# Federal Agents Investigate Mosque Arson



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 28, 2010)

No, not the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque'.  This one is in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

http://www.wsmv.com/news/24798346/detail.html



> Saturday, the FBI and ATF were investigating an arson at the center site. Friday night, a piece of construction equipment was set on fire, while others were drenched in gasoline. According to our news partners at the Daily News Journal, Islamic Center officials said it appeared the arsonist was scared off during the act, and fled the scene before more damage was done. Police are investigating to see if it's a hate crime. Back in June, someone beat and broke the sign at the future site off of Veals Road. Previous to that, someone spray painted the words "Not Welcome" on the sign.



I guess Tennessee is _'too close'_ to Ground Zero, too.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 28, 2010)

That reminds me of something...what was it again?? 
Oh yeah, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 28, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> That reminds me of something...what was it again??
> Oh yeah, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht



http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article626865.ece/America---home-of-the-scared



> And then I look to my right and spot something that almost makes me gag. Someone has placed a mannequin against the high fence that surrounds the site where the World Trade Center Twin Towers once stood. They have taken the time to dress the doll up as an Arab, complete with a white tunic and black-and-white chequered Yasser Arafat keffiyeh.
> If they had left it at that you could still shake your head and tell your child in the back seat that Americans dress up mannequins as a pastime and arbitrarily display them on street corners. Whatever, you know - you could still spin it positively.
> But they didn't just dress up the doll; they straddled it on a torpedo. A torpedo! What the ...? Who does that?



Hey, it's not about Muslims, right?  It's just about the mosque location.  Which is why it's entirely appropriate to hang a mannequin dressed like a Muslim on a fence, riding a torpedo.  Yep, no religious intolerance there.  No hatred at all.  Nothing to see here folks, just expressing our opinion that the Mosque is a teensy bit too close to Ground Zero, and would they mind moving it just a little tiny bit on down the road?


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 29, 2010)

How far is far enough to satisfy those focusing on Islam being the problem and not extremism itself?  Obviously not Tennesee.  I know here in Missouri isn't far enough.  There has been vandalism of mosque here as well.  California?  Not according to news reports.  There have demonstrations against mosque there.  It is interesting to note how many people citing extremist Islams as thier reason for committing extremist acts themselves.  Too many damn people are trying to turn this country into a fear and hate filled country.

Gandhi had a great saying that pertains to this, "An eye for an eye blinds the entire world."  I have to wonder if some people can even understand what he is saying.


----------



## Carol (Aug 29, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Gandhi had a great saying that pertains to this, "An eye for an eye blinds the entire world."  I have to wonder if some people can even understand what he is saying.



Interesting you bring up Gandhi.  

Gandhi was a Hindu, who was assassinated by a fellow Hindu...an extremist named Nathuram Godse.   There are over 800,000 Hindus in India, the vast majority are not etxremists like Godse.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathuram_Godse

A quote that may be fitting:  



> Godse and his mentors later turned and rejected Gandhi, as they felt  that Gandhi was sacrificing Hindu interests in an effort to appease  Muslim interests.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 29, 2010)

The interesting part about bridges; they span both banks.  That means they must outreach to each side in equal amount.

People who are bridge builders or who would claim that title must also reach out to both sides of a conflict or dispute.  That means that they will not take one side and denounce the other.  Those who demand that Imam Rauf 'take a side' do not understand what a bridge builder's job is.  If he 'takes a side' and denounces the other, there will be no bridge.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The interesting part about bridges; they span both banks.  That means they must outreach to each side in equal amount.
> 
> People who are bridge builders or who would claim that title must also reach out to both sides of a conflict or dispute.  That means that they will not take one side and denounce the other.  Those who demand that Imam Rauf 'take a side' do not understand what a bridge builder's job is.  If he 'takes a side' and denounces the other, there will be no bridge.



So... start taking that advice Bill.

All I hear from you lately is "This person is racist and intolerant, that person is racist and intolerant" but it rarely if ever addresses both sides/reasons for that hate and intolerance, or the "proof of the stereotype" that brings it about.

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm gonna do armchair psychology here... you talked about how racist your dad was, and how hard you try not to be like that... I can't help but think a lot of this outrage you keep showing without addressing the underlying causes is just your way of saying "See!  I'm not like my Father!"

Why do you suppose people are intolerant of Muslims in America? It goes beyond simple Ignorance...


----------



## Mark Jordan (Aug 29, 2010)

This thing about Americans being intolerant towards muslims is a mass propaganda to insinuate anger among muslims.

Honestly, I don't think that just because a few Muslims have done something evil, that all Muslims are evil. Not all Muslims are terrorists. There are just people who take good things and turn it bad.


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 29, 2010)

There goes them Muslim McCarthyites again.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 29, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Why do you suppose people are intolerant of Muslims in America? It goes beyond simple Ignorance...



So what is it then?


----------



## seasoned (Aug 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The interesting part about bridges; they span both banks. That means they must outreach to each side in equal amount.
> 
> People who are bridge builders or who would claim that title must also reach out to both sides of a conflict or dispute. That means that they will not take one side and denounce the other. Those who demand that Imam Rauf 'take a side' do not understand what a bridge builder's job is. If he 'takes a side' and denounces the other, there will be no bridge.


Not worth crossing anyways.


