Irony certainly isn’t dead.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
This entry was posted in faith. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Irony certainly isn’t dead.

  1. Alex N. says:

    I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.

    Just leave the community center be.

  2. tsharrison says:

    I’m not sure this these two ideas (terrorist who win & religious freedom) is this easy to graph. It is open, however, to a lot of interpretations.

  3. Lynn says:

    Oh wow, now you’ve opened a can of worms. I hope you’re happy.

  4. Leonard says:

    The masque at ground 0 is in terrible taste. I honestly thing it should be built somewhere else, not that it shouldn’t be built but not at ground 0.

  5. Calvin says:

    Lady (or girl I can’t tell), this is the best way to attract trolls on your website, well played !

    Anyway this graph is true to me, even tho it is a multivariables problem, including the problem of human brain I guess.

  6. Kevin says:

    To Leonard, and to anyone who is about to post a comment on this debate, shut up and enjoy the website along with those who don’t share your views. This is not the place. We all thank you.

  7. Udo says:

    It’s funny but inaccurate. In fact, one may argue that graph should be inverse: the absence of freedoms (of any kind) is the endgame of terrorists. And they’re succeeding quite well, too.

  8. Dan says:

    Leonard: Isn’t “The Masque at Ground Zero” the modern retelling of that Edgar Allen Poe story? You know, the one where they lock themselves in to escape the plague of intolerance sweeping the countryside, only to succumb to it anyway?

  9. Dustin says:

    Udo, just so you know the graph is saying that the absence of religious freedom is the goal of terrorists regardless of their race, religion, or methods of inducing terror.

    In short, they graph already is saying what you think it should say. ;)

  10. Niccole says:

    @Dustin: You took the words right off my fingertips.

  11. captain says:

    the question is not whether or not it should be done, but whether the constitution protects their right to expression of religion. I also agree that it is in bad taste but I will defend the first amendment always build away

  12. fishboy says:

    Can anyone actually point out why the mosque is in bad taste? Seriously. I’m not a New Yorker, or even American, but what does this mosque have to do with 9/11?

  13. Andrew says:


    The people who are against building the mosque say that it is spiteful of the 9/11 attacks, while those who are arguing for the mosque to be built are standing on the high horse of constitutional rights and freedom of religion. Both rationale imply that if the other is carried out, the terrorists win. This is compounded by the president opening his big mouth about it when 1/5 Americans believes he is Muslim.

    I personally think that it is in bad taste, but I don’t really care that much because it isn’t /on/ the site of the attack and people should get over themselves.

  14. Andrew says:

    Addendum: they aren’t standing on the high horse, they are sitting. hopefully.

    addendum addendum:
    “The thing I remember most about America is that it’s silly. That can be quite a relief at times.” –Thom Yorke

  15. Adrian Jones says:

    Of course the fact that it isn’t a mosque, it isn’t at ground zero, there’s already a mosque nearer to ground zero than this site and there are strip clubs nearer to this “hallowed ground” doesn’t enter into the argument.

    Let alone that these protesters are quite happy to trample all over the constitution when it suits them.

  16. David says:

    I agree mathematically with Udo. The x axis should show the independent variable and the y axis the dependent variable. Terror (the fear of terrorism) is causing some people to want to restrict freedom. It does not work in reverse: limiting freedom causes terrorism, non increasing freedom. Al Qaida started in Saudi Arabia, not in a country with religious freedom.

  17. Michael T says:

    Legally and constitutionally they are well within their rights. But it is in poor taste to build so close. The First amendment also gives me the right to criticize them.

  18. fishboy says:

    I’m still bemused – no-one seems to be able to say *why* it’s poor taste.

    @David & @Udo: I also don’t understand your complaint: doesn’t the graph say “as religious freedoms increase fewer terrorists win”?

  19. JD says:

    “In poor taste” = “scares the $&*! out of me”

  20. PotatoFangs says:

    “[…] Terror (the fear of terrorism) is causing some people to want to restrict freedom. It does not work in reverse: limiting freedom causes terrorism, non increasing freedom. Al Qaida started in Saudi Arabia, not in a country with religious freedom.”

