Obama endorses the Ground Zero mosque

[Brant Gaede]

I liked Brant's response.

Of course your did. As usual he had no reasoning just a bald-faced assertion. But as a football fan cheering is always nice.

It was an invitation to reasoning.

I warned you about what your crappy approach to posting would lead to. It just came true regarding me.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

I liked Brant's response.

Of course your did. As usual he had no reasoning just a bald-faced assertion. But as a football fan cheering is always nice.

There is nothing like humor to show the absurdity of your opponent's position.

When states are at war, all bets are off.

So, there are no such things as war crimes?

Sure, but bombing and bulldozing the enemy's houses aren't among them.

Darrell

Edited August 25, 2010 by Darrell Hougen

[Libertarian Muslim]

Why did you conclude that it was the literal word of God?

That's a tough question. I suppose reading it and learning about the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him led me to believe that the contents of the Qur'an could only have been from God because it was so advanced for its time. So perfect and so just.

I don't just believe the video.

I take it you believe there is a lot of misrepresentation of Muslims. Why do you suppose that is? If you are right, the Muslims as a group seem to be getting singled out and persecuted. Why?

Because, right now it is convenient to blame Muslims to be able to push the globalist agenda. They'll use any chance they can..

Adonis,

Why do you believe that 9/11 and the Madrid and London bombings were the work of the CIA?

Robert Campbell

That's a good question.. I'll start a new thread explaining it..

[sjw]

When states are at war, all bets are off.

So, there are no such things as war crimes?

Sure, but bombing and bulldozing the enemy's houses aren't among them.

Darrell

You don't even know the context of whose house got bulldozed or why and you're drawing a conclusion that it's not a war crime? I guess that's the whole point of your theory of war -- you don't *need* to know the context.

So far you have completely lost this argument, by default. My argument is that the same principles that we use individually to determine justice -- individual rights -- apply at the largest scales. Your argument is for some kind of war theory that preempts this system at some point and under certain conditions, even though this system of individual rights happens to work beautifully when there are 2, 10, or 10 million people, but you nevertheless assert it breaks down when some number of people declare themselves to be in a state you call "war" -- now all rules and principles are out the window. Yet you have not given any argument about how this magical state comes about. Thus, you have failed to make any case whatsoever, and lose by default.

Here are your alternatives:

1. You can pretend you made a case for a theory of war that would trump individual rights. Brant might help by blowing a horn and cheering for you. If you do this I'll write you off as hopelessly dishonest.

2. You can wave your hands and say it's "complex" and walk off. If you do this I'll write you off as a typical mindless sheep.

3. You can use your mind, think to the best of your ability, and try to come up with some way of justifying your throwing individual rights under a bus, and then let me see if I can demolish your argument, and you and I can learn in the process.

4. You can find some theory that squarely faces the issue of why a system of individual rights should be obliterated in a time of war, and refer me to it as if it were your own, taking full responsibility for defending the ideas therein.

Shayne

[sjw]

Why did you conclude that it was the literal word of God?

That's a tough question. I suppose reading it and learning about the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him led me to believe that the contents of the Qur'an could only have been from God because it was so advanced for its time. So perfect and so just.

If you examine the history of man you will find rare men of genius popping up here and there, Issac Newton being one of the most glaringly obvious cases. That doesn't mean they are a prophet, it means they exemplify the best intellect possible to human beings, an intellect they developed by choosing to think for themselves, rather than choosing to worship another's thinking. They are the true leaders of mankind, showing by example what we all should strive for -- an independent, thinking mind, subordinate to nothing but the truth.

Shayne

[sjw]

Because, right now it is convenient to blame Muslims to be able to push the globalist agenda. They'll use any chance they can..

Isn't Rauf somehow connected to the globalists?

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

Because, right now it is convenient to blame Muslims to be able to push the globalist agenda. They'll use any chance they can..

Isn't Rauf somehow connected to the globalists?

Shayne

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ground-zero-mosque-imam-is-globalist-stooge.html

[anthony]

Why did you conclude that it was the literal word of God?

That's a tough question. I suppose reading it and learning about the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him led me to believe that the contents of the Qur'an could only have been from God because it was so advanced for its time. So perfect and so just.

If you examine the history of man you will find rare men of genius popping up here and there, Issac Newton being one of the most glaringly obvious cases. That doesn't mean they are a prophet, it means they exemplify the best intellect possible to human beings, an intellect they developed by choosing to think for themselves, rather than choosing to worship another's thinking. They are the true leaders of mankind, showing by example what we all should strive for -- an independent, thinking mind, subordinate to nothing but the truth.