----------



## xJOHNx (Aug 29, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Why do you suppose people are intolerant of Muslims in America? It goes beyond simple Ignorance...




Like the Orthodox priest who was attacked because he looked Aaarab?

A climate of fear that has been created among the general audience of which roughly 50% doesn't understand smaller point in discussions and let alone bother to check the other side's opinion. Ignorance?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 29, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> So... start taking that advice Bill.



It's good advice for a bridge-builder. I'm not sure I want that role.  It does require a different perspective and different rhetoric.



> All I hear from you lately is "This person is racist and intolerant, that person is racist and intolerant" but it rarely if ever addresses both sides/reasons for that hate and intolerance, or the "proof of the stereotype" that brings it about.



I'm pretty sure that I've been very careful to cite my sources, instead of posting random accusations or repeating what I've heard or seen or read somewhere.  I have addressed (probably ad naseum) the accusations and objections to the Mosque on a point-by-point basis.  I've gone out and done the research, and reported what I've found.  I'm not sure what more I could do.



> Don't take this the wrong way, I'm gonna do armchair psychology here... you talked about how racist your dad was, and how hard you try not to be like that... I can't help but think a lot of this outrage you keep showing without addressing the underlying causes is just your way of saying "See!  I'm not like my Father!"



I am quite a bit like my father.  He was a strong-willed individual, stubborn, set in his ways, and a fiercely independent thinker.  We disagreed about our beliefs, but we were alike in more ways than we were different.  We were both prepared to take an ***-whipping for our beliefs - or to deal one out - if need be.



> Why do you suppose people are intolerant of Muslims in America? It goes beyond simple Ignorance...



I think that ignorance covers a lot of ground, actually.

We know that our nation has a history of discrimination against recent immigrants (or new religions), especially if they look different or act different or speak a different language or worship a different god than most of us do.  This is simple history, it's fact; it may be inescapable.

We know that Chinese were discriminated against, and Catholics, and Mormons, and so on.  Have you read about how the Mormons ended up in Utah?  It's an interesting story about bigotry and hatred based on ignorance.

We also know that none of the bigotry and racism we've shown has ever resulted in the realization of the fears we had.  Not one single case.  We haven't been overwhelmed by Chinese, Catholic politicians do not take their marching orders from Rome, the Mormons haven't caused us all to abandon the traditional concept of marriage, and so on.

I can also say that ignorance is the major cause of the bigotry that Muslims who hate the West have for us.  They are ignorant in some cases in an even more profound way than we are; deprived of education, no access to free and open media, they are pawns to be preached to by extremists.

In both cases, though, I feel that ignorance is the tool of those who would use it to breed fear and hatred and manipulate it for their own benefit.  For power, for money, for fame, for political success.  It sickens me.  It sickens me just as much that the average everyday Muslim in some nations is exploited the same way; but they don't post here, so you may not hear me say it as much.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> So what is it then?



Well, I would say that it's, as has been stated above, misinformation being taught to the masses, largely. 

I differentiate "Ignorance" from "Misinformation" which I know a lot of people do not.  

I'll give you a fictional Example:

If President Obama came out and said "We now know alien life exists, we have photos from deep space probe 9, of these little green men, riding horses and wearing togas"  and are shown 20 photos, and in 19 the little green men are riding horses and wearing togas, we would rightly or wrongly assume little green men ride horses and wear togas.  But if what they are not showing us are 1000 photos of little green men in Military Suits and Rifles... you could call that Ignorance, I suppose, as in "not knowing" But I call it misinformation... especially considering Common Use of the term ignorance is a slur rather than a state of not knowing all the facts.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm pretty sure that I've been very careful to cite my sources, instead of posting random accusations or repeating what I've heard or seen or read somewhere.  I have addressed (probably ad naseum) the accusations and objections to the Mosque on a point-by-point basis.  I've gone out and done the research, and reported what I've found.  I'm not sure what more I could do.



You are right there, and I never said you didn't do any of those things... BUT you said people needed to reach out to both sides of the dispute, and I simply refuted that you have not done so yourself.  

*I* Understand that MOST Muslims are not hate filled terrorists... but *I* also recognize that _most_ of the Bombings and acts Terrorism _we are being told about_ _right now_ are being perpetrated by Mulsim extremists.  While I don't think that in any way condones the actions people are taking against *Normal* Muslims, it does allow me to see and understand the climate of fear and anger that is driving these acts, and therefore I can approach them from a direction that isn't "G@^##^&M HILLBILLIES ARE ALL IGNORANT HICK KKK RACISTS" which I see a lot of people doing, and IMO makes them no better than the people who are perpetrating these acts against the Muslims. 

I


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 29, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> You are right there, and I never said you didn't do any of those things... BUT you said people needed to reach out to both sides of the dispute, and I simply refuted that you have not done so yourself.



I hope I'm not splitting hairs here, but I don't think I've urged people to reach out to both sides.  I have noted (repeatedly) that Imam Rauf is doing that, when confronted with accusations that he's a terrorist-loving America-hater.  He's a bridge-builder, or he wants to be one anyway.



> *I* Understand that MOST Muslims are not hate filled terrorists... but *I* also recognize that _most_ of the Bombings and acts Terrorism _we are being told about_ _right now_ are being perpetrated by Mulsim extremists.



