Confederate Flag vs. Ground Zero Mosque?

[R.C. Christian]

The filthy inhabitants of New York City which I largely despise, threw a FIT when the Arkansas state flag was hoisted there during the the Clintoon Administration because it was a "confederate state". Fast forward more than a decade and the leftists commie loving bastards in NYC didn't utter a word when the filthy PLA lit up the empire state building commie red. Anything that makes that city of traiterous cowards angry is good enough for me, mosque or not. You yellow cowards will have your stupid mosque and you'll like it, whine about it, just like you whine about 9-11 ad nauseum. Very boring. We're so sick of your stupid victim syndrome. Couldn't have happened to a better city.

none of us are Muslims, stupid, yellow, or cowards...unlike internet blowhards like you

No, someone with as a foul mouth as you is definitely a coward. Please continue. I could use the comedy.

 

[R.C. Christian]

What was "disgusting" was starting the war in the first place as a method to insure the "right" to enslave fellow Americans.

That was disgusting. And what's further disgusting is holding the "rebels" that went to war over this..in high regard. And further disgusting still, is talk of secession, today.

So..there's enough disgust to go around. Especially toward those "fellow citizens" that think it's just hunky dory to advocate violence as a remedy to political differences.

I'm going to have to adamantly disagree with you. Given the chance I balkanize this nation to the fullest extent possible. As a southernor I have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with people in the northeast for example. I'm sure for any native southernor that is equally true to some degree.

You don't have that choice. The southern states..well that land..belongs to the United States of America.

You..do have a choice to leave. No one is stopping you.

It won't last so I won't have to leave nor would I. The problem is the United States is already in it's death throws and no offense, but it's demise cannot come soon enough.

When the food stops coming and your cell phones stop working then people with land like myself (and no it doesn't belong to the United States thank you) will prosper while the suburbanites perish with their plastic life skills. I'm perfectly prepared, willing and able to practice what I preach and it has nothing to do with racism or the mentality of the civil war although I am a re-enactor, writer, historian and an advanced collector of civil war antiquities.

This entire argument that people present against the south with such unwavering convictions is infantile and weak at best. It makes me blush because I'm so embarassed by some for some of you. This isn't pride speaking, rather simple pity for the shameless preoccupation some statists have with self-righteous presumptions about the civil war and the south in general. We couldn't be more dissimiliar I'm afraid.

 

[bodecea]

I'm going to have to adamantly disagree with you. Given the chance I balkanize this nation to the fullest extent possible. As a southernor I have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with people in the northeast for example. I'm sure for any native southernor that is equally true to some degree.

You don't have that choice. The southern states..well that land..belongs to the United States of America.

You..do have a choice to leave. No one is stopping you.

It won't last so I won't have to leave nor would I. The problem is the United States is already in it's death throws and no offense, but it's demise cannot come soon enough.

When the food stops coming and your cell phones stop working then people with land like myself (and no it doesn't belong to the United States thank you) will prosper while the suburbanites perish with their plastic life skills. I'm perfectly prepared, willing and able to practice what I preach and it has nothing to do with racism or the mentality of the civil war although I am a re-enactor, writer, historian and an advanced collector of civil war antiquities.

This entire argument that people present against the south with such unwavering convictions is infantile and weak at best. It makes me blush because I'm so embarassed by some for some of you. This isn't pride speaking, rather simple pity for the shameless preoccupation some statists have with self-righteous presumptions about the civil war and the south in general. We couldn't be more dissimiliar I'm afraid.

Ah. A loony survivalist.

 

[R.C. Christian]

You don't have that choice. The southern states..well that land..belongs to the United States of America.

You..do have a choice to leave. No one is stopping you.

It won't last so I won't have to leave nor would I. The problem is the United States is already in it's death throws and no offense, but it's demise cannot come soon enough.

When the food stops coming and your cell phones stop working then people with land like myself (and no it doesn't belong to the United States thank you) will prosper while the suburbanites perish with their plastic life skills. I'm perfectly prepared, willing and able to practice what I preach and it has nothing to do with racism or the mentality of the civil war although I am a re-enactor, writer, historian and an advanced collector of civil war antiquities.

This entire argument that people present against the south with such unwavering convictions is infantile and weak at best. It makes me blush because I'm so embarassed by some for some of you. This isn't pride speaking, rather simple pity for the shameless preoccupation some statists have with self-righteous presumptions about the civil war and the south in general. We couldn't be more dissimiliar I'm afraid.

Ah. A loony survivalist.

Ah, a self-righteous bay ***** and republican shill.

 

[Bones]

You don't have that choice. The southern states..well that land..belongs to the United States of America.

You..do have a choice to leave. No one is stopping you.

