OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 09:15:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Legitimacy of Islam at heart of Murfreesboro mosque suit  (Read 2602 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: October 05, 2010, 04:59:36 PM »

From The Tennessean:

"What started as a zoning issue has turned into a fight over theology and the role of government in recognizing religion.

Mosque opponents say that Islam is not a real religion. They argued in a Rutherford County courthouse last week that the world's second-largest faith, with its 1.6 billion followers, is actually a political movement.

Opponents say local Muslims want to replace the Constitution with an Islamic legal code called Shariah law. Joe Brandon Jr., a Smyrna attorney representing a group of mosque opponents, argued that the proposed mosque is not a house of worship. He said the Rutherford County Planning Commission erred on May 24 when it approved the mosque.
....
[J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty] believes that fears of Shariah law are blown out of proportion, pointing out that less than 1 percent of Americans say they are Muslims, while about 80 percent say they are Christians.

"Christians still have a competitive advantage," Walker said.

Mosque opponents should be careful what they ask for, said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a First Amendment advocacy group, and dean of Liberty University School of Law. If a court or other government official could ban a mosque, it could also ban churches, he said.

"There will be losers in this, and one of them could be you," he said."

 Roll Eyes Shocked
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 05:02:01 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,183



WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2010, 05:12:21 PM »

And the question remains: if a green card can be given to a mosque making reference in its name to Muslim conquest of the West, why St. Nicholas church has not even been considered?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2010, 09:15:05 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2010, 09:21:03 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2010, 09:26:17 PM »

You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

What if we're trying to have a conversation without defining our terms? What do you mean by "religion"?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 09:26:38 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2010, 09:27:05 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 09:28:12 PM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2010, 09:36:28 PM »

You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

What if we're trying to have a conversation without defining our terms? What do you mean by "religion"?

I don't think finding loopholes in the law will help the situation.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2010, 09:39:47 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
I don't disagree. What makes you think that they want to give you the same rights as you offer them?
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Orual
Orthodoxy = 7, not 3
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Sunday Morning Costume Parade
Posts: 951


I'm just here for the food.


« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2010, 09:51:12 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
I don't disagree. What makes you think that they want to give you the same rights as you offer them?

Well, there's always that bit about "Do unto others..." that some guy talked about a long time ago.  I forget his name.
Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better. 

- C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces
f.k.a. Matron.a
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,183



WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2010, 10:14:56 PM »

It's probably the same guy who told us to be intelligent like the serpent and meek like the sheep.

Christians too often are pressed to go straight to the "meek like the sheep" part skipping the "intelligent like the serpent".

I am for religious rights and that even the religions I disagree with should worship in the manner they believe to be proper.

But killing 3,000 and then trying to build a monument for it on the very spot has very little to do with religion to me, and a lot to do with social engineering and power games. They have a right to freedom of religion. They do not have a right to commit mass murder and then throw an at your face building named after what they deem to have been their greatest victory against the West in the past.

What they are pushing for is for a kind of Mengele Cultural Center in Aushwitz, claiming it is being built for the betterment of relations with the Jews, and blaming those who oppose it to be against culture and freedom of expression.

No, this has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It has to do with trying to blackmail Western Christians to allow this offense or betray their own values, only that this is a false dichotomy. It is because of higher values and morality that such an absurdity has to be stopped.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2010, 10:18:36 PM »


But killing 3,000 and then trying to build a monument for it on the very spot has very little to do with religion to me, and a lot to do with social engineering and power games. They have a right to freedom of religion. They do not have a right to commit mass murder and then throw an at your face building named after what they deem to have been their greatest victory against the West in the past.

You say "they" as if all Muslims were involved. So are we also responsible for the Crusades?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 10:20:53 PM by Andrew21091 » Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,183



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2010, 10:30:41 PM »


But killing 3,000 and then trying to build a monument for it on the very spot has very little to do with religion to me, and a lot to do with social engineering and power games. They have a right to freedom of religion. They do not have a right to commit mass murder and then throw an at your face building named after what they deem to have been their greatest victory against the West in the past.

You say "they" as if all Muslims were involved. So are we also responsible for the Crusades?

In a way yes. That is the very concept of communion. We cannot participate in a group share their virtues and not their sins. Now, of course, repetance is what God wants from us, that with a contrict heart we change our ways in thought, words and deeds. Look at the Good Book again, and you'll see that "the nations" will be judged by Him, not individuals only. There will be entire nations, entire cultures that will be condemned. Jesus Christ is above political correctness and, yes, there are entire cultures that are sinful. Remember Sodoma and Gomorra.

