No mosque at Ground Zero

[st33lersguy]

I like how any criticism of the Fox end of the spectrum is always a "hate piece". It's curious to see how the Right has appropriated that language. It must really have wounded the conservative psyche to have been on the wrong side of the civil rights struggle for so long, because now everything is "hate".

We only denounce criticism consisting of slandering the right and viciously attacking the right and making accusations without providing any particular example. We wouldn't denounce the criticism if they stated actual examples instead of accusing them of racism and other slanderous terms. Also in these articles they write these stories they tweak and hide details to make their side look better. For example that piece above no mention of a mosque, only a community center and no mention on how the imam who wants to build it won't denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization or that the imam wants america to be more Sharia compliant (you know that system that oppresses women). Also are you talking about the civil rights movement that the democrats opposed and that KKK member Robert Byrd filibustered?

[ricardisimo]

We only denounce criticism consisting of slandering the right and viciously attacking the right and making accusations without providing any particular example. We wouldn't denounce the criticism if they stated actual examples instead of accusing them of racism and other slanderous terms.
I'm not seeing the lack of examples. Mind you, I didn't quote the entire article here (as per forum rules). In the actual article (http://www.media-ocracy.com/?p=1309) he quotes Gingrich, Palin, Hannity and Limbaugh, and makes his case for each one as to why what they are saying is incorrect and an unacceptably monochromatic view of American Muslims.

Also in these articles they write these stories they tweak and hide details to make their side look better.
I don't know if this is what you mean, but you don't include everything in these... articles require concision. Books are a different matter, and hopefully you cover every meaningful detail. Which details are being left out, in your view?

For example that piece above no mention of a mosque, only a community center and no mention on how the imam who wants to build it won't denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization or that the imam wants america to be more Sharia compliant (you know that system that oppresses women).
Last time I checked, churches are community centers... you know, like the church where I and my neighbors go to vote every year.

Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinian state, and they claim to have renounced suicide bombings, which is where the "terrorist" tag derived. For the record, they appear to have done precisely that, at least in the last few years. The elected government of Palestine has murdered significantly fewer people than any of the last, say, twenty US governments, and yet they are the terrorists, and we are not. Go figure. Besides, compliance with US foreign policy is not how we determine who can and who cannot build a church. The Separation Clause would apply here, if anywhere.

And finally, why are you not complaining about how most every priest at any Catholic church wants US law to be more canonically compliant? You know: the Canon Law which views women as inferior, incapable of serving in the priesthood, and unable to decide the fate of their own bodies... that Canon Law.

Also are you talking about the civil rights movement that the democrats opposed and that KKK member Robert Byrd filibustered?
The very same. I didn't say Republicans (and neither did the author) but rather "the Right". And, indeed, both major parties are very far Right.

[Vincent]

I like how any criticism of the Fox end of the spectrum is always a "hate piece". It's curious to see how the Right has appropriated that language. It must really have wounded the conservative psyche to have been on the wrong side of the civil rights struggle for so long, because now everything is "hate".

Several points Ric. First, Fox is center left. Contrasted with the democrat shills to Fox's left, they may seem somewhat to the right. But at this stage of our evolution, HHH would be considered "far right".

Second, you introduced "hate" into the dialog. "Hate" is a staple of the leftist lexicon. They breed it in their pinheads. They foment it in their class warfare. It's the extent of their intellectual capacity in any "argument" they try to levy against any opponent. "Hate" is one of the very childish aspects of the mental illness we call liberalism.

Third, any argument against anything deemed "right" is framed in racism. Statistical likelihood alone precludes that premise. But one example - that the objection to the mosque is "racist". What "race" are muslims specifically?

Further to the end of my second point, "conservatives" have never been on "the wrong side of the civil rights struggle", rather quite the opposite. When I grew up, any kid that had graduated to the second grade knew that. Racism, as you say, was and is at the core of democrat thinking and action. The lie they try to use against your opponents of is the lie they live. More pathos of the diseased leftist mind.

The elephants have a stellar civil rights history. They indeed led (http://ccrgop.com/CivilRights.htm) the parade at every juncture. The donkeys, on the other hand, have provided (http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=401) us with what should be the "textbook" examples (http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html) of this "racism" they caterwaul about. But then, sadly they write the textbooks.

Most us us that object to that mosque, or any mosque, object for the very reasons being discussed here. muslims don't emigrate to assimilate. They do so to advance islam. islam is satanic, as evidenced by their behavior. We object to their "sharia" law. And any liberal should as well.

I don't want America to be "sharia" compliant. And to those that seek to make America so, I invite them to go live in a country that is, or return to the @#$%holes from whence they came.

[JonM229]

islam is satanic, as evidenced by their behavior

"Their book doesn't say what my book says, so they must be evil"

[tony hipchest]

Second, you introduced "hate" into the dialog. "Hate" is a staple of the leftist lexicon. They breed it in their pinheads. They foment it in their class warfare.

what is funny, is that in the past 2 years on these boards i have seen more right wing hate directed towards democrats than anything else (even muslims and terrorists).

pretty bass-ackwards if you ask me.

[JonM229]

I know how much you "Righties" love the Founding Fathers, so here's an article from the Library of Congress containing papers on their views towards Islam:

The Founding Fathers and Islam (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html)


In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England. Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "obtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.

Toward Islam itself the Founding generation held differing views. An evangelical Baptist spokesman denounced "Mahomet" as a "hateful" figure who, unlike the meek and gentle Jesus, spread his religion at the point of a sword. A Presbyterian preacher in rural South Carolina dusted off Grotius' 17th century reproach that the "religion of Mahomet originated in arms, breathes nothing but arms, is propagated by arms." Other, more influential observers had a different view of Muslims. In 1783, the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, cited a study showing that "Mohammadan" morals were "far superior to the Christian." Another New Englander believed that the "moral principles that were inculcated by their teachers had a happy tendency to render them good members of society." The reference here, as other commentators made clear, was to Islam's belief, which it shared with Christianity, in a "future state of rewards and punishments," a system of celestial carrots and sticks which the Founding generation considered necessary to guarantee good social conduct.

More on the link

[tony hipchest]

here we go. a welcome sign for the new mosque-

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rx16BIHWTzQ/SRigsz2Jq_I/AAAAAAAAEeE/TqAwj-PWYRk/s400/dsymy-sign.JPG

[tony hipchest]

http://fishmix.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/bbq1.jpg

[tony hipchest]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/184/438836518_9ea447e055.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzjNiN1BOY-dhQqbBymnlZ3qQwqJJtJgBiKB0lPk5ceA7D2aQ&t=1&usg=__e4MbRmX6UxtBne6MbmmFiiG5GU4= (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images29.fotki.com/v1006/photos/1/1222605/5411528/pigletfightsback2-vi.jpg&imgrefurl=http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/new-islamic-fatwa-outrages-worlds-pig-population/&usg=__HQbjcRINpfsicQV1jOL4xOjkzrU=&h=500&w=390&sz=50&hl=en&start=0&tbnid=2G3H6PTT9EYeEM:&tbnh=164&tbnw=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmuslim%2Bpork%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1280% 26bih%3D617%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=122&vpy=110&dur=637&hovh=254&hovw=198&tx=113&ty=119&ei=ctpkTO-MDcKB8ga427G7CQ&oei=7NlkTMGIM8H68AbbuaDICA&esq=17&page=1&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0)
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-Z4yzdk4Z59TTP9kpOM4QvdBH3r76qwtwPtdVVTRL50FWN1I&t=1&usg=__HhYOvysv40_Gh_1EEQbXJH3w9kk= (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/6a00d8341bfcac53ef00e54fa3644c8834-800wi.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sheikyermami.com/2009/02/21/islamization-setback-in-austria-and-norway/&usg=__QbEzweRHWDDK-009RfgxO5_p1Cw=&h=939&w=800&sz=149&hl=en&start=14&tbnid=fBJz-puZbgn7eM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=146&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmuslim%2Bpork%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26b iw%3D984%26bih%3D600%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=361&vpy=250&dur=50&hovh=243&hovw=207&tx=140&ty=186&ei=cNpkTIS2O8G78gagzdSzCA&oei=7dlkTPDHIoH58Ab6pO2wCA&esq=16&page=2&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:14)


http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDcwEP35FaCFDsjWWHLIPRL-doMDPPHrPuQtAUeEs0jBH4TqM&t=1&usg=__9GT4oUbEw6HKPLnnhDoEFpFup_A= (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://numbcranium.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/muslim-president-george-w-bush.jpg&imgrefurl=http://numbcranium.com/2009/04/08/obama-carries-on-as-the-muslim-anti-christ-president/&usg=__9DrzSZqXF8k-T5onP5RW5BGqT4o=&h=508&w=400&sz=19&hl=en&start=105&tbnid=1p-mdTkjzCSE7M:&tbnh=157&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmuslim%2Bpork%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26b iw%3D984%26bih%3D600%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=744&vpy=103&dur=1182&hovh=253&hovw=199&tx=160&ty=111&ei=ONpkTOi7JcKB8gax25W7CQ&oei=7dlkTPDHIoH58Ab6pO2wCA&esq=9&page=9&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:105)

[tony hipchest]

http://avatarfarm.com/avatarimages/movies/getitatporkysavatar.gif

[Mach1]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hk4XNXPloTY/S76Z2oPtD-I/AAAAAAAABHs/IklIiRBC8Pg/s640/MuslimObamaImage2.jpg

[MasterOfPuppets]

coming to a neighborhood near you....


