Hypocrisy Check

[Big Fitz]

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.

Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.

Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history? Are grass root opponents of the mega church Christophobes, or just citizens seeing this as highly inappropriate?

Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.

 

[sangha]

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.

Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.

Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history?

Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.

IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site

BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.

 

[Big Fitz]

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.

Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.

Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history?

Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.

IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site

BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

 

[sangha]

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.

Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.

Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history?

Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.

IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site

BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

 

[theDoctorisIn]

1.) The Islamic center is not AT Ground Zero, its a few blocks away.

2.) It's not a mosque.

3.) The people building it do not "secretly support" the terrorists.

4.) The building has been in the planning stages since long before 9/11



And even so, yes. I would still support this hypothetical Megachurch. It's called freedom to use private property however you like.

 

[martybegan]

IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site

BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

Plumbers have raped children. No plumbers near schools.

The vast majority of catholic priests have never abused a child. You are applying the rule of the exception.

 

[Big Fitz]

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

Answer the thought experiment. I'm not playing with what currently is. I'm asking for an equivalency. Should something similar be done in an islamic city and nation if radical Christians did these foul acts?

And even so, yes. I would still support this hypothetical Megachurch. It's called freedom to use private property however you like.

Okay, you're being consistent. I can respect that.

 

[sangha]

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

Plumbers have raped children. No plumbers near schools.

Let me know when the plumbers union starts covering up for pedophiles. Then you'd have a valid point.

The vast majority of catholic priests have never abused a child. You are applying the rule of the exception.

The vast majority of muslims did not fly a plane into the WTC towers. The OP is applying the rule of the exception. Talk to him

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And even so, yes. I would still support this hypothetical Megachurch. It's called freedom to use private property however you like.

Answer the thought experiment. I'm not playing with what currently is. I'm asking for an equivalency. Should something similar be done in an islamic city and nation if radical Christians did these foul acts?

I did answer your question. Right in my post.

 

[Avatar4321]

Freedom of religion. Nuff said.

 

[Ragnar]

IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site

BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

I'm an athiest, but I'm going to go ahead and go with your way of thinking (logic is to strong a word) as that helps with one of my political aganda's. If that's the level of "logic" at play so be it.

Unionised Public School Teachers raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children.

That's a very rare win/win/win/win/win/win scenario!

 

[sangha]

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

I'm an athiest, but I'm going to go ahead and go with your way of thinking (logic is to strong a word) as that helps with one of my political aganda's. If that's the level of "logic" at play so be it.

Unionised Public School Teachers raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children.

If the teachers' union help cover up the rapes, then you'd have a very valid point.

 

[Big Fitz]

And even so, yes. I would still support this hypothetical Megachurch. It's called freedom to use private property however you like.

Answer the thought experiment. I'm not playing with what currently is. I'm asking for an equivalency. Should something similar be done in an islamic city and nation if radical Christians did these foul acts?

I did answer your question. Right in my post.

Sorry Doc, posting problem. It grabbed the wrong attribution. I fixed that edit.

 

[rightwinger]

Let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that on 9/11 2001 the terrorist attack did not occur on US soil. Let's say for the sake of argument that the planes were flown into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur by a cadre of 19 radical Christians from a fringe sect supported by massive wealth and resources who desire to destroy anything that brings wealth to Muslims and Islamic nations. In the attack over 2000 Indonesian Muslims die and it is a great national and international tragedy.

Now, 8 years later, the desire to rebuild the Petronas Towers is underway and out of the blue people realize that there are plans for a Christian Megachurch to be placed on the same location as the Petronas Towers. Of course the plan is being supported by people who don't directly support the terrorists but when you get them in private are ardent believers that what was done was the right thing. Of course in the name of tolerance, diversity and international friedship the project is okayed by the city council of Kuala Lumpur.

Should the church be built on the same site that was destroyed by Christian Radicals in the largest act of hatred towards innocent civilians in history? Are grass root opponents of the mega church Christophobes, or just citizens seeing this as highly inappropriate?

Mosque supporters are encouraged to say why they believe why or why not this is right.

First off Kuala Lumpur is not the United States. The US was built on religious freedom and the right to worship as you please. You should be able to practice your religion ANYWHERE in the US.

Secondly, this Muslim center did not participate in the attacks. There are 1.2 BILLION Muslims in the world. To condemn over a billion muslims because of the actions of 19 muslims is counter to what this country was founded on.

 

[chanel]

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

Plumbers have raped children. No plumbers near schools.

Let me know when the plumbers union starts covering up for pedophiles. Then you'd have a valid point.

