I think this is a horrible idea.
What are your thoughts?

A proposal to build a mosque steps from Ground Zero received the support of a downtown committee despite some loved ones of 9/11 victims finding it offensive.
The 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center was unanimously endorsed by the 12-member Community Board 1's financial district committee.
The $100 million project, called the Cordoba House, is proposed for the old Burlington Coat Factory building at Park Place and Broadway, just two blocks from the World Trade Center site.


http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/05/06/2010-05-06_plan_for_mosque_near_world_trade_center_site_moves_ahead.html

Eh, I'm personally not a fan of the idea but if there is enough demand for it there to warrant building it then so be it.

The rendering looks a lot better than the pictures I've seen of what the Freedom Tower will look like.

I think it's a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11

I think that the people who use this mosque will be of an entirely different variety than those that bastardized their religion to excuse killing.

inb4 comments about Christians doing the same thing...

For those who find this offensive, what distance from the WTC site would be acceptable? Three blocks, ten blocks, a mile? Would any mosque anywhere in NY be acceptable?

I think that the people who use this mosque will be of an entirely different variety than those that bastardized their religion to excuse killing.

I should hope so

I guess there will be no churches in Iraq.

I guess there will be no churches in Iraq.

This has what to do with anything in this thread?

And I imagine you are correct - it will probably stay an Islamic state and Christian structures will not be tolerated.

I guess there will be no churches in Iraq.

And I imagine you are correct - it will probably stay an Islamic state and Christian structures will not be tolerated.

There are Christian churches in Iraq already. I don't see why there wouldn't be more in the future.

I am personally offended by this. How dare they disrespect the area around the WTC. This is nothing but a slap in the case. If they don't stop the building I am going to go down there and start some fights!

I wonder if the gov't will force the suspension of the building project?

Oh wait, this isn't the Cinqo de Mayo thread...

I can see why some people would be all in a tissy about this but in general their religion is peaceful so what's the big deal? Those people IMO don't really know the whole story and blame the mass for the actions of a few. And I too would ask how close is too close?

There are Christian churches in Iraq already. I don't see why there wouldn't be more in the future.

I believe they're heavily attacked all the time, and are a magnet for suicide bombers. Doesn't seem too inviting...

I can see why some people would be all in a tissy about this but in general their religion is peaceful so what's the big deal?

Thats debatable.

Thats debatable.

Not really. It's exactly the same in respect to Christianity; you have the idjits that use the Bible as an excuse for launching attacks on others, just as some Muslims use the Koran to do the same. All in all, it's a minority of the religion that does this.

Now, if you go into the insurgency thing - I think that's just an attribute of the people, not of the religion.

Not really. It's exactly the same in respect to Christianity; you have the idjits that use the Bible as an excuse for launching attacks on others, just as some Muslims use the Koran to do the same. All in all, it's a minority of the religion that does this.

Now, if you go into the insurgency thing - I think that's just an attribute of the people, not of the religion.

Well said. Crusades anyone??? :eek:

I think that the people who use this mosque will be of an entirely different variety than those that bastardized their religion to excuse killing.

inb4 comments about Christians doing the same thing...

Yup, keep on believing that. In the meantime, I suggest you read the Prophet of Doom.

For those who find this offensive, what distance from the WTC site would be acceptable? Three blocks, ten blocks, a mile? Would any mosque anywhere in NY be acceptable?

No, in a non-sick Western society, it wouldn't' be acceptable anywhere!

Thats debatable.

No, it's not even debatable.

Yup, keep on believing that. In the meantime, I suggest you read the Prophet of Doom.

Doesn't seem like a very unbiased source.

Doesn't seem like a very unbiased source.

Right, I guess everything that doesn't take the liberal, everyone is equal and great position is biased.

Right, I guess everything that doesn't take the liberal, everyone is equal and great position is biased.

I guess anyone that believes two sides to the story should be presented instead of letting confirmation bias take over is a liberal?

I guess anyone that believes two sides to the story should be presented instead of letting confirmation bias take over is a liberal?

On this issue, yes.

On this issue, yes.

So unbiased reporting is only useful and fair when you deem it so?

This has what to do with anything in this thread?

And I imagine you are correct - it will probably stay an Islamic state and Christian structures will not be tolerated.

Iraq was attacked by outsiders, namely us, the U.S. For various regrettable reasons our attack is inexorably associated with Christianity. Mission accomplished, I guess. :dontknow:

Thats debatable.

Btw, what is the status on the Jesus guns being used by U.S. soldiers overseas?

Iraq was attacked by outsiders, namely us, the U.S. For various regrettable reasons our attack is inexorably associated with Christianity. Mission accomplished, I guess. :dontknow:
I thought our attack was associated with trying to get rid of Hussein, who posed a serious threat to the world and his citizens? :dontknow:


Btw, what is the status on the Jesus guns being used by U.S. soldiers overseas?

That is hardly the same thing. Using a tool with some letters on it that can be interpreted as religious is not the same as attacking someone based religious views.

I think it's a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11

I think it is a slap in the face to the Native Americans that we:

1) Celebrate Columbus Day
2) Allow a NFL team to use the name "Redskins"
3) Think of General Custer as some kind of a goofy hero
4) etc.

What is your point?

I think it's a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11

I totally agree! The victims of 9/11 would want that space to actually become a death camp for all those that go to mosques.

Actually, they would probably want it to become a training center. One that could train righteous Christians that could strike back at the heathens.

O wait...

This is America.

Mussollini would be so proud of you.

I totally agree! The victims of 9/11 would want that space to actually become a death camp for all those that go to mosques.

Actually, they would probably want it to become a training center. One that could train righteous Christians that could strike back at the heathens.

O wait...

This is America.

Mussollini would be so proud of you.

What the hell are you going on about?

I think it's a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11

It's as much a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11 as a new flight school would be.

Or, how bout this:
Would a new gun store in Columbine be a slap in the face to those victims?

I personally don't think so.

Just because someone can abuse something (flight training, guns, Islam) in an effort to hurt others doesn't mean that that "something" deserves to be denigrated.

Yup, keep on believing that. In the meantime, I suggest you read the Prophet of Doom.



No, in a non-sick Western society, it wouldn't' be acceptable anywhere!



No, it's not even debatable.

read my signature

This has what to do with anything in this thread?

And I imagine you are correct - it will probably stay an Islamic state and Christian structures will not be tolerated.

Ignorance is not to be flaunted. There're Christian churches in Iraq.

Ignorance is not to be flaunted. There're Christian churches in Iraq.

Christian structures will not be tolerated.

They're not.

Your point?

Why not call DH ignorant? :scratch:

I think it's a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11

Plenty of Muslims WERE the victims on 9/11, and many others know and were close with victims of 9/11, particularly in NYC. It's a slap in the face to all of them that their pain is ignored and exacerbated by separating them from the rest of society because of their religion.

I believe they're heavily attacked all the time, and are a magnet for suicide bombers. Doesn't seem too inviting...

not when u bomb the shit out of there people , fyi Christians where excepted before we invaded them ;)

not when u bomb the shit out of there people , fyi Christians where excepted before we invaded them ;)

Fix your post so I can read it, and I might respond.

nothing to fix it is what it IS .

Plenty of Muslims WERE the victims on 9/11, and many others know and were close with victims of 9/11, particularly in NYC. It's a slap in the face to all of them that their pain is ignored and exacerbated by separating them from the rest of society because of their religion.

Do you think David Koresh should be judged for his cult? If not, why not?

Do you think David Koresh should be judged for his cult? If not, why not?

I don't understand the question, you'll have to set it up a little better for me. I don't know enough about Koresh and his cult to understand where you're going.

But here's my point: I guarantee you that I was affected more personally by 9/11 than almost all of you in this thread, in not all. I'm from NY, I knew people in those buildings, some that didn't make it. I knew people with family members and friends in there. Who in the blue hell are you to tell me that I have no right to have a religious building near that sacred ground to mourn for those who were ruthlessly killed that day?

My point is that people have no problems judging cults that do bad things. I don't think Islam or any religion should get a pass for bad behavior simply because it's over a thousand years old, whereas a cult is new. I knew people in the towers too, and I'm also from New York.

However, I recognize that Islam (not Islamism, not radical Islam, but Islam) was responsible for 9/11. The Koran specifically commands its followers to wage jihad against non believers. That's not to say that every Muslim is a jihadist, but it's not a perversion of Islam that causes terrorism. Islam itself causes it.

My point is that people have no problems judging cults that do bad things. I don't think Islam or any religion should get a pass for bad behavior simply because it's over a thousand years old, whereas a cult is new. I knew people in the towers too, and I'm also from New York.

However, I recognize that Islam (not Islamism, not radical Islam, but Islam) was responsible for 9/11. The Koran specifically commands its followers to wage jihad against non believers. That's not to say that every Muslim is a jihadist, but it's not a perversion of Islam that causes terrorism. Islam itself causes it.

You choose to interpret what "jihad" means in the very same way as terrorists do, which most Muslims don't agree with. The Quran does not "specifically" command that according to most normal interpretations. And I'd argue that Jews and Christians don't seemingly get a bad rap because the Bible says you stone a man to death who works on the Sabbath. But it SPECIFICALLY COMMANDS it's followers to do so, does it not? If you're going to judge a religion strictly on texts written thousands of years ago, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. None of them hold up to scrutiny.

Sura 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.” This friendship makes any Muslim a enemy of their own and deserving of the same fate as the unbeliever. This is because God does not guide an unjust people.

Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Sura 9:5)

4:101 “When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.” 4:102 “For the Unbelievers, Allah has prepared a humiliating punishment.”

8:19 “(O Unbelievers!) if ye prayed for victory and judgment, now hath the judgment come to you: if ye desist (from wrong), it will be best for you: if ye return (to the attack), so shall We. Not the least good will your forces be to you even if they (were multiplied: for verily God is with those who believe!”
8:59-60 “Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”

Another translation makes this plain - “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”

9.123 “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you”

9.73 “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”

I believe they're heavily attacked all the time, and are a magnet for suicide bombers. Doesn't seem too inviting...

Hmm that's weird, because so are Mosques. What about when these goonies blow up a Mosque in Pakistan or Iraq? Where in the Quran does it say it is OK to attack a Mosque? You can't take these same people and then claim that they are following what the Quran tells them to do because that is simply not true. In a simple term, they're NUTS and are using Islam as their cover.

There are over a Billion Muslims in this world, the goonies mentioned above make a VERY VERY small portion... small but active.

I'm curious, do they allow Japanese cars in the parking lots at Pearl Harbor? :scratch:

So the OP thinks that the victims relatives/friends should have the right, to decide what structures are built on private property?

BTW I also had friends that were in the WTC and when the plane hit the first tower, a truck hit my car.The driver was looking at the smoke and was making a right turn from the left lane while I was in the right lane...he came out the truck, gave me 250$ and left.

Not really a fan of religion, but if those who want to construct a mosque aren't in violation of any of the laws, I don't really see why they cannot build it there. I don't think it's right to judge all muslims by the worst among them and I think it's equally wrong to judge all christians by the worst among them. Neither of those two religions are without extremists (but the existence of extremists, doesn't make every other believer in said religion an extremist).

I dont see where the gas pumps or slurpee machines are in the picture op posted.

I dont see where the gas pumps or slurpee machines are in the picture op posted.

Lame joke + Confusing religions = DOUBLE FAIL!:shake:

Lame joke + Confusing religions = DOUBLE FAIL!:shake:

It was meant to be but thanks for thinking i was serious. :shake:

I think that the people who use this mosque will be of an entirely different variety than those that bastardized their religion to excuse killing.

inb4 comments about Christians doing the same thing...

I agree since we all know none of the 9/11 terrorist or any that followed have ever spent any amount of time in a Mosque.

My favorite part of this thread is religious people saying "HEY, read the text! It's a crazy religion !". Read any holy text, they are all bad for mankind. I don't support building this mosque, just like I don't support the building of any place of worship. I believe they all wreck free will, and are truly against the American spirit (funny how many founding fathers were non religious). Having said that, as long as we allow churches to act as non-taxed businesses, I guess we can allow a megamosque.

My favorite part of this thread is religious people saying "HEY, read the text! It's a crazy religion !". Read any holy text, they are all bad for mankind. I don't support building this mosque, just like I don't support the building of any place of worship. I believe they all wreck free will, and are truly against the American spirit (funny how many founding fathers were non religious). Having said that, as long as we allow churches to act as non-taxed businesses, I guess we can allow a megamosque.

Have you ever toured DC and took note what is written on most government buildings.http://godinthetemplesofgovernment.com/

Sura 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.” This friendship makes any Muslim a enemy of their own and deserving of the same fate as the unbeliever. This is because God does not guide an unjust people.

Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Sura 9:5)

4:101 “When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.” 4:102 “For the Unbelievers, Allah has prepared a humiliating punishment.”

8:19 “(O Unbelievers!) if ye prayed for victory and judgment, now hath the judgment come to you: if ye desist (from wrong), it will be best for you: if ye return (to the attack), so shall We. Not the least good will your forces be to you even if they (were multiplied: for verily God is with those who believe!”
8:59-60 “Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”

Another translation makes this plain - “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”

9.123 “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you”

9.73 “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”

I don't have the time, inclination, nor quite frankly the knowledge in some cases to debate the Quran with you. But I'll say three things in response:

a) taking chapter and verse out of context is stupid. That first one in particular (5:51), when read in context, means a very different thing than you're making it out to be, as it refers to a specific time and setting.

b) You're still relying on an interpretation that can be taken many different ways, for example 'fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you" does not have mean physically fight them, but rather resist the temptation to take their path.

And finally c) I could tear the Bible apart with all of the ridiculous shit in there, it doesn't mean I have any disrespect for the religions of Judaism and/or Christianity. So unless you can explain to me how it's just to stone a man to death for gathering firewood for his family on the sabbath, please don't quote the Quran as reason that Muslims are evil when you don't understand a farking thing about it other than what others have cherry picked and handed to you.

PS- when reading texts from the past, it is important to distinguish between translation and interpretation, because they are vastly different things. Translating for a foreign person the term "kill two birds with one stone" is going to mean an entirely different thing than if you interpreted it for him. I don't deny that some choose to interpret the Quran as you do, but that doesn't mean they're right, nor is it a black mark on all of Islam.

Have you ever toured DC and took note what is written on most government buildings.http://godinthetemplesofgovernment.com/

Very frequently, unfortunately. But I guess because I live here that makes me an "inside the belwayer" and "not from real America". You can quote our currency, our pledge of allegiance (which was modified BTW), old buildings, and other garbage as much as you'd like - but it doesn't not change my opinion that religion is both completely illogical and bad for man as a whole. It also doesn't change the fact that many of the people who built our great country had similar opinions.

Very frequently, unfortunately. But I guess because I live here that makes me an "inside the belwayer" and "not from real America". You can quote our currency, our pledge of allegiance (which was modified BTW), old buildings, and other garbage as much as you'd like - but it doesn't not change my opinion that religion is both completely illogical and bad for man as a whole. It also doesn't change the fact that many of the people who built our great country had similar opinions.

:secret: The currency was modified too

Very frequently, unfortunately. But I guess because I live here that makes me an "inside the belwayer" and "not from real America". You can quote our currency, our pledge of allegiance (which was modified BTW), old buildings, and other garbage as much as you'd like - but it doesn't not change my opinion that religion is both completely illogical and bad for man as a whole. It also doesn't change the fact that many of the people who built our great country had similar opinions.

You are correct religion is the root of most atrocity's but you certainly can't justify yourself by including all religion/faith are at fault in your opinion. I had this conversation before and don't believe those like you take the time to investigate your accusations but listen to those who agree and run with it. There are those of like faith that don't condone or have any part in the past atrocities or control that the "Church" did. And of course what gives you or anybody the right to declare what is logical or illogical? And also some others had similar faith as many still do that also made this a great country. So fight as you may faith had a lot to do with the beginning/birth of our country and you'll never be able to separate the 2.

You are correct religion is the root of most atrocity's but you certainly can't justify yourself by including all religion/faith are at fault in your opinion. I had this conversation before and don't believe those like you take the time to investigate your accusations but listen to those who agree and run with it. There are those of like faith that don't condone or have any part in the past atrocities or control that the "Church" did. And of course what gives you or anybody the right to declare what is logical or illogical? And also some others had similar faith as many still do that also made this a great country. So fight as you may faith had a lot to do with the beginning/birth of our country and you'll never be able to separate the 2.

You could say that's true, as in, religion has certainly been around. But that's different than suggesting our country was founded on it, or that our constitution does not separate religion and government.

