Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Mosque on the Twin Towers ruins

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Did I take a wrong turn? Is this the Rush Limbaugh forum? I can't tell the difference based on this thread that is founded on emotions rather than rational thought.

I don't in any way advocate that Oists should be asking themselves "What would Rand say/do" but this might be a good instance for you to do that.

There is a fine line between properly criticizing a group/religion and improperly criticizing one and I strong believe the latter is the case here. I am frankly becoming a bit concerned by the unfounded animosity in various contexts by some of the Oists that visit this board when it comes to followers of Islam and a few other things. Not all of them are bomb carrying Jihadists.

I think it stems from the fact that there is not enough rage against muslims after 911. Few muslims speak out against Islamo-fascists, and the ones who stay silent don't demonstrate that they are on our side, quite the contrary. And we have leadership that appeases the hell out of muslims because it's a "peaceful religion that has been hijacked", total lie.

Sure, people should be free to build mosques. This is America and that's their right. I wouldn't stand in their way, but it is very sad that we see that spectacle, rather than new towers going up in honor of capitalism and freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam, in its undiluted form, taken seriously by its followers, is responsible for terrorism and oppression originating from the Middle-East, amongst other things.

This is the problem that seems to confound most people who talk about Islam (or any religion.) There is no "undiluted form." There is no such thing as "true" Islam. Muhammad was a politician who said what was convenient for him at the time, and there are huge disparities between his disposition in Mecca and his disposition in Medina. The result is 14 centuries of people bickering back and forth about who has it right. They're all wrong, not just with respect to reality, but with respect to the content of the Quran. It is impossible to be anything but wrong when trying to reconcile a contradictory religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting information about the Imam behind the NYC mosque:

Is Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf – founder of the hugely controversial Ground Zero Mosque – lying to the American public?

We have uncovered extraordinary contradictions between what he says in English and what he says in Arabic that raise serious questions about his true intentions in the construction of the mosque.

On May 25, 2010 Abdul Rauf wrote in an article for the New York Daily News: “My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society.”

Oh really?

Only two months before, on March 24, 2010, Abdul Rauf is quoted in an article in Arabic for Rights4All entitled (from one of his responses) “I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue”. .......

But that’s only the beginning of what we learn from the Rights4All piece. When asked his view regarding an Islamic state, Abdul Rauf responded that “Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more then just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Shariah that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed.”

When questioned about this, Abdul Rauf continued “Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.” He added “New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad…so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Shariah.” [emphasis in translation]

In yet plainer English, Abdul Rauf’s goal is the imposition of Shariah law – in every country, including the U. S.

http://www.shoebat.com/blog/archives/273

Here's a link to a video of Walid Shoebat discussing the Imam's comments and true intentions:

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=111&load=3660

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It somewhat boggles my mind that there would be such disagreement on this issue.

Most Oist I know in real-life would never make the obvious egaliterian error it is to equate all religions as "equally bad".

Claiming something is equally bad is no different then claiming it is equally good - to any promoters of reason this should be clear.

Christianity is MUCH better then Islam.

How they used to function is no argument against there presence today, and it should be obvious that most christians do not advocate theocracy - atleast comparativly in numbers to the muslim population.

When it comes to "there is no true interpretation" this is also false.

There are about 26000 different christian communities, while there are about two dominating Islam movements (where I would presume 98% of muslims would place themselves) - and their difference is purely based on strategy and the practical organisation of the movement - not about the word of the prophet.

The Quran represent "gods" excact words communicated through Muhammed. This is much harder to creativly interpret then the bible.

I know Christianity is much stronger in the US at present then it is here in Europe, and that may influence ones perspective on this context - but to be honest I can not see how anyone could consider the two religions an equal threat to humanity and liberty. They are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It somewhat boggles my mind that there would be such disagreement on this issue.

Most Oist I know in real-life would never make the obvious egaliterian error it is to equate all religions as "equally bad".

Claiming something is equally bad is no different then claiming it is equally good - to any promoters of reason this should be clear.

Christianity is MUCH better then Islam.

How they used to function is no argument against there presence today, and it should be obvious that most christians do not advocate theocracy - atleast comparativly in numbers to the muslim population.