If RCs were to build a "Boniface of Montferrat Cultural Center" in Istambul I bet that neither Orthodox or Muslim Turks would take it lightly. And it would show that there had been no real repetance for the abuses of the Crusades. Likewise I doubt that RCs would like the idea of monument to the "Pillars of Orthodoxy" in front of the gates of the Vatican.  This is precisely what the advocates of the "cultural center" are pushing for.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Quid
Freshly converted rubiks cube ninja
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 80



« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2010, 10:45:22 PM »

I cant help but have this bother me. They own the property, they can build whatever they want on it. The issue ends there.

Also, precedent is what it is. There is a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 10:47:38 PM by Quid » Logged

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,183



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2010, 11:19:24 PM »

I cant help but have this bother me. They own the property, they can build whatever they want on it. The issue ends there.

Also, precedent is what it is. There is a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.

The first part is sheer legalism. Plus, no, everybody has to comply with city and neighborhood building laws. In many places, even if you own the land, you can't build just because your neighbors think your house won't fit the aesthetics of the area.

They are not building in a desert. They are building in a community. And in a community that was attacked by their correligionaires.

And how many of the Shinto shrines near Pearl Harbor are named "1941", "December 7" or "Hirohito"?

If they are well-intended, why the new building is named "Cordoba", a flag of Muslim miltary ufanism, and not "Muslim Center Against Terrorism"?

Maybe Americans should name one of the new buildings on Ground Zero as "Reconquista"... Why, they should call it the "Reconquista Institute for Western Culture" to celebrate a civilization where all religions could prosper together. Of course the name is defying only the violent criminal members of Islam, and is not at all a triumphalist monument about when the Moors where sent back to where they should never have left by brave Christian knights. I can just hear the cries of outrage of those who will say this would be an untolerable attack on the poor Muslims.





« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 11:20:02 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Quid
Freshly converted rubiks cube ninja
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 80



« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2010, 11:28:00 PM »

I cant help but have this bother me. They own the property, they can build whatever they want on it. The issue ends there.

Also, precedent is what it is. There is a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.

The first part is sheer legalism. Plus, no, everybody has to comply with city and neighborhood building laws. In many places, even if you own the land, you can't build just because your neighbors think your house won't fit the aesthetics of the area.

They are not building in a desert. They are building in a community. And in a community that was attacked by their correligionaires.

 

Irreverent. This building is within the law, they have every right to build it.
Logged

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2010, 12:15:25 AM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
Ours is right. I know, difficult concept to grasp.
If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
I don't disagree. What makes you think that they want to give you the same rights as you offer them?
Exactly.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 12:16:55 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2010, 12:32:26 AM »

I cant help but have this bother me. They own the property,
Actually, no, they don't. A little detail not brought up a lot.

Quote
they can build whatever they want on it.

Now that the zoning board rushed to push the green light button.

Quote
The issue ends there.

LOL. Hardly. Some learned that after the first WTC bombing.

Quote
Also, precedent is what it is. There is a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.
No, there is not. There is one 5 miles away. Not exactly on top of it.

If you want precedent, look at the Allies forcing the Emperor to renounce his (and the Japapeses") divinity and the forced seperation between Shinotism and the Japanese state.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,593


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2010, 08:20:15 AM »


But killing 3,000 and then trying to build a monument for it on the very spot has very little to do with religion to me, and a lot to do with social engineering and power games. They have a right to freedom of religion. They do not have a right to commit mass murder and then throw an at your face building named after what they deem to have been their greatest victory against the West in the past.

You say "they" as if all Muslims were involved. So are we also responsible for the Crusades?

In a way yes. That is the very concept of communion. We cannot participate in a group share their virtues and not their sins. Now, of course, repetance is what God wants from us, that with a contrict heart we change our ways in thought, words and deeds. Look at the Good Book again, and you'll see that "the nations" will be judged by Him, not individuals only. There will be entire nations, entire cultures that will be condemned. Jesus Christ is above political correctness and, yes, there are entire cultures that are sinful. Remember Sodoma and Gomorra.

If RCs were to build a "Boniface of Montferrat Cultural Center" in Istambul I bet that neither Orthodox or Muslim Turks would take it lightly. And it would show that there had been no real repetance for the abuses of the Crusades. Likewise I doubt that RCs would like the idea of monument to the "Pillars of Orthodoxy" in front of the gates of the Vatican.  This is precisely what the advocates of the "cultural center" are pushing for.