It won't last so I won't have to leave nor would I. The problem is the United States is already in it's death throws and no offense, but it's demise cannot come soon enough.

When the food stops coming and your cell phones stop working then people with land like myself (and no it doesn't belong to the United States thank you) will prosper while the suburbanites perish with their plastic life skills. I'm perfectly prepared, willing and able to practice what I preach and it has nothing to do with racism or the mentality of the civil war although I am a re-enactor, writer, historian and an advanced collector of civil war antiquities.

This entire argument that people present against the south with such unwavering convictions is infantile and weak at best. It makes me blush because I'm so embarassed by some for some of you. This isn't pride speaking, rather simple pity for the shameless preoccupation some statists have with self-righteous presumptions about the civil war and the south in general. We couldn't be more dissimiliar I'm afraid.

Ah. A loony survivalist.

^

A soggy, befuddled **** in denial.

 

[BrianH]

I've heard people decry the Confederate flag flying on statehouse grounds in SC, saying that it is insensitive.

I've also heard people decry the would be Ground Zero mosque, also saying it is insensitive.

Not surprisingly, there is very little overlap among the two groups doing the decrying.


What I'd like to have explained, by anyone taking any side, is why one is indeed insensitive while the other is not.


note: Thread inspired by Ravi's self-pwnage in another thread.

I think it's all in context. Some people don't give a crap about the confederate flag, but give a crap about the mosque, and vice versa.

Most southern white people don't view confederate flag as insensitive while most blacks do. From what I've experienced, people of African American decent don't like the flag period. Whether or not it's at a government office makes no difference IMO.

The difference between the two is that most Americans believe that putting a mosque at ground zero is insensitive much like hanging a Confederate flag in your window in the middle of Harlem, or at MLK's grave would be insensitive. I'm not quite sure if I'm answering your question right.

I guess you're saying that it's sensless to say one thing is insensitive while ignoring the insensitivity of other things?? Much like many posters on this board who will use a certain type of logic to prove you wrong but then ignore the same kind of logic when their wrong?

 

[BrianH]

You don't have that choice. The southern states..well that land..belongs to the United States of America.

You..do have a choice to leave. No one is stopping you.

It won't last so I won't have to leave nor would I. The problem is the United States is already in it's death throws and no offense, but it's demise cannot come soon enough.

When the food stops coming and your cell phones stop working then people with land like myself (and no it doesn't belong to the United States thank you) will prosper while the suburbanites perish with their plastic life skills. I'm perfectly prepared, willing and able to practice what I preach and it has nothing to do with racism or the mentality of the civil war although I am a re-enactor, writer, historian and an advanced collector of civil war antiquities.

This entire argument that people present against the south with such unwavering convictions is infantile and weak at best. It makes me blush because I'm so embarassed by some for some of you. This isn't pride speaking, rather simple pity for the shameless preoccupation some statists have with self-righteous presumptions about the civil war and the south in general. We couldn't be more dissimiliar I'm afraid.

Ah. A loony survivalist.

Not that I'm a "survivalist", but in the event of a disaster, ALL of us would immediately be "survivalists" by wanting and trying to survive. Some people just like to be prepared for it...and it's their right to do so. Don't get me wrong, there are some crazy ones out there, but there are also alot of crazy people that aren't survivalists. IMO it's no different than someone wanting to be prepared ahead of time for a hurricane...

 

[BrianH]

Slavery is what you have been taught was the root cause, no it was no and that is the truth.

They would have been traitors if they would have fought against their country, which to the men of the south their state was their country.

Lincoln would have been brought up on charges for murder if he had done that. The north had no grounds for charging the leaders of the south with treason. I have already shown you the proof.

There were other factors, but ensuring that slavery was upheld was *the* overriding reason for the Soufern governments coming together and seceding from the Union. It was about the powerful few staying rich through exploitive labor.

Even your boy Jefferson said that slavery was going to tear this nation apart, and he was right.

For three states in their ordinance of secession slavery was the cause but not for the other states. North Carolina did not want to leave the union but did not want to be caught in the middle from the North and south from South Carolina.

While I agree that slavery was "AN" issue. It was not "the" issue. It may have been a larger, more obvious one, but was not the main issue.

Tell me why slavery was LEGAL in the North and South during the entire war?
Tell me why the war never started until the southern states seceeded?

When speaking about exploiting slave labor, let's first blame the original founders for not outlawing it in the first place.
In the same sense, the North was just as much to blame for slave labor as the South. The situation is not much different from the drug situation we find ourselves in today with Mexico. If people in the U.S. didn't use drugs, then the drug cartels wouldn't need to bring it across the border. If the North wasn't gobbling up crops (such as corn and cotton) from the South, then it's possible that slave labor wouldn't be needed. How else is a family of 5 supposed to farm thousands of acres without machinery. The North enjoyed the fruits of slave labor by using the cotton in their mills. I think it's funny when people rely on the "scratch the surface" that public education "delves" into.

