accommodate our instinctive reaction is wrong. We can transcend that reaction, and we should.

the last paragraph, which i agree should be the real talking points:

By all means, let's have a thoughtful conversation about Islam and its place in the United States. Let's ask the imam what he means when he says sharia is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. Let's confront the reluctance of Muslim clerics, including this one, to denounce Hamas. And let's demand transparency in the fundraising process so extremists don't finance the new building. Moving the building farther away from Ground Zero won't advance any of these discussions. It's the wrong fight. Let it go.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

And let's demand transparency in the fundraising process so extremists don't finance the new building. Moving the building farther away from Ground Zero won't advance any of these discussions. It's the wrong fight. Let it go.

It's sad when a comedy show is more thorough than a "news" organization.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...t-company-trap

Jon Stewart continued his coverage of the 'Ground Zero Mosque' debate last night, focusing on Fox News' incongruities harder than he ever has. In a segment called "The Parent Company Trap," Stewart shared with his viewers how Fox News' plan to "follow the money" from mosque builder Imam Rauf to terrorists will be a tricky one because it leads right back to Fox News.

Stewart showed clips from his show last week, in which he mocked Fox News for playing a dangerous game of association based on speculation, and wherein Fox continued to mention a nameless man with ties to Imam Rauf through the "Kingdom Foundation." It turns out the man they are referring to but never name is Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, one of the biggest shareholders of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

Showing a photo of the prince shaking hands with Rupet Murdoch, Stewart exclaimed, "That's right, the guy they're painting as a sinister money force OWNS Fox News." Stewart then used Fox's own logic to explain how the "terror mosque" is funded by Prince Alwaleed, despite being a co-owner of Fox News, and therefore funding terrorism. So, using their logic, Stewart said, "If we want to cut off funding to the terror mosque, we must, together as a nation, stop watching Fox."

But with this new information, one thing is now uncertain. Did Fox actually not know the name of the Kingdom Foundation leader or that he is a News Corp investor? Or did they, as Stewart said, "purposefully cover it up because it didn't help their fear-driven narrative?"

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

william saletan on the proposed center, from slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2264754/

Sensitive Conservatism
Is a mosque near Ground Zero "insensitive"?
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Aug. 23, 2010, at 8:11 AM ET


One by one, the arguments against the proposed Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero have collapsed. A "13-story mosque"? No such plan. "At Ground Zero"? Wrong again. The imam's radical politics? A myth. His shadowy jihadist financiers? Imagined. His failure to denounce terrorism? Debunked. The "angry battle" he's "stoking"? Please. The guy isn't even returning phone calls. The anger and stoking have come from the other side.

So the mosque's opponents have fallen back on one last argument: sensitivity.



love this line:

With the exception of Palin, these are not stupid people.

an excerpt:

It's natural to be angry at Muslims for 9/11. In fact, it's natural to want to kill them. We've hated and killed each other for centuries. You kill us; we kill you. The "you" is collective. You aren't exactly the infidel who slew my grandfather. But you're close enough.

Seen against this backdrop, the mosque fight represents enormous progress. We aren't talking about killing Muslims or banning their religion. We're just asking them not to build a mosque near the place where they murdered thousands of our people. "Putting the mosque at a different site would demonstrate the uncommon courtesy sometimes required for us to get along," Hughes suggests. In turn, "this gesture of goodwill could lead us to a more thoughtful conversation to address some of the ugliness this controversy has engendered."

But if our revulsion at the idea of a mosque near Ground Zero is irrational—if it's based on group blame and a failure to distinguish Islam from terrorism—then maybe it isn't the mosque's planners who need to rise above their emotions. Maybe it's the rest of us.

Once we recognize the sensitivity argument for what it is—an appeal to feelings we can't morally justify—there's no good reason why the Islamic center shouldn't be built at its planned site, in the neighborhood where its imam already preaches and its members work and congregate. Asking them to reorder their lives to accommodate our instinctive reaction is wrong. We can transcend that reaction, and we should.

the last paragraph, which i agree should be the real talking points:

By all means, let's have a thoughtful conversation about Islam and its place in the United States. Let's ask the imam what he means when he says sharia is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. Let's confront the reluctance of Muslim clerics, including this one, to denounce Hamas. And let's demand transparency in the fundraising process so extremists don't finance the new building. Moving the building farther away from Ground Zero won't advance any of these discussions. It's the wrong fight. Let it go.

In that last paragraph, the author brought up the imam's assessment that sharia law is compatible with the Constitution. There is one poster here that probably thinks the author must be a racist, bigot, and islamophobe since he dared to be even slightly critical of the imam. Anyone who has any questions or concerns about Islam is a bigot. Do you know how I know? Because one of the posters here has basically said that.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

These 'predator' priests NEVER had anything to do with groups whether they be jocks or band members. They always concentrated on the outcasts who they sensed to be weak. It got so easy, within a few weeks of starting an all-boys Catholic high school the pedophiliac priests were just a wee bit easier to identify as their 'victims' IMO. And though Priests who were associated with churches, schools and parishes I've belonged to have been guilty not a single girl has been involved. And lets thank the lord for that.

you wont hear an arguement from me about this