You don't need to focus on the RC's in Istanbul for an analogy. Frankly, if the Archons of St. Andrew tried to build a Hagia Sophia History Center in that city there would be riots as never seen before. Yet, a similar Cordoba Cultural Center in Cordoba, Spain would probably not evoke an emotional response by the Spaniards. That proves nothing as you are equating Western concepts of freedom with the mindset of some within the Muslim world.

Again, I have to stress to you that if your grandparents' and great-grandparents' emotional responses to the presence of immigrant Orthodox communities had prevailed in the United States during the early to mid twentieth century there would be no Orthodox presence to speak of here. The days of the Red Scare, HUAAC, J. Edgar Hoover and McCarthy and earlier anti-immigration minded nativists put our very existence in peril so be careful of what you wish for.
Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2010, 11:12:53 AM »


They are not building in a desert. They are building in a community. And in a community that was attacked by their correligionaires.

Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions, first the mosque in question is NOT being built "on the very site" of the world trade center. So please, if we're going to have a discourse about this we should seek to be as accurate as possible and not reply on propaganda from Protestant televangelists.

Second, you raise an interesting point. Are members of a religion/faith responsible for what some nutty members of their religion do? Are you and I responsible for the scandalous outrage that takes place in Orthodoxy? Like monks attacking one another? Like abusive priests? What about Church corruption? What about our dark past where we force fed Communion to "heretics?" The crusades, the theological wars? I guess in a way yes, we are responsible. That's why I personally say "we" when referring to some of the evils committed by the Church in history. So I agree with you, in a sense we are all responsible for this. Am I my brother's keeper? Well yes of course.

However that raises another question. Just because the GOA alone pays out 16 million dollars a year in settlements for sexual abuse (to keep things quiet) does that mean the GOA should not be allowed to build a Church say across the street from a daycare center? A grade school? Should we be prevented from building an EO Church across the street from a OO Church? Or an Assyrian Church? Should the Catholics be prevented from building a Church next door to us because of those "wicked evil latins and the crusade in 1204"? Should say a Russian Church not be allowed to build a Church next to an Native American community center because, well Russians were really bad to the Natives in Alaska? (of which St. Herman in fact railed against)

Is it fair to punish us, by forbidding us religious freedom on the basis that some of us have done some really bad things? Should 1.6 billion people of a religion (which is hardly monolithic in nature) be forbidden from building a house of worship because some Fundamentalist nuts decided they get 72 virgins if they kill as many innocent people as possible? What of the atrocities that the Orthodox Church supports if not outright, definitely by it's silence by  walking arm in arm with corrupt world leaders to this very day? Should we be punished for something we do?

I agree in a sense we are all responsible for this. that is absolutely true. We are responsible for the sins of our brethren, our Church, and all our fellow human beings. we are our brother's keeper. And yet does that mean governments should begin imposing restrictions on what we can and cannot do, build and where we can do it? I suppose different people will have different answers.

Regardless of what one thinks of any given religion or ideology, it's extremely dangerous and IMO un-Christian to hold an entire people responsible for the crimes of a minority. It's also a bit hypocritical sense the first thing we as Christians say when someone brings up all the evils the Church has done is "oh the Church is full of sinners, don't judge us by our actions" when Jesus Himself said "by their fruits you will know THEM." If Orthodoxy was to be judged by it's fruits would people see followers of Jesus Christ, or followers of their own wisdom and desires? And should we be held responsible and punished as a community because someone somewhere in Church history did something horrible? With the measure we use to measure we ourselves will be measured.

I'm not defending Islam as a faith but I do no believe one fifth of the world's population should be held responsible for the sins of a few. Even if the "few" is quite large in number and quite irrational.

That's my take on this issue anyways. I don't have answers, only questions that I think we should reflect upon before we begin casting stones. Orthodoxy has been on the blunt end of the government stick before, sometimes by our fellow Christians who were "in charge", so I think we of all people should be cautious when it comes to corporate guilt. Metaphysically corporate guilt might be accurate theologically, but going from that to actual enforcement of that guilt by governments I personally feel is a dangerous thing. But I could be wrong.




Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2010, 11:18:20 AM »

Just a reminder to all that this is the Religious Topics board so let's try and keep this discussion as free from Politics as we can. Obviously with such a topic some foray into Politics will be necessary but let's try and keep things focused as best we can within the realm of Religion. This is not a warning and it is not in response to anything posted thus far. It is only a friendly reminder as I know topics of this nature can go off into tangents quite easily as that is simply the nature of discussion. Thanks!

