Obama For Mosque at Ground Zero

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by DAII

We can argue about the Constitutionality of a million issues in the past but this one is CLEAR CUT. We expect the office to uphold the Constitution and in this case it does and the zealots go bananas.

Now the litmus test is what others do - the Germans, the Japanese, et al and our "emotions".

We're not the French! Remember that argument?

Perhaps we should re-examine the Churches built near Indian reservations and near massacre grounds in order to Christianize the "savages"?

If this were a Church being rejected by our nation's leader on the Trail of Tears because it is not "wise" to offend ...? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Really? Don't argue for "strict constructionism" any more when the next Supreme Court appointee rolls around when the President uses it to guide his opinion ... because you don't give a rat's lass' tail about the Constitution.

All this talk about betrayal and our mores .... where were the kool-aid drinkers when the last Christian President lied to us and said we needed to nation build because some non-religious despot had WMDs while committing our troops to bloodshed, killing of innocents under the banner of "collateral damage" and betraying the trust we've worked so hard to garner from our allies? ....

Your brand of constitutionalism only applies to your asinine agendas.

Timlan nailed it when he remarked on FB today ... about the Christian "right" who would mix their Christianity and spiritualize politics like any radical Islamic fundamentalist ...

"Oh yeah, the right is like a bunch of greased pigs on this one. You can't pin them down. Someone was saying that "Saudi Arabia does not allow churches" so we should shut down mosques. Yeah, that's what we should aspire to, I guess, being a fundamentalist religious theocracy instead of a constitutional republic. Great logic."

Liberty is not a la carte.

So, Dan, we should not resist evil, simply because some Christians somewhere have not been Christlike?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by DAII

We can argue about the Constitutionality of a million issues in the past but this one is CLEAR CUT. We expect the office to uphold the Constitution and in this case it does and the zealots go bananas.

Now the litmus test is what others do - the Germans, the Japanese, et al and our "emotions".

We're not the French! Remember that argument?

Perhaps we should re-examine the Churches built near Indian reservations and near massacre grounds in order to Christianize the "savages"?

If this were a Church being rejected by our nation's leader on the Trail of Tears because it is not "wise" to offend ...? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Really? Don't argue for "strict constructionism" any more when the next Supreme Court appointee rolls around when the President uses it to guide his opinion ... because you don't give a rat's lass' tail about the Constitution.

All this talk about betrayal and our mores .... where were the kool-aid drinkers when the last Christian President lied to us and said we needed to nation build because some non-religious despot had WMDs while committing our troops to bloodshed, killing of innocents under the banner of "collateral damage" and betraying the trust we've worked so hard to garner from our allies? ....

Your brand of constitutionalism only applies to your asinine agendas.

Timlan nailed it when he remarked on FB today ... about the Christian "right" who would mix their Christianity and spiritualize politics like any radical Islamic fundamentalist ...

"Oh yeah, the right is like a bunch of greased pigs on this one. You can't pin them down. Someone was saying that "Saudi Arabia does not allow churches" so we should shut down mosques. Yeah, that's what we should aspire to, I guess, being a fundamentalist religious theocracy instead of a constitutional republic. Great logic."

Liberty is not a la carte.

Sorry but I just didn't see it as the president upholding the constitution. I saw it as a case of brown nosing not just to American Muslims but internationally.

Is he equal in his brown nosing? Apparently not when it comes to the boy scouts or the Christians on National Day of Prayer, but it was ok to kiss butt on Ramadan.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by DAII

We can argue about the Constitutionality of a million issues in the past but this one is CLEAR CUT. We expect the office to uphold the Constitution and in this case it does and the zealots go bananas.

Now the litmus test is what others do - the Germans, the Japanese, et al and our "emotions".

We're not the French! Remember that argument?

Perhaps we should re-examine the Churches built near Indian reservations and near massacre grounds in order to Christianize the "savages"?

If this were a Church being rejected by our nation's leader on the Trail of Tears because it is not "wise" to offend ...? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Really? Don't argue for "strict constructionism" any more when the next Supreme Court appointee rolls around when the President uses it to guide his opinion ... because you don't give a rat's lass' tail about the Constitution.

All this talk about betrayal and our mores .... where were the kool-aid drinkers when the last Christian President lied to us and said we needed to nation build because some non-religious despot had WMDs while committing our troops to bloodshed, killing of innocents under the banner of "collateral damage" and betraying the trust we've worked so hard to garner from our allies? ....

Your brand of constitutionalism only applies to your asinine agendas.

Timlan nailed it when he remarked on FB today ... about the Christian "right" who would mix their Christianity and spiritualize politics like any radical Islamic fundamentalist ...

"Oh yeah, the right is like a bunch of greased pigs on this one. You can't pin them down. Someone was saying that "Saudi Arabia does not allow churches" so we should shut down mosques. Yeah, that's what we should aspire to, I guess, being a fundamentalist religious theocracy instead of a constitutional republic. Great logic."

Liberty is not a la carte.

Dan, I agree that Muslims have a right to build a mosque or whatever they are calling it wherever they want as long as it complies with building codes and zoning regulations. I think most of us agree with that. I saw poll numbers some where that show that most Americans would agree with that.

