A Comedic Take?!!

[rigney]

Since I'm a little more Agnostic than religious, I thought such a snippet best go here. An English comedian narrates this little gem reminding Americans that America should not be a proving ground for Middle East Networking.

 

Most memorable line in this: "America is being crippled by political correctness..." Wow! ..Google up, "Pat Condell on Ground Zero mosque": "Is it possible to be astonished, but not surprised?"

Edited June 12, 2010 by rigney

[swansont]

If you're going to reference material, you should provide a link for it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

vjS0Novt3X4

[rigney]

Just thought if I was making a mistake, someone would shoot it down before getting out of hand. While not being your average coward, I've become cautious. Thanks

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I know I've only been here with the forum for a short time and am probably a pain in the "derriere" to some of you folks, but is this what we are looking forward to?? (This Limey, affectionately) even though a Comedian, says it all, "LOUD and CLEAR". Bob Hope could not have done a more masterful job of explaining it. I'm not bashing Muslims, they have their own problems. But I'm bashing a cowardly systen in America that allows this type of sh-t to happen with what seems to be no redress!! I'd rather take my chances with the illegals wading across the Rio Grande!!

Edited June 12, 2010 by rigney
Consecutive posts merged.

[padren]

I found this guy incredibly insulting. First he goes on and on about how we are "better than them" and then claims the one thing that does make us more civilized is the very "weakness" we have to "get over" so not to be a "soft, weak decadent" society.

 

Everything he says that "invalidates" Islam as a religion would equally apply to all religions - so I guess he's against any form of religious tolerance. It also seems okay to declare whomever you like "guilty by association" and just act like an angry mob against anyone who reminds you of people you don't agree with - but hey, it's to protect the civilized world right?

 

Everything he says we have to do to "stop this highest level of insult to the victims of 9/11" would, in my mind, be the highest level insult imaginable. Granted, I can't pretend to speak for those victims like this "John Edward wanna be" but I don't think he was able to speak five words in succession without my feeling even more insulted.

 

Quite a character.

[iNow]

yjO4duhMRZk

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

y4mWiqkGy-Y

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I found this guy incredibly insulting. First he goes on and on about how we are "better than them" and then claims the one thing that does make us more civilized is the very "weakness" we have to "get over" so not to be a "soft, weak decadent" society.

 

Generally I don't get more than halfway through a Pat Condell video before giving up and stopping. It seems to me he's got as much pent-up hatred in him as the people he hates.

[iNow]

A desire to no longer just "sit down and take it" and exasperation with the nonsense [math]\ne[/math] hatred, whether pent-up or otherwise.

[rigney]

As I said at the beginning, I'm much more an agnostic than a zealot, or passivist to any religion. So, before getting into the semantics of having either or both explained to me, I'm wondering if any of you are familiar with Sharia Law? If not, I suggest you read it.

If you have read it and espouse its (Theology?), then I have to say that I'm worried more than ever. Even for a country as young as America is, we "only began" to crawl from under our own rocks in 1865. Civilization and Fanaticism are like oil and water, they simply don't mix. Read Sharia Law, then come back and bash old Pat again if you like. A controversialist and a comedian?, the guy sure is. But you see, you don't have to take Pat serious. Sharia Law on the other hand has been an ascending form of governmental law for roughly 1600 years and is not likely to cede or capitulate their slightest instinct to western thought? So, be as reticsent as you like or vent your spleen on Pat, but you had best give this law some deep, deep thought.

Edited June 13, 2010 by rigney

[Sayonara]

I'd hardly call Pat Condell a comedian.

[rigney]

I'd hardly call Pat Condell a comedian.

 

Quite right Sayonara, I'd say much more a controversialist. But I don't believe Pat is a fanatic.

[padren]

A desire to no longer just "sit down and take it" and exasperation with the nonsense [math]\ne[/math] hatred, whether pent-up or otherwise.

 

True, he has some just causes for exasperation, he also (it appears to me) is a first class bigot. He may be on the other side of the problem but he's still part of it.It's like having genuine concern about crime rates, and then blaming "the jews and the blacks" in some intolerant tirade. Based on everything he said in the first video, and having seen that before making it 20 seconds into the first that you posted (couldn't get any further) I just found him too repugnant to watch.

[iNow]

Based on everything he said in the first video, and having seen that before making it 20 seconds into the first that you posted (couldn't get any further) I just found him too repugnant to watch.