When it comes to "there is no true interpretation" this is also false.

There are about 26000 different christian communities, while there are about two dominating Islam movements (where I would presume 98% of muslims would place themselves) - and their difference is purely based on strategy and the practical organisation of the movement - not about the word of the prophet.

The Quran represent "gods" excact words communicated through Muhammed. This is much harder to creativly interpret then the bible.

I know Christianity is much stronger in the US at present then it is here in Europe, and that may influence ones perspective on this context - but to be honest I can not see how anyone could consider the two religions an equal threat to humanity and liberty. They are not.

With the recently provided information, I changed my mind on the mosque issue. However, you are completely wrong here.

It is not "egalitarian" to say all religions are equally wrong. It is a statement of fact. The factual claims made in the Bible are no more or less true than those in the Koran. In fact, if one is truer than the other, it would probably be the Koran, since it was written much more recently and by (more or less) a single person...meaning, of course, that the claimed events of the Koran are much more likely to be backed up by actual history, than are the claims of the Bible. Muhammad really did gain a political following in Medina, and then go back to conquer his former detractors. If Jesus Christ even existed (which is far from certain, by the way), he was not born in Bethlehem and many of his escapades are pretty low on the historicity scale.

Trying to break up Islam into two dominating sects (Shi'a and Sunni) is no more accurate than breaking up Christianity into three (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox). Although, in both cases, each particular denomination can be lumped into one of those categories, there is wide disparity within them. I'm not going to give a full taxonomy of the different sects within both Sunni and Shi'a Islam, but suffice it to say that they are wide and varied.

I never said the two religions currently present an equal threat. I said they are equally bullshit and that the threat they pose depends entirely on what interpretations are currently prevalent. If you want to argue that there is a "true interpretation" of either religions, then I challenge you to do so. Pick what you think is the true variant of either Christianity of Islam, and argue in favor of it. You'll find it quite impossible to reconcile your chosen variant with other parts of the respective holy books that are completely contradictory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not "egalitarian" to say all religions are equally wrong. It is a statement of fact. The factual claims made in the Bible are no more or less true than those in the Koran. In fact, if one is truer than the other, it would probably be the Koran, since it was written much more recently and by (more or less) a single person...

- Im talking about equality in how bad it is, not how wrong it is.

Islam is obviously wrong, as is Christianity.

Was this your only prior point?

Cause that seems to have little relevance in the discussion.

As you point out the Quran is written by one man (well, woman, Muhammed was illiterate) - and insted of coming with vague stories and statements like the Bibel, the Quran is pretty explicit about how one should kill infidels, homosexuals, women who dont "behave", etc.

The Bible also states similar things, but seeing as its so much more open to interpretation (and consequently why there are waaay more Christian movements then Muslim ones) these things are no longer the oppinion of most christians.

While maybe one in ten thousand Christians would belive homosexuals should be executed if they have intercourse with the same sex - the same number in the muslim world would probably come closer to 30-60% somewhere - maybe more, considering that most muslims still live in the old countries with much less western influence.

Consequently Islam is a much bigger threat then Christianity, and the battle against it of superior - not equal - importance.

Muhammad really did gain a political following in Medina, and then go back to conquer his former detractors. If Jesus Christ even existed (which is far from certain, by the way), he was not born in Bethlehem and many of his escapades are pretty low on the historicity scale.

- I am well aware of this. How is it relevant?

Trying to break up Islam into two dominating sects (Shi'a and Sunni) is no more accurate than breaking up Christianity into three (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox). Although, in both cases, each particular denomination can be lumped into one of those categories, there is wide disparity within them. I'm not going to give a full taxonomy of the different sects within both Sunni and Shi'a Islam, but suffice it to say that they are wide and varied.

- Could you give me.. Oh say, like 1000 examples? Considering Christianity got like 25-26000 I mean..

As mentioned there is not much wiggleroom in the Quran. There are no big theological disagreements seperating them. Or could you perhaps point to a few?

If you want to argue that there is a "true interpretation" of either religions, then I challenge you to do so.

- You could just read the Quran (its boring though, prob a chapter would suffice), its pretty streightforward.

