![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,844 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
Look, I get it that you oppose this community center being built. I also understand that it can be lonely arguing a contrary opinion on a message board. However, if you say you oppose this community center and your opposition is based upon the idea that this is inappropriate then the rest of us are perfectly within reason to ask why it is inappropriate. But, unless I missed a post of yours, I haven't really read an argument why this center shouldn't be built. I certainly haven't had one that met the Kantian imperative that one should never back a law, ethic or principle that one would not want to see applied universally without prejudice. So let's say, for instance, that you were to wake up tomorrow morning and find that an a Christian church in, say, Indonesia (the largest Muslim country in the world) had been burnt to the ground. The BBC, doing 'man on the street', interviews in Jakarta shows person after person saying "we burned this church to the ground because of all the Muslims who have been killed by Christians". Would you shrug your shoulders and say "well, of course" or would you feel an injustice had been done? What if, the day after that, you saw a headline that Indonesia had passed a law saying you could not practice Christianity in that nation? Again, the BBC interviews the average Indonesian and again you hear that it is insensitive for Christians to be in a Muslim nation given all the demonstrable blood shed by Christians. Would you agree, at least in principle, with the passage of said law or would you, again, think an injustice had been done? The following day you wake up and you see an American soldier, his face is bruised and bloodied, his lips are swollen. The man in the face mask, standing just behind him with a pistol to his head, says that this soldier is the first but not the last who will pay with his blood for deaths of all the Muslims who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Would you think that this was a reasonable act? On another day, there is footage of a mass Bible burning. Would you think that this was fine because the Bible is the book of Christians and the people setting the book to the torch are Muslims. I doubt that any of those would sit well with you. So is this principle of "its insensitive" one that you would want applied universally without favor or prejudice? Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
|
|