    Yeah, David! (y)

  21. Jimmy says:

    Those of you who are opposed to building the mosque near Ground Zero, would you be willing to have it built in YOUR neighborhood instead? If you say “No,” to the mosque in your neighborhood, but are OK with another church being built there, how is it that you are not prejudiced?

  22. Matt says:

    Yea, can’t say I agree with how the graph was organized. Other posters have mentioned flipped the variables — that would be one way to make this card a little better.

    Another way to look at it would be to say reducing religious freedom reduces the number of terrorists, because if we outlaw radical religious practise there would be less religious terrorists. But that is being horribly simplistic.

    Can’t say I’m a huge proponent of religious freedom, but is building a mosque (or Islamic center) worse than building an American embassy the size of Vatican City in Iraq? It’s practically a fortress.

  23. Matt says:

    Didn’t see this comment before I posted:

    “Al Qaida started in Saudi Arabia, not in a country with religious freedom.”

    Saudi Arabia is a country that promotes the kind of Islamic teachings that Al Qaida is born out of. They don’t have absolute freedom, but they grant enough freedom for people to propogate and engage in violent and hateful religious practices.

  24. Atheist says:

    I don’t think that building the mosque there is in any way “poor tasty”. Everyone has the right to pray to whomever thay want, or to not pray, if they so choose.

    But I believe that building the mosque there will be a source of trouble for the neighbor area, as some fanatic Christians will probably want to trash it once its built.

    It’s not prejudice, it’s safety 101. Unfortunately, religion attracts fanaticism, and for whatever reason the Muslims fanatics are more well known in America than the other fanatics; and for that reason, the good-hearted Muslims are suffering.

  25. Stripe says:

    Meanwhile, Osama Bin Forgotten.

  26. marc says:

    I believe the Mosque at ground zero would be an important symbolic reminder that Muslims had as much to do with 9/11 as conservatism had to do with Oklahoma City.

  27. Daniel says:

    I love that three lines and four words caused such a stir.

    I should also say that I’m hailing from your alma mater OU :) *waves friendly hello*

  28. Jay says:

    Both sides are wrong in this particular debate.

    The anti-mosque side is completely clueless — misinterpreting facts, spewing hatred, and destroying the religious freedoms this very country’s foundation was based upon.

    That said, this indexed is bullshit. The deconstruction of so-called religious freedoms, in this case the building of a community center, doesn’t mean the terrorists are winning. As long as we have the freedom to do or say as we want, we have the advantage.

  29. Just a card... says:

    I like how everyone immediately took it to the place of the Muslim community center at ground zero. The card says nothing about that. Take the card as it is, and it’s an insightful piece of opinion. And kind of funny, too :)

  30. Chris says:

    Doesn’t this card completely fail to account for non-religious terrorists? The freedom fighter and military black ops kinds?
    I doubt they’re going to care much about religious freedoms or lack thereof.

  31. fishboy says:

    Yeah man, it’s a crying shame that this card of five words and three lines didn’t cover the entire spectrum of human struggle for freedom and the depth of world socio/political/religious issues. Try harder next time please Jessica..

    BTW: Why ‘poor taste’? Anyone? Still wondering.

  32. Arbert says:

    Just to interfere with some facts: it is not a mosque; it is a community center with a cafe, preschool, auditorium and, yes, a small mosque. It is modeled on the 92nd Street Y, a Jewish Cultural Institution.

    It is not at “Ground Zero” either; it’s at least 2 long city blocks away, which NYC residents know is the equivalent of 10 miles. It is replacing the sacred Burlington Coat Factory. There are also 2 “gentlemen’s clubs” nearby, which, if we want to get sanctimonious, is probably more disrespectful. Oh, and there are 2 mosques in the neighborhood which pre-dated 9/11. Why don’t you have those re-located while you’re at it?

    Oh, and the owners of the property which sold it to the Park51 organization are religious Jews, who you would think would be the most opposed to this idea.

  33. Pingback: IMAO » Blog Archive » Clarification

  34. Matt says:

    Muslims bomb us, then build a building right next to the towers they blew up. Or rather, if you prefer, ran into. In world war II we pushed for every inch of land. When we secured an area, we put up a flag to mark “We have won, this is ours”. Say what you like, but a mosque and a flag can be interchanged in a situation like this.