Just like Mein Kampf is pretty hard to misunderstand.. :P

Off course, some do interpret what Muhammed is claimed to have done, instead of written down - and sometimes these differ. Like the beating of women is allowed in the Quran, but some claim that since Muhammed did not do it himself its really not..

But there internal differences can not even start to compare to Christianity.

And when it comes to the practical actions selfproclaimed members of the seperate religions perform to this day - there is just no way you could consider them "just as bad". There simply not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of speaking about "Undiluted" Islam or Christanity, let us instead speak of "saner" Christians or Moslims. The religions themselves are mystical and anti-life and anti-man, the measure in which their tenets are observed literally without the sanitizing influence of logic and reason (which, unfortunately, isn't always enough to sever off the mystical and irrational thoughts altogether, often these irrational precepts being deeply ingrained from childhood) is the measure in which they will be more prone to homicide, destruction and barbarism. Saner Christians and Moslims aren't epistemologically better than their more dangerous counterparts (since they attempt to compromise between magic and science), they are only not as immediately dangerous (nevertheless they are still dangerous, as their magical beliefs shape the way in which they will more often than not vote and thus attempt to infringe upon the rights of others in different magnitudes in accordance with the magnitude of their God Delusions). In the scale of insanity the fundamentalist is the most dangerous specimen, operating on an almost sociopath level, whereas the saner among them tend to be closer to minor mental ailments- still suffering from impaired judgment, but less so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the scale of insanity the fundamentalist is the most dangerous specimen, operating on an almost sociopath level, whereas the saner among them tend to be closer to minor mental ailments- still suffering from impaired judgment, but less so.

- This is true, but my point is that fundamentalism in Islam is waaaay more common then it is in Christianity (200 or so times greater perhaps?).

This is a consequence of the nature of both scriptures, as explained previously.

There is no way most muslims at some point will be as secular as most Christians are. The Quran simply does not make it an option in any fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- This is true, but my point is that fundamentalism in Islam is waaaay more common then it is in Christianity (200 or so times greater perhaps?).

This is a consequence of the nature of both scriptures, as explained previously.

There is no way most muslims at some point will be as secular as most Christians are. The Quran simply does not make it an option in any fashion.

You are right. I've always acknowledged this. However, it all depends upon how seriously these religions are taken. Christianity taken seriously is very dangerous, as the Dark Ages establishes. I mean, that's what caused the Dark Ages. Christians in America, as a rule, aren't all that Christian. Muslims in regions of the world like Iran are very serious about their religion.

Have you seen the recent video by Bill Maher making that comparison?

Here it be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ipp-l_32M8...feature=related

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned there is not much wiggleroom in the Quran. There are no big theological disagreements seperating them. Or could you perhaps point to a few?

- You could just read the Quran (its boring though, prob a chapter would suffice), its pretty streightforward.

These two statements prove the notion that you should keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking about. There are theological differences big enough to make some groups of Muslims kill others. It is not my job to educate you on Islam. Firstly, because I'm not an expert. Secondly...well, it just flat isn't my job. This link summarizes the broad categories of Islamic thought, if you're still interested. It doesn't list 25,000 different variants, but then I'm guessing the equivalent article for Christianity doesn't list all the thousands of Christian denominations either. I have no idea how many different forms of Islam there ultimately are, but I don't need to know in order to refute your claim that there are only two kinds of Muslim: Sunni and Shi'a. Can you at least acknowledge that, within those 2 large categories, there are many, many variants and sub-variants and sub-sub-variants?

As for the Qur'an being straightforward...it's not anymore straightforward than the Bible. The attitude and proscriptions of the different suras vary widely--particularly suras that deal with how a Muslim should treat non-Muslims--based in large part on whether Muhammad was in Mecca or Medina when the sura was written. The Meccan suras tend to be more or less peaceful, because Muhammad had virtually no political following there and was having to keep himself out of trouble with the establishment, but the Medinan suras tend to be much more violent, because Muhammad actually gained a large following there and he could afford to preach schism and vitriol without really fearing the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Some interesting information about the Imam behind the NYC mosque:

http://www.shoebat.com/blog/archives/273

Here's a link to a video of Walid Shoebat discussing the Imam's comments and true intentions:

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=111&load=3660

Hold on a second here. What exactly is this supposed to prove? That he wants the entire world to live according to his faith? Show me a religious man who doesn't.

