Mosque at Ground Zero

[aliantha]

I haven't been to Cordoba, but I'm pretty sure the Catholics in Spain built a cathedral on top of the mosque on top of the cathedral, after they kicked the Moors out. That's certainly what they did in Seville. (And that idiot Charles V built a butt-ugly pile of rock right next to the Alhambra in Granada....) That's what conquerors do, y'know.

I said "somebody," not "Zarathustra." Originally I had a parenthetical after "somebody": "the neocon blogosphere". If I was pointing fingers at *any*body, it was them.

Okay, fair enough. However, the neocon blogosphere isn't taking part of this discussion. I'm the one who brought up the football practice, and I did not quote a political source or even a blog. You can see how the "somebody" (singular) seems to point to me.

Only if you've got a guilty conscience.

Regardless, you're the one who is demonizing, by implying latent racism and explicit bigotry of those who hold a different opinion than you. You accuse unnamed others of demonizing Muslims, but no one here is saying anything about Muslims that is false, and you haven't given a shred of evidence that the "neocon blogosphere" is, either. Accusing others of racism/bigotry without evidence is much closer to the meaning of "demonizing" than anything you're talking about on the other side. (The only person talking about Sherrod and ACORN in this thread is you; that's about the lamest attempt at defensive irrelevancy I've ever seen. And ESPN isn't a neocon blog.)

I grant you the point about ESPN. As for the rest, I stand by my original comments. Seems to me there's been a fair amount of debate, just today in this thread, about whether Mohammad was expansionist. And yes, we could indeed paint Christianity with the same "expansionist" brush.

I brought up Sherrod and ACORN to point out what I see is a disturbing trend. I could've even gone as far back as the Swift boat mess. There are wealthy conservatives who are funding these attacks on liberals to discredit them and their ideas by any means necessary. (Wish I could find the article -- I read it awhile ago and couldn't find it just now with a quick Google. I'll try again later.) These rich white guys liked things just fine when Reagan and the Bushes were in power, and they *really* don't like having a black Democrat in the White House.

[Cail]

I brought up Sherrod and ACORN to point out what I see is a disturbing trend. I could've even gone as far back as the Swift boat mess. There are wealthy conservatives who are funding these attacks on liberals to discredit them and their ideas by any means necessary. (Wish I could find the article -- I read it awhile ago and couldn't find it just now with a quick Google. I'll try again later.) These rich white guys liked things just fine when Reagan and the Bushes were in power, and they *really* don't like having a black Democrat in the White House.

You are aware of the rich white Democrats (like George Soros and Michael Moore) who do the exact same things for the Democrats, right?

There was this little film called Fahrenheit 9/11, maybe you've heard of it?

[Cybrweez]

Sorry ali, there's a difference b/w Islam and Muhammad. Its hard, or easy, to paint a religion the way you want. But when talking about history, things happened, or they didn't. The debate about Muhammad's expansion can only be termed ignorance of history. Actually, even SS, you was debating, seems to acknowledge the expansion, but frames it around there was a need, and it was only fellow "cultural compatriots". So, there isn't a debate that his expansionist policies are real.

And there seems to be wealthy liberals who are funding attacks against conservatives to discredit them (like bogus racial/religious/gender/whatever claims). There are some on this board who use such tactics. Its fairly common tactic today, be the first to make the claim of bigotry, then you're opponent is always on the defensive. Its a shame the tactic is prevalent here. The racism here is displayed by you, when you use white and black as adjectives. You still think in colors, doesn't mean all others do.

I guess it can't be the problem is a Democrat (I noticed you didn't mention the rich whities being ok w/Clinton), but its a black democrat. Whatever.

[SerScot]

Cyberweez,

My point is only that although there was an expansion of Muslim control under Muhammad the areas he "conquered" or converted were not all that desirable. It was his successors who went and took the "good" land.

[Cybrweez]

Sure, I got it. I don't think that matters though when talking about whether Muhammad conquered, meaning, used the sword, and spread Islam. Maybe the why helps some to justify that expansion, but doesn't remove the expansion.

[Zahir]

I went and re-read some biographical information on Mohammed--and I stand by my statement. He created a movement, a new (as it was perceived) religion whose followers became the targets of increasing persecution and outright attack. What followed was a war of defense, which necessitated the conquest of Mecca as well as much of the Arab peninsula. Following the conquest of Mecca, Mohammed pardoned the leadership that had persecuted Muslims save for ten (most of whom were pardoned later). Some of the conquest consisted of treaties and alliances amidst the clan-dominated Arab society of that time.

To take those facts and come up with this...

f you study Mohammad's life, you'll see a "moderate Muslim" is actually not following their Holy Prophet's example. He spread Islam by the sword, submit, or die. There's no argument about that. Anyone who believes that those who also spread Islam by the sword are not real Muslims, is trying to squeeze a religion into their multicultural worldview, and make it PC.

...is to do the equivalent of saying the United States started the Civil War by resupplying Fort Sumpter. Context really is important. Islam does not teach that war is always and forever wrong, but that it is governed by rules. To quote Wikipedia's article on Jihad:

Within classical Islamic jurisprudence—the development of which is to be dated into the first few centuries after the prophets death[18]—jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and may consist in wars against unbelievers, apostates, rebels, highway robbers and dissenters renouncing the authority of Islam.[19] The primary aim of jihad as warfare is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state.[20][21] In later centuries, especially in the course of the colonization of large parts of the Muslim world, emphasis has been put on non-militant aspects of the jihad. Today, Muslim authors only recognize wars with the aim of territorial defence as well as the defence of religious freedom as legitimate.[22]

Whether the Qur'an sanctions defensive warfare only or commands an all out war against non-Muslims depends on the interpretation of the relevant passages.[23] This is because it does not explicitly state the aims of the war Muslims are obliged to wage; the passages concerning jihad rather aim at promoting fighters for the Islamic cause and do not discuss military ethics.[24]

In the classical manuals of Islamic jurisprudence, the rules associated with armed warfare are covered at great length. Such rules include not killing women, children and non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas.[25] More recently, modern Muslims have tried to re-interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam.[21] Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[26]

It should also be pointed out that Mohammed is not regarded as infallible or without sin, but merely an extremely wise and gifted leader selected as a prophet by God. No one is supposed to simply blindly follow the Prophet's life. More, it was inherent in Islam that an understanding of God's will was a process that would grow over time, that a general consensus would have to be achieved to truly apply Mohammed's teachings to specific times and places. That because the Prophet fought wars then Muslims are supposed to fight wars is an absurd argument--and most Muslims see the absurdity of it. That would be like claiming that all Christians are supposed to gather a circle of disciples and then be tortured to death in public. Well, no.

Edited to add: Has anyone mentioned the fact this thread is misnamed? There is no proposal anywhere to build a mosque at Ground Zero. A mosque is supposed to be part of a cultural center a few blocks away (and these are NYC blocks we're talking about). More, there are mosques already in the area, coupled with the fact that many victims of 9/11 were in fact Muslim--including firefighters who died trying to save others. The 9/11 attacks were aimed at all Americans, not just the White Christian ones. Plus we're talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY!

[Zarathustra]

What followed was a war of defense, which necessitated the conquest of Mecca as well as much of the Arab peninsula.

The best defense is a good offense, eh?

Today, Muslim authors only recognize wars with the aim of territorial defence as well as the defence of religious freedom as legitimate.[22]

Religious freedom? Is that a joke? We're talking about the religion which kills people who leave it?

[aliantha]

Cail, at least Michael Moore is upfront about it -- he's using his own money to fund his own propaganda, not handing donations to others to do his dirty work for him.

Weez, if your definition of a racist is someone who points out racism, then I wear the label with pride. But, you understand, that's not the word's generally accepted definition....

[Cybrweez]

Muslims believe that Muhammad was the most perfect of God's creatures, and, although not divine, he was, according to a famous Arabic poem, not just a man among men but like a ruby among ordinary stones. In the same way that in Christianity all virtues are associated with Jesus Christ, in Islam they are associated with the Prophet. The ethical teachings of Islam are rooted in the Qur'an, but the model of perfect ethical character, which is called Muhammadan character by Muslims, has always been that of the Prophet.

From History.com, written by what seems like a Muslim, in any case, certainly not anti-Muslim. It seems Muhammad is a bit more than just a prophet.

Since Muhammad fought wars, offensive wars, I'm not saying Muslims have too. But, if a Muslim does, you certainly can't make the case they are against the teachings of Muhammad, unless you also claim he didn't live by his own teachings, yet is the "the model of perfect ethical character". Even further, b/c Muhammad himself used the sword to spread Islam, you have a very strong case to do the same thing yourself.

And most Muslims see the absurdity in war for Islam? I think, maybe, most in the US, I'll give you that. Most in the world? Highly unlikely, as there are just too many places in the world where Muslim terrorism is a major concern.

[Cail]

Cail, at least Michael Moore is upfront about it -- he's using his own money to fund his own propaganda, not handing donations to others to do his dirty work for him.

Michael Moore is the worst sort of populist. He uses creative editing in his films to put words in people's mouths. And he's not up front about that at all. He's a damn liar about it.

But it's awfully strange that someone with a journalism background would defend a piece of garbage like Moore. Who cares whether or not he's using his own money?

[duchess of malfi]

I don't know where else to put this. I think it's relevant, given my charges of Muslims wanting to take over our culture and impose their religious beliefs upon the rest of us.

DEARBORN, Mich. -- A Michigan high school football team is holding preseason practices in the middle of the night to help its Muslim players practice both faith and football.


The predominantly Muslim squad from Dearborn says the nocturnal regimen is a way for players to eat and drink while observing the holy month of daytime fasting known as Ramadan that started last week.

The August heat also played a factor in Fordson High coach Fouad Zaban's proposal to reverse the clock for a week of two-a-day practices.

Cutting practice wasn't an option at football-crazy Fordson, which is coming off a one-loss season and has won four state titles and three runner-up seasons since it was established in 1928.

But nobody wanted to lessen the significance of Ramadan in the Detroit suburb widely known as the capital of Arab-America.

The moonlight practice is tailored for Adnan Restum and fellow Muslim teammates.

Illuminated by the night lights on the football field, Restum recently joined a scrum of teammates at the end-zone water fountain, taking a break from a grueling preseason football workout to guzzle a drink.

In just a few hours, he wouldn't be able to take a sip. But the 17-year-old defensive tackle could rehydrate guilt-free during the 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. practice, and succumb to tempting boxes full of granola bars and chocolate milk, too.

"It feels really great," said Restum, who has been fasting since he was about 10. "If we're doing it during the day, we wouldn't have water and it would be really hot and everything."

Zaban proposed the late practices after realizing the rotating Ramadan would fall squarely during the start of a two-a-day practice schedule that launches football season.

Zaban, 40, a Muslim and former Fordson player, knows the high stakes. When Ramadan falls during football season, the players practice during daylight hours. But with August's heat and doubled practice schedule, concerns grew about players' health, particularly the high risk of heat stroke.

"We know how hot it's been this summer -- it's not safe," Zaban said.

Working it out meant getting the approval of school and district administrators and the blessings of players, parents and police. Then, there were the residents in the surrounding neighborhood, who would hear more noise and see the illuminated field. So he sent letters explaining the decision.

Zaban is unaware of such schedule switches elsewhere, though other teams at the school and in the district have moved practices earlier or later in the day. It's been more than three decades since Ramadan last fell during football preseason and Fordson's Muslim population was far smaller then -- and, he notes, there were no field lights.

Zaban said the goal has been to let players break the fast at sundown and go to the mosque, and get players out in time for a meal and morning prayer before sunrise. The field is near bustling bakeries, cafes and restaurants catering to late-night customers.

But first, there are drills.

"Keep running! Heads up!" Zaban yelled while leading a passing drill. And, when a receiver flubbed a one-handed catch, the coach barked, "Hey, two hands!" The result was 20 push-ups.

Zaban said whether players fast is a personal choice and never an issue raised by him or his staff. Still, he says, it shouldn't be an excuse for poor performance for the roughly 95 percent who do.

He ended the session before 4 a.m. with a message to the huddled, padded masses to "drink lots of water," "get a good meal in," and "man up."

Defensive tackle William Powell, one of the team's few non-Muslims, initially thought the coach was "out of his mind," but he's come around. In fact, he's even fasted.

"I'm around 'em, so I've tried a couple times but it's hard," the 17-year-old said.

For Rami Fakih, a wide receiver and defensive back, the nocturnal regimen has taken some adjustment but for different reasons. The brother of recently crowned Miss USA Rima Fakih said he had to think twice before hitting the fountain.

"Oh yeah," he said. "Then I remembered, you know. I looked up. There's no sun. I can drink. I can eat."

With that, he walked off the field and into the darkness with plans to grab a quick bite with friends at a local bakery.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/highschool/new ... id=5467167


This is a public school, which receives Title 1 funds (grant money from the federal government, not merely local taxes). I don't know about public schools in your area, but we don't even have "Christmas Break" anymore because it's too religious. We have Winter Break. So the religion of the masses must be played down (I don't really have a problem with that ...) but the religion of a minority of Americans is being used as an excuse for special treatment which the nonmuslims must follow if they want to play football, too. And look, the nonmuslim kid is starting to fast, too. Conforming with the religiously motivated practice and behavior of the Muslims. Well, he doesn't really have a choice if he wants to participate in this public school function.

There is no other religion which America bends over backwards so far in order to placate. There's no way we'd do this for Christians. Can someone explain this to me?

If it is OK with the coaches, parents, players, school administration, district administration, neighbors, and police - how is it of any concern to you? Or anyone not directly involved?

Isn't a local community making decisions that harm no one and acting upon them for the greater good of the people involved a long time tradition in America?

Frankly, I wish that my son who plays high school soccer could have had night practice a couple of weeks ago when they were having their two a days. It is the hottest and most humid summer I can remember around here since 1988 and the cooler night temps would have been greatly beneficial to him and his team mates. We are not Muslim, and he was freely tanking up on sports drinks and water, but was still having leg cramps from dehydration. If kids going through two a days in this weather were not able to freely drink, they could easily end up with severe health issues in the hellish weather we've been having this summer.

As for bending over backwards for religious traditions - public schools are not held on Sunday, and in this area all major school breaks (with the exception of the long summer break which is a hold over from the former agricultural way of life which is long over for most people) are in conjunction with major Christian holidays such as Christmas (winter break) or Easter (spring break).

I do not have a problem with any of this, even though I am not a practicing Christian.

I have no problem with that high school doing its best to protect the health of its students, either. If my kid went there I would have no problem agreeing to the night practices at all in the best interests of my kid's team mates (and my own kid given the weather we have been having).

As for the mosque - probably not in the best taste given the greater circumstances, but it is

a. a Constitutional issue involving freedom of religion
b. a local issue involving zoning ordinances, etc.

I am not even sure why either of these are national issues (other than the freedom of religion part) - surely both the sports practice and the mosque are things which should be decided by the locals???

[Zarathustra]

If it is OK with the coaches, parents, players, school administration, district administration, neighbors, and police - how is it of any concern to you? Or anyone not directly involved?

It's a PUBLIC school!!

My tax dollars go to support it. What happened to the fervent liberal reaction against a whiff of religion in schools (as long as it's Christianity)? I thought separation of church and state mattered ... as long as a member of the Religious Right is in office.

Okay, if that doesn't get your goat, how about this:

As I’ve detailed, the vast majority of its students are Muslims (mostly Shi’ites), and the principal, Imad Fadlallah, is a supporter of Hezbollah and the cousin of its spiritual leader, Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.

Abdulmutallab would have felt right at home because Fadlallah eliminated the prom when he took over, because he agreed with the Abdulmutallab Islamic view of the prom–that it’s haram (forbidden) under Islam.

link

Remember our discussion about prom being cancelled in Louisiana becuase of the lesbian couple that would attend? Remember how the liberals here were outraged? Well, let's see if the same people get upset about a prom being cancelled (for an entire PUBLIC school) because it violates the Hezbollah-supporting principle's religious beliefs.

You liberals do realize that women and gays are second-class citizens to Muslims, right? I thought those kinds of things were automatically on the liberals' shit list. For the life of me, I don't understand why liberals are defending a people and a belief system which so starkly contradicts liberals' core beliefs. Is it just about being able to put their thumb in the eyes of conservatives? That's all it takes to for them to toss their fundamental beliefs out the window?

Isn't a local community making decisions that harm no one and acting upon them for the greater good of the people involved a long time tradition in America?

You really don't think it harms kids to have them practice football to 4 A.M.? Have you never heard of circadian rhythms? Well, let me help you out:

Disruption to rhythms usually has a negative effect. Many travellers have experienced the condition known as jet lag, with its associated symptoms of fatigue, disorientation and insomnia.

A number of other disorders, for example bipolar disorder and some sleep disorders, are associated with irregular or pathological functioning of circadian rhythms. Recent research suggests that circadian rhythm disturbances found in bipolar disorder are positively influenced by lithium's effect on clock genes.[48]

Disruption to rhythms in the longer term is believed to have significant adverse health consequences on peripheral organs outside the brain, particularly in the development or exacerbation of cardiovascular disease.[49] The suppression of melatonin production associated with the disruption of the circadian rhythm may increase the risk of developing cancer.[50]

As for bending over backwards for religious traditions - public schools are not held on Sunday

I've covered this. Unless we're appeasing the Sun worshippers, it's a non-starter. Schools follow the business week, and are closed on weekends. The fact that Christians also go to church on Sundays (and don't forget Wednesdays!) may have had something to do with it a long time ago (back when they were trying to supplant Roman mythology, maybe?). But our public school schedule isn't a religious observance. Notice how you have to refer to Christmas break as "winter break." Why do you suppose that is? I'll give you a hint: "Christ." We're not even allowed to say it anymore in public schools.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument you're right about the holidays being religiously based (even though we're not allowed to admit it with their names). Does this force children who are not Christians to interrupt their sleep patterns in order to conform to public schools? Does it force nonchristians to adopt a schedule they would otherwise have no reason to adopt? Does it eliminate opportunities for children of other religions? Of course not.

[sindatur]

Sindatur,

I'm in favor of the Mosque but even though I disagree with the opposition the opposition is doing nothing illegal in speaking out against the Mosque. Why should the funding of perfectly legal activities be investigated?

That's like an investigation into a bunch of individuals who send a political candidate contributions to their campaign well within the individual limits of campaign finance laws. Why investigate these individuals when what they are doing is perfectly legal?

If they believe FOX News or some other entity is making an "Astro Turf" uprising, I have no problem with it being exposed, if there's nothing to hide, what's the problem. I do ahve a problem if they waste endless hours and money to get there though. And, I think it's a fair trade off - Go ahead and investigate who's financing the opposition and in turn, investigate who's funding the Mosque (Which in my mind is more important, though I do believe they ahve the right to build it, even though I think it's inappropriate and likely meant to be)

[Zarathustra]

If they believe FOX News or some other entity is making an "Astro Turf" uprising, I have no problem with it being exposed, if there's nothing to hide, what's the problem. I do ahve a problem if they waste endless hours and money to get there though. And, I think it's a fair trade off - Go ahead and investigate who's financing the opposition and in turn, investigate who's funding the Mosque (Which in my mind is more important, though I do believe they ahve the right to build it, even though I think it's inappropriate and likely meant to be)

If Fox News was behind a majority of Americans being against this mosque, you wouldn't need the country's most powerful woman investigating them to find this out. All you'd have to do is turn on Fox News and watch.

This isn't an election or a piece of legislation. It's a news story. It's a factual occurrence. In order for people to have an opinion, all they have to do is open a newspaper. You don't have to fund this. Have you seen any ads against it? If the programming directors at Fox think it will get viewers to watch, then this isn't something they have to fund. That's what advertisers are for.

The idea that a news story has to be funded for people to have an opinion about it is the wackiest, most conspiratorial idea I've ever heard. When you have the President commenting on it, and Harry Reid and Howard Dean siding with the majority, there is no need to fund it. People are going to find out, and when they do, they'll have a gut reaction.

Whom do you suppose will get investigated? Are we going to start investigating the hypothetical "funding" of every political opinion, now? Why start with this one?

[Mr. Broken]

I hope they do investigate, and expose the opposition, then Ill know where to send my check.

[Damelon]

Public schools aren't open on Sunday.

They're also not open on Saturday. It's called, "the weekend." It's named after The Sun and Saturn. Are we appeasing the sun worshippers with this schedule?? You really think this is on the same order as a niche religion forcing everyone else at a public school to abide by their worship schedule?

Do you honestly think, in the nineteenth century, when the public school system was set up, that Christian clergy in this country would tolerate public school being held on the sabbath? Also, while we are reviewing history, you can thank the unions for giving you Saturday, and the "weekend".

[duchess of malfi]

It's a PUBLIC school!!

Yes, it is a public school which is run and operated by people in the local community and largely paid for by local and state residents through various taxes, sales of bonds and lottery tickets, etc. And in this time of tight budgets, some school districts in Michigan have "pay to play" for sports, so the parents themselves are sometimes directly paying a fee for their kids to participate in athletics depending on the local district.

Unless they are breaking laws - and I see no evidence of law breaking here - how is their decision on when to schedule a sports practice any of your business if you are not a member of the community????? or even the same state???

Do you not support local control of local public schools - when they make completely legal decisions that are agreed with by the students, their families, and the local community?

Who then should control the local community public schools, if not the local public through their duly elected representatives???????

This is not as if they are trying to convert any of the kids to any particular religion - that would be clearly illegal and I would be the first to call a lawyer if I lived in the district, irregardless of which religion it would be. They are only changing the time of a sports practice with the consent of the parents of the players.

Again - if you do not think the local school board can make decisions - legal ones - for the local public schools, then who should control them???

Same goes for the mosque. The local zoning board - duly elected representatives of the people of the community (or perhaps appointees of elected officials in some locales) - are the ones who decide what can be built and where in that place.

Like the school board - as long as the decisions follow the law - who are you to object to what the planning board in another community in another state decides when it literally does not affect you in any way???

If you do not believe in local planning/zoning boards then who should be able to decide what gets built and what does not get built in any given community?

Do you not believe in local control of public schools and cities? If so, who should be in control of these things??? State governments? Federal governments? Should there not be public schools or planning/zoning boards at all and everyone either send their kids to private schools or home school and people be free to build whatever they want wherever they want (in which case the mosque would obviously not be a problem )?

And as for Sunday, dude - it has nothing to do with sun worship. It is the traditional Sabbath day for Christians, and some groups (such as Mormons) do not want their members to work (or go to school or school functions or practices) on Sundays (usually with the exception of medical personnel and public servants like firemen and cops). Just like some Jewish groups and their Sabbath, where people are not supposed to work, etc.

As for proms - whether for lesbian couples or religions or whatever - again, would that not be up to the local community to decide (or not) to have one? (As long as the decision is not for illegal reasons, of course. I am not sure what an illegal reason would be to cancel a prom, but thought I should throw in that disclaimer).

Again, do you not want the local community to control their local public schools? If so, who should??? If the local community is fine without having a prom, why is it anyone else's concern as long as everything is legal? As far as I know there is no right to have a high school prom.

And I frankly do not care what religion, if any at all, any public school principal follows provided he is not trying to convert the kids or bring his/her beliefs into the classrooms. A person's religion (or lack thereof) should have no bearing upon their being hired for or keeping a job, as long as it does not lead them into illegal acts due to that religion. Freedom of religion is a very basic Constitutional right - do you think that should be suspended in the case of Muslims? Do you really think that Muslims should be denied jobs because of their religion? Is it only Muslims you object to in public service jobs in public school districts? What about Hindus? Catholics? Buddhists? Mormons? Methodists? Seventh Day Adventists? What if a fundamentalist public school Christian principal cancelled - or simply did not hold - a public school prom in a mostly fundamentalist Christian community where most people do not believe in dancing or mixing sexes socially (except in chuch)? Would you be shouting about that, too?

Now if the community would be in an uproar over the cancelled prom, and recalled the school board and demanded the principal be fired for cancelling a prom it would be another thing entirely. Do you have any evidence that that happened in either the lesbian prom thing or in this primarily Muslim American community? is either the lesbian prom thing or the other cancellation illegal to your knowledge? any court action on either one that you know of?

[aliantha]

But it's awfully strange that someone with a journalism background would defend a piece of garbage like Moore. Who cares whether or not he's using his own money?

"Are the editorial pages of the New York Times journalism? Yes. But they're opinion. They're opinion based on fact. In my case, it's going to take somebody 20 or 30 years to figure out what I came up with, because while it's journalism, it's also satire coupled with a large sprinkling of opinion to create a work of art." —Michael Moore, on whether he considers himself a journalist

He's not a journalist, he's a moviemaker. And he knows it.

[SerScot]

Aliantha,

The problem with Moore, in my opinion, is that he portrays himself as some sort of "everyman" pointing out the emperor has no clothes. But he's doing it by telling lies or deliberately distorting the truth. In "Bowling for Columbine" he makes a huge deal out of getting a rifle at a bank after opening an account there. He walks triumphantly from the bank brandishing the rifle giving the viewer the impression he walked in signed up for the account and walked out five minutes later with a firearm.

What really happened couldn't be further from the truth. He had to make special arragments with the bank to get the rifle after opening the account normally the depositor must wait days to get the firearm, from the gunstore. Not to mention the fact that the firearm isn't free. It's one of a number of "rewards" available to customers who open a three year CD with a deposit of more than $5,000.00.

If the customer does choose the rifle they do a criminal background check on the customer. If the customer passes they get the weapon a few days later.

The bank made special exceptions for Moore because he wanted the film to portray this as easy-peasy. Bank employees had to go to a gun shop get a rifle and bring it to him at the bank per his request and because he's a big time movie guy they wanted to make him happy. Even with them trying to make Moore happy It took several hours.

Can you honestly say that isn't pure distortion of the truth, and that's just one example of his distortions in that film.

Moore claims he's presenting the truth others aren't willing to tell. What he's presenting are facts massaged to present his version of the truth.

I don't have much respect for Michael Moore.

[Avatar]

Av, you'll have to research it yourself if you want details. You can start, like always, with wikipedia. Gives a decent overview. Has a map of his battles and conquests too.

I did. And that's why I said I wasn't sure I agreed. Nothing I read there suggested that he went around spreading Islam by forcing people to submit or die. Islam in the middle ages was famously tolerant of other semitic religions, unlike Christianity for example.

As for the school, the article suggests that many people were involved in the decision before hand. If it's the schools right to decide schedules, then they can set them as they please.

As for cancelling the prom, I would be opposed. But if everybody knows before going there that the school doesn't have one, it's different from cancelling it suddenly because a homosexual couple wants to go.

--A