Nice presentation of the argument over the Islamic Center near ground zero. I agree with your's and Dr. Jasser's points. We may have the right to do somethng but common decency should steer us in a different direction.
My only concern is how can we ask an American Muslim to place this country above their religion when we have so many Christians that can't seem to do what we are asking the American Muslim to do. I am not saying that placing the US first above a religion is necessarily a bad thing. We have many Christians that even go so far to declare the US a Christian Nation (this has been debated many times on this site.) Many Christians place their faith above this country. The New Testament actually tells Christians to do just that if eternal life is a primary objective for an individual. I will say that the NT also says (paraphrasing) to respect the laws of the land - paying taxes, etc.
My questions is "Can a person be a religious person and place their faith (regardless of their faith tradition) above our great country and still be a patriot?" Does there have to be a first or second place? Can I as a Christian, place my highest level of devotion to Jesus Christ, love my country, and still be a patriot? I think from most people, the answer is yes.
I would also say that there are people in our country that take their "devotion" to a faith tradition to extremes like the pastor in Fla ("God told me to do it.") or the KKK (The burning cross stands for our closeness to the crucified Christ.) or Muslin extremist (killing people in the name of Allah).
What I would like to see is what happened to the pastor in FLA. He received a strong condemnation of the act from his "own kind", namely Christians. Even the Vatican had an extremely strong condemnation of the act of Koran burning.
I would like to see / hear more of the rational, mainstream Muslim American (or American Muslim, however you want to list it) continue to be a voice of reason and condem the extremist faction within their own faith tradition. After all we are all from the same God. We (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) are all monothestic religions that have foundations that can be traced back to Abraham.
My opinion . . . anticdotal research . . . this country is more divided now than ever. Maybe even more that in civil war days. The division is more philosophical and not so geographic . . .
Most posters on this site try to convince others that they have the only correct political answer. Much of their information comes from a talking head whether it be a politician or a person that appears on the cable news stations. Which in my humble opinion are not really about true news (Walter Cronkite like) but are entertainment shows that are searching for profits based on the number of viewers. As Sienfield would say . . . "not that there is anything wrong with that", until they try to pass MSNBC, FOX, and even CNN as NEWS programs.
Most of us tend to watch a station that is aligned with our world view and are "fed" information that supports that view. We like that because it makes us feel good because it "proves" we are correct. The issue is that much, not all, but much, of the information "fed" to us is wrong, innaccurate, or maybe just misleading . . . from all the specific political perspectives.
I have two challenges . . . or missions (from the old show Mission Impossible) . . . if you choose to accept them.
One . . . watch your station with a critical eye, looking for inconsistancies, outlandish statements (Beck is god, Obama is the greatest president, etc.) and research the information realizing that much (dare I say most) of what is on the internet is not true and usually has an agenda behind it. In other words . . . make up your own mind and not just beleive the talking heads. You may come right back to were but you will have a sense of confidence rather than just that I heard it on the "news" or you, suprising enough, may slightly change your viewpoint.
Two . . . watch the "other" station and truely try to understand what is being postulated. Don't just discount it, research it! Again, you may come right back to your original view but you may have a better understanding of why "they" feel that way. You also may find some truth in the exercise.
It is obvious that some of the posters on this site do this or some variation of this exercise. It is also obvious some don't! You are your own judge . . . are you a talking head's mouth piece or an individual thinker that has a particular world view?
Some of you will dismiss this as hog wash and just go on watching your station. I would say to get out of your comfort zone because you may be missing a big world out there.
I struggle at this myself . . . it feels good to listen to someone that tells me all the reasons why I am correct in my world view. :)
Wasn't John Galt a fictional character? I think he represented the ideal capitalist? I realize that the author of this novel used academic principles in presenting a conceptualization of philosophical premises but this only further explains the premises not "prove" them. I do see why you found this novel interesting. It seems to coincide with your beliefs.
