tigermoth comments

Quite right WilliB. People seem to forget that America is still a young nation by most standards, and this idealistic blending of cultures is only successful in altruistic tv shows from the 1960's. Religion by historical precedence teaches intolerance, despite the 'love thy brother' programs usually written in. Conversely it seems to be kill any who don't believe, or convert them as Christianity tried to do to the detriment of so many throughout the world. And Islam seems to be much more stringent than Christianity, and far less forgiving of shortcomings. And being so inherently different than what those in the west are culturally used to, it begs the question whether peaceful co-existence is even possible. The US 'experiment' always seemed to be based upon the notion of 'fitting in' and becoming American first and whatever second. Not in some scary nationalistic fashion, but rather as an insular means of becoming a 'nation of one' united under a sense of freedom. You can worship an do what you want (within the law) but that is outside of your duty as an American (as corny as that might sound) and fellow citizen. With a religion that is meant to come first and encompass all, how will this work?

That will be labeled as intolerance by many here no doubt, but it is a legitimate question, and a realistic one rather than an idealistic one. I would totally agree that it would be fantastic if all mankind was a joined and coexistent entity. But we're not, nowhere even close. And while perhaps we should strive for the intangible, we have to deal with reality.

Does anyone find it interesting at all - even though it's not PC to say or think such things - that so much effort it put into proving that the tea party has white supremacist connotations simply because it's made up of mainly white people? Read the posts, all we seem to be discussing is the KKK. If black people were to form a party that backed candidates they were interested in, and presented ideals that they believed important and relevant to their particular community (the black community) - would anyone point out that they are 'racist'? I'm not a tea party supporter per say, but I do find it telling that the left is almost frothing at the mouth to prove them to be nothing more than a gathering of whites a step away from wearing their bedsheets. Because they don't believe in big government and high taxes they of course must be cross burning hill-billies one step away from being extras in the remake of 'Deliverance'. Only card-carrying members of the liberal democrats possess even an ounce of intelligence, grace and cultural integrity, right?

I'll be the first to admit that I've wrongly fallen into the regrettable thinking of the non-Islamic masses in the US that Islam is a religion of intolerance, repression and violence due to its laws and ideas that there should be 'no others'. Of course ignoring the old Christian "Do not have any other gods before me" which states basically the same thing. And admittedly I haven't read enough about Islam to know exactly what it teaches and if it truly dictates that the 'infidel' - us non-Muslims - should be expunged.

Much of this is media hype. The same media that constantly makes us think the world is on the edge of mass destruction and chaos. Chaos and destruction sell 'newspapers' or the electronic media that have replaced them. But I think it's fair to say that some of the critical eye cast upon Islam is defend-able. Look at the Christian wackos - the Waco crowd, this idiot in Florida, McVeigh and other fringe groups. Usually they live in groups in armed compounds, or plot one-off crazy schemes. Not so for the Islamic wackos. They go to terrorist training camps based in the ME and have access to a network of funding, intelligence and resources. And they come from the unexpected; people knew the folks living on the compound at Waco were nuts. The 9/11 hijackers were sort of 'the guy next door' types who lived in communities amongst us, then coldly planned the murder of thousands. I'm not saying there aren't killers among us that are Christians, Jews - whatever that can snap and do something horrible. But most of these terror attacks on the West have been well-planned and funded which is a polar opposite of your average other crazy type.

Also, you have to take into account that while it's easy to say that 'Muslims have lived in America and the west for a long time with no problems until 9/11, look more at the actual demographics and you'll discover that it wasn't really until post-9/11 that the Muslim populations in the US and other Western countries such as Britain and France really started to explode (pun not intended). When any religious minority floods into a country and suddenly becomes a measurable part of the general population - and brings in a system of religious beliefs and even a culture vastly different to the indigenous - there is bound to be a cultural clash. With the terrorist attacks carried out by admittedly a minute extremist branch of that group, multiply the problems by a thousand.

It's a tough and unfair road for the honest, normal Muslim to travel, but not surprising to see the reasons why.

..."take no prisoners" attitude to start off with

I think you need to read a bit before you comment, or else we're just not getting you. The allies did take Japanese prisoners - those that would surrender. And most lived.

