this issue is not about “freedom of religion” which Muslims already exercise….New York has many mosques….
this is the issue of “zoning” or “special privilege” and whether the Islamic religion in whose name the 9/11/01 murder of 3,000 American victims was done, should be allowed to build a VICTORY SHRINE.
There should be only an American People’s Memorial on that site, but if any religion is illustrated, it should be strictly the Judeo-Christian faith that founded our nation in 1787.
the Muslim leading this “coup” for Islamic Triumph over infidels, has many documented ties to Terrorist organizations, and has published his plans for taking over the USA by imposing Shar’ia Law to replace our constitutional LAW.
Kensurg, do you really think the far-right christian fundies like Palin, Limbaugh and Gingrich would protest a christian center?
Baslim, what you’re suggesting is a government involvement in religious expression. That has traditionally been decided to be unconstitutional. Are you suggesting it’s time to abandon the separation between state and church? Should the city instead say that a Muslim center can’t be built a few blocks from ground zero, but a christian center could?
This not a “Ground Zero Mosque,” as Fox News likes to proclaim - this is an Islamic center intended to create peaceful interaction among different faiths. Identifying it with Osama bin Laden makes just as much sense as identifying the local Episcopalian church with English burning of Roman Catholics, or Catholic Churches with the Crusades against Islam. There are many voices in Islam as there are in Christianity.
And disgustedtaxpayer, we had no such “Judeo-Christian faith” among our founders. That usage is modern, and false. Jews were actively discriminated against in English lands. Also, the First Amendment makes it terribly clear that the government is to make NO law respecting the establishment of religion – not “a” religion, as the conservatives claim, but ANY religion at all.
Oh, yeah, and it isn’t on Ground Zero, either. Sheesh.
If it were at the place of the collapsed towers, sure, it would be improper and offensive. But two blocks away (which is as accurate a distance as I have found - has anyone have the exact distance in mils or kilometers?) is not the same as “ground zero”. How far away WOULD one be allowed to build such a centre, then?
“There should be only an American Memorial on that site, and if any religion is illustrated, it should be strictly the Judeo-Christian faith that founded our nation in 1787.”
Can you point out where the Constitution mentions Judeo-Christian?
And what is an “American Memorial”? Oh yeah, you mean Judeo-Christian… back to my first question.
^ Lib, using Heller as an example, I was looking at the whole second amendment, not ignoring the militia part like the court did. I don’t see that indicates “hating”, but rather more “embracing”. Motive gave a good analysis of Disgusted’s position, above.
baslim: “It’s a question of incitement, like putting a gay bar next to a redneck bar.”
That would perhaps be unwise on the part of the owners of the gay bar (as perhaps would be putting a Toyota dealership next door to an American Legion hall), but it’s certainly not something that should be forbidden them. It seems like the reverse would more likely be a case of “looking for trouble.”
There you are alone as even the 4 “liberal” justices have ruled that the RKBA is an individual right not a group right. That is settled but you can still fight it. I do re 10th Amendment and states/federal rights.
Yeah, we’ve pretty much hashed that to death, Lib. It’s not something I wish to fight, but it’s still my feeling that the militia phrase was put there for a reason. If it’s purely an individual right, then the militia phrase could be deleted without changing the meaning…which is what the Supremes did, I guess…just ignored it.
It’s private property. It’s sort of funny but mostly disgusting to hear these conservatives argue that Muslims should not be allowed to do whatever they want with their own land. And how do they feel about eminent domain for any other purpose? What a bunch of hypocrites.
If you wish to defend private property I am there with you. I find it ironic the 4 liberals on the Supreme Court in Kelo said it was perfectly acceptable to take a private home from a woman and give it to a private corporation. That is hypocritical.
I recall reading multiple cases where people lost their homes to eminent domain, where the good of the community was defined as turning it over to corporations (usually major retailers).
With the increasing power being given to corporations, I’d expect we’ll be seeing more and more of this.
“What if Constantin’s mother had an interest in Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? Zoroastrianism was pretty deep compared to pagan faiths. I mean, don’t look for a clone of christianity in it, but it’s deeper than paganism…
Jews would have been forcibly converted, like all other religions (medieval christians only tolerated them because Jesus was a jew), Islam, was still going to be invented, would be radically different…
But eventually, Zoroastrianism would have been dumbed down also. That’s what inevitably happen when you forcibly convert people. People who are not ready, or simply not worthy of the ideas of that religion pretend to call themselves devout (and zealot ones!) just so they can be close to power or simply stay alive and end up having a bad influence.
