[sandorski]

CKA_Patriot CKA_Patriot:

sandorski: I know that they want to build a mosque there; I'm trying to say that it wouldn't feel or be right because of the people that died there. I'm not saying you don't care but whatever. This topic wasn't meant for us to fight with each other.

DerbyX: If you go back far enough in the sands of time you'll see that the Muslims and Americans have been going back and forth with this. It started in WWI and now its happening again. I don't want to start a fight over this, but bloodshed has happened everywhere. and sadly its not going to stop.

Final comment.

No one "Died" there. Why should Americans be held accountable for the Actions of Foreigners?

If you don't want to called a Bigot, don't act like a Bigot.

[Khar]

Considering how drastically the world stage changed with the events of what happened a short distance away in the name of a religion which this community center is being built for, I can see why people say they would prefer to see some more sensitivity. The definition you are using, sandorski, of "there" is nebulous -- perhaps no one died there, but that building was within the area which blew into a frenzy almost 9 years ago exactly. Arguing over the fact that no people died right in that spot makes about as much sense as arguing about how far from Ground Zero the potential Community Center should be built -- the entire region was effected by that controversy. Given ASLPlease was likely discussing the region as a whole, taking "there" and shoving it into a potential tangential role mislabels what he may have actually said.

Make no mistakes, I agree entirely that it is within their rights to construct the GZ Muslim Community Center and personally have no real opinion worth getting into the debate on (I have no problem with the construction of this community center from a personal point of view), but the realities behind this situation have long since been marginalized in prominent media discussion. While I do not support nor fight against the idea of this community center being constructed, it would by silly of me to close my mind to the thoughts and concerns of others around me, as I am hardly a paragon of virtue standing upon a pillar of righteousness (more a square of boredom standing on a stool of indecision). Hence, I'm taking an opportunity here to play Devil's Advocate a bit, play middle ground a bit, and mostly type out a lot of grandiose words because they look nice as they race across the screen in a blur chasing my cursor. Clearly that last point is the most important. Priorities!

People on both sides have been turning this into a black and white issue and the ardent rhetoric has reduced it to polarized points of view. Those on one side must concede it's entirely within the investor's rights, and generally those opposing or concerned about the project have. People on the other side must concede that, at some level, this is a raw issue which has sensitivity concerns, which could also generally be considered true. That many responses in major media outlets and forum discussions have degraded somewhat to the point where the latter group dances around the issues brought forth by the former group makes no sense. There are sensitivity issues, whether or not one feels they are misplaced, and these need addressing. The debate is more or less whether or not those with the wish that it be stopped should be listened to, which derived the current discussion about the supposed implacability of the Muslim backers of this project to move the project anywhere else, to the point where people like Trump are not only willing to cover their costs, but pay them extra. Admittedly, this could be due to the fact that they see little reason why they personally need to move it, as they have no known connections as far as I know to radical muslim groups or similar organizations. After all, generally when we look at religions were prefer to break them down in various levels of extremity of their devotion, from extremists to people who check off the box on the census with the hopes that whoever guards those pearly gates gets a copy should someone have such a belief. Not all Christians are anti-homosexual soldiers, and not all Muslims preach Sharia Law -- no doubt we have to look deeper than the surface "Muslim" title with this "confrontation."

Some people easily connect this to the wars which began in response to the terrorist attacks, and hence the loss of life and related costs which have come from not just the countries invading, but native lives as well to those in Afghanistan and continued problems present there. From there it's easy to connect with extremism (along with the messages it generally brings) which, unfortunately, is rather rampant in the regions from which that attack came. I'm not here to debate how tenuous those connections in that chain are, since that is horribly subjective. I have already shared my support in other threads of the ideal that we must at differentiate the level of literalism and adherence to esoteric passages present within devotees of Islam (as well as other religions) residing in the West and those who still reside in countries with predominant Muslim populations, inclusive (and perhaps especially) of those making use of Sharia Law (and got repped for it twice, now that I look at my old post). This is not just about the 9/11 attacks and those who died there, a monumental event on it's own, but the tangled situation which was in part derived from that situation in regards to fighting terror internationally and attempting to rebuild a nation which has resisted international involvement for decades continually. That discourse about that is happening in greater volume and frequency should not be ignored -- I would say the opposite, that a greater degree of discussion must occur to uncover what blind spots there are in the various points of view predominant amongst Americans, and to try and patch them up. Otherwise, I fear that topic will just keep festering.