The difference is that he gets to go home at night to a warm cozy lounge room with a nice TV set in front of the fire, and sleep in a cozy bed.

Actually I don't believe he's really thinking this through, and he might not be doing the above for long. Certainly this clown must be aware that the radical fringe of this religion will undoubtedly call for his death, and such a belligerent redneck will not be difficult to find.

I agree with this, and I wish that the hardline conservatives who also agree will forever apply this principle to the American flag as well.

Yabits I just wonder what happened to make you hate your country so much. It surely is far from perfect, but it beats being stoned to death or fifty lashed for not wearing a head scarf? Perhaps it was living in Michigan - I think that would make anyone hate the USA.

tkoind2, your wisdom is lost on the masses, no matter how true. We laugh at Greek and Roman mythology with a chuckle, yet they believed as strongly in their gods and goddesses as Christians, Muslims and Jews. Silly to think that Zeus turned himself into a bull, but quite believable that Jesus walked on water. Yeah. Same with the Egyptians. History is full of systems of belief to pacify the natural fear of death and need to find meaning in life. Instead they become tools of greed and reasons to kill, but we never learn as the fear is too great and the hold too strong. And so it goes.

Most of the strikes in Pakistan by drones end up being confirmed kills with civilians, as is often the case in Afghanistan as well

Well, this assumes you believe the counter claim after the US strikes that these were civilians. It's sort of like when you interview convicts in prison - all are innocent and none did the crime. They don't carry badges saying 'terrorist' so technically they are all civilians, just civilians carrying out terrorist activities. Look at the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War. Children were blowing up soldiers in markets. When the troops would enter a village rife with known VC, suddenly none of them were. Just because they all suddenly claim to be innocent civilians does not mean that they actually are.

Besides, the way these same terrorist blow themselves up in markets, indiscriminately killing their own people, the innocent civilians are just as likely to be taken out by the locals. If a bomb takes out even a few then it has likely save civilian lives in the long run. Screwed up thinking perhaps, but such is life in an unconventional war.

Them that has, gets. Its all about ownership. The wealth has to be redistributed somehow, or it all goes feudal.

What a load of crap. Yes, perhaps it is all about ownership, but you seem to assume that those that have were all just handed this wealth without lifting nary a finger. And so what if 'daddy' made all the money; it was still earned by him now wasn't it.

Look, we live in a constitutional democracy that's based on free enterprise and capitalism. Yes, we all have the right to life, liberty and happiness - but when this was penned I think it was assumed that the meaning was you have the right to these things based on your willingness to strive for them, not that they should be handed to you as a guarantee. You have the freedom and right to achieve and do, not the right to what others achieve and do if you are unable.

I'm middle class; right now barely making ends meet, but improving as my wife just got her Masters. By the way, she came from a family who had very little and without handout worked her @ss off to get her undergraduate and graduate degree. She was expected to work in the factory like her siblings. I'm middle class because I made a choice. I could have participated in more clubs in school, studied harder, gone to a better university with a more prestigious degree. I could have worked 12 or 14 hour days instead of 8 - and not wanting to even do that. In short, I could have put in the time to be more successful, could have had that drive or ambition - but I did not.

We all make choices, and these choices affect what we do in life, how far we go and ultimately how much we make. If you skipped school to smoke cigs with your buds, just like the old man, you probably work in a factory or manual labor. To assume that all of those that you consider wealthy were either born with a silver spoon in their mouth, or somehow won the lottery or became rich by stealing or cheating, then you're horrible naive. Take a look at your High School chums; some might be construction workers, some doctors and lawyers, some unemployed, some dead. You all have the same educational background. And don't feed the line about who gets to go to school as student aid is always an option.

So some people work hard and make a lot of money, or get lucky and make a lot of money. Why on earth would you suppose their wealth should be 'shared' with those who did not? If you truly believe this, then in my mind you're not a capitalist nor belong in the democracy we have created, but rather need to investigate one of the 'isms'. There is no shame there, just a different outlook on wealth. But to assume that we should alter the Constitutional Democracy that was founded here and promotes free enterprise and freedom to succeed based on your belief that those who are unwilling to achieve deserve what those that are willing have is plain wrong. Now that that have not due to issues beyond their control, that's another matter. But that's where social systems come in. While I realize these funds have to come from somewhere, I would question why it has to come solely from those who choose to achieve.