2 Muslims jailed 5 years for Malaysia church arson

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia – A Malaysian court sentenced two Muslim brothers to five years in prison Friday for torching a Christian church during the height of a dispute over whether non-Muslims can use the word "Allah" to refer to God.

The firebombing was the first in an unprecedented string of arson attacks and vandalism at places of worship last January that threatened decades of religious harmony in this Muslim-majority country. Eleven churches, a Sikh temple, three mosques and two Muslim prayer rooms were assaulted before the tensions abated.

Two ethnic Malay Muslim brothers in their 20s were arrested and placed on trial for the Jan. 8 attack, which partially gutted a Protestant church. The attack, which did not kill or injure anyone, came days after some Muslims were angered by a court verdict that allowed Christians to use the word "Allah" in Malay-language publications.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_re_as/as_malaysia_allah_ban;_ylt=AthrcWVmYf7wAZufeVYZkNV vaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJtbXUzNjY0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODE zL2FzX21hbGF5c2lhX2FsbGFoX2JhbgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzQEc 2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDMm11c2xpbXNqYWls

muslim tolerance ... this is what a christian can expect from everyday peace loving muslims in other countries. let them build up a stronger contingent here and we'll be getting the same.


Muslims Burn Christian Center under Construction in Indonesia
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100505/muslims-burn-christian-center-under-construction-in-indonesia/index.html


Muslims burn down churches, shops
Melee reportedly broke out with no provocation from Christians
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=126366


Nigeria: Muslims burn church, axe 8 Christians to death, burn xtian homes
http://olehgirl.com/?p=4059


AFGHAN MUSLIMS BURN POPE IN EFFIGY

Welcome to American occupied Afghanistan and the latest results of the war on terror.

Thousands of students in northern Afghanistan today burned an effigy of the pope while protesting against attempts by Christian denominations to spread the gospel and to convert Muslims to Christianity.
http://thelastcrusade.org/2010/06/10/afghan-muslims-burn-pope-in-effigy/


6 killed in Pakistan as Muslims burn Christian homes
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Six people were killed in Pakistan on Saturday when Muslim demonstrators set fire to houses in a Christian enclave and fighting broke out, local police said.
Police said Muslims were enraged over an alleged desecration of pages in the Quran at a Christian wedding last Saturday, and held a rally to protest. The Quran is the Muslim sacred text.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/01/pakistan.sectarian.violence/index.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQLpG5b18pk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFPVz9CwlP4

[MasterOfPuppets]

must see video...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THZr4TkXeW0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGSWEdS1E54

[ricardisimo]

what is funny, is that in the past 2 years on these boards i have seen more right wing hate directed towards democrats than anything else (even muslims and terrorists).

pretty bass-ackwards if you ask me.

Backwards, and Vinny also happens to be completely wrong on that point... Here's the first introduction of "hate" in this thread:

I find it interesting how the ignorant moron who wrote this hate article makes no mention about a blahblahblahblah....

[ricardisimo]

"Their book doesn't say what my book says, so they must be evil"

The really odd thing is that all of these books actually say pretty much the same things. "Kill them all;" "Women are inferior;" and we mustn't forget "Kill them all." The only vague differences I can make out between the major religions is which parts of their Holy Books do they ignore.

Did I mention "Kill them all"?

[JonM229]

The really odd thing is that all of these books actually say pretty much the same things. "Kill them all;" "Women are inferior;" and we mustn't forget "Kill them all." The only vague differences I can make out between the major religions is which parts of their Holy Books do they ignore.

Did I mention "Kill them all"?

Secular Humanism FTW

[JonM229]

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/000/037/852/original/w010384a-fix.jpg

[ricardisimo]

Several points Ric. First, Fox is center left. Contrasted with the democrat shills to Fox's left, they may seem somewhat to the right. But at this stage of our evolution, HHH would be considered "far right".
See, now this is where I can tell that their transmissions are getting through to you, and that you're not getting any of our memos on brain security. They're using variable-phase Zeta rays nowadays, so regular aluminum foil simply will not work. You either need the solid state Magneto-style helmet, or you need to ground a multi-layer foil hat with stranded copper wire, 14-gauge or thicker. Proper grounding is the key.

I don't get it... what the hell does qualify as Right-wing? What the hell is the HHH? The Heil Hitler Headlines? Elaborate, please.

Second, you introduced "hate" into the dialog.
No I didn't... See note above (or below, depending on your layout.)

"Hate" is a staple of the leftist lexicon. They breed it in their pinheads. They foment it in their class warfare. It's the extent of their intellectual capacity in any "argument" they try to levy against any opponent. "Hate" is one of the very childish aspects of the mental illness we call liberalism.
I'm not entirely sure what any of this means, it all seems so... hateful. I'm tempted either to let Tony field this part, or just to refer you to both "Bash/Make fun of..." threads and have you do your own comparison/contrast study.

The one bit that vaguely makes sense is the "class warfare" line. The problem is that it is clearly and demonstrably the bosses who promote class warfare; workers simply defend themselves... or they don't, depending on the situation. In any event, the bosses fomenting the hatred are not "Leftists".

Third, any argument against anything deemed "right" is framed in racism. Statistical likelihood alone precludes that premise. But one example - that the objection to the mosque is "racist". What "race" are muslims specifically?
"Race and "racism" are quaint 19th Century terms, to be sure. There are no races; or rather, there is one race, namely the human race. However, the term is meant to describe something very real, and probably the best way to define it is "racism is as racism does." "Caucasian" therefore may or may not be a race, but being denied a job because you are or call yourself "Caucasian" is indeed racism. Capiche?

Further to the end of my second point, "conservatives" have never been on "the wrong side of the civil rights struggle", rather quite the opposite. When I grew up, any kid that had graduated to the second grade knew that. Racism, as you say, was and is at the core of democrat thinking and action. The lie they try to use against your opponents of is the lie they live. More pathos of the diseased leftist mind.

The elephants have a stellar civil rights history. They indeed led (http://ccrgop.com/CivilRights.htm) the parade at every juncture. The donkeys, on the other hand, have provided (http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=401) us with what should be the "textbook" examples (http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html) of this "racism" they caterwaul about. But then, sadly they write the textbooks.
You mean like those radical Leftists in the KKK or the John Birch Society? As to the rest, you should know by now that you are not going to get me to defend the Democrats, so that's another line I'm going to leave to Tony or someone else. But linking to GOP sites to demonstrate how bad the Democrats are? Really, Vinny? It's come to this, has it? Please refer to the animated gif in my sig.

Most us us that object to that mosque, or any mosque, object for the very reasons being discussed here. muslims don't emigrate to assimilate. They do so to advance islam. islam is satanic, as evidenced by their behavior. We object to their "sharia" law. And any liberal should as well.
When you say "as evidenced by their behavior", am I to understand that we can bring actual historical records and statistics into this debate? That we can, for example, compare body counts to see who is more barbaric, who kills who more, who invades whose countries more often, who has sent more souls to heaven by the sword, etc.? I just want to get that part straight before we proceed...

I don't want America to be "sharia" compliant. And to those that seek to make America so, I invite them to go live in a country that is, or return to the @#$%holes from whence they came.
How do you feel about the US becoming more canonically compliant, as per the Roman Catholic Church? I haven't heard any complaints from you, so I assume you are OK with their takeover, as was predicted when Kennedy was voted into office. Should these people go back to Italy?

[JonM229]

"Race and "racism" are quaint 19th Century terms, to be sure.
I agree. Xenophobic has a much better ring to it.


When you say "as evidenced by their behavior", am I to understand that we can bring actual historical records and statistics into this debate? That we can, for example, compare body counts to see who is more barbaric, who kills who more, who invades whose countries more often, who has sent more souls to heaven by the sword, etc.? I just want to get that part straight before we proceed...
Historically, Muslims have been much more tolerant of others than Christians. Let's not forget about the Crusades, in which European Jews were slaughtered before the soldiers went on to fight the Muslims in Israel. There's also the Spanish Inquisition (which no one expects)

It's more recently that this fundamentalist revolution in the Middle East has been giving Muslims all over the world a bad reputation.

[ricardisimo]

There's also the Spanish Inquisition (which no one expects)

I certainly wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. Fetch the Comfy Chair.


It's more recently that this fundamentalist revolution in the Middle East has been giving Muslims all over the world a bad reputation.
And this coincides nicely with our own Fundamentalist Revolution. Goodbye world. You were nice while you lasted.

[LLT]

I agree. Xenophobic has a much better ring to it.