Same thing happened to Islam; religion and power don’t mix. When you offer people enlightenment or salvation, nothing else should come with it.
the Judeo-Christian heritage comes from the ONE BIBLE that includes the Old Testament plus the New Testament.
It is our heritage in the USA, if you read all the important writings from the revolutionary times. Because the Founders were sons of refugees from European “state church” nations, with no tolerance for dissenting Bible believers, they deliberately made our constitution open to freedom of religion, along with freedom of speech and all the other freedoms enumerated. They thus avoided an USA “state church”…which nowadays the Atheists claim by revising and reversing our Christian-friendly-to-Judaism roots. (did any of you hecklers know that a Jewish banker saved our Revolution with funding?)
There is ONE FAITH in the ONE GOD all through the Bible.
I love the constitution and our freedoms….but I don’t accept a thoughtless and imprudent application of total freedom, in all cases….speech cannot be allowed for certain harmful purposes, and religion does not give freedom for any faith to do whatever it wishes, anywhere it wishes.
Christian organizations face more and more restrictive government controls.
Christians did not plan and carry out a Jihad that killed 3,000 innocents at the Manhattan site of the WTC destruction! Christians and Jews do not do “Jihad” at all.
the Muslim Koran teaches such lies as Allah created whites destined for paradise and blacks destined for H—; Mohammad wrote that blacks were “ugly” and “raisin heads” and “pug-nosed slaves”….but our president claims that Islam is “advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
He should watch the continuous daily news of Islam in action since 1979 all around the world….suicide murders, bombings, head-loppings, etc…..the mistreatment and abuse of women, wives and daughters of Muslims….the lack of “human rights” of people of their own countries.
tony, show us the exact quote from the constitution setting a “separation of church and state”….with the obvious meaning Liberals use, to separate the church from the state, but not vice versa.
It is not in the constituion.
it is a perverted, lying claim based on a private letter written to answer a question sent him by Baptists….and even Thomas Jefferson, the letter writer, did not imply that the church has no freedom of speech to petition government for a cause!
It is a total straw demon, to claim that the one-way “separation” is demanded by law!
Disgusted, we don’t live directly under the Constitution. Since Marbury v Madison, we live under the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Constitution.
And to a fair degree, the separation of church and state has been upheld in those rulings.
As for your “Christians and Jews do not do “Jihad” at all”, since jihad specifically applies to Islam, all that shows is that you have a keen grasp of the obvious.
300,000 plus dead in Iraq and Afghanistan does equal a “Christian Jihad”. The “Crusades” were a CHRISTIAN JIHAD! Jericho and other communities way back when were a Hebrew “Jihad”.
dt constantly misquotes, well, just plain lies, about what Mohammed and Islam say- but accuracy doesn’t count when worshiping the “one God”- who happens to be the EXACT SAME GOD OF ABRAHAM worshiped by Jew, Christian, AND Muslim. Mohammed was much more egalitarian than any Jewish text, and WAY more tolerant than fundamentalists, either Christian, OR modern Muslim.
The “Indian Wars” in America were the worst form of “jihad”- which means “struggle”- and the people who had the higher moral standards, lost.
Not being encumbered by the intolerance, hatred, and xenophobia of that “one god”– gives one a larger, kinder, and yet more wary view of all those hung up on a mythical being that destroys everything in the name of “claiming” it.
The “Heller” who put his finger on our society wasn’t suing about gun rights, he wrote “Catch 22”- and recognized the insanity of our culture as “the norm”.
It’s not on ground zero,
it’s not a mosque,
there is a mosque four blocks away that’s been there for many years,
and we have freedom of religion in this country!
Support the Constitution.
Outlaw bigotry and fear mongering.
Outlaw the Republican party.
disgusted, here you go: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That’s where church and state are separated. NO LAW that respects the establishment of any kind of religion, be it “Judeo-Christian” (a term developed by Christians) or not.
By the way, Islam accepts the whole of the Old Testament AND considers Jesus a prophet near in wisdom to Mohammed. Whaddya know!
motive, just “near in wisdom”? My understanding of Muslim teachings on Isa is that, like Moses (I forget his Muslim name) and the others, he lived and preached pure Islam, but his followers garbled the message. Mohammed felt an affinity for Jesus because he was chronologically nearest, but no better nor worse in wisdom. I’ve heard that Isa was specifically charged with being a prophet for the poor (as Moses was a prophet to the Hebrews), though, and Mohammed’s mission was universal (to anyone who could speak or read Arabic).