Actually my bet is that such burnings have already happened at churches - particularly in the south - and it simply hasn't been advertised or made national news. I lived for some time in the south and remember a friend telling me her mother had gone to a Baptist 'book and record burning'. It wasn't exactly made public with posters and fanfare, just something they got together and did. Very scary stuff goes on all the time, this freak just happened to make the news. If you notice in one video the cross on the church is broken - maybe they should have a fundraiser to fix that before they buy a bunch of Qu'rans to burn.

Lemur - totally off the point, but XTC and Andy Partridge are my sage and bible. Best band to ever exist in my humble opinion.

While I can see in practice why this is such an inflammatory act, it is after all just some cheaply printed copies bought likely on the Internet. It's not like he's burning copies of historical significance, or those that have been blessed or are somehow 'holy'. I suppose religion assumes that all books containing there 'words of truth', 'gospel' - whatever - are sacred, but that seems rather silly.

It hearkens back to my university days. We used to have a communal post office and the Mormons or some group would stand outside and hand out those little pocket bibles to all of the students. I don't think it an exaggeration to say that the majority of these ended up in the trash can and eventually the landfill. While non-religious I did look at mine and give some pause before tossing it in the can, and later I asked others if they felt guilty for doing so. The consensus was 'no, it's just a small purpose printed book'. Even those of the faith threw them away. Not an open act of disrespect or sacrilege. They were just not needed as those that believed already had their own, and those that did not didn't want them. They print up tons of these things and have to know that a large percentage goes in the dumpster.

The point is that the message of a religion and the tenants therein should be with the believer. It seems the book itself should be meant for reference and learning those tenants, not really an embodiment of the religion itself. These aren't hand-written copies from a wise sage, but mass produced copies likely printed in China or something. Rather than see it as a call to arms for radical or even not so radical followers of Islam to go on a killing spree, see it for what it is - some hill-williams burning some cheaply printed copies of a book. He's much too stupid to understand the meaning behind the book as he doesn't even understand the meaning of the one he claims to follow. Therefore he cannot burn the philosophy that he doesn't understand, but rather a paper representation.

Don't let the monkeys fool you, they're cold blooded killers. Stories abound in the US about often elderly couples who have 'cute little chimps' for pets - until they quite literally 'go ape' and rip off your hands, eyelids, noses, whole faces and testicles. Nasty little buggers. I'd suggest a page from your local NSDAP handbook; traveling vans with bait to lure them in, then a good Zyklon B 'shower' to put the matter to rest.

Okay, long day with a thrown-out back. I was reading 'immoral' instead of 'amoral' which totally changes what you were saying. Sorry about that, we all have these type days. I would agree with the profits being amoral as they are simply an end to a means. Still my comments remain pretty much the same.

When someone suggests that the nation dip into those profits in order to create new jobs, another side will accuse them of being socialists.

And again, therein lies the concentric argument that gets nowhere. And here I have to admit that I'm part and parcel to these arguments as well. You say dip into profits, but in a true socialist fashion - which you would never admit to - you don't care who's profits you're dipping into, or how they came about said profits. To you it's all one big pool for the 'haves' to supply the 'have nots' and as profit it is apparently up for grabs. Conversely I would argue 'get your hands off my d@mned wallet'. And there - I just accused you of being a socialist to put credence in your argument. But isn't socialism about the redistribution of wealth for the supposed good of the people - and isn't that what you're fundamentally suggesting?

And what if those profits were made through cutting jobs? You can't have it both ways -- fostering job growth AND destroying jobs.

That's the nature of business and commerce. It's not done in a vacuum where all the workers dance around like happy Christmas elves sharing equally in every dollar made. Experiments in such ideas have proven this model unlikely, yes mostly due to human greed but mainly because a portion of the population is always a bit brighter and more motivated than the masses who in turn get browned off and the whole thing falls apart. Free enterprise and the promise and ability to make profit and get ahead are what has made this democracy and our society, whether you'll admit to it or not. We became the 'land of the free' so a person could come here and make something of themselves, not because they are entitled to a share for simply showing up.