Historically, Muslims have been much more tolerant of others than Christians. Let's not forget about the Crusades, in which European Jews were slaughtered before the soldiers went on to fight the Muslims in Israel. There's also the Spanish Inquisition (which no one expects)

It's more recently that this fundamentalist revolution in the Middle East has been giving Muslims all over the world a bad reputation.

Well that's simply not true.

I agree that the history of Christianity and Islam are filled with violence...and that no excuses can be made for either except ignorance and the seeking of corporate and personal gain.

BUT...to say that the Islamic violence is a relative new event is misquided.

The Umayyad conquest of Spain in 711 by North African Muslims.....The Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent of modern-day Pakistan, India and Bangladesh in the 12th century are but a couple examples....and as far as the Crusades were concerned you are right in saying that Christians were BRUTAL in their treatment of Jews and Muslims...BUT dont forget that The city of Jerusalem was one of the Arab Caliphate's first conquests....and in the 11th century Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the death or banishment of all non-muslims and the destruction of all churches and synagogues.

No...violence through the Christian Church is not a recent occurance....but it is definiatley an incorrect statement to say that the Muslims getting a "bad rep" due to fundalmentalism is a new event.

[JonM229]

No...violence through the Christian Church is not a recent occurance....but it is definiatley an incorrect statement to say that the Muslims getting a "bad rep" due to fundalmentalism is a new event.

This is true. I guess the point I was trying to make is that not all Muslims are fundamentalists. Not all of them are possible terrorists who hate non-believers.

[JonM229]

From the Jewish Encyclopedia regarding the Golden Age of Jews in Spain:


The reigns of 'Abd al-Raḥman I. (called Al-Nasir; 912-961) and his son Al-Ḥakim were the golden era for the Spanish Jews and Jewish science. 'Abd al-Raḥman's court physician and minister was Ḥasdai ben Isaac ibn Shaprut, the patron of Menahem ben Saruḳ, Dunash ben Labraṭ, and other Jewish scholars and poets. During his term of power the scholar Moses ben Enoch was appointed rabbi of Cordova, and as a consequence Spain became the center of Talmudic study, and Cordova the meeting-place of Jewish savants. After the downfall of Al-Ḥakim, who likewise favored the Jews, a struggle for the throne broke out between Sulaiman ibn al-Ḥakim and Mohammed ibn Hisham. Sulaiman solicited the assistance of Count Sancho of Castile, while Mohammed, through the agency of wealthy Jewish merchants in Cordova, obtained the aid of Count Ramon of Barcelona. For this Sulaiman took fearful revenge upon the Jews, expelling them mercilessly from city and country (1013).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=992&letter=S#3220

[JonM229]

There's also the Constitution of Medina, written by Mohammed:


The Constitution of Medina, Ṣaḥīfat al-Madīna, also known as the Charter of Medina, was drafted by the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It constituted a formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of Yathrib later known as Medina, including Muslims, Jews, and pagans. The document was drawn up with the explicit concern of bringing to an end the bitter inter tribal fighting between the clans of the Aws Aus and Khazraj within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, and pagan communities of Medina bringing them within the fold of one community - the Ummah.

The precise dating of the Constitution of Medina remains debated but generally scholars agree it was written shortly after the Hijra 622. It effectively established the first Islamic state. The Constitution established: the security of the community, religious freedoms, the role of Medina as a haram or sacred place barring all violence and weapons, the security of women, stable tribal relations within Medina, a tax system for supporting the community in time of conflict, parameters for exogenous political alliances, a system for granting protection of individuals, a judicial system for resolving disputes, and also regulated the paying of Blood money the payment between families or tribes for the slaying of an individual in lieu of lex talionis.
http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Constitution_of_Medina

So...this Muslim Constitution predates our Constitution? ....it's already too late

[LLT]

For this Sulaiman took fearful revenge upon the Jews, expelling them mercilessly from city and country

Very sad that this is considered the "golden age for Jews in Spain"...

That being said...my point stands that the Muslims took over parts of spain through violent occupation, and only after setting up a government did Al-Nasir, and later, his son Al-Ḥakim begin to work with the Jewish portion of the Spanish population.

[JonM229]

Very sad that this is considered the "golden age for Jews in Spain"...
This was the end of the "Golden Age" as the Jews were actively supporting Mohammed ibn Hisham for the throne.


That being said...my point stands that the Muslims took over parts of spain through violent occupation, and only after setting up a government did Al-Nasir, and later, his son Al-Ḥakim begin to work with the Jewish portion of the Spanish population.
The Jews actually welcomed the advancing Muslim armies as they were under constant persecution from the Catholic rulers in Spain both before and after the Moorish occupation.

[LLT]

This was the end of the "Golden Age" as the Jews were actively supporting Mohammed ibn Hisham for the throne.


The Jews actually welcomed the advancing Muslim armies as they were under constant persecution from the Catholic rulers in Spain both before and after the Moorish occupation.

Yes....I understand that.

...and my point still stands that the Muslims took over the country through violent occupation.

[JonM229]

And the Holy Roman Empire was innocent of such a thing?

[st33lersguy]

I know how much you "Righties" love the Founding Fathers, so here's an article from the Library of Congress containing papers on their views towards Islam:

The Founding Fathers and Islam (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html)


In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England. Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "obtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.

Toward Islam itself the Founding generation held differing views. An evangelical Baptist spokesman denounced "Mahomet" as a "hateful" figure who, unlike the meek and gentle Jesus, spread his religion at the point of a sword. A Presbyterian preacher in rural South Carolina dusted off Grotius' 17th century reproach that the "religion of Mahomet originated in arms, breathes nothing but arms, is propagated by arms." Other, more influential observers had a different view of Muslims. In 1783, the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, cited a study showing that "Mohammadan" morals were "far superior to the Christian." Another New Englander believed that the "moral principles that were inculcated by their teachers had a happy tendency to render them good members of society." The reference here, as other commentators made clear, was to Islam's belief, which it shared with Christianity, in a "future state of rewards and punishments," a system of celestial carrots and sticks which the Founding generation considered necessary to guarantee good social conduct.

More on the link

I will tolerate islam as it was intended by the Koran. I however refuse to tolerate radical muslims that have recently oppressed women, imposed strict laws such as banning kite flying, blew up the world trade center twice, blew up famous buddhist temples in Afghanistan, held 52 of our fellow citizens from 1979-1981, attacked the world trade center (twice), U.S.S. Cole, and U.S. embassy at Kenya, tried to blow up time square and plane in detroit on christmas day, and much more. Radical muslims have a long recent history of intolerance for anyone who dissents from their beliefs.

[venom]

A recent Marist College poll found that 53% of the New York City voters who were polled oppose constructing the mosque at Ground Zero, while only 34% favored the plan. The poll also showed a drop in Mayor Bloomberg's ( who is in favor of the construction ) usually high approval ratings. We New Yorkers have spoken .

[SteelCityMom]

The human race and it's many sects of religions have a long history of violence. People have been killing each other for thousands of years, and I doubt that will ever change. But to lump all Muslims in the same category because of a percent of radicals is absurd. It would be like lumping all Christians or Catholics together because of the Inquisitions (in its heyday).

And ric you make a very good point about Canon law. If Americans haven't let themselves be overrun by Canon law yet, I HIGHLY doubt they'll let themselves be overrun by Sharia law. It just doesn't make any sense. It seems like...whattya call it...fear mongering.

Now again, I get why many don't want to see the mosque go up near ground zero (I wish people would quit saying ON ground zero). But like Tony said...some American sold the land to them, so who are we to say what can and can't go there. I don't like seeing churches, mosques or synagogues all over the place, but it's not the governments or the peoples right to tell them where they can or can't build. I mean, we already have zoning laws in many states on porn shops, liquor stores and fast food joints...isn't that enough dammit! Besides...aren't Republicans supposed to be all about LESS government control in our lives? Wouldn't the government stepping in and saying where a mosque (or any other religious "community center") could or couldn't be built set a dangerous precedent? I think it would.

[7SteelGal43]

ric, if you read the Bible, you'd see that in Christianity, women are not inferior nor does the Bible (see New Testament) call for violence against non-believers. If you have any other understanding of the Bible, then you need some new understanding.

[7SteelGal43]

I know how much you "Righties" love the Founding Fathers, so here's an article from the Library of Congress containing papers on their views towards Islam:

And lefties hate the Founding Fathers ? or maybe can "take 'em or leave 'em" ?

Anyway, the article simply speaks to the countries founding and the "freedom of religion" in place since it's inception which we should all love and cherish. It's a radical Muslim that wants to break ground for a Mosque on 9/11 at ground zero that we don't like.

[NJarhead]

Interesting read on the subject that addresses the "why on 9/11" conspiracy.
US Muslims prep for Islamic holiday around 9/11:


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMbpXmav21wOg-JUsAi0lnDqXP4wD9HIHJU01

[SteelCityMom]

A couple of other things I found interesting while doing some searching is that there are NO credible sources that say that the groundbreaking is to begin on 9/11. I found one source (article written on August 3rd) that says the developer has declined to give a date for construction to start. I really can't find anything that gives a concrete date.