The reference to socialistic idealism in the novel is also interesting. I guess that is what I would be labeled from the author's perspective. I find it interesting that the author describes a world based on social idealism in a poor light.
Our brains work very differently!
I see your world as oppressive "what is, is and ever shall be", conceptually black or white, fearful, scientific, and predetermined. Probably different from your view of your world . . . LOL.
I see my world as full of opportuities, all people are good until proven otherwise, only limits are natural laws (gravity, etc) and peoples beliefs (bigger issue than natural law), there are very few absolutes, some black or white but full of a spectrum of grey, etc. Projecting here but . . . you probably see my world as lacking defination, mis-guided, idealistic, no substance, etc.
My point in this whole conversation is that I feel the world needs both types of thinking and others. I continue to try and understand your way of thinking and I do see the times where I can use more discipline in my thinking.
My fear is that we, as a society, continue to become more divided . . . "my way or the highway" or "if you don't agree with me you are wrong". I feel this is due in a great part with how we receive our information - cable news. Most of us tend to tune in to the station that support our thinking. That station pumps us full of information that makes us feel right or correct. We only get our side of the "news". This comes back to one of your earlier points about how we acquire information that we use to operate our lives.
There are many people on this site that seem to fall into that catagory. Whether the conversation is religious (Christian nation, Islam, etc) or political (Rep vs Dem, liberal vs consertative, jail vs no jail, etc.) each of us seem to have the answers and is not willing to listen to another viewpoint. As I stated in my original post on this thread, my hope is that we move towards Blanchard's phrase "understand, then be understood". To paraphrase from a country song, " we have two ears and just one tounge, because we have more to hear that we have to say'.
The main idea from my last post was more focused on the idea of "fruitful conversatins" and how others have responded to your posts. I am not debating the truthfulness of the statement I quoted from you, just an example of why someone may respond to you in a mean spited manner.
In a statement, your approach to issues will lead to strong pushback. You probably already were aware that your comments would lead to terse comments. That was all I was trying to express. Afterall, Jesus told his followers that they should expect to be ridiculed and hated for their support of Him. Not saying you are Jesus :-) . . .
Help me understand . . . the Law of Identity . . . is that A = A and will always = A. What if a person was to find a singular exception to A? Does that mean that the identity of A changes or is modified? Does A become A' or B? What if we have A and scientific research disproves A in only a specific situation? Does A go away?
From your perspective . . . how does the Principle of Contradiction play into this discussion?
I am trying to understand your perspective . . . Many times I have heard experts expouse facts (A) and along comes some researcher and provides an exception to the "fact" (A').
My education and experience shows that there are very few "A"s (most based on natural law) but many feel they have the true "A". My brain is in constant pursuit of more "A"s and weeding through the mularcky.
In my opinion there are very few truths. Some of my "truths" are based on faith (religious). Some are based on scientific data (natural law). I see very few "A"s, as in the Law of Identity. I have my set of premises I live my life by based on scientific data and faith. I do not know how this may relate to the Law of Identity which seem more like a philosophical ideal rather than a real life axiom.
I agree that some on this site attack you in very venomous, spiteful, and hateful ways.
My perspective is that some of this you bring on yourself based on the attitude of your posts . . . some of it is that your reputation precedes itself from your previous posts. . . some of it is just people responding in an anonymous way (people feel power in anonymity).
It is also true when you speak in absolutes, others are insulted, offended, and feel a need to lash back.
I have a sense that you are a smart enough person to know that when you push others, they will push back . . . especially in anonymity. Because you have chosen your approach to discussion (only one right answer) you will continue to get push back. My comment is that with this approach you tend to alienate yourself and not draw others into your perspective.
An example is . . .