That is correct.  A recent analogy would have been the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland and the UK.  Most Catholics do not bomb UK soldiers and civilians.  But all the IRA members were Catholic.  Where did that leave the UK vis-a-vis Catholic churches?  Actually a lot like what may be starting to happen here.  Tit-for-tat violence, Catholic churches set on fire, Catholics denied jobs and forced into ghettoes, and more Catholics turned into extremists by the pain inflicted on them by people who had in turn been injured by the IRA and other Catholic militia-type groups.



> While I don't think that in any way condones the actions people are taking against *Normal* Muslims, it does allow me to see and understand the climate of fear and anger that is driving these acts, and therefore I can approach them from a direction that isn't "G@^##^&M HILLBILLIES ARE ALL IGNORANT HICK KKK RACISTS" which I see a lot of people doing, and IMO makes them no better than the people who are perpetrating these acts against the Muslims.



Go you.  I wish I could be as detached.  Something about reading people's statements about Muslims makes me think of this:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D05E6D6123DE034BC4D51DFBE66838E649FDE



> August 25, 1855, Wednesday
> Page 2, 312 words
> From the Ohio Statesman, Aug. 22. The following  letter to a gentleman in this city will inspire the mind of every good  man with horror and alarm: SIDNEY, Shelby Co., Ohio, Sunday, Aug. 19,  1855. DEAR SIR: Last night, about 11 o'clock, the Catholic frame church  of this place was made a pile of ruins.



Today they protest a mosque in NYC, they protest a mosque in CA, they protest a mosque in TN.  Then they set some construction equipment on fire outside a mosque.  What happens when they burn one down or blow it up?

We've been here before.  I will not become one of the slavering, idiotic, mindless hate-filled crowd that does it again, just because this time it's not MY religion being excoriated.

I am no fan of Islam, and I have no particular feeling one way or another for Muslims.  I am a fan of freedom of religion and religious tolerance, and I won't stand by silently while the match is lit again as it has been in the past.  A hundred years ago, it was Catholics having their churches burnt down and blown up.  Now it's Muslims.  I say 'no'.  Impolite of me?  Rude?  I am not kind enough to the people who think that Imam Rauf is Satan in person, come to fart brimstone on all the widows and orphans of 9/11? So be it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 29, 2010)

Arite man, I think I get where you are coming from...


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 29, 2010)

I think this reasoning is flawed.  The terrorist were what they were not because they were Muslims.  They were what they were because they were ignorant men manipulated into believing what they did was for "good."  To judge Muslims on the actions of a few misguided, brainwashed, ignorant men is in itself ignorant.  This ignorance, willfull or otherwise, is being fanned by media and politicians using it to help them reach specific goals.  They are using hate and fear of the other based upon falsehoods that are fanning flames that may not be easily put out.

As far as most terrorist being Muslim, not really no.  Not even recently.  I know someone is going to ask for examples so here's a few;

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7721172&page=1
http://cbs11tv.com/local/Broderick.Gamble.hate.2.622690.html
http://cbs2.com/local/girl.racially.motivated.2.526064.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/10/museum.shooting/
http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=11966739
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/18/mosque-vandalism-st-pete-hate-crime-cair-says/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90207&page=1
http://current.com/news/92170920_plane-crash-in-austin-texas-suicide-attack-on-irs-offices.htm

These were found with just a cursory inernet search.  All meet the criteria of terrorism and none were committed by Muslims.  Because some of these crimes were committed by Christians, should we then assume that Christianity is a core cause of terrorism?  I think that would be a mistaken and ignorant claim, just like those calling Islam as a cause of terrorism.  Extremism and the belief that it is acceptable to use violence to enforce your particular beliefs are the causes of terrorism.  The only reasons Islam is brought into the equation is because they are different that _most _Americans and they were better at pulling off thier insanity.

Public opinion can and has been manipulated in the past to support things that we now view as wrong.  Public opinion was very high against racial equality.  Public opinion was very high against treating whites and non-whites equally within the armed services.  Public opinion has been very high against certain ethnic groups such as the Chinese, Italian, and Irish.  Public opinion was high against abolishing laws against bi-racial marriages.  When hate, fear, and falsehoods are the basis for public opinion that contradict our constitution, then that public opinion should not be considered


----------



## Marginal (Aug 29, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> So... start taking that advice Bill.
> 
> All I hear from you lately is "This person is racist and intolerant, that person is racist and intolerant" but it rarely if ever addresses both sides/reasons for that hate and intolerance, or the "proof of the stereotype" that brings it about.



It is kinda funny. 

"Islam is a religion which enables violence. We oppose Mosques for that reason. Nothing personal tho." 

This is apparently a perfectly valid generalization. 

"People who assume all members of a group are terrorists are bigots."

The response?

"How dare you paint ME with a broad brush? Shame on you for assuming anything about me!" 

Wacky mental static.


----------



## Carol (Aug 29, 2010)

We have Christian terrorism in this country.  

Yet the nation as a whole seems to be willing to delineate between Christian terrorists and Christian non-terrorists when the terror victims are gynecologists and/or their assistants....even when the terrorists go on to bomb Olympic parks.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/nyregion/abortion-doctor-in-buffalo-slain-sniper-attack-fits-violent-pattern.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2719258620070428

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph


----------



## Marginal (Aug 30, 2010)

Carol said:


> We have Christian terrorism in this country.
> 
> Yet the nation as a whole seems to be willing to delineate between Christian terrorists and Christian non-terrorists when the terror victims are gynecologists and/or their assistants....even when the terrorists go on to bomb Olympic parks.