(Again, this is my understanding based on my readings, and different readings may lead to different conclusions. I couldn’t even say that there IS a pan-Islamic “Party Line” on the matter.) (And I openly acknowledge that I may be mistaken about that, as well.)
Jon Stewart (paraphrased): Just because they can build a mosque at ground zero doesn’t mean they should. Similarly, just because they can build a Catholic church next to a playground doesn’t mean they should…
Abraham, Moses, and Jesus are all prophets to Islam. GRD must have spent time on the western range where “men are men, and the sheep are nervous”. Mohammed gave women totally equal rights, unlike Moses, or Baptists, or several other “Christian” denominations.
Now I know why churches pledge their alligiance to God instead of the nation of Laws. That was when I got out. Even though I was a draftee I felt there was something strained about that pledge against our country’s effort to make men equal in a dispute. I feel safer with the Laws of the land. Cults of law don’t last long.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
this issue is not about “freedom of religion” which Muslims already exercise….New York has many mosques….
this is the issue of “zoning” or “special privilege” and whether the Islamic religion in whose name the 9/11/01 murder of 3,000 American victims was done, should be allowed to build a VICTORY SHRINE.
There should be only an American People’s Memorial on that site, but if any religion is illustrated, it should be strictly the Judeo-Christian faith that founded our nation in 1787.
the Muslim leading this “coup” for Islamic Triumph over infidels, has many documented ties to Terrorist organizations, and has published his plans for taking over the USA by imposing Shar’ia Law to replace our constitutional LAW.
comYics over 13 years ago
Im curious to hear if DrCanuck left the USA willingly.
rottenprat over 13 years ago
So little problems in America today that we worry about what to build on an empty lot.
comYics over 13 years ago
Yeah rottenprat, we should let a guy that wants to kill you and steal your house build a little bungalo on your front lawn.
riley05 over 13 years ago
Disgusted, what other parts of our Constitution do you hate?
ken591 over 13 years ago
So are all zoning laws unconstitutional? If NYC decides the area around ground zero is zoned non church (including mosques), is that unconstitutional?
riley05 over 13 years ago
Kensurg, do you really think the far-right christian fundies like Palin, Limbaugh and Gingrich would protest a christian center?
Baslim, what you’re suggesting is a government involvement in religious expression. That has traditionally been decided to be unconstitutional. Are you suggesting it’s time to abandon the separation between state and church? Should the city instead say that a Muslim center can’t be built a few blocks from ground zero, but a christian center could?
wolfhoundblues1 over 13 years ago
Just build a muslim gay bar next to it.
Turban Cowboy
You Mecca Me Hot
myming over 13 years ago
^ now that idea is really LOGICAL… ROFLMAO !
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
Sooky Rottweiler says; “My church is bigger than your mosque!”
NYAH NYAH
Eh, humans…
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
This not a “Ground Zero Mosque,” as Fox News likes to proclaim - this is an Islamic center intended to create peaceful interaction among different faiths. Identifying it with Osama bin Laden makes just as much sense as identifying the local Episcopalian church with English burning of Roman Catholics, or Catholic Churches with the Crusades against Islam. There are many voices in Islam as there are in Christianity. And disgustedtaxpayer, we had no such “Judeo-Christian faith” among our founders. That usage is modern, and false. Jews were actively discriminated against in English lands. Also, the First Amendment makes it terribly clear that the government is to make NO law respecting the establishment of religion – not “a” religion, as the conservatives claim, but ANY religion at all. Oh, yeah, and it isn’t on Ground Zero, either. Sheesh.
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
If it were at the place of the collapsed towers, sure, it would be improper and offensive. But two blocks away (which is as accurate a distance as I have found - has anyone have the exact distance in mils or kilometers?) is not the same as “ground zero”. How far away WOULD one be allowed to build such a centre, then?
edrush over 13 years ago
Another ed. cartoon today has people with picket signs saying “No YMCA near Ground Zero” and “The towers were attacked by MEN.”
pirate227 over 13 years ago
“There should be only an American Memorial on that site, and if any religion is illustrated, it should be strictly the Judeo-Christian faith that founded our nation in 1787.”
Can you point out where the Constitution mentions Judeo-Christian?
And what is an “American Memorial”? Oh yeah, you mean Judeo-Christian… back to my first question.
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
“Judeo-Christian faith” seems like it would be limited to Jews for Jesus. Otherwise, you’re talking at least two different faiths…
Why don’t you say “Abrahamic faiths”, which would include Jews and Christians (and Muslims)?