Shayne

Now here is a post I can fully agree with.

Well said.

Tony

[anthony]

I've been amusing myself coming up with alternative explanations and definitions of 'bigotry'.

So far : Irrational moral certainty; prejudiced sanctimony; narcissistic reality-view; smug one-upmanship; and the rest go downhill from there...

Still, reading more of the Silber articles, I feel that despite lots of finger-wagging, and ad hominems, he does make some good points.

Depending on his reader's 'bias', he could be seen as someone who passionately pulls no punches, OR, is an angry bigot.

I believe it is possible to mistake vehemence and enthusiasm, for sanctimonious bigotry. Conversely, by the amount of labelling of others as "bigots" he does, one could say that looking into the abyss of bigotry, it is also looking back at him.

Tony

[sjw]

I've been amusing myself coming up with alternative explanations and definitions of 'bigotry'.

So far : Irrational moral certainty; prejudiced sanctimony; narcissistic reality-view; smug one-upmanship; and the rest go downhill from there...

Interesting. I once used the word "narcissism" to refer to this same idea.

I believe it is possible to mistake vehemence and enthusiasm, for sanctimonious bigotry. Conversely, by the amount of labelling of others as "bigots" he does, one could say that looking into the abyss of bigotry, it is also looking back at him.

Indeed. One can be bigoted about bigots.

Shayne

[9thdoctor]

Indeed. One can be bigoted about bigots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGGMi0fTXvA

I’m sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that.

Tom Lehrer

[sjw]

I’m sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that.

Tom Lehrer

Ironically, you just proved my point by completely missing it.

Shayne

[Darrell Hougen]

When states are at war, all bets are off.

So, there are no such things as war crimes?

Sure, but bombing and bulldozing the enemy's houses aren't among them.

Darrell

You don't even know the context of whose house got bulldozed or why and you're drawing a conclusion that it's not a war crime? I guess that's the whole point of your theory of war -- you don't *need* to know the context.

So far you have completely lost this argument, by default. My argument is that the same principles that we use individually to determine justice -- individual rights -- apply at the largest scales. Your argument is for some kind of war theory that preempts this system at some point and under certain conditions, even though this system of individual rights happens to work beautifully when there are 2, 10, or 10 million people, but you nevertheless assert it breaks down when some number of people declare themselves to be in a state you call "war" -- now all rules and principles are out the window. Yet you have not given any argument about how this magical state comes about. Thus, you have failed to make any case whatsoever, and lose by default.

Here are your alternatives:

1. You can pretend you made a case for a theory of war that would trump individual rights. Brant might help by blowing a horn and cheering for you. If you do this I'll write you off as hopelessly dishonest.

2. You can wave your hands and say it's "complex" and walk off. If you do this I'll write you off as a typical mindless sheep.

3. You can use your mind, think to the best of your ability, and try to come up with some way of justifying your throwing individual rights under a bus, and then let me see if I can demolish your argument, and you and I can learn in the process.

4. You can find some theory that squarely faces the issue of why a system of individual rights should be obliterated in a time of war, and refer me to it as if it were your own, taking full responsibility for defending the ideas therein.

Shayne

Hi Shayne,

I guess it's up to you to decide who wins and who loses. You set the standards. You set the rules and conditions for determining victory. You are the judge. I'm just a peon. We aren't just two guys having a discussion.

In principle, I agree with you. Individual rights should always be respected. Justice should always be served. People should always get what they objectively deserve from the powers that be. But, I also realize that laws are created and implemented by men and that men have limited abilities and are prone to errors. That is why I am opposed to the death penalty. That is why I support statutory rape laws. That is why I acknowledge the existence of war.

What is a state of war? It is a state of conflict that is of such dimension or ferocity that it is substantially impossible for either side to bring and end to it while protecting individual rights.

The question is whether Israel is in a state of war with the Palestinians. Clearly the conflict is not that ferocious. However, it is a large scale conflict involving at least thousands of people on each side. So, for example, in the recent flare up involving the residents of Gaza firing hundreds of Katyusha rockets into Israel, it was basically impossible for Israel to hunt down the perpetrators with their police and arrest them. Therefore, Israel responded with air strikes that, although directed at particular targets were necessarily somewhat indiscriminant.

The argument may or may not extend to bulldozing Palestinian houses. Although the West Bank Palestinians may not be shooting Katyusha rockets into Israel, they have been arming suicide bombers that periodically strike buses and other soft targets. Israel's justification for continuing to bulldoze houses is to try to force the other side to sue for peace.