.. But that's different than suggesting our country was founded on it.. .
But it was …. It was founded religious principles

.. or that our constitution does not separate religion and government.

It doesn’t .. at least when it was written it didn’t … It took the politically motivated SCOTUS to make that incorrect decision

But it was …. It was founded religious principles
...with explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit it.



It doesn’t .. at least when it was written it didn’t … It took the politically motivated SCOTUS to make that incorrect decision

Then I guess courts have been wrong numerous additional times as well, because somehow it keeps getting upheld.

...with explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit it. .
Really? I would think the House electing Rev. William Linn as Chaplin in 1789 and the Senate electing the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain the same year contradicts that statement. Would you mind sharing where you got that from?


...Then I guess courts have been wrong numerous additional times as well, because somehow it keeps getting upheld.

You do understand that only the SCOTUS can change down their decision don’t you? I ask because I would think anyone who understood that would know lower courts (i.e. all other courts) don’t have the power you seem to think they do.

Really? I would think the House electing Rev. William Linn as Chaplin in 1789 and the Senate electing the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain the same year contradicts that statement. Would you mind sharing where you got that from?

You know where it comes from. You might as well be spouting about "in god we trust" on our money too as "evidence" of your claim. Just because certain things weren't stopped at certain times does not change the facts. I can counter with plenty of things if you want to play that game though... such as the 1963 case that determined prayer in public school to be unconstitutional by a vote of 8-1. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp).

We can go back and forth all night, but I'll just cut it short now and declare you the loser. Well, me and the SCOTUS that is.



You do understand that only the SCOTUS can change down their decision don’t you? I ask because I would think anyone who understood that would know lower courts (i.e. all other courts) don’t have the power you seem to think they do.

Sorry, I know it's hard to make your case when you don't have supporting precedent. I'd hate to be in your position. You're right about one thing though, the SCOTUS has indeed held up church/state separation in many cases. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman)

.....I'll just cut it short now and declare you the loser. ...

:lmao::lmao::lmao: Just what I expected from you based on your post. :lmao::lmao::lmao:

Oh …. on a side note. Any reason you couldn’t back up your comment of “...with explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit it.” with anything earlier than 20th Century stuff … your comment I quoted above was talking about our Country’s founding … not something 200+ years later.

Care to put up? Or just want to make more comments like your declare loser joke?

explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit it.” with anything earlier than 20th Century stuff
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
i think that's from 1786.

:lmao::lmao::lmao: Just what I expected from you based on your post. :lmao::lmao::lmao:

Oh …. on a side note. Any reason you couldn’t back up your comment of “...with explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit it.” with anything earlier than 20th Century stuff … your comment I quoted above was talking about our Country’s founding … not something 200+ years later.

Care to put up? Or just want to make more comments like your declare loser joke?

Over the years on the internets, I've become quite good at knowing when someone is LMAO'ing through their anger and frustration.

Never mind that I proved your other game was pointless... yes, let's go back to this.

i think that's from 1786.

Oh. There we go. Establishment/Free Exercise clauses. While the phrase "neither promote nor inhibit" comes from a later time (in yet another "activist judge" decision by the apparently inept SCOTUS), it sure does seem very very similar, doesn't it?

i think that's from 1786.

I know you’re trying to help you’re buddy but his isn’t the way to do it.

His/her comment stated explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit it. Yet you’re evidence states “MAKE NO LAW” … in case you don’t realize you can promote and/or inhibit without making a law. Matter of fact I would estimate >80% of the discussions don’t concern making laws to promote and/or inhibit ,,, so again since you want to but in and be involved … exactly what were these “ explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit” our founders supposedly left?

Over the years on the internets, I've become quite good at knowing when someone is LMAO'ing through their anger and frustration.

Never mind that I proved your other game was pointless... yes, let's go back to this.



Oh. There we go. Establishment/Free Exercise clauses. While the phrase "neither promote nor inhibit" comes from a later time (in yet another "activist judge" decision by the apparently inept SCOTUS), it sure does seem very very similar, doesn't it?

See my reply above to someone who failed in their attempt to help you. HOWEVR, still waiting for these "“ explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit” our founders supposedly left you referred to.

so again since you want to but in and be involved … exactly what were these “ explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit” our founders supposedly left?

The first amendment was based on the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom), written by Jefferson in 1779. The language of that document and Jefferson's subsequent "wall of seperation (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)" letter to the Danbury baptists made quite clear he intended to keep the state out of the realm of religion entirely.

also..

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together . - James Madison

I could literally provide 10-15 pages of similar quotes from the founders on the issue. It is a shame that the bill of rights didn't elaborate and perfectly express their intentions, but most historians and constitutional scholars have agreed that the founders wanted a secular government that was not in the business of "supporting" or repressing any particular religion.

I know you’re trying to help you’re buddy but his isn’t the way to do it.

His/her comment stated explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit it. Yet you’re evidence states “MAKE NO LAW” … in case you don’t realize you can promote and/or inhibit without making a law. Matter of fact I would estimate >80% of the discussions don’t concern making laws to promote and/or inhibit ,,, so again since you want to but in and be involved … exactly what were these “ explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit” our founders supposedly left?



See my reply above to someone who failed in their attempt to help you. HOWEVR, still waiting for these "“ explicit instructions for said government to neither promote nor inhibit” our founders supposedly left you referred to.

You can ignore some words and mince others all night for all I care, you are still wrong.

I remember this great post from you a few months ago... in it, you bemoaned how the discourse around here had apparently declined in quality in your absence, but that now you were back to right the ship. The harbinger of common sense had returned. I, for one, was relieved and grateful.

...I remember this great post from you a few months ago... in it, you bemoaned how the discourse around here had apparently declined in quality in your absence, but that now you were back to right the ship. The harbinger of common sense had returned. I, for one, was relieved and grateful.

BS ... your memory is about as good as your understanding of history and SCOTUS.. Please provide a LINK since you insist on posting this BS showing where I made those statements..

BS ... your memory is about as good as your understanding of history and SCOTUS.. Please provide a LINK since you insist on posting this BS showing where I made those statements..

"They" believe in the quote "If you say it loud enough and long enough it'll be accepted as true" "They" also believe they have already won this debate on other posts. "They" will now come out of the woodwork and try to overcome you with their perfect brand of logic and your just another fool. Stick to your guns and call "them" out and eventually "they'" will lick their wounds and go away. You just need to ask them for yes or no answers and that usually does it. "Their opinions are abundant but facts scare the he** out of them. Make "them" sweat!!!

What about it...it's called the 1st Ammendment. Now...if someone were to perhaps want to fly a 747 into it on the other hand... :shake:

Im going to start my new podium acronym.


W.T.F.C.


Its the "Who the F**k Cares foundation", its new so I'm accepting donations.

I just wonder how safe it will be
ie it is a good target for crazy people

It is about money and business. Also it is not a smart idea. It could be the target or what some would say 'retribution or retaliation'. Whether you like it or not, USA is predominatly Christian nation. It will prove interesting to see what happens.

Seems like a bad idea.

It's bound to stir emotions in this very touchy topic already. Why pour gasoline on a fire?

Why not use that space for something non-controversial, like office space, or a museum or something?

Why pour gasoline on a fire?


Personally I am a big fan of the big "Wooooof" sound and the accompanying fireball, especially when the experience is combined with the effects of alcohol.

Wait, what was this thread about again? :scratch:

Oh yeah...never mind....

It is about money and business. Also it is not a smart idea. It could be the target or what some would say 'retribution or retaliation'. Whether you like it or not, USA is predominatly Christian nation. It will prove interesting to see what happens.

I find it kind of funny that the 99% of the time the Christian right in this country acts like NYC and San Francisco are the land of the heathen, and yet when we get attacked it's like somebody slapped your grandmother. In all seriousness, this is NOT a national issue. If local residents want to complain about a house of worship going up, let them. Conservatives from East Bumblefark, Alabama don't get a say.

For those of you who like to make generalizations and want to oppose this please keep in mind that these terrorists kill more Muslims than anything else and terrorize citizens of their own countries more than the citizens of NY. You may think it's insensitive, you may think it hasn't been enough time, but don't think it's a slap in the face because actual Muslims who want to worship legally and just fully and righteously within some proximity of a terrorist attack which was a huge blow to the US and Muslims and Muslim nations around the world the same.

For those of you who like to make generalizations and want to oppose this please keep in mind that these terrorists kill more Muslims than anything else and terrorize citizens of their own countries more than the citizens of NY. You may think it's insensitive, you may think it hasn't been enough time, but don't think it's a slap in the face because actual Muslims who want to worship legally and just fully and righteously within some proximity of a terrorist attack which was a huge blow to the US and Muslims and Muslim nations around the world the same.

:lmao:

I'm more uptight about the hole in the ground (almost 9 years now)... I rode PATH this morning and I still see sunlight on the approach to WTC. In any other country they would have erected a replacement in short order...

Here are my plans:

http://www.mraceman.com/WTC/USA%20and%20the%20new%20skyscraper%20like%20a%20middle%20finger.jpg

Hitler was a Christian, and every bit as devout a Christian as the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, so I suppose we shouldn't allow anymore Christian churches, either?

:lmao:

I'm dying to know where you found something humorous.

More than half of New York voters oppose a plan to build a Muslim community center blocks from Ground Zero, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

A strong 52 % of voters in the five boroughs don't want the Cordoba House built in lower Manhattan, compared to 31 % who support it.

Manhattan voters expressed the most support for the project, with 46 % in favor and 36 % opposed.

The strongest opposition came from Staten Island, where 73 % of voters oppose it compared to just 14 % in favor.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/07/01/2010-07-01_more_than_half_of_new_york_voters_oppose_ground_zero_mosque_plan_poll.html

Hitler was a Christian, and every bit as devout a Christian as the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, so I suppose we shouldn't allow anymore Christian churches, either?

you and others keep repeating this lie...it doesn't make it true...please prove your unfounded claim...because I can show you quotes form Hitler himself that prove your claim is a lie. (http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html)..the Nazis regularly persecuted and executed priests and religious figures...is that because he is a Christian???

give up the lie already...If i claimed to be from mars, it doesn't make me so, anymore than Hitler claiming he is a Christian (or others claiming it for him) in order to score political points makes him one either...his obsession with the occult is known, as is the Nazi's connection to it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism) and to paganism, unless you want to say the occult is part of Christianity as well????.

Hitler was a Christian, and every bit as devout a Christian as the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, so I suppose we shouldn't allow anymore Christian churches, either?

:rofl2: :rofl2:

you and others keep repeating this lie...it doesn't make it true...please prove your unfounded claim...because I can show you quotes form Hitler himself that prove your claim is a lie. (http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html)..the Nazis regularly persecuted and executed priests and religious figures...is that because he is a Christian?.Wikipedia has an extensive article about Hitler's religion, and statements he made which support both points of view.

Hitler was born and raised Cafholic, of Catholic parents. By his own standards, for which put Jews to death, Hitler was definitely Catholic. By my measure, Hitler was no more Catholic than the 9/11 attackers were Muslims.

If Adolph Hitler went to mass every day and wore a giant cross instead of a swastika --- what would it matter? That wouldn't make Christianity bad. It is Hitler and the Nazis who were evil. By the same token, just because the 9/11 attackers called themselves Muslims, it should not reflect on the religion of Islam.

Wikipedia has an extensive article about Hitler's religion, and statements he made which support both points of view.

Hitler was born and raised Cafholic, of Catholic parents. By his own standards, for which put Jews to death, Hitler was definitely Catholic. By my measure, Hitler was no more Catholic than the 9/11 attackers were Muslims.

If Adolph Hitler went to mass every day and wore a giant cross instead of a swastika --- what would it matter? That wouldn't make Christianity bad. It is Hitler and the Nazis who were evil. By the same token, just because the 9/11 attackers called themselves Muslims, it should not reflect on the religion of Islam.

I think everyone understands that, but Nazis and Islamic terror organisations are a little different. See, Nazis put faith in the party. That was their biggest deal, the Nazi party and the advancement of the Aryan race. Xtianity was a relatively small part of their motivation. Islamic terrorists put their faith in Islam. That is their biggest deal (their greatest motivation) without a doubt. You can't say Hitler was every bit as Xtian as Johnny terrorist is Muslim because, at the end of the day, everyone knows it isn't true. The thing is, 9/11 attackers didn't simply call themselves Muslim (as Hitler called himself Xtian) - they were Muslim as all hell. They were like ultra Muslim. They were so Muslim they killed themselves for Islam. Nazis never ever killed themselves for Xtianity, and Hitler sure as hell didn't.

Do I agree with disallowing a mosque to be built because some people use religion as a motivation to kill? No.

Do I think your argument is a poor one? Yes.

Wikipedia has an extensive article about Hitler's religion, and statements he made which support both points of view.

Hitler was born and raised Cafholic, of Catholic parents. By his own standards, for which put Jews to death, Hitler was definitely Catholic. By my measure, Hitler was no more Catholic than the 9/11 attackers were Muslims.

If Adolph Hitler went to mass every day and wore a giant cross instead of a swastika --- what would it matter? That wouldn't make Christianity bad. It is Hitler and the Nazis who were evil. By the same token, just because the 9/11 attackers called themselves Muslims, it should not reflect on the religion of Islam.

I'm sorry, where did Jesus advocate or otherwise support the purging of God's chosen people?

The only ones involved in using religion as a purging and war crimes is Bush and his Republican cronies..

Hilter got nothing when compared with what went on during BUSH

Here's the linkies:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/us_trijicon_rifle_scopes_in_iraq_and_afghanistan_f.php
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/140082/rumsfeld's_pentagon_published_bible_verses_on_top-secret_intel_reports/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124266487032730893.html

The only ones involved in using religion as a purging and war crimes is Bush and his Republican cronies..

Hilter got nothing when compared with what went on during BUSH

Here's the linkies:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/us_trijicon_rifle_scopes_in_iraq_and_afghanistan_f.php
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/140082/rumsfeld's_pentagon_published_bible_verses_on_top-secret_intel_reports/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124266487032730893.html

Are you really that farking stupid. Do you really believe that Bush is somehow comparable to Hitler?

Are you really that farking stupid. Do you really believe that Bush is somehow comparable to Hitler?

Lets see... the couple of post above was dealing with Hiltler and what his religion was... I can agree that there is no definite proof that Hitler was a practicing Catholic..

However we have proof and Bush own admitence that he is a Catholic and practicing one at that...

So when Bush and his cronies was stuffing our military agendas with BIBLICAL quotes, one has a full right to question such and such actions
Also does not bold well when you erect Mega-churches on military bases...

give up the lie already...If i claimed to be from mars, it doesn't make me so, anymore than Hitler claiming he is a Christian (or others claiming it for him) in order to score political points makes him one either...his obsession with the occult is known, as is the Nazi's connection to it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism) and to paganism, unless you want to say the occult is part of Christianity as well????.
That depends. Did you put up a Christmas tree last year?

:rolleyes:

Well aside from being way off topic, pretty much everyone has missed the point it seems. Its not JUST a mosque going up. Its a 13 story "mega mosque". A (what seems to me) entirely unnecessary and just plain gaudy building. Besides, don't those "mega churches" attract more nutjobs than normal ones? It stands to reason that the same may go for islam.

Whether or not you want to be politically correct, pretty much everyone makes the association of islam with 9/11. Putting up something like this so close to the site of 9/11 just screams for more attention to be focused on that connection.

.the Nazis regularly persecuted and executed priests and religious figures...is that because he is a Christian???



How many Popes were okay with the Crusades? Weren't they Christians?

How'bout those nut jobs that kill doctors, Christians?

Are you really that farking stupid.

Rhetorical question, Beverly......

How'bout those nut jobs that kill doctors, Christians?

Yes, that vast number of people.......

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

That depends. Did you put up a Christmas tree last year?

:rolleyes:

You're right, christmas trees are pagan.

Those peaceful muslims...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/02/england.harry.potter.attack/index.html?iref=NS1

London, England (CNN) -- The father and brother of a Harry Potter actress will appear in court later this month in Manchester, England, on charges of threatening to kill the young star, prosecutors said Friday.

Abdul Azad, 54, and his son Ashraf, 28, are accused of attacking actress Afshan Azad earlier this month because of her relationship with a Hindu man, a spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said. The family is Muslim.

Yes, that vast number of people.......

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
And how does that vast number compare to the vast number of Muslims who have engaged in terrorist attacks against the U.S.? :look:

Those peaceful muslims...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/02/england.harry.potter.attack/index.html?iref=NS1

ya because one's action represent 1.5 billion folks.:shake:


Op is from TN, no wonder

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sarah-palin-takes-twitter-oppose-ground-mosque/story?id=11194148

Sarah Palin plunged into the raging debate over a proposed Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, saying in series of posts on Twitter that the project should not be built.
Residents protest proposal to build mosque near site of 9/11 terror attacks.

