http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html

Americans are such assholes. Really. We've got prejudice down to an art.

The only thing I find more offensive than that is your self-righteousness.

Cool story, bro.

Why don't you write us all an application about it?

He's right though, Orme. It's amazing how prejudiced we are, while at the same time try to project this image of being morally superior to everyone else.

Says the 2 people with the biggest superiority complexes on these boards... get the fuck over yourselves already.

Lol

Go anywhere else and see how progressive the people are. Try being a gay man in an arab country, or, God forbid, a woman, representative of only about half the world's population. Your self-loathing is comical and highly misplaced.

I like how people say "it's unbelievable how prejudiced you are" without acknowledging that they, too, are in fact prejudiced.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I believe the USA is generally the least prejudiced developed country in the world. I am not saying we don't have it, but relative to how bad it is in the rest of the world we have less. I'm not sure if I should be proud of that or saddened.

Anywhere else, Jox? You sure about that? Maybe I need to travel more, but it seems like we're generally behind the curve on this stuff. Just because Arab nations are even further behind doesn't make it any better.

Yep.

First, Name any place that's more progressive and tolerant, in the world. Back it up.

Second, find a place that is AS diverse as the United States. Any place.

C'mon, that's not even hard.

The US isn't the only place where lots of "different" people live. I'm not even going to waste my time listing places that are highly diverse. It's a global world now, sir.

To pick a current topic, we're behind quite a few nations on gay rights. Lots of nations allow gays openly in the military, allow gay couples to adopt, allow gay marriage, have anti-discrimination protection, etc...yeah, we're ahead of all the third-world, backwoods nations, but we can't lay claim to being "The most progressive" at all.

Spoken like someone who's never been abroad.

The only difference in us and the countries you believe to be diverse is we are a bunch of pussies who let anyone who isn't white/straight/christian push us around and scream intolerance when they don't get their way. It makes bit headlines here when someone doesn't get their way, no matter how ridiculous. Everywhere else, it's shut the fuck up, you are no better than anyone else.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

So you're saying that we're no more diverse. Thank you.

Also, wouldn't the burden of proof for "Backing it up" be on the person boasting "MY country is the most diverse and tolerant in the whole wide world!"?

I'm not sure that pointing to Arab countries as the first suggestion that the rest of the world is intolerant is the most objective selection, either.

Tolerance and prejudice is a pretty difficult thing to put a number on. Canada, the UK, France, and Italy(to a lesser extent) probably come close in terms of a balance between diversity and progressive thought. And sure, you can tack on "diversity" to make things a little more specific. Not counting diversity, Australia, Switzerland, Spain(and actually there's a decent amount of diversity here as well), South Korea(arguably, I realize there's some xenophobia there, but probably less so than say.. Japan), India, Russia has gained significant ground over the years despite economic woes, and a few of the scandanavian countries have fairly good track records on a per person basis for being less prejudice than others. Just keep in mind that it took us a while to get to where we are, and I'm sure being a prosperous nation with a constitution that promotes equal rights didn't have much to do with it(/cough /cough). Having been to most of those countries I named for more than a couple weeks at a time, I got the feeling that while problems still existed, in some cases there seemed to be more tolerance than here in the U.S.

In the end though, even if we were as awesome as Joxur suggests, it's more like claiming we won the little league match. It really doesn't put us up on much of a pedastal. There are still going to be countless acts of prejudice, bigotry, and general intolerance every day here and everywhere else. If we have an advantage in this category, it's a pretty damned small one. Humanity will still be humanity, and stupid people will still exist.

The irony here is the self-righteousness inherant in your own statement.



Who are you talking about? Bovinity said "Americans" and he too, is an American. I said "we," which by definition includes myself. Stop projecting your bullshit on us.

Um...as someone who lived in the UK for a year recently, you're actually wrong about this. And similarly, there is also a subset of the population that regularly goes on about "Britain for Brits!!" etc, while the majority of the population actually finds a middle ground to co-exist in.

_________________

You should read the news more. If you don't like how we handle integration with Muslims, go do some fucking research on how France has done so far.

I suppose now Khan is going to get some more american, christian, middle class white males together and sing, "It's a hard knock life" for our entertainment!

1 liners are supposed to be funny.... that was just retarded.

