@leipsicbob the 1st Amendment is only there to protect our freedom of religion.
Any article, section, or clause in the Constitution that calls for some kind of obligation on our part (explicit or implied), like allowing others their freedoms (or, Ayn forbid, paying taxes), are tyrranical inventions of the liberal activist judges.
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.
^^^Tigger, Complete hogwash. MLK was a Christian, so unless you’re just “joking,” you have to be extremely misinformed. Google is your friend, but stay away from the loony websites.
I agree that they have no basis for responding to my challenge. I just want them to have to confront that if they are going to come on here and spout fundamentally anti-American views on freedom of religion, they have no legs to stand on AND they are about as far from being patriotic as it is possible to be.
A few years ago I attended a graduate student conference where a young MA student gave a presentation which he claimed showed that Islam could never achieve peace with Israel – with lots and lots of Islamic scripture and commentary to back up his argument. During the question and comment period, one of our faculty, who happens to be an orthodox rabbi, stood up and said, “I’ve never been too much worried about that scripture and commentary. Scripture is always interpreted. When the time comes that the Islamic world is ready to make peace with Israel, they will find an interpretation that justifies peace with Israel.”
When at war, there are times when justice needs to be administered under military guide lines. That goes for us home as well as across borders. Islam “can be” a very violent religion, and as such, lieing is no big deal. A mosque located near the former trde center is a slap in the face to all who died there as well as their kin. We live in a rural area where there are snakes in the grass. Most are harmless and leave us alone. But, we are ever mindfull of the possibe hare that can come from a snake full of poison
charlie555,,, It seems funny that I never heard any Catholic organization get on TV and denounce the actions of Tim McVeigh. Neither did I hear the Pope or representatives of the Vatican apologize for his actions.
Actually, I don’t believe it is necessary as we know that people in general do not condone these types of actions regardless of their religion. Maybe their politics do however, as I had one conservative tell me that the reason we invaded Iraq was because we were in a war with Islam which we had to eradicate. He was an organizer for the Republican Party and was looking for election observers to intimidate voters in the inner city of Cleveland.
The organized “bible religions” (with only a few exceptions) are the antithesis of “freedom”. Subjecting folks to a dogma and seizing their wealth through stealth, and putting up a good “front”, while performing horrendous evil- like constant wars between each other- is NOT freedom.
Quakers and a few others do tend toward tolerance, of ALL folks– and it has gotten them killed. It is those who think their dog is the only one on the block who are dangerous.
Here a book recommendation – I book I should have read years ago but passed over somehow. It’s been some years since I really read in politics and recent history – I’ve been working on the ancient world instead – but because of the discussion here I’ve been going back and reading in the area again, and I happened to pick up David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest, which is about the decision making in Washington during the War in Vietnam. I’ve read a lot about the war itself and the history of Vietnam, but somehow this one I never got to. Halberstam is a journalist, not an historian, but I have to say this is one really really good book. (He wrote a lot, of course – the only other one I’ve read is an account of part of the Civil Rights movement, titled The Children, which is also excellent.) I don’t in the last analysis agree with everything he says – I think he’s a little too easy on JFK, and I think he doesn’t see enough of the longer pattern of US foreign policy – but boy does he know a lot. Who has read it? Any comments?
Muslims enjoy total freedom of religion….less than 1% of our population….they have mosques throughout New York City and all through the 50 states of the USA. They have numerous non-profit organizations, freedom of speech and expression…..which they abuse in the Saudi-funded Wahhabi sect mosques by promoting and preaching violent jihadism. This has been reported by Muslims who attend those mosques….and the teachers of religious/political violence try to prevent any government attempt to record and translate the evidence of promoting violence! The radicals abuse our freedoms to overthrow our form of government….and the Liberals in government and media aid and abet them…..
read some of the new books by ex-Muslims…find out the truth of a religion that teaches that Allah approves of lying to infidels and approves of Jihad killings.
Charlie, you originally said, “When Muslims do the same to those who kill in Islam’s name, there will be no problem.”
I showed you a simple Google search that showed many instances of Muslims denouncing terror.
Therefore, by your own words, “there will be no problem”.
I’ve never said that there isn’t violence inherent in Islam. I was just showing you what you asked for: Muslims denouncing terror. It doesn’t help your case to now try to change it to “Find me one place where Mohammed is condemned for using the sword”.
You paint with too broad a brush. There are extremist Muslims and Imams, but it is not the case that they are all like that and therefore it is important to distinguish among them and not penalize the many for the actions of that subset.