Next thing you know you'll be telling me that the Pope wants the entire world to live by the Ten Commandments! OMFG! The horror!

On the other hand had this man said (in English) "Islam is all peaches and sunshine and we just want to live in this world in peace and harmony with all peoples" and then (in Farsi or whatever) "We should kill all the non-believers that is Allah's will and we shall carry out Jihad against anyone who doesn't believe in the Prophet..." then your quote would have some relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zip, I can find the relevant information for you (although it is plastered all over the net for easy access) but this is not a normal mosque. This is an extremist mosque whose purposes for choosing this location are clear (it is irrelevant that 2 blocks away is substantial given the area, obviously it is viewed in the way they wish it to be viewed, otherwise there would not be such a huge uproar by New Yorkers and others around the country).

1. The Imam has suggested American law should be replaced by Sharia law, and all American laws not compatible with Sharia law be removed.

2. The Imam refuses the idea that Muslims were at fault for the 9/11 atrocity.

3. The Imam has made many disparaging remarks against Jews.

4. The Mosque has been named the "Cordoba House", here is some history, from wikipedia: "During this time Cordoba was one of the largest cities in the world whose name continues to represent a symbol of Islamic conquest to many faithful Muslims around the world." This was a time in which non-muslims were treated as second class citizens. This is not acceptable.

5. The Mosque is a 13 story Mega Mosque, not a normal sized mosque. It has been announced that it will open its doors on a 9/11 date, of which the Imam will not change despite the outrage over this fact by many Americans in New York and elswhere.

6. The Imam and the Mosque funding is linked to various Islamist extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the IHH, etc. which have proven to be involved in terrorist activities or otherwise have well known militaristic branches. Some of this funding is by organizations that clearly set out to subvert American law and replace it with Sharia law. One of these organizations was behind the planning for the revolt on the flotilla ship recently, which was a violent attack against our ally, Israel.

7. While it is 2 blocks away, which in that area is substantial, visually and environmentally speaking, it is obvious it still is making the statement the people behind the building of the Mosque wish it to have, as can be seen by the uproar across America seeing it as a statement of victory for the extremist elements of that religion.

8. There is a Mega Mosque (that was halted) being built in London next to the location of the 2012 Olympics. This is not some mere coincidence, and neither is this one.

I suggest, knowing these facts, that the government should take proper action, based on charges of conspiratorial intentions of those behind the funding of the Mosque.

However I agree that this thread is redundant and discussion should be moved to the linked thread Grames posted above. I posted this here only because it was a response to Zips comment.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zip, I can find the relevant information for you (although it is plastered all over the net for easy access) but this is not a normal mosque. This is an extremist mosque whose purposes for choosing this location are clear (it is irrelevant that 2 blocks away is substantial given the area, obviously it is viewed in the way they wish it to be viewed, otherwise there would not be such a huge uproar by New Yorkers and others around the country).

I'm not an apologist by any stretch of the imagination but allow me to make my point another way...

1. The Imam has suggested American law should be replaced by Sharia law, and all American laws not compatible with Sharia law be removed.

Name a single true believer of whatever faith that would not like to see his/her holy scripture used as the basis of all law. Like I said, the pope and his minions would have no problem replacing a Woman's right to choose with "thou shall not Kill"

2. The Imam refuses the idea that Muslims were at fault for the 9/11 atrocity.

Like the Catholics refuse to accept paedophile priests are their problem and how they deny that they stood back and watched as the holocaust occurred?

3. The Imam has made many disparaging remarks against Jews.

So? Are you going to search out all the Neo-Nazi's and other racists in the USA and deny their property rights too?

4. The Mosque has been named the "Cordoba House", here is some history, from wikipedia: "During this time Cordoba was one of the largest cities in the world whose name continues to represent a symbol of Islamic conquest to many faithful Muslims around the world." This was a time in which non-muslims were treated as second class citizens.

So? This is on par with the calls for sports teams like the Redskins to change their names because it is offensive to the Indigenous peoples of North America. It's a name, sticks and stones...

