Dear Harry Reid...

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby David R. Modny » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:26 am

Jeff,

This got totally out of hand tonight. You're my friend, and I want to apologize for the tone of some my posts. You didn't deserve that. This is obviously a passionate subject, and one where we'll just have to agree to disagree. I stand by my basic premise...just not the spirit in which I delivered it. I must've taken my cranky medicine today. We obviously both stand together in knowing that bigotry, fear and hate-mongering of any sort is wrong. That's still the most important thing!


Sincerely,
Dave

User avatar
Jeff T.
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:28 am
Location: Blueberry Hill

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby Jeff T. » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:17 am

David R. Modny wrote:Jeff,

This got totally out of hand tonight. You're my friend, and I want to apologize for the tone of some my posts. You didn't deserve that. This is obviously a passionate subject, and one where we'll just have to agree to disagree. I stand by my basic premise...just not the spirit in which I delivered it. I must've taken my cranky medicine today. We obviously both stand together in knowing that bigotry, fear and hate-mongering of any sort is wrong. That's still the most important thing!


Sincerely,
Dave


David:

I should also apologize for trying to post in a way that ruffled feathers. I knew that even while posting that outrageous comment about appearances on Charlie Rose - it was pushing the limits of rational judgment or conversation. I was just trying to take another point of view, stir up conversation and it turns out to be not always the clearest one.

I don't even think we must agree disagree because I do agree with your points made, but I also see another point of view as well. It is important that we did not end our current topic on that sour note. Thank you.

Very Best,
Jeff

David R. Modny
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 am
Location: Parma, OH

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby David R. Modny » Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:03 am

Now, that we've both come down to earth, I want to explain my position in the most basic sense. Again, this is strictly my viewpoint so, please, take it in the spirit that it is intended. It's fairly long, so stick with it if you can. For me, it's unshakeable.

I'm patently and vehemently opposed to the notion of ANY group in America that has been put under the gun or unfairly persecuted from having to justify its existence. Personally, the notion of any group being required, asked, suggested, whatever, to "sell itself" or repair its image in any way -- namely because others are uncomfortable or even filled with misinformation -- is offensive to me on so many levels. That includes suggesting that a group "give more to charity," "renounce things" and all that sort of stuff. It ties back into what I said much earlier in this thread. It implies that we as a society are defining that entire group by the acts of a few. For example, that notion again of *all* Muslims having to wear some sort of badge of shame and, as a result, being required to atone in a way that "we" see fit. The fact that a group would even feel that sort of pressure is very sad to me. It says a lot about our society, and how we flippantly and arrogantly judge as well as point the finger of blame to an entire entity.

This also ties into the concept of a persecuted group "wanting to 'repair' its image on its own." That is, we need to ask the question as a society as to *why* *we've* put them in that place to begin with that they even feel a *need* to explain themselves or makeover that image? As I said before, no law-abiding religious group in America needs to explain itself for the acts of a select or fringe few! I'll guarantee you this; if that same law-abiding, persecuted group is making commercials for themselves and having to explain that they're not "scary people," giving magazine interviews to defend themselves, electing a celebrity spokesman or making some grand and public monetary donation as some sort of society-induced penance, suggestion or requirement, it isn't because the mood struck them, or they didn't have better things to do. They've been *put* in that position to defend, and we have no business to do that!

As an example, John Demjanjuk is a member of the church I was baptized in -- a church I've probably set foot in 5 times in the last 30 years and in which I'm not even a member. Does that mean the Ukrainian Orthodox church as a whole, or any of its outlying connections (i.e. me!), be put in a position to "makeover our image" should Demjanjuk ultimately be found guilty (again!) of his alleged horrific atrocities and terror against humanity. Of course not. And, when we "ask, suggest or require" a group as an entire entity to do this, that's exactly what we're expecting -- mass atonement, apologies and defense! All so when can feel a little more secure in our self-righteous indignation. That's very wrong to me.

Instead, I believe that we need to change the *culture* of misinformation, fear and hatred. In this case, the people pointing those fingers of judgment and (often fake) umbrage need to be the recipients of any "information campaign." Additionally, those exploiting that fear and hatred need to be mercilessly exposed. *These* folks are the cause, and it's OUR responsibility as a civilized society to make sure that information gets out there -- not the group being persecuted. If the Imam wants to give an interview explaining, for example, the economic and logistic realities of building the community center, the particulars of that center, or even the history of that particular branch, that's fine. But, I strongly make that distinction from a group being "suggested," required or even guilted into mounting some sort of wholesale PR campaign as an entire entity. To me, as noted earlier, PR campaigns and makeovers conjure up images of groups having to defend themselves, apologize, prove their worthiness or prove that they're not a threat. In a nutshell, assimilate and atone while others do nothing but judge the outcome from the comfort of their homes. This includes folks who have no intention of having their opinions altered. I'm sure, Muslim-Americans -- our fellow Americans -- have better things to do with their time (and money) than spending their lives appeasing some dentist in Peoria...or some hate-mongering pastor in Florida. Again, this applies to ANY law-abiding group that is being unfairly persecuted.


Does this make any sense? :)

User avatar
Lance Hall
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:41 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Contact:

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby Lance Hall » Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:24 pm

Reasonable people can agree that the Mosque (or whatever it is) prolly should not be so close to the pit that used to be the WTC simply out of basic Human respect. I find it analagous to building a German cultural center 2 blocks from Auswich or a US Cavalry museum around the corner from Wounded Knee. It's just inappropriate. Now if the Iman wants to dedicate a section of a floor to the victims (as a document of violence and inhumanity) with memorials and stuff maybe that'll sway a lot of people. I personally DO think many in the more radical sections of the World will see it as a "Victory Mosque" and that's how it'll be recieved.