Another point is this...here's a few pictures of traditional mosques (the kind of thing I think most people think of and expect to see when this is built).

http://www.asiatravelling.net/pakistan/lahore/images/mosque_of_the_pearls.jpg

http://royby.com/ee/images/uploads/blue_mosque_1.jpg

Here's a rendering of the mosque presented to Manhattan's Community Board 1 Financial District Committee.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/05/06/amd_wtc_mosque.jpg

If nobody told you that was a mosque...you would have NO clue whatsoever when just looking at it or walking by. None at all. And it really does look more like a community center than a traditional mosque. It also kind of would act as a community center being that they would like it to include a 500 seat performing arts venue, a swimming pool and a basketball court, all of which would be open to all New Yorkers.

Also, if you have problems with it...take it up with the 12-member Community Board 1's financial district committee. They unanimously voted in favor of it. As well as the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission's vote rejecting the landmarking the 19th century building with its Italian Renaissance Palazzo style that most recently served as a Burlington Coat Factory in which the mosque is replacing. Had they landmarked the building, no demolition or construction could have taken place there.

[zulater]

The human race and it's many sects of religions have a long history of violence. People have been killing each other for thousands of years, and I doubt that will ever change. But to lump all Muslims in the same category because of a percent of radicals is absurd. It would be like lumping all Christians or Catholics together because of the Inquisitions (in its heyday).

And ric you make a very good point about Canon law. If Americans haven't let themselves be overrun by Canon law yet, I HIGHLY doubt they'll let themselves be overrun by Sharia law. It just doesn't make any sense. It seems like...whattya call it...fear mongering.

Now again, I get why many don't want to see the mosque go up near ground zero (I wish people would quit saying ON ground zero). But like Tony said...some American sold the land to them, so who are we to say what can and can't go there. I don't like seeing churches, mosques or synagogues all over the place, but it's not the governments or the peoples right to tell them where they can or can't build. I mean, we already have zoning laws in many states on porn shops, liquor stores and fast food joints...isn't that enough dammit! Besides...aren't Republicans supposed to be all about LESS government control in our lives? Wouldn't the government stepping in and saying where a mosque (or any other religious "community center") could or couldn't be built set a dangerous precedent? I think it would.

My problem is that I rarely if ever see so called moderate Moslems speaking out strongly against their radical brothers. Cartoonists and writer targeted for death and all I see is rationilizations about how cartoonists and writers shouldn't be so provocative and need to be more sensitive. Watch silently as Moslem populations drive out Christians and Jews from countries like Lebanon and cities like Bethleham. Squak about every perceived injustice the West visits upon Islam yet make no mention of countries like Egypt and Kuwait that have laws on their books making it illegal for inter faith marriages, and also have made it illegal for a born Muslim to convert to any other religion period. Throw in ritual stonings for woman who are made out to be adulters for leaving an arranged marriage, so on and so forth... and I just don't understand how the so called moderate's can sit in silence or worse yet critisize the West at every turn when their own house is in such disorder.

[NJarhead]

A couple of other things I found interesting while doing some searching is that there are NO credible sources that say that the groundbreaking is to begin on 9/11. I found one source (article written on August 3rd) that says the developer has declined to give a date for construction to start. I really can't find anything that gives a concrete date.



Since that was first mentioned, I have seen a few articles (local/credible ones) that state as such. But it appears to be for a legit reason.

[venom]

Its a shame that NYC/NYS is Liberal .

[NJarhead]

Its a shame that NYC/NYS is Liberal .
Can't argue with that.

[SteelCityMom]

My problem is that I rarely if ever see so called moderate Moslems speaking out strongly against their radical brothers. Cartoonists and writer targeted for death and all I see is rationilizations about how cartoonists and writers shouldn't be so provocative and need to be more sensitive. Watch silently as Moslem populations drive out Christians and Jews from countries like Lebanon and cities like Bethleham. Squak about every perceived injustice the West visits upon Islam yet make no mention of countries like Egypt and Kuwait that have laws on their books making it illegal for inter faith marriages, and also have made it illegal for a born Muslim to convert to any other religion period. Throw in ritual stonings for woman who are made out to be adulters for leaving an arranged marriage, so on and so forth... and I just don't understand how the so called moderate's can sit in silence or worse yet critisize the West at every turn when their own house is in such disorder.

There are moderate muslims that speak out against the radicals. They just don't get the kind of press that radicals get...especially in the US.

Here's a few examples.

Some of America's leading Muslim figures speak on the use of violence as a means to impact change, and its contrary nature to Islam's teachings.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IofpsHOosE&feature=player_embedded


In Denmark...http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/811

Muslims against terrorism....http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Muslims against Sharia...http://www.reformislam.org/

A couple others worth reading...


More than eight eventful years have passed, but in some ways it still feels like 2001. Republicans have clearly decided that fanning the public's fears of rampant jihadism continues to be a winning strategy. Commentators furnish examples of backwardness and brutality from various parts of the Muslim world—and there are many—to highlight the grave threat we face.


But, in fact, the entire terrain of the war on terror has evolved dramatically. Put simply, the moderates are fighting back and the tide is turning. We no longer fear the possibility of a major country succumbing to jihadist ideology. In most Muslim nations, mainstream rulers have stabilized their regimes and their societies, and extremists have been isolated. This has not led to the flowering of Jeffersonian democracy or liberalism. But modern, somewhat secular forces are clearly in control and widely supported across the Muslim world. Polls, elections, and in-depth studies all confirm this trend.

The focus of our concern now is not a broad political movement but a handful of fanatics scattered across the globe. Yet Washington's vast nation-building machinery continues to spend tens of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are calls to do more in Yemen and Somalia. What we have to ask ourselves is whether any of that really will deter these small bands of extremists. Some of them come out of the established democracies of the West, hardly places where nation building will help. We have to understand the changes in the landscape of Islam if we are going to effectively fight the enemy on the ground, rather than the enemy in our minds.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/11/the-jihad-against-the-jihadis.html


Jakarta (AsiaNews) - A moderate Muslim organization is demanding that the radical Islamic group FPI is dismantled. The FPI (Islamic Defender Front) is known for its violence against religious minorities, especially against Christians, and wish to establish Sharia law in Indonesia.

Protests in the Muslim world have increased since early June, when some FPI activists’ forcibly removed three members of the Indonesian Democratic Party Struggle (PDIP) from a public health event in Banyuwangi, East Java. In recent days, the FPI has threatened the Christian community of Bekasi, forming a paramilitary group to prepare for possible attacks against Christians.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Jakarta,-moderate-Muslim-organizations-against-militant-Islamic-radicals-18845.html



There are many more, you just have to look for them. These stories will not come to you.

[SteelCityMom]

Since that was first mentioned, I have seen a few articles (local/credible ones) that state as such. But it appears to be for a legit reason.

I won't say your wrong...I just haven't been able to find any. If it is though, from the article you posted, I understand what the meaning of it would be as well.

[zulater]

There are many more, you just have to look for them. These stories will not come to you.

Perhaps, but what does come to me is the population turns in Bethleham and Lebanon where as recently as 20 years ago said places were as Christian as Moslem, but now each has a barely traceable population of Christians. A similiar story is being written in Indonesia, the Phillipines and virtually any other nation where Moslems gain power.

Maybe it's just a coincidence?

[SteelCityMom]

There are many more, you just have to look for them. These stories will not come to you.

Perhaps, but what does come to me is the population turns in Bethleham and Lebanon where as recently as 20 years ago said places were as Christian as Moslem, but now each has a barely traceable population of Christians. A similiar story is being written in Indonesia, the Phillipines and virtually any other nation where Moslems gain power.

Maybe it's just a coincidence?

The last article I posted addresses the radical muslims in Indonesia and the group of moderate muslims that are doing the best they can to break up that group of radicals. One other important note from that article though is the last line...


Muhammadiyah and NU have also accused the government of doing nothing to stop the violence.

It would appear that it's not the moderate muslims who are doing too little in Indonesia, but the government itself.

It's a vast religion. Religions like that spread...much like Christianity spread like wildfire in any area that a Christian nation occupied. That doesn't mean that all are radicals though and that there aren't movements to by moderate muslims to quell the radicals. There will always be radicals in every major religion. That's just something that is going to be true forever.

[7SteelGal43]

Funny how in this and other threads that have hit on the topic of religion, there seems to be more of a recognition on the part of some as to the distinction between peaceful, true Islam as opposed to radical, fundamentalist Islam which has been behind much violence and many wars while at the same time NOT recognizing or drawing the same distinction between peaceful, TRUE Christianity and the more fundamentalist faction of supposed Christianity.

[SteelerEmpire]

This is true. I guess the point I was trying to make is that not all Muslims are fundamentalists. Not all of them are possible terrorists who hate non-believers.

