The fears are valid, but not sound. The historical premise is correct, but the fact that the mosque is not. Your attack on me is misguided, as I am only trying to display a possibility of the basic logic employed by the pastor in question, rather than the poo-poo him on the spot as an incendiary nutjob - something that the lot of you are doing.
This entire paragraph is just incoherent. Care to try again?
The bottom line is Gates did that because he cares for his soldiers and will do what is required to see them succeed in their mission in accordance with direction from the POTUS. This is what he did, and in doing so he has been more reasonable and effective than your sensationalist and/or inaccurate MSM
Dude, if it weren't for the sensationalist and/or inaccurate MSM, nobody would have even known about either the community center (which, in accordance with sensationalism and/or inaccuracy, you continue to refer to as a "mosque") OR the dumbass burning Korans. (Who would also quite possibly not have been burning Korans if not for the sensationalist and/or inaccurate MSM talking about the "Ground Zero Mosque" every day.) Saying the MSM has been ineffectual in calming the situation down is sort of like lecturing an arsonist about how a hose would be a more effective firefighting tool than gasoline and matches.
Trust me, the reputation of the DNC is such that the more liberals like you whine and say mean names, the more hardline conservatives are emboldened. They have all but given up on talking to you in a rational fashion. I'm almost there myself.
Yes, you make an excellent point. I remember when Bill O'Reilly used to try and engage liberals calmly and rationally and how he just gave up after mean old Al Franken called him a liar just because he kept lying all the time.
The Pastor now has an opportunity to better understand the premises of the situation.
He always had the opportunity. While I grant that there's pretty much nowhere to go from "I'm going to burn a holy book that represents a fifth of the world's population" except closer to finding a middle-ground, that still doesn't make it a great place to start.
It's cute that you paint this as a "Perfectly reasonable nutjob was going to do something crazy just because a bunch of liberals said it was crazy" standoff, but unfortunately for that narrative, he had religious leaders from all over the country, from all places in the political spectrum, contacting him and begging him, in very polite and conciliatory tones, to seek a different path. Gates wasn't the only guy who called him, he was just the highest-profile.
Other people may follow their example, but others may not. People with a conservative background and have influence are likely to respect the request of the Cabinet member due to a combination of the fine taste in political credential (in their mind), his position, and his reputation. Yes, the phone call might give him more credibility, but it gives him the opportunity to save face in front of his congregation - something the lot of you have outright denied.
Please point me to the post where a single person, let alone "the lot of us", denied this allows him to save face in front of his congregation. If you're not too busy unfriending people on Facebook and writing passive-aggressive posts in other threads.
Getting a personal phone call from a Cabinet official is hardly the only way he could have saved face in front of his congregation. He could have said he received a revelatory vision of Jesus in a taco. Or, I don't know, lied and said that the imam called him and told him he was going to move the "mosque".
Or maybe he could have found some passage somewhere in the New Testament about how you should be nice to people even if you think they're bad people, and given a sermon about that. Is there anything like that in there?
there are a lot of people who are still very emotionally scarred by that day, and wouldn't want a constant reminder such as that within sight of the place.
It's not within sight of ground zero, there are several large buildings in the way.
Pretty much this. I suspect that many of the people making the "two blocks" argument have never been to Manhattan and do not understand the difference between a city block there and a city block in, say, Tempe.
Not to say there aren't New Yorkers protesting, of course. But most of the drumbeat is coming from outside of the city.
It's in poor taste because if you could build it somewhere else, it wouldn't offend a soul (who isn't offended by everything Islam related of course).
But that's just it -- anyone lumping one group of Muslims in with a completely different group of Muslims, based solely on the fact that they're Muslim, is prejudiced against Muslims. That's the very definition of prejudice. The people who are mad about a "mosque" in Manhattan would be just as mad if it were in, I don't know,
Tennessee.
Author
Topic: Eid al-Adha at Ground Zero (Read 4617 times)