If by pushed around, you mean that in certain situations they weren't allowed to use their majority to dictate to those groups with smaller numbers when the whites/straights/christians were clearly in the wrong (legally and/or Constitutionally), I'd absolutely agree. If that's not what you are referring to, I'd honestly like some examples.

I'm happy you picked that one country out of the rest of my post outlining the ridiculousness of setting yourself up on high horse nationalism. Ironically that kind of "we're better than everyone else" is part of the reason your buddy Barack Obama got elected over McCain, so we at least have you to thank... for your... oh... distaste for Obama.

Anyway, with regard to that one country out of about 10 listed that are more progressive(or are at the very least on par)... I assume you're referring to the hijab/proposed burqa laws, the riots in 2005, the Muslim graves being defiled, as well as the expelling of imams etc. All concerning, sure - but if there were a suggestion that there's massive discrimination on an unprecedented level via pointing to acts like the graves being defiled, or the riots - it would be as silly as pointing to the United States, the LA Riots, and some of the more recent cases of discrimination seen in various areas(I won't just say the south!). The imam issue is concerning because it brings into question freedom of speech, I won't deny that. I tend to think the hijab issue is a little more complicated because I would suggest that it arose in part both because of Muslim discrimination and because the laws on the French books promote a secular society, particularly when it comes to schools and government. Without going into the obvious questions of freedom of religion, I'm not convinced that the government is entirely "out to get" the Muslims on this issue. As the law stands now, no one can wear any religious symbol that isn't concealable and that includes more than just the Muslim headscarves.

That being said, after having been to Clichy sous Bois on a couple of occasions(admittedly, one time was more of a passing through on my way to Paris), I can say that I saw plenty of interactions between the native French and Muslims and not one single time did I see any hostility or even a bad tone. This was mostly on my first visit to the area, and I stayed there for 2-3 weeks. I've been to several other areas in France that have solid mixes of Arabic/African Muslims and French natives, and again not once did I see any form of discrimination. Now, granted, that's like going to the south in the U.S. and suggesting that staying there a couple months would net you at least a few encounters - that may or may not be the case. Discrimination is difficult to identify, and the beast hides itself well under layers of often-subconscious communication. However, I would at least point out that it is no more rampant there from what I saw than it is in the United States.

I don't suppose there are any other countries on that list that you might want to point out that the United States is superior to as well? =) Have to fuel up that nationalism on something!

Speaking of which, I miss that Arachtivix(sp?) guy =/ He'd have something to say about this, hah.

I agree. It's insane how persecuted the white, straight, Christian majority is and how they're getting smacked down by the man and expecting additional privileges like being able to build places of worship by following existing process and law, same as the majority does! In fact, I think you should lobby for more representation in government - if you had that, this wouldn't have happened.

Actually, even better, let's follow the example of a government that doesn't tolerate that bullshit - Saudi Arabia! You can't even build churches there! But then they don't quite go far enough with enforcing morality on the faggots, atheists and idolators - so let's just go all out and look to another government for that. Somewhere like Afghanistan might work. What do they call the folks that were running shit over there again? Oh well, not like it matters. I don't see any parallels there anyway.

Seriously - it isn't "at Ground Zero." It's two blocks away in an old Burlington Coat Factory. And look up "Sufi." Its like getting mad at the local Episcopals because the Pentacostals held a book burning.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Oooh... wicked burn. Now... if it only made sense.


The more I read this thread, the more I can't help but think I've figured out "progressives". Basically, it's a way for losers to think they are somehow superior to people who work harder and have more.

Yeah... broad brush. But, to think people being sensitive about this subject makes us a prejudice country is laughable. Especially considering the people moaning about it are the same types who don't want scores at little league games because someone's feelings might get hurt.

Sorry, Orme, I don't know how else to consider a willingness to abandon the fundamental aspects of being American such as freedom of religion, freedom of association, and the rights of property owners. Its being directed entirely at one portion of the population, a portion of the population that also had victims among those that died at 9/11.

Opposing this mosque, using the types of discriminatory broad-brushed language about Muslims that is being bandied about, is doing the work of Bin Laden for him. I cannot state that more plainly and I will stand by that so long as this board exists. When we abandon the ideals of the Enlightenment for those of authoritarianism, we prove to the rest of the world, and to US Muslims, that our ideals are worthless and that we are exactly what Al Qaeda tells the Muslim world we are.