That is true. I personally know muslims that will give you the shirt off of their backs if you needed it... My former roomate in the US Navy is the security guard in this video. He's originally from New York City but moved here, with his family, to OKC when I helped him out of a bind... again. Now he's doing well as the regional spokes person for Islam in this part of the country. He's always on the news, CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) and other venues basically promoting that the good muslim's are trying, irrespective of Islamic fundamentalism...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsD9R9sxXDQ

[SteelCityMom]

Funny how in this and other threads that have hit on the topic of religion, there seems to be more of a recognition on the part of some as to the distinction between peaceful, true Islam as opposed to radical, fundamentalist Islam which has been behind much violence and many wars while at the same time NOT recognizing or drawing the same distinction between peaceful, TRUE Christianity and the more fundamentalist faction of supposed Christianity.

Of course there's a distinction between the two, in both religions. I don't think I, or anyone else ever said there wasn't. I know there are good Christians out there. Some are my family, some are my very close friends and true inspirations to me. There are many bad Christians out there as well...just like there are many bad Muslims. It's wrong to lump anyone into one ironclad category and say that's that.

All I've done, in this thread especially, is try to highlight the fact that there are people, no matter what race, no matter what religion, who do horrible things. The same is true for people who do wonderful things. To be totally honest with you though, it's not necessarily the religions that bother me, it's the organization of it. Once anything becomes organized like religion and governments do...they become political and corrupt. That's a whole other discussion though.

[Hindes204]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHg9gzo9o-U


Not sure if this has been posted in this thread yet, I dont have time to read through 30 pages...But I think Ms. Raza hits the nail on the head in this video

[ricardisimo]

ric, if you read the Bible, you'd see that in Christianity, women are not inferior nor does the Bible (see New Testament) call for violence against non-believers. If you have any other understanding of the Bible, then you need some new understanding.

From 1 Timothy, Chapter 2: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

From Ephesians 5: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

From 1 Corinthians, Chapter 14: "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

And these are from the New Testament, mind you. This is god's new, improved covenant with his people, the one with reduced violence, no sodium and only half the fat. The OT is not quite this pretty.

[st33lersguy]

Meet the imam who wants to build this mosque

http://llphfreedom.blogspot.com/2010...ty-funded.html

This is some of the article


Back on June 5th, I reported that Islamic supremacist Imam Rauf, the imam behind that grotesque flag of conquest on Ground Zero, was a "prominent figure" in "The Perdana Organization."
They funded the genocidal Jew-hating terrorist group behind the murderous attack on Jewish soldiers on the warship flotilla. Rauf is funding IHH?
Provoking, funding, encouraging a second holocaust? Where is he getting his $100 million for the Islamic supremacist mega mosque looking down on the mass burial ground at the World Trade Center, and why is Ayatollah Bloomberg calling any investigation into Imam Terror's shady funding "un-American"? It's anti-American not to.

More in the Imam unmosqued NY Post

The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea ......
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its Website.
Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza Movement, a key organizer of the six-ship flotilla that tried to break Israel's blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip Monday.


Another article

http://www.pipelinenews.org/2010/Ima...g-Project.html

and some of this article


It's still unclear why Rauf decided to call his building plan the Cordoba Initiative, given Spain's unpleasant experience during its 700 odd years of Islamic subjugation.

Getting the interview started, and after posing a number of innocuous questions to the imam, which he fielded in his usual deft manner, Klein went on the offensive, asking Rauf pointedly if Hamas was a terrorist organization as designated in 1995 by the Clinton State Department.

Rauf responded in what has now become the classic manner of the Islamist.

He adamantly refused to identify Hamas as a terrorist group, nervously dancing around the topic while claiming he was a "bridge builder," doing everything he could to avoid directly confronting the issue. [see, World Net Daily, June 20, 2010, Ground Zero' imam makes stunning terror comments, Claims to support peace but refuses to condemn violent jihad groups, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...pageId=168797]

When asked by Klein if the Muslim Brotherhood - the Egyptian terrorist organization which created Hamas - was a terrorist organization, Rauf responded in a similar manner refusing to condemn the organization which has served as the ideological inspiration for all modern jihadism, including al-Qaeda

[Mach1]

A couple of other things I found interesting while doing some searching is that there are NO credible sources that say that the groundbreaking is to begin on 9/11.

From what I've seen it was when they wanted to open it.

[NJarhead]

From what I've seen it was when they wanted to open it.
They want to break ground on 9-11 as this year it coincides with a holiday for them.

[7SteelGal43]

The point I was making, SCMom, is that I've found that a lot of people are much quicker to point out that there are GOOD as well as bad Muslims then they are to point out that there are GOOD and bad Christians. Both on this board AND, you know, in the real world.

[SteelCityMom]

The point I was making, SCMom, is that I've found that a lot of people are much quicker to point out that there are GOOD as well as bad Muslims then they are to point out that there are GOOD and bad Christians. Both on this board AND, you know, in the real world.

I just kind of take that as the mood of our country for the most part. I know that there are some who will always flame Christians and their religion...but in general, where we are as a nation, it's become quite accepted to openly denounce all Muslims (especially after 9/11). Except for a select group of people, nobody is really openly denouncing Christians and calling them all terrorists or war-mongers, ya know.

[MasterOfPuppets]

From 1 Timothy, Chapter 2: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

From Ephesians 5: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

From 1 Corinthians, Chapter 14: "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

And these are from the New Testament, mind you. This is god's new, improved covenant with his people, the one with reduced violence, no sodium and only half the fat. The OT is not quite this pretty.

i couldn't help but notice this went unaddressed ....:noidea:

[ricardisimo]

i couldn't help but notice this went unaddressed ....:noidea:

Everyone has me on ignore now, MoP. Speaking of which...

[puts MasterOfPuppets on Ignore]

[ricardisimo]

They want to break ground on 9-11 as this year it coincides with a holiday for them.

If I'm not mistaken, the 10th is the end of Ramadan, which is a period of fasting or abstinence or some such thing, which makes the 11th Party Time (or the Islamic equivalent). It might also be something like in Judaism, where you are not supposed to do certain types of work during certain periods, which piles them up on later dates.

[7SteelGal43]

If I'm not mistaken, the 10th is the end of Ramadan, which is a period of fasting or abstinence or some such thing, which makes the 11th Party Time (or the Islamic equivalent). It might also be something like in Judaism, where you are not supposed to do certain types of work during certain periods, which piles them up on later dates.


yeah....that's exactly why they wanna break ground on Sept 11th :jerkit:

[7SteelGal43]

i couldn't help but notice this went unaddressed ....:noidea:


I'll give it a shot MOP.

(directed at ric, not MOP)

Speaking of Ephesians ch 5, I wonder if the Quran has any scripture that says "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her.....so husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife, loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it". That's also from Ephesians 5.

As for the other scriptures, ever heard of Kathryn Kuhlman or Joyce Meyer ? Christianity has long had women who prophesy, speak in church and **gasp** are even pastors of their Church. Even at the time these sciptures were written, it was a FAR FAR cry from the Sharia Law that Muslims still practice today.

[MasterOfPuppets]

ric addressed this...


ric, if you read the Bible, you'd see that in Christianity, women are not inferior

my reading comprehension when it comes to bible lingo isn't the greatest, but it sure looks to me (from the versus ric provided) that god is saying women should STFU and just do as their husband says ...:noidea:

she is to keep silent.
wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

[SteelerEmpire]

Quote Originally Posted by ricardisimo View Post
From 1 Timothy, Chapter 2: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

From Ephesians 5: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

From 1 Corinthians, Chapter 14: "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

And these are from the New Testament, mind you. This is god's new, improved covenant with his people, the one with reduced violence, no sodium and only half the fat. The OT is not quite this pretty.


i couldn't help but notice this went unaddressed ....:noidea:

I guess trying to avoid too many chiefs and not enough indian's in a house-hold eh ?

[NJarhead]

If I'm not mistaken, the 10th is the end of Ramadan, which is a period of fasting or abstinence or some such thing, which makes the 11th Party Time (or the Islamic equivalent). It might also be something like in Judaism, where you are not supposed to do certain types of work during certain periods, which piles them up on later dates.

Sounds about right. And contrary to the conspiracies, they do seem to be putting forth an effort to gain an understanding of their intentions.

[SteelCityMom]

I'll give it a shot MOP.

(directed at ric, not MOP)

Speaking of Ephesians ch 5, I wonder if the Quran has any scripture that says "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her.....so husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife, loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it". That's also from Ephesians 5.

As for the other scriptures, ever heard of Kathryn Kuhlman or Joyce Meyer ? Christianity has long had women who prophesy, speak in church and **gasp** are even pastors of their Church. Even at the time these sciptures were written, it was a FAR FAR cry from the Sharia Law that Muslims still practice today.

Not in those exact words...but yes, the Qur'an does say similar things.


