The Mosque Should Be Built!

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

We're not Israel and our Kingdom is not of this world.
This is not about Christianity vs Islam at the core. This is about rights of an American private citizen.

Conservatives want the Constitution to mean something? This situation is the perfect opportunity.

Jermyn, how about actually commenting on the point I made. I did not say we are a theocracy, or that a theocracy even exists today. In fact, I don't believe there will ever be another theocracy, until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

At the same time, we promote (which is exactly what we do by making it as easy as pie for pagans to set up religous shop on our soil) paganism and idolatry when we refuse to stand for the things of God.

You should consider your name sake. Jeremiah the Prophet. He wrote a book that shouldn't be altogether divorced from this discussion.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It's a big deal because we are talking about private property.

It would be very bad if this gets reversed, somehow-- bad and unfair.


I am terribly offended (and justifiably so) at the display of the "Stars and Bars"-- WHERE WILL IT END?

David Childs Is doin the tower design.
Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava is doing the rail terminal
Larry Silverstein Leased the Ground Zero land and towers from the NY Port authority in 2000
The Muslims do not own the land for sure. The Port Authority owns the dirt and the rail etc structure underneath these buildings. I can name several players that can nix the Muslim conquest. I can also name a few the major one of which is Silverstein that has to approve of it. If a few don't want a deal, they can borrow some lines out of Trumps handbook and let their attorneys take a close look at it.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Really? When is the last time anyone in this coutry with any type of media sway had something good to say about Chrisianity. Everything is geared toward tearing down Biblical Christianity, all the while telling us how "peaceful" the muslims are.


Your absolutely correct. It isn't a mode of evangelism, and it is simply ceremonial and token. However it is supposed to show where our nations allegience is. I believe that we have been blessed because as a people we have been a Chrisitan nation. I know, I know there has been wickedness in America, even amongst leaders, and unbelief, even amongst some of the founding fathers. I didn't say were a theocracy, so please understand the point I'm making before coming up with your counter-point.

America, even with all of its problems, still is one of the leading Christian nations on this earth.


Agreed again, symbolism has no power in redemption. And again, my point wasn't that saying the pledge of allegience converts the heathen.

However by its very definition symbolism symbolizes something, and those sybolisms that I mentioned symbolize that this is supposed to be One Nation Under God. Not just any God, but under the God of the Bible, namely Jesus Christ.

Having a form of godlineness, has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. But could fit in with some other discussions on AFF .



Yes, and I do understand that is a completely radical statement. I think this is a microcosm of whats wrong with christianity in America. We no longer hate what God hates and love what God loves.

WE should not (and in reality cannot) force anyone to be a christian. If they want to be an athiest, if they want to be a pagan, fine. But we should never support (I dare say promote) false religion. If they want to unbelieve, let them unbelieve, but we dont need to help them build multi million centers for unbelief.




What? We agree?

I knew that Mr. Smith wasn't a bad guy, just a bit "outspoken"


This current post also responds to this post, which I saw after typing this:

Why bother. I've come to realize that you and I are on different planets. I don't think I can help you. If you give a hoot in hades about the ten commandments in the courtroom, sayings on currency, prayer in the schools, "Under God" in the pledge, where mosques are built, if you are opposed to all mosques in general, if you think this is a Christian nation built on the principles of the bible, and are bothered by the societal tendency to undermine Christianity, then you're focused on the wrong stuff.

I'm gonna stick with Jesus' plan of redemption and radically spread His grace that has ravaged my soul, and let the dollar bills take care of themselves.

Have it your way. Go join the Christian Coalition and make sure no one listens to AC/DC. Have fun fighting a completely worthless war.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Why bother. I've come to realize that you and I are on different planets. I don't think I can help you. If you give a hoot in hades about the ten commandments in the courtroom, sayings on currency, prayer in the schools, "Under God" in the pledge, where mosques are built, if you are opposed to all mosques in general, if you think this is a Christian nation built on the principles of the bible, and are bothered by the societal tendency to undermine Christianity, then you're focused on the wrong stuff.

I'm gonna stick with Jesus' plan of redemption and radically spread His grace that has ravaged my soul, and let the dollar bills take care of themselves.

Have it your way. Go join the Christian Coalition and make sure no one listens to AC/DC. Have fun fighting a completely worthless war.

...and your point is????????

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by coadie

...and your point is????????

Did someone rattle your cage? I wasn't talking to you.

[simplyme]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Two opposing views so far, neither very good at all. Anyone else? It seems the best anyone can say in opposition to it is, "Because I don't like it!!" which could easily be YOUR church the next time YOU want to build.

Just remember, there are plenty of people out there with power who have no use for you aisle-running, pew-jumping, devil-bashing tongue-talkers.

If you can't say something nice..then just don't..you know..what your momma told you., (or not).

[Liberal]

It's abundantly clear, here, that many folks here believe that righteousness can be legislated. I'm appalled at the notion that political activism positively impacts the cause of Christ. There isn't anything in the New Testament that encourages us, as Followers, to care one way or the other if our government is propagating godliness, nor is there any instruction to seek silly token symbolic gestures, such as "In God We Trust", on our money.