And I think that we're fucking better than that.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I can't even describe how awesomely funny this statement is. Really, just read it a few times.

Bearne, for the record, that picture is hilarious.

I think broad persecution of the Muslim community is wrong. But at the same time, I get why this resonates in such a negative light for so many people. Do I think there should be legislation to prevent it... no. But, I don't really have a problem with people opposing it and trying to stop it... if that makes sense. I guess there just seems to be a lot of other places that it coudl go that would not cause a stir, and that's the avenue I think shoud be pursued - in the name of sensitivity (which is what I thought liberals were all about). Either way, I really don't care all that much about the issue, and that's all I have to say about it.

What does chap my ass is this constant "America is so stupid", "America is racist" garbage. That's just silly. Are we perfect? No, but as a whole I would argue that most White Anglos are the least racist of all races. Have we done wrong? Of course, but we have tried to move on. There is a cetain xenophobia built into our DNA and culture. That may not make it right - but it's there. Indians hang together, Latinos hang together, Japanese hang together. That's how it is. Should we try to integrate? Yes.

But for some moron to say "Americans really are assholes" and talk about how prejudice we are, is just simple ignorance. Think about how far we have come as a people, particularly White Anglos. Take a pick of any non-white race and you will find rampant racism. The difference is that it's easy to hate whites because throughout the Industrial Revolution, they have been the power brokers. In reality, although some changes have been slow, white western culture has been the driving force behind the liberation of most free people.

Does that mean we're better than everyone? No. But to somehow suggest that America is full of irrational, racist assholes is nothing short of pure ignorance.

Full of? No. Is the vocal majority opposed to this irrational and racist? Very likely yes. And assholes? Absolutely.

I would say there is a vocal minority. On both sides. If you walked through my neighborhood and knocked on the doors, here is what you would find...

About 60% white
About 15% asian
About 15% indian
About 9% black
About 1% other

Of those, I would guess 95% are rational, non-assholes. I believe everyone has racist feelings. What makes you a racist is acting on those feelings and I believe most people don't.

The problem, again, is that no one has really given a concrete reason why this scenario is any different from any other scenario where any given human building is constructed. If you want to know why people are declaring Americans stupid, irrational, and prejudiced - justified or not justified - this is exactly why. You have said you "get" why this resonates in such a negative light, and have given no rational reason as to why it is. There should at least be something to be sensitive about. As it stands, no one has given a reason as to how building a Muslim mosque 3 blocks away(I wonder what the distance limit is, anyhoo) is ANY different from building a Christian church at the same location. One, single concrete difference that has any relevance to 9/11. That's all anyone reasonable is asking.

If you want Americans to stop being perceived as irrational, people that protest about stuff like this without any thought have to stop acting the part. To everyone sane in the world, they're on a moron level that's approaching Westboro.

It might not be so bad if it were ONLY this one site, but they're protesting them around the nation too. =(

_________________

If 60% of the population believes it is wrong to put a mosque there, and states it to be so on a poll, then 60% of the population are "acting on racist thoughts" as Orme puts it. Then by Orme's definition of being a racist, I guess 60% of the population are racist. I'll add the word "asshole" myself, because that's how I tend to view racists. So now we have the majority of the United States being racist assholes.

If the Republicans are going to put at Obama speaking out against this as proof that Obama is "out of touch" with the American people (which is exactly what happened on the Sunday talk shows this week), then that's deplorable and using racist attitudes for their own agenda. Since 60% apparently have these racist attitudes, I guess he is out of touch with the American people. I hope he stays that way. I'm damn glad Lincoln was out of touch with the American people too.

That's always been the problem with the ideal of a pure democracy...sometimes the mob is just wrong, and its supposed to be the governments job to step in and protect the minority from the majority.

Unfortunately, when you do that, you get accused of being "out of touch", "not listening to the people", "anti-democratic" and people like Orme come out and accuse you of thinking you're "better than everyone else".

It's a cycle that's repeated itself quite a few times in our history.