That the perception that no negotiation is going on and there's a general unwillingness for some backers to tolerate the still raw feelings that some -- from an event seen to spark a war both Canada and the US are still involved in to what those folks against the current location -- would consider proper, only makes this issue worse. Whether it is the fault of the media, the project coordinators or those who oppose the project, at some point the idea of saying that they understand the problem and exploring the issue never made it to the front page news, and I fear that a likely culprit is the media rather than either side. This issue is largely driven by subjective sentiment resulting potentially from media ignorance, although other reasons may be possible. Essentially, people look at this now and ask why a religion which sought to renew connections with the American people so soon after the initial attacks and throughout the West on the basis of building understanding has since turned around and not relented in moving the location of the building or even in campaigning understanding of this issue which has made so many uncomfortable, even now with prominent businessmen willing to pay for the move. Are these problems based on fact? Personally, I don't know -- I've been holding anything relating to this topic at an arm's length.

Unfortunately, the fact that they are Americans seems now to be a non-issue. That matter has been thoroughly discussed and re-discussed as mentioned previously, and everyone knows that their rights and freedoms as American citizens must be upheld and they have a right to develop that property how they feel. This has long since been about the Muslim faith, and attempts to repair ties with those generally more moderate Muslims which reside in North America and the rest of the American people. As the chief man behind this center says, it has quickly developed into a discussion on extremism and the ties of moderates to those who claim to be from the same religion. Should the GZCC leaders be more sensitive to the people's feelings over that connection? I do think that religion plays a bone of contention because the terrorist group was connected mainly through their religion, as otherwise these men had come from numerable countries and related terrorist groups exist around the world under the same religious banner. While I have no doubt some bigots are taking up the cause purely out of Muslim hate, I wonder if there are people simply uncomfortable with the idea that there has no been a lot of actual back and forth discussion about this sizeable center.

If you want to preach tolerance, learn to discuss things with people instead of tossing out a label which aspires to a word count of three for the majority of your responses, sandorski. Tolerance of other people's feelings, concerns, and ideals must be taken into account, since that is basically what the debate has turned into as people rush to placate ruffled tail feathers.

'Course, just reminding, Devil's Advocate and all that jazz, and if I've gone wrong or offended someone, I really do apologize. This is just today's midnight ramble. I find when I post I usually kill a thread anyways and with a few threads on the topic already and this one spiraling sideways towards joining the ones we have, I may have to admit my attempted murder of this thread may be premeditated.

[Demian_164]

Khar Khar:

Considering how drastically the world stage changed with the events of what happened a short distance away in the name of a religion which this community center is being built for, I can see why people say they would prefer to see some more sensitivity. The definition you are using, sandorski, of "there" is nebulous -- perhaps no one died there, but that building was within the area which blew into a frenzy almost 9 years ago exactly. Arguing over the fact that no people died right in that spot makes about as much sense as arguing about how far from Ground Zero the potential Community Center should be built -- the entire region was effected by that controversy. Given ASLPlease was likely discussing the region as a whole, taking "there" and shoving it into a potential tangential role mislabels what he may have actually said.

Make no mistakes, I agree entirely that it is within their rights to construct the GZ Muslim Community Center and personally have no real opinion worth getting into the debate on (I have no problem with the construction of this community center from a personal point of view), but the realities behind this situation have long since been marginalized in prominent media discussion. While I do not support nor fight against the idea of this community center being constructed, it would by silly of me to close my mind to the thoughts and concerns of others around me, as I am hardly a paragon of virtue standing upon a pillar of righteousness (more a square of boredom standing on a stool of indecision). Hence, I'm taking an opportunity here to play Devil's Advocate a bit, play middle ground a bit, and mostly type out a lot of grandiose words because they look nice as they race across the screen in a blur chasing my cursor.