5. The Mosque is a 13 story Mega Mosque, not a normal sized mosque. It has been announced that it will open its doors on a 9/11 date, of which the Imam will not change despite the outrage over this fact by many Americans in New York and elswhere.

Personally I'm offended that there are "mega churches" in many cities in the US... From Wikipedia "about 50 churches... have attendance ranging from 10,000 to 47,000." What right do you or any one else have to limit the size of a Mosque if you are not going to bat an eye at a Christian church with a congregation numbering up to 47 thousand? I was unaware that there is a law prohibiting the opening of mosques or any other place of worship on the 11th of September. Is it crass? Sure. So what?

6. The Imam and the Mosque funding is linked to various Islamist extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the IHH, etc. which have proven to be involved in terrorist activities or otherwise have well known militaristic branches. Some of this funding is by organizations that clearly set out to subvert American law and replace it with Sharia law.

Excellent, then trace the money to known terror groups and confiscate it. Build a case in a court of law proving the Mosque is funded by terrorism and that the Imam is a terrorist and shut them down. In other words, USE THE LAW to punish crimes, don't use the apparatus of the state to punish non-crimes.

One of these organizations was behind the planning for the revolt on the flotilla ship recently, which was a violent attack against our ally, Israel.

So what? Apples and oranges. This is not an argument dealing with the issue at hand this is an emotional appeal.

7. While it is 2 blocks away, which in that area is substantial, visually and environmentally speaking, it is obvious it still is making the statement the people behind the building of the Mosque wish it to have, as can be seen by the uproar across America seeing it as a statement of victory for the extremist elements of that religion.

So I'm guessing that you can't even see ground zero from the mosque location right? The majority of Americans also believe in ghosts, their belief doesn't make for reliable evidence or proof.

8. There is a Mega Mosque (that was halted) being built in London next to the location of the 2012 Olympics. This is not some mere coincidence, and neither is this one.

OMG, a mosque in London! What reason would an estimated 609,623 Muslims who live in London have for building a mosque? There must be some nefarious plan!

I suggest, knowing these facts, that the government should take proper action, based on charges of conspiratorial intentions of those behind the funding of the Mosque.

Ooh... You want the government to start taking action based on conspiratorial intentions now? I don't, who knows where that sort of power will lead them. Especially with the big O in charge.

Conspiratorial intentions of what exactly? At worst they are guilty of trying to rub our noses in their attack. Are we so weak that that constitutes a threat to us? Are we so mealy mouthed that all it takes for us to welch on our ideals of property rights and freedom of expression is that some religious wing nuts try to laugh at us?

Might I remind everyone that the response to the attack has effectively destroyed the ability of 1 fundamentalist Islamic state to ever conduct an operation like that again, and has led to the destruction of another Islamic totalitarian state. They aren't stronger. They are weaker. They woke us up and now their only recourse, their only pretence at inflicting damage is to try to entice us to get upset about their very existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name a single true believer of whatever faith that would not like to see his/her holy scripture used as the basis of all law. Like I said, the pope and his minions would have no problem replacing a Woman's right to choose with "thou shall not Kill"

You cannot seriously be equating religions like Christianity with Islam. I am one of the largest proponents on this forum of making sure differentiations are made both between religions and within the peculiarities of the religions themselves (such as with the Muslims for example) as can be seen by my posting history. However to equate these things in the way you are doing throughout your post is nonsensical, and this kind of equating has been shown to be so in many other threads, you are ignoring essentials.

Excellent, then trace the money to known terror groups and confiscate it. Build a case in a court of law proving the Mosque is funded by terrorism and that the Imam is a terrorist and shut them down. In other words, USE THE LAW to punish crimes, don't use the apparatus of the state to punish non-crimes.

When was this ever suggested to be done by me? You missed the entire point of my post, obviously.

OMG, a mosque in London! What reason would an estimated 609,623 Muslims who live in London have for building a mosque? There must be some nefarious plan!

This cannot be a serious response to my comment. You have obviously not read up on the London Mosque situation or even London's situation in general, so why are you commenting on it?