Well, to be fair, I'm not sure I'd say 60 percent are acting on purely racist thoughts. Rather, they're stupid enough to think that there's a tangible connection between 9/11 and Muslims to evoke a question of "taste". No doubt there are a number of people that are racist within that group, but I think a lot of people genuinely dislike Islam as a religion rather than the fact that most are of Arab or African descent. I think it's more fair to say they're at least "acting" on a prejudice against Islam without any rational thought. Neither is really excusable, but I think it's important to distinguish what they themselves proclaim they're acting upon. For most of them it may well be racism in the end for all we know, but as it stands on a purely conscious level I think it's safe to say Islam itself is their target of hatred.

Doesn't make it any better.

You're making the assumption that not wanting the mosque there is racist.

You guys are just as close minded as the people you are calling close minded.

It's not racist, it's prejudice. If an Arab were to open a Christian church in that location, most people would not be complaining. You can call it closed-minded if you like, but I haven't heard a single reason given for not wanting it there that doesn't include something regarding muslims flying some planes into a couple of buildings a few blocks away.

People's ignorance of the fact that not all muslims are the same is not an excuse. Anyone who isn't aware of the fact that it is a small segment of the muslim population that has embraced violence is willfully ignorant, and thus not deserving of understanding or tolerance. That information has been out there, and practically crammed down the throat of everyone who occasionally flips past the news or glances at a newspaper.

This is like the 3rd (4th?) time you've played the "I know you are, but what am I?" card when no one has actually said anything about the topic you bring up.

That's the line I was referencing.

ANyhoo, beyond that, who cares?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm an affluent white male. I have no complaints.

Although it does give me a sad chuckle to see Obama back off his stance. Why a wimp-tastic piece of shit. If the Republicans are anything less than stellar-retarded, he's gone in 2012.

Do you have a link? Are you confusing Harry Reid w/ the Pres?

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Guess he's staying, then!

Gingrich: “Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington, durrrrr"

(durrrrr added by editor)

Though I like to call myself a liberal republican, very near the center etc, I think it would be very foolish for dems to think Obama is a slam dunk for re-election at this stage, if the republicans put someone up who's not old school hard right wing, someone like a Bobby Jindal etc, I think it would be a very close election, its still a very red country if you look at the map.

We still have Chris Christie...

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7613849&rss=rss-wabc-article-7613849



To me personally I could give a rats ass about where they build the damn thing... However, the topic was about whether this was in bad taste, NOT its legality.. The location being the heart of the discussion, there are other mosques in the area (1 right across the river through the tunnel.. however that specific one doesn't have a great history to present a reasonable argument for any side.. look up Omar Abdel-Rahman if you wish..), so the discrimination against them being able to practice their religion argument is completely false.

It's perfectly legal for a white person to walk down the street in Harlem wearing a shirt with racist remarks... but what purpose does it serve other then being purposely objectionable and create an atmosphere of fear, hate, transforming into possible violence... Only thing both sides have done is escalate the tensions..


All this talk, they don't even own all the buildings where they plan to make the damn thing.. yet.

Um, how can you come to that conclusion?

At this location and around the nation people are protesting the possible mosques. Why are they opposing mosques? They smell? They look ugly? Everyone that goes there drives a noisy El Camino?

No, I'm pretty sure it's because they're Islamic places of worship and people don't like Islam because this is Jesusland. Not sure how you could ever come to a , "This isn't religious discrimination at all!" conclusion.



Yeah, obviously this mosque is going to be decorated with anti-american propaganda and the only purpose the building will serve is to be purposefully objectionable and create an atmosphere of fear and hate. Yep. That's definately the plan.

That was a pretty good comparison. You should hook up with Newt Gingrich to discuss more brilliant comparisons.

If there was an easy word to use like "racist" that indicated discrimination based on religion, I would have used it instead.

Also, Bovinity is correct.

Would a light-skinned Hispanic driving threw Harlem with out of state plates flying a confederate flag in his back window be a better argument? Same outcome.

I was drawing a line of legality which is what it's being turned into, rather then people's personal feelings on it being so damn close. Again, there are places to worship in the area.. less then 15 min drive, how the fuck do they not have a place to worship? Being an atheist perhaps I don't understand why people need to have a place to worship every 5 minutes away..

Again, I could give a shit if it's built or not. I do see it's location being in bad taste and that is all.

I have to ask what was already asked earlier in this thread to others. Do you find churches near abortion clinics that have been bombed to be in "bad taste?" Are the churches near the Oklahoma City bombing site in "bad taste?"