People on both sides have been turning this into a black and white issue and the ardent rhetoric has reduced it to polarized points of view. Those on one side must concede it's entirely within the investor's rights, and generally those opposing or concerned about the project have. People on the other side must concede that, at some level, this is a raw issue which has sensitivity concerns, which could also generally be considered true. That many responses in major media outlets and forum discussions have degraded somewhat to the point where the latter group dances around the issues brought forth by the former group makes no sense. There are sensitivity issues, whether or not one feels they are misplaced, and these need addressing. The debate is more or less whether or not those with the wish that it be stopped should be listened to, which derived the current discussion about the supposed implacability of the Muslim backers of this project to move the project anywhere else, to the point where people like Trump are not only willing to cover their costs, but pay them extra. Admittedly, this could be due to the fact that they see little reason why they personally need to move it, as they have no known connections as far as I know to radical muslim groups or similar organizations. After all, generally when we look at religions were prefer to break them down in various levels of extremity of their devotion, from extremists to people who check off the box on the census with the hopes that whoever guards those pearly gates gets a copy should someone have such a belief. Not all Christians are anti-homosexual soldiers, and not all Muslims preach Sharia Law -- no doubt we have to look deeper than the surface "Muslim" title with this "confrontation."

Some people easily connect this to the wars which began in response to the terrorist attacks, and hence the loss of life and related costs which have come from not just the countries invading, but native lives as well to those in Afghanistan and continued problems present there. From there it's easy to connect with extremism (along with the messages it generally brings) which, unfortunately, is rather rampant in the regions from which that attack came. I'm not here to debate how tenuous those connections in that chain are, since that is horribly subjective. I have already shared my support in other threads of the ideal that we must at differentiate the level of literalism and adherence to esoteric passages present within devotees of Islam (as well as other religions) residing in the West and those who still reside in countries with predominant Muslim populations, inclusive (and perhaps especially) of those making use of Sharia Law (and got repped for it twice, now that I look at my old post). This is not just about the 9/11 attacks and those who died there, a monumental event on it's own, but the tangled situation which was in part derived from that situation in regards to fighting terror internationally and attempting to rebuild a nation which has resisted international involvement for decades continually. That discourse about that is happening in greater volume and frequency should not be ignored -- I would say the opposite, that a greater degree of discussion must occur to uncover what blind spots there are in the various points of view predominant amongst Americans, and to try and patch them up. Otherwise, I fear that topic will just keep festering.

That the perception that no negotiation is going on and there's a general unwillingness for some backers to tolerate the still raw feelings that some -- from an event seen to spark a war both Canada and the US are still involved in to what those folks against the current location -- would consider proper, only makes this issue worse. Whether it is the fault of the media, the project coordinators or those who oppose the project, at some point the idea of saying that they understand the problem and exploring the issue never made it to the front page news, and I fear that a likely culprit is the media rather than either side. This issue is largely driven by subjective sentiment resulting potentially from media ignorance, although other reasons may be possible. Essentially, people look at this now and ask why a religion which sought to renew connections with the American people so soon after the initial attacks and throughout the West on the basis of building understanding has since turned around and not relented in moving the location of the building or even in campaigning understanding of this issue which has made so many uncomfortable, even now with prominent businessmen willing to pay for the move. Are these problems based on fact? Personally, I don't know -- I've been holding anything relating to this topic at an arm's length.

Unfortunately, the fact that they are Americans seems now to be a non-issue. That matter has been thoroughly discussed and re-discussed as mentioned previously, and everyone knows that their rights and freedoms as American citizens must be upheld and they have a right to develop that property how they feel. This has long since been about the Muslim faith, and attempts to repair ties with those generally more moderate Muslims which reside in North America and the rest of the American people. As the chief man behind this center says, it has quickly developed into a discussion on extremism and the ties of moderates to those who claim to be from the same religion. Should the GZCC leaders be more sensitive to the people's feelings over that connection? I do think that religion plays a bone of contention because the terrorist group was connected mainly through their religion, as otherwise these men had come from numerable countries and related terrorist groups exist around the world under the same religious banner. While I have no doubt some bigots are taking up the cause purely out of Muslim hate, I wonder if there are people simply uncomfortable with the idea that there has no been a lot of actual back and forth discussion about this sizeable center.

If you want to preach tolerance, learn to discuss things with people instead of tossing out a label which aspires to a word count of three for the majority of your responses, sandorski. Tolerance of other people's feelings, concerns, and ideals must be taken into account, since that is basically what the debate has turned into as people rush to placate ruffled tail feathers.

'Course, just reminding, Devil's Advocate and all that jazz, and if I've gone wrong or offended someone, I really do apologize. This is just today's midnight ramble. I find when I post I usually kill a thread anyways.

too long.