The Civil War was not specifically about the North freeing the black man from the clutches of the evil white southeners. I think history tells us that the northern whites hated blacks pretty equally until about the 1960s. The Civil War was specifically about the government stripping the rights away from the states. Slavery happened to be "the issue" as far as states rights go. I think we've seen in present times that states have talked about secession over the right to bear arms among other things....most recently health-care. To deny that slavery was not an issue would be naive and uneducated, however, I think there is a big misconception among many that "North Good-South Bad" and that the North fought desparetly to end the evils of slavery so that blacks could live in freedom and equality with the rest of us.

 

[BrianH]

OK since the states did not ratify the Constitution then the people can leave the union and take their proprety with them, their proprety being their state. Thanks I am glad we clearified that.

The people voted as Virginians or New Yorkers to become a national identity as Americans. Virginians and New Yorkers were afterwards always a state idenity with a subservience to a national identity...Americans.

Forming a more perfect Union meant giving up the idiocies of the Article of Confederation.

now eat shit **** face

Wrong the people within a state knew themself or identified themself as what ever state they lived in. You need to stop thinking 21st century and talking about 19th century people.

Correct... In that time, the States were viewed as the supereme government of that region and the federal government had little power to influence state affairs. There were two instances where the states actually did seceed from the Union before the civil war. These are instances where the Constitution was eventually revised. The states seceeded over disagreements and discrepancies in the Constitution. Coincidently, the Constitution that existed in 1860 made no mention of the right of a state to seceed from the Union and thus made it perfectly legal for a state to seceed. This right to seceed was, of course, intended to be upheld by the 10th Amendment, giving rights to the states that weren't granted to the federal government and not prohibited to the states. Of course, we all know how that one turned out.

 

[idb]

I've heard people decry the Confederate flag flying on statehouse grounds in SC, saying that it is insensitive.

I've also heard people decry the would be Ground Zero mosque, also saying it is insensitive.

Not surprisingly, there is very little overlap among the two groups doing the decrying.


What I'd like to have explained, by anyone taking any side, is why one is indeed insensitive while the other is not.


note: Thread inspired by Ravi's self-pwnage in another thread.

Well...I'm not taking a side but the "ground zero mosque" is a dishonest fabrication as I understand it.
It is neither a mosque, nor is it at 'ground zero'.
So the issue of sensitivity doesn't come into the conversation.

It's not a mosque? True since they started calling it community center with a place to pray. Sure it's not a mosque. And a pig is not a pig when you dress it up like a human.

I don't think the developers have ever called it a mosque.
I suppose that you can call it whatever you like as well as 'they' can.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well...I'm not taking a side but the "ground zero mosque" is a dishonest fabrication as I understand it.
It is neither a mosque, nor is it at 'ground zero'.
So the issue of sensitivity doesn't come into the conversation.

It's not a mosque? True since they started calling it community center with a place to pray. Sure it's not a mosque. And a pig is not a pig when you dress it up like a human.

I don't think the developers have ever called it a mosque.
I suppose that you can call it whatever you like as well as 'they' can.

Will it be used as a house of prayer for Islam? Will Christians and Jew be allowed to use it for their services? Will women be allowed to dress as they please when they enter the doors?

 

[idb]

It's not a mosque? True since they started calling it community center with a place to pray. Sure it's not a mosque. And a pig is not a pig when you dress it up like a human.

I don't think the developers have ever called it a mosque.
I suppose that you can call it whatever you like as well as 'they' can.

Will it be used as a house of prayer for Islam? Will Christians and Jew be allowed to use it for their services? Will women be allowed to dress as they please when they enter the doors?

Dunno, never asked them...can I assume that you know the answer?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There were other factors, but ensuring that slavery was upheld was *the* overriding reason for the Soufern governments coming together and seceding from the Union. It was about the powerful few staying rich through exploitive labor.

Even your boy Jefferson said that slavery was going to tear this nation apart, and he was right.

For three states in their ordinance of secession slavery was the cause but not for the other states. North Carolina did not want to leave the union but did not want to be caught in the middle from the North and south from South Carolina.

While I agree that slavery was "AN" issue. It was not "the" issue. It may have been a larger, more obvious one, but was not the main issue.

Tell me why slavery was LEGAL in the North and South during the entire war?
Tell me why the war never started until the southern states seceeded?