As I’ve written elsewhere in posts, I’m a teacher and, therefore, come into contact with Muslim students on a daily basis and have done so for at least 20 years. By far the vast majority have been hard working, decent persons. Some have worked with me in my lab, and I have had the pleasure of writing several of them very strong letters of recommendation for jobs, graduate school and medical school.
I can no more defame them than I can accept the xenophobic and dangerous preaching that comes from the extremists. The problem I have with you and others who argue that the Mosque should not be built (other than the fact it is fundamentally wrong, given our Constitution) is that you want to punish all Muslims for the actions of a few.
As others have pointed out, if you insist on pursuing that line of reasoning, you’ll need to outlaw building houses of worship for a number of other religions, including some Christian sects.
By all of this logic no Christian church should be allowed since some churches organize terrorism and explosions of abortion clinics (with bombs, mind you).
^You don’t have to bomb an abortion clinic to be a crazy christian. Not sure if this made the news rounds but has anyone heard of the Hutaree Militia? If not:
I don’t think it is your Constitutional right to establish a mosque at Ground Zero. I don’t see why the city can’t just say “no”. You have the right to build a mosque somewhere else, but we are just not going to allow you to build it there. Cities make these kinds of determinations ALL THE TIME. Many of them, in fact, make it difficult for Christian churches to get established in certain areas. That is not an infringement upon any rights to allow freedom of religion.
The problem is New York and Bloomberg’s insensitivity to the concerns of ordinary Americans, not the Constitution. And, yes, by “ordinary Americans”, I mean non-Muslims who are offended at this concept.
The only way such a decision could hold up legally is if the area was zoned in some way that made any house of worship disallowed. If there are churches or synagogues (for example) in the same area already or planned to be built in the reconstruction area, there’s no way it would be legal to single out a mosque for special treatment.
taxpayer; if Islam was as evil as you say it is, there would be no former muslims, they would be all either killed or too afraid to leave.
Sooky Rottweiler says;
Human being aer violent sometimes (and should be taken care of when they are).
Muslims are humans
Muslims are violent sometimes (and should be taken care of when they are).
For instance, Charlie555 is convinced that if homosexuality is left unchecked, it will spread throughout the entire male (and only male) population of the Earth, and result in an abrupt end to the race for 7 billion people, to the point that the entire human population dies out in a single generation.
No, really, he believes that.
Do you? Or do you believe C. Frog believes in something similar?
I’ve never seen C. Frog say that there are no radical Muslims, nor can I imagine anyone saying such a thing after 9/11. Has she ever said why she doesn’t consider those responsible for 9/11 to be radical Muslims?
If you’ve seen her say that, well, you probably follow more of these threads than I do.
Would be nice if she’d come by and confirm one way or another, but perhaps she’s already abandoned this thread.
Regarding radical christians, it seems most people are fairly safe, unless they’re doctors, or are gay.
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
Toles whoops asss here: http://tinyurl.com/232br94
leipsicbob over 13 years ago
And we claim to be in favor of religious freedom …
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
Some religions are freer than others.
crlinder over 13 years ago
A challenge to those on the Right who think the Mosque should not be allowed to be built.
Give us your interpretation of the Bill of Rights that would justify that. Seriously.
Wildcard24365 over 13 years ago
@leipsicbob the 1st Amendment is only there to protect our freedom of religion.
Any article, section, or clause in the Constitution that calls for some kind of obligation on our part (explicit or implied), like allowing others their freedoms (or, Ayn forbid, paying taxes), are tyrranical inventions of the liberal activist judges.
heeyuk over 13 years ago
“…tyrranical inventions of the liberal activist judges.” You can just about see the rabid frothing mouth while he’s typing.
tomcib over 13 years ago
New motto:
“In Hate We Trust”.
Most of these folks are the same ones that call the Taliban intolerant.
Simon_Jester over 13 years ago
The ultra-cons’ creed:
“Every Muslim in the world was directly involved in 9/11. and they ALL want to cut your head off!”
( And anyone who doesn’t believe that is a traitor. )
Simon_Jester over 13 years ago
^Thanks for confirming, Charlie.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
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.
crlinder over 13 years ago
^^^Tigger, Complete hogwash. MLK was a Christian, so unless you’re just “joking,” you have to be extremely misinformed. Google is your friend, but stay away from the loony websites.
crlinder over 13 years ago
By the way, I see that none of the folks on the Right have taken me up on my challenge.
Simon_Jester over 13 years ago
Congratulations Tig, someone FINALLY posted a comment even further out there than the claim that the Dems were running Congress back in 2004.
Not only was MLK not a Muslim, but he was regularly denounced by the Black Muslim leaders of the time.
crlinder over 13 years ago
billdog,
I agree that they have no basis for responding to my challenge. I just want them to have to confront that if they are going to come on here and spout fundamentally anti-American views on freedom of religion, they have no legs to stand on AND they are about as far from being patriotic as it is possible to be.
riley05 over 13 years ago
Here you go, Charlie:
http://www.google.com/search?q=muslim+denounce+terrorism
(Gee, that was tough.)
So I take it you’re in favor of the mosque now?
lonecat over 13 years ago
A little anecdote – a true story –
A few years ago I attended a graduate student conference where a young MA student gave a presentation which he claimed showed that Islam could never achieve peace with Israel – with lots and lots of Islamic scripture and commentary to back up his argument. During the question and comment period, one of our faculty, who happens to be an orthodox rabbi, stood up and said, “I’ve never been too much worried about that scripture and commentary. Scripture is always interpreted. When the time comes that the Islamic world is ready to make peace with Israel, they will find an interpretation that justifies peace with Israel.”
Simon_Jester over 13 years ago
No Anthony, they haven’t offically denounced terrorism until they accept Jeezus and turn white.
keechum over 13 years ago
When at war, there are times when justice needs to be administered under military guide lines. That goes for us home as well as across borders. Islam “can be” a very violent religion, and as such, lieing is no big deal. A mosque located near the former trde center is a slap in the face to all who died there as well as their kin. We live in a rural area where there are snakes in the grass. Most are harmless and leave us alone. But, we are ever mindfull of the possibe hare that can come from a snake full of poison
Justice22 over 13 years ago
charlie555,,, It seems funny that I never heard any Catholic organization get on TV and denounce the actions of Tim McVeigh. Neither did I hear the Pope or representatives of the Vatican apologize for his actions. Actually, I don’t believe it is necessary as we know that people in general do not condone these types of actions regardless of their religion. Maybe their politics do however, as I had one conservative tell me that the reason we invaded Iraq was because we were in a war with Islam which we had to eradicate. He was an organizer for the Republican Party and was looking for election observers to intimidate voters in the inner city of Cleveland.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
The organized “bible religions” (with only a few exceptions) are the antithesis of “freedom”. Subjecting folks to a dogma and seizing their wealth through stealth, and putting up a good “front”, while performing horrendous evil- like constant wars between each other- is NOT freedom.
Quakers and a few others do tend toward tolerance, of ALL folks– and it has gotten them killed. It is those who think their dog is the only one on the block who are dangerous.
lalas over 13 years ago
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) for the rabid right there is no law against bad taste.
They have the RIGHT to build their mosque anywhere that fits within the city’s zoning laws… no matter how lame.
(and yes I agree it’s kinda lame)
lonecat over 13 years ago
Here a book recommendation – I book I should have read years ago but passed over somehow. It’s been some years since I really read in politics and recent history – I’ve been working on the ancient world instead – but because of the discussion here I’ve been going back and reading in the area again, and I happened to pick up David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest, which is about the decision making in Washington during the War in Vietnam. I’ve read a lot about the war itself and the history of Vietnam, but somehow this one I never got to. Halberstam is a journalist, not an historian, but I have to say this is one really really good book. (He wrote a lot, of course – the only other one I’ve read is an account of part of the Civil Rights movement, titled The Children, which is also excellent.) I don’t in the last analysis agree with everything he says – I think he’s a little too easy on JFK, and I think he doesn’t see enough of the longer pattern of US foreign policy – but boy does he know a lot. Who has read it? Any comments?
riley05 over 13 years ago
I see you’re still not letting facts get in your way, Charlie.
http://www.google.com/search?q=muslim+denounce+terrorism
(Gee, that was tough.)
So I take it you’re in favor of the mosque now?
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“(and yes I agree it’s kinda lame)”
Oh I agree, it’s lame. But not illegal.disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
Muslims enjoy total freedom of religion….less than 1% of our population….they have mosques throughout New York City and all through the 50 states of the USA. They have numerous non-profit organizations, freedom of speech and expression…..which they abuse in the Saudi-funded Wahhabi sect mosques by promoting and preaching violent jihadism. This has been reported by Muslims who attend those mosques….and the teachers of religious/political violence try to prevent any government attempt to record and translate the evidence of promoting violence! The radicals abuse our freedoms to overthrow our form of government….and the Liberals in government and media aid and abet them…..
read some of the new books by ex-Muslims…find out the truth of a religion that teaches that Allah approves of lying to infidels and approves of Jihad killings.
riley05 over 13 years ago
Charlie, you originally said, “When Muslims do the same to those who kill in Islam’s name, there will be no problem.”