[ShepherdsDog]

This dumbass[Trump] can't manage his hair or afford a decent rug, how the hell does he plan on being a white knight? It'll likely turn into a white elephant.

[Tricks]

I see where both sides come from, smarter to not build it because of the inevitable backlash.

[sandorski]

Khar Khar:

Considering how drastically the world stage changed with the events of what happened a short distance away in the name of a religion which this community center is being built for, I can see why people say they would prefer to see some more sensitivity. The definition you are using, sandorski, of "there" is nebulous -- perhaps no one died there, but that building was within the area which blew into a frenzy almost 9 years ago exactly. Arguing over the fact that no people died right in that spot makes about as much sense as arguing about how far from Ground Zero the potential Community Center should be built -- the entire region was effected by that controversy. Given ASLPlease was likely discussing the region as a whole, taking "there" and shoving it into a potential tangential role mislabels what he may have actually said.

Make no mistakes, I agree entirely that it is within their rights to construct the GZ Muslim Community Center and personally have no real opinion worth getting into the debate on (I have no problem with the construction of this community center from a personal point of view), but the realities behind this situation have long since been marginalized in prominent media discussion. While I do not support nor fight against the idea of this community center being constructed, it would by silly of me to close my mind to the thoughts and concerns of others around me, as I am hardly a paragon of virtue standing upon a pillar of righteousness (more a square of boredom standing on a stool of indecision). Hence, I'm taking an opportunity here to play Devil's Advocate a bit, play middle ground a bit, and mostly type out a lot of grandiose words because they look nice as they race across the screen in a blur chasing my cursor. Clearly that last point is the most important. Priorities!

People on both sides have been turning this into a black and white issue and the ardent rhetoric has reduced it to polarized points of view. Those on one side must concede it's entirely within the investor's rights, and generally those opposing or concerned about the project have. People on the other side must concede that, at some level, this is a raw issue which has sensitivity concerns, which could also generally be considered true. That many responses in major media outlets and forum discussions have degraded somewhat to the point where the latter group dances around the issues brought forth by the former group makes no sense. There are sensitivity issues, whether or not one feels they are misplaced, and these need addressing. The debate is more or less whether or not those with the wish that it be stopped should be listened to, which derived the current discussion about the supposed implacability of the Muslim backers of this project to move the project anywhere else, to the point where people like Trump are not only willing to cover their costs, but pay them extra. Admittedly, this could be due to the fact that they see little reason why they personally need to move it, as they have no known connections as far as I know to radical muslim groups or similar organizations. After all, generally when we look at religions were prefer to break them down in various levels of extremity of their devotion, from extremists to people who check off the box on the census with the hopes that whoever guards those pearly gates gets a copy should someone have such a belief. Not all Christians are anti-homosexual soldiers, and not all Muslims preach Sharia Law -- no doubt we have to look deeper than the surface "Muslim" title with this "confrontation."

Some people easily connect this to the wars which began in response to the terrorist attacks, and hence the loss of life and related costs which have come from not just the countries invading, but native lives as well to those in Afghanistan and continued problems present there. From there it's easy to connect with extremism (along with the messages it generally brings) which, unfortunately, is rather rampant in the regions from which that attack came. I'm not here to debate how tenuous those connections in that chain are, since that is horribly subjective. I have already shared my support in other threads of the ideal that we must at differentiate the level of literalism and adherence to esoteric passages present within devotees of Islam (as well as other religions) residing in the West and those who still reside in countries with predominant Muslim populations, inclusive (and perhaps especially) of those making use of Sharia Law (and got repped for it twice, now that I look at my old post). This is not just about the 9/11 attacks and those who died there, a monumental event on it's own, but the tangled situation which was in part derived from that situation in regards to fighting terror internationally and attempting to rebuild a nation which has resisted international involvement for decades continually. That discourse about that is happening in greater volume and frequency should not be ignored -- I would say the opposite, that a greater degree of discussion must occur to uncover what blind spots there are in the various points of view predominant amongst Americans, and to try and patch them up. Otherwise, I fear that topic will just keep festering.