On the Palestinian side, one could argue that, by building a wall, Israel has managed to stop most of the suicide bombings. Therefore, no state of war exists and the Israelis should not be violating the rights of Palestinians. I am sympathetic to that argument. However, when I say that the situation is complex, I am saying that it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a state of war exists.

I win!

Darrell

[Robert Campbell]

Of course, Imam Abdul Rauf is tight with some "globalist" elite groups.

You can be sure that anyone who likes to hold his workshops in Aspen, Colorado is used to hanging out with well-heeled power players.

But "globalism" isn't a single entity. The top management of a multinational corporation will frequently have different aims and interests from those of high-ranking bureaucrats in the UN and other transnational organizations, or those of academics on the prowl for big grant money and major political connections.

In the West, the Imam appears to prefer the company of Leftists with transnational ambitions who pretend to be anti-globalist (by "anti-globalist" all they really mean is anti-corporate).

So I'm not surprised that Prison Planet is tying him in with "global" elites.

However, the author of the Prison Planet piece seems to grandly exaggerating the depth of Imam Rauf's financial backing. From what I've read, his consortium hasn't even bought the second abandoned building they will need for their 15-story Cordoba project. And his wife Daisy Khan's WISE project bagged 1 million euros from the Dutch government, but that amount appears to be going to cover WISE/ASMA/Cordoba Initiative's joint operating expenses for 3 years. Two previous attempts to build a "cultural center" in other parts of Manhattan failed because the Imam and his crew couldn't raise enough money. There's no assurance they'll be able to come up with it this time around.

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

Hi Shayne,

I guess it's up to you to decide who wins and who loses. You set the standards. You set the rules and conditions for determining victory. You are the judge. I'm just a peon. We aren't just two guys having a discussion.

Now you're blaming the messenger. Look, you can try to refute my standards for this debate. You won't be able to, but you can try.

In principle, I agree with you.

And in practice, you don't. But, the moral is the practical, right? Or perhaps you reject that too, even though Ayn Rand said it? That would put a whole new spin on this debate, I have been assuming you accepted Rand's fundamental views on principles and ethics. Hence I am arguing. If I had known you were a pragmatist, I probably wouldn't have bothered. Are you a pragmatist? If we were to argue, should we be arguing about whether principles really work or not instead of arguing about foreign policy?

Shayne

[Libertarian Muslim]

Because, right now it is convenient to blame Muslims to be able to push the globalist agenda. They'll use any chance they can..

Isn't Rauf somehow connected to the globalists?

Shayne

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ground-zero-mosque-imam-is-globalist-stooge.html

I called into the Alex Jones show a couple of days ago and discussed this article.. I think Steve Watson jumped the gun on it majorly and instead of proper research he just connected dots and jumped to conclusions without even seeking comments from the Imam which he should have done.

I don't believe he's a Globalist Stooge, I went to the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow conference in 2009 in Qatar and saw the work of Imam Feisal.. He's not at all like that. Sure, he has done interfaith outreach to the CFR but that is in the interests of the Muslim community, to ensure that our religion isn't misinterpreted by all.

In addition to that, I called the American Society for Muslim Advancement and they told me to send an email through detailing the concerns of the article so that Imam Feisal can address the issue when he comes back from overseas. I will also try and get Imam Feisal to appear on the Alex Jones show for an interview.

Alex Jones stated on air if he was wrong about it then, he'll make an apology.

[Selene]

Folks:

Its tax exempt status is as a church. Apparently, as you can see by the link below, asset amounts and income amount are not required to be disclosed.

http://www.taxexemptworld.com/organization.asp?tn=150078

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

I don't believe he's a Globalist Stooge, I went to the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow conference in 2009 in Qatar and saw the work of Imam Feisal.. He's not at all like that. Sure, he has done interfaith outreach to the CFR but that is in the interests of the Muslim community, to ensure that our religion isn't misinterpreted by all.

Adonis,

As I noted, there's more than one kind of "globalist."

And how sure are you that what Imam Abdul Rauf says in Aspen will match up with what he says in Doha?

In any event, telling Barack Obama that he ought to defer to the doctrine of velayat-e-faqih is an odd way "to ensure that our religion isn't misinterpeted by all."

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/100826_nazification.htm

If Objectivists are not completely forgotten, history will remember that many of them only hastened the demise of America by their implicit support of the radicalization of the Federal Government.

Shayne

[Neil Parille]

Here is a good discussion of the Mosque question from a Catholic perspective --

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/cordoba-house

-Neil Parille

[Selene]

In a prior post in this thread, Adonis stated:

"The Islamic Community Center known as Cordoba House is a 13 story building. The fact is that only two floors, the two top floors are going to be a Masjid where as the rest of the other 11 floors will be a community center that includes sports facilities, swimming pools, culinary schools, lecture theatres and even a memorial to the victims of 9/11, of which there were many Muslims who both worked in the WTC complex or were rescue workers.

