[Honu]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The point I'm making is that if you're a member of NAMBLA, you're part of a group whose entire purpose is to promote child rape. People who don't support the goals of NAMBLA, aka legalized child rape, don't regularly attend NAMBLA meetings as far as I know, unless there's a secret cabal of them out there that nobody knows about.

So the only way your point makes any sense at all is if you believe all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters, and their connection to the religion by default makes them incapable of not supporting terrorism (which is why the NAMBLA comparison was crap, because their group supports exactly one thing, child rape. Muslims do not support exactly one thing, terrorism) -- and people on this board go out of their way to make sure we know they don't think that. If you believe that, then that's your prerogative, but that's the only way your comparison comes close to working, and I doubt you believe that, so then the comparison doesn't work.

So if these Muslims don't support killing of Americans, don't support terrorism, then your point is a complete toss-out because it makes no sense whatsoever.

It's not that I don't understand the emotional reaction some people have, and I actually somewhat sympathize with it, but the idea that emotion or the threat of attack against this group should somehow make it so that they set up shop elsewhere (which also doesn't avoid vandalism/attack, as my post earlier clearly points out) basically takes away their right to freely practice religion by threat of force, which is rather un-American.

My friend how will you know they dont support some things terroristic? Just so we are clear, you find Nambla offensive even if the members dont touch lil kids, right? But its ok to support a Mosque near ground zero even if the members dont support blowing shyte up?