Many people here were also deeply offended when the current administration revealed that they considered militias as possible threats to national security. Probably bigger threats than terrorists from abroad. Grossly unfair despite some militias acting against the government in the past. (Especially during Democratic administrations.)


----------



## Big Don (Aug 30, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Many people here were also deeply offended when the current administration revealed that they considered militias as possible threats to national security. Probably bigger threats than terrorists from abroad. Grossly unfair despite some militias acting against the government in the past. (Especially during Democratic administrations.)


Like these guys:





> The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee by veterans of the Confederate Army.  Although it never had an organizational structure above the local  level, similar groups across the South adopted the name and methods.  Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement after  the war. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan reacted against Radical Republican control of Reconstruction by attempting to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871 the federal government passed the Force Acts,  which were used to prosecute Klan crimes. Prosecution of Klan crimes  and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and  later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts,  started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing Republican  voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to white  conservative Democrats' regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 30, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Like these guys:



Yeah yeah. The same core group that eventually transferred to the Republican party that magically stopped being racist as soon as they did so. :uhyeah:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 30, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Yeah yeah. The same core group that eventually transferred to the Republican party that magically stopped being racist as soon as they did so. :uhyeah:



Yep, using the same magic powers that made all those previously non-racist Republicans racist.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 30, 2010)

The Republican Party of Reconstruction is nothing like today's Republican Party.  140 years or so will do that.  Lee Atwater.  Nixon.  Southern Strategy.  Dixiecrats.  Loop it over and over and over again until it penetrates some thick ****ing skulls.  Even then RNC chairman Mehlman apologized for the Republican party's use of the Southern Strategy...oh of course, just a RINO ******.

History, ignorance, doomed to repeat, yadda yadda yadda.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 30, 2010)

I don't think racism, bigotry, hatred or stupidity are limited to a political party.

http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Growing-Number-of-Americans-Say-Obama-is-a-Muslim.aspx

While 31% of Republicans think President Obama is a Muslim, 10% of Democrats do too.  A lower percentage, but clearly the lunatics are not limited to a single political party - or any political party at all (18% of Independents say President Obama is a Muslim).

Note: An aside to those who post 'facts' explaining that President Obama's father was a Muslim, even if he declared himself an atheist, and that therefore Obama himself is a *Muslim by Islamic rules*.  Yes, yes, of course.  If it so happens that you discover yourself to be related on your mother's side to Jewish relatives, but you are a Christian, will you immediately disavow your Christianity and begin studying the Torah?  Didn't think so.  So no, President Obama is not a Muslim - because he says he is not - unless you can successfully make the argument that he is lying.  I don't care what Islamic rules say about children of Muslim fathers being Muslims.  He doesn't think himself a Muslim, but a Christian.  By your 'rules', he could never become a Christian, but is restricted to always being a Muslim, just as a Jew could never convert to Christianity, etc.  Please.  A thin excuse for hatred.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't think racism, bigotry, hatred or stupidity are limited to a political party.
> 
> http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Growing-Number-of-Americans-Say-Obama-is-a-Muslim.aspx
> 
> ...


 

In the UK being born Jewish means that when asked your race you say you are Jewish, your religous belief is something else, you can be a Jewish Christian/Muslim/Buddhist etc. Due to having Jewish mothers however converts will usually be found in the higher ranks of any clergy (even better if one can become a saint), just being a convert isn't enough for Jewish mums, one has to have ambition! You have to give your mother something to boast about and 'my son, the Cardinal' has a certain ring to it! it says, 'well, he may have become a Christian but what a Christian'! Mark my words we'll have a Jewish Pope one day


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 30, 2010)

http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/susan-jacoby/multiculturalism-and-its-discontents


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 30, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> In the UK being born Jewish means that when asked your race you say you are Jewish, your religous belief is something else, you can be a Jewish Christian/Muslim/Buddhist etc. Due to having Jewish mothers however converts will usually be found in the higher ranks of any clergy (even better if one can become a saint), just being a convert isn't enough for Jewish mums, one has to have ambition! You have to give your mother something to boast about and 'my son, the Cardinal' has a certain ring to it! it says, 'well, he may have become a Christian but what a Christian'! Mark my words we'll have a Jewish Pope one day



_"Jewish"_ certainly has racial connotations as well as cultural and religious, as the Jews are still, to a certain extent, a distinct ethnic group.  No argument there.  However, in the USA, "Jewish" is not an answer to any government surveys on race.

In any case, there is no typical Muslim, even though many think of Middle Easterners when they think of Muslims.  Islam is no more a race than Christian is.  Religion, unlike ethnicity, is a choice and not a physical or even genetic identifier.

One can say that one is a 'Christian' if born of Christian parents, but no one questions that such a child can choose to become anything they wish.  I was born Catholic, but for a time I called myself a Pagan or a Wiccan.  Does that mean I was lying, because I was stuck being a Catholic, having been so baptized?  Is the claim of Roman Catholicism on me permanent and against my will?  So who would claim that I was forced to be Catholic because my parents were?