"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand. Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in the interest of healing," the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate tweeted on Sunday.

In another message, she wrote, "Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real."


Relatives of 9/11 victims say it would amount to a monument for terrorists. But the project's sponsors maintain the center would be all about bringing New Yorkers together, not tearing the community apart.

The American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, an organization seeking to improve relations between Islam and the West, has said it envisions the center operating like a YMCA, or the Jewish Community Center on Manhattan's upper West Side.

It would include a gym, swimming pool and performing space that could be used by anyone, as well as a mosque that could be used by Muslims who live or work in lower Mahattan.

In a written statement Sunday night, a spokeswoman for the project, Daisy Kahn, said, "We agree with Ms. Palin that it is time to heal from the wounds of the tragic events of 9/11. We peace- loving Muslims have a responsibility to lead the effort of rebuilding Lower Manhattan. We envision a community center for multi-faith collaboration that is focused on promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion."

"We welcome the opportunity to discuss with Ms. Palin how Muslim Americans have an added responsibility to create a counter-momentum against extremism by building institutions like this center, that will amplify the voices of the mainstream peace-loving Muslims," Kahn said.

Did Sarah Palin offically via subtle cues just admit she's a racist who belongs with the Tea Party ( who also seems to have problems with race relations )

But I also thought the right and conservatives says, you can't judge a group by the actions of a few... atlas more hypocrites and double face...

And if that is the case, what about the Catholic Church who has destroyed more lives then any terrorist has... Would it be a slap in the face if a church opened right next to a elementary school full of children? to the victims of abuse? What about building a church right next to a sex abuse clinic?

And why does a mosque of peaceful muslims have to be held accountable to some radicals who probably never going to worship there

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sarah-palin-takes-twitter-oppose-ground-mosque/story?id=11194148



Did Sarah Palin offically via subtle cues just admit she's a racist who belongs with the Tea Party ( who also seems to have problems with race relations )

But I also thought the right and conservatives says, you can judge a group by the actions of a few... atlas more hypocrites and double face...

And if that is the case, what about the Catholic Church who has destroyed more lives then any terrorist has... Would it be a slap in the face if a church opened right next to a elementary school full of children? to the victims of abuse? What about building a church right next to a sex abuse clinic?

And why does a mosque of peaceful muslims have to be held accountable to some radicals who probably never going to worship there

This thread should be deleted. This is about as nonsensed a thread I have seen. What a joke. This post by Ryu is clearly a troll post.

I don't understand how this:


"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand. Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in the interest of healing," the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate tweeted on Sunday.

Is a "slam".

I don't understand how this:


Is a "slam".

So those who has nothing to do with 9/11 is forever held accountable to those involved in 9/11

She's basically telling all Muslim... don't build here.. it was your people fault who destroy our building

What took her so long?

So those who has nothing to do with 9/11 is forever held accountable to those involved in 9/11



Seems to work for you with your infinitely renewed cop hate threads.

who cares, Sarah Palin can tweet all she wants. If there isn't a muslim community center there, then Sarah Palin would open a campaign office, or the christians open a new church, or the jews open a synagogue etc. etc.

I don't understand how this:

"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand. Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in the interest of healing," the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate tweeted on Sunday.
Is a "slam".

Not sure I understand your question, mohater. Seems to me that calling building of a mosque as "provocation" is a pretty serious and slanderous charge against every Muslim.

The fact they want an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero knowing about 9/11 has to make me wonder about their true intentions.

The fact they want an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero knowing about 9/11 has to make me wonder about their true intentions. What do you think is their "true intention"? And, on the other end, what is "our" intention for NOT letting them build a mosque?

On a related news, Palin invents word 'refudiate,' compares herself to Shakespeare. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/07/palin-invents-word-compares-he.html)

The fact they want an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero knowing about 9/11 has to make me wonder about their true intentions.
Because you know that the reasons provided in the article are not their "true intentions"?

In a written statement Sunday night, a spokeswoman for the project, Daisy Kahn, said, "We agree with Ms. Palin that it is time to heal from the wounds of the tragic events of 9/11. We peace- loving Muslims have a responsibility to lead the effort of rebuilding Lower Manhattan. We envision a community center for multi-faith collaboration that is focused on promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion."

"We welcome the opportunity to discuss with Ms. Palin how Muslim Americans have an added responsibility to create a counter-momentum against extremism by building institutions like this center, that will amplify the voices of the mainstream peace-loving Muslims," Kahn said.

What took her so long?

Mark Williams finally got fired..... See other thread on Mark Williams calling for a back to slavery thread...

Remember this is the same Mark Williams who made a racist attack against the same mosque Palin is now defending ... http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/05/19/2010-05-19_tea_party_leader_mark_williams_says_muslims_worship_a_monkey_god_blasts_ground_z.html

Palin is now what Mark Williams was SPOKESMAN or woman ... for the Tea Party

I find it comical that she was embarassed enough of her invention of "refudiate" that she deleted that tweet, and replaced it with this one:

"Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real."

...where she STILL didn't use the correct word, although at least she used one that's actually in the dictionary.

Not sure I understand your question, mohater. Seems to me that calling building of a mosque as "provocation" is a pretty serious and slanderous charge against every Muslim.

Here is the direct quote:
"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand. Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in the interest of healing," the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate tweeted on Sunday.


In another message, she wrote, "Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real."

I don't see any where where she states it is a provocation. She said it stabs at the hearts of the people who live there. This is clearly understandable. 9/11 happened. Nothing will undue 9/11.

The fact they want an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero knowing about 9/11 has to make me wonder about their true intentions.

Did the world stop turning on 9/11? Did you stop going to work? Stop eating?

9/11 happened and the sun set that night and the sun came up the next day.

Well intentioned people (the people leading this mosque project) can do things that have negative impact.

I don't see any where where she states it is a provocation. She said it stabs at the hearts of the people who live there.



:confused: In the the first statement that you quoted she calls it an "unnecessary provocation."

I don't understand how this:


Is a "slam".
I agree. I do not believe her intent was to insult Islam. I believe she is conveying what Could be a provocation not will be a provocation. She just worded it in a way that leaves room for debate.

On a related news, Palin invents word 'refudiate,' compares herself to Shakespeare. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/07/palin-invents-word-compares-he.html)

:rofl2: Now that's funny! SP has started a Twitter meme: http://twitter.com/search?q=%23shakespalin

I agree. I do not believe her intent was to insult Islam. I believe she is conveying what Could be a provocation not will be a provocation. She just worded it in a way that leaves room for debate.

I have no idea what her "intent" is. I only see her three attempts (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/palins-bigoted-twitter-cal_b_650562.html) at getting this tweet right: Try # 1:

Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate

Try # 2:

Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real.


And, finally this:

Peace-seeking Muslims pls understand. Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing

I couldn't care less about her misuse of refute, refudiate, etc. She clearly thinks that anyone who supports building of this Islamic center either doesn't feel the pain of 9.11 or is somehow trying to stab at the heart of people in the "heartland".

What do you think she means? Who will get provoked?

What do you think she means? Who will get provoked?

Small minded people who think Al Qeada represents Islam, when they are about as representative as Islam as the Westboro Baptist Church is of Christians.

Small minded people who think Al Qeada represents Islam, when they are about as representative as Islam as the Westboro Baptist Church is of Christians.

That's a good analogy. I believe that VAST majority of Americans don't agree with Westboro but I haven't heard anyone suggest that the church should be closed down. Good analogy.

This is the kind of stuff that gives the United States a bad name. This just seems like an ignorant idea from an equally ignorant "politician".

She is likening a religion to a terrorist organization. There are a lot of bad people that do a lot of bad things... It really is a diverse group of horrible people in the world. Using this logic no one should build anything anywhere,
No more resteraunts because someone across the street had a heart attack at age 40, No more car manufacturers because of car accidents, or no more restrooms because of Elvis.

:confused: In the the first statement that you quoted she calls it an "unnecessary provocation."

Followed by

; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in the interest of healing

Her focus is on long term reconciliation, not alienation.

The fact they want an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero knowing about 9/11 has to make me wonder about their true intentions.

It doesn't really matter what their intentions are. The U.S. Constitution allows it. That's all that really matters.

Her focus is on long term reconciliation, not alienation. Her message is simple: building of this mosque feels like a stab at the heart of some people (those she sympathizes with). And, therefore, people who support this mosque/peaceful New Yorkers/peace-seeking Muslims should not support building of this mosque.

Anyone who feels stabbed in the heart because a mosque is being built does not deserve sympathy. Such people ought to be marginalized in the society.

I don't want to comment on her intent -- why she's tweeting about this, whether it is because she wants to bring people together (as you suggest) or extract political mileage out of a wedge issue. I want to limit myself to the content of her tweets.

What I find abhorrent in these tweets is the idea of a prominent national leader, lending her support (and sympathies) to a wholly illegitimate, xenophobic and as Mayor Bloomberg rightly put it, un-American cause. No matter how you cut it, building of a mosque/church/temple/synagogue ought NOT to be painful to ANYBODY. I don't care who you are, what your life story is, what your politics is, or what your problem with any group is. Tomorrow if a group of people who support Palestinians stood up and said that a synagogue ought not to be built near the site of Sabra and Shatila camps, I would not support them either.

In general, I think these issues are best handled by the local community/representative of the community. Grand standing from outsiders makes matters worse.

Thats debatable.I bet you could visit 200 mosques, introduce yourself as a Christian or a Jew, and receive a perfectly warm welcome, as long as you behaved yourself just as you would at any other Chrurch or synagogue.

Palin is actually right about this.

The only reason the city of new york would consider allowing a mosque to be built near the 9-11 site is that they are afraid of lawsuits.

But why not build a titty bar, or a scientology center, or a 9-11 themed rollercoster which simulates the last harrowing moments of those who died ?

Muslims, even “peaceful muslims”, should not be allowed to politicize the 9-11 site for their purposes.There are plenty of other places in new york where muslims can build a mosque.

The entire area around the 9-11 site should be zoned in accordance and in keeping with the special nature of the site.

This is a question of sensitivity, zoning and common sense.

I would like to build a condominium on mount rushmore --but the zoning board would and should shoot down my proposal. It has nothing to do with constitutional freedoms.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and property rights don't go away simply because the religion is question is rather unpopular or what they choose to do with property they purchased is unpopular. Is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the land was purchased illegally? If not, there really isn't a good argument as to why they should be forbidden from building the mosque there.

It doesn't really matter what their intentions are. The U.S. Constitution allows it. That's all that really matters.

true

:nod:

Muslims, even “peaceful muslims”, should not be allowed to politicize the 9-11 site for their purposes.There are plenty of other places in new york where muslims can build a mosque.

The entire area around the 9-11 site should be zoned in accordance and in keeping with the special nature of the site.

This is a question of sensitivity, zoning and common sense.

I would like to build a condominium on mount rushmore --but the zoning board would and should shoot down my proposal. It has nothing to do with constitutional freedoms.

Your "peaceful muslims" comment smacks of ignorance.

The reasons why you cannot build a condo on Rushmore is because it is a National Park. The land in question is privately owned, yo. So, yes, it's completely about constitutional freedoms.

Your "peaceful muslims" comment smacks of ignorance.

The reasons why you cannot build a condo on Rushmore is because it is a National Park. The land in question is privately owned, yo. So, yes, it's completely about constitutional freedoms.

I used the term "peaceful muslims" because that is the phrase many have used to describe those who want to build the mosque. They use it to distiguish this group from the muslims that murdered thousands of people at the 9-11 site in the name of islam. I don't know why anyone would take offense to the term or find it, as you say, ignorent.


National Park … exactly yes. An area that we have designated for special purposes for special reasons.

The 9-11 site should be such a site. And we should not allow the immediate area around it to become unduly commercialized or politicized.

Just curious, would you have any objections in building a 9-11 themed roller coster 2 blocks from the 9-11 site ?

I used the term "peaceful muslims" because that is the phrase many have used to describe those who want to build the mosque. I don't know why anyone would take offense to the term or find it, as you say, ignorent.

National Park … exactly yes. An area that we have designated for special purposes for special reasons.

The 9-11 site should be such a site. And we should not allow the immediate area around it to become unduly commercialized or politicized.

Just curious, would you have any objections in building a 9-11 themed roller coster 2 blocks from the 9-11 site ?

So we should bulldoze all the churches within two blocks of ground zero?

Remember this is the same Mark Williams who made a racist attack against the same mosque Palin is now defending ...
Did Sarah Palin offically via subtle cues just admit she's a racist who belongs with the Tea Party ( who also seems to have problems with race relations )Must you always attempt to make everything into a racist issue and label the persons who you hate as being racist?

Do you realize that islam and muslims are not a "race"?

So we should bulldoze all the churches within two blocks of ground zero?

We should show sensitivity, common sense, decency and respect in regard to the 9-11 site and honor the people who died.

Since those who died were murdered in the name of Islam and Islam is not a religion with widespread appeal in the United States it is inappropriate to allow muslims, even peacful muslims, to politicize the site. There are plenty of other places they can build a mosque.

Should we allow a confederate museum to be built 2 blocks away from martin luther kings memorial in Washington DC which would attempt to politicize the close proximity to King’s memorial. Probably not. The idea is just not a good idea.

But yes we do have to make value judgments. But the truth of the matter is we make them all the time. What we seem incapable of these days is making a few sound value judgements.

P.S. Nobody has commented on my rollercoster proposal. A 9-11 themed rollercoster which simulated the last harrowing moments of those who died two blocks away from the 9-11 site.... any good reasons why not ?

I used the term "peaceful muslims" because that is the phrase many have used to describe those who want to build the mosque. They use it to distiguish this group from the muslims that murdered thousands of people at the 9-11 site in the name of islam. I don't know why anyone would take offense to the term or find it, as you say, ignorent. Who is "they"?



National Park … exactly yes. An area that we have designated for special purposes for special reasons.

The 9-11 site should be such a site. And we should not allow the immediate area around it to become unduly commercialized or politicized. Are you suggesting that Ground Zero and the two blocks area around it should all be turned into a monument? What kind of "commercial" activity will you ban in this area?

And, I'm sure you realize that a mosque is NOT a commercial interest. Let's just think this through ... what all should be banned from this entire area in the middle of Manhattan.

There's a more important point here as well. Which is that, if you want to argue that this area should be turned into a national park, then let's do that. As of right now, it is NOT a national park of a monument. Once it is declared such, and mosques/churches/etc. are all banned from this area, I'll join your cause to make sure that an exception is not made for this mosque.


Btw, I hope you know that the proposed mosque is two blocks from the site, not at Ground Zero, so you'd have to tell us how radius do you want

Just curious, would you have any objections in building a 9-11 themed roller coster 2 blocks from the 9-11 site ?I would have objections to building of a 9-11 themed roller coaster 20000 blocks from 9-11. Wouldn't you?

Proximity doesn't matter, the idea of making money of death of so many innocent people is what matters. And, it is disgusting.

We should show sensitivity, common sense, decency and respect in regard to the 9-11 site and the people who died.

Since those who died were murdered in the name of Islam and Islam is not a religion with widespread appeal in the United States it is inappropriate to allow muslims, even peacful muslims, to politicize the site. There are plenty of other places they can build a mosque.

Should we allow a confederate museum to be built 2 blocks away from martin luther kings memorial in Washington DC which would attempt to politicize the close proximity to King’s memorial. Probably not. The idea is just not a good idea.

But yes we do have to make value judgments. But the truth of the matter is we make them all the time. We seem incapable these days of making a few sound value judgements.

Reinforcing the idea that Islam = Al Qaeda isn't showing sensitivity, decency and respect to anyone.

Should we allow a confederate museum to be built 2 blocks away from martin luther kings memorial in Washington DC which would attempt to politicize the close proximity to King’s memorial. Probably not. The idea is just not a good idea.Why not? Seems like a perfectly fine idea to me ... unless, of course, you think that confederate museum will celebrate slavery and everything that Dr. King fought against centuries later.

And, that's really the point. You just can't -- or won't -- distinguish between the perpetrators of 9-11 and everyone else. And, that's what this whole controversy is basically about ... an attempt to dump 9-11 on all Muslims. The right analogy, of course, is that of anti-semitism in Europe.

I used the term "peaceful muslims" because that is the phrase many have used to describe those who want to build the mosque. They use it to distiguish this group from the muslims that murdered thousands of people at the 9-11 site in the name of islam. I don't know why anyone would take offense to the term or find it, as you say, ignorent.