Northern Pines, Religious Topics Forum Moderator
Logged
Quid
Freshly converted rubiks cube ninja
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 80



« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2010, 11:45:16 AM »

I cant help but have this bother me. They own the property,
Actually, no, they don't. A little detail not brought up a lot.

Quote
they can build whatever they want on it.

Now that the zoning board rushed to push the green light button.

Quote
The issue ends there.

LOL. Hardly. Some learned that after the first WTC bombing.

Quote
Also, precedent is what it is. There is a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.
No, there is not. There is one 5 miles away. Not exactly on top of it.

If you want precedent, look at the Allies forcing the Emperor to renounce his (and the Japapeses") divinity and the forced seperation between Shinotism and the Japanese state.

Either way, if they acquire the property then they have the right to build it.

Also, this is not exactly on top of it. There is a strip club closer to the crash site then this center will be.
Logged

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2010, 12:25:44 PM »


They are not building in a desert. They are building in a community. And in a community that was attacked by their correligionaires.

Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions, first the mosque in question is NOT being built "on the very site" of the world trade center. So please, if we're going to have a discourse about this we should seek to be as accurate as possible and not reply on propaganda from Protestant televangelists.

Though not on the grounds of the world trade center (which, technically speaking, neither was St. Nicholas, but it got destroyed anyways), it is on, or rather was, ground zero: part of one of the planes landed on the roof of the building now, which is supposedly why the structure was slated for demolishion.

Second, you raise an interesting point. Are members of a religion/faith responsible for what some nutty members of their religion do?

No, not unless they allow it. More below.

Are you and I responsible for the scandalous outrage that takes place in Orthodoxy? Like monks attacking one another? Like abusive priests? What about Church corruption? What about our dark past where we force fed Communion to "heretics?" The crusades, the theological wars? I guess in a way yes, we are responsible. That's why I personally say "we" when referring to some of the evils committed by the Church in history. So I agree with you, in a sense we are all responsible for this. Am I my brother's keeper? Well yes of course.

However that raises another question. Just because the GOA alone pays out 16 million dollars a year in settlements for sexual abuse (to keep things quiet) does that mean the GOA should not be allowed to build a Church say across the street from a daycare center? A grade school? Should we be prevented from building an EO Church across the street from a OO Church? Or an Assyrian Church? Should the Catholics be prevented from building a Church next door to us because of those "wicked evil latins and the crusade in 1204"? Should say a Russian Church not be allowed to build a Church next to an Native American community center because, well Russians were really bad to the Natives in Alaska? (of which St. Herman in fact railed against)

Is it fair to punish us, by forbidding us religious freedom on the basis that some of us have done some really bad things? Should 1.6 billion people of a religion (which is hardly monolithic in nature) be forbidden from building a house of worship because some Fundamentalist nuts decided they get 72 virgins if they kill as many innocent people as possible? What of the atrocities that the Orthodox Church supports if not outright, definitely by it's silence by  walking arm in arm with corrupt world leaders to this very day? Should we be punished for something we do?

Like what?

Take for instance the wars in the Balkans.  Pat. Pavle denounced Milosevic's policies, defrocked priests associated with the militias, issued a blanket excommunication for those involved, and forbade baptisms of converts in Bosnia until hostilities ceased (the idea was to stop forced assimilation).  When Met. Ioann of St. Petersburg spouted out virulent anti-semiticism, Pat. Alexei banned him from publishing his views via the offiicial media of the Patriarchate.  

Such things do NOT happen in the Muslim World. Not only are the vast majority of Muslims ineffectual in policing and controlling their extremists, they are not even trying.

I agree in a sense we are all responsible for this. that is absolutely true. We are responsible for the sins of our brethren, our Church, and all our fellow human beings. we are our brother's keeper. And yet does that mean governments should begin imposing restrictions on what we can and cannot do, build and where we can do it? I suppose different people will have different answers.

Regardless of what one thinks of any given religion or ideology, it's extremely dangerous and IMO un-Christian to hold an entire people responsible for the crimes of a minority.