By the same token, President Obama's father was admittedly Muslim, but he had apparently forsworn all religion and become atheist.  Was he 'stuck' being a Muslim no matter what?  Yes, some might well have considered him a Muslim, but does that judgment mean anything to him or to the world at large?  Does Islam have some ability to brand a person for life, and their children and children's children forever?  That's some power for a religion that many claim is a false one anyway.

So I have a lot of problems with that whole line of reasoning that says his father was a Muslim whether or not he became an atheist, and therefore President Obama is a Muslim whether he wants to be one or not.  Some Muslims may believe this too, but it doesn't make it true.

Just as there is no 'race' descriptor in the US for 'Jewish', there is also none for 'Muslim' or 'Christian'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 30, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/susan-jacoby/multiculturalism-and-its-discontents



I wish you'd do more than post a link.  I read it.  I agree with parts of it. I find the author a bit disingenuous on others.

For example, the practice of female circumcision or genital mutilation, is not Islamic.  The author mish-mashes it in with her criticism of Islam without stating that it is not actually an Islamic practice.  It is certainly practised, in the few places where it is practiced, in areas that are also Muslim.  However, in places like Somalia, it is frequently practiced by Animists, who are neither Muslim nor Christian.

I always have trouble with articles like this, as well as links to stories where the person posting the link isn't interested in stating their own beliefs, because it makes me post an argument without being able to argue against the person who made the innuendo - the article author.  Drag Susan here and we can discuss this.

As regards her assertion that not all cultures and religions are equal, that's something I can absolutely agree with.  However, she is conflating legal rights with personal beliefs.

I dislike Satanists (the real kind, not the disaffected kids moping around in malls with too much makeup on). I'm no fan of fundamentalist branches within Christianity, Islam, or other religions.  I don't think much of certain religions that sacrifice live animals or practice 'evil magic' to pray for harm to another person.  I don't think they're worthy, I don't think they are equally deserving of my respect.

However, I do believe that they are equally deserving of legal protection, to the extent that they do not infringe anyone else's rights.  And that, to me, means they are equally deserving of my toleration.  I don't care for snake handlers speaking in tongues, I really dislike members of certain churches who protest at military funerals and hold up signs that say "God Hate Fags" and so on.  I think little of them, I do not think they are worthy of any respect at all.  But as a defender of the Constitution, I must grit my teeth and defend their right to believe what they will.  If they don't have rights, then neither do I.

As to the author's statements about arranged marriages - I am even less in agreement with her.  Not only on the basis of religion, but on the basis of non-government intervention within the family, I think it is none of my business.  That does not mean I do not have sympathy for the woman who did not want an arranged marriage.  I would absolutely support her right to refuse to follow her parent's demands.  But intrude by law into how her family runs their family?  No.  Demand that her religion stop creating arranged marriages? Nope.  That's not a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' viewpoint.  That's a viewpoint that supports the rights of the individual, the family, the limited role of government, and the rights to freedom of religion and tolerance for religion.  Multiculturalism run amok?  Hardly - I don't approve of arranged marriages, I think they're a bad idea.  But it's not my business.

NOTE: Not sure what any of the items on the link has to do with the topic, either.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2010)

It's a legal definition here that gives us protection under various laws, the one below is for employment. There's similiar for protection against harrassment etc. The Human Rights Act is to give protection against discrimination and harrassment for religious people, all religions. We don't have a Constitution so have to enact laws allowing protection and freedoms. 

*The Race Relations Act (RRA) 1976*

_The RRA covers discrimination before, during and following employment on the following grounds:_

_Race;_
_Colour;_
_Nationality;_
_Ethnic origin (groups with a long shared history and culture including Romany gypsies, Sikhs, Jews);_
_National origin. This is determined by the nationality of a persons parents._
_The burden of proof is on employers to show that no discrimination has taken place when a case is brought against them on the grounds of race or ethnic or nation_


These Acts cover just about everyone.
*Sex Discrimination Act 1975 *
*Race Relations Act 1976* 
*Equal Pay Acts 1970 and 1983* 
*Disability Discrimination Act 1995* 
*Human Rights Act 1998*


As Jews here this is what we do to promote equality among everyone.
http://www.jcore.org.uk/about.php?src=ab&mid=1​


----------



## Marginal (Aug 30, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Yep, using the same magic powers that made all those previously non-racist Republicans racist.



By that demented reasoning, the Democratic party never was racist either.


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As to the author's statements about arranged marriages - I am even less in agreement with her.  Not only on the basis of religion, but on the basis of non-government intervention within the family, I think it is none of my business.  That does not mean I do not have sympathy for the woman who did not want an arranged marriage.  I would absolutely support her right to refuse to follow her parent's demands.  But intrude by law into how her family runs their family?  No.  Demand that her religion stop creating arranged marriages? Nope.  That's not a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' viewpoint.  That's a viewpoint that supports the rights of the individual, the family, the limited role of government, and the rights to freedom of religion and tolerance for religion.  Multiculturalism run amok?  Hardly - I don't approve of arranged marriages, I think they're a bad idea.  But it's not my business.



What about the woman whose life was in danger because she refuses a forced arranged marriage? would you like if someone stepped in to save her even if it is, horrors, those governments you hate? Would you just prefer to let her die because you believe in these 'rights of the parents' 'rights of the family' 'individual rights' 'its none of my business' etc etc?