I'm sorry. I thought you were being snide in your quotations.

*ignorant


National Park … exactly yes. An area that we have designated for special purposes for special reasons.

The 9-11 site should be such a site. And we should not allow the immediate area around it to become unduly commercialized or politicized.

Doesn't matter what it should be. It isn't. It's private property. Whoever owns that land has the right to put what they want there.

Just curious, would you have any objections in building a 9-11 themed roller coster 2 blocks from the 9-11 site ?

Nope.

The free market would decide, and whoever was dumb enough to build it would lose big on such an investment. Authoritarianism isn't necessary for common decency prevail.

Who is "they"?

“They” is even those who propose to build the site (among others). The distinction has been made by “them” that “they” are peaceful muslims in contradistinction to the muslims who murdered all those people in the name of islam at the 9-11 site.

In short, they are saying that they are not them. :shake:


Are you suggesting that Ground Zero and the two blocks area around it should all be turned into a monument? What kind of "commercial" activity will you ban in this area?



Yes, I believe the area should be zoned in accordance and in keeping with the special nature of the site. Whether it is a national park or some other distinction does not matter to me.

I do not believe that the 9-11 site should be allowed to be politicized in this manner. Bottom line.

Zoning, special designations… whatever is needed.



Proximity doesn't matter, the idea of making money of death of so many innocent people is what matters. And, it is disgusting. And we should not allow the immediate area around it to become unduly commercialized or politicized

Good, at least you understand the hamhanded point I was trying to make which is that we can legitimately limit the kinds of things that are built for specific reasons.

I would argue that religion in the united states is a very profitable enterprise. Thus very commercial. They are not building this building with prayers but with dollars. Dollars that have gotten special tax breaks.

And I think proximity does matter. It is symbolic. What should be allowed around that site should be carefully controlled.

What would people think if a group of americans wanted to build a evolution center “two blocks” away from the kaaba. Proximity is very symbolic, lets face it. Evolutionists would be politicizing the sacred sites of the muslims to make a point.

Of course the Saudi Arabians would never for an millisecond entertain the idea. A small philosophical advantage they have over us. They still have the ability to make a decision, even if it is the wrong one.:) We on the other hand are so enamored of the concept of freedom that 5 out of 10 things we do in freedom’s name are utterly preposterous.

Why not? Seems like a perfectly fine idea to me ... unless, of course, you think that confederate museum will celebrate slavery and everything that Dr. King fought against centuries later.

And, that's really the point. You just can't -- or won't -- distinguish between the perpetrators of 9-11 and everyone else. And, that's what this whole controversy is basically about ... an attempt to dump 9-11 on all Muslims. The right analogy, of course, is that of anti-semitism in Europe.

Ah, but you are trying to control the editorial content of the museam. That is an infringement of my constitutional freedoms.

Let us just say, for the sake of argument, that this museum is very pro confederacy but without deliberately stating that it is pro slavery or anti civillian rights for blacks.

Your but's and your if's infringe on my freedoms. So why not next to King's memorial. It is as good a place as any ?

What would people think if a group of americans wanted to build a evolution center “two blocks” away from the kaaba. Proximity is very symbolic, lets face it. Evolutionists would be politicizing the sacred sites of the muslims to make a point.

why do you keep trying to lump all muslims with 9/11?

why do you keep trying to lump all muslims with 9/11?

I don’t… though I think all muslims do bear some responsibility to make it clear where they stand on the subject. There is far too much sympathy in the muslim world for this wretched gang of murderers.

The deliberate proximity of this mosque to the 9-11 site shows poor taste, lack of sensitivity, and bad judgment.

Since the murders of 1000’s of people occurred in the name of islam I think sensitivity needs to be shown. Especially by muslims.

I don’t… though I think all muslims do bear some responsibility to make it clear where they stand on the subject. There is far too much sympathy in the muslim world for this wretched gang of murderers.

The deliberate proximity of this mosque to the 9-11 site shows poor taste, lack of sensitivity, and bad judgment.

Since the murders of 1000’s of people occurred in the name of islam I think sensitivity needs to be shown. Especially by muslims.

So no new catholic churches within 2 blocks of grade schools?

I don’t… though I think all muslims do bear some responsibility to make it clear where they stand on the subject. There is far too much sympathy in the muslim world for this wretched gang of murderers.

The deliberate proximity of this mosque to the 9-11 site shows poor taste, lack of sensitivity, and bad judgment.

Since the murders of 1000’s of people occurred in the name of islam I think sensitivity needs to be shown. Especially by muslims.

afaik, most muslim leaders condemned 9/11

Do you also think we shouldn't allow gun shops in any town where gun related violence occurred?

So no new catholic churches within 2 blocks of grade schools?

Will you allow my pro confederate museum next to martin luther kings washington memorial ? ... eh ?

A titty bar next to your house, an insane assylum ?

Even though we don’t like having to make value judgments … it is the hardest thing for us freedom obsessed westerners... we are forced to.

We need to make the right ones. Common sense needs to be our guide. Not some outlandish concepts of unlmited freedom.

“They” is even those who propose to build the site (among others). The distinction has been made by “them” that “they” are peaceful muslims in contradistinction to the muslims who murdered all those people in the name of islam at the 9-11 site.

In short, they are saying that they are not them. :shake: Thanks, I just wanted to understand what you're saying.

Personally, I hate this qualifier. But, that's a different issue.


Yes, I believe the area should be zoned in accordance and in keeping with the special nature of the site. Whether it is a national park or some other distinction does not matter to me.

I do not believe that the 9-11 site should be allowed to be politicized in this manner. Bottom line.

Zoning, special designations… whatever is needed. Ok, fine. Then (a) you are NOT supporting Palin or those in her camp. They don't want the entire site to be turned into some kind of a national monument. They just don't want a mosque because it hurts them, or offends them or something. But, (b) what you're suggesting is anyway a near impossibility. To suggest that Ground Zero and its adjacent area be free from politics and commercialism, is to suggest that all politics be moved out of Washington DC! It just ain't happening. There will be strip clubs, and psychic readers and business and civic interests of all sorts in that area. Finally, (c) what you want, or I want, for that area is anyone less important than what the residents of that area want. There's a good reason why Zoning is a local issue not a national issue. And, the representatives of people in that area have obviously spoken clearly. They have no problem with this mosque whatsoever.

PS: I re-read your sentence .. "9-11 site should be allowed to be politicized in this manner.". Should I pay attention to "in this manner"? I.e., you are fine if it is politicized in a different manner -- say, if Jihad Watch wants to create a museum of Saudi intolerance there? If so, I take my statement back that what you're arguing for is any different from what Palin et. al are saying.

Good, at least you understand the hamhanded point I was trying to make which is that we can legitimately limit the kinds of things that are built for specific reasons.

I would argue that religion in the united states is a very profitable enterprise. Thus very commercial. They are not building this building with prayers but with dollars. Dollars that have gotten special tax breaks.

And I think proximity does matter. It is symbolic. What should be allowed around that site should be carefully controlled.

What would people think if a group of americans wanted to build a evolution center “two blocks” away from the kaaba. Proximity is very symbolic, lets face it. Evolutionists would be politicizing the sacred sites of the muslims to make a point.

Of course the Saudi Arabians would never for an millisecond entertain the idea. A small philosophical advantage they have over us. They still have the ability to make a decision, even if it is the wrong one.:) We on the other hand are so enamored of the concept of freedom that 5 out of 10 things we do in freedom’s name are utterly preposterous. You're making far too many points and (uncharacteristically) mixing them all up. If you separate them, I believe, you'll see the error of your thinking.

What you said about over-valuing freedom is quire separate from the specific issue at hand. We, as a society, can choose to become the Saudi Arabia of Judeo-Christian values. But, that's not who we are today. Nor, is this opposition (of Palin, Gingrich, etc.) a move toward becoming that. If it were, I would take a very different view on the situation myself. But, that's not what's at play here.

Saudi Arabia doesn't disallow just churches near the Ka'aba -- it disallows anything BUT mosques. What Palin et al. are saying is the exact opposite -- build anything here BUT a mosque. That's Islamophobia, plain and simple (you cal call KSA's policy as "everything-but-Islam-phobia, if you like). Do you agree with this characterization of mine?

With regards to tax exemption for religious institutions, there are good arguments on both sides. But, all those arguments are orthogonal to this case. They should have no bearing on this case.

My point is basically this ... Palin, Gingrich, et al. are not making an argument for a Judeo-Chrisitian America here. They are not even making a conservative (respect for tradition) argument here. They are not even making a Republican argument (respect for localities in their decision-making over some larger utilitarian argument). What they're arguing -- and again I am trying to stay away from WHY they are doing this -- for is dumping 9-11 on ALL Muslims. Read Gingirch's statement ... he lumps 9-11 perpetrators and those trying to build the mosque and the government of Saudi Arabia into one category: 'Islamists'. That -- and not anything you've pointed out above -- is what this is all about.

I actually respect your argument for an America that is more committed to Judeo-Christian values. But, I cannot respect efforts to misplace blame, and demonize people.

Ah, but you are trying to control the editorial content of the museam. That is an infringement of my constitutional freedoms.

Let us just say, for the sake of argument, that this museum is very pro confederacy but without deliberately stating that it is pro slavery or anti civillian rights for blacks.

Your but's and your if's infringe on my freedoms. So why not next to King's memorial. It is as good a place as any ?

First of, that was an assumption, not a condition. I don't think Americans today will celebrate slavery. If a group does, then, sure that's disgusting. Again, proximity DOES NOT matter. My morality doesn't have a GPS! What's right is right, what's wrong is wrong. I would have objection to a museum meant to celebrate slavery, or torture, or rape or murder ... not because it might hurt someone's feeling to celebrate these acts, but because these are immoral acts.

But, how in the world are you now claiming some constitutional protection, as a moral cover for a slavery - celebration? Don't you see the absolute fakeness of this appeal, given the context?

afaik, most muslim leaders condemned 9/11

Do you also think we shouldn't allow gun shops in any town where gun related violence occurred?

The point I have been making is that we disallow many things for many reasons. Many good reasons I might add.

One needs good judgment to make these decisions.

Why not allow my confederate museum next to the martin king memorial ? Why not allow people to copulate in the streets ? why not allow an insane asylum to be built next to your house ? Why not a taco bell in Yellowstone ?

You tell me why I should not have to unrestricted freedom to do these things as I please ?

I used the term "peaceful muslims" because that is the phrase many have used to describe those who want to build the mosque. They use it to distiguish this group from the muslims that murdered thousands of people at the 9-11 site in the name of islam. I don't know why anyone would take offense to the term or find it, as you say, ignorent.


National Park … exactly yes. An area that we have designated for special purposes for special reasons.

The 9-11 site should be such a site. And we should not allow the immediate area around it to become unduly commercialized or politicized.

Just curious, would you have any objections in building a 9-11 themed roller coster 2 blocks from the 9-11 site ?

I have no objections as long as it's private property, they can whatever they want with it. It can be near ground zero, or in Japan, it's not my call to make.

Do I think it's a good idea? No, I would not go on it. Most likely it would offend many people and go out of business.

What Palin et al. are saying is the exact opposite -- build anything here BUT a mosque. That's Islamophobia, plain and simple

Pretty much this

First of, that was an assumption, not a condition. I don't think Americans today will celebrate slavery. If a group does, then, sure that's disgusting. Again, proximity DOES NOT matter. My morality doesn't have a GPS! What's right is right, what's wrong is wrong. I would have objection to a museum meant to celebrate slavery, or torture, or rape or murder ... not because it might hurt someone's feeling to celebrate these acts, but because these are immoral acts.

But, how in the world are you now claiming some constitutional protection, as a moral cover for a slavery - celebration? Don't you see the absolute fakeness of this appeal, given the context?

Your throwing in buts and ifs and conditional morality and all kinds of modern value judgements.

But it is very possible to celebrate a society which has been built on slavery. One doesn’t actually have to celebrate the slavery itself. That is the thing about slavery… the slave quietly and facelessly does the dirty work. He doesn’t really exist.

Ancient Greek culture, Ancient Roman Culture, Islamic culture, Asian Indian culture. Cultures in which slavery was an intrinsic part of the society. Slavery was a given in these societies. It was something not celebrated, but not questioned either.

Let’s face it, a museum celebrating the glories of the confederacy even if it didn’t talk about or mention slavery would be a slap in the face of those who honor martin luther king especially if it were built next to his memorial.
The proximity to his memorial, I beg to differ, would be a provocative political statement.

My point is that even in this absurdly free society... a society in which every idiot has the right to do idiotic things... some things can, are and should be limited.... and for good reasons.

The point I have been making is that we disallow many things for many reasons. Many good reasons I might add.

One needs good judgment to make these decisions.

Why not allow my confederate museum next to the martin king memorial ? Why not allow people to copulate in the streets ? why not allow an insane asylum to be built next to your house ? Why not a taco bell in Yellowstone ?

You tell me why I should not have to unrestricted freedom to do these things as I please ?

You're bringing up some weird analogies to support your point.

The fact is that dozens of Muslims (62) also lost their lives on September 11th, along hundreds of Jews and Christians, and atheists and everything in between. The 9-11 hijackers were equal opportunity killers when it comes to faith. They did however target "Americans" specifically.

My point is that even in this absurdly free society... a society in which every idiot has the right to do idiotic things... some things can, are and should be limited.... and for good reasons.

Appeasing ignorant people isn't a good reason. That's what this is. Palin is basically saying:

"Look we know you're peaceful muslims, but other people think of you as intrinsically linked to the terrorists that attacked on 9/11. We prefer not to upset these people, even if it means giving in to their ignorant viewpoint."

Thanks, I just wanted to understand what you're saying.

I actually respect your argument for an America that is more committed to Judeo-Christian values. But, I cannot respect efforts to misplace blame, and demonize people.


Am I demonizing muslims-- no… would I not allow a group of muslims to politicize the 9-11 site in which 1000’ were murdered in the name of Islam—yes.

I don’t hide my dislike for both Islam and Christianty and I would not be sad if these religions dropped off the face of the earth. But I try to make my point with good manners and respect.

Granted the US is not Saudi Arabia. That is why I have no objection to a mosque being built in new york city somewhere.

I simply think it is very inappropriate for this site.
.

Let’s face it, a museum celebrating the glories of the confederacy even if it didn’t talk about or mention slavery would be a slap in the face of those who honor martin luther king especially if it were built next to his memorial. Of course, it's possible to celebrate the accomplishments of a flawed society. You don't have to look at Romans and Greeks ... We celebrate our own republic despite all its past and present flaws.

I understand your larger point (about appropriateness and inappropriateness of certain things even a free society; I conceded that point long ago) ... but you seem totally uninterested in the specifics of this particular issue. Your argument is, since it's OK to say that we don't accept certain things even in a free society, and because some people are outraged by this mosque, I don't support building of this mosque. You still can't show WHY the outrage that people are showing over this mosque is morally justified.

Let's re-examine the facts. This mosque is being built by and for Muslims in America. These Muslims (a) suffered exactly as much on 9/11 as Americans of other faiths, (b) have suffered humiliation, intimidation and hatred for no fault of their own since 9/11, and (c) are fighting against the perpetrators of 9-11, just like all other Americans .

And, yet, you, Palin and others want them to accept being identified with the perpetrators of 9-11 rather than the victims of it? Does that make sense to you?


Just look at what Gingrich is saying:

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over. So, that Saudi Arabia doesn't allow churches is the fault of American Muslims living in Lower Manhattan?

Muslims in America building a mosque at a place of their choosing is "demanding weakness or submission"? To the extend that building of a mosque demands anything from the community, I think that it demands that we hold values that WE profess make us BETTER than others .. i.e., freedom of religion.

I don’t hide my dislike for both Islam and Christianty and I would not be sad if these religions dropped off the face of the earth. But I try to make my point with good manners and respect. You do. And, I didn't mean to say that YOU are demonizing anyone. You're only supporting a position, which is advocated by those who want to demonize the Muslims in America.

You do. And, I didn't mean to say that YOU are demonizing anyone. You're only supporting a position, which is advocated by those who want to demonize the Muslims in America.

Well, yes It is probably best not to say what I think.

For Palin and her Tambourine Thumping Evangelicals I have not a word, only a glance.

I don’t like being in agreement with her… I really don’t.

I have respect for many things in the muslim culture. Clearly muslim culture at one point in history was by far the more advanced than the Christians in western europe. And it is only because of Islamic culture that Europe was able to have its renaissance. Which, if properly understood, is a repudiation of Christianity itself.