There is nothing wrong from protecting oneself. The promoter of this project continues to refuse to reveal where are funds for it going to come from (and since his foundation only has an account in the 10's of thousands, and the project is said to run in the 10's of millions, he is going to have to get it somewhere).  One of the biggest cash cows in the Islamic world is the Saudi
Quote
OTTAWA - Saudi Arabia is funding radical Islamic extremism in Canada, where King Fahd has contributed millions of dollars to a mysterious Islamic centre in Toronto, a U.S. panel on terrorist financing says.
http://muslim-chronicle.blogspot.com/2006/08/ottawa-citizen-saudis-fund-radicals-in.html
I just had the pleasure of listening to the rector of Al-Azhar not only defend female genital mutilation, but suggest that its adoption in the West would cut down on our rampent adultery.  Maybe Imam Rauf can defend that in the name of that "shariah-compliance" that he is advocating here, and for which his Cordoba center no doubt will expouse.

The Gospel does not require accepting Trojan horses.

It's also a bit hypocritical sense the first thing we as Christians say when someone brings up all the evils the Church has done is "oh the Church is full of sinners, don't judge us by our actions" when Jesus Himself said "by their fruits you will know THEM." If Orthodoxy was to be judged by it's fruits would people see followers of Jesus Christ, or followers of their own wisdom and desires? And should we be held responsible and punished as a community because someone somewhere in Church history did something horrible? With the measure we use to measure we ourselves will be measured.


Orthodoxy spits out such poison fruit.  The majority of Muslims not only continue on a diet of their fruits, but they bake it and are trying to pass it off as apple pie (I'm not sure if in Canada the saying has the same resonance).

I'm not defending Islam as a faith but I do no believe one fifth of the world's population should be held responsible for the sins of a few. Even if the "few" is quite large in number and quite irrational.

No, it is not. Let's assume they are only 1%:that's 16,000,000. 9/11 took 19 men. Do the math.

There are Muslims like Raheel Raza, a very effective speaker for moderate Muslims (she left O'Reilly speachless, a rare occurence). But she is the minority, not the Islamists. Her thoughts?
Quote
We Muslims know the ... mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, ... as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.... As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raheel_Raza#Cordoba_House_mosque

When she becomes part of a critical mass within Islam, this will be a different conversation. Not until.

That's my take on this issue anyways. I don't have answers, only questions that I think we should reflect upon before we begin casting stones. Orthodoxy has been on the blunt end of the government stick before, sometimes by our fellow Christians who were "in charge", so I think we of all people should be cautious when it comes to corporate guilt. Metaphysically corporate guilt might be accurate theologically, but going from that to actual enforcement of that guilt by governments I personally feel is a dangerous thing. But I could be wrong.
I'm afraid you are. Well intentioned, but wrong.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 12:27:52 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Quid
Freshly converted rubiks cube ninja
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 80



« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2010, 12:28:13 PM »

All of the sources I am finding are saying that they do, in fact, own the land. The investors spent 4.8 million to buy the old Burlington Coat Factory building.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/21/2010-09-21_mosque_will_be_built_developer_vows.html

So, if this is indeed the case then the argument ends here.
Logged

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2010, 12:35:40 PM »

I cant help but have this bother me. They own the property,
Actually, no, they don't. A little detail not brought up a lot.

Quote
they can build whatever they want on it.

Now that the zoning board rushed to push the green light button.

Quote
The issue ends there.

LOL. Hardly. Some learned that after the first WTC bombing.

Quote
Also, precedent is what it is. There is a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.
No, there is not. There is one 5 miles away. Not exactly on top of it.

If you want precedent, look at the Allies forcing the Emperor to renounce his (and the Japapeses") divinity and the forced seperation between Shinotism and the Japanese state.

Either way, if they acquire the property then they have the right to build it.


No. Zoning still prevails. And since there are laws about taking money from terrorist organizations (not that I agree with the US's official list), and Rauf doesn't want to reveal where the money comes from, there is limits to those rights as well.

Also, this is not exactly on top of it.

The plane fell on it. It is the crash site.