----------



## Carol (Aug 30, 2010)

For some reason, possibly movies and media, there are many folks in the West that seem to think that Asian parents loathe their children and want to doom them to a life of unhappiness.

Asian parents love their children.  Asian children love their parents.  Most arranged marriages are voluntary from each side and have divorce rates low enough to put us westerners to shame.   

Personally I don't support banning the practice of arranged marriages.   I don't support a woman being killed, either....but a woman doesn't have to be Asian nor in an arranged marriage situation to risk death from a domestic situation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 30, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> What about the woman whose life was in danger because she refuses a forced arranged marriage? would you like if someone stepped in to save her even if it is, horrors, those governments you hate? Would you just prefer to let her die because you believe in these 'rights of the parents' 'rights of the family' 'individual rights' 'its none of my business' etc etc?



I believe my previous statement covers it. _"However, I do believe that they are equally deserving of legal protection, *to the extent that they do not infringe anyone else's rights*."

_I support the model that intrudes least into the rights of the family and into freedom of religion.  However, when one's life is in danger, that is a clear violation of that person's civil rights.  I feel the same way about parents who refuse to allow their child to receive medical care when it becomes a life-threatening emergency and so on.

I do not hate government.  I believe that the government governs best which governs least, to a large extent.  Government is necessary for society to exist, and I enjoy the benefits of society.  Freedom, though unnecessary for life or society, is a condition which I prefer.  Individual liberties are the foundation of freedom.  I prefer as little intrusion onto individual liberties as possible.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So no, President Obama is not a Muslim - because he says he is not - unless you can successfully make the argument that he is lying.



Oh Bill, that's easy.

He's a politician.  Proof enough of the fact he's lying to me.



(And no, I don't think he's Muslim and wouldn't care if he was... my issues are with his politics)


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 30, 2010)

Marginal said:


> It is kinda funny.
> 
> "Islam is a religion which enables violence. We oppose Mosques for that reason. Nothing personal tho."
> 
> ...



Your point being?  You quoted what I said in response to Bill, and then posted something that had absoultley nothing to do with what I said or the point I was making... was it a mistake, or are you trying to be an ***?

Oh wait... typical Democrat misdirection.  Carry on.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 31, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Your point being?  You quoted what I said in response to Bill, and then posted something that had absoultley nothing to do with what I said or the point I was making...



Your comment tripped a thought, so I quoted the relevant text, then posted my thought. I wasn't expecting you to respond to it personally. It was just a good jumping off point for a more general comment. 

I wasn't especially interested in you trying to psychoanalyze Bill (though I don't think he has issues because he's not a fan of pigeonholing large groups unfairly) so I didn't speak to the broader post. I don't think there's a Democratic strategy to apply to such a discussion. Er... Free* mental health care for all? (Is there a treatment for Obama Derangement Syndrome?) Does that give you traction? Happy now? :angel:


----------



## elder999 (Aug 31, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> That reminds me of something...what was it again??
> Oh yeah, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht


 
It really reminded me of THIS. :angry:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 31, 2010)

Marginal said:


> By that demented reasoning, the Democratic party never was racist either.


 
Once again you totally miss the point.

No one said that those racist Democrats who entered the party stopped being racist.

What I and others deny is that somehow those racist Democrats entering the party were able to exert those _magical powers _you talk about to convert tens of millions of previously non-racist Republicans into racists, especially in only two generations.

As far as the Southern Strategy is concerned, it was just that, a strategy.  Doesn't mean that the majority of the Republican party is racist, or even the person that used it.

If that's the case, then I could point to Obama's attending of a church for 20 years who's core philosophy was driven by a pastor who espoused racist views, and say that he is racist.

Or could it be that he attended it because it was the politically advantageous thing to do?

As far as the Southern Stategy goes, everything ends up being "code word" for something.  Yeah, ok.  And we call Glenn Beck a nutter.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 31, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> If that's the case, then I could point to Obama's attending of a church for 20 years who's core philosophy was driven by a pastor who espoused racist views, and say that he is racist..


 

I'd be interested in seeing an overtly racist quote of Jeremiah Wright. Granted, he said some controversial and-for some-disturbing things-as well as some things that prove him to be nuttier than Beck, even.....but, well-show us a "racist view" he espoused.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 31, 2010)

elder999 said:


> I'd be interested in seeing an overtly racist quote of Jeremiah Wright. Granted, he said some controversial and-for some-disturbing things-as well as some things that prove him to be nuttier than Beck, even.....but, well-show us a "racist view" he espoused.


 
I would, but that would take context....


----------



## elder999 (Aug 31, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I would, but that would take context....


 

Go for it. Really....the worst things he said weren't racist-they were _lunacy_, like "AIDS was created to kill black people" (a more widely held belief than you'd guess) and inflammatory, like "God Damn America!," but not necessarily racist.

