☺ wrote:

How does having personal beliefs make me intolerant? I was being honest- if you disagree with my opinions I simply do not care.

I never said having personal beliefs makes you intolerant. When you swipe away an entire response with a simple comment consisting of, "I don't care what you think of my opinions," that parallels intolerance. I never flamed or made any contemptuous remarks towards you; I merely responded to what you had said. You then proceeded to fire back by essentially saying, "I don't give a sh!t what you think about my views."

☺ wrote:

Well you wanted a response, right? So I am doomed if I don't reply, and doomed if I do. Nice.

...the hell? I wanted a credible response, not a, "I don't care what you think about my opinions."

☺ wrote:

Errr, yes? Why should someone's religion take precedence over people's suffering? That's dumb.

Because the right of somebody to practice their religion wherever they legally choose takes precedence over the individual emotions of others. That's like saying I shouldn't be able to build a Church in a neighborhood because the KKK killed a family there 10 years prior.

☺ wrote:

So what if some of the families agree. What about those who don't?

You said it was insensitive to the families. Some families fully want the Muslim center to be allowed; otherwise, to them, it's insensitive to religious freedom; they see it as spitting on the grave of those who died in the attacks, as you're caving into what the terrorists wished to achieve.

You keep looking at only one side of this.

☺ wrote:

And of course there were muslims who died, as there were christians, jews, athiests, gays, lesbians etc. Your point?

My point was that an extreme version of Islam being behind the attack is irrelevant. The Muslim's inside those towers had the same rights as you or I, and you're now disrespecting them by repressing a Muslim center.

☺ wrote:

Did I ever say it was going to be a training camp for terrorism? NO.

I didn't say you did. You're using an extremist version of Islam as a reason to suppress a peaceful Muslim center.

☺ wrote:

I'm not stifling religious freedom. Religious freedom does not mean you can place what you want, anywhere you like. There have to be limitations.

You're impeding upon a Muslim's right to exercise religion wherever he or she pleases. It's not a school or government facility. As such, you can't block it.

☺ wrote:

No I did not fall into their trap. Am I calling for all muslims to be killed? NO.

Where did you get that? I said, "Those who attacked the U.S. did so in an attempt to educe a reaction and destroy the freedom's that the U.S. allegedly promises." Nothing in there includes killing Muslim's.

☺ wrote:

No, it isn't for the "wrong reason". YOU think it is the wrong reason, that isn't what is right and wrong. If people have a problem with it, they have a right to an opinion. Just because you think emotions are bad in this scenario doesn't mean they can't speak their mind.

I have never said, nor will you ever hear me say, that people don't have a right to an opinion. You can stop with the emotional "I have the right to think this" appeal. You have no argument from me there. Those who are against this Muslim center have every right to speak there minds. On the same token, those who supported Plessy v. Ferguson had every right to their opinion and views. They didn't, however, have a right to force their opinion on others. That is where this differentiates.

If you hinder somebody's right to peacefully construct or create something because of emotions, it destroys the very foundations this country was based on. Freedom.

If people want to be pissed at a Muslim Center near ground zero, by all means, they have the right to be. If people loath the idea, by all means, let them.
Nonetheless, once you start taking your personal opinions, formed out of pure emotion, and begin enacting them into law, it's an entirely different ball game.

☺ wrote:

What? Of course fear will play an emotion. People would still be hurt by this, even if it was almost 9 years ago. People fear different things. Some are scared of gays. Some are scared of christians. Some are scared of atheists.

Which falls back to my original point. Those who were behind the attack wished to evoke fear. By halting a Muslim center, you're only feeding their intentions by fulfilling their goal.

☺ wrote:

It's called a "heated" debate. You called me a bigot, so I will call you a bitch. YOUR remarks could also have been avoided. But you decided to say it anyway.

I called you a bigot because your original remark was exceedingly childish and impertinent to the conversation.

A "heated debate" doesn't consist of red-herring the conversation with, "I don't care what you think."

Okay. This is a really messy thread. So I'm going to lock it and put everything in threads pertaining to their subject matter. woodspirit, could you avoid jamming several topics into one thread next time, please?

---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 PM ----------

Actually, I've only made a space travel thread as the mosque is covered by an existing thread and the other two haven't attracted much lasting attention.