Hang on there. As long as one faction wants to cling to utter lies, no other party could accomplish much with them.

But of course only one side - your side quite naturally - righteously tells the truth and is without reproach. Each as worse as the next and we get nowhere.

It's actually "amoral" instead of "bad," but we understand if many of the simple-minded can't grasp that. (It's why they need mantras to begin with.)

I don't know about a mantra, and call me simple-minded if you like - I'm thick skinned. But tell me the truth Yabits - do you really think that corporate profit is 'amoral'? You mean to tell me that if you start a coffee shop, work your a$$ off until is sees profit that your are amoral for making that profit? Your reply will of course be that individual profit in a small business is apples and oranges between that and corporate profit, and in particular the giant mega-corporations that have made fortunes through improper regulations, etc. I would agree and disagree, and therein lies the problem.

No one wants to admit that despite it being the basis of our nation for some time, and supposedly providing a system of checks and balances to keep the system in check - essentially the two-party system does not work. It might have a hundred years ago or so, but not in today's world. Instead it just serves to keep either party from being able to accomplish much of anything. It divides the people, creates endless, pointless and yes mindless arguments like we see on here, and in the end only hurts all of us. I know, I know. I have friends that are die-hards in both parties that hate the independents. I don't even think I'd classify myself as such, but rather someone with a brain and a sense of reality. We speak of being open-minded in this country but in fact with the two-party system we are anything but, and the system promotes this fraction and illogical hatred.

So instead of saying profit is good in our democratic society as it can foster job growth, promote the American dream (which does actually still exist...somewhere) and provide incentive for hard but fair and honest work, and then tempering that with 'but we need to have regulations to prevent abuse of workers, etc. we just conclude that profit is 'amoral'. One side is labeled as racist rednecks mired in old-school mindset, and the other as socialist loons out to redistribute what they were unable or unwilling to make for themselves. And there is no middle ground except endless argument and rhetoric.

We cannot work together anymore to accomplish anything and have become a bloody joke. Certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. Certainly not how a supposedly civilized society should behave. Certainly conducive to our ultimate downfall and irrelevance. Good job all.

English patient is a tough one. She is an excellent actress, and I love Ray (Ralph, but don't they also call him 'Ray'?) Fiennes. It was beautifully filmed, and won lots of awards to boot. I think for me, it was just one of those films that didn't click. They just didn't develop his character enough for me to feel any empathy towards him. Check it out, you may love it. The beauty of film is one person's trash is another one's treasure.

Another horrible one for thought that popped into mind only because I saw it mentioned just yesterday - Pearl Harbor with Ben Affleck.

There are a lot of really bad ones with no budget, but with a relatively higher budget and very popular stars at the time of its release, hands down 'Ishtar' has to be one of the worst movies ever made. I think it was Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty - just a really horrible and unwatchable film.

Close runner up would be 'The English Patient'. Weird film, I didn't care for the acting, and the main character such a treacherous ass that it was difficult to feel any pity for him or care one iota what happened to his character.

The opening line is offensive to me - "vast, predominantly white crowd". While I'm relatively objective and somewhat ambivalent on the whole tea party thing, it does seem to me that the left/left leaning media has gone to very great pains to portray and stereotype the tea party as racist. Ironically, if a reporter were to say "a predominantly black crowd" they would be pounced upon as racist. Move along, nothing to see - no double standard here. It's as if the idea of a group of people trying to get together to share political beliefs is so offensive and scary to those that lean left that it must be labeled to show that it's evil - and why not throw out the race thing. If the left wanted to form 'the coffee party' I wouldn't think there would be need to label the group as 'predominately gay' or something equally ridiculous. It was perceived at some rally some time ago that a few said something racist, so naturally the whole tea party is now nothing short of a KKK rally, because we all know that anyone with an evil conservative viewpoint is one step away from cutting holes in the pillow cases. Give me a break.

but they still think its okay to discriminate against gays, and welcome their new whipping boy, the Muslim. In short, they learned damn near nothing from MLK.

That's your perception, based upon nothing but your hatred of conservatives. While I don't think about it much because it makes no difference, I have many gay friends and am relatively conservative. I haven't seen a 'hatred of gays' based upon political conservatism. It's more often based upon religion, and while Beck may spout it, and despite your belief in the contrary, I don't think a majority of conservatives these days are the religious types. You're thinking of the typical middle-aged white southerners perhaps, but they aren't the only ones with a more conservative slant.