There is a strip club closer to the crash site then this center will be.
That's apropos: IIRC, the jihadists went to a strip bar the night before. Strip clubs contribute to moral decay and other problems, but, unlike fundamentalist mosques, usually do not directly cause fatalities.  But since I have no problem closing the club as well, I don't know if that's important.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 12:41:56 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2010, 12:40:22 PM »

All of the sources I am finding are saying that they do, in fact, own the land. The investors spent 4.8 million to buy the old Burlington Coat Factory building.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/21/2010-09-21_mosque_will_be_built_developer_vows.html

Quote
The 49–51 Park Place half of the "45–51" parcel is still owned by the utility Con Edison (Con Ed).[84] Soho Properties paid an additional $700,000 to assume a $33,000-a-year lease with Con Ed, for its adjacent attached former sub-station.[85] The plan is to build the facility on the site of the two buildings. The lease for 49–51 Park Place expires in 2071.[85] The two buildings are connected internally, with common walls having been taken down.[85] El-Gamal informed Con Ed in February 2010 that he wanted to exercise his purchase option on the lease.[85] Con Ed is now conducting an appraisal to determine the property's value.[85] Once the property has been valued, El-Gamal will have the option of accepting the price, which was reportedly estimated at $10–$20 million.[85] El-Gamal said the cost "is not an issue".[85] The sale would be reviewed by the New York Public Service Commission, where it might face a vote by a five-member board controlled by New York Governor Paterson.[84][85]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Purchase_and_investors

Quote
So, if this is indeed the case then the argument ends here.
Since it is not, I'm not sure if I need to pursue it further.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 12:41:25 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,093


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2010, 12:41:29 PM »

NP, I agree with much of what's in your post.

{nitpick}
However that raises another question. Just because the GOA alone pays out 16 million dollars a year in settlements for sexual abuse (to keep things quiet) does that mean the GOA should not be allowed to build a Church say across the street from a daycare center? A grade school?

Your decimal point is off; the most I've seen in a GOA budget for legal fees (which is more inclusive than "settlements") is $1.7 million, not $16 million.

{/ nitpick}
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Quid
Freshly converted rubiks cube ninja
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 80



« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2010, 12:46:21 PM »

You had fair points until here.

That's apropos: IIRC, the jihadists went to a strip bar the night before. Strip clubs contribute to moral decay and other problems, but, unlike fundamentalist mosques, usually do not directly cause fatalities.  But since I have no problem closing the club as well, I don't know if that's important.


Liberty? What liberty? Obviously we wont come to common ground on this. I'll close with: As is stands right now the building is well within the law to be built. To call for a stop to this project sets all sorts of precedents on restraining liberty and freedom and IMHO is the last thing that needs to happen and should be avoided at all costs.
Logged

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
Quid
Freshly converted rubiks cube ninja
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 80



« Reply #27 on: October 06, 2010, 12:50:17 PM »

All of the sources I am finding are saying that they do, in fact, own the land. The investors spent 4.8 million to buy the old Burlington Coat Factory building.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/21/2010-09-21_mosque_will_be_built_developer_vows.html

Quote
The 49–51 Park Place half of the "45–51" parcel is still owned by the utility Con Edison (Con Ed).[84] Soho Properties paid an additional $700,000 to assume a $33,000-a-year lease with Con Ed, for its adjacent attached former sub-station.[85] The plan is to build the facility on the site of the two buildings. The lease for 49–51 Park Place expires in 2071.[85] The two buildings are connected internally, with common walls having been taken down.[85] El-Gamal informed Con Ed in February 2010 that he wanted to exercise his purchase option on the lease.[85] Con Ed is now conducting an appraisal to determine the property's value.[85] Once the property has been valued, El-Gamal will have the option of accepting the price, which was reportedly estimated at $10–$20 million.[85] El-Gamal said the cost "is not an issue".[85] The sale would be reviewed by the New York Public Service Commission, where it might face a vote by a five-member board controlled by New York Governor Paterson.[84][85]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Purchase_and_investors

Quote
So, if this is indeed the case then the argument ends here.
Since it is not, I'm not sure if I need to pursue it further.

Ok then there is still some numbers to crunch. When they acquire this land, and it looks like they will, then they can build this mosque on it.
Logged

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,183



WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 06, 2010, 01:17:22 PM »

I strongly recommend this article:

Ground Zero Mosque: a “Rabat”, not a “Cultural Center”
by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 01:19:26 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2010, 01:20:43 PM »

All of the sources I am finding are saying that they do, in fact, own the land. The investors spent 4.8 million to buy the old Burlington Coat Factory building.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/21/2010-09-21_mosque_will_be_built_developer_vows.html

Quote
The 49–51 Park Place half of the "45–51" parcel is still owned by the utility Con Edison (Con Ed).[84] Soho Properties paid an additional $700,000 to assume a $33,000-a-year lease with Con Ed, for its adjacent attached former sub-station.[85] The plan is to build the facility on the site of the two buildings. The lease for 49–51 Park Place expires in 2071.[85] The two buildings are connected internally, with common walls having been taken down.[85] El-Gamal informed Con Ed in February 2010 that he wanted to exercise his purchase option on the lease.[85] Con Ed is now conducting an appraisal to determine the property's value.[85] Once the property has been valued, El-Gamal will have the option of accepting the price, which was reportedly estimated at $10–$20 million.[85] El-Gamal said the cost "is not an issue".[85] The sale would be reviewed by the New York Public Service Commission, where it might face a vote by a five-member board controlled by New York Governor Paterson.[84][85]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Purchase_and_investors

Quote
So, if this is indeed the case then the argument ends here.
Since it is not, I'm not sure if I need to pursue it further.