The first thing the Christans did when they expelled the Moors from Spain was close the baths. Just to give you an idea of how backward they were.

If I were forced to become a christian or a muslim I very well might prefer the islamic faith. At least Islam presupposes men. Christanity is a faith for women and slaves.

But I am glad I do not have to make the choice.

Since the murders of 1000’s of people occurred in the name of islam I think sensitivity needs to be shown. Especially by muslims.

The murders occurred as a response to our country's meddling in the middle east. Desperation of the peoples of the region combined with an extremist variant of Islam. If you look at the targets: the pentagon and the world trade center it's easy to see the targets were symbolic of "special interests" and the means the American government uses to protect them abroad.

These are the stated reasons for 9/11:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

To purport that the attacks are in the name of Islam is only partly true and does nothing to promote the change that will be needed in order to prevent future acts of extremism.

So if the families of the victims haven't been able to bother to research the motives of the people who killed their loved ones nearly 10 years enough not to be butt hurt by a Mosque then I do not feel sorry for them one bit.

Christian American politicians have been enacting policies that kill vast numbers compared to those who died on 9/11. Should I fault Christianity for the actions of a relative handful of it's followers?

And I guarantee a Mosque near ground zero will show the utmost respect come 9/11.

The murders occurred as a response to our country's meddling in the middle east. Desperation of the peoples of the region combined with an extremist variant of Islam. If you look at the targets: the pentagon and the world trade center it's easy to see the targets were symbolic of "special interests" and the means the American government uses to protect them abroad.

These are the stated reasons for 9/11:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

To purport that the attacks are in the name of Islam is only partly true and does nothing to promote the change that will be needed in order to prevent future acts of extremism.

So if the families of the victims haven't been able to bother to research the motives of the people who killed their loved ones nearly 10 years enough not to be butt hurt by a Mosque then I do not feel sorry for them one bit.

Christian American politicians have been enacting policies that kill vast numbers compared to those who died on 9/11. Should I fault Christianity for the actions of a relative handful of it's followers?

And I guarantee a Mosque near ground zero will show the utmost respect come 9/11.Your attempts at justifying the 9/11 attacks make me want to puke. :vomit: :vomit:

We were attacked by our enemies - period.

The change that is needed in order to prevent future acts of extremism is for our "leadership" to realize that our enemies cannot be appeased, apologized to or coddled and that future acts of extremism will be met with instant and severe consequences.

Families of 9/11 victims have no responsibility or obligation whatsoever to research the supposed motives of the attacks by our enemies.

The muslims should put their mosque somewhere else.

Families of 9/11 victims have no responsibility or obligation whatsoever to research the supposed motives of the attacks by our enemies.

The muslims should put their mosque somewhere else.

We shouldn't make dumb policies (like not allowing a mosque in lower Manhattan) because we feel bad for some folks and feel the need to appease ignorant views on Islam and terrorism.

I didn't justify anything. I no more support their terrorism than I support our terrorism. I only recognize them as cyclical.

Your unwillingness to understand the reasons our enemies are our enemies is the mentality that makes future generations of Americans unsafe.

... appease ignorant views ....

The old" If you don't agree with me and my beliefs it must be because you're ignorant" routine.

I love it .. :lmao::lmao:

The old" If you don't agree with me and my beliefs it must be because you're ignorant" routine.

I love it .. :lmao::lmao:

It takes willful ignorance to suggest that simply Islam is the enemy.

It takes willful ignorance to suggest that simply Islam is the enemy.

And now the justification for the old" If you don't agree with me and my beliefs it must be because you're ignorant" routine.

And the justification is ... " If you don't agree with me and my beliefs it must be because you're ignorant"

I still love it .. :lmao::lmao:

We shouldn't make dumb policies (like not allowing a mosque in lower Manhattan) because we feel bad for some folks and feel the need to appease ignorant views on Islam and terrorism.I said nothing about making policies like not allowing a mosque in lower Manhattan.

I said the muslims should put their mosque somewhere else.

Perhaps out of respect?

They would certainly earn a few extra PR points if they did so voluntarily.

As it is now, it appears as if many people see their current plans as a slap in the face to Americans.

Please. Justify blaming a religion that comprises 1/6th of the worlds population for an act of violence.

And it's funny how the self appointed message board standards and practices of debate tactics didn't make a peep when someone said that someone else's views made them want to puke.

Please. Justify blaming a religion that comprises 1/6th of the worlds population for an act of violence.You're saying islam had nothing to do with 9/11?

My initial reaction to this story was that it was an insult.

After it had sunk in for a few days, I came to the conclusion that it is braver, bolder, more of a statement of what America is about to allow then to build the center.

I have, after deliberation, reached my personal conclusion, and I don't intend to return to this thread to debate. I just thought I'd put in my 2 cents.

You're saying islam had nothing to do with 9/11?

blaming 9/11 on islam, is like blaming a murder on guns.

If Islam and only Islam were to blame and 1/6 of the world adheres to Islam then there would have been more than four planes hijacked on 9/11.

My initial reaction to this story was that it was an insult.

After it had sunk in for a few days, I came to the conclusion that it is braver, bolder, more of a statement of what America is about to allow then to build the center.

:iagree:

P.S. Nobody has commented on my rollercoster proposal. A 9-11 themed rollercoster which simulated the last harrowing moments of those who died two blocks away from the 9-11 site.... any good reasons why not ?

If the United States CONSTITUTION allows it, then I shall defend to death the developers' right to build the 9-11 themed roller coaster. That is the mark of true PATRIOTISM.

Why is it so hard to understand that intentions, taste, appropriateness, etc. are all IRRELEVANT at the altar of the United States Constitution?

Your attempts at justifying the 9/11 attacks make me want to puke. :vomit: :vomit:

Are you claiming that all attacks on the United States in the past 200 years were unprovoked and unjustified?

We were attacked by our enemies - period.

Then answer this: How did they become our enemies? Enemies are not created in a vacuum.

The change that is needed in order to prevent future acts of extremism is for our "leadership" to realize that our enemies cannot be appeased, apologized to or coddled and that future acts of extremism will be met with instant and severe consequences.

Or perhaps the change that is needed is that our leadership should avoid actions that would create new enemies. We should have gone back to isolationism after World War II.

Families of 9/11 victims have no responsibility or obligation whatsoever to research the supposed motives of the attacks by our enemies.

So the families from Hiroshima have no responsibility or obligation whatsoever to research the supposed motives of our nuclear attacks, right?

The muslims should put their mosque somewhere else.

So you HATE the Constitution?

You're saying islam had nothing to do with 9/11?

No more than Christianity had anything to do with the Native American genocide and the Inquisition.

:iagree:
It can only occur in America, and that does speak volumes about Americans :nod:

My initial reaction to this story was that it was an insult.

After it had sunk in for a few days, I came to the conclusion that it is braver, bolder, more of a statement of what America is about to allow then to build the center.

I have, after deliberation, reached my personal conclusion, and I don't intend to return to this thread to debate. I just thought I'd put in my 2 cents.

Well put and i agree.

The old" If you don't agree with me and my beliefs it must be because you're ignorant" routine.

I love it .. :lmao::lmao:

Palin herself was talking to "peaceful muslims" and saying they were hurting people by building a mosque in lower Manhattan. She was basically telling them to respect the opinion of people who think they are associated with the terrorists, even though Palin knew they were not. That's giving respect to an ignorant opinion.

And now the justification for the old" If you don't agree with me and my beliefs it must be because you're ignorant" routine.

And the justification is ... " If you don't agree with me and my beliefs it must be because you're ignorant"

I still love it .. :lmao::lmao:
Do you love it?

If the United States CONSTITUTION allows it, then I shall defend to death the developers' right to build the 9-11 themed roller coaster. That is the mark of true PATRIOTISM.

Why is it so hard to understand that intentions, taste, appropriateness, etc. are all IRRELEVANT at the altar of the United States Constitution?

I think a view of “unlimited freedom” is childish and often gets us into trouble.

Some people think that freedom is the ability for the ego to act without obstruction. Nothing could be further from the truth. To obtain true freedom people must learn to reckon with wind and tide. Not stubbornly fight against them. But this is a philosophical abstraction.

I do believe America should allow as much freedom as possible…. It wouldn’t be America if it didn’t.

However, we limit many things. And for very good reasons. The reason there is not a cat food factory next to your home is because some freedoms have been limited.

I think zoning can be a very appropriate and legitimate “limitation of freedom”.

Mosques have been and are continuing to be built throughout this country and for that matter the world.
I read a story in which a mosque is going to be built in close proximity to the vatican as well.
If local and gov laws allow for religious structures to be built, then let it happen. Protests can happen, but please make it a peaceful one. Running around and shooting or throwing bombs at each other is not peaceful.
Yes there are places in the world which do not believe in religious equality, but the USA is not one of them. We have more freedom then most or probably any other country.

What country would "allow" hate groups to gather and protest? (peacefully of course)

How many countries would allow you to go to the church/religious event of your chosing w/o fear of violence?


People came and continue to come to this country for religious freedom. As long as these religious groups do not try to force a belief on me, then I am good with that.


You know one thing I cannot understand? why religious groups have to build "bigger and better" monuments/churches and Mosques? They can put the money they spent on these things to more practical use like feeding the poor.

The murders occurred as a response to our country's meddling in the middle east. Desperation of the peoples of the region combined with an extremist variant of Islam. If you look at the targets: the pentagon and the world trade center it's easy to see the targets were symbolic of "special interests" and the means the American government uses to protect them abroad.

These are the stated reasons for 9/11:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

To purport that the attacks are in the name of Islam is only partly true and does nothing to promote the change that will be needed in order to prevent future acts of extremism.

So if the families of the victims haven't been able to bother to research the motives of the people who killed their loved ones nearly 10 years enough not to be butt hurt by a Mosque then I do not feel sorry for them one bit.

Christian American politicians have been enacting policies that kill vast numbers compared to those who died on 9/11. Should I fault Christianity for the actions of a relative handful of it's followers?

And I guarantee a Mosque near ground zero will show the utmost respect come 9/11.

While some of what you say has some basis in truth. America is a global power. No question about it. The solicitude and deference that you show these people, to my mind, “defieth all human understanding”. Unless of course if you are one of them. This I could at least understand.

I don’t trust your feelings which suffers with “the desperation of these people” as you say which drove them to murder.

I think your “compassion” is probably somewhat abstract , worthless, and misguided. A cheap and easy compassion for people half way around the world whose eyes you never have to look into.

Desperation and suffering is a part of the human condition EVERYWHERE… One of the uglier developments in the 20th and 21st centuries is the desire to pin the blame for it on somebody else. As if someone else is to blame.

If the kind of fundamentalist islamic regime that they have in Iran is fine with you... A regime that has spread more desperation, darkness, and suffering than any American policy in that region ever has... Then sure, we should just let the Islamic fundamentalist have their way with the world.... Lets just lay down, and have faith in their benevolence.

But to give the “benefit of the doubt” to islamic jihadists is probably stretching credulity. To say all the western world needs to do is behave like choirboys and everything will be fine is also probably stretching credulity.

But I agree that if jihadists were allowed to develop their concepts of a Global Religious Islamic Empire without obstruction they might stop attacking the western world. Maybe !

Still, to them, just the idea of the western world having more influence and acendency than their concepts of Islam is a fly in their ointment, so to speak. And some people, especially young men, just want to have a war … it beats having to become a goatherd or shopkeeper.

If the United States CONSTITUTION allows it, then I shall defend to death the developers' right to build the 9-11 themed roller coaster.

:cool:

While some of what you say has some basis in truth. America is a global power. No question about it. The solicitude and deference that you show these people, to my mind, “defieth all human understanding”. Unless of course if you are one of them. This I could at least understand.

Yes. I am one of them. I'm human.

I think your “compassion” is probably somewhat abstract , worthless, and misguided. A cheap and easy compassion for people half way around the world whose eyes you never have to look into.

Yes. Because compassion should be limited by proximity.

If the kind of fundamentalist islamic regime that they have in Iran is fine with you. A regime that has spread more desperation, darkness, and suffering than any American policy ever has. Then sure, we should just let the Islamic fundamentalist have their way with the world. Lets just lay down, and have faith in their benevolence.

So because I recognize the motivation of the people who attacked us on 9/11 I support an authoritarian regime in Iran. But on that note did you know that had it not been for our government's meddling back in the day the current Iran regime wouldn't exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Yes. I am one of them. I'm human.

Yes, we all “bleed red blood”. This is true. I can’t argue with this. We are all human beings, more or less. :shake:

But the solicitude and deference that you show the jihadists which “defieth all human understanding” compares rather sharply to your rather harsh and brusque words for the Americans.

Yes. Because compassion should be limited by proximity.

The only proviso I have for compassion is that it be genuine. It is easy to have “abstract compassion” for people halfway around the world. It is very romantic…. a Syrian compassion, so to speak, full of moonscapes , dim lighting and Hollywood stars.

It is usually a little harder to have compassion for those who live right next door to us. In short, I distrust your compassion because I suspect it may not be based on anything substantial. I didn’t say I totally disbelieve in it though, I said I distrust it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.


So because I recognize the motivation of the people who attacked us on 9/11 I support an authoritarian regime in Iran. But on that note did you know that had it not been for our government's meddling back in the day the current Iran regime wouldn't exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

No I appreciate the point. And I am aware of the points the jihadists make. And yes I am also aware of Iran’s history. I have discussed it at length in other posts.

I feel that had Jimmy Carter “meddled “ more effectively the Iranian people would not have had to have lived under such tyranny and horror all these years.

I don’t mind “effective meddling” in world affairs…. I think it is needed …. What I dislike most are political blunders and gross errors.

But the solicitude and deference that you show the jihadists which “defieth all human understanding” compares rather sharply to your rather harsh and brusque words for the Americans.

I have deference for murderers. I have a moral obligation to understand their motivations so future human beings don't suffer as a result of misguided military responses creating new terrorists that create new misguided military responses etc...

And what exactly were the harsh and brusque words have I had for "Americans?"

The only proviso I have for compassion is that it be genuine. It is easy to have “abstract compassion” for people halfway around the world. It is very romantic…. a Syrian compassion, so to speak, full of moonscapes , dim lighting and Hollywood stars.

It is usually a little harder to have compassion for those who live right next door to us.

Odd. I've always found it much easier to understand and offer a hand to those in distress when I can actually see them. No wonder it defieths your understanding to sympathize with those so far away.

II think zoning can be a very appropriate and legitimate “limitation of freedom”.

If zoning was the entire issue then I don't understand the point of your commentary. NYC didn't zone the area in a way to prevent the placement of the mosque in the area. If you have a problem with the current zoning, then it's an issue with the NYC City Hall, not with any Muslims. Why blame or even point fingers at Muslims for something that is clearly the city administration's doing?

I have deference for murderers. I have a moral obligation to understand their motivations so future human beings don't suffer as a result of misguided military responses creating new terrorists that create new misguided military responses etc...

And what exactly were the harsh and brusque words have I had for "Americans?"


I stand by what I said. Your sympathy for the jihadists, at least in this post, to my mind does “defieth all human understanding” compared to your view of the ”American Politicians" who are much worse, according to you, than those who carried out the attack on 9-11.

I believe a man needs to say what he means. Which you did I think. And I thank you for that.

You “suffer with the Muslim world”. The American politicians are much worse than the jihadists who murdered those on 9-11. Etc Etc.

I mean maybe you don't really feel this way or are a writer who has diffficulty saying what he actually means. But a palm reader, I am not.




Odd. I've always found it much easier to understand and offer a hand to those in distress when I can actually see them. No wonder it defieths your understanding to sympathize with those so far away.

Well, you sound as though you might be some sort of saint francis of assisi or something.
Who loves the birds, the little animals, and the people... but perhaps only those people who live halfway around the world ?

I personally think half of the trouble with liberalism in America is the thirst for “revenge against the father”.

And truly, when one grasps the sordid reality and wretched parlor smoke of many people’s lives Genuine Compassion is hardest up close. But that is of course where it counts. A year in any emergency room in America should be enough to open a persons eyes to this fact.

That the people who most need love and compassion are often those least deserving of it is obvious enough … and that what they most often get is contempt rather than compassion is also obvious enough.

Compassion is easiest when one doesn’t have to show it for the howling brats who have moved in next door... Or the reeling fall down drunk who is peeing on your lawn.

It is much easier to have a hollywood compassion, a romantic compassion.... a syrian compassion with moonlight nights and gentle breezes.... this is usually best accomplished at a distance. :)

However, we limit many things. And for very good reasons. The reason there is not a cat food factory next to your home is because some freedoms have been limited.