O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and God will bring about through it a great deal of good. (4:19)


They (your wives) are your garment and you are a garment for them. (2:187)


Considering the fact that before the advent of Islam the pagan Arabs used to bury their female children alive, make women dance naked in the vicinity of the Ka'ba during their annual fairs, and treat women as mere chattels and objects of sexual pleasure -- possessing no rights or position whatsoever, these teachings of the Noble Qur'an were revolutionary. Unlike other religions, which regarded women as being possessed of inherent sin and wickedness, and men as being possessed of inherent virtue and nobility, Islam regards men and women as being of the same essence created from a single soul. The Qur'an declares:

O mankind! Revere your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from this pair scattered (like seeds) countless men and women. Revere God, through Whom you demand your mutual (rights), and reverence the wombs (that bore you); for God ever watches over you. (4:1)

http://www.islamfortoday.com/womeninqands.htm

There are many, many more examples of how men should treat women with respect in Islam. Many interesting articles can be found here. http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm

Conversely, many damning articles about the Talibans treatment of women can be found here. http://www.islamfortoday.com/afghanistanwomen1.htm This treatment is not condoned by moderate Muslims though.

[7SteelGal43]

Not in those exact words...but yes, the Qur'an does say similar things.







http://www.islamfortoday.com/womeninqands.htm

There are many, many more examples of how men should treat women with respect in Islam. Many interesting articles can be found here. http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm

Conversely, many damning articles about the Talibans treatment of women can be found here. http://www.islamfortoday.com/afghanistanwomen1.htm This treatment is not condoned by moderate Muslims though.

Wow, thank you for pointing that out, SCMom. So, WTF happened ? I mean, the Taliban is not even fundamentalist, they are completely distorting the Quran to where they shoot women execution style in a public place just because of what they deem 'lewd' behavior ? That's F'd up



EDIT: Did a little research after I posted this. Apparently, according to the Quran, if the wife that you are cherishing and treating nicely get's outta line, it's ok to "smack da bitch". And MOP, I much prefer the Christian idea of "man is the head of the household, wives should submit" to Mohameds examples about treating wives. I've been in the Christian church all my life. Never has my understanding of "wives submit to your husbands" been that women are inferior, or a slave to their husband. Nowhere does the Bible teach that husbands are allowed to beat their wives if they don't do has he asks or jump at his every command.

SOURCE: Mohameds examples and what the Quran teach about husbands and wives.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/003-wife-beating.htm

[SteelCityMom]

Wow, thank you for pointing that out, SCMom. So, WTF happened ? I mean, the Taliban is not even fundamentalist, they are completely distorting the Quran to where they shoot women execution style in a public place just because of what they deem 'lewd' behavior ? That's F'd up



EDIT: Did a little research after I posted this. Apparently, according to the Quran, if the wife that you are cherishing and treating nicely get's outta line, it's ok to "smack da bitch". And MOP, I much prefer the Christian idea of "man is the head of the household, wives should submit" to Mohameds examples about treating wives. I've been in the Christian church all my life. Never has my understanding of "wives submit to your husbands" been that women are inferior, or a slave to their husband. Nowhere does the Bible teach that husbands are allowed to beat their wives if they don't do has he asks or jump at his every command.

SOURCE: Mohameds examples and what the Quran teach about husbands and wives.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/003-wife-beating.htm

I know it is. And it is something that is relatively new. The Taliban is nothing but a bunch of thugs who took control of a country. I know from doing some reading that Muslim women DO have some restrictions on them, but they are more for modesty than any thing else (i.e. the hijab). But not even those are mandatory according to Qur'an scripture.

The Taliban truly did warp what Islamic scriptures say though. And it's a shame that many Americans think this is a Muslim tradition.


The Taliban took control of Kabul on Sept. 26, 1996, and began a reign of terror against women by issuing a series of decrees that would be ludicrous if they weren't so deadly. Many Afghan women are widows -- there are 30,000 in Kabul alone -- without close male relatives, and they are the sole supporters of their children.

Operating under the guise of Islamic law, the Taliban has prohibited women from working, attending school, leaving their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative and wearing shoes that make noise when they walk. The windows of buildings with women inside must be painted. In public, women must be covered from head to toe by a burqa, an oppressive garment that has only a tiny mesh opening over the eyes.

In September 1997, the Taliban began segregating men and women into separate hospitals. Male doctors are forbidden to treat women unless they are accompanied by a close male relative. At one point, Kabul's half-million women were relegated to one hospital that had 35 beds and no clean water, electricity or surgical equipment. After an international uproar, the Taliban eased some restrictions on women's access to hospitals.

Horrible stories continue to emerge. Women and girls are dying of treatable conditions because they can't get medical care or can't afford a burqa. "A burqa costs $9," says Eleanor Smeal, of the Feminist Majority Foundation, which is spearheading a campaign to stop the gender apartheid. "It's a month's salary for them. They never had to wear these before." Moreover, she says, the burqas don't allow women to breathe properly and are themselves a health hazard.

"These are inhumane conditions," Smeal says. "We have a United Nations. We have a world community. We've got to create the will and then do something extraordinary for once, for humanitarian reasons."

Women and men who disobey dress and other behavioral codes are subjected to barbaric punishments. PHR reports that every Friday, "the Taliban terrorizes the city of Kabul by publicly punishing alleged wrongdoers in the Kabul sports stadium and requiring public attendance at the floggings, shootings, hangings, beheadings and amputations."

more...http://www.islamfortoday.com/afghanistanwomen6.htm

[tony hipchest]

I much prefer the Christian idea of "man is the head of the household, wives should submit" to Mohameds examples about treating wives. I've been in the Christian church all my life.

while you prefer that Christian idea, you dont subscribe to it at all, whatsoever correct?

[7SteelGal43]

I know it is. And it is something that is relatively new. The Taliban is nothing but a bunch of thugs who took control of a country. I know from doing some reading that Muslim women DO have some restrictions on them, but they are more for modesty than any thing else (i.e. the hijab). But not even those are mandatory according to Qur'an scripture.

The Taliban truly did warp what Islamic scriptures say though. And it's a shame that many Americans think this is a Muslim tradition.


But the Quran and Mohamed have been around a lot longer than the Taliban, and that is where the harsh treatment of wives originated, in the Quran and from Mohamed.

[7SteelGal43]

while you prefer that Christian idea, you dont subscribe to it at all, whatsoever correct?

tony, I'm not gonna fall for your pot stirring. Have a nice night.

[SteelCityMom]

EDIT: Did a little research after I posted this. Apparently, according to the Quran, if the wife that you are cherishing and treating nicely get's outta line, it's ok to "smack da bitch". And MOP, I much prefer the Christian idea of "man is the head of the household, wives should submit" to Mohameds examples about treating wives. I've been in the Christian church all my life. Never has my understanding of "wives submit to your husbands" been that women are inferior, or a slave to their husband. Nowhere does the Bible teach that husbands are allowed to beat their wives if they don't do has he asks or jump at his every command.

SOURCE: Mohameds examples and what the Quran teach about husbands and wives.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/003-wife-beating.htm

I know...and I'm not trying to say that it's all sunshine and roses all the time in the Qur'an either, but remember, there are just as many quotes in the Bible that degrade women and wives in the same way that would be illegal to do today. For example...


1. In the Bible's book of Deuteronomy it says that if a man marries a woman and then decides that he hates her, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they married. At that point her father must prove she was a virgin. (How is not explained.) If he can't, then the girl is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep.

2. If you see a pretty woman among your captives and would like her for a wife, then bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can simply "let her go." (Deuteronomy)

3. If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." (Deuteronomy)

more...http://www.cybercollege.com/antiwoman.htm

I'm not saying that anything stated against women in the Qur'an is right...and certainly shouldn't be applied to today, but there are many things that are degrading to women in many different religious texts that are not ok by todays standards. And smacking your wife as a last resort should not be equated with what the Taliban has twisted the Qur'an and Islam into. They are not ok by moderate Muslim standards either, and husbands are instructed to treat their wives with respect and dignity and vice versa.

[tony hipchest]

i most certainly AM NOT the one stirring the pot in this thread. i resent the accusation and take that sort of attack personally.

allow me to make an analogy and just say that i dont want anyone preaching the bible to me and the sins of the forbidden fruit as they sit and eat apple pie.

[SteelCityMom]

But the Quran and Mohamed have been around a lot longer than the Taliban, and that is where the harsh treatment of wives originated, in the Quran and from Mohamed.

Not in the way that the Taliban is doing it at all.

Again, I can't stress how much I disagree with smacking a woman around, but I can't equate it with keeping her locked up all day, painting windows and public execution.

You should read the tips from the book "How to Make Your Wife Happy". It does touch on the physical punishment bit and while THAT is not funny, some of the other stuff kind of is...but you can see how it promotes a mutually respectful relationship.


3- The last solution is (when allowable) lightly hitting her. In this
case, the husband should consider the following:
- He should know that sunnah is to avoid beating as the Prophet
PBUH never beat a woman or a servant.
- He should do it only in extreme cases of disobedience, e.g.
refusing intercourse without cause frequently, constantly not
praying on time, leaving the house for long periods of time
without permission nor refusing to tell him where she had been,
etc..
- It should not be done except after having turned from her bed and
discussing the matter with her as mentioned in Qur'an .
- He should not hit her hard injuring her, or hit her on her face or
on sensitive parts of her body.
- He should avoid shaming her such as by hitting her with a shoe,
etc.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/how_to_make_your_wife_happy.htm

There's one for the husbands too! AGAIN, I can't stress enough that I don't agree with all of this (and lord knows I don't practice much of it either lol), but it's a far cry from how the Taliban is oppressing women.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/how_to_make_your_husband_happy.htm

[MasterOfPuppets]

3- The last solution is (when allowable) lightly hitting her

http://bbs.mediumpimpin.com/images/smilies/hippo.gif

[Wallace108]

This might be off-topic considering the current debate, but **SHOCK** Obama fully supports the mosque at ground zero.