Somehow, even though you're an atheist, I have a feeling that this never even entered your mind. Yet here with Islam, you have a problem.

Yes, absolutely.. sorry to burst your bubble.

Drawing a line of conclusions is fairly difficult without bringing up reasons to why people would feel disdain for a specific thing, this case Mosques and possible links to terrorist activities. While the threat may be small as a whole, the threat they present is rather large IF anything was ever planned and carried out. I see no difference in realizing this fact much the same as I would see the Catholic church molesting young boys and the crazies blowing up stupid shit.. The problem exists, regardless of how grand the scale.

I'm seriously not against it being built, I question why and if needed, especially now considering it seems to be an issue to a great many people. It being legal should have never been in question.

Bovinity wrote:


This illustrates your lack of understanding of the root cause of the conflict. People don't dislike Islam because this is Jesusland, people dislike Islam because it is the religion most of the organized terrorists belong to, and they then claim it as the justification for the crimes they commit. The obvious flaw in that logic is that 99.9+% of Muslims are not terrorists, but being "Jesusland" has nothing to do with it. This is easily proven by how many non-Jesus based religions there are that coexist relatively peacefully. This is an important distinction to make because how can you hope to influence people when you haven’t even made an effort to understand both sides of the conflict?

Additionally, most of the assertions by the “pro-mosque on ground zero” group are arguing against the wrong opposing position. They are saying why it should be legal to build the mosque, and most of the opposition here is saying that it is simply in poor taste. Having an opinion that something is in poor taste does not equate to saying it should be illegal or barred by the government. You can wear white after Labor Day and no one is going to arrest you for it. Unless you’re a woman in a Muslim country

Oh for fucks sake, I thought it was pretty obvious that it was a joke.

And I'm sorry, but if it were just a "It's bad taste" issue, then people wouldn't be freaking out over it, comparing it to Nazi's and the holocaust, and most important - opposing mosques all over the nation, not just in this one place.

A lot of people just don't like Islam and it's just another one of those times when it's kinda ok for the bigots to come out of the woodwork because they'll get a certain amount of support for now. That's it.

Was it in poor taste for the Pentagon to keep its Prayer Room up and running after 9/11?

Was it in poor taste for Japanese Americans to keep worshiping Shinto near Pearl Harbor after WWII?

Should the mosque that's been 4 blocks away from WTC shut down after 9/11 due to propriety? If not, what's the difference between 2 blocks and 4 blocks?

And finally:

Exactly what sort of "taste level" should those Muslim-Americans who had family die in the bombing aspire to in order to make people who live in Tennessee or Idaho, and who hate New Yorkers for being "Coastal Elites" rather than "Real Americans", get over their poutrage?

_________________
Hope is the new black.

There are people in America who fit the it's more than bad taste description, they just arn't in this thread. You are arguing to the wrong people. This thread is saying it is in bad taste. Don't blame me for not understanding when you are making a bad joke or a claim that shows a lack of understanding. You make enough of both that I should not be held accountable.

Bearne:
Let me think on a reply to you, it requires (and deserves) more thought.

For the first one, you would have to give me a reason why that is or isn't distasteful, I fail to see a connection to having any opinion on it at all, I don't have a real true opinion on religion in general, nor it's reason.. but that's a different topic..


2nd- I wasn't alive back then to have any opinion. Don't twist this into something it's not... If I had to make a wild ass guess, I could care less... were they building something where something wasn't close to where bombs fragments landed? I did however find it in bad taste that people were dancing in the streets in Patterson, NJ and Jersey City after 9/11 outside mosques... guess that's about the only relation I could come up to this one, being alive to give a shit about... Had they shown pictures of them just worshiping in mosques I wouldn't have even thought about it in any negative manner, everyone has that legal right to worship whatever god they believe in.


3rd - Absolutely not... again you're under the impression I give a fuck about the religion itself. Now that you pointed out how close another is, what exactly is the point in building another? Lack of religious places to worship fails once again. This is likely to be built, that's not the same with a church that got destroyed across the street from the WTC, because it's plans were too tall... again I could give a shit if... Why is my only question....


Lastly, that's a hard one to answer, for anyone. Ask any black person about slavery, Jewish person about the holocaust, etc the list goes on.. When they have an answer it'll be better then mine, my only gripe here is with people recognizing one religion for it's problems without seeing the potential for another religion and it's..