Ok then there is still some numbers to crunch. When they acquire this land, and it looks like they will, then they can build this mosque on it.
No. For one thing, there's the proctology exam of where the money is coming from.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #30 on: October 06, 2010, 01:52:18 PM »

I cant help but have this bother me. They own the property,
Actually, no, they don't. A little detail not brought up a lot.

Quote
they can build whatever they want on it.

Now that the zoning board rushed to push the green light button.

Quote
The issue ends there.

LOL. Hardly. Some learned that after the first WTC bombing.

Quote
Also, precedent is what it is. There is a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.
No, there is not. There is one 5 miles away. Not exactly on top of it.

If you want precedent, look at the Allies forcing the Emperor to renounce his (and the Japapeses") divinity and the forced seperation between Shinotism and the Japanese state.

Either way, if they acquire the property then they have the right to build it.

Also, this is not exactly on top of it. There is a strip club closer to the crash site then this center will be.

What's wrong with strip clubs? LOL
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Quid
Freshly converted rubiks cube ninja
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 80



« Reply #31 on: October 06, 2010, 04:20:57 PM »


No. For one thing, there's the proctology exam of where the money is coming from.

Do they have reasonably suspicion or evidence that this money s coming from illegal means? If not then I dont see how this will even matter.

For you is it about making sure this thing is legal or are do you just want them to stop the build altogether b/c its a mosque at GZ?
Logged

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #32 on: October 06, 2010, 05:57:02 PM »

Muslim rule in Cordoba was seen as an age of toleration in Islam. Though there were restrictions like in any Islamic society in the world against other religions, it was pretty tolerant compared to any Christian nations. Honestly, if I were a Jew living in Cordoba, I would much rather live under the Moors than the Spaniards. The whole point of this Islamic center being named after Cordoba is to show that all Islam isn't Al-Qaeda. Just like Christianity isn't the Crusades, the Inquisition, serfdom, or burning heretics at the steak.

And besides, its not on Ground Zero.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 05:57:29 PM by Andrew21091 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,659


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #33 on: October 06, 2010, 06:44:09 PM »

I cant help but have this bother me. They own the property, they can build whatever they want on it. The issue ends there.

Also, precedent is what it is. There is a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor.

The first part is sheer legalism. Plus, no, everybody has to comply with city and neighborhood building laws. In many places, even if you own the land, you can't build just because your neighbors think your house won't fit the aesthetics of the area.

They are not building in a desert. They are building in a community. And in a community that was attacked by their correligionaires.

 

Irreverent. This building is within the law, they have every right to build it.
Irreverent or irrelevant? There is a fundamental difference.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #34 on: October 06, 2010, 09:56:15 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
I don't disagree. What makes you think that they want to give you the same rights as you offer them?

I don't believe they do, but that is what objectively makes us better than them.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #35 on: October 06, 2010, 10:00:09 PM »

And how many of the Shinto shrines near Pearl Harbor are named "1941", "December 7" or "Hirohito"?

They may not be named Hirohito, but they do worship him as a god.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #36 on: October 06, 2010, 10:03:13 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
Ours is right. I know, difficult concept to grasp.

And who should we appoint to be the arbitrator of right and wrong thought? I for one do not trust the government or people of the United States (or any country) to make that determination; it never does turn out very well. If the freedom of conscience does not include the freedom to be wrong, it is meaningless.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,093


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #37 on: October 06, 2010, 10:20:50 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?
I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?

Correct.  As long as what is going on there isn't treasonous or seditious, then the government should probably stay out of it.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #38 on: October 06, 2010, 11:50:26 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
I don't disagree. What makes you think that they want to give you the same rights as you offer them?

I don't believe they do, but that is what objectively makes us better than them.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The question still remains as to what happens when our very survival is at stake. Do we just take what is given or do we retaliate to some degree? or better yet. Nip it before it becomes a problem?
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #39 on: October 07, 2010, 02:31:16 AM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
I don't disagree. What makes you think that they want to give you the same rights as you offer them?