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
Anthony:
“Disgusted, what other parts of our Constitution do you hate?”
@Anthony, if I remember correctly you opposed Heller, McDonald and CU. Does that mean you hate the constitution? :>)
riley05 over 13 years ago
^ Lib, using Heller as an example, I was looking at the whole second amendment, not ignoring the militia part like the court did. I don’t see that indicates “hating”, but rather more “embracing”. Motive gave a good analysis of Disgusted’s position, above.
^^^^ Baslim, I think we are in agreement.
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
baslim: “It’s a question of incitement, like putting a gay bar next to a redneck bar.”
That would perhaps be unwise on the part of the owners of the gay bar (as perhaps would be putting a Toyota dealership next door to an American Legion hall), but it’s certainly not something that should be forbidden them. It seems like the reverse would more likely be a case of “looking for trouble.”
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
Anthony
Re; militia
There you are alone as even the 4 “liberal” justices have ruled that the RKBA is an individual right not a group right. That is settled but you can still fight it. I do re 10th Amendment and states/federal rights.
riley05 over 13 years ago
Yeah, we’ve pretty much hashed that to death, Lib. It’s not something I wish to fight, but it’s still my feeling that the militia phrase was put there for a reason. If it’s purely an individual right, then the militia phrase could be deleted without changing the meaning…which is what the Supremes did, I guess…just ignored it.
ARodney over 13 years ago
It’s private property. It’s sort of funny but mostly disgusting to hear these conservatives argue that Muslims should not be allowed to do whatever they want with their own land. And how do they feel about eminent domain for any other purpose? What a bunch of hypocrites.
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
If you wish to defend private property I am there with you. I find it ironic the 4 liberals on the Supreme Court in Kelo said it was perfectly acceptable to take a private home from a woman and give it to a private corporation. That is hypocritical.
riley05 over 13 years ago
I recall reading multiple cases where people lost their homes to eminent domain, where the good of the community was defined as turning it over to corporations (usually major retailers).
With the increasing power being given to corporations, I’d expect we’ll be seeing more and more of this.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
Sometimes I wonder…
“What if Constantin’s mother had an interest in Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? Zoroastrianism was pretty deep compared to pagan faiths. I mean, don’t look for a clone of christianity in it, but it’s deeper than paganism…
Jews would have been forcibly converted, like all other religions (medieval christians only tolerated them because Jesus was a jew), Islam, was still going to be invented, would be radically different…
But eventually, Zoroastrianism would have been dumbed down also. That’s what inevitably happen when you forcibly convert people. People who are not ready, or simply not worthy of the ideas of that religion pretend to call themselves devout (and zealot ones!) just so they can be close to power or simply stay alive and end up having a bad influence.
Same thing happened to Islam; religion and power don’t mix. When you offer people enlightenment or salvation, nothing else should come with it.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
the Judeo-Christian heritage comes from the ONE BIBLE that includes the Old Testament plus the New Testament. It is our heritage in the USA, if you read all the important writings from the revolutionary times. Because the Founders were sons of refugees from European “state church” nations, with no tolerance for dissenting Bible believers, they deliberately made our constitution open to freedom of religion, along with freedom of speech and all the other freedoms enumerated. They thus avoided an USA “state church”…which nowadays the Atheists claim by revising and reversing our Christian-friendly-to-Judaism roots. (did any of you hecklers know that a Jewish banker saved our Revolution with funding?) There is ONE FAITH in the ONE GOD all through the Bible. I love the constitution and our freedoms….but I don’t accept a thoughtless and imprudent application of total freedom, in all cases….speech cannot be allowed for certain harmful purposes, and religion does not give freedom for any faith to do whatever it wishes, anywhere it wishes. Christian organizations face more and more restrictive government controls. Christians did not plan and carry out a Jihad that killed 3,000 innocents at the Manhattan site of the WTC destruction! Christians and Jews do not do “Jihad” at all. the Muslim Koran teaches such lies as Allah created whites destined for paradise and blacks destined for H—; Mohammad wrote that blacks were “ugly” and “raisin heads” and “pug-nosed slaves”….but our president claims that Islam is “advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” He should watch the continuous daily news of Islam in action since 1979 all around the world….suicide murders, bombings, head-loppings, etc…..the mistreatment and abuse of women, wives and daughters of Muslims….the lack of “human rights” of people of their own countries.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
tony, show us the exact quote from the constitution setting a “separation of church and state”….with the obvious meaning Liberals use, to separate the church from the state, but not vice versa.
