How tolerant are we?

[MorningGlory]

My position is moreso that incendiary speech about topics that people get very emotional about, especially like these ones can cause violence. When people have problems like mental illness or are intoxicated, those act as magnifiers for personal prejudices. I mean, people have the freedom to say pretty much whatever they want, and they have the right to do so. Where the line could be drawn for prohibiting free speech is a pretty complicated issue, and if people aren't violating laws regarding assault (like threatening to kill someone) or something, it should generally be allowed.

If people could talk about things like this to reach some kind of compromise without some people calling Muslims Nazis or people using far worse terms than I've used referring to people against the Mosque... Y'know, ask what is wrong, why, and how it can be solved, rather than being angry in the general direction of something, more would probably be accomplished, especially regarding 51 Park Place.

Everything you said is true and just how it should be, B.E. Now if muslims (everywhere) would cease calling Jews 'apes and pigs' and America the 'Great Satan' and, last but not least, all nonmuslims 'infidels' then we might get somewhere. Inflammatory speech is a two way street and you seem to only see the muslim end of it. That's the number one problem with being terminally PC.

[winsomebulldog]

My position is moreso that incendiary speech about topics that people get very emotional about, especially like these ones can cause violence. When people have problems like mental illness or are intoxicated, those act as magnifiers for personal prejudices. I mean, people have the freedom to say pretty much whatever they want, and they have the right to do so. Where the line could be drawn for prohibiting free speech is a pretty complicated issue, and if people aren't violating laws regarding assault (like threatening to kill someone) or something, it should generally be allowed.

If people could talk about things like this to reach some kind of compromise without some people calling Muslims Nazis or people using far worse terms than I've used referring to people against the Mosque... Y'know, ask what is wrong, why, and how it can be solved, rather than being angry in the general direction of something, more would probably be accomplished, especially regarding 51 Park Place.

Everything you said is true and just how it should be, B.E. Now if muslims (everywhere) would cease calling Jews 'apes and pigs' and America the 'Great Satan' and, last but not least, all nonmuslims 'infidels' then we might get somewhere. Inflammatory speech is a two way street and you seem to only see the muslim end of it. That's the number one problem with being terminally PC.

[nebula]

Burning Ember -

What do you believe Jesus' opinion on the mosque is?

[Guest shiloh357]

My position is moreso that incendiary speech about topics that people get very emotional about, especially like these ones can cause violence.

1. Asking the Muslim Imam to practice tolerance and respect to the 9/11 families is not incendiary speech.

2. Those on the radical fringe who are using incendiary speech have to be separated from the majority that simply opposes the proposed location and are not using such speech. You MUST draw a moral distinction between the two. Your refusal to do so demonstrates that your motives are not pure and that you lack moral integrity.

When people have problems like mental illness or are intoxicated, those act as magnifiers for personal prejudices.

That may be true, but that still does not give YOU the right to lay responsibility for that man's actions at the feet of every one who opposes the mosque.

I mean, people have the freedom to say pretty much whatever they want, and they have the right to do so. Where the line could be drawn for prohibiting free speech is a pretty complicated issue, and if people aren't violating laws regarding assault (like threatening to kill someone) or something, it should generally be allowed.

It is not that complicated at all, unless you are liberal who tends to muddy the waters on moral issues. One is not allowed to verbally threaten anyone with bodily harm or make them fear for their life. One is not allowed to commit slander or libel. One is not allowed to verbally impersonate law enforcement over the phone or Internet. One is not allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded, public or private area when no threat of fire exists. One is not allowed to lie under oath.

It is not complicated at all.

If people could talk about things like this to reach some kind of compromise without some people calling Muslims Nazis or people using far worse terms than I've used referring to people against the Mosque...

Again, you are acting like that is the overall sentiment of anone who opposes the mosque that is an unfair over-generalized attempt at painting an entire group with a broad brush.

Misrepresenting us as "anti-Muslim" or bigoted or as Islamophobic some of those who support is as unhelpful as anything said by the radical fringe on the oppposing side, but yet, you don't really complain about that incendiary language, as it refelects what you think. Yet, not ONE of the 9/11 families that do not support the mosque have used any incendiary language against Muslims. Not one politician that does not support the mosque has used such incendiary language. No one who has been interviewd that does not support the mosque that I have seen, has made this about hating Muslims.

You cannot offer a substantive argument about our position as it really is, so you have to paint it as being anti-Muslim just so you have something to complain about. You have manufactured a crisis that does not exist, and you have put the lie in our mouths and argued against it, because if you had to deal with the simple request to choose a different location, such a requqest, on its own, cannot be viewed as hateful or bigoted.

Asking these Muslims to be sensitive to the feelings of the 9/11 families is not bigotry, it is not anti-Muslim and is not Islamophobia. It is people like you who first inserted those terms into the discussion and you did so unfairly and dishonestly.

Y'know, ask what is wrong, why, and how it can be solved, rather than being angry in the general direction of something, more would probably be accomplished, especially regarding 51 Park Place.

If they would choose a different location, the problem would be solved and the current location could still be used as a mosque. The problem is that people like you see tolerance as a one-way-street, and so as far you are concerned, any compromise will have to be one-sided, with the Muslims giving nothing, but everyone else having to make all of the concessions.

[JustinM]

I think our patience is wearing thin on this topic and other liberal causes. Providing a one sided argument is inconclusive, BE, you undermine your own credibility on this forum when you do that.

People can't take you seriously and you put your own motives in question. Either be more open and fair-minded in the future or you may find yourself marginalized, at least by me, maybe others as well.