When speaking about exploiting slave labor, let's first blame the original founders for not outlawing it in the first place.
In the same sense, the North was just as much to blame for slave labor as the South. The situation is not much different from the drug situation we find ourselves in today with Mexico. If people in the U.S. didn't use drugs, then the drug cartels wouldn't need to bring it across the border. If the North wasn't gobbling up crops (such as corn and cotton) from the South, then it's possible that slave labor wouldn't be needed. How else is a family of 5 supposed to farm thousands of acres without machinery. The North enjoyed the fruits of slave labor by using the cotton in their mills. I think it's funny when people rely on the "scratch the surface" that public education "delves" into.

The Civil War was not specifically about the North freeing the black man from the clutches of the evil white southeners. I think history tells us that the northern whites hated blacks pretty equally until about the 1960s. The Civil War was specifically about the government stripping the rights away from the states. Slavery happened to be "the issue" as far as states rights go. I think we've seen in present times that states have talked about secession over the right to bear arms among other things....most recently health-care. To deny that slavery was not an issue would be naive and uneducated, however, I think there is a big misconception among many that "North Good-South Bad" and that the North fought desparetly to end the evils of slavery so that blacks could live in freedom and equality with the rest of us.

I agree I have said exactly what you have said throughout this thread.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't think the developers have ever called it a mosque.
I suppose that you can call it whatever you like as well as 'they' can.

Will it be used as a house of prayer for Islam? Will Christians and Jew be allowed to use it for their services? Will women be allowed to dress as they please when they enter the doors?

Dunno, never asked them...can I assume that you know the answer?

So really it doesn't matter what he developers call it. What matters is what it will be used for.

 

[BrianH]

Well...I'm not taking a side but the "ground zero mosque" is a dishonest fabrication as I understand it.
It is neither a mosque, nor is it at 'ground zero'.
So the issue of sensitivity doesn't come into the conversation.

It's not a mosque? True since they started calling it community center with a place to pray. Sure it's not a mosque. And a pig is not a pig when you dress it up like a human.

I don't think the developers have ever called it a mosque.
I suppose that you can call it whatever you like as well as 'they' can.

You're correct, it was called a Islam Learning Center or something along those lines.

 

[idb]

Will it be used as a house of prayer for Islam? Will Christians and Jew be allowed to use it for their services? Will women be allowed to dress as they please when they enter the doors?

Dunno, never asked them...can I assume that you know the answer?

So really it doesn't matter what he developers call it. What matters is what it will be used for.

True.
It also doesn't really matter what the opponents label it as. What matters is what it will be used for.
The thing is that the opponents have chosen the most inflammatory labels that they can come up with, knowing that this will get the support of the uncritical masses that only read headlines and believe what ever they are told by their choice of talkback host.

 

[idb]

It's not a mosque? True since they started calling it community center with a place to pray. Sure it's not a mosque. And a pig is not a pig when you dress it up like a human.

I don't think the developers have ever called it a mosque.
I suppose that you can call it whatever you like as well as 'they' can.

You're correct, it was called a Islam Learning Center or something along those lines.

The earliest that I can find called it a cultural centre.
Whether you consider it misguided or not, the stated intention was to try to repair the damage to the relationship between Christians and Muslims perpetrated by the extremists.
The leader (imam) even received a glowing reference from the FBI!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dunno, never asked them...can I assume that you know the answer?

So really it doesn't matter what he developers call it. What matters is what it will be used for.

True.
It also doesn't really matter what the opponents label it as. What matters is what it will be used for.
The thing is that the opponents have chosen the most inflammatory labels that they can come up with, knowing that this will get the support of the uncritical masses that only read headlines and believe what ever they are told by their choice of talkback host.

Up until two years ago it was a mosque. Then uproar and news of what was being built it became a community center. It's a moquse if it has a prayer roon for islm it's a mosque if no other religion will be allowed to use it.

 

[BrianH]

Look, whoever wanted to put it there had every right under our laws. So that's not debatable. I will say, however, that the decision to put it there was highly insensitive. Just my opinion.

 

[idb]

So really it doesn't matter what he developers call it. What matters is what it will be used for.

True.
It also doesn't really matter what the opponents label it as. What matters is what it will be used for.
The thing is that the opponents have chosen the most inflammatory labels that they can come up with, knowing that this will get the support of the uncritical masses that only read headlines and believe what ever they are told by their choice of talkback host.

Up until two years ago it was a mosque. Then uproar and news of what was being built it became a community center. It's a moquse if it has a prayer roon for islm it's a mosque if no other religion will be allowed to use it.

Can you please provide a link to two years ago where it is called a mosque? I'm not doubting you but am interested to compare with what I have found. You have clearly researched this more successfully than me.

The earliest I can find is an announcement in December 2009.
In that Bloomberg said that he had been told about it the previous September but nothing was made public until the announcement above.