That the perception that no negotiation is going on and there's a general unwillingness for some backers to tolerate the still raw feelings that some -- from an event seen to spark a war both Canada and the US are still involved in to what those folks against the current location -- would consider proper, only makes this issue worse. Whether it is the fault of the media, the project coordinators or those who oppose the project, at some point the idea of saying that they understand the problem and exploring the issue never made it to the front page news, and I fear that a likely culprit is the media rather than either side. This issue is largely driven by subjective sentiment resulting potentially from media ignorance, although other reasons may be possible. Essentially, people look at this now and ask why a religion which sought to renew connections with the American people so soon after the initial attacks and throughout the West on the basis of building understanding has since turned around and not relented in moving the location of the building or even in campaigning understanding of this issue which has made so many uncomfortable, even now with prominent businessmen willing to pay for the move. Are these problems based on fact? Personally, I don't know -- I've been holding anything relating to this topic at an arm's length.

Unfortunately, the fact that they are Americans seems now to be a non-issue. That matter has been thoroughly discussed and re-discussed as mentioned previously, and everyone knows that their rights and freedoms as American citizens must be upheld and they have a right to develop that property how they feel. This has long since been about the Muslim faith, and attempts to repair ties with those generally more moderate Muslims which reside in North America and the rest of the American people. As the chief man behind this center says, it has quickly developed into a discussion on extremism and the ties of moderates to those who claim to be from the same religion. Should the GZCC leaders be more sensitive to the people's feelings over that connection? I do think that religion plays a bone of contention because the terrorist group was connected mainly through their religion, as otherwise these men had come from numerable countries and related terrorist groups exist around the world under the same religious banner. While I have no doubt some bigots are taking up the cause purely out of Muslim hate, I wonder if there are people simply uncomfortable with the idea that there has no been a lot of actual back and forth discussion about this sizeable center.

If you want to preach tolerance, learn to discuss things with people instead of tossing out a label which aspires to a word count of three for the majority of your responses, sandorski. Tolerance of other people's feelings, concerns, and ideals must be taken into account, since that is basically what the debate has turned into as people rush to placate ruffled tail feathers.

'Course, just reminding, Devil's Advocate and all that jazz, and if I've gone wrong or offended someone, I really do apologize. This is just today's midnight ramble. I find when I post I usually kill a thread anyways and with a few threads on the topic already and this one spiraling sideways towards joining the ones we have, I may have to admit my attempted murder of this thread may be premeditated.

Didn't read that it. This controversy is stupid. Sorry that you wasted so much on stupidity.

[EyeBrock]

Demian_164 Demian_164:

Khar Khar:

Considering how drastically the world stage changed with the events of what happened a short distance away in the name of a religion which this community center is being built for, I can see why people say they would prefer to see some more sensitivity. The definition you are using, sandorski, of "there" is nebulous -- perhaps no one died there, but that building was within the area which blew into a frenzy almost 9 years ago exactly. Arguing over the fact that no people died right in that spot makes about as much sense as arguing about how far from Ground Zero the potential Community Center should be built -- the entire region was effected by that controversy. Given ASLPlease was likely discussing the region as a whole, taking "there" and shoving it into a potential tangential role mislabels what he may have actually said.

Make no mistakes, I agree entirely that it is within their rights to construct the GZ Muslim Community Center and personally have no real opinion worth getting into the debate on (I have no problem with the construction of this community center from a personal point of view), but the realities behind this situation have long since been marginalized in prominent media discussion. While I do not support nor fight against the idea of this community center being constructed, it would by silly of me to close my mind to the thoughts and concerns of others around me, as I am hardly a paragon of virtue standing upon a pillar of righteousness (more a square of boredom standing on a stool of indecision). Hence, I'm taking an opportunity here to play Devil's Advocate a bit, play middle ground a bit, and mostly type out a lot of grandiose words because they look nice as they race across the screen in a blur chasing my cursor.