You want the government to start taking action based on conspiratorial intentions now? I don't, who knows where that sort of power will lead them

Do you even know what you are talking about? They use it all the time and have for ages. This is nothing new, and it has been used legitimately plenty of times. There have already been laws like this in place. Maybe I wasn't clear what I meant by stating that charge. There is enough evidence of conspiring with terrorist/militant organizations to shut them down. The other points were not to stand on their own, but for the purposes of bolstering this particular argument. I probably made 20 posts in the other thread about how proper evidence was a necessary prerequisite...this is exactly why we should not have two threads on this same subject.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The Imam has suggested American law should be replaced by Sharia law, and all American laws not compatible with Sharia law be removed.

Most Americans have shitty beliefs about our political system. Your point?

2. The Imam refuses the idea that Muslims were at fault for the 9/11 atrocity.

Most Americans don't either

3. The Imam has made many disparaging remarks against Jews.

Well, we better lock up the South

4. The Mosque has been named the "Cordoba House", here is some history, from wikipedia: "During this time Cordoba was one of the largest cities in the world whose name continues to represent a symbol of Islamic conquest to many faithful Muslims around the world." This was a time in which non-muslims were treated as second class citizens. This is not acceptable.

So what?

5. The Mosque is a 13 story Mega Mosque, not a normal sized mosque. It has been announced that it will open its doors on a 9/11 date, of which the Imam will not change despite the outrage over this fact by many Americans in New York and elswhere.

Size doesn't matter when it comes to property rights

6. The Imam and the Mosque funding is linked to various Islamist extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the IHH, etc. which have proven to be involved in terrorist activities or otherwise have well known militaristic branches. Some of this funding is by organizations that clearly set out to subvert American law and replace it with Sharia law. One of these organizations was behind the planning for the revolt on the flotilla ship recently, which was a violent attack against our ally, Israel.

Prove that he is actually linked, don't just make accusations that you got from FOX news and bunk websites

7. While it is 2 blocks away, which in that area is substantial, visually and environmentally speaking, it is obvious it still is making the statement the people behind the building of the Mosque wish it to have, as can be seen by the uproar across America seeing it as a statement of victory for the extremist elements of that religion.

It's also obvious it's his right to build it. Freedom means getting your feelings hurt.

8. There is a Mega Mosque (that was halted) being built in London next to the location of the 2012 Olympics. This is not some mere coincidence, and neither is this one.

Great, more property rights violations. Your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot seriously be equating religions like Christianity with Islam. I am one of the largest proponents on this forum of making sure differentiations are made both between religions and within the peculiarities of the religions themselves (such as with the Muslims for example) as can be seen by my posting history. However to equate these things in the way you are doing throughout your post is nonsensical, and this kind of equating has been shown to be so in many other threads, you are ignoring essentials.

I'm not talking about you I am responding to the "proof" you provided.

I am also not saying that Christianity or any other religion is the same as any other religion or Islam. I am saying that the desire of an Imam or Rabi or Priest or whatever is EXACTLY the same. Whether it is their desire to force women into a position of second class citizen as demanded by their scripture of if their scripture merely demands that you not eat meat on Friday all of them want everyone on the planet to abide by their rules.

That is an essential of all religions and all religious figures.

When was this ever suggested to be done by me? You missed the entire point of my post, obviously.

I'm confused... you posted...

6. The Imam and the Mosque funding is linked to various Islamist extremist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the IHH, etc. which have proven to be involved in terrorist activities or otherwise have well known militaristic branches. Some of this funding is by organizations that clearly set out to subvert American law and replace it with Sharia law.
To which I called for the proper legal recourse to be followed as opposed to what many people seem to advocate which is just "not letting them build the mosque". If you believed that I meant you specifically I didn't. Sorry for the confusion.

This cannot be a serious response to my comment. You have obviously not read up on the London Mosque situation or even London's situation in general, so why are you commenting on it?

You're right I haven't and it really doesn't matter. If a group of Muslims bought a piece of land outside of the Kings Cross Subway station and erected a great big sign (complying with zoning regulations and all the rest) saying "Ha, ha we bombed your asses good!" with a nice bloody picture of a destroyed subway car would you consider that justification for removing their property rights? How about if you just think that they want to rub your nose in their "success"?