By Michael D. Shear and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 14, 2010

President Obama on Friday forcefully joined the national debate over construction of an Islamic complex near New York's Ground Zero, telling guests at a White House dinner marking the holy month of Ramadan that opposing the project is at odds with American values.
"Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said at a White House iftar, the traditional breaking of the daily Ramadan fast.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081304357.html?wprss=rss_print

[tony hipchest]

From what I've seen it was when they wanted to open it.


http://www.bigskyballoons.com/images2/pig01.jpg

[ricardisimo]

As for the other scriptures, ever heard of Kathryn Kuhlman or Joyce Meyer ? Christianity has long had women who prophesy, speak in church and **gasp** are even pastors of their Church. Even at the time these sciptures were written, it was a FAR FAR cry from the Sharia Law that Muslims still practice today.

I haven't heard of these women. I'm sure they are fine, strong, bright and independent women... and really bad Christians, as the passages I quoted make plain. They are not to speak in church, and if they have a question about scripture, they can ask their husbands at home.

[ricardisimo]

But the Quran and Mohamed have been around a lot longer than the Taliban, and that is where the harsh treatment of wives originated, in the Quran and from Mohamed.

No, the harsh treatment of women predates all of these bozos - Muslim, Jew, Christian, Confucian, etc. - by several thousand years at least. Men are just not terribly bright, and the extra testosterone doesn't help.

Writing books to formalize their poor behavior just suggests that at some point they started feeling pangs of guilt about it, and we can't have that.


Nowhere does the Bible teach that husbands are allowed to beat their wives if they don't do has he asks or jump at his every command.

Do you really want to make that claim? Think very carefully about this.

I stand by what I said about fifty posts back: all of these books are amazingly identical in their rather uncomfortable (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Deut+22%3A13-21) proclamations (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Num+31%3A14-18). What distinguishes the religions more is which passages are being actively ignored, as they are clearly being ignored by those women pastors you cited - and much to their credit, I might add.

[MasterOfPuppets]

EDIT: Nowhere does the Bible teach that husbands are allowed to beat their wives if they don't do has he asks or jump at his every command.


how about good ole fashion stonings....


Deuteronomy 22:16-21 (New International Version)

16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [a] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

here's an entire page of scriptures devoted to violence against women in the bible.

The Dark Bible

Women's Inferior Status
The Biblical view of women
http://nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm

[LLT]

And the Holy Roman Empire was innocent of such a thing?

I'm not sure why some people continue to debate in this manner.

1) YOU said that that the bad reputation that Muslims get is due to recent fundamentalist violence.

2) I corrected your statement by giving you facts and dates to show that violence with (and through) Muslim occupation is well documented throughout history...AND I prefaced that statement with the fact that Christianity is also filled with episodes of violent treatment towards others.

3) Now you respond with "And the Holy Roman Empire was innocent of such a thing?"....Well...since I already touched on that and since this is an obvious rabbit trail...I wont bother to answer it again and we are back to just your admission that your original premise was faulty.

4) It seems that too many posters refuse to debate Muslim theology on its on merit...and instead want to deflect from it by muddling the topic with Christian theology. Really, that isnt possible, and the two should be discussed seperately or you have these type of straw-man fallacies to deal with and nothing really ever gets deeply discussed. (Just an opportunity for the anti-god crowd to enable each other and say that all religion is bad without the benefit of true discussion).

[Killer]

This might be off-topic considering the current debate, but **SHOCK** Obama fully supports the mosque at ground zero.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York and the nation.

"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."





"Religious freedom" my ass.


No one said moslems don’t have the right to practice their religion, there are dozens of mosques in NYC.


I wonder how New Yorkers feel

http://bigjournalism.com/files/2010/08/MosquesProtestsNewYork.jpg

[st33lersguy]

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York and the nation.

"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."

I like how Obama and his pinhead friends only acknowledges that we have freedom of religion is when it applies to muslim. To Obama, the rest of the democrats, and all their friends freedom only applies to muslims (including battlefield terrorists, for whom the constitution doesn't apply to), illegal aliens, and themselves. For everyone else they act as if the constitution doesn't exist

[Vincent]

@#$% all the happy talk and comparative religion debate. Newt speaks...

http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/newt-gingrich-statement-proposed-mosqueislamic-community-center-near-ground-zero
Newt Gingrich Statement on Proposed Mosque/Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero
July 21, 2010 6pm

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

The proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks - is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.

Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to "symbolize interfaith cooperation" when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.

Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for "religious toleration" are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca.

And they lecture us about tolerance.

If the people behind the Cordoba House were serious about religious toleration, they would be imploring the Saudis, as fellow Muslims, to immediately open up Mecca to all and immediately announce their intention to allow non-Muslim houses of worship in the Kingdom. They should be asked by the news media if they would be willing to lead such a campaign.

We have not been able to rebuild the World Trade Center in nine years. Now we are being told a 13 story, $100 million megamosque will be built within a year overlooking the site of the most devastating surprise attack in American history.

Finally where is the money coming from? The people behind the Cordoba House refuse to reveal all their funding sources.

America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

No mosque.

No self deception.

No surrender.

The time to take a stand is now - at this site on this issue.

Further to the subject...


islam is satanic

[Vincent]

More clarity from Newt...

http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/no-mosque-ground-zero
No Mosque at Ground Zero
July 28, 2010 4pm

One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks “the war on terror” instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.

Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia—Islamic law—upon all aspects of global society.

Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.

For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia’s supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.

Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term “war on terrorism” is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.

Sharia and Western Civilization

Sharia law is used in many Muslim countries to justify shocking acts of barbarity including stoning, the execution of homosexuals, and the subjugation of women. Sharia does not permit freedom of conscience; it prohibits Muslims from renouncing their Islamic faith or converting to another religion. Sharia does not support religious liberty; it treats non-Muslims as inferior and does not accord them the same protections as Muslims. In these and other instances, sharia is explicitly at odds with core American and Western values. It is an explicit repudiation of freedom of conscience and religious liberty as well as the premise that citizens are equal under the law.

Thus, the radical Islamist effort to impose sharia worldwide is a direct threat to all those who believe in the freedoms maintained by our constitutional system.

Creeping Sharia in the United States

In some ways, it speaks of the goodness of America that we have had such difficulty coming to grips with the challenge of radical Islamists. It is our very commitment to religious liberty that makes us uncomfortable with defining our enemies in a way that appears linked with religious belief.

However, America’s commitment to religious liberty has given radical Islamists a potent rhetorical weapon in their pursuit of sharia supremacy. In a deliberately dishonest campaign exploiting our belief in religious liberty, radical Islamists are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and guilt Americans (and other Western countries) to accept the imposition of sharia in certain communities, no matter how deeply sharia law is in conflict with the protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding our constitutional system.

The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here. Andy McCarthy’s writings, including his new book The Grand Jihad, have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert the protections of American law and American values over sharia’s religious code. Some examples include:

In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious beliefs as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter. “This court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.” Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.

In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.

In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.

In order to accommodate sharia’s prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.

Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest provider of sharia financing in the world: AIG.

Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for proselytizing at an Arab festival. They were doing so in a legal, peaceful manner that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia’s rules on proselytizing. Police may say they were trying to prevent an incident, but why should the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom be sacrificed in deference to sharia’s intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam?*

Shockingly, sharia honor killings—in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family—are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered “domestic disturbances.” (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)

Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.

It is in this context that the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero must be seen.

Exposing Radical Islamist Hypocrisy at Ground Zero

There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an “accessory” to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.

More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn’t mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.

The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque—“Cordoba House”—which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.

They say they’re interfaith, but they didn’t propose the building of a mosque, church and synagogue. Instead they proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred.

Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.

We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims’ families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.

Apologists for radical Islamist hypocrisy are trying to argue that we have to allow the construction of this mosque in order to prove America’s commitment to religious liberty. They say this despite the fact that there are already over 100 mosques in New York City.

In fact, they’re partially correct—this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.

[Wallace108]

I like how Obama and his pinhead friends only acknowledges that we have freedom of religion is when it applies to muslim. To Obama, the rest of the democrats, and all their friends freedom only applies to muslims (including battlefield terrorists, for whom the constitution doesn't apply to), illegal aliens, and themselves. For everyone else they act as if the constitution doesn't exist

Exactly.

Obama said, "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Apparently, unshakable freedom applies only to liberals and non-Christians. If Muslims have the freedom to build a mosque near Ground Zero, even if offends people, then our children should have the right to pray in school, even if it offends other students. We should have the right to place the Ten Commandments in courthouses, even if it offends some people.