I think that what has angered many is that they think (right or wrong) that the Muslims are doing this as an "in your face" memorial to their victory against the great satan in which they killed so many "infidels." Is this their intent? I don't know. I can't see inside their hearts. Some people think that the Muslims should be more considerate of people's feelings.

As far as letting them build a mosque here when Saudi Arabia lets Christians build churches there, that is not the spirit we are supposed to exhibit. Aren't we better than they?

As far as weapons of mass destruction, well, it is my understanding that according to the best intelligence available at the time, it was thought that there were weapons in Iraq. I think we (the U.S.) was acting on the best data available at the time.

Should we have gone into Iraq? Well, that's a whole different question. Some think we should have and some think we should not have. I can't answer that one.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I gotcha... I understand.

I was just asking about the word "moral" that someone else brought up. I took it to be an ethical thing, and I'm trying to understand the unethical part of it. I truly am. One could argue distasteful? Provocative?

I think those who threw a fit at first word of this lose credibility. Those who held out judgement to get the "full story," learned more about the Imam, funding, etc have a right to be skeptical and emotional. The former group has only shown a deep-seeded Islamaphobia.

Im sure someone see's it as unethical. Distasteful? Yes I think so. Provocative? Now, given the Imam behind this I would certainly say provocative though their spokesperson denies it.

I would not tend to believe them now unless they offered some sort of compromise to the groups represented on the other side and perhaps build it a couple more blocks away.

BTW did they ever provide a reason for why it needs to be there? Is there a high Islamic population living in the area?

I think most of the people upset before the part of the Imam got out have a right to be more emotional about the whole thing than we do. They live there and their family members died there. Maybe they feel about them the way military families feel about the Phelps clan arriving at a funeral to protest it?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's close enough for New Yorkers to be upset about it. To many of them it's an "in your face" statement by these Muslims

The fact of the Imam in charge just reinforces the feelings that this is a "in your face" facet of "Silent Jihad" many are concerned about besides the NYorkers and family members of those that lost their lives just being reminded of the "Violant Jihad" that occured on 9/11

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Prax, the up-in-arms tizzy started wayyyyyy before any of them knew the Imam, knew his thoughts, etc.... It's fair for those who withheld judgement until knowing all the info, but many people just had a knee jerk emotional reaction that grouped all Muslims into the 9/11 suspects. Unfair and is more of an indictment on them.

This particular "Iman" came out right after 9/11 and said that the attacks were the work of "the Jews." He said that there was "no way" Muslims could have done this. Later, he said it was all the fault of the United States.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2462

9/11 is to blamed on "the Jews." When that doesn't work, he blames it on the United States. And now, the State Department pays for this guy's to airline tickets to raise money in the Islamic world to build center for the conversion of the American people to Islam.

http://stopthe911mosque.com/2010/08/...t-ground-zero/

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot....-our-dime.html

And the thing about Muslim "clergy" - they all pretty much are educated on the same level as Lee Stoneking's "doctorates" and "adjutant faculty" nonsense. To be an "Iman" all one has to do is to declare themselves to be an "Iman."

If someone in the Islamic world with the moral stature of a King Abdulla II of Jordan were to back some sort of "Muslim cultural center" in Manhattan, I might even visit the place and respectfully review its exhibits.

But when an apologist of terrorists like Iman Rauf uses US taxpayer dollars to pay for his fundraising trips for this "mosque," I'm a bit concerned.

And Baron, help me out here... The First Amendment applies to and protects those citizens of the United States who choose to seek after spiritual and religious ends. Right?

Does the First Amendment apply to foreign governments and foreign NGO's who want to build outreach centers for proselytizing? Isn't this all just another example of government getting too involved in religion?

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by pelathais

This particular "Iman" came out right after 9/11 and said that the attacks were the work of "the Jews." He said that there was "no way" Muslims could have done this. Later, he said it was all the fault of the United States.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2462

9/11 is to blamed on "the Jews." When that doesn't work, he blames it on the United States. And now, the State Department pays for this guy's to airline tickets to raise money in the Islamic world to build center for the conversion of the American people to Islam.

http://stopthe911mosque.com/2010/08/...t-ground-zero/

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot....-our-dime.html

And the thing about Muslim "clergy" - they all pretty much are educated on the same level as Lee Stoneking's "doctorates" and "adjutant faculty" nonsense. To be an "Iman" all one has to do is to declare themselves to be an "Iman."

If someone in the Islamic world with the moral stature of a King Abdulla II of Jordan were to back some sort of "Muslim cultural center" in Manhattan, I might even visit the place and respectfully review its exhibits.

But when an apologist of terrorists like Iman Rauf uses US taxpayer dollars to pay for his fundraising trips for this "mosque," I'm a bit concerned.

And Baron, help me out here... The First Amendment applies to and protects those citizens of the United States who choose to seek after spiritual and religious ends. Right?

Does the First Amendment apply to foreign governments and foreign NGO's who want to build outreach centers for proselytizing? Isn't this all just another example of government getting too involved in religion?