Obama For Mosque at Ground Zero

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by DAII

Backpedaling how? ... EXACTLY my point .... he gave his comments on the Constitutionality is what he sought to clarify to the reporter... It is your side that wants him to not decide on the constitutionality but on the "wisdom".

His oath is to the Constitution ... remember?

PO your on the side of hormonal emotionalism on this one.

Sought to clarify is backpeddling. Come on. He made his statement to a room full of Muslims at the beginning of Ramadan...not to a room full of reporters. His oath does not require him to say anything. This was a statement of opinion not a legal decision.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Now, Obama is correct. But as I said before, that is beside the point. Nobody argues they don't have a right based purely on the fact that they are a religion and it's 2 blocks from ground zero. There may be other laws though, zoning laws, that do actually forbid churches or mosques from being built in certain areas.

The constitution does not protect the building of mosques or churches anywhere one wants.

This is about a group of citizens who don't want the mosque that close and a larger group that are concerned NOW about a religion but about a segment of that religion that the Imam involved seem to support. Look at the bigger picture Dan.

As an American we have just as much a right to oppose that Imam and their plan than they do to build a mosque here in America.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

If we are so big into this freedom deal, would we let BP build a fuel tank farm there? Nothing illegal about fuel.
The Muslims are unable to have a Mosque for religion and no more. They use them as safe harbors for terrorists and other political and non religious uses.
If the Amish wanted a church there I say OK. If Amish used their churches for guerilla training and lodging, I say no.

Again it's NOT an issue of constitutionality but local laws. Apparently there are no local laws that prevent them building the mosque, but due to zoning laws Im sure there is a reason BP can't planht a fuel tank farm, whatever that is

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by DAII

It doesn't matter ... they're all saved and if they achieve their "agenda" ... we'd be saved as Muslims in your theology ... Politically you don't match up ... Your generalizations about all Muslims can be said about all Christians, Crakjak ... and still be ignant.

Again, classic liberal response!! Change the subject and personally attack the opposition!

The subject is not about whether Muslims will eventually be saved, it is about American government doing their job to keep our enemies from infiltrating. Which, BTW, it has done a sorry job of doing. While Obama, opines about the NYC mosque, and apologizes for US past polices of strength. He is a neophyte, that is bedazzled by old leftover liberal terrorists from the 1960's.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

He shouldn't but never underestimate the Republicans ability to shoot themselves in the foot and grab defeat from the jaws of victory. Usually in the form of McCain with some damaging sound bite at the worst possible moment.

Sadly, that's always been the Dems' "ace up their sleeve." Republicans have an incredible gift for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

There isn't a Supreme Court .... even with CONSERVATIVE judges in all nine slots that would disagree ... whether your appeals to emotionalism and blatant conjecture as to HIS MOTIVE.

They have the CONSTITUTIONAL right, Prax and any high-falutin, sophomoric argumentation he has butt smelling fetish is just Praxeas being Praxeas ... and perhaps some repressed desire.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Dan,

Your comparisons are stupid, as heretical as you may think me to be, I am not threatening to blow folks up. Again you behave as a typical liberal, attacking the person because your position is untenable!!!

My democracy and freedom has stood the test of time, show me one Muslim country that has freedom?? Surely you don't prefer the Islamic brand of freedom. To speak nothing of Osama Bin Laden.

No ... your doctrine has a heightened threat element. You'd endanger their eternity with your theological foolishness.

The Church of Jesus Christ thrives in persecution ... as history time after time shows ... I'm not glorifying it or encouraging such it... simply stating a reality ...

but in the end, if your ignant musings were true THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS and are biding in the shadows for their megalomaniac ambitions to take over the world ... than we'd might be in store for THE BIGGEST REVIVAL IN HUMAN HISTORY

[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?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

No ... your doctrine has a heightened threat element. You'd endanger their eternity with your theological foolishness.

The Church of Jesus Christ thrives in persecution ... as history time after time shows ... I'm not glorifying it or encouraging such it... simply stating a reality ...

but in the end, if your ignant musings were true THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS and biding in the shadows for their megalomaniac ambitions to take over the world ... than we'd might be in store for THE BIGGEST REVIVAL IN HUMAN HISTORY

I missed the post where Crackerjack said that (bolded above).

And again, the First Amendment applies to US citizens, not to foreign agents seeking to proselytize. If there was enough interest among American Muslims to build this "mosque", then that's one thing. The fact that the funds are being raised overseas indicates that this is a foreign project and NOT protected by all of the guarantees of freedom that we have as Americans living in America.

Why don't you try and build a church in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia where the majority of this money is being raised?

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by crakjak

By a casual review of his history and rhetoric.

The Muslims have one underlying objective, and that is to establish Islam in the whole world. And the fact is, they are aggressively pursuing that goal, and by not recognizing this fact, and resisting this pursuit we facilitate the same.

My virtue is not the issue in this discussion, so by attacking my person, serves to make you look like a liberal that loves feely, touchy, but lacks the moral courage to stand against glaring evil in our world. Islam is truly the current wolf in sheep's clothing, radical Islam is the wolf.

Wait a minute....isn't that what YOU and every other person, pretty much, on this forum wants to do with Christianity? You want to, they want to.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Typical liberal, diatribe, don't like the message so attack the person. Your arrogance is topped only by your boldness.

False comparison, none of your examples are engaged in terrorist on a broad scale.

But liberals are always, first liberal, everything else is secondary.

BTW: Most universities are hotbeds for liberals, so we could do without most of them and the country would be better served.

Your generalization makes it sound as if every Muslim is a terrorist. I find that offensive and dangerous.