It is a place where all people will be welcome, not only Muslims.. Just as a YMCA is open to all."

FYI:

This is the link to the Community Center at Park 51.

http://www.park51.org/faq.htm

Adam

[Darrell Hougen]

Hi Shayne,

I guess it's up to you to decide who wins and who loses. You set the standards. You set the rules and conditions for determining victory. You are the judge. I'm just a peon. We aren't just two guys having a discussion.

Now you're blaming the messenger. Look, you can try to refute my standards for this debate. You won't be able to, but you can try.

You haven't delivered any message. You're simply trying to box me in so that you can declare victory. I'm simply not willing to play your games.

In principle, I agree with you.

And in practice, you don't. But, the moral is the practical, right? Or perhaps you reject that too, even though Ayn Rand said it? That would put a whole new spin on this debate, I have been assuming you accepted Rand's fundamental views on principles and ethics. Hence I am arguing. If I had known you were a pragmatist, I probably wouldn't have bothered. Are you a pragmatist? If we were to argue, should we be arguing about whether principles really work or not instead of arguing about foreign policy?

Shayne

No, I'm not a pragmatist. Principle and practice are in perfect harmony. Again, that is an ad hominem argument. Whether I am a pragmatist or not (which I'm not) is completely irrelevant to the validity of my points which you have again failed to address. I'm beginning to wonder whether you know any other form of argument.

You're confusing being principled with wishful thinking. A principled person would oppose theft, for example, and exert a reasonable amount of effort to stop it and see that thieves go to prison in practice. Principle and practice are in harmony. But, it would be wishful thinking to suppose that every thief would be caught and serve prison time. Being principled is not inconsistent with the notion that people have a limited ability to ensure justice in practice. Principle is not inconsistent with practicality.

We should not confuse pragmatism with practicality. In American political history, pragmatism generally refers to the lack of any political principles and, in fact, most often, a sympathy with the principles of those on the left. A pragmatist generally holds the same ethical values as a someone that is left of center, but distinguishes himself from those on left by being more practical. That is, for example, he might like to feed everyone by taxing the rich, but knows that there is limit to how much the rich can be taxed before it causes serious damage to the economy. A principled opponent to taxing the rich opposes such taxation because he considers such taxation to be theft.

Stated another way, both the lefty and the pragmatist agree with the morality of need. They believe that if someone needs something, then that is a justification for taking it from someone else. The pragmatist is just more practical about it. A true libertarian or liberal (in the traditional sense) rejects the morality of need (which is really the politics of need) and replaces it with a politics based on freedom and individual rights which, in turn, is based on the morality of rational self interest.

I should add that pragmatism is not all bad. It has provided a moderating influence that has retarded the rate of decline of this society into socialism which is the end goal of the left. However, in the long run, it cannot reverse the decline because it is based on agreement with the underlying principles of socialism. The only way to reverse the decline and set this society (or any society) on a path towards a truly moral and free society is to reject the morality of need and replace it with a morality of rational self interest (or rational individualism).

Darrell

[BaalChatzaf]

In a prior post in this thread, Adonis stated:

"The Islamic Community Center known as Cordoba House is a 13 story building. The fact is that only two floors, the two top floors are going to be a Masjid where as the rest of the other 11 floors will be a community center that includes sports facilities, swimming pools, culinary schools, lecture theatres and even a memorial to the victims of 9/11, of which there were many Muslims who both worked in the WTC complex or were rescue workers.

It is a place where all people will be welcome, not only Muslims.. Just as a YMCA is open to all."

FYI:

This is the link to the Community Center at Park 51.

http://www.park51.org/faq.htm

Adam

For some reason this reminds me of a Woody Allen schtick: Woody says: The lions shall lie down with the lamb and the lamb shall be very nervous.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

You haven't delivered any message. You're simply trying to box me in so that you can declare victory. I'm simply not willing to play your games.

Your choice, Darrell, is to:

1. Disagree with the terms of the debate I have identified and offer your new terms.

2. Accept the terms of debate.

You can pretend to yourself that I'm playing games (presumably in order to puff up a self-esteem you consider deficient to the task of debating so clever a debater as me), but then continuing to debate someone you consider as just playing games is just plain hypocritical and irrational.

Make up your mind, and then we can continue. I have no interest in reading the rest of what you wrote until you do.

Shayne

[sjw]

Pat Condell: