The ground zero/mosque debate

pdxmouse · August 2010

wingedbride:
yeah, it's sad. but whether our government did it or not, I am sure that those over there see it as such.

No, and frankly, it's arrogance that we expect them to. Mr M and I were talking this weekend about the strategic airstrike at "suspected" terrorists in Yemen (that accidentally took out a local leader that was doing some good). The first thing that jumped out at me was the use of suspected -- I know it's just asscovering (although are the families really going to sue?), but at the same time why are we so comfortable with suspected terrorists being taken out, at least comfortable enough that we don't ask about evidence or the measures taken to protect civilians. We had terrorist cells training for 9/11 in Florida. Would we have been okey-dokey with England coming here with a strategic strike, as long as there wasn't too much collateral damage? Combine that with our willingness to suspend trials, civil and Geneva rights, and it starts to look... bad.

Why churches would want to associate themselves with all that by actively building churches and ministries now is beyond me. I feel sorry for the Christians already living there, and if it were me I don't know if I'd feel supported or pissed at the influx.

jens_a_ten · August 2010

I don't think it's fair to rag on people who are building churches there.

There are people who are risking their lives to live and work in those dangerous places, because they feel compelled to support the persecuted (Both Christian and non-Christian). The fact that people trying to do good get sh*t because of what other asssholes are doing really pisses me off.

There should be no problem with building a Mosque near ground zero-- because Muslims as a group are not terrorists, a select few extremists who happen to twist the Muslim word to perpetuate their hate are the ones responsible. Under that logic, there should be no problem with Christians building a church in Iraq. Because it is the extremists and the ones using Christianity to perpetuate their hate and selfish political/business goals who are to blame-- not Christianity as a whole.

wingedbride · August 2010

I think the difference in my mind is that we are currently occupying their country. Anything we do over there could be perceived as aggressive and it bothers me.

jens_a_ten · August 2010

Yeah, I can see how that fact would change things. I still think it sucks that there are people putting themselves in danger, giving up their safe, comfortable lives to go try to help others in war torn countries, and they are getting criticized.

wingedbride · August 2010

jens_a_ten:
Yeah, I can see how that fact would change things. I still think it sucks that there are people putting themselves in danger, giving up their safe, comfortable lives to go try to help others in war torn countries, and they are getting criticized.

I criticize our military too, so I am not just singling out the missionaries.

pdxmouse · August 2010

I'm not so much pissed off that they're there, and I support them in whatever good they do. It's the arrogance of sending missionaries to places like Iraq or Israel that have probably heard of Christianity once or two billion times. One gets the sense that if they were interested in conversion, they'd be able to seek it out on their own, rather than needing what can be very aggressive groups in an already tense situation. Supporting the persecuted is different of course.

I don't know a ton about the groups going to the Middle East, but I do know it was a missionary trip to Mexico that made Mr M give up on calling himself Christian. He thought he was there to build a school and feed people, but everything came at the price of conversion, joining in prayer, attending sermons, etc. I've seen it a few times myself and combining that with military occupation is just a recipe for disaster.

The ground zero/mosque debate

Re: The ground zero/mosque debate

Choose Another Board

Search Boards