I think zoning can be a very appropriate and legitimate “limitation of freedom”.
And are the reasons for preventing the cat food factory the same as the reasons for attempting to prevent the mosque near ground zero?

If zoning was the entire issue then I don't understand the point of your commentary. NYC didn't zone the area in a way to prevent the placement of the mosque in the area. If you have a problem with the current zoning, then it's an issue with the NYC City Hall, not with any Muslims. Why blame or even point fingers at Muslims for something that is clearly the city administration's doing?


My point Kharvel is that It needs to. :)

In fact the city would not even consider it if they were not so deathly afraid of a law suit. Cowardly bureaucrats that they are.

To me this is like putting a hot dog stand on top of the Washington monument—Or rather, to me, it is not appropriate to allow the politicization of the 9-11 site in this manner.

Bottom line.

My point Kharvel is that It needs to. :)

In fact the city would not even consider it if they were not so deathly afraid of a law suit. Cowardly buerocrats that they are.
And why would they be so deathly afraid of a law suit?

Because refusing the mosque would be religious discrimination?

To me this is like putting a hot dog stand on top of the Washington monument—Or rather, to me, it is not appropriate to allow the politicization of the 9-11 site in this manner.

Bottom line.
Isn't arguing against the building of an otherwise lawful mosque in what you personally believe to an "inappropriate" location policitizing the issue?

Should we not allow any Roman Catholic churches to be built near the Alamo? After all, the majority of Mexicans (who invaded the Alamo during the Mexican-American War) are Catholics. :rolleyes:

Or how about restricting the area near Wounded Knee, SD, to only Native American enterprises?

And are the reasons for preventing the cat food factory the same as the reasons for attempting to prevent the mosque near ground zero?

Even more so … yes.

The point I have been making smeg to our “everyone deserves to be free” posters. Is that we can and do limit what can be done everyday… and often for very good reasons.

Like a KKK mega headquarters near the martin luther king memorial.—for example. What think you of it ?

It is not in keeping with the area. Don't you think ? It would be wrong to allow the KKK to politicize King's memorial... Dont you think ?

It does require a value judgement to disallow it however. Under the US constitution the KKK is free to exist as much as any other organization as long as they follow the law.

Like a KKK mega headquarters near the martin luther king memorial.—for example. What think you of it ?

The KKK universally hates black people. Muslims do not universally hate non-Muslims.

The KKK universally hates black people. Muslims do not universally hate non-Muslims.

And most Muslims think infidels are inferior to non infidels. So what ?
Anotherwords you and I, if we are non muslim, are considered inferior by most muslims.

We can parse these things to the crack of doom.

At the end of the day we still have to make value judgements and attempt to show good sense and sensitivity.

My point is that I care more for the New Yorkers and their families who died that day than I do for the sensitivities of a group muslims who want to politicize the 9-11 site.

They can build a mosque elsewhere in New York... And they should be grateful for that. ... which of course they won't be. :)

Even more so … yes.
Specifics please.

Does the mosque create industrial pollution like the cat food factory?

Does the mosque create increased industrial traffic (big rigs, etc.) like the cat food factory?

The point I have been making smeg to our “everyone deserves to be free” posters. Is that we can and do limit what can be done everyday… and often for very good reasons.
... And often for very bad reasons, such as religious discrimination.

Like a KKK mega headquarters near the martin luther king memorial.—for example. What think you of it ?
I think that any personal feelings of inappropriateness are insufficient to deny a lawful request for a building permit.

I also think that the KKK isn't a religion, therefore alleviating this hypothetical from any claims of religious discrimination.

It is not in keeping with the area. Don't you think ? It would be wrong to allow the KKK to politicize King's memorial... Dont you think ?
First, zoning is not based on some personal definition of "what is keeping w/the area". If it was, I wouldn't be living next door to a paper mill and a scrap yard. :rolleyes:

Second, how is having a KKK HQ near MLK "politicizing" anything? Is there a rule that says if such institutions are kept far enough apart, then we can forget that the one we don't like exists?

It does require a value judgement to disallow it however. Under the US constitution the KKK is free to exist as much as any other organization as long as they follow the law.
And does this mosque follow the law? :nod:

At the end of the day we still have to make value judgements and attempt to show good sense and sensitivity.
... to those we like.

Those we don't like require no "good sense [or] sensitivity".

My point is that I care more for the New Yorkers and their families who died that day than I do for the sensitivities of a group muslims who want to politicize the 9-11 site.
Good for you.

My point is that the laws permitting religious institutions to be built should not be based on what you -- or any other individual -- personally prefer.

BTW, nice assumption that those are two separate groups. Meaning that it is, of course, impossible that some of those Muslims lost fellow Muslim family members in the 9/11 attacks.

They can build a mosque elsewhere in New York... And they should be grateful for that. ... which of course they won't be. :)
Yes, they should be so very grateful that we -- the majority -- allow them to practice their religion where we -- the majority -- permit it.

Ungrateful bastards.

:rolleyes:

In fact the city would not even consider it if they were not so deathly afraid of a law suit. Cowardly bureaucrats that they are.

So are you admitting that any action on the city's part to zone against the mosque would result in litigation that the city would presumably lose on constitutional grounds?

In fact the city would not even consider it if they were not so deathly afraid of a law suit. Cowardly bureaucrats that they are. This is something of a lousy claim but be that as it may ... I want to know, kelly, how important is this to your opinion on what should actually happen in NY? What if the people and their representative actually think this is a good idea and that the plan to build the mosque should move forward? Would you support someone to overrule the local decision-making process in favor of your view or respect the opinions of people who live in that community?

This is just one of many reasons Newt is the ONLY person I really want as President .. everyone else I may support or vote for is based on relativity to the other choices.

No Mosque at Ground Zero
July 28, 2010 4pm

One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks “the war on terror” instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.

Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia—Islamic law—upon all aspects of global society.

Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.

For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia’s supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.

Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term “war on terrorism” is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.
Sharia and Western Civilization

Sharia law is used in many Muslim countries to justify shocking acts of barbarity including stoning, the execution of homosexuals, and the subjugation of women. Sharia does not permit freedom of conscience; it prohibits Muslims from renouncing their Islamic faith or converting to another religion. Sharia does not support religious liberty; it treats non-Muslims as inferior and does not accord them the same protections as Muslims. In these and other instances, sharia is explicitly at odds with core American and Western values. It is an explicit repudiation of freedom of conscience and religious liberty as well as the premise that citizens are equal under the law.

Thus, the radical Islamist effort to impose sharia worldwide is a direct threat to all those who believe in the freedoms maintained by our constitutional system.
Creeping Sharia in the United States

In some ways, it speaks of the goodness of America that we have had such difficulty coming to grips with the challenge of radical Islamists. It is our very commitment to religious liberty that makes us uncomfortable with defining our enemies in a way that appears linked with religious belief.

However, America’s commitment to religious liberty has given radical Islamists a potent rhetorical weapon in their pursuit of sharia supremacy. In a deliberately dishonest campaign exploiting our belief in religious liberty, radical Islamists are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and guilt Americans (and other Western countries) to accept the imposition of sharia in certain communities, no matter how deeply sharia law is in conflict with the protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding our constitutional system.

The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here. Andy McCarthy’s writings, including his new book The Grand Jihad, have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert the protections of American law and American values over sharia’s religious code. Some examples include:

In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious beliefs as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter. “This court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.” Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.

In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.

In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.
In order to accommodate sharia’s prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.

Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest provider of sharia financing in the world: AIG.
Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on charges of “disturbing the peace.” They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia’s rules on proselytizing. This is a clear case of freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to sharia’s intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.
Shockingly, sharia honor killings—in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family—are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered “domestic disturbances.” (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)

Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.
It is in this context that the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero must be seen.
Exposing Radical Islamist Hypocrisy at Ground Zero

There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an “accessory” to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.

More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn’t mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.

The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque—“Cordoba House”—which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.
They say they’re interfaith, but they didn’t propose the building of a mosque, church and synagogue. Instead they proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred.

Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.

We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims’ families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.

Apologists for radical Islamist hypocrisy are trying to argue that we have to allow the construction of this mosque in order to prove America’s commitment to religious liberty. They say this despite the fact that there are already over 100 mosques in New York City.

In fact, they’re partially correct—this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.

Your friend,

Newt

http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/no-mosque-ground-zero

FYI .. if you go to the website it shows where they encourage you to pass this around s in this case it doesn't violate the copyright BS we have been hit with which restricts us from doing that.

adams135, do you think that in the letter above Newt represents the views of a majority of Americans TODAY? Not whether they can convinced of this viewpoint or whether by electing Newt as President, Americans will follow him to this position but as things stand today ... are a majority of Americans with him on this? Or, in your circle of friends and family, do you think a majority will support his position? (Thanks in advance, because I know these questions don't do anything to advance the topic of the conversation, so they are a purely for my information :)).

adams135, do you think that in the letter above Newt represents the views of a majority of Americans TODAY? Not whether they can convinced of this viewpoint or whether by electing Newt as President, Americans will follow him to this position but as things stand today ... are a majority of Americans with him on this? Or, in your circle of friends and family, do you think a majority will support his position? (Thanks in advance, because I know these questions don't do anything to advance the topic of the conversation, so they are a purely for my information :)).

Thanks for asking the questions in a way which shows you really want to know my opinion. To be honest … I just don’t know what a Majority of Americans believe now or will believe later.

I thought for sure a “majority” of Americans would look past Obama’s rhetoric and go by his past voting record in making their decision to vote for him over the other Candidate (actually … lets make that majority of Independents”). I was wrong … instead of supporting him for what his voting record showed his positions really were they believed his rhetoric. In other words .. I was wrong in my beliefs.

As for my circle of friends … the ones I get into political discussions with .. yes I believe that most do now and “most” of the ones who don’t now will be convinced later .. but .. like I said before .. I have been wrong before.

Personally I think so many Americans are trying to “prove”, not only to others but also themselves, they are prejudiced they overlook common sense, logic, and even facts and go overboard. Some of course are just to scared of being called a racist, homophobe, Uncle Tom or whatever to say what they really feel.

This new Mosque or whatever is a prime example .. if this religion really were ashamed of what several of their Radical followers did on 9/11 they would be sensitive to the hard feeling it might cause and go elsewhere … instead they say one thing and then another.

Again … this is my beliefs and opinions and I pretty much agree with everything Newt said.

One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks “the war on terror” instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.
So Newt, your #1 guy, agrees w/Obama on that. ;)

For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia’s supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.
Plenty of the Radical Right in America view politics and religion as "inseparable" and work tirelessly to codify "Christian law" into secular legislation.

Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term “war on terrorism” is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.
Some radical Christians use terrorism as a tactic to impose fundamental Christianity (Westboro Baptist Church; abortion doctor killings; clinic bombings), but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal crusade that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence.

In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.
Execept this isn't really what happened (http://www.startribune.com/local/18931124.html). There was *one* named individual who was accused of threatening the dog. The student w/a disability voluntarily left the school, despite the school's request to have him come back.

Oh, and sharia doesn't prescribe touching dogs. :shake:

In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.
Interestingly enough, the only news I can find from this time period relating to Owatonna high school and the treatment of Muslims, involves the following:

The federal Department of Education has opened an investigation into claims that Somali students have faced racial discrimination and harassment at schools in St. Cloud and Owatonna. (http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=94882249)

:scratchh:

In order to accommodate sharia’s prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.
Both state and fed govt subsidize home-ownership all the time and for a variety of reasons -- first-time home-owner, military vet, rural location, etc. Minnesota has chosen to include religions whose laws forbid more traditional financing avenues. Minnesota is not required to do this, and there were already private financial institutions offering similar programs.

Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on charges of “disturbing the peace.” They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia’s rules on proselytizing. This is a clear case of freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to sharia’s intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.
Except this isn't what happened either (http://michiganmessenger.com/39903/dearborn-police-accused-of-violating-first-amendment). When the four Christians were arrested, they were inside the grounds of the festival. The festival organizers had attempted to create designated "free speech areas" where people (from all sorts of organizations) could distribute literature and other information. I guess what's good enough for Bush isn't good enough for an Arab festival.

Shockingly, sharia honor killings—in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family—are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered “domestic disturbances.” (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)
Actually, the article covers *one* case in Phoenix where the young woman was brutally attacked, but survived. It mentions five homicide victims by name from 2008-2010.

I'm not trying to minimize the nastiness of honor killings. But I'm equally revolted by the shocking number of non-Muslim honor-related "domestic disturbances" that result in a dead woman.

More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn’t mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.
Should we classify Newt's hyperbole as "mere dishonesty"?

Here's a few snippets of what Rauf actually wrote (http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=25141&lan=en&sid=1&sp=0%20):

If that sounds suspiciously like the Declaration of Independence, that's because – contrary to what many people in the West believe – Islamic law and American democratic principles have many things in common.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Creator endowed man with these unalienable rights. The framers of the constitution wrote that they were establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquillity, promoting general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty.

In the same way, Islamic law believes that God has ordained political justice, economic justice and help for the weak and impoverished. These are very Islamic concepts. Many Muslims believe that what Americans receive from their government is in fact the very substance of what an Islamic state should provide.

The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque—“Cordoba House”—which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.
Perhaps Newt is unaware that the Great Mosque at Cordoba is currently a Roman Catholic cathedral. ;)

They say they’re interfaith, but they didn’t propose the building of a mosque, church and synagogue. Instead they proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred.
So should there be no Christian churches overlooking the sites where abortion doctors have been murdered? Or does this particular standard apply only to Islam?

Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.
How dare you try to show us that not all Muslims are radical terrorists! What arrogance and hypocrisy!

:rolleyes:

We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology.
It is simply grotesque to put aside our founding principles of religious freedom in order to further demonize those who had nothing to do with 9/11.

In fact, they’re partially correct—this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.
And here's where we have the necessary leap from facing down radical Islamic terrorists to facing down Islam itself. :yawn:

So Newt, your #1 guy, agrees w/Obama on that. ;)


Plenty of the Radical Right in America view politics and religion as "inseparable" and work tirelessly to codify "Christian law" into secular legislation.


Some radical Christians use terrorism as a tactic to impose fundamental Christianity (Westboro Baptist Church; abortion doctor killings; clinic bombings), but other use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence.


Execept this isn't really what happened (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.startribune.com/local/18931124.html) [startribune.com (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.startribune.com/local/18931124.html)]. There was *one* named individual who was accused of threatening the dog. The student w/a disability voluntarily left the school, despite the school's request to have him come back.

Oh, and sharia doesn't prescribe touching dogs. :shake:


Interestingly enough, the only news I can find from this time period relating to Owatonna high school and the treatment of Muslims, involves the following:
The federal Department of Education has opened an investigation into claims that Somali students have faced racial discrimination and harassment at schools in St. Cloud and Owatonna. (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=94882249) [startribune.com (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=94882249)]:scratchh:


Both state and fed govt subsidize home-ownership all the time and for a variety of reasons -- first-time home-owner, military vet, rural location, etc. Minnesota has chosen to include religions whose laws forbid more traditional financing avenues. Minnesota is not required to do this, and there were already private financial institutions offering similar programs.


Except this isn't what happened either (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://michiganmessenger.com/39903/dearborn-police-accused-of-violating-first-amendment) [michiganmessenger.com (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://michiganmessenger.com/39903/dearborn-police-accused-of-violating-first-amendment)]. When the four Christians were arrested, they were inside the grounds of the festival. The festival organizers had attempted to create designated "free speech areas" where people (from all sorts of organizations) could distribute literature and other information. I guess what's good enough for Bush isn't good enough for an Arab festival.


Actually, the article covers *one* case in Phoenix where the young woman was brutally attacked, but survived. It mentions five homicide victims by name from 2008-2010.

I'm not trying to minimize the nastiness of honor killings. But I'm equally revolted by the shocking number of non-Muslim honor-related "domestic disturbances" that result in a dead woman.


Should we classify Newt's hyperbole as "mere dishonesty"?

Here's a few snippets of what Rauf actually wrote (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=25141&lan=en&sid=1&sp=0%20) [commongroundnews.org (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=25141&lan=en&sid=1&sp=0%20)]:

If that sounds suspiciously like the Declaration of Independence, that's because – contrary to what many people in the West believe – Islamic law and American democratic principles have many things in common.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Creator endowed man with these unalienable rights. The framers of the constitution wrote that they were establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquillity, promoting general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty.

