"They can build a mosque in New York when we can build a church in Saudi Arabia!!!"

[ck4829]

This argument, made by everyone from teabaggers to Newt Gingrich is well... stupid.

Since when were our laws dependent upon the laws of another country? And Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, it's people have no say in how the country is run, even creating a political party there is considered treason. So, the king of Saudi Arabia tells us how to run our country, eh conservatives? I'll say no thanks to that. Furthermore, don't other countries have same sex marriage and universal health care, guess we should immediately adopt those things then, right?

Teabaggers: Proving that ignorance is bliss, a very dangerous and painful-type-of-bliss-to-other-people bliss, but still bliss 24/7.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Sure, let's turn the US into a totalitarian theocracy like Saudi Arabia.

Wouldn't that be swell?

[Initech]

11. That's exactly what they want, and that would suck.

[pokerfan]

30. and it starts with dismantling the 14th amendment

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/06/opinion-ditch-the-14th-amendment-why-stop-there/">opinion: ditch the 14th amendment why stop there

[Bill McBlueState]

2. to use that line,

you would have to not know that there are already a lot of mosques in the US. I suppose this is the case for a lot of people on the right.

[spanone]

3. are they saying america is no better than saudi arabia?

fools who have no regard for the constitution

[JDPriestly]

4. Actually, that statement makes a good point.

Muslims claim to be very tolerant of other religions.

And some Muslims are. Indonesia is a country in which different religions are accepted. Clearly, there were Christians in Jews across the Middle East prior to WWII and for some time afterward. Christians are especially numerous in, of course, Lebanon and Palestine and accepted or at least tolerated in other some other Middle Eastern countries. I think that Christians are tolerated in Egypt, although I have heard that conversions are severely frowned upon.

Saudi Arabia is extremely intolerant. I don't know about Iran. Does anyone have more information about religious tolerance or the lack thereof in predominantly Muslim countries?

[marmar]

6. So, we should aspire to be more like Saudi Arabia?

:wtf:

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Looks like that's the message...

And the 'we won't do the right thing ourselves until them over there doing the wrong thing start doing the right thing as well!' argument in the OP isn't just confined to the Right in the US. I've seen very similar words expressed by Americans who claim to be on the Left here at DU...

[JDPriestly]

15. No, but we should ask Saudi Arabia to explain why we should

have a mosque near the 9/11 memorial location if they do not allow churches in their cities.

[JHB]

19. In what capacity is the Saudi government involved in the project...

...that we should "ask" them anything at all about it?

[Dogtown]

23. Muddying the waters.

The proposal to rebuild a Community Center in NYC has nothing-*nothing*-to do with Saudi Arabia.

It doesn't matter, for this discussion, what Saudis do in their country; this is America.

[JDPriestly]

37. Any opportunity to speak up for religious tolerance in the world in general

and Saudi Arabia in particular as well as Egypt and some other countries should be seized. This is a central issue.

[JDPriestly]

17. No. We should strongly urge Saudi Arabia to change.

I found a 2008 N.Y. Times article that supports my claim that Saudi Arabia is intolerant of religions other than its official faith.

Saudi Arabia forbids its citizens and the sprawling expatriate community, including tens of thousands of Christians, from any form of public worship except for Islam. Even within Islam, the more than two million Shiites in the kingdom face widespread discrimination in worship, education and employment. The intolerance also extends to Sunni Islam. Only the teachings of the Hanbali sect are encouraged, while the other three main branches of the faith are opposed.

A special police force patrols the kingdom making sure that Muslims go to prayer five times a day and that no other religion is practiced.

The Saudi government often portrays King Abdullah as a reformer, doing what he can to oppose a puritanical religious establishment. They cite the interfaith dialogue as a prime example of that kind of reform.