It is not in the constituion.
it is a perverted, lying claim based on a private letter written to answer a question sent him by Baptists….and even Thomas Jefferson, the letter writer, did not imply that the church has no freedom of speech to petition government for a cause!
It is a total straw demon, to claim that the one-way “separation” is demanded by law!
riley05 over 13 years ago
Disgusted, we don’t live directly under the Constitution. Since Marbury v Madison, we live under the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Constitution.
And to a fair degree, the separation of church and state has been upheld in those rulings.
As for your “Christians and Jews do not do “Jihad” at all”, since jihad specifically applies to Islam, all that shows is that you have a keen grasp of the obvious.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
300,000 plus dead in Iraq and Afghanistan does equal a “Christian Jihad”. The “Crusades” were a CHRISTIAN JIHAD! Jericho and other communities way back when were a Hebrew “Jihad”.
dt constantly misquotes, well, just plain lies, about what Mohammed and Islam say- but accuracy doesn’t count when worshiping the “one God”- who happens to be the EXACT SAME GOD OF ABRAHAM worshiped by Jew, Christian, AND Muslim. Mohammed was much more egalitarian than any Jewish text, and WAY more tolerant than fundamentalists, either Christian, OR modern Muslim.
The “Indian Wars” in America were the worst form of “jihad”- which means “struggle”- and the people who had the higher moral standards, lost.
Not being encumbered by the intolerance, hatred, and xenophobia of that “one god”– gives one a larger, kinder, and yet more wary view of all those hung up on a mythical being that destroys everything in the name of “claiming” it.
The “Heller” who put his finger on our society wasn’t suing about gun rights, he wrote “Catch 22”- and recognized the insanity of our culture as “the norm”.
Charles Brobst Premium Member over 13 years ago
It’s not on ground zero, it’s not a mosque, there is a mosque four blocks away that’s been there for many years, and we have freedom of religion in this country! Support the Constitution. Outlaw bigotry and fear mongering. Outlaw the Republican party.
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
disgusted, here you go: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That’s where church and state are separated. NO LAW that respects the establishment of any kind of religion, be it “Judeo-Christian” (a term developed by Christians) or not. By the way, Islam accepts the whole of the Old Testament AND considers Jesus a prophet near in wisdom to Mohammed. Whaddya know!
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
motive, just “near in wisdom”? My understanding of Muslim teachings on Isa is that, like Moses (I forget his Muslim name) and the others, he lived and preached pure Islam, but his followers garbled the message. Mohammed felt an affinity for Jesus because he was chronologically nearest, but no better nor worse in wisdom. I’ve heard that Isa was specifically charged with being a prophet for the poor (as Moses was a prophet to the Hebrews), though, and Mohammed’s mission was universal (to anyone who could speak or read Arabic).
(Again, this is my understanding based on my readings, and different readings may lead to different conclusions. I couldn’t even say that there IS a pan-Islamic “Party Line” on the matter.) (And I openly acknowledge that I may be mistaken about that, as well.)
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
fritzoid, you know more than I do. I just knew Jesus was considered a prophet in Islam.
WarBush over 13 years ago
^Glad I had a world history teacher who taught me that bit of information in the 9th grade. Most people wouldn’t go near that subject.
riley05 over 13 years ago
Jon Stewart (paraphrased): Just because they can build a mosque at ground zero doesn’t mean they should. Similarly, just because they can build a Catholic church next to a playground doesn’t mean they should…
WarBush over 13 years ago
^The problem Tony is that the Vatican did not attack America. Plus don’t Catholic Churches have playgrounds near them?
riley05 over 13 years ago
I think Stewart was making reference to the child molestation problems the church has had, WC…in some cases covered up by the Vatican.
Ask those molested if they feel attacked.
riley05 over 13 years ago
How are we “protect(ing) the terrorists”, GRDone33?
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Abraham, Moses, and Jesus are all prophets to Islam. GRD must have spent time on the western range where “men are men, and the sheep are nervous”. Mohammed gave women totally equal rights, unlike Moses, or Baptists, or several other “Christian” denominations.
vatonaught over 13 years ago
Now I know why churches pledge their alligiance to God instead of the nation of Laws. That was when I got out. Even though I was a draftee I felt there was something strained about that pledge against our country’s effort to make men equal in a dispute. I feel safer with the Laws of the land. Cults of law don’t last long.