In the same way, Islamic law believes that God has ordained political justice, economic justice and help for the weak and impoverished. These are very Islamic concepts. Many Muslims believe that what Americans receive from their government is in fact the very substance of what an Islamic state should provide.


Perhaps Newt is unaware that the Great Mosque at Cordoba is currently a Roman Catholic cathedral. ;)


So should there be no Christian churches overlooking the sites where abortion doctors have been murdered? Or does this particular standard apply only to Islam?


How dare you try to show us that not all Muslims are radical terrorists! What arrogance and hypocrisy!

:rolleyes:


It is simply grotesque to put aside our founding principles of religious freedom in order to further demonize those who had nothing to do with 9/11.


And here's where we have the necessary leap from facing down radical Islamic terrorists to facing down Islam itself. :yawn:
Good points :thumbup:

Will Adams be enlightened by your additional facts? I eagerly await his response.

Smeg .. I see you haven’t changed and still playing your games. You won’t give your opinion or stance on a subject but are more than happy to spend hours trying to undercut or prove wrong parts of others post (usually from conservatives from some reason).

So .. tell you what .. I will be more than happy to respond to your questions as soon as you tell us your OPINIONS on stances on them.

So Newt, your #1 guy, agrees w/Obama on that. ;) :

So, what do YOU think? What would like to see this war/operation/police action whatever called if not “War on Terror”? and of course WHY?


Plenty of the Radical Right in America view politics and religion as "inseparable" and work tirelessly to codify "Christian law" into secular legislation. : Again .. So, what do YOU think? What is your opinion/stance on what you call “Christian law” and why?

Some radical Christians use terrorism as a tactic to impose fundamental Christianity (Westboro Baptist Church; abortion doctor killings; clinic bombings), but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal crusade that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. :

So .. are you saying In Your Opinion we should spend as much of our resources monitoring and protecting ourselves from the radical Christians as we do the Radical Islamists? Again .. why do you feel that way ..


I started to ask what your stance and opinions on the rest of your so called “questions” but I think you get the idea.

When you start giving YOUR opinion and stances on the issues instead of just trying to make yourself feel .. I don’t know .. Better, Superior, (or whatever you call your need) by only attacking other post I will be more than happy to discuss/debate these issues with you. As long as you only try to tear apart post from others (again .. for some crazy unknown reason generally from Conservatives) I will just laugh and try to ignore.

Have a nice day.

Smeg .. I see you haven’t changed and still playing your games. You won’t give your opinion or stance on a subject but are more than happy to spend hours trying to undercut or prove wrong parts of others post (usually from conservatives from some reason).
Does it confuse you that I don't start every single post w/"My opinion is ..."? :comfort:

So, what do YOU think? What would like to see this war/operation/police action whatever called if not “War on Terror”? and of course WHY?
Is it really that unclear that I agree w/both Obama and Newt's opinion on this particular subject?

This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.

Again .. So, what do YOU think? What is your opinion/stance on what you call “Christian law” and why?
That it's just as oppressive and unconstitutional as its religious counterparts in other denominations.

So .. are you saying In Your Opinion we should spend as much of our resources monitoring and protecting ourselves from the radical Christians as we do the Radical Islamists? Again .. why do you feel that way ..
No, I'm saying the same facts can be stated wrt both groups.

So far, the Radical Islamists are "winning" the damage race, but the Radical Christians have the advantage of a higher domestic population.

When you start giving YOUR opinion and stances on the issues instead of just trying to make yourself feel .. I don’t know .. Better, Superior, (or whatever you call your need) by only attacking other post I will be more than happy to discuss/debate these issues with you. As long as you only try to tear apart post from others (again .. for some crazy unknown reason generally from Conservatives) I will just laugh and try to ignore.

Have a nice day.
What part of my "opinion" on these matters were you incapable of deducing?

Does it confuse you that I don't start every single post w/"My opinion is ..."? :comfort:

Why would that confuse me since you almost never give your opinion on a subject or stance … you generally only try to tear apart individual comments.

Is it really that unclear that I agree w/both Obama and Newt's opinion on this particular subject? ?

YES .. very unclear. Your comment referred to Newt agreeing with Obama .. nothing about how YOU felt, as usual Just like Newt agreeing … I didn’t realize that Obama didn’t like the name “War on Terror” because it didn’t accurately identify radical Islamists which is what Newt stated and would be required in order for Newt to Agree with Obama as you stated.

I also noticed you didn’t say what YOU thought it should be called, and why like I asked.

I would respond to your other comments but as usual you didn’t answer my questions like when I asked “So .. are you saying In Your Opinion we should spend as much of our resources monitoring and protecting ourselves from the radical Christians as we do the Radical Islamists? Again .. why do you feel that way .. “ with YOUR opinion or stance on the issues so no reason to waste my time.

Let me know if you ever decided to actually take a stance or have an opinion on an issue.

Even more so … yes.

The point I have been making smeg to our “everyone deserves to be free” posters. Is that we can and do limit what can be done everyday… and often for very good reasons.

Like a KKK mega headquarters near the martin luther king memorial.—for example. What think you of it ?

It is not in keeping with the area. Don't you think ? It would be wrong to allow the KKK to politicize King's memorial... Dont you think ?

It does require a value judgement to disallow it however. Under the US constitution the KKK is free to exist as much as any other organization as long as they follow the law.

You're trying to equate Muslims to the KKK, which shows you to be ignorant long before you ever get to your point. The KKK is more akin to Al Qaeda themselves, and this mosgue and the people behind it is more akin to the typical white Christian. MIGHT there be a bad apple in the bunch? Well sure, just like a white Christian MIGHT be a member of the KKK. But that's no reason to make assumptions. This isn't an Al Qaeda headquarters being put up, it's just a mosque.

Thanks for asking the questions in a way which shows you really want to know my opinion. To be honest … I just don’t know what a Majority of Americans believe now or will believe later. ... Thanks.

... if this religion really were ashamed of what several of their Radical followers did on 9/11 they would be sensitive to the hard feeling it might cause and go elsewhere … instead they say one thing and then another. That's an interesting word you used there "ashamed". I never thought that Muslims ought to be ashamed over what happened on 9/11... hmm ... I see why you say that though, and you might have an important point here. I'll have to chew over this a bit.

I dont think they should be banned from putting the mosque there, but they shouldn't be so blatantly stupid to insult New Yorkers like this.

It is absolutely there choice to put a mosque there, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were regularly vandalized and insulted on their way to worship.

I dont think they should be banned from putting the mosque there, but they shouldn't be so blatantly stupid to insult New Yorkers like this.

It is absolutely there choice to put a mosque there, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were regularly vandalized and insulted on their way to worship.

Why do you talk about New Yorkers and those building this mosque as though they're mutually exclusive? These Muslims are also New Yorkers, and they were just as much victims of 9/11 as any other New Yorker, if not moreso given the fact that they're now persecuted for it.

I dont think they should be banned from putting the mosque there, but they shouldn't be so blatantly stupid to insult New Yorkers like this.

It is absolutely there choice to put a mosque there, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were regularly vandalized and insulted on their way to worship.

If people vandalize it they should be prosecuted, same as any other person who vandalizes another person's property.

I also noticed you didn’t say what YOU thought it should be called, and why like I asked.
It should be called "Bush's Clusterfark". The "why" should be relatively obvious. ;)

I would respond to your other comments but as usual you didn’t answer my questions like when I asked “So .. are you saying In Your Opinion we should spend as much of our resources monitoring and protecting ourselves from the radical Christians as we do the Radical Islamists? Again .. why do you feel that way .. “ with YOUR opinion or stance on the issues so no reason to waste my time.
As usual, you don't let facts stand in the way of a good rant. :crazylaf:

From my previous post:

No, I'm saying the same facts can be stated wrt both groups.

So far, the Radical Islamists are "winning" the damage race, but the Radical Christians have the advantage of a higher domestic population.

It should be called "Bush's Clusterfark". The "why" should be relatively obvious. ;)

I should have expected that even having to ask more than once I wouldn’t get a straight mature answer from you and any answer I got would be a childish rant. You like to bluster and make these cutting comments about other people’s post but won’t give a real, mature, honest answer yourself.

You agree with Obama and Newt on the name being wrong but won’t give an answer on what YOU thing it should be (you know something either one of them could use). I guess if you did that you might have to give YOUR opinion.


As usual, you don't let facts stand in the way of a good rant. :crazylaf:

What facts are you referring to. The fact you won’t answer a legimate question if it means you have to take a stance on something? Those facts?

The facts are I’ve asked several questions, for example, ( “So .. are you saying In Your Opinion we should spend as much of our resources monitoring and protecting ourselves from the radical Christians as we do the Radical Islamists? Again .. why do you feel that way .. “), which you won’t answer. You will only take a stance on the most high level general issues but never any real details like the rest of us give.

So far all I’ve seen you do it try and pick apart poster’s statements but never giving any real post of your own showing your opinion or stance on an issue.

Have fun … it is obvious you won’t give a straight answer if it involves having to give your opinion on an issue so I will just stop trying and when you choose to respond to a post of mine to someone else …. Remember how you are ad just laugh.

You just aren’t worth the effort.:shake:

I understand some of the points that support the mosque, but imagine being a family member of someone who passed away during the attacks of 9/11. If I went to a family members memorial at ground zero and there was a mosque two blocks down I'd be furious. But if the muslim community keeps on pushing for the mosque I think the best thing to do is just ban all (new) religious structures in specific radius from the WTC.

I understand some of the points that support the mosque, but imagine being a family member of someone who passed away during the attacks of 9/11. If I went to a family members memorial at ground zero and there was a mosque two blocks down I'd be furious. But if the muslim community keeps on pushing for the mosque I think the best thing to do is just ban all (new) religious structures in specific radius from the WTC.

They should have to get over how they fell about said mosque. The owners of the structure where the mosque will be built should have their private property rights to build whatever they want on their land, absent some violation of law. Given the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion, the state cannot pass a law forbiding the building of places of worship withing X-radius of the remains of the WTC. Such a law would rightfully be struck down by the courts.

They should have to get over how they fell about said mosque. The owners of the structure where the mosque will be built should have their private property rights to build whatever they want on their land, absent some violation of law. Given the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion, the state cannot pass a law forbiding the building of places of worship withing X-radius of the remains of the WTC. Such a law would rightfully be struck down by the courts.

I know, and there are a lot of instances where the right way to do something is not legal. But this is a great example of the effects of religion on society. (I'm not arguing against religion in any way, I practice one of the three "people of the book" religions) Why would anyone support building an area of worship next to where the jihad extremists killed thousands. Once again, put yourself in this situation and imagine having a loved one die in the attacks. If you still support the mosque, you are lacking empathy.

I am only registering to post this one article which does a spectacular job in making the argument that Islam is not like other religions and should not be treated the same.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/30/sharia-in-a-first-amendment-society-2/print/

Good day.

I should have expected that even having to ask more than once I wouldn’t get a straight mature answer from you and any answer I got would be a childish rant. You like to bluster and make these cutting comments about other people’s post but won’t give a real, mature, honest answer yourself.
My answers -- including the lack thereof -- are a direct reflection of the level of maturity and honesty involved in the question(s) itself. :bulb:

You agree with Obama and Newt on the name being wrong but won’t give an answer on what YOU thing it should be (you know something either one of them could use). I guess if you did that you might have to give YOUR opinion.
How about "we don't need to name a military campaign in order to hold A-Q responsible for the attacks on our soil"? Is that "real" enough for you?

"The War on Terror"

"The War on Drugs"

"The War on Poverty"

Perhaps we should worry a little less about how we name things and little bit more about how we farking get them done.

What facts are you referring to. The fact you won’t answer a legimate question if it means you have to take a stance on something? Those facts?
No, just the fact that I answered your question in my previous post. :rolleyes:

I'll even quote it for you again below.

The facts are I’ve asked several questions, for example, ( “So .. are you saying In Your Opinion we should spend as much of our resources monitoring and protecting ourselves from the radical Christians as we do the Radical Islamists? Again .. why do you feel that way .. “), which you won’t answer. You will only take a stance on the most high level general issues but never any real details like the rest of us give.
For the third time, this is the answer to your oh-so-critically-important question (which is really nothing more than a strawman in a very bad disguise):

No, I'm saying the same facts can be stated wrt both groups.

So far, the Radical Islamists are "winning" the damage race, but the Radical Christians have the advantage of a higher domestic population.

The "facts" referred to come from my post before that, where I mirrored Newt's description of fundamental Islam in the following manner:

Some radical Christians use terrorism as a tactic to impose fundamental Christianity (Westboro Baptist Church; abortion doctor killings; clinic bombings), but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal crusade that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence.

So far all I’ve seen you do it try and pick apart poster’s statements but never giving any real post of your own showing your opinion or stance on an issue.
Perhaps that has to do w/your oh-so-pressing time constraints that typically only allow you to drop in a few one-liners here or there.

Perhaps I find providing detailed answers to questions from a poster who is unwilling unable do to time constraints to actually engage in a debate about these issues rather futile.

Have fun … it is obvious you won’t give a straight answer if it involves having to give your opinion on an issue so I will just stop trying and when you choose to respond to a post of mine to someone else …. Remember how you are ad just laugh.
Of all of the conservatives smears levied against me in TP, not giving my opinion is a new one even for me. :roll:

Once again, put yourself in this situation and imagine having a loved one die in the attacks. If you still support the mosque, you are lacking empathy.

Having a loved one lost in a tragedy doesn't excuse someone from misappropriating blame. If I lost a loved on in the Holocaust, is it OK for me to hold a grudge against all Germans? If I lost a loved one in Vietnam, am I right in opposing a new Vietnamese restaurant in my neighborhood?

I understand some of the points that support the mosque, but imagine being a family member of someone who passed away during the attacks of 9/11. If I went to a family members memorial at ground zero and there was a mosque two blocks down I'd be furious. But if the muslim community keeps on pushing for the mosque I think the best thing to do is just ban all (new) religious structures in specific radius from the WTC.
Imagine if you had a family member who passed away during the attacks of 9/11 ... who was Muslim.

:bigeye:

I know, and there are a lot of instances where the right way to do something is not legal. But this is a great example of the effects of religion on society. (I'm not arguing against religion in any way, I practice one of the three "people of the book" religions) Why would anyone support building an area of worship next to where the jihad extremists killed thousands.
Perhaps to futher demonstrate that the people who did that over there are *not* the same people who are worshiping over here.

Why would anyone support the erosion of freedom of religion based on an inaccurate stereotype of the followers of a particular religion?

Once again, put yourself in this situation and imagine having a loved one die in the attacks.
Once again, now imagine if you and/or that loved one were Muslim.

If you still support the mosque, you are lacking empathy.
If you have to base your arguments on appeals to emotion, then you might be in the wrong place. ;)

What do you think of the Grand Opening date planned? September 11, 2011

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL

While I don't like it, and I think it's very disrespectful for the muslim community in NY to be calling for this Mosque to be built, They are well within their rights to build it.

What do you think of the Grand Opening date planned? September 11, 2011

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL

Wow really?! That really is a farking low blow.

Why would they want to build the Mosque there, and why would they want to open it on that date?

Now that really does piss me off.
It really is insensitive.

What do you think of the Grand Opening date planned? September 11, 2011

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL

I think that if it were true, it would be sourced somewhere other than only the NYPost. Like perhaps the official website (http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/cordoba-house-new-york-city) of those building the mosque? :look:

I think that if it were true, it would be sourced somewhere other than only the NYPost. Like perhaps the official website (http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/cordoba-house-new-york-city) of those building the mosque? :look:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-05-07-mosque-ground-zero_N.htm

The history associated with the building, a former Burlington Coat Factory store that closed after being damaged on 9/11, was a reason to pick it for the project, she said.

The Muslim organizations plan to announce the groundbreaking later this year, possibly to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the attacks, Khan said. It could take up to three years to build the Cordoba House; the groups currently have no funds for the project but plan to start raising money, she said.

I heard about this awhile back, not too happy, but it's something that's acceptable.

I guess it's just acceptable.

If I went to a family members memorial at ground zero and there was a mosque two blocks down.

I went to a Native American memorial at Wounded Knee, SD and there was a Christian church within a mile of the memorial. I was extremely FURIOUS, OUTRAGED, and ANGRY. I was literally shaking with anger and cursed the Christians who built the church! What do you think should be done about the church?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-05-07-mosque-ground-zero_N.htm

The history associated with the building, a former Burlington Coat Factory store that closed after being damaged on 9/11, was a reason to pick it for the project, she said.

The Muslim organizations plan to announce the groundbreaking later this year, possibly to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the attacks, Khan said. It could take up to three years to build the Cordoba House; the groups currently have no funds for the project but plan to start raising money, she said.
Thank you for proving my point.