But critics point out that the kingdom promotes such dialogue at the United Nations, not in Riyadh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/world/africa/11iht-nations.4.17726793.html

[AlabamaLibrul]

7. Re: Iraq's 2005 Constitution - and I think it's a very good question

The Constitution ratified in 2005, written under the auspices of the American military and the * administration that was in power at the time, established Islam as the national religion and essentially established Sharia Law (no negative or positive connotations implied here) as the legal system.

"Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established. "

Now, obviously, Saddam Hussein was a complete asshole, a murderous dictator, and he was not a good person. At all.

But Wikipedia states that "The Ba'athist era was a period of official secularization in Iraq. The government included people from multiple religious affiliations including Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, and Christians; though Sunni Muslims dominated the government."

I'd be interested in reading a copy of Iraq's Constitution before 2005 to see if, strictly speaking via the Constitution, whether or not Iraq under the Ba'athists was officially an Islamic state or not. I can't find one.

Obviously, I'd like to think that America is "better" than Saudi Arabia (and other nations) in the fact of our religious tolerance. Anybody who can provide further information on religious tolerance in the primarily Muslim-populated nations would be appreciated.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. I'm curious to know if yr opposed to the building of the Islamic centre...

And if so, for what reason?

[JDPriestly]

27. No. I am not opposed to building the Islamic Center. I just want

more religious freedom in certain Muslim countries. What's good for us would also be good for them. As I said, Muslims tell themselves they are tolerant of other religions. Some of them are. But many are not.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Thanks for answering, though I disagree with the latter part of yr post...

As I said, Muslims tell themselves they are tolerant of other religions. Some of them are. But many are not.

No, Islam is no different to Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. Most followers of any religion are tolerant of other religions, but it's the much smaller number of extremists in each who are intolerant of any other religion.

Also, there are plenty of threads at DU about treatment of women etc in Saudi Arabia. Why does an OP about a proposed mosque in NYC need to become about Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism? Sorry, but it makes it look like people are playing 'whatabouterry' when they do that...

[JDPriestly]

36. Agreed. Most people in most religions are tolerant.

If I am fanatical about anything, it is about religious tolerance. I lived in Europe and especially in Germany and Austria for quite a number of years. I saw what religious intolerance did to those countries. The fact is that intolerance and prejudice, in my opinion and very ironically, hurt more than anyone the very people who are intolerant and prejudiced. I have had a strange life in which I have viewed a lot of intolerance and prejudice -- living in the south as a young girl and then in Austria in particular. I don't know whether intolerance is the result of provincial thinking or the cause of provincial thinking, but the two are linked. Provincial thinking closes people off to innovation and creativity. They harm the very people who indulge in intolerance and prejudice. This applies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt just as it does in Alabama.

[bullwinkle428]

13. Iran has the 2nd largest Jewish community in the Middle East, next to Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews

[JI7]

18. people are always surprised when i tell them many of the persians in Los Angeles are Jewish

and many are from Iraq also

[JDPriestly]

28. I actually know a lot of Jewish Iranians in Los Angeles, but I

did not know whether a large Jewish community still exists in Iran. My question is sincere. I do know what a bad situation there in Saudi Arabia and also in Egypt. I don't know about other countries. I believe Jordan is pretty tolerant of Christians. I'm not sure. Lebanon certainly has lots of Christians, but I'm not sure how well they are accepted by non-Christians.

[Obamanaut]

24. That tolerance of other religions isn't necessarily true. IIRC, the red

cross emblem, even though it was to denote medical/humanitarian aid, was changed in the 1930s to a crescent to avoid offense, even though the red cross had been used for decades.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Sorry, but that's not true at all.

The Red Cross had never been used by the countries that use the Red Crescent, and I'm not sure where you got that from. The Red Crescent had been used by the ICRC since the late 19th century and the symbol was officially adopted in 1929. The whole point of the symbols is that they're immediately recognisable in the areas that the ICRC are working in. They symbols aren't religious and anyone who claims otherwise needs to learn more about the ICRC and the use of symbols...