I see and hear so many talk about the power of the Holy Ghost. Do you all trust the Spirit to lead people to righteousness or do you need law to help?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

David Childs Is doin the tower design.
Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava is doing the rail terminal
Larry Silverstein Leased the Ground Zero land and towers from the NY Port authority in 2000
The Muslims do not own the land for sure. The Port Authority owns the dirt and the rail etc structure underneath these buildings. I can name several players that can nix the Muslim conquest. I can also name a few the major one of which is Silverstein that has to approve of it. If a few don't want a deal, they can borrow some lines out of Trumps handbook and let their attorneys take a close look at it.

Isn't the site of the proposed mosque on property once leased to Burlington Coat Factory? I don't know who the owner was. Silverstein's lease only includes the Port Authority owned land where the Twin Towers stood (and the Towers themselves along with adjacent structures).

The proposed mosque site is a couple of blocks away from Silverstein's lease. It is however, still a part of "Ground Zero." The building was damaged and left derelict by the terrorist attacks. Human remains of the victims were recovered from what is now the "mosque site."

No "Dawa" (a call to convert to Islam) is appropriate on any land destroyed or left derelict and unusable by the terrorists on 9/11. Constructing a mosque on the site where victims were recovered is inappropriate as well.

No one is being kept from building a mosque. The only argument involves the location.

A Chicago mosque was denied a site that the local Chamber of Commerce deemed should be used for commercial redevelopment to benefit the whole community. The fact that about 1/3 of the Chamber of Commerce members were Muslim themselves made this a non-issue.

Wanting to relocate the site of a mosque development doesn't make one a "bigot," NOT EVEN coadie.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Isn't the site of the proposed mosque on property once leased to Burlington Coat Factory? I don't know who the owner was. Silverstein's lease only includes the Port Authority owned land where the Twin Towers stood (and the Towers themselves along with adjacent structures).

The proposed mosque site is a couple of blocks away from Silverstein's lease. It is however, still a part of "Ground Zero." The building was damaged and left derelict by the terrorist attacks. Human remains of the victims were recovered from what is now the "mosque site."

No "Dawa" (a call to convert to Islam) is appropriate on any land destroyed or left derelict and unusable by the terrorists on 9/11. Constructing a mosque on the site where victims were recovered is inappropriate as well.

No one is being kept from building a mosque. The only argument involves the location.

A Chicago mosque was denied a site that the local Chamber of Commerce deemed should be used for commercial redevelopment to benefit the whole community. The fact that about 1/3 of the Chamber of Commerce members were Muslim themselves made this a non-issue.

Wanting to relocate the site of a mosque development doesn't make one a "bigot," NOT EVEN coadie.

If one's opposition to one's occupation of an area is based solely on one's religion, race, or gender, that seems to be fairly bigoted to me.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Liberal

If one's opposition to one's occupation of an area is based solely on one's religion, race, or gender, that seems to be fairly bigoted to me.

Building a place expressly for the purpose of "celebrating" and continuing (Dawa) the work of the 9/11 terrorists "in the rubble" (Imam Rauf's words!) of the terrorist's destruction is not only bigoted, it opens up the developers to charges of plotting genocide.

If they want to "continue" Osama bin Laden's "Dawa" ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcTt3Ti5hJI

... "on American soil" - then it is a call to fight. Or, a call to surrender and convert to Islam. You do get to chose. Convert or die. In some cases, our women and children will be allowed the pay the tax and serve under dhimmitude. This is how Fundamentalism translates in the religion of Islam.

Osama bin Laden explains the terrorist attacks here: http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007...ils_emerge.php

Click on either the "One Minute video clip" or the PDF document and read it. The video link will automatically download a small Windows Media file so watch for that. The file plays locally and not on the web site. What bin Laden is doing here is called "Dawah." He is so careful to do this because there is no other justification for his murders in the Holy Book of Islam, the Quran. He may only kill the infidels after he has performed "Dawah." So, he repeats it over and over again.

Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and Adam Gadahn also known as "Azzam the American" have all called on America to submit and to join Islam. Because we have refused they have made war against us. This call to submit is known as "Dawah." It is the "peaceful" invitation that proceeds the violent clash.

The builder of the mosque in lower Manhattan has described his efforts as being a "Dawah from the Rubble of the WTC."

This is the cover of his fundraising appeal to fellow Muslims in sharia controlled Malaysia:



http://www.stopshariahnow.org/index....-eds&Itemid=76

It is simply inappropriate to threaten the American people with violence if they refuse to join your religion. Calling those who stand up to the threats of violence "bigots" is just backward. The mosque builders are the bigots. Just visit the places Imam Faud has gone to raise funds for this edifice - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Malaysia. All oil rich and all have active prohibitions against building churches, synagogues and temples of any kind on their soil. Just being a non-Muslim in Saudi Arabia will get you killed if you're not careful to stay in the "Westerners allowed" areas. And, "Liberal" - we must be tolerant of that kind of intolerance or else we're the bigots? Riiiight!

Why do you think even many of their fellow Muslims reject this location?

Check out this Manhattan mosque's web site:

http://masjidmanhattan.org/