Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Speaking of straw man stuff though, as far as I'm aware the building of the faith centre has not been stopped. We've covered the protesters and Gingrich and everyone seems to agree on their right to spout whatever they want. This is where I'm struggling to see the outrage. I think the huge pressure HF speaks of to stop the building is exaggerated and would be surprised if the building was completely halted. If it is stopped, though, it'll be because of the protesters and Gingrich. Yeehaw. Then it'd end up going to the supreme court. Prop 8 was deemed unconstitutional and now gays are legal again and everything's dandy. Like I say I'd be surprised if they fully shut down this building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 I think it's a combination. The security risk is negligible in most cases like with South Park, some internet group with about 4 members made threatening remarks and they pulled Muhammed again. Speaking of straw man stuff though, as far as I'm aware the building of the faith centre has not been stopped. We've covered the protesters and Gingrich and everyone seems to agree on their right to spout whatever they want. This is where I'm struggling to see the outrage. I think the huge pressure HF speaks of to stop the building is exaggerated and would be surprised if the building was completely halted. The outrage doesn't stop with Fox and the public shitstorm they've generated. There's a widespread political consensus across both major parties that the proposal should be stopped or relocated despite the constitution's clear position on religious freedom. Only a few politicians like Ron Paul, Joe Sestak, Grover Norquist, Russ Feingold, Jerry Nadler and Ted Olson have had the balls to speak up in support of constitutional rights AND the importance of avoiding precedent setting concessions to a baying mob to circumvent them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 An appeal to reverse a planning decision over a mosque in Lincoln has been rejected by the government. Lincoln City Council turned down proposals by the Islamic Association of Lincoln for a new two-storey building in Boultham Park Road in November 2009. The plans were for the site of the former St Matthew's Church, which was destroyed by fire in 2008. In a report a government planning inspector said the mosque would cause traffic problems. The inspector did say he had "considerable sympathy with the problems and aspirations of the Islamic Association" but the site was not suitable. The association currently worships in temporary facilities on Carholme Road but has been looking for a permanent location for five years. It had originally planned to convert the redundant St Matthew's Church on the site before it burnt down. The proposed purpose-built mosque would have held 500 worshippers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-11084743 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Only a few politicians like Ron Paul, Joe Sestak, Grover Norquist, Russ Feingold, Jerry Nadler and Ted Olson have had the balls to speak up... And Barack Obama. As for that example, are you quoting that as an example of religious persecution? "In a report a government planning inspector said the mosque would cause traffic problems. The inspector did say he had "considerable sympathy with the problems and aspirations of the Islamic Association" but the site was not suitable." That seems a reasonable response to me. Is there evidence to suggest this is a fabrication about the suitability of the site? There are plenty of mosques and minarets throughout America, the muslim community there is quite small. You'd have more of a case for religion being suppressed with the Swiss ban on minarets, I don't know if it actually went through; scanning on the wiki page quickly it seems the Swiss government is trying to reject the ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Think he was just after a chomp tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 Only a few politicians like Ron Paul, Joe Sestak, Grover Norquist, Russ Feingold, Jerry Nadler and Ted Olson have had the balls to speak up... And Barack Obama. No, he made a point of saying he was ONLY commenting on the constitutional right, there was an "AND" in the sentence you selectively quoted. He specifically said he would not comment on the wisdom of exercising this right in this situation. As for that example, are you quoting that as an example of religious persecution? No "In a report a government planning inspector said the mosque would cause traffic problems. The inspector did say he had "considerable sympathy with the problems and aspirations of the Islamic Association" but the site was not suitable." That seems a reasonable response to me. Is there evidence to suggest this is a fabrication about the suitability of the site? There are plenty of mosques and minarets throughout America, the muslim community there is quite small. You'd have more of a case for religion being suppressed with the Swiss ban on minarets, I don't know if it actually went through; scanning on the wiki page quickly it seems the Swiss government is trying to reject the ban. Seems reasonable to me too. We're far more reasonable in this country i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Obama is really weak in his statements, see his non-committal statements on gay marriage also. You can be sure he personally supports the right for building to be constructed though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Obama is really weak in his statements, see his non-committal statements on gay marriage also. You can be sure he personally supports the right for building to be constructed though. In one speech he goes on about his dad 'coming back from war'. Which war would that be? Can't believe a word he says these days (Obama). Pretty much in the pocket of Wall street I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26168 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Obama