I showed you a simple Google search that showed many instances of Muslims denouncing terror.
Therefore, by your own words, “there will be no problem”.
I’ve never said that there isn’t violence inherent in Islam. I was just showing you what you asked for: Muslims denouncing terror. It doesn’t help your case to now try to change it to “Find me one place where Mohammed is condemned for using the sword”.
riley05 over 13 years ago
That may all be true, Disgusted…but they still have a right to build the mosque, correct?
crlinder over 13 years ago
disgusted,
You paint with too broad a brush. There are extremist Muslims and Imams, but it is not the case that they are all like that and therefore it is important to distinguish among them and not penalize the many for the actions of that subset.
As I’ve written elsewhere in posts, I’m a teacher and, therefore, come into contact with Muslim students on a daily basis and have done so for at least 20 years. By far the vast majority have been hard working, decent persons. Some have worked with me in my lab, and I have had the pleasure of writing several of them very strong letters of recommendation for jobs, graduate school and medical school.
I can no more defame them than I can accept the xenophobic and dangerous preaching that comes from the extremists. The problem I have with you and others who argue that the Mosque should not be built (other than the fact it is fundamentally wrong, given our Constitution) is that you want to punish all Muslims for the actions of a few.
As others have pointed out, if you insist on pursuing that line of reasoning, you’ll need to outlaw building houses of worship for a number of other religions, including some Christian sects.
riley05 over 13 years ago
Again, I’m not denying the violence inherent in Islam, Charlie, any more than I’d deny the violence inherent in the bible.
Remember, science flew us to the moon. Religion flew us into buildings.
But as Craig pointed out, and as the links you requested pointed out, not all Muslims embrace the idea.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
By all of this logic no Christian church should be allowed since some churches organize terrorism and explosions of abortion clinics (with bombs, mind you).
WarBush over 13 years ago
^You don’t have to bomb an abortion clinic to be a crazy christian. Not sure if this made the news rounds but has anyone heard of the Hutaree Militia? If not:
http://tinyurl.com/y8dtqsu
Speaking of Crazy Christians
HabaneroBuck over 13 years ago
I don’t think it is your Constitutional right to establish a mosque at Ground Zero. I don’t see why the city can’t just say “no”. You have the right to build a mosque somewhere else, but we are just not going to allow you to build it there. Cities make these kinds of determinations ALL THE TIME. Many of them, in fact, make it difficult for Christian churches to get established in certain areas. That is not an infringement upon any rights to allow freedom of religion.
The problem is New York and Bloomberg’s insensitivity to the concerns of ordinary Americans, not the Constitution. And, yes, by “ordinary Americans”, I mean non-Muslims who are offended at this concept.
crlinder over 13 years ago
Habanero,
The only way such a decision could hold up legally is if the area was zoned in some way that made any house of worship disallowed. If there are churches or synagogues (for example) in the same area already or planned to be built in the reconstruction area, there’s no way it would be legal to single out a mosque for special treatment.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
taxpayer; if Islam was as evil as you say it is, there would be no former muslims, they would be all either killed or too afraid to leave.
Sooky Rottweiler says; Human being aer violent sometimes (and should be taken care of when they are). Muslims are humans Muslims are violent sometimes (and should be taken care of when they are).
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ You only heard of Muslims on TV and YOU can define what a real muslim is?
Can you also define exactly how a a dinosaur acts and behaves?
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ OMG, you sound moderate….
Whoever you are, who are you and what did you do with the real churchillwasright???
riley05 over 13 years ago
C’mon, Church. Don’t be a pansy. Give details.
For instance, Charlie555 is convinced that if homosexuality is left unchecked, it will spread throughout the entire male (and only male) population of the Earth, and result in an abrupt end to the race for 7 billion people, to the point that the entire human population dies out in a single generation.
No, really, he believes that.
Do you? Or do you believe C. Frog believes in something similar?
riley05 over 13 years ago
Ah, good.
So what has C. Frog said about Muslims that you find dangerous?
riley05 over 13 years ago
I’ve never seen C. Frog say that there are no radical Muslims, nor can I imagine anyone saying such a thing after 9/11. Has she ever said why she doesn’t consider those responsible for 9/11 to be radical Muslims?
If you’ve seen her say that, well, you probably follow more of these threads than I do.
Would be nice if she’d come by and confirm one way or another, but perhaps she’s already abandoned this thread.
Regarding radical christians, it seems most people are fairly safe, unless they’re doctors, or are gay.
http://www.alternet.org/sex/147691/shockingright-winghomophobiacaughtontapebycouragecampaign_/?page=entire
http://tinyurl.com/27m4nbl