I don't believe they do, but that is what objectively makes us better than them.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The question still remains as to what happens when our very survival is at stake. Do we just take what is given or do we retaliate to some degree? or better yet. Nip it before it becomes a problem?

First of all, our survival isn't even close to being at stake.

With that said, the survival of the principles of liberty is far more essential to the survival of the Republic than the lives of her citizens. Retaliation only becomes appropriate if the attempt to use the power of the state to suppress the liberty of others; if that were to occur, rebellion and war would be essential and nonnegotiable, but I really don't see that on the horizon.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #40 on: October 07, 2010, 03:43:48 AM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?

I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?
I don't disagree. What makes you think that they want to give you the same rights as you offer them?

I don't believe they do, but that is what objectively makes us better than them.

I'm not disagreeing with you. The question still remains as to what happens when our very survival is at stake. Do we just take what is given or do we retaliate to some degree? or better yet. Nip it before it becomes a problem?

First of all, our survival isn't even close to being at stake.

With that said, the survival of the principles of liberty is far more essential to the survival of the Republic than the lives of her citizens. Retaliation only becomes appropriate if the attempt to use the power of the state to suppress the liberty of others; if that were to occur, rebellion and war would be essential and nonnegotiable, but I really don't see that on the horizon.
myopic as usual, but to go into detail would definitely drive this into politics.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #41 on: October 07, 2010, 11:38:22 AM »

NP, I agree with much of what's in your post.

{nitpick}
However that raises another question. Just because the GOA alone pays out 16 million dollars a year in settlements for sexual abuse (to keep things quiet) does that mean the GOA should not be allowed to build a Church say across the street from a daycare center? A grade school?

Your decimal point is off; the most I've seen in a GOA budget for legal fees (which is more inclusive than "settlements") is $1.7 million, not $16 million.

{/ nitpick}
I thought for sure it was $16 million. I know I didn't invent that number?! (or maybe I did...lol!) Maybe it was $16 million over so many years? I remember reading it on the GOA website but I might have looked at the numbers wrong. Either way I stand corrected on the numbers. (just goes to show how memory can play tricks on a person, especially when one is mathematically challenged... Grin)
 

« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 11:41:39 AM by NorthernPines » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,593


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 07, 2010, 12:15:12 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?
I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?

Correct.  As long as what is going on there isn't treasonous or seditious, then the government should probably stay out of it.

History’s Echoes in Muslim Center Uproar  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/nyregion/08zero.html?hp
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #43 on: October 07, 2010, 12:29:07 PM »

There's a reason why the freedom of all expression and all ideologies should be given equal preference (and indifference) by the state. Once you allow the state to categorize 'legitimate religions' and 'illegitimate religions', the freedom of religion automatically becomes useless. I shouldn't matter if Islam is a religion, a cult, a political organization, or a business...all should be treated with equal indifference under the law.
You missed one. What if it's fanatical Islam and disguises itself as a religion?
I referred to 'all expression and all ideologies', that should cover even fanatical Islam. Wink

I am no friend of Islam, but we should all defend the freedom of expression for everyone, even those we hate...or should I say, especially those we hate.

If we will not defend this right for others, what right do we have to express our own ideologies and beliefs?

Correct.  As long as what is going on there isn't treasonous or seditious, then the government should probably stay out of it.

History’s Echoes in Muslim Center Uproar  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/nyregion/08zero.html?hp

Quote
Unlike the organizers of Park51, who have resisted suggestions they move the project to avoid having a mosque so close to the killing field of ground zero, the Catholics complied.

Quote
The Park51 organizers say they will not accept any foreign backing. But with about only 200 Catholics in New York in the late 1700s, most of them poor, St. Peter’s Church would not have been built without a handsome gift from a foreigner — and a papist at that — $1,000 from  King Charles III of Spain.
King Charles III of Spain also funded the American Revolution. He also suppressed the Jesuits and expelled them from North America: has something similar been done about al-Qa'idah et alia?

Quote
The pastor said that Park51’s organizers would have to “make clear that they are in no way sympathetic to or supported by any ideology antithetical to our American ideals, which I am sure they can do.”
but will they? Can they?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,593


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 08, 2010, 01:08:35 PM »

Poland protests over mosque...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHZVKcSxruM&feature=player_embedded
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.188 seconds with 72 queries.