is really weak in his statements, see his non-committal statements on gay marriage also. You can be sure he personally supports the right for building to be constructed though. In one speech he goes on about his dad 'coming back from war'. Which war would that be? Can't believe a word he says these days (Obama). Pretty much in the pocket of Wall street I'm afraid. Which speech would that be? You're being a bit non-committal there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Obama is really weak in his statements, see his non-committal statements on gay marriage also. You can be sure he personally supports the right for building to be constructed though. In one speech he goes on about his dad 'coming back from war'. Which war would that be? Can't believe a word he says these days (Obama). Pretty much in the pocket of Wall street I'm afraid. Which speech would that be? You're being a bit non-committal there. In some of the comments below it says he was actually talking about WW1 and his grandad...Upto you really, but even if it was WW1 were there really 'services' in those days. I mean there are literally 100's of Obama talking shit videos out there unfortunately. He's pretty much gone back on everything he stood for. I still quite like him mind. Tough job etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26168 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 How many guys get to be President of the USA without being full of shit though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrossthepond 699 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. I have read the Satanic Verses and if I'm honest it is a load of shocking, inflammatory rubbish. I affirm his right to have it published, but I don't believe for a second that his intentions were anything but to rile up the people he claims as his co-religionists. He's truly getting away with murder (maybe a bad choice of words? ) to have that wummery-in-book-form called 'literature.' Oh and this fellow is never Fop. Fop would've resorted to smileys long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Pissed Shirley Maclaine off into the bargain too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. I have read the Satanic Verses and if I'm honest it is a load of shocking, inflammatory rubbish. I affirm his right to have it published, but I don't believe for a second that his intentions were anything but to rile up the people he claims as his co-religionists. He's truly getting away with murder (maybe a bad choice of words? ) to have that wummery-in-book-form called 'literature.' Oh and this fellow is never Fop. Fop would've resorted to smileys long ago. ...and his fav term 'conveymencer' or summink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. Why do you say that? Is it purely based upon your opinion of the Satanic Verses? Apparantly it was well received within literary circles but it did receive some unfavourable reviews in Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. Why do you say that? Is it purely based upon your opinion of the Satanic Verses? Apparantly it was well received within literary circles but it did receive some unfavourable reviews in Iran. Tbf, he's read it, which probably puts him at an advantage over most people who reviewed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordieracer 0 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 (edited) This thread is painful.......... Some of you may benefit from taking your noses out of the books for a short while and doing some first hand research rather than continually linking sites which support your arguments. Edited August 25, 2010 by Geordieracer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. Why do you say that? Is it purely based upon your opinion of the Satanic Verses? Apparantly it was well received within literary circles but it did receive some unfavourable reviews in Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. Why do you say that? Is it purely based upon your opinion of the Satanic Verses? Apparantly it was well received within literary circles but it did receive some unfavourable reviews in Iran. Tbf, he's read it, which probably puts him at an advantage over most people who reviewed it. It's too fatwa for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrossthepond 699 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. You've read it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 (edited) I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. You've read it now? no. I'm not interested. I don't give a fuck about it. It's only a book. I just don't want barmy people on both sides of this fence telling me what I can and can't say. If they are anti-west, and their allegiance and beliefs lie in a different sort of society, then they can fuck off. Edited August 25, 2010 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrossthepond 699 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 (edited) I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. You've read it now? no. Then shut the fuck up. Have a nice day. EDIT: Just by the way, if you'd actually been reading anything I wrote, you would've seen that I said I defend Rushdie's right to publish whatever he wants. But don't let that stop you from trotting out the old "if they want to live by their own rules then stay in their own countries" line. Edited August 25, 2010 by acrossthepond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. You've read it now? no. Then shut the fuck up. Have a nice day. I'll say what the fuck I like, which is the point. Bollocks to Islam, Allah.........they can all fuck off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrossthepond 699 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. You've read it now? no. Then shut the fuck up. Have a nice day. I'll say what the fuck I like, which is the point. Bollocks to Islam, Allah.........they can all fuck off. Rattled yet, you sad old man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now