People on both sides have been turning this into a black and white issue and the ardent rhetoric has reduced it to polarized points of view. Those on one side must concede it's entirely within the investor's rights, and generally those opposing or concerned about the project have. People on the other side must concede that, at some level, this is a raw issue which has sensitivity concerns, which could also generally be considered true. That many responses in major media outlets and forum discussions have degraded somewhat to the point where the latter group dances around the issues brought forth by the former group makes no sense. There are sensitivity issues, whether or not one feels they are misplaced, and these need addressing. The debate is more or less whether or not those with the wish that it be stopped should be listened to, which derived the current discussion about the supposed implacability of the Muslim backers of this project to move the project anywhere else, to the point where people like Trump are not only willing to cover their costs, but pay them extra. Admittedly, this could be due to the fact that they see little reason why they personally need to move it, as they have no known connections as far as I know to radical muslim groups or similar organizations. After all, generally when we look at religions were prefer to break them down in various levels of extremity of their devotion, from extremists to people who check off the box on the census with the hopes that whoever guards those pearly gates gets a copy should someone have such a belief. Not all Christians are anti-homosexual soldiers, and not all Muslims preach Sharia Law -- no doubt we have to look deeper than the surface "Muslim" title with this "confrontation."

Some people easily connect this to the wars which began in response to the terrorist attacks, and hence the loss of life and related costs which have come from not just the countries invading, but native lives as well to those in Afghanistan and continued problems present there. From there it's easy to connect with extremism (along with the messages it generally brings) which, unfortunately, is rather rampant in the regions from which that attack came. I'm not here to debate how tenuous those connections in that chain are, since that is horribly subjective. I have already shared my support in other threads of the ideal that we must at differentiate the level of literalism and adherence to esoteric passages present within devotees of Islam (as well as other religions) residing in the West and those who still reside in countries with predominant Muslim populations, inclusive (and perhaps especially) of those making use of Sharia Law (and got repped for it twice, now that I look at my old post). This is not just about the 9/11 attacks and those who died there, a monumental event on it's own, but the tangled situation which was in part derived from that situation in regards to fighting terror internationally and attempting to rebuild a nation which has resisted international involvement for decades continually. That discourse about that is happening in greater volume and frequency should not be ignored -- I would say the opposite, that a greater degree of discussion must occur to uncover what blind spots there are in the various points of view predominant amongst Americans, and to try and patch them up. Otherwise, I fear that topic will just keep festering.

That the perception that no negotiation is going on and there's a general unwillingness for some backers to tolerate the still raw feelings that some -- from an event seen to spark a war both Canada and the US are still involved in to what those folks against the current location -- would consider proper, only makes this issue worse. Whether it is the fault of the media, the project coordinators or those who oppose the project, at some point the idea of saying that they understand the problem and exploring the issue never made it to the front page news, and I fear that a likely culprit is the media rather than either side. This issue is largely driven by subjective sentiment resulting potentially from media ignorance, although other reasons may be possible. Essentially, people look at this now and ask why a religion which sought to renew connections with the American people so soon after the initial attacks and throughout the West on the basis of building understanding has since turned around and not relented in moving the location of the building or even in campaigning understanding of this issue which has made so many uncomfortable, even now with prominent businessmen willing to pay for the move. Are these problems based on fact? Personally, I don't know -- I've been holding anything relating to this topic at an arm's length.

Unfortunately, the fact that they are Americans seems now to be a non-issue. That matter has been thoroughly discussed and re-discussed as mentioned previously, and everyone knows that their rights and freedoms as American citizens must be upheld and they have a right to develop that property how they feel. This has long since been about the Muslim faith, and attempts to repair ties with those generally more moderate Muslims which reside in North America and the rest of the American people. As the chief man behind this center says, it has quickly developed into a discussion on extremism and the ties of moderates to those who claim to be from the same religion. Should the GZCC leaders be more sensitive to the people's feelings over that connection? I do think that religion plays a bone of contention because the terrorist group was connected mainly through their religion, as otherwise these men had come from numerable countries and related terrorist groups exist around the world under the same religious banner. While I have no doubt some bigots are taking up the cause purely out of Muslim hate, I wonder if there are people simply uncomfortable with the idea that there has no been a lot of actual back and forth discussion about this sizeable center.

If you want to preach tolerance, learn to discuss things with people instead of tossing out a label which aspires to a word count of three for the majority of your responses, sandorski. Tolerance of other people's feelings, concerns, and ideals must be taken into account, since that is basically what the debate has turned into as people rush to placate ruffled tail feathers.

'Course, just reminding, Devil's Advocate and all that jazz, and if I've gone wrong or offended someone, I really do apologize. This is just today's midnight ramble. I find when I post I usually kill a thread anyways.

too long.

It was long but well worth the read. If you ever go into politics khar you will get my vote.