    Also, someone said “Those of you who are opposed to building the mosque near Ground Zero, would you be willing to have it built in YOUR neighborhood instead?” Actually, since the muslim religion consists mainly on killing others…I’d prefer if they kept all their damn mosques as far away from me as possible.

  35. Doug says:

    Oh dear Matt, you’ve just lurched out of a nightclub, gone up to a large group of people and said “wanna fight”? You’re actually looking for people to (metaphorically) kick the crap out of you aren’t you.

    It was not the Muslim faith that attacked you. It was the Taliban (conspiracy theories aside), who just happened to be Muslims. And I think you’ll find that over the years, Christians have killed millions more people than Muslims. What exactly do you know about “the muslim religion”? This fanatical bullshit that the Taliban and others like them (the KKK for instance) are perpetrating, is NOT a representation of their religion. It’s a few nutjobs twisting the teachings into an excuse for hatred and murder. So don’t blame the religion, blame the nutjobs. You idiot.

  36. Rose says:

    that is all.

  37. Matt says:

    My sincerest apologies. I was gotten on to just recently for always generalizing.
    What I meant to point at was Muslim, sub section radical, sub section terrorist.
    That sounds sarcastic, but I assure you, I DO have a Muslim friend. He hasn’t, nor does he have plans, to kill anyone.
    As for picking a fight…aside from my generalized comment that would have ticker any Muslim member, who else have I angered? I spoke a few words off my mind. Typed, rather. And I get told off as if I had personally approached, and attacked you?
    True, if you are Muslim, then like I said before, my generalization wronged you. You don’t have to forgive me, I’ll ask no thing. But I admit my mistake to any others who may seek to forgive me.
    A side thought, once more, just a thought I had. I say a few words, just a random person on the web with a few typed letters, and I can agitate you to writing a full blown assault of a response.
    Is it really that surprising I have my own onslaught of typed letters for the group of people (Terrorists) who hijacked our planes, and then used said planes to destroy our buildings? Those are objects of course. So how about this. Is it okay for me to be aggressive over the loss of thousands of lives?
    Meh. I’ll be back to check for further replies. Why? I don’t know. It kinda felt like a punch to the gut. Thanks.

  38. fishboy says:

    @Matt: You picked a fight by making a statement that is hyperbolic and just plain inaccurate – you don’t have to be Muslim to react to that. You can be as offensive as you like but if you’ve no way of backing it up then expect to get called on it.

    You conflated WWII and 9/11 with the clear implication that Islam is waging a war on America – something that is patently not true. You then go on to make an entirely baseless and inflammatory statement about the Muslim religion being about killing people. Yet you wonder why you might be getting slammed?

    The ‘sincere’ apology you give seems anything but since you go on to wonder why anyone except a Muslim would react. I don’t take anything you say as a personal attack, it’s just the divisive stupidity of your words that I’m rebutting.

    Your anger and aggression is an unfocussed rage at Muslims and Islam because you want to hold someone responsible for 9/11. Since you lack the power to attack those who actually did the deed you lash out at those you perceive as being associated.

    At best I think you’re an idiot that shoots off his mouth without actually exploring the issues or thinking much at all. At worst you may be a troll and I really ought to know better than to feed you but, hey, I had a spare 10 minutes at work.

    And still no-one seems to be able to say why this community centre is ‘in poor taste’.

  39. Spicynoodle says:

    Geez, why is everyone so uptight about this situation. Just let them build the community center. Hell, let them build it ON Ground Zero for all I care! Genocide, slave labor, child prostitute trafficking, the raping of the Earth’s resources, the inhumane raising and slaughtering of farm animals, and much more is happening out there and you guys are complaining about whether or not a religious center is to be built NEAR a specific crash site? Just rethink all of this before you continue trolling on the Muslim religion.

  40. Elvinwind says:

    I have not seen anyone saying that reducing religious freedom would not increase terrorism, however, if the goverment told all the christians in the country that they had to now practice islam or judiasim that would hugely reduce the religious freedom, but you would suddenly get a large number of people that would be willing to go blow *&%$ up in the name of *restoring* religious freedom, not removing it.