 

If you're somehow able to overcome your repulsion or delicate sensibilities or whatever might be informing your feelings on this, you should know that I shared the additional videos to provide broader context for you... context which was wholly relevant to your previous post and the questions asked therein.

 

If you and Cap'n are unwilling to even watch the full 5 minute vids, I'm not sure how much worth I can ultimately place in both of your criticisms of them.

 

Don't get me wrong. You're welcome to your opinion. I'm just pointing out that it's not deeply informed, and is based on one tiny subset among a much larger population of data.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Having watched more than one Pat Condell video, including iNow's first video, and being familiar with his views, I can safely say this:

 

He's a first class bigot. He may be on the other side of the problem but he's still part of it. It's like having genuine concern about crime rates, and then blaming "the jews and the blacks" in some intolerant tirade.^* He picks acts he does not like -- homophobia, violence, censorship, and so on -- and decides that every religious believer is a supporter of all those things, then uses that excuse to accuse them of having tiny, immature minds that are stuck in the Stone Age. He even misrepresents their beliefs while he does so -- for example, the idea that evidence for faith is totally unwelcome certainly isn't true in a lot of Christian theology.

 

It's like he got stuck in an internal feedback loop: he sees a few bad actions committed in the name of religion, gets annoyed, learns about some more, gets angrier, and starts actively seeking out new reasons to hate religion, in a never-ending cycle that ends with his conclusion that every single religious believer on the planet is a homophobic cowardly intolerant ignorant caveman.

 

Perhaps he's right that we shouldn't tolerate some of the acts perpetrated in the name of religion, but he seems positively dripping with anger and self-righteousness while he says it.

 

 

 

* Sorry to steal, but padren said it well.

[iNow]

He picks acts he does not like -- homophobia, violence, censorship, and so on -- and decides that every religious believer is a supporter of all those things

 

<...>

 

he sees a few bad actions committed in the name of religion, gets annoyed, learns about some more, gets angrier, and starts actively seeking out new reasons to hate religion, in a never-ending cycle that ends with his conclusion that every single religious believer on the planet is a homophobic cowardly intolerant ignorant caveman.

Except, no... He doesn't actually do that, but okay.

Edited June 13, 2010 by iNow

[jackson33]

“Why does it have to be near the WTC site? Who’s the idiot who planned this? If American Muslims claim to be moderate, then why does it seem like this building is a huge boast from the terrorists?” asked Ray Hesse, 36. “You know, Muslims are famous for building mosques on top of victory sites.” he later added.

 

“This is appalling, it’s disgusting to see a mosque built even near the site where 3,000 Americans died, it’s a slap in the face to every American.” expressed Sara Myers, 29.

 

On the Internet, most prominently on YouTube, dozens of videos were posted criticizing the building of a ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. Pat Condell was especially explicit on his stance towards the planned mosque – that the thing “should be built in Death Valley”. [/Quote]

 

http://inewp.com/?p=3174

 

 

Looking at this from a 'Legal' standpoint, zoning laws and permits have been given the go ahead, by NYC officials and planning can continue. On the other hand, for decades the actual site has been declared an 'Historical Site', though not officially granted. Interest has been revised and may again be considered.

 

I really don't think you have to be a "Bigot" to oppose a Mosque near ground zero. While a certain minority (might question percentages, if Muslim Clergy are separated) may not consider the Mosque a tribute to the 19 Hijackers, a large enough potion will, especially in the several nations run by the hard core, anti western Countries.

 

Aside from the legality, I wonder if anyone has a favorable reason, those near 3,000 dead folks, their survivors, families, friends or any person (millions across this Country) that were emotional effected, should be ignored in their opposition to its construction?

[iNow]

I really don't think you have to be a "Bigot" to oppose a Mosque near ground zero. While a certain minority (might question percentages, if Muslim Clergy are separated) may not consider the Mosque a tribute to the 19 Hijackers, a large enough potion will, especially in the several nations run by the hard core, anti western Countries.

 

Aside from the legality, I wonder if anyone has a favorable reason, those near 3,000 dead folks, their survivors, families, friends or any person (millions across this Country) that were emotional effected, should be ignored in their opposition to its construction?

The single best response to this question which I've seen, and one which I frankly agree with 100%, is that our country is one of principles, and that we must defend those principles even when we feel disgusted at how those principles may be employed by others.