As for Muslims, race,religion and sexual preference are all different animals. Extremist lesbians might get a good 'butch' haircut and wear a spiked collar, but they seldom strap explosives on their backs and indiscriminately blow up people when they feel 'wronged'.

19 mentally ill nutcases

While I would agree with your summation of the mentally ill nutcases, I think it has pretty much been proven that there was a network behind this. While I won't argue that it can't be blamed on 2 billion people (you say 2, I've seen figures everywhere from 0.7 to 2 which is quite a disparity as 'give or take a billion' is no small thing) certainly these were a bit more than mentally ill nutcases. They had a lot of help to get the training and get them into position to carry out the attacks. For instance I couldn't afford flight school and to travel as they did. The folks dancing in the streets when it happened did little to effect cause that these were just nutcases with no support.

I wouldn't dispute the civilian thing Yuri - those gunners were likely very inexperienced.

I think we should just sum it all up as the bombs were a horrible end to a horrible war, and move on. While I think the truth about the war should be a standard taught by all nations in all schools (if we didn't learn a lesson from this, then it's a slap in the face to all who died). Forget the apologizing and blaming by both sides. It's history, over and done. We should learn to remember the dead and their sacrifices without pointing fingers and arguing about it. Most of us weren't even alive when it happened.

It's funny how perceptions and ideas of people can change so quickly. My father was drafted for the Korean war and was sent to Japan to train. He absolutely loved the Japanese people and thought they were the greatest folks on earth - this just a mere five years after (well, more like almost eight when he was drafted) they had been the 'dreaded Japs'. There is a big lesson in that.

Yuri I'm just wondering if you ever get tired of your same 'ole same 'ole. Let's just end this once and for all. The great and noble Japanese were innocently minding their own business when a few aircraft carriers of the Imperial Japanese fleet got blown way off course. They sent out aircraft to discover their location and due to faulty manufacturing, all of their bombs and torpedoes were accidentally released, sinking much of the US Pacific fleet. Oh, and the rounds went off in the wing guns as well, accidentally discharging bullets. Unfortunately some American sailors and a few civilians jumped in the way of them. In it's lost wanderings the Japanese fleet moved across the Pacific, and the Japanese Army was sent to find them. They too became lost and moved from island to island trying to find their way. They stopped off at Bataan, and asked all of the US GIs there to come to a big party they were having. The Americans were very clumsy, and many accidentally fell on bayonets or swords and were killed or beheaded.

In a desperate attempt to find their way home, the Japanese Army moved into China to ask for help. Mysteriously, hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians either jumped onto the bayonets being held out by friendly Japanese soldiers as greeting of welcome, or jumped in front of the bullets and bombs the Japanese troops fired in celebration of meeting their new friends. Some Chinese women were so overtaken they removed their clothes and threw themselves at the stunned and modest Japanese. The people of the Philippines welcomed the Japanese soldiers with open arms, then put themselves in camps and bombed Manila to show the Japanese how happy they were to see them.

Hey, I guess then we can say that the kindly Americans provided the bright beacons of Fat Man and Little Boy to show the lost Japanese the way home.

Come on.

Sez, you said in an earlier posting:

I think this question was already answered in my previous post. It is in America's interest to promote moderate Islam. It cannot do that if it is seen as being prejudiced.

Isn't that appeasement? By definition I would say yes. Should I have said pacification? Same thing. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but to me it seems that you are suggesting that allowing the mosque is a way of satisfying or pacifying (appeasement) those who follow moderate Islam who might otherwise turn to a more extremist bent. My issue is that if the followers of Islam are so unstable that being asked to move a proposed mosque a bit further down the road might convert otherwise passive followers of Islam to a more extremist point of view, then something is amiss. They just closed a Catholic church near me because the church was renting the land and it sold to a developer; while they can be wacky at times with the kid touching, I don't expect to see radical Catholics with bombs strapped to their torsos blowing up the local Price Chopper. Granted, anything is possible.