I hear a lot of inciting rhetoric against the TEA Party and Conservative Christians in this country, rarely do I find that same rhetoric come from those groups. We all know that there are bad apples on both sides of the political spectrum. As fair-minded and honest Christians, we try our best not to pass judgement on a particular organization based on the actions of a few overzealous simpletons.

Right now BE, you are coming off as a pure ideologue, with nothing of substance to add to the conversation. I would try to be more fair-minded in the future.

We now know that the assailant in the assault was a pro-mosque supporter and volunteer. Does that mean we are to call all pro-mosque supporters violent psychopaths, or do we say that the assailant had severe issues and his drunkeness compounded with his mental problems led to a violent assault on a muslim.

[MorningGlory]

I think our patience is wearing thin on this topic and other liberal causes. Providing a one sided argument is inconclusive, BE, you undermine your own credibility on this forum when you do that.

People can't take you seriously and you put your own motives in question. Either be more open and fair-minded in the future or you may find yourself marginalized, at least by me, maybe others as well.

I hear a lot of inciting rhetoric against the TEA Party and Conservative Christians in this country, rarely do I find that same rhetoric come from those groups. We all know that there are bad apples on both sides of the political spectrum. As fair-minded and honest Christians, we try our best not to pass judgement on a particular organization based on the actions of a few overzealous simpletons.

Right now BE, you are coming off as a pure ideologue, with nothing of substance to add to the conversation. I would try to be more fair-minded in the future.

We now know that the assailant in the assault was a pro-mosque supporter and volunteer. Does that mean we are to call all pro-mosque supporters violent psychopaths, or do we say that the assailant had severe issues and his drunkeness compounded with his mental problems led to a violent assault on a muslim.

Pure idealogue is correct since the rhetoric is coming from someone outside the U.S. A non-american simply cannot understand how WE feel about this and should not lecture us as to what we should or should not do since they have no emotional investment in 9/11. I venture that this mosque had NOTHING to do with this attack at all. Maybe the next time a Canadian commits a crime in the U.S. (rare, but it happens!) we should then label all Canadians as anti-american and racist. Can you imagine the howling from the PC crowd if we did that? Again....a one-way street.

[wyguy]

My position is moreso that incendiary speech about topics that people get very emotional about, especially like these ones can cause violence. When people have problems like mental illness or are intoxicated, those act as magnifiers for personal prejudices. I mean, people have the freedom to say pretty much whatever they want, and they have the right to do so. Where the line could be drawn for prohibiting free speech is a pretty complicated issue, and if people aren't violating laws regarding assault (like threatening to kill someone) or something, it should generally be allowed.

If people could talk about things like this to reach some kind of compromise without some people calling Muslims Nazis or people using far worse terms than I've used referring to people against the Mosque... Y'know, ask what is wrong, why, and how it can be solved, rather than being angry in the general direction of something, more would probably be accomplished, especially regarding 51 Park Place.

Everything you said is true and just how it should be, B.E. Now if muslims (everywhere) would cease calling Jews 'apes and pigs' and America the 'Great Satan' and, last but not least, all nonmuslims 'infidels' then we might get somewhere. Inflammatory speech is a two way street and you seem to only see the muslim end of it. That's the number one problem with being terminally PC.

Amen! Just where ARE all of these "moderate" muslims we all keep hearing about? By watching the mainstream nightly news, you would think you couldn't walk down the street without tripping over one!

Aside from a few "token" ones they trot out every now and again, I don't see these "millions of moderate peace loving muslims" denouncing Hamas, Bin Ladin, anti-semitism, Hezbullah, or anything else these liberal newscasters claim they do.

[Jedi4Yahweh]

Amen! Just where ARE all of these "moderate" muslims we all keep hearing about? By watching the mainstream nightly news, you would think you couldn't walk down the street without tripping over one!

That is what I keep asking myself since 911. I think the differance is moderate muslims are the one that fund and support terrorist but not actually commit the atrocities.

[MorningGlory]

Amen! Just where ARE all of these "moderate" muslims we all keep hearing about? By watching the mainstream nightly news, you would think you couldn't walk down the street without tripping over one!

That is what I keep asking myself since 911. I think the differance is moderate muslims are the one that fund and support terrorist but not actually commit the atrocities.

I'd like to hand you a trophy of some kind, Jedi, if I could. You've have hit the islamic nail right on it's terrorist head.

[MorningGlory]

I think our patience is wearing thin on this topic and other liberal causes. Providing a one sided argument is inconclusive, BE, you undermine your own credibility on this forum when you do that.

People can't take you seriously and you put your own motives in question. Either be more open and fair-minded in the future or you may find yourself marginalized, at least by me, maybe others as well.

I hear a lot of inciting rhetoric against the TEA Party and Conservative Christians in this country, rarely do I find that same rhetoric come from those groups. We all know that there are bad apples on both sides of the political spectrum. As fair-minded and honest Christians, we try our best not to pass judgement on a particular organization based on the actions of a few overzealous simpletons.

Right now BE, you are coming off as a pure ideologue, with nothing of substance to add to the conversation. I would try to be more fair-minded in the future.

We now know that the assailant in the assault was a pro-mosque supporter and volunteer. Does that mean we are to call all pro-mosque supporters violent psychopaths, or do we say that the assailant had severe issues and his drunkeness compounded with his mental problems led to a violent assault on a muslim.

I mostly agree with the above. Other than the 'liberal causes' part. This is an islamic cause and they are about as far away from 'liberal' as you can get.