“Everything is what it is, and not another thing. Only through reasoned examination of facts can one discern a thing's identity. Once the identity is known, arguments to the contrary only serve to promote that which is false.” (Prometheus)
Not debating if this statement is true or not but . . . this type of statement leads to attacks because by the nature of the statement you just discounted any contrary thought. That may or may not be your intent but you need to realize that the result of this kind of statement will be attacks by people (some very intelligent people) with contrary perspectives. Intelligent people will not sit back and let another person basically trash their own set of beliefs or life "facts".
I guess after reading several of your responses over the past week I would have to disagree with both of your assertions that you do not act as though you have the "correct answers" and that you are not insulting in your responses. I can't comment on your intent since only you know your intent but I feel I can comment on what I read and other poster's responses to your comments.
Let me share with you one simple example . . .
You stated in your last response to me . . .
"If you want to discuss, as you claim you do, I will - but you need to prepare yourself first. You don't know the subject material. You know only what you have heard from politicians and their mouth-pieces reading "news.""
This comment is condescending and insulting! It states blatantly that I don't know the subject matter. The comment also appears to assume that I get all my "knowledge" from politicians or "talking heads" on supposed news channels.
You make this comment without knowing if I am a biblical scholar or some putz off the street. I am neither! I consider myself an intelligent person with degrees - BA, MBA, EdD. I also have also learned many things from my life experiences. I have traveled the world - 5 continents. However, the most important thing I have learned during my educational path, my years on earth, and my career is that "the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know". My education and life experiences have brought a sense of humbleness to my outlook.
I appreciate your comment about seeking the "correct" answer but I have found that in order for me to get to the truth I have to approach a situation with an open mind. I do attempt to seek the truth in all things from politics to religion to economics etc. I have also considered that there may not just be one "correct" answer but a "best" answer from a few good options. That is why I enjoy an honest, thoughtful, respectful conversation or discussion . . . I get an opportunity to learn.
I also have appreciated your comments on Kensyian economics and for the most part agree with your assertions but what I have found most troubling in your discussions of religions, economics, political parties, etc. is not so much what you say (sometimes I agree and sometimes I don't) but how you say it and how you seem (my perception) to place a wall of "facts" up front instead of engaging in a fruitful conversation.
I hope you will truely hear the message here . . . Thanks for listening!
I apologize for referring to you as "P". I did not intend any offense. I was attempting to follow what seems to be a common practice on this and other sites of a friendly nick name. No offense intended.
Again, I see no reason to respond to your comments. You seem to be an intelligent person that feels as though you have all the correct answers. This leaves no room for conversation or discussion. In your posts on this topic and others, you seem to only pontificate regarding your perspective and then attempt to insult the intelligence of anyone that disagrees with you.
I see no reason to respond to your posts because you do not seem to be able to have a discussion. You just seem to want to pontificate and anyone that is not of your like mind is wrong.
I am confident you can find similar quotes in the Torah and Bible. Just look at Revelations. I am also confident that you can find many quotes saying the opposite in all three books - love and reconciliation.
Religious people have to constantly defend the out of context, negative comments that are quoted from their "divinely inspired" text. I do agree that there are many folks in all religions that take these comments to heart. Just look at the KKK, a Christ centered organization, but I do not feel that these outliers or fanatics are the norm or majority of their faith.
I would challenge anyone to look at the whole message in all groups and not quote limited sections just to prove their point.
kiki 2 years, 8 months ago
Mosque Planners Should Show Restraint
Geoff,
Nice presentation of the argument over the Islamic Center near ground zero. I agree with your's and Dr. Jasser's points. We may have the right to do somethng but common decency should steer us in a different direction.
My only concern is how can we ask an American Muslim to place this country above their religion when we have so many Christians that can't seem to do what we are asking the American Muslim to do. I am not saying that placing the US first above a religion is necessarily a bad thing. We have many Christians that even go so far to declare the US a Christian Nation (this has been debated many times on this site.) Many Christians place their faith above this country. The New Testament actually tells Christians to do just that if eternal life is a primary objective for an individual. I will say that the NT also says (paraphrasing) to respect the laws of the land - paying taxes, etc.