In fact, I *defy *you to post a racist quote of Jeremiah Wright's in *any* context, save that of calling white people....._white._


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 31, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe my previous statement covers it. _"However, I do believe that they are equally deserving of legal protection, *to the extent that they do not infringe anyone else's rights*."
> 
> _I support the model that intrudes least into the rights of the family and into freedom of religion.  However, when one's life is in danger, that is a clear violation of that person's civil rights.  I feel the same way about parents who refuse to allow their child to receive medical care when it becomes a life-threatening emergency and so on.
> 
> I do not hate government.  I believe that the government governs best which governs least, to a large extent.  Government is necessary for society to exist, and I enjoy the benefits of society.  Freedom, though unnecessary for life or society, is a condition which I prefer.  Individual liberties are the foundation of freedom.  I prefer as little intrusion onto individual liberties as possible.



Okey dokey :angel:

I disagree but then I am not a conservative. But - whatever floats your boat =]


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 31, 2010)

Shots fired in vicinity of Sufi Mosque, teens arrested...

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/st...rime-1-for-Felony/sYCVTQdg0k2S5qhOQhLfeA.cspx



> According to Jacob Zimmerman, member of the World Sufi Foundation, Monday night during evening prayers, cars drove by the mosque with people yelling obscenities and squealing tiresand gunshots were fired.



...


> One of those person was arrested on felony charges of illegal possession of a weapon.



This is apparently breaking news, I'm sure we'll hear more as events unfold.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 31, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Go for it. Really....the worst things he said weren't racist-they were _lunacy_, like "AIDS was created to kill black people" (a more widely held belief than you'd guess) and inflammatory, like "God Damn America!," but not necessarily racist.
> 
> In fact, I *defy *you to post a racist quote of Jeremiah Wright's in *any* context, save that of calling white people....._white._


 

The stuff I've read of him and seen on TV indicate a person who has seen a lot of racism and prejudice.  It has influenced his outlook to an unhealthy degree where he believes many things to be a racist plot against people of color that just aren't...such as the Aids belief. I can understand that reaction and it makes me feel sorry for the guy.  I've never seen or heard comments by him that in themselves are racist.  The racist thing was attributed to him pretty quickly by a certain news organization.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 31, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Once again you totally miss the point.
> 
> No one said that those racist Democrats who entered the party stopped being racist.


You claim that they had no influence on GOP strategy at all. This isn't reflected by historical fact. 

Don keeps wheeling out an irrelevant fact. (I think it's supposed to prove that the Democratic party is racist to this day somehow. I'm not sure.) When someone points out that *the same elements* crossed over into his party of choice, those elements suddenly cease to exist and it's somehow hugely unfair and "dirty pool" to mention racist tendencies of the GOP then exhibited after that party shift.



> If that's the case, then I could point to Obama's attending of a church for 20 years who's core philosophy was driven by a pastor who espoused racist views, and say that he is racist.


I'm pretty sure people have done this already.



> Or could it be that he attended it because it was the politically advantageous thing to do?


Just as long as he never attended church for the sake of attending church, or any of the other people at that church. 



> As far as the Southern Stategy goes, everything ends up being "code word" for something.  Yeah, ok.  And we call Glenn Beck a nutter.


Pretending it didn't happen? Classy.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 1, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Just as long as he never attended church for the sake of attending church, or any of the other people at that church.



Everyone knows that if you want to make it big in US politics, you have to be very religious, or at least pretend you are. Americans love that sort of thing and you can't possibly be a good enough person and win the elections if you don't play along.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 1, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Go for it. Really....the worst things he said weren't racist-they were _lunacy_, like "AIDS was created to kill black people" (a more widely held belief than you'd guess) and inflammatory, like "God Damn America!," but not necessarily racist.
> 
> In fact, I *defy *you to post a racist quote of Jeremiah Wright's in *any* context, save that of calling white people....._white._


 


> On June 9, 2009, in an interview with the _Daily Press of Newport News_, Wright indicated that he hadn't had contact with Obama up to that point because "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office." Wright also suggested that Obama did not send a delegation to the Durban Review Conference in Geneva on racism because of Zionist pressure saying: "[T]he Jewish vote, the A-I-P-A-C vote, that&#8217;s controlling him, that would not let him send representation to the Darfur Review Conference, that&#8217;s talking this craziness on this trip, cause they&#8217;re Zionists, they would not let him talk to someone who calls a spade what it is."


 

To make it plain, several Jewish organizations spoke out against him, saying what he said was anti-semitic. Not only that, but he later apologized, and attempted clarification.

Now you may try to explain this away, but alotof people believed that, in the simple meaning of his words, without any further context, they were racist.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 1, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> To make it plain, several Jewish organizations spoke out against him, saying what he said was anti-semitic. Not only that, but he later apologized, and attempted clarification.
> 
> Now you may try to explain this away, but alotof people believed that, in the simple meaning of his words, without any further context, they were racist.


 
Actually, I'd forgotten that, and it was pretty plainly anti-Semitic.


----------



## Carol (Sep 1, 2010)

In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01.  White America and the western world came to realize that people of  color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just disappeared  as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black  concerns. 

 Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still  run!We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority  and believe it more than we believe in God. 

"We  started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of  living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty"

"We believe God sanctioned the rape  and robbery of an entire continent, we believe God ordained African  slavery, we believe God makes Europeans superior to Africans and  superior to everyone else"


----------



## elder999 (Sep 1, 2010)

Carol said:


> In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.
> 
> Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.
> 
> ...


 
Those are the things I was thinking of as *not* racist.