The vast majority of catholic priests have never abused a child. You are applying the rule of the exception.

The vast majority of muslims did not fly a plane into the WTC towers. The OP is applying the rule of the exception. Talk to him

Teacher's unions cover up for pedophiles. Maybe teachers shouldn't be near schools either.

I doubt anyone that would be opposed to a Catholic church or school near them. A Mega Mosque - doubtful.

But here's a better idea. How about a new thread on Catholic bashing and leave the grownups to discuss the mosque? That's the subject.

 

[Big Fitz]

First off Kuala Lumpur is not the United States. The US was built on religious freedom and the right to worship as you please. You should be able to practice your religion ANYWHERE in the US.

Secondly, this Muslim center did not participate in the attacks. There are 1.2 BILLION Muslims in the world. To condemn over a billion muslims because of the actions of 19 muslims is counter to what this country was founded on.

Doesn't answer the question one bit.

The church wouldn't be built by the radicals either. But you are saying that because there are 1.2 billion muslims, they can rightfully exclude a church from being build within spitting distance of the disaster caused by adherents of the same religion?

 

[sangha]

Plumbers have raped children. No plumbers near schools.

Let me know when the plumbers union starts covering up for pedophiles. Then you'd have a valid point.

The vast majority of catholic priests have never abused a child. You are applying the rule of the exception.

The vast majority of muslims did not fly a plane into the WTC towers. The OP is applying the rule of the exception. Talk to him

Teacher's unions cover up for pedophiles. Maybe teachers shouldn't be near schools either.

I doubt anyone that would be opposed to a Catholic church or school near them. A Mega Mosque - doubtful.

But here's a better idea. How about a new thread on Catholic bashing and leave the grownups to discuss the mosque? That's the subject.

I see that you have to lie when it comes to pedophilia. Nothing is too low for some.

 

[sangha]

First off Kuala Lumpur is not the United States. The US was built on religious freedom and the right to worship as you please. You should be able to practice your religion ANYWHERE in the US.

Secondly, this Muslim center did not participate in the attacks. There are 1.2 BILLION Muslims in the world. To condemn over a billion muslims because of the actions of 19 muslims is counter to what this country was founded on.

Doesn't answer the question one bit.

The church wouldn't be built by the radicals either. But you are saying that because there are 1.2 billion muslims, they can rightfully exclude a church from being build within spitting distance of the disaster caused by adherents of the same religion?

I have no idea where you got that from. It certainly doesn't reflect anything I said.

If the acts of a few members of a religious group can be used to ban ANY members of that religious group from doing ANYTHING the constitution gaurantees them the right to do, then that should apply to christians as much as it does to muslims.

BTW, despite several posts informing you of the mistakes in your analogy, you still haven't acknowledged those mistakes (ie not a mosque. not on the grounds of WTC, and not new)

 

[Middleman]

IMO, if we allow Catholics to build churches near schools, we should allow Muslims to build mosques near the WTC site

BTW - they're not building on the site of the WTC and they're not building a mosque.

Not equivalent. This is talking about building a church on/near the site of a terrorist attack caused by radical adherents to that religion, not next to a school.

Catholic clergymen raped children. They shouldn't be allowed near children

Muslim extremists killed people at WTC. They shouldn't be allowed near the WTC

Religious criminals should not be allowed near their victims

Your comparison is lame.

 

[Big Fitz]

First off Kuala Lumpur is not the United States. The US was built on religious freedom and the right to worship as you please. You should be able to practice your religion ANYWHERE in the US.

Secondly, this Muslim center did not participate in the attacks. There are 1.2 BILLION Muslims in the world. To condemn over a billion muslims because of the actions of 19 muslims is counter to what this country was founded on.

Doesn't answer the question one bit.

The church wouldn't be built by the radicals either. But you are saying that because there are 1.2 billion muslims, they can rightfully exclude a church from being build within spitting distance of the disaster caused by adherents of the same religion?

I have no idea where you got that from. It certainly doesn't reflect anything I said.

If the acts of a few members of a religious group can be used to ban ANY members of that religious group from doing ANYTHING the constitution gaurantees them the right to do, then that should apply to christians as much as it does to muslims.

BTW, despite several posts informing you of the mistakes in your analogy, you still haven't acknowledged those mistakes (ie not a mosque. not on the grounds of WTC, and not new)

Avoiding addressing the postulate on the quibble it's not exactly the same, but close enough to get the point across.

Okay, I can understand being uncomfortable exposing inherent hypocrisy.