Reid and a few other Dems are right to join most Reps and say "it just should not be so close to WTC..." That's all they are saying. It's not shredding the Constitution or trampling anyone freedoms one bit. The only people getting really twisted on this issue are hard core ideologs on both sides.

User avatar
Lance Hall
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:41 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Contact:

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby Lance Hall » Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:39 pm

As far as "repairing our image with Islam"

I don't think we can ever repair our image no matter what we do because a large percentage of Islam hates us to the core. Islam is prolly the most xenophobic, exclusive, intollerant system Man has deluded himself with to date.

We Westerners are perfectly happy to live in a World with Islam on the far side of the Globe as long as it lets us buy oil. The problem is Islam is NOT happy to share the World with us. This is not right-wing rhetoric or Christian apocolyptic dogma it's fact from their own mouths.

All we can do is avoid all out war and try to undermine it's political systems from within. One of things we need to be doing is to destabilise Iran by getting the youth to revolt. There's a large underground in Iran wanting to modernise and have secular governement. This would be the first domino to fall behind the Iron Prayer Rug.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4585
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby lukpac » Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:27 am

Lance Hall wrote:It's just inappropriate.


How so? Why should an entire religion be blamed for the actions of a small number of believers (assuming they were believers)?

Lance Hall wrote:I don't think we can ever repair our image no matter what we do because a large percentage of Islam hates us to the core. Islam is prolly the most xenophobic, exclusive, intollerant system Man has deluded himself with to date.

We Westerners are perfectly happy to live in a World with Islam on the far side of the Globe as long as it lets us buy oil. The problem is Islam is NOT happy to share the World with us. This is not right-wing rhetoric or Christian apocolyptic dogma it's fact from their own mouths.


Ahem:

Man Already Knows Everything He Needs To Know About Muslims
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

Bennett Cerf
Posts: 736
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby Bennett Cerf » Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:04 am

Lance Hall wrote:Reasonable people can agree that the Mosque (or whatever it is) prolly should not be so close to the pit that used to be the WTC simply out of basic Human respect.


What is the minimum distance from ground zero at which it would not be disrespectful to have a mosque?

User avatar
Jeff T.
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:28 am
Location: Blueberry Hill

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby Jeff T. » Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:06 am

Bennett Cerf wrote:
Lance Hall wrote:Reasonable people can agree that the Mosque (or whatever it is) prolly should not be so close to the pit that used to be the WTC simply out of basic Human respect.


What is the minimum distance from ground zero at which it would not be disrespectful to have a mosque?


Well.....

There are laws the prohibit a bar from opening up within a certain distance from a church.

There are also rules requiring sex shops to not open up next to public schools and churches.

Or are these situations not rules or laws but common sense?

At any rate, I would look at it like I was opening up a shop selling Adult videos, sex toys, and a nice selection of rolling papers & colorful glass pipes. Or I was opening up a night club that stays open til 3am with the hottest dancers doing the most wild dances that hot Girls Girls Girls can legally do on stage, and that the WTC pit is a church.

I would quit concerning myself with my legal rights, and think about the WTC familles and victims, their pain and memory as the more important issue.

My gut feeling says about 1 mile away would be the closest I would erect those colorful, beautiful blinking lights advertising the most fun you'll ever have!!! Some would even say that their favorite strip club is in fact a religious shrine, and that it is their God given right to worship those girls on that platform, that they are Goddesses.

One mile from a church seems about right. One mile from the WTC I would think would also be fine.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4585
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby lukpac » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:07 pm

Rather, than try and debate each point, I'll offer this:

The proposed site of the mosque is several blocks from Ground Zero and would be surrounded by a store offering lingerie, a peep show and sex toys, at least 11 bars, and a strip club. Calling this neighborhood hallowed ground is like attaching the same nomenclature to the strip in Las Vegas. Given the current makeup of the area, a mosque would add a spiritual influence to its fabric and actually make the district more hallowed.


http://blogcritics.org/politics/article ... t-for-the/

It's also worth noting that prayer services have been occurring in the existing building for some time already.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Jeff T.
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:28 am
Location: Blueberry Hill

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby Jeff T. » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:17 pm

lukpac wrote:Rather, than try and debate each point, I'll offer this:

The proposed site of the mosque is several blocks from Ground Zero and would be surrounded by a store offering lingerie, a peep show and sex toys, at least 11 bars, and a strip club. Calling this neighborhood hallowed ground is like attaching the same nomenclature to the strip in Las Vegas. Given the current makeup of the area, a mosque would add a spiritual influence to its fabric and actually make the district more hallowed.


http://blogcritics.org/politics/article ... t-for-the/

It's also worth noting that prayer services have been occurring in the existing building for some time already.


Then yes, it is distasteful for a mosque to be set up in that that disgusting, why the hell would they even want to be there? Unless they simply wish to be close to the former WTC towers (couldn't find another affordable location that is this close), ya know for spiritual support!

So we have two good reasons for this to not be so close. 1) many feel it is insensitive, and 2) the area makes the Vegas strip look like Main Street USA at Disneyland.

Why not find a nicer clean, quieter location not so damned full of sin? How rotten and ugly it sounds huh?

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4585
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby lukpac » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:10 pm

No.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Re: Dear Harry Reid...

Postby Rspaight » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:04 am

Sounds like Manhattan to me. If you want to do anything in Manhattan, chances are you'll be in shouting range of a strip club, an OTB, a bunch of bars, and probably a mosque.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney