famousringo said:
Kasz216 said:
famousringo said:
Yeesh, pretend I never mentioned Pearl Harbour. I just thought it was funny that you had to construct another awkwardly contrived analogy.
You asked me a question, and I answered it. Wherever this hypothetical bombed clinic is in my town, there's a 50% chance it's within sight of a christian church, and a good chance that church is evangelical. I sincerely doubt that many people would care if another one went up, because they wouldn't think of that bomber as a christian terrorist, they'd just think of him as that crazy asshole who blew up a clinic.
And I'm seriously okay with that. I don't think evangelicals should have to second guess their actions because one crazy jerk took things too far. Nor do I think that muslims in New York should have to relocate a major project (I'm guessing land is hard to come by in that area) because a group of crazy assholes did something stupid ten years ago in the name of Allah.
You asked, I answered. If my answer isn't good enough for you, do try to keep in mind that I think this is a stupid non-issue.
|
You did by posting the link.
Which i'd never heard of because there isn't a "herd" I followed. Which is just an insulting comment.
I at first thought it was a non issue until I thought for a couple minues and realized just how insensitive it was. If it was me I'd of never built something there.
All I had to do was imagine it from a different perspective. IE come up with the same situation but where the Republicans would be for the building, and the Democrats against... and the Church was the first that came to mind.
Better one group have to merely second think something and move, then cause another group harm.
I gurantee if somone were two want to build a shinto temple 2 blocks away from Pearl Harbour... 9 years after it... people would of been pissed about it... and have good reason. It's just insesnitive unneeded and causes people unneeded stress.
|
Democrats vs. Republicans... whatever. The principle is simple in either case. You can't hold a group responsible for the actions of an individual (excepting when that individual is an official representative for the group, then they'd better do something about it).
The people trying to build this centre aren't the people who bombed the WTC, and as insensitive as their actions might be, I see no reason why their rights to develop the property should be revoked due to the actions of others who happen to read the same holy book.
I'd say the argument against a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor is stronger, since Shinto was the state religion and the emperor of Japan was a Shinto god. But I still say that the smart thing to is to move on. The real source of unneeded stress is the inability to let go of the past.
|
I've yet to really see people say their right to build there SHOULD be revoked. It shouldn't be...
They should see the protestors and have the common sense and decency to move rather then aggravate peoples PTSD for no real reason.
If someone says that the government should stop this... then they're wrong.
Should the government openly condemn it's placement like Obama basically did? Yes.
As for "letting go of the past". Once again... PTSD kinda makes that hard to do.
I mean sure, veterans of vietnam would be fine if they could just let go vietnam... that's not to say it'd be right to place a bunch of things that would remind them fo it right near their VA clubs.