 

By example, I would never attempt to prevent members of the KKK from saying what they want, or to prevent christians from yelling that women who had an abortion will burn in hell for eternity, or to prevent right wingers from flaming against the president without regard for reality, or to prevent ad infinitum.

 

I may disagree with them with every ounce of my being, but I will defend to my death their right to say it and express themselves openly and transparently.

 

The same applies here. If we try to prevent the site from being built, then we're no better than those who attacked us.

 

Yes, it's in bad taste.

Yes, I'd prefer they build elsewhere.

Yes, I think it symbolizes triumph more than it symbolizes peace.

Yes, I think religious structures in general are a waste of resources.

Yes, I think the place would cause massive protest and would suffer from unrestrained violence.

 

However... Yes, there are some ideals in which I believe and which I support with every fiber of my being. It's the principle, and they should be allowed to build.

 

My deeper concern when you remove the disgust and anger surrounding the idea of building a mosque there pertains to the safety of the practitioners visiting that building to worship after it's built. They are innocent, and despite that they would be subject to misery from those too angry to recognize their non-involvement with that horrible act a decade ago.

 

Further, it's a nasty gray area when you try to prevent such things. Where does it end? How far away from ground zero does this thing need to be built before it becomes acceptable? Would it be merely two streets away, maybe 4 streets away, maybe off Manhattan island, maybe out of New York entirely? Where do you draw the line?

 

I say you draw the line on trying to prevent it in the first place. I don't want it there. I think it's a disgusting idea to even consider building any religious building whatsoever on that site, but I'm not going to try preventing it because my principles and ideals are worth defending, and they are worth applying to those with whom I disagree in the same way they apply to me.

[rigney]

Since everyone seems to be fluent in Sharia Law, perhaps being a "Bigot" is a better way of approaching the problem. Who! is "not" a Bigot that denounces their opponent as a Bigot?

Me, I believe that even with all of the heart ache and angst brought on by this terrible devestation, N.Y. can still use the tax money from this project to supplement their welfare programs.

Edited June 14, 2010 by rigney

[tomgwyther]

Couldn't there be a compramise; Some sort of multi-faith memorial? A Churmoscagogue

Edited June 14, 2010 by tomgwyther

[john5746]

I was thinking the same thing today. I don't think there should be anything that encourages segregation - that's at the root of the problem. If anything is to be built, it should be a place where people of any belief system can come in and think, reflect, pray. If one is too intolerant for that, then they need not visit that site, IMO.

[iNow]

IIf anything is to be built, it should be a place where people of any belief system can come in and think, reflect, pray.

I think that's called a library.

[rigney]

You're right! This site should not be dedicated to anyones GOD, but a place to reflect on the good and bad found in all humans. Yet, until we reach that fork in the road with a better understanding of which lead to take, it's best to be vigilant, and keep your powder dry.

Edited June 15, 2010 by rigney

[john5746]

I think that's called a library.

 

Thanks iNow, that's exactly what it should be. Just have a conference room where people can make a little noise, etc.

[jackson33]

rigney; If you understand US LAW, it treats all people as equals. In this case to qualify for welfare has nothing to do with religion, or even whether somebody approved 9/11 actions...

 

As iNow laid it out, many of us agree with the 'Right' to build the Mosque in the US is not arguable, but at some point the feeling and emotion of the people need to be considered. To further explain this and using his analogy, the KKK has certain rights as well, but as with the Mosque, they need a permit to flaunt there message. Each city or town based on there own demographics, has the right to NOT issue that permit.

[rigney]

Jackson33, I notice a few like you are rarther reticent to use any specificity in declaring your residency. Me, I live in Lakewood, Ohio. Not to be provocative; but, let's say that a group of Muslim Imams decide to build a Mosque just outside Buckingham Palace, the Arc De Triumph, or next door to the beautiful Opera House in Sydney? Or, perhaps even beside the Parliment building in Ottawa? I don't believe any of the people living in these areas would be happy campers? Need I go farther? And basically, this issue has nothing to do with religion. Welfare? I've put 16 hours a day in at two Mc Donalds rather than to go on the dole. Me?, I would rather crawl to a job than go on welfare.

P.S. Just to let you know where I stand, I'm a Bigot. I despise anything the KKK stands for.

Edited June 16, 2010 by rigney