"Groundbreaking" does not equal "opening day". And "possibly" does not equal "certainly".

This is something of a lousy claim but be that as it may ... I want to know, kelly, how important is this to your opinion on what should actually happen in NY? What if the people and their representative actually think this is a good idea and that the plan to build the mosque should move forward? Would you support someone to overrule the local decision-making process in favor of your view or respect the opinions of people who live in that community?


We have courts , legal processes, and federal laws that might be appropriate should a locality rule wrongly.

Clearly America is very tolerant of all kinds of things and all kinds of faiths… we let just about anything and anybody into this country and not always to our advantage… And we literally have mosques all over the country… But respect has to be a two way street... I don’t believe any Islamic groups should be allowed to politicize the 9-11 site. I think the site and the area around it should be very carefully zoned.

I think it is well in keeping with american democracy and American laws to zone and regulate what is built and where it is built. It is done every day in America 1000’s of times over.

My faith in democracy is shaky because it allows so much that an enlightened society would and should probably... never permit.

We have courts , legal processes, and federal laws that might be appropriate should a locality rule wrongly.

Clearly America is very tolerant of all kinds of things and all kinds of faiths… we let just about anything and anybody into this country and not always to our advantage… And we literally have mosques all over the country… But respect has to be a two way street... I don’t believe any Islamic groups should be allowed to politicize the 9-11 site.

It is disrespectful and wrong, to my mind, and this is an area where we probably need to draw a line.

Can you elaborate as to how you believe the site is being "politicized" by those seeking to build the mosque?

Can you elaborate as to how you believe the site is being "politicized" by those seeking to build the mosque?

I could smeg but I have spent far too much time on my posts.... such as they are… I have to remind myself when rereading some of my posts that this is only a blog… the perfectionist that I am… suffice to say it can be painful.

I didn’t ignore your posts, I did glance at them … thank you for them.

My feeling about your posts is you are big on freedom but sometimes short on discernment and discrimination. Freedom yes certainly… but Freedom for what ?... is a question I might pose to you.

Your very idealistic in your own way… You have posited every nobody as your equal… and who knows maybe they are your equal ?… even as they close in and repossess the land your trailer is sitting on... Ah Well ! ... Idealists really are incorrigible... They will ruin half the world if only it can be done in the name of idealism. :)

I could smeg but I have spent far too much time on my posts.... such as they are… I have to remind myself when rereading some of my posts that this is only a blog… the perfectionist that I am… suffice to say it can be painful.

I didn’t ignore your posts, I did glance at them … thank you for them.
W/all due respect, that seems like a pretty major cop out.

You drop a highly loaded word -- more than once -- but then refuse to justify how that label actually applies.

My feeling about your posts is you are big on freedom but sometimes short on discernment and discrimination. Freedom yes certainly… but Freedom for what ?... is a question I might pose to you.
There is a stark difference btw personal discernment and discrimination and institutionalized, govt-supported discernment and discrimination.

I'm quite fond of the former, but very wary of the latter.

Are you asking what the purpose of our freedom is? The purpose of freedom is to be free. Circular, but true. The purpose is to explore that freedom as we personally see fit, so long as we do not run afoul of the (presumably legitimate) law.
Your very idealistic in your own way… You have posited every nobody as your equal… and who knows maybe they are your equal ?… even as they close in and repossess the land your trailer is sitting on... Ah Well ! ... Idealists really are incorrigible... They will ruin half the world if only it can be done in the name of idealism. :)
Is someone getting the 1 am ramblings? :lol: I've gotten them before, too. :comfort:

Every nobody *is* my equal under the law -- just as it should be.

I really have no idea what the trailer referrence is supposed to suggest ... :dontknow:

W/all due respect, that seems like a pretty major cop out.



When I say the site should not be politicized I mean.

The location is obviously highly symbolic … this muslim group is exploiting the tragedy and the proximity to the site to make a religio/political statement just as a clever merchant might attempt to find a way to commercialize and exploit a proximity to the 9-11 site.

As I have stated, I am against it... I think sensitivity and good judgement needs to be shown...

Everything else in my post was intended with good humor .. I ended up writing more by "not writing anything" than if I had just answered your post in the first place. :)

When I say the site should not be politicized I mean.

The location is obviously highly symbolic …
Sure. But how far out does that "location" extend?

Here's a map of the proposed mosque in relation to the actual "ground zero" WTC site:

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/ch_map.jpg

How much prime Manhattan real estate should be subjected to limitations on development due to ground zero? A three-block radius? Five or six?

How far should the limitations themselves extend? If mosques are off-limits, what about Islamic schools? Islamic grocery stores? What about any business either owned or frequented by Muslims?

this muslim group is exploiting the tragedy and the proximity to the site to make a religio/political statement just as a clever merchant might attempt to find a way to commercialize and exploit a proximity to the 9-11 site.
Might? (http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=105881)
The area around the trade center site is a popular tourist destination and has become an open-air market for everything from Rolex knockoffs and Sept. 11 figurines to photo books showing the destruction of the attacks.

For the most part, those vendors are breaking no laws (w/the exception of the mobile vendors who actually sell at Ground Zero itself). It's capitalism at its finest, although possibly also at its tackiest.

If you don't support the actions of those vendors, don't buy their wares. If you don't support the actions of the mosque-builders, don't use their mosque.

The only religious/political statement these Muslims are attempting to make is one *differentiating* themselves from the radical Islamic fundamentalists that attacked the U.S. I think it would be cruel and insensitive to deny them the opportunity to do that.

As I have stated, I am against it... I think sensitivity and good judgement needs to be shown...
And I truly respect that opinion.

But it remains a mere personal opinion. There is no legal reason why the mosque cannot/should not be built.

Everything else in my post was intended with good humor .. I ended up writing more by "not writing anything" than if I had just answered your post in the first place. :)
Sometimes it's hard to tell 'round these parts. ;) :lol:

.....

For the third time, this is the answer to your oh-so-critically-important question (which is really nothing more than a strawman in a very bad disguise):

No, I'm saying the same facts can be stated wrt both groups.

So far, the Radical Islamists are "winning" the damage race, but the Radical Christians have the advantage of a higher domestic population.

The "facts" referred to come from my post before that, where I mirrored Newt's description of fundamental Islam in the following manner:
....:

SO you still refuse to answer my question, “So .. are you saying In Your Opinion we should spend as much of our resources monitoring and protecting ourselves from the radical Christians as we do the Radical Islamists? Again .. why do you feel that way .. “ but instead continue to give your non-answers while proclaiming you did. Guess you take the people on here as idiots just like the politicians take the American people to be..

Like I said before ... when you decide to give your OPINIONS instead of just trying to discredit certain parts of other's post let me know ..

Have to admit .. you being an ex-lawyer shows. Never s straight answer.

I am only registering to post this one article which does a spectacular job in making the argument that Islam is not like other religions and should not be treated the same.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/30/sharia-in-a-first-amendment-society-2/print/

Good day.

Anyone able to cogently argue against his point?

SO you still refuse to answer my question, “So .. are you saying In Your Opinion we should spend as much of our resources monitoring and protecting ourselves from the radical Christians as we do the Radical Islamists? Again .. why do you feel that way .. “ but instead continue to give your non-answers while proclaiming you did. Guess you take the people on here as idiots just like the politicians take the American people to be..

Like I said before ... when you decide to give your OPINIONS instead of just trying to discredit certain parts of other's post let me know ..
How is "No," followed by an explanation not considered an "answer to your question"? :scratchh:

You asked me if I believed in a particular idea. I do not. I even offered up a competing idea in which I do believe.

Let me guess... the only way to give a "straight answer" to your question was to answer affirmatively. :rolleyes:

Is that Lawrence Welk I hear … and a 1 and a 2 … :sleepy:

Today, I was driving my 6-year old from her piano lesson back home when on our local NPR station the following story ran: Conservative Protestors Target Temecula Islamic Center (http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/07/30/mosque-protest/).

When the story got to the end of the statement from one of the protestors (“I don’t care for their religion, I don’t care for their politics and I do no want them here just like I do not want the illegal Hispanic people here, I don’t want ‘em,”), I switched off the radio, fearing that my daughter will pick it up.

But, I was too late. As soon as I switched it off, she asked, "why was that women saying mean things about Muslims?" I turned the radio back on and when the story finished talked to her about it. When I told her that some Muslims did bad things, she cut me off. "But we're not those people, why are they saying mean things about us?", she asked. I tried to answer all her questions and we went on to do other things.

After about half an hour, totally out of the blue, she asks, "dady, were those people who were saying mean things Christians?". I said yes, but they probably weren't good Christians. She agreed.

It's kind of sad to see that this topic is even being debated here.

It's kind of sad to see that this topic is even being debated here.

Why is that?

The local chapters of the ADL should band together and rid themselves of Abe Foxman.

ADL Takes Stand Against Ground Zero Mosque (http://wcbstv.com/local/ground.zero.mosque.2.1836337.html)

The nation's leading Jewish civil rights group is injecting itself into the heart of the debate, but probably not in the way you may think.

But -- its leaders say -- plans to build the mosque -- are simply wrong.

"Ultimately, this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right," the group said in a statement. "In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right."

The ADL said it rejects opposition to the center based on bigotry - but many Muslims say that's exactly what the organization is doing.

Don't forget people, the ADL has a history of supporting apartheid governments going back to South Africa.

Today, I was driving my 6-year old from her piano lesson back home when on our local NPR station the following story ran: Conservative Protestors Target Temecula Islamic Center (http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/07/30/mosque-protest/).

When the story got to the end of the statement from one of the protestors (“I don’t care for their religion, I don’t care for their politics and I do no want them here just like I do not want the illegal Hispanic people here, I don’t want ‘em,”), I switched off the radio, fearing that my daughter will pick it up.

But, I was too late. As soon as I switched it off, she asked, "why was that women saying mean things about Muslims?" I turned the radio back on and when the story finished talked to her about it. When I told her that some Muslims did bad things, she cut me off. "But we're not those people, why are they saying mean things about us?", she asked. I tried to answer all her questions and we went on to do other things.

After about half an hour, totally out of the blue, she asks, "dady, were those people who were saying mean things Christians?". I said yes, but they probably weren't good Christians. She agreed.


/thread for me

been subscribed to this thread since it was started

no reason to read any further

thank you Mr. Neo

thank you Mr. Neo

Yeppers. I'll be thinking about him when I whip up some breakfast for my kids this morning. :)

/thread for me

been subscribed to this thread since it was started

no reason to read any further

thank you Mr. Neo

Why because some girl got her feewings hurt?

Why because some girl got her feewings hurt?

Nope, because we just caught a glimpse of how our species might survive. In case you haven't noticed, the forecast is pretty bleak.

Nope, because we just caught a glimpse of how our species might survive. In case you haven't noticed, the forecast is pretty bleak.

I don't see the connection between our species' survival and a 6 year old girl's musings.

I don't see the connection between our species' survival and a 6 year old girl's musings.

The connection was not with the 6-year-old girl's musings but with the racist fascist and fascist racist who made the comment on radio about Muslims and "illegal Hispanics".

The connection was not with the 6-year-old girl's musings but with the racist fascist and fascist racist who made the comment on radio about Muslims and "illegal Hispanics".

Kumbaya my Lord Kumbaya!

Kumbaya my Lord Kumbaya!

im not religious ;)

The murders occurred as a response to our country's meddling in the middle east. Desperation of the peoples of the region combined with an extremist variant of Islam. If you look at the targets: the pentagon and the world trade center it's easy to see the targets were symbolic of "special interests" and the means the American government uses to protect them abroad.

These are the stated reasons for 9/11:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

To purport that the attacks are in the name of Islam is only partly true and does nothing to promote the change that will be needed in order to prevent future acts of extremism.

So if the families of the victims haven't been able to bother to research the motives of the people who killed their loved ones nearly 10 years enough not to be butt hurt by a Mosque then I do not feel sorry for them one bit.

Christian American politicians have been enacting policies that kill vast numbers compared to those who died on 9/11. Should I fault Christianity for the actions of a relative handful of it's followers?

And I guarantee a Mosque near ground zero will show the utmost respect come 9/11.
This is the most disgusting attempt at blaming the victims I have ever heard. If Muslims have problems with American culture, let them discuss their problems in a civilized manner for all the world to understand and debate. Murdering civilians while they are innocently working to provide for their families in order to make some sort of statement about culture or politics is SICKENING. These Islamic terrorists have no regard for human life. That Muslims, both foreign and domestic, are silent and make no denouncement of the inhumanity of terrorism speaks VOLUMES about the nature of their culture and quite frankly proves that they have no logical leg of superior civilization to stand on.

This is the most disgusting attempt at blaming the victims I have ever heard. If Muslims have problems with American culture, let them discuss their problems in a civilized manner for all the world to understand and debate. Murdering civilians while they are innocently working to provide for their families in order to make some sort of statement about culture or politics is SICKENING. These Islamic terrorists have no regard for human life. That Muslims, both foreign and domestic, are silent and make no denouncement of the inhumanity of terrorism speaks VOLUMES about the nature of their culture and quite frankly proves that they have no logical leg of superior civilization to stand on.

Great post in response - totally spot on.

This is the most disgusting attempt at blaming the victims I have ever heard. If Muslims have problems with American culture, let them discuss their problems in a civilized manner for all the world to understand and debate. Murdering civilians while they are innocently working to provide for their families in order to make some sort of statement about culture or politics is SICKENING. These Islamic terrorists have no regard for human life. That Muslims, both foreign and domestic, are silent and make no denouncement of the inhumanity of terrorism speaks VOLUMES about the nature of their culture and quite frankly proves that they have no logical leg of superior civilization to stand on.

Yes, you are right, what percentage of Christians tacitly supported Eric Rudolph or James Kopp? Negligible.

This is the most disgusting attempt at blaming the victims I have ever heard. If Muslims have problems with American culture, let them discuss their problems in a civilized manner for all the world to understand and debate.

Just don't let them do it in downtown Manhattan.

Murdering civilians while they are innocently working to provide for their families in order to make some sort of statement about culture or politics is SICKENING. These Islamic terrorists have no regard for human life. That Muslims, both foreign and domestic, are silent and make no denouncement of the inhumanity of terrorism speaks VOLUMES about the nature of their culture and quite frankly proves that they have no logical leg of superior civilization to stand on.
Why are you under the impression that foreign and domestic Muslims are silent and do not denounce terrorism? :dontknow:

Yes, you are right, what percentage of Christians tacitly supported Eric Rudolph or James Kopp? Negligible.
What percentage of American Muslims tacticly support bin Laden?

From the FrontPage mag article linked to earlier:

It shouldn’t work that way, of course: people ought to be able to make distinctions. It ought to be obvious that Christianity poses far less of a threat to our society than does Islam.

Any bets as to the religion of the author of the article? ;)

It ought to be obvious that such claims of obviousness are a logical fallacy.

If the main goal of a religion is the subjugation of all other religions and governments, along with the establishment of a totalitarian legal system, then it seems legitimate to restrict the free exercise of that religion.
Why would it be "legitimate" to restrict the free exercise of religions that advocate theocracy?

Yes, theocracy is the opposite of our secular form of govt. Just as a dictatorship would be the opposite of our democratic form of govt. Should we restrict the free exercise of religious and/or political ideologies that advocate for a dictatorship? What about socialism?

Is it illegal to advocate for the removal of the current system of govt? :shake: Do you think it should be?

Whether Islam is a political ideology or a hybrid of religion and political ideology may not matter for practical purposes. If it is a religion that aims to impose a system of laws that will end freedom of religion and freedom of speech, it seems to disqualify itself from protection by the First Amendment.
Again, why?

Why is speech that advocates the removal of freedom of speech "disqualified"? Just because something is a bad idea -- or even hypocritical -- doesn't mean it should be censored by the govt.

Moreover, one of the main purposes of the First Amendment is to prohibit the government from establishing a state religion. But the main purpose of Islam is precisely to establish itself as the state religion.
How exactly is the author of this op-ed qualified to determine "the main purpose of Islam"?

Have American Muslims displayed any legitimate, unifed attempts at establishing it as the state religion? :look:

In other words, the First Amendment is un-Islamic. Islam’s raison d´etre is to be the established religion in every nation.
Do not some Christians share the same goal?

Even if true, so? The First Amend protects all kinds of nasty, "un-American" speech. It was never designed to protect the popular, widely-accepted ideas. There's no reason to protect those. The First Amend was designed to protect *minority* ideas and expressions, so as to not be silenced by the tyranny of the majority.