All you're trying to do is stir up hypocritical responses, it's pretty fucking obvious.. nice try though.

Re: #1 The connection is that the Pentagon was also a target on 9/11, and people died there. It is just as much "Ground Zero" as WTC, and yet Muslim employees used the Prayer Room both before and after the attacks, without anyone in the media going crazy.

Re: #2 You really don't see the similarity? I mean, really? /speechless

Re: #3 The one that is four blocks away is too small, and has had to turn away locals for years, which is part of why the Cordoba House was being built.

Re: #4 I'll admit that one was a little bit tweaky. But I don't see any good reason why, re: Palin, Gingrich, etc., a Muslim American from NYC is any less a "Real American" than a Southern Baptist from Atlanta.

Re: "All you're trying to do is stir up hypocritical responses, it's pretty fucking obvious.. nice try though."

No... It's a thought exercise.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Was it in poor taste for the Pentagon to keep its Prayer Room up and running after 9/11?

I don’t follow your implication on this one.

Was it in poor taste for Japanese Americans to keep worshiping Shinto near Pearl Harbor after WWII?

I don’t think this is a good example because of how poorly Japanese Americans were treated during WWII. By comparison we have progressed a great deal relative to the reactions back then.

Should the mosque that's been 4 blocks away from WTC shut down after 9/11 due to propriety? If not, what's the difference between 2 blocks and 4 blocks?

One is existing and one is new. Yes, that matters when it comes to people’s emotions.

And finally:

Exactly what sort of "taste level" should those Muslim-Americans who had family die in the bombing aspire to in order to make people who live in Tennessee or Idaho, and who hate New Yorkers for being "Coastal Elites" rather than "Real Americans", get over their poutrage?

A loaded question. It is understandable that people feel uncomfortable with a mosque at ground zero given the motivational role religion was to the terrorists. I find it odd when people dismiss that because it’s such a tangible correlation. I also understand why Muslims feel unjustly persecuted against based on the actions of a severe minority. How can they control what others do, and yet they pay the price for it? It is a case where it is not difficult to see why both sides are upset and whichever side you agree more strongly with, the only real disservice is offhandedly dismissing how people on either side feel about it. That is why it is a proper discussion for if it is in poor taste, but not if they have a legal right. Based on our constitution it is legal, and no feelings or opinions can or should trump that. Political figures that weigh in on it are just looking for publicity or to buy votes for upcoming elections and should be taken with a grain of salt.

The two are tied together, though. If someone is convinced that this is "in bad taste" then that clearly speaks to their inability to distinguish between terrorists and muslims or a prejudice against muslims.

Bad taste would be them putting up a picture of the twin towers on their front window with a "LOL" underneath it.

Just existing and minding their own business on a spot that just happens to kinda but not really be close to the site of a tragic event they had nothing to do with? No, not bad taste. Sorry.

This is why I can't tell when you're making a joke or an absurd statement.

Except it's not a tangible correlation. A tiny fraction of a percentage share the "name" or "label" under which beliefs they subscribe(not to mention, of course, that those beliefs are likely radically different altogether from the Muslim mainstream without even *mentioning* the subject of violence). It's not any different in terms of it being a "tangible correlation" than suggesting that the hijackers enjoyed eating McDonald's. You can't expect one commonality to be a reasonable representation of that many people.

Moreover, Osama Bin Laden himself stated a number of stupid reasons for the attacks. The United States' support of Israel, its meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, his personal connections and vendetta for what happened to him and his people in Saudi Arabia, not to mention his general distaste for western influences. It's safe to say that the hijackers probably shared a few similar beliefs that didn't have a whole lot to do with Islam.

I'm open to hearing out different positions on different subjects from a wide variety of sources, but this thought process falls squarely into the realm of stupidity over a lot of other positions. There's simply not much ground for the argument of "poor taste" to stand on.

I'd be the first to proclaim that most issues have a lot of grey area to cover and are often less black and white than they seem. This one is pretty straightforward because you have people proclaiming poor taste without any reason or even suggestive evidence to go with it. When people give no reason and just shout the same thing over and over again, and you can't even find one reason from the slightly more intelligent folks supporting the view, at that point it's a pretty safe bet that there's no leg to stand on.