And yes, there are some in America, and aspects of American life that have today and historically not been exactly milestones of basic rights and freedoms. But you bring up exceptions rather than the norm.

And your comments about Muslims living in the US for over '300 years' is true, but a slight misrepresentation of the facts to support your own ideas. Yes, there have been Muslims and followers of Islam in the US for some time. And while I cannot find what I would deem as reliable data for exact number, the consensus projections is that the number of Muslims immigrating to the US has grown astronomically in the last decade. While there has been a small Muslim population in the US for hundreds of years, that population tended to be pretty much assimilated into the general population. With the influx of a larger number of immigrants from other nations and of other religions, the tendency is to live in larger communities (I believe Michigan has prime examples of larger Muslim communities).

Now I'm not concluding that there is anything wrong or sinister with that, but rather just illustrating the point that saying 'we've always had a Muslim population' is somewhat misleading.

Apparently, in the case of the planned Islamic cultural center, "basic freedoms and right" do not trump all else--at least not in the eyes of those who protest its construction.

I would agree that any attempt to legally block them from building this mosque, or even telling them they cannot is wrong, unconstitutional and not what America is about. But I'm also of the opinion that it does not need to be at this location. We can argue the whys and why nots forever, but to me it's a matter of decency and taste, even if it is just perceived. If someone has a child that dies in a swimming pool, they might not want to live beside a swimming pool - the pool itself is not evil or even at fault. It's been argued to death and the 'twain shall never meet' as they say.

Am I worried that America might become an Islamic state? Of course not. There are far too many loony rednecks with guns here to prevent such a thing. American freedoms are too far ingrained into the general populous to allow such a thing. But I am worried about cultural clash that might eventually lead to more and more confrontation and violence. See the trouble with our democracy is that in order to maintain its integrity we have to allow all groups the same freedom enjoyed by all. That works out fine and dandy as long as those groups immigrating to this democracy understand and comply with the notion that their belief system must now embrace these same freedoms. Not Sharia Law. The problem - does their religious law override the laws we've set forth for our democracy? If the answer is yes, then I do see it as a threat to that very democracy. You cannot have a draconian system of law trumping the democratic system in the name of religion, and not expect repercussions. I do realize of course that all religions have their laws and tenants that the faithful must follow. But we've been through the witch trials and all the ultra-religious nonsense and moved on to a truer form (at least I think we have). To that end I do see Islam as a threat. Allowing freedom to the point of downfall and subjugation is unlikely in this case, but history would show it's not impossible.

freedoms and rights above - they should really put an edit feature on this.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan,Yemen, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon…

Don’t preach to America about religious tolerance Imam, take it to your own brothers and sisters who have no religious and political freedoms!

Great posting there. SezWho2 don't you think it somewhat telling that in your comments you seem to suggest (forgive me if I'm wrong) an appeasement of Islam, or at least in "America's interest to promote moderate Islam" as a means of curtailing violence by extremist followers of Islam? Is your suggestion merely for making America not look intolerant, or is it that moderate Muslims will turn to a more extremist viewpoint if we do not appease them by relenting on the building of the mosque? It has become a national and polarizing argument of sorts (though obviously helped a very great deal by media hype). But if the suggestion is that one issue involving the building of one single mosque can provide fuel to create radical followers of Islam that may act against the US, then I think that legitimizes the mistrust in Islam that so many Americans feel.

The list provided in the quote at the beginning of my (this) post is interesting as well. Do those of you who defy the wary eye placed on Islam and the Muslims who follow it in admittedly varying degrees deny that Islamic nations tend to be at the bottom of the list in human rights and religious tolerance? You don't suppose there is any correlation?

While the mosque issue is primarily about the location of a religious center, it has certainly raised the question of religious tolerance and why Islam/Muslims is/are not seen as just another flavor of those that already co-exist here with varying degrees of a peaceful coexistence. We are a nation of religious freedoms, so why are we suddenly being intolerant a-holes? It's easy to say the reason is bigotry and hatred (for those who do, stop saying racism as a religion isn't a race). Without going into the fundamentals of why the US became a free nation and adopted a constitution to preserve these freedoms, it's easy to see that too many see the tenants of Islam as violations of fundamentals. I don't know about you, but in most Islamic countries I look at today, I don't see too much of freedom of speech, freedom of religion (other than Islam), and often not even the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Put another way, in America there has always been religious freedom, but basic freedoms and right trump all else. This doesn't fly with Islam, even the more moderate variety, and that makes a lot of Americans uncomfortable.