My questions is "Can a person be a religious person and place their faith (regardless of their faith tradition) above our great country and still be a patriot?" Does there have to be a first or second place? Can I as a Christian, place my highest level of devotion to Jesus Christ, love my country, and still be a patriot? I think from most people, the answer is yes.
I would also say that there are people in our country that take their "devotion" to a faith tradition to extremes like the pastor in Fla ("God told me to do it.") or the KKK (The burning cross stands for our closeness to the crucified Christ.) or Muslin extremist (killing people in the name of Allah).
What I would like to see is what happened to the pastor in FLA. He received a strong condemnation of the act from his "own kind", namely Christians. Even the Vatican had an extremely strong condemnation of the act of Koran burning.
I would like to see / hear more of the rational, mainstream Muslim American (or American Muslim, however you want to list it) continue to be a voice of reason and condem the extremist faction within their own faith tradition. After all we are all from the same God. We (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) are all monothestic religions that have foundations that can be traced back to Abraham.
My thoughts . . . yours?
kiki 2 years, 8 months ago
Dangerously Mixing Religion With Politics
My opinion . . . anticdotal research . . . this country is more divided now than ever. Maybe even more that in civil war days. The division is more philosophical and not so geographic . . .
Most posters on this site try to convince others that they have the only correct political answer. Much of their information comes from a talking head whether it be a politician or a person that appears on the cable news stations. Which in my humble opinion are not really about true news (Walter Cronkite like) but are entertainment shows that are searching for profits based on the number of viewers. As Sienfield would say . . . "not that there is anything wrong with that", until they try to pass MSNBC, FOX, and even CNN as NEWS programs.
Most of us tend to watch a station that is aligned with our world view and are "fed" information that supports that view. We like that because it makes us feel good because it "proves" we are correct. The issue is that much, not all, but much, of the information "fed" to us is wrong, innaccurate, or maybe just misleading . . . from all the specific political perspectives.
I have two challenges . . . or missions (from the old show Mission Impossible) . . . if you choose to accept them.
One . . . watch your station with a critical eye, looking for inconsistancies, outlandish statements (Beck is god, Obama is the greatest president, etc.) and research the information realizing that much (dare I say most) of what is on the internet is not true and usually has an agenda behind it. In other words . . . make up your own mind and not just beleive the talking heads. You may come right back to were but you will have a sense of confidence rather than just that I heard it on the "news" or you, suprising enough, may slightly change your viewpoint.
Two . . . watch the "other" station and truely try to understand what is being postulated. Don't just discount it, research it! Again, you may come right back to your original view but you may have a better understanding of why "they" feel that way. You also may find some truth in the exercise.
It is obvious that some of the posters on this site do this or some variation of this exercise. It is also obvious some don't! You are your own judge . . . are you a talking head's mouth piece or an individual thinker that has a particular world view?
Some of you will dismiss this as hog wash and just go on watching your station. I would say to get out of your comfort zone because you may be missing a big world out there.
I struggle at this myself . . . it feels good to listen to someone that tells me all the reasons why I am correct in my world view. :)
Anyway . . . my thoughts . . . yours?
kiki 2 years, 8 months ago
Debate About Islamic Center Brings Out the Worst in Us
Wasn't John Galt a fictional character? I think he represented the ideal capitalist? I realize that the author of this novel used academic principles in presenting a conceptualization of philosophical premises but this only further explains the premises not "prove" them. I do see why you found this novel interesting. It seems to coincide with your beliefs.
The reference to socialistic idealism in the novel is also interesting. I guess that is what I would be labeled from the author's perspective. I find it interesting that the author describes a world based on social idealism in a poor light.
Our brains work very differently!
I see your world as oppressive "what is, is and ever shall be", conceptually black or white, fearful, scientific, and predetermined. Probably different from your view of your world . . . LOL.