[Obamanaut]

33. These sources must be incorrect then. There was the red cross, then

later the crescent - my time frames were wrong, but that's the danger of going from memory.

There is this http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/red.html

And there is this <snip “…The Red Cross on white background was the original protection symbol declared at the 1864 Geneva Convention…” end snip>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement

And maybe this <snip “…The Red Cross emblem is an inversion of the Swiss flag, which shows a white cross on a red background. This recognises the historic connection between Switzerland and the original Geneva Convention of 1864.

But while the Red Cross emblem has no intentional religious meaning, the symbol reminded soldiers from the Ottoman Empire (modern-day Turkey) of the crusaders of the Middle Ages and so in 1876 they began using a Red Crescent instead….”end snip> http://www.logodesignlove.com/international-red-cross-logo-design


But hey, what do they know.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. They must be. Or yr misreading what they're saying...

From the Wiki link you posted:

'During the Russo-Turkish War from 1876 to 1878, the Ottoman Empire used a Red Crescent instead of the Red Cross because its government believed that the cross would alienate its Muslim soldiers. When asked by the ICRC in 1877, Russia committed to fully respect the sanctity of all persons and facilities bearing the Red Crescent symbol, followed by a similar commitment from the Ottoman government to respect the Red Cross. After this de facto assessment of equal validity to both symbols, the ICRC declared in 1878 that it should be possible in principle to adopt an additional official protection symbol for non-Christian countries. The Red Crescent was formally recognized in 1929 when the Geneva Conventions were amended (Article 19).<2> Originally, the Red Crescent was used by Turkey and Egypt. From its official recognition to today, the Red Crescent became the organizational emblem of nearly every national society in countries with majority Muslim populations. The national societies of some countries such as Pakistan (1974), Malaysia (1975), or Bangladesh (1989) have officially changed their name and emblem from the Red Cross to the Red Crescent. The Red Crescent is used by 33 of the 186 recognized societies worldwide.'

You incorrectly claimed that the Red Cross had been changed to the Red Crescent, when in reality what happened was a second symbol was officially recognised alongside the Red Cross. I'm not sure at all why anyone would have an issue with more than one symbol being in use...

Here's some info straight from the horse's mouth (in this case the ICRC) on the symbols and their origins.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/p0876/$File/ICRC_002_0876.PDF

While a fascinating topic, it's got nothing to do with the OP which was about the intolerance of mainly RW weirdos in the US trotting out bizarre and illogical arguments in opposition to building a mosque. Not unless you want to try to argue that Muslims are intolerant because they want to use a symbol other than the Red Cross? That'd be a really ridiculous argument to try, btw...

[Obamanaut]

39. I may have indeed misread - from that wiki link we read

"...original protection symbol declared at the 1864..." and the excerpt you provided "... 'During the Russo-Turkish War from 1876 to 1878, the Ottoman Empire used a Red Crescent instead of the Red Cross..."

I understand 'original' and '1864' and also the later "'During the Russo-Turkish War from 1876 to 1878, the Ottoman Empire used a Red Crescent instead of the Red Cross..." (1864, original, 1876, some time later)

I read 'original' to mean 'the first', and that during the Russo-Turkish war (several years later) the emblem was changed so as not to alienate the muslims.

As to tolerance, if you will look back, my tolerance response was to post 4, not the OP. Post 4 did address muslim tolerance.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. I think it was an easy thing to do as I had to read it a few times to get it clear...

Ah, post #4. That same poster tried to make out further down in the thread that most Muslims are intolerant extremist types, which of course isn't true, so I'd take anything they say on tolerance with a massive grain of salt :)

[Nite Owl]

5. So Saudi Arabia is just who

we need to emulate? What happened to leading the world in tolerance and religious freedom. Freedom to the GOP is no taxes for anything and sling a gun in church.

[stopbush]

8. Excuse me, but the people who want to build the mosque are AMERICANS.

Americans of every faith are allowed to build their religious structures where they will.