I started reading this thread, but why bother? You conspiracy theorists are all a pack of loons. File it right up there with the faked moon landings and Elvis sightings. It's quite easy to create something out of nothing.

What happened to the Pentagon? Supposedly hit by a plane, but photos from the scene show only a round hole and no debris... no titanium engines, nothing. not even scorched grass. My sister works on planes for a living in the Navy... She confirmed that there should have been engines, wings, bodies, etc. But the photos show only a round hole... like what is made when a missile hits...

One of my best friends lived a few miles from the Pentagon and his wife saw the plane going in (well, out of view but clearly angled to crash). I recall seeing aircraft wreckage as well, but of course your mind blanks all that out because the evil government just HAD to be behind all this. Those stupid Ay-rabs couldn't have planned and carried out such a thing, no sir. Building can't collapse because of impact and vibration either, right? Just had a three or four story one fall down near to where I work last week due to construction going on next door. Some idiot can't figure out the time differences and claims the BBC reported it before it happens. Why is the truth so difficult for people to understand? Elvis is dead; croaked on the toilet or whatever a long time ago. Same with Marlyn Monroe and Jim Morrison. Michael Jackson isn't alive in someone's basement. A man with a really crappy Italian WW2 model rifle could conceivably kill JFK (although I will admit there are some odd ones there) and a decent terror network could do what was done on 9/11. Move on.

I'm a New Yorker and while I have a less than favorable view of Islam I think this isn't necessarily what most from NY are opposed to. Particularly those from the City have seen it all and being against someone just because of their religion really isn't in the makeup. NYC is truly the melting pot. But it did hit the city very hard. And while it's easy for so many other to say things like:

It is also in bad taste for people to cling to grief and to expect others to continually treat them with kid gloves. And it is in bad taste for people to use their grief to seek to deny others their rights.

it's not so easy. With all of its multitude of problems, there is a spirit in the city that personally I haven't experienced anywhere else (not that I'm worldly by any means). It might sound corny to say, but a piece of that spirit was ripped away when the attacks happened. Sure, there's always the danger of being mugged or in the wrong place at the wrong time, but this brought a new and very unwanted dimension. Simply put it was a violation. I think most from NY have the outlook of 'not here, not now'. It's more complex than that and I'm not doing a good job in explaining it. It's easy to chalk up as intolerance, bigotry and blame but there's more to it than that.

I don't think it is at all puzzling that people can hate Americans based on what their government does. I think if you look at what is happening in regard to the mosque you find any number of Americans who are quite willing to hate Muslims based on what a few fanatics have done. However, regardless of any prior apprehensions, I think most people are willing to reserve judgment on individual Americans until they get to know them.

Well, if the implication is that other nations can indeed hate us because of the actions of our government, then why are you then surprised that many Americans mistrust Muslims because of the actions of some Imams and radical practitioners? I didn't vote for George Bush, but I'm condemned as an American because we invaded Iraq. Muslim A doesn't really believe in killing the infidel, but Muslim B does. All Americans are condemned; all Muslims are condemned. And before you point out that one is a government and the other a religion, I would point out that the distinction in the latter is very gray at best. How many Muslim nations would love to see the swan song of the 'evil west' because of perception and what their Quran tells them?

In the end it comes down to perceptions. Many of us perceive the building of this mosque at this particular location as being in poor taste. Many more don't. Some people think it's okay to wear those god-awful pajama things to the supermarket. It's all personal tastes and perception. Legally it should certainly be allowed, tastefully it depends upon your outlook.

whoops hit submit by mistake -

I should have said there is a dichotomy here and both sides are sort of right - which will lead to endless argument. To paint all Muslims and all Islamic teachings as 'evil and bad' is just plain wrong. To deny freedom of religion in a country founded on such principles is just plain wrong. BUT

You cannot deny there is a radical fringe of Islam, and that many more Muslims than perhaps you want to believe at least might follow a slightly more 'severe' shall we say form. Islam is a religion that by perception seems to not only embody the person's spiritual self, but their political and social ideology as well. Most might argue that all religions should. But the point is that when the general teaching and tenants of the religion are that no others should exist, and that there are - even if just a relatively small percentage - a fringe who would take this literally and kill to do it, then there is an issue. Nutter Christian groups usually lock themselves in compounds in places like Montana and are fairly benign. Nutter Islamic terrorists strap explosives to themselves and kill large groups of innocent people, often even fellow Muslims. You can see the difference I should think.