I see my world as full of opportuities, all people are good until proven otherwise, only limits are natural laws (gravity, etc) and peoples beliefs (bigger issue than natural law), there are very few absolutes, some black or white but full of a spectrum of grey, etc. Projecting here but . . . you probably see my world as lacking defination, mis-guided, idealistic, no substance, etc.
My point in this whole conversation is that I feel the world needs both types of thinking and others. I continue to try and understand your way of thinking and I do see the times where I can use more discipline in my thinking.
My fear is that we, as a society, continue to become more divided . . . "my way or the highway" or "if you don't agree with me you are wrong". I feel this is due in a great part with how we receive our information - cable news. Most of us tend to tune in to the station that support our thinking. That station pumps us full of information that makes us feel right or correct. We only get our side of the "news". This comes back to one of your earlier points about how we acquire information that we use to operate our lives.
There are many people on this site that seem to fall into that catagory. Whether the conversation is religious (Christian nation, Islam, etc) or political (Rep vs Dem, liberal vs consertative, jail vs no jail, etc.) each of us seem to have the answers and is not willing to listen to another viewpoint. As I stated in my original post on this thread, my hope is that we move towards Blanchard's phrase "understand, then be understood". To paraphrase from a country song, " we have two ears and just one tounge, because we have more to hear that we have to say'.
Cheers!
kiki 2 years, 8 months ago
Debate About Islamic Center Brings Out the Worst in Us
Prometheus,
The main idea from my last post was more focused on the idea of "fruitful conversatins" and how others have responded to your posts. I am not debating the truthfulness of the statement I quoted from you, just an example of why someone may respond to you in a mean spited manner.
In a statement, your approach to issues will lead to strong pushback. You probably already were aware that your comments would lead to terse comments. That was all I was trying to express. Afterall, Jesus told his followers that they should expect to be ridiculed and hated for their support of Him. Not saying you are Jesus :-) . . .
Help me understand . . . the Law of Identity . . . is that A = A and will always = A. What if a person was to find a singular exception to A? Does that mean that the identity of A changes or is modified? Does A become A' or B? What if we have A and scientific research disproves A in only a specific situation? Does A go away?
From your perspective . . . how does the Principle of Contradiction play into this discussion?
I am trying to understand your perspective . . . Many times I have heard experts expouse facts (A) and along comes some researcher and provides an exception to the "fact" (A').
My education and experience shows that there are very few "A"s (most based on natural law) but many feel they have the true "A". My brain is in constant pursuit of more "A"s and weeding through the mularcky.
In my opinion there are very few truths. Some of my "truths" are based on faith (religious). Some are based on scientific data (natural law). I see very few "A"s, as in the Law of Identity. I have my set of premises I live my life by based on scientific data and faith. I do not know how this may relate to the Law of Identity which seem more like a philosophical ideal rather than a real life axiom.
Your thoughts?
kiki 2 years, 8 months ago
Debate About Islamic Center Brings Out the Worst in Us
Prometheus,
I agree that some on this site attack you in very venomous, spiteful, and hateful ways.
My perspective is that some of this you bring on yourself based on the attitude of your posts . . . some of it is that your reputation precedes itself from your previous posts. . . some of it is just people responding in an anonymous way (people feel power in anonymity).
It is also true when you speak in absolutes, others are insulted, offended, and feel a need to lash back.
I have a sense that you are a smart enough person to know that when you push others, they will push back . . . especially in anonymity. Because you have chosen your approach to discussion (only one right answer) you will continue to get push back. My comment is that with this approach you tend to alienate yourself and not draw others into your perspective.
An example is . . .