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 1, 2010)

Carol said:


> In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01.  White America and the western world came to realize that people of  color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just disappeared  as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black  concerns.
> 
> Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still  run!We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority  and believe it more than we believe in God.
> 
> ...



Geesh. Who said that?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 3, 2010)

Marginal said:


> You claim that they had no influence on GOP strategy at all. This isn't reflected by historical fact.


 
Once again. Wow!

Not only can you not see the forest for the trees, but you must put words into people's mouths in order to support a weak argument.

Point me to where I said that those Democratic racists who moved to the Republican Party had no influence. 

What I said was that I find it highly improbable that even several racist Democratic politicians who moved to the Republican Party could cause tens of millions of non-racist Republicans to all of a sudden hate minorities.

And I find it highly improbable that tens of millions of racist Democrats would all of a sudden become happy-feely integrationists.

And if you posit that all of those people merely switched parties, show me the proof of that.


And, as I intimated with the reply on the Southern Stategy, show me the proof. And show me in other then some convoluted "code word" way.

But let's not forget, Robert Byrd was not only a racist, but a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Not only was he a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but he was a leader in the group, founding a new chapter of the organization.

But we can forgive him, but Strom Thurmond can never be.
Just as long as he never attended church for the sake of attending church, or any of the other people at that church. 

[QUOTE
]Just as long as he never attended church for the sake of attending church, or any of the other people at that church. 
[/QUOTE]

He may have, but I point it out as a viable alternative.  Politicians do many strange things.

But it's interesting that you would excuse Obama as a politician, especially one now holding what is considered the highest office in the country, for attending a church to worship God for 20 years where his *self-admitted mentor *would say such things as "God damn America", hold anti-semitic, if not anti-white, views, and be what the majority of Americans would call a conspiracy nut (AIDS was created to kill Black people).

If he attended out of a sence of legitimate worship, then we have a lot more to worry about then you think.




> Pretending it didn't happen? Classy.


 
Once again, you insist on putting words into someone else's mouth. Who's pretending that it didn't happen. There are a lot of political strategies in existence in the United States. The Democrats trot them out (based on fear and anger), and so do the Republicans (based on fear and anger).

Just to make it clear: I have no doubt that the Southern Strategy exist(s/ed). But it was just that, *a strategy.* In no way does it *necessarily *mean that everyone in the Republican Party all of a sudden became a racist.

But these types of different political stategies exist. Why? Because in modern day America, no one relies on facts or principles. The only way to get the American public to vote is in such a manner as elicits an emotional response.

Just as you do in insisting that one must be a racist (or any other x-ist) in order to be a Republican.

I'll tell you, as a Black man, that I find the Democratic insistence that I need a hand-out, extra protection under the law, and Affirmative Action in order to succeed in life, much more denigrating and insulting then anything I have seen the Republicans say or do.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 4, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Point me to where I said that those Democratic racists who moved to the Republican Party had no influence.


Yeah, 'cause if you can't see it the first time, you'll see it the second time around no problem. 



> What I said was that I find it highly improbable that even several racist Democratic politicians who moved to the Republican Party could cause tens of millions of non-racist Republicans to all of a sudden hate minorities.



Putting aside the whole part where it's iffy to assume that every Republican was not racist just 'cause of Lincoln... Nonetheless, you do witness a very blatant party shift. The party's policies change, and in a very short period of time, what the party represents changes as well. 



> And I find it highly improbable that tens of millions of racist Democrats would all of a sudden become happy-feely integrationists.



It's kinda funny that you're unwilling to believe that the GOP started appealing to racists, (who would in turn migrate their support to a platform most compatible with their views) but you're willing to believe that the Democratic party was comprised entirely of racists.

Not only can you not see the forest for the trees, but you must put words into people's mouths in order to support a weak argument.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 15, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Yeah, 'cause if you can't see it the first time, you'll see it the second time around no problem.


 
Didn't see it the first time because I never said it. 

Nice try.



> Putting aside the whole part where it's iffy to assume that every Republican was not racist just 'cause of Lincoln...


 
Never said that there were no racist Republicans.  However, a large part of the party platform for decades was anti-slavery, and giving Blacks more of an opportunity within the larger society.   



> Nonetheless, you do witness a very blatant party shift. The party's policies change, and in a very short period of time, what the party represents changes as well.


 
Have you ever read any of the Republican Party planks from before the 1950's?  I have.  They are actually quite similar to what they were AFTER the civil rights movement.

I'll give you an example.  Somehow, the concept that the Republican's came up with "state's rights" as a code word for racism developed after the civil rights movement. 

Well, here is a portion of the Republican Party plank from *1860:*



> That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state, to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.


 
So, despite what a lot of people think, the Republicans have been talking about state's rights, well, since forever.




> It's kinda funny that you're unwilling to believe that the GOP started appealing to racists, (who would in turn migrate their support to a platform most compatible with their views) but you're willing to believe that the Democratic party was comprised entirely of racists.


 
Once again, I never said that the Republican Party didn't appeal to racist.  In fact, I said the opposite.  I'm sure that they appealed to everyone who they thought would vote for them, in a manner that would most appeal to those voting blocks.

Doesn't make them racist.  It makes them, well, politicians.   



> Not only can you not see the forest for the trees, but you must put words into people's mouths in order to support a weak argument.


 
I put no words into anyone's mouth.  I just use people's own words against them.  Deal with it.


----------