It's not a cut and dry religious freedom issue when the religion in question has faith based schizophrenia which causes others who want no part of it to die.

I find it disheartening that Americans still content themselves with easy answers 9 years after the little girl asked her mother, "Why do they hate us so?"

Very true, but the problems in the Middle East go way back before the western nations began exploiting the region, enforcing colonial rule and generally mucking about in their affairs. I don't even know if I'd conclude that America is the worst offender. Certainly as the largest power of mostly Christians who go against most of their religious values we are an easy target of vilification. I do find it puzzling that other nations can vilify us and hate most Americans base on perceptions of what our government does, but when we do the same we're 'intolerant right-wing lunatics' because we're supposed to serve as a shining light of constitutional democracy. We are human after all and subject to the same natural reactions of response.

But at the Park51 site, if it were Buddists it would be A-OK and we all know it. Muslims ARE being singled out, and that is why it does not work in reverse, and that is why it is an even worse type of intolerance and discrimination, because its not even half equal opportunity, its focused all on one very general group, yet still 25 percent of the human race!

You are correct in that it wouldn't be an issue if Buddhists wanted to build a monastery - why would it be? As far as I know Buddhist teachings don't involve the systematic eradication of all other religions - or at least if it does that are not as many radical loons trying to achieve this. Just personal opinion - as I think all religions are products of a natural human fear of death and need for hope - but Buddhism always seemed truly more about peace than most of the others. You and several others seem to conclude that the 9/11 perpetrators had no base in Islam whatsoever, and other than a link to an article written my some supposed 'scholar' who said they were drinking, gambling and not true Muslims, I've seen little to prove that they were not. Certainly they had a hatred of the west and a driving factor that made them do this. I would bet that driving factor was their faith and their version of what Allah and Islam would want them to do. Whether they were following a radical or perverted version is relevant in the argument that all Muslims do not follow such radicalized teachings, but also relevant in the argument that some form of radical Islam was in fact behind the motives for this attack.

There are obviously two dichotomys here

Likely if you found yourself or a loved one blind or in a wheelchair which might very well be remedied by said stem cell research, you might change your mind. For those morally opposed where do you draw the line between 'playing God' and using the intelligence/brain that this God supposedly provided?

Check in your local fertility clinic to see how many human embryos are flushed per year. Not because the donors are 'morally bankrupt' but often because they are simply trying to have children, or help someone who cannot. I won't enter the fray on when human life becomes viable, but much as an organ donor benefits the recipient, wouldn't it be much better if these cells went to help a blind man see, or a disabled girl walk rather than be tossed? Food for thought.

Yes, and if they don't build the mosque, the off-track betting facility and gentleman's "club" that are currently on the mosque site will be open even later into the night.

Betting and dancing naked women didn't bring down the towers. It can be argued by some whether or not the attackers were true followers of Islam, but they certainly had their fanaticism rightly or wrongly based in their own twisted version of it's teachings.

one measure that can be taken to get the American people to understand that American Islam poses no essential threat to the American legal system is to educate people about what American Islam teaches. Also, oddly enough, the planned cultural center could be one way of doing precisely that.

It's good they are willing to grow the religion they love within the confines of American society.

So the conclusions being offered are that Islam and the 'modern' Muslims who follow its tenants are becoming 'westernized' or 'Americanized' and therefore absolutely no threat to our society. Is this truly the case? Yes, certainly the Muslim who has lived in this country for 20 years, or was born here is likely to see Islam and Sharia law in a more moderate light, and one that shirks off the ideas labeled as 'extremists' - i.e. subjugating or killing infidels, homosexuals, etc. But is this really true of much of today's immigrant Muslim population that is a bit closer to the less watered down version? I'm asking rather than making statement of fact. Is there data on this?