Do you even know what you are talking about? They use it all the time and have for ages. This is nothing new, and it has been used legitimately plenty of times. There have already been laws like this in place. Maybe I wasn't clear what I meant by stating that charge. There is enough evidence of conspiring with terrorist/militant organizations to shut them down. The other points were not to stand on their own, but for the purposes of bolstering this particular argument. I probably made 20 posts in the other thread about how proper evidence was a necessary prerequisite...this is exactly why we should not have two threads on this same subject.

That does make your point clearer, and I agree. NOTHING can be done without objective proof that the people who own that land have forfeit their right to it through a criminal breach of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we so mealy mouthed that all it takes for us to welch on our ideals of property rights and freedom of expression is that some religious wing nuts try to laugh at us?

This is a good point. If it is proven with a standard of objectivity that these people are in any way funded by terrorist organizations, of that they pose an objective threat in any way, than the mosque should be stopped using objective law. Note the word objective used in repitition, any appeals to emotionalism, hurt feelings or xenophobia, need to be rejected out of hand, and its as simple as that. I hope that theres a team of investigators and lawyers out there doing everything they can to find a legal way to stop this thing, that wont set a freedom destroying precedent in the process. I think is disgusting, but thats not enough. I think a lot of things are disgusting.

j..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might I remind everyone that the response to the attack has effectively destroyed the ability of 1 fundamentalist Islamic state to ever conduct an operation like that again, and has led to the destruction of another Islamic totalitarian state. They aren't stronger. They are weaker

I contest this allegation. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq were behind the 9/11 attack, they were all from Saudi Arabia which is a bigger state sponsor of terrorism than Iraq could ever dream to be, and American citizens are dying for the sole purpose of nation building experiments. Osama bin Laden is part of Al Qaeda, he is most likely still alive and it is doubtful he will ever be found. Al Qaeda is support multi-nationally as well as is largely stateless, we have bolstered their numbers, we have not made a permanent dent in the organization.

Afghanistan is hardly destroyed and the numbers of our designated enemy there have actually grown in number and we are ultimately failing to control the region, when we do eventually leave Afghanistan we will leave with a white flag (not literally, but in all respects that really matter), I would all but guarantee this. In fact our presence in Afghanistan, as I said before regarding the bolstering of their numbers, is causing large amounts of resentment among the Afghanistan population, overall they see us as invaders and nothing more. We have an abhorrent foreign policy and military strategy when it comes to dealing with this threat and it is having the opposite result from what we want.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to be excused for not responding directly to the other posters in this topic on some issues I'll be hitting on here, thanks in advance.

1.Proponents of Objectivism should not artificially prevent the erection of a mosque if they wish to remain consistent with Objectivist Ethical Practice

Rand clearly outlined that the function of a state for a rational society is merely an enforced guarantee on rights, support of state intervention in matters of business, zoning, and property rights is decidedly amoral in terms of Objectivist ethical practice. Whether the proponents of the religion are extremist or otherwise is of no concern to the state nor you, the primary concern of the state is safety, your primary concern as a practicing Objectivist should be virtue, the sustenance of your status as a rational and free willed individual, to the benefit of your general well being. To advocate unfair business practice, that is the denial of access to property that is being sold by the state on grounds of religious difference, is in direct contradiction with the principals of laissez faire markets and therefore the Objectivist ethos.

2. The reference to Muslims as being "At fault." for the 9/11 terrorist attacks is either fallacious or a poorly worded argument.

The proposition, "Muslim's are at fault for 9/11." presumes the guilt of all Muslims throughout the world in regards to said attack. Evidently this is silly and an unwarranted accusation, many, in fact most Muslims do not practice what we refer to as extremism. The Muslim academic community has nearly been completely united in denouncing the actions of terroristic groups claiming to adhere to the religion. The interpretation of how (and in some cases if) Sharia Law should be enforced varies to the point of rendering any generalization useless in meaningful discourse.

3. There are no direct links to Saudi Arabia masterminding campaigns of terror against the U.S, and they in fact are at direct odds with the majority of terroristic groups due to it's pro-U.S policy.

Self explanatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...