No one is saying that a Saudi is coming over here to erect a mosque on US soil.

If "we" want to build a church in Saudi Arabia, then "we" better move there and become citizens of that country. Otherwise, the asshole-ish meme above is an apples to figs argument.

[snagglepuss]

14. Given that "...Saudi Arabia has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to fund

210 Islamic centres and 1,359 mosques around the world, including in Canada" it is not unreasonable to question the source of funding. My understanding is that there is a question about where funds are coming from to build this centre. Has it been firmly established that all funding is coming from American donors?



http://muslim-chronicle.blogspot.com/2006/08/ottawa-citizen-saudis-fund-radicals-in.html

[Rage for Order]

12. "Since when were our laws dependent upon the laws of another country?"

Have you ever lauded a European nation's health care system, employment laws, retirement structure or the like and said the US should be more like them?

I don't agree with the sentiment expressed in your subject line, but I often see people saying the US should be more like country 'X' in some way when they agree with something that country is doing.

[JI7]

16. so every Muslim is responsible for what Saudi Arabia does, should those of ENglish descent be

responsible for what they did to irish and all the colonies ? how about germans for WW2 ?

[Maru Kitteh]

20. So we are at war with the Saudis? Who knew? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

22. well they did attack us 9 years ago

which is why we in turn attacked Iraq.

[old mark]

21. Have to clear that with Fox News - Saudis own them and they won't like it....nt

[RandomThoughts]

25. Its the same arguement they use for torture.

They mention how terrible some people in some groups are.


It has no thought concept of morality in the thought.

If you remove any morality or values from your thinking, then you think what ever your enemy does is alright to do to them.


Interestingly it also fits rules applied back, or reap what you sow, or even karma.

Although when people try to do that, they make mistakes based on flaws and biases, which is why only perfect judgment should ever be part of vengeance in my view, while people try to do their best to be kind in my view. And even in the concepts of vengeance there are many examples of where mercy can break a cycle and that grace seems to happen for better reasons often.

I think that is also why it is best to love your enemy even if you know in many cases people will have rules applied back to them. because just because someone has it coming, does not excuse the person that chooses to do those things in my view from them getting what they deserve without mercy. I think that is why I think it is just best to post music and thoughts on things.

But basically it is the same concept that creates cycles of violence.

And there are actually many ways where education and love can rehabilitate many people that are hurting and hurt other people because of that.

heh, you can always have a kind conversation with people over a beer, it seems better :)

[NNN0LHI]

26. Saudi Arabia has a government that a US mercenary company keeps in power

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1132056.ece

From The Times May 14, 2003

Firm was 'cover for CIA'

AS BEFITS a company that has been accused of being a CIA front, of recruiting “executive mercenaries” and attempting to overthrow the Prime Minister of a Commonwealth state, the Vinnell Corporation kept a low profile in Riyadh.

Its discreet security fooled nobody, however: the bomb attack was the second it has suffered in eight years. In 1995 seven people were killed. This shadowy corporation is said to have been founded during the Depression. Dan Briody, author of The Iron Triangle, a study of Vinnell’s one-time owners, the Carlyle Group, serialised last week in The Times, says that there is “no publicity, no press releases, no news clippings”.

He adds: “No one knows who the original owners were.”

Vinnell’s work in Saudi Arabia dates back almost 30 years, when it won a contract to train Saudi troops to guard oilfields. A congressional inquiry found that it had agreed a “no Jews” clause. In the 1991 Gulf War Vinnell employees were seen fighting alongside Saudi troops.

The company has helped the Saudis build their National Guard from 26,000 troops to around 70,000.

[Turborama]

29. It's worth noting that Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, has churches all over

Just sayin'....

[anarch]

35. yes, and thank goodness there are currently no mosques in NYC

Let's keep NYC mosque-free!

And let's keep them damned Buddhists out, too!

[raouldukelives]

38. Sure this isn't a Ray Steven's song?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.