“Everything is what it is, and not another thing. Only through reasoned examination of facts can one discern a thing's identity. Once the identity is known, arguments to the contrary only serve to promote that which is false.” (Prometheus)
Not debating if this statement is true or not but . . . this type of statement leads to attacks because by the nature of the statement you just discounted any contrary thought. That may or may not be your intent but you need to realize that the result of this kind of statement will be attacks by people (some very intelligent people) with contrary perspectives. Intelligent people will not sit back and let another person basically trash their own set of beliefs or life "facts".
Just my thoughts . . .
kiki 2 years, 8 months ago
Debate About Islamic Center Brings Out the Worst in Us
Prometheus,
You continue to prove my points . . . thank you!
I guess we just disagree!
Cheers!
kiki 2 years, 8 months ago
Debate About Islamic Center Brings Out the Worst in Us
Prometheus,
Thank you for your response!
I guess after reading several of your responses over the past week I would have to disagree with both of your assertions that you do not act as though you have the "correct answers" and that you are not insulting in your responses. I can't comment on your intent since only you know your intent but I feel I can comment on what I read and other poster's responses to your comments.
Let me share with you one simple example . . .
You stated in your last response to me . . .
"If you want to discuss, as you claim you do, I will - but you need to prepare yourself first. You don't know the subject material. You know only what you have heard from politicians and their mouth-pieces reading "news.""
This comment is condescending and insulting! It states blatantly that I don't know the subject matter. The comment also appears to assume that I get all my "knowledge" from politicians or "talking heads" on supposed news channels.
You make this comment without knowing if I am a biblical scholar or some putz off the street. I am neither! I consider myself an intelligent person with degrees - BA, MBA, EdD. I also have also learned many things from my life experiences. I have traveled the world - 5 continents. However, the most important thing I have learned during my educational path, my years on earth, and my career is that "the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know". My education and life experiences have brought a sense of humbleness to my outlook.
I appreciate your comment about seeking the "correct" answer but I have found that in order for me to get to the truth I have to approach a situation with an open mind. I do attempt to seek the truth in all things from politics to religion to economics etc. I have also considered that there may not just be one "correct" answer but a "best" answer from a few good options. That is why I enjoy an honest, thoughtful, respectful conversation or discussion . . . I get an opportunity to learn.
I also have appreciated your comments on Kensyian economics and for the most part agree with your assertions but what I have found most troubling in your discussions of religions, economics, political parties, etc. is not so much what you say (sometimes I agree and sometimes I don't) but how you say it and how you seem (my perception) to place a wall of "facts" up front instead of engaging in a fruitful conversation.
I hope you will truely hear the message here . . . Thanks for listening!
kiki 2 years, 8 months ago
Debate About Islamic Center Brings Out the Worst in Us
Prometheus,
I apologize for referring to you as "P". I did not intend any offense. I was attempting to follow what seems to be a common practice on this and other sites of a friendly nick name. No offense intended.
Again, I see no reason to respond to your comments. You seem to be an intelligent person that feels as though you have all the correct answers. This leaves no room for conversation or discussion. In your posts on this topic and others, you seem to only pontificate regarding your perspective and then attempt to insult the intelligence of anyone that disagrees with you.
Cheers!
kiki 2 years, 8 months ago
Debate About Islamic Center Brings Out the Worst in Us
Promo,
Why the name calling?
I see no reason to respond to your posts because you do not seem to be able to have a discussion. You just seem to want to pontificate and anyone that is not of your like mind is wrong.
Enjoy . . .
kiki 2 years, 8 months ago
Debate About Islamic Center Brings Out the Worst in Us
P,
I am confident you can find similar quotes in the Torah and Bible. Just look at Revelations. I am also confident that you can find many quotes saying the opposite in all three books - love and reconciliation.
Religious people have to constantly defend the out of context, negative comments that are quoted from their "divinely inspired" text. I do agree that there are many folks in all religions that take these comments to heart. Just look at the KKK, a Christ centered organization, but I do not feel that these outliers or fanatics are the norm or majority of their faith.
I would challenge anyone to look at the whole message in all groups and not quote limited sections just to prove their point.