(I can hear the chorus of "separation of church and state" warming up in the background).

[Killer]

http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/08/14/news/photos_stories/obama_2040449--430x180.jpg

President Obama last night strongly backed the Ground Zero mosque while celebrating Ramadan with Muslim Americans at the White House

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/bam_gives_blessing_to_zero_mosque_9UJDMiQLyDfytyNn vLLyAN#ixzz0wadnpfC1








http://i931.photobucket.com/albums/ad158/FrankRob/FR_obamamuspray.jpg

[SteelCityMom]

Exactly.

Obama said, "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Apparently, unshakable freedom applies only to liberals and non-Christians. If Muslims have the freedom to build a mosque near Ground Zero, even if offends people, then our children should have the right to pray in school, even if it offends other students. We should have the right to place the Ten Commandments in courthouses, even if it offends some people.

(I can hear the chorus of "separation of church and state" warming up in the background).

I tend to agree with you on a couple of notions...that kids should be able to pray in school and if someone wants to put the 10 commandments in front of a courthouse, I really could care less. Letting something like that offend just means you're not comfortable with your own beliefs (IMO).

However, I do not think that is not a good enough comparison to make when arguing as to why a mosque (community center...whatever you want to call it) should not be built near ground zero. There are laws protecting the rights of ALL churches, synagogues, mosques etc. and where they can build.

Cities cannot discriminate against churches. RLUIPA requires that "religious assemblies and institutions" must be treated the same as "non-religious assemblies and institutions" under zoning laws. This means anywhere a city permits a community center, theater, or other facility for non-religious assembly, it must also allow a church.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000


In passing this law, Congress found that the right to assemble for worship is at the very core of the free exercise of religion. Religious assemblies cannot function without a physical space adequate to their needs and consistent with their theological requirements. The right to build, buy, or rent such a space is an indispensable adjunct of the core First Amendment right to assemble for religious purposes. Religious assemblies, especially, new, small, or unfamiliar ones, may be illegally discriminated against on the face of zoning codes and also in the highly individualized and discretionary processes of land use regulation. Zoning codes and landmarking laws may illegally exclude religious assemblies in places where they permit theaters, meeting halls, and other places where large groups of people assemble for secular purposes. Or the zoning codes or landmarking laws may permit religious assemblies only with individualized permission from the zoning board or landmarking commission, and zoning boards or landmarking commission may use that authority in illegally discriminatory ways.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/rluipaexplain.php

Whether you agree with it or not, it would simply be illegal to restrict building a mosque there. It's against the law and if the city did, NYC and the taxpayers would have to foot the bill for the lawsuit to boot. This is true for all churches and all faiths.

[LLT]

On a personal level...I am offended by those who would want to put a mosque at ground zero. I HAVE to question the motives of those who would pick that particular site and the lack of respect it shows to the friends and family members of those who lost their lives there. I also KNOW beyond a doubt that a mosque in that location WILL become a shrine for those who look at the bombing as a victory against the United States.

That being said...I understand that there is no legal reason to prevent Muslims from buying property and I understand that there are peace-loving peoples of every religion.

It's just a shame that those who "claim" to be peace-loving and who surely would like to "close the rift" between people groups would choose this particular location...knowing that it would undoubtedly cause extreme animosity and offense.

[SteelCityMom]

http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/newt-gingrich-statement-proposed-mosqueislamic-community-center-near-ground-zero
Newt Gingrich Statement on Proposed Mosque/Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero
July 21, 2010 6pm

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

This is not Saudi Arabi...this is the US. I would hope that just because they don't allow something over there wouldn't mean the we shouldn't allow something over here. I don't think that's how our country is supposed to work (at least if you're not Newt Gingrich).




We have not been able to rebuild the World Trade Center in nine years. Now we are being told a 13 story, $100 million megamosque will be built within a year overlooking the site of the most devastating surprise attack in American history.

It's not the Muslims fault or the mosques fault that NYC has lagged so much in getting ground zero rebuilt. You'd think after 9 years they could get something, anything done. Do you think people would be as upset if ground zero had been rebuilt by now? Some might, but I don't think there would be such an uproar.

Here's an interesting article you might want to read about the "construction" going on at ground zero.


As Scott Pelley of “60 Minutes” pointed out in late February: “On the 10-year anniversary of Sept. 11, $7 billion will have been spent, but not one project will be finished. Most of the buildings in the master plan are still in doubt, and at best, a decade after the attack, ground zero will still look like a major construction site.”

By comparison, the Empire State Building, still the third tallest skyscraper in America at 1,454 feet, was built in one year. During the Great Depression.

The twin towers of the original World Trade Center were completed in less than five years.

And now? Now ground zero remains virtually empty after almost nine years. “I describe it as a national disgrace,” Larry Silverstein, the 78-year-old real estate developer who owns the lease on the property, told Pelley.

more...http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40605.html

Now THAT is a damn shame and a slap in the face to the families of 9/11 victims, all New Yorkers and all Americans for that matter. What better way would there have been to figuratively "give the finger" to terrorists than to have the site rebuilt in a reasonable amount of time and go on with life as usual.


Finally where is the money coming from? The people behind the Cordoba House refuse to reveal all their funding sources.

Honest question...do they have to?


America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

This sounds like fear mongering (I know...big surprise from Newt). The American public may have gotten more complacent and ignorant over the years (even when *gasp* it comes to our own government), but I know in my heart that true Americans would never let themselves be overrun. Blood would rain on the streets before that ever happened. We were never overrun by commies, nazis or the boogeyman....we won't be overrun by Islam either. I truly believe that in my heart.

[tony hipchest]

On a personal level...I am offended by those who would want to put a mosque at ground zero. I HAVE to question the motives of those who would pick that particular site and the lack of respect it shows to the friends and family members of those who lost their lives there. I also KNOW beyond a doubt that a mosque in that location WILL become a shrine for those who look at the bombing as a victory against the United States.

That being said...I understand that there is no legal reason to prevent Muslims from buying property and I understand that there are peace-loving peoples of every religion.

It's just a shame that those who "claim" to be peace-loving and who surely would like to "close the rift" between people groups would choose this particular location...knowing that it would undoubtedly cause extreme animosity and offense.

this is where im at. if i could, id hang the neon sign in my sig above the main entrance of their "mosque".

the newt articles are good ones but very narrow minded. he should know as well as anyone that americas hands are tied by its own laws, freedoms, and liberties.

as for all the misdirected hate in this thread towards, obama, democrats, liberals (IE anything but conservative republican belief), i still see that nobody has provided a link to who PROFITED from the sale of this land, so the hate and anger can properly be thrown onto the people/organization who deserve it.

[SteelCityMom]

More clarity from Newt...

http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/no-mosque-ground-zero
No Mosque at Ground Zero
July 28, 2010 4pm

One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks “the war on terror” instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.

Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia—Islamic law—upon all aspects of global society.

Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.

For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia’s supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.

Can't argue with anything here...I'm glad he's made the distinction between radicals and moderate Muslims.

As to the rest of the article...I understand what he's getting at, but I've argued enough as to why I don't necessarily agree with it.

At any rate, thank you for the reads...even if they are from Newt. :chuckle:

[tony hipchest]

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

"A throwing stone gathers no mosque."

[LLT]

"A throwing stone gathers no mosque."

I dont understand the big deal...I once was almost stoned to death in college. :smokin:

[Vincent]

I dont understand the big deal...I once was almost stoned to death in college. :smokin:

Yeah, I smoked rope for a whole month one night.

I'm all for freedom of religion except for those that wouldn't grant me the freedom to practice my religion. And I'm all for tolerance of the tolerant. And contempt for the contemptible.

Its nice to be nice to the nice.

[GBMelBlount]

I HAVE to question the motives of those who would pick that particular site and the lack of respect it shows to the friends and family members of those who lost their lives there.



I agree, and that is why I would have no problem if someone opens up a muslim gay bar right next to it and calls it "you mecca me hot!" or "There's a jihad in my pants!"

......after all, it is a free country right! :chuckle:

[LLT]

I agree, and that is why I would have no problem if someone opens up a muslim gay bar right next to it and calls it "you mecca me hot!" or "There's a jihad in my pants!"

......after all, it is a free country right! :chuckle:

I reeeeeeeaaaaaly wish I hadnt taken a drink of coffee before reading that!!!! :toofunny:

[silver & black]

I agree, and that is why I would have no problem if someone opens up a muslim gay bar right next to it and calls it "you mecca me hot!" or "There's a jihad in my pants!"

......after all, it is a free country right! :chuckle:

:applaudit:

[Vincent]

I agree, and that is why I would have no problem if someone opens up a muslim gay bar right next to it and calls it "you mecca me hot!" or "There's a jihad in my pants!"

......after all, it is a free country right! :chuckle:

See, now this is just the sort of sick perverted thinking that pisses muslims off. We bring their anger on ourselves.

I salute you Sir!!
"you mecca me hot!" Quit it, yer killing me!!! :rofl2::alcohol::boink::whoo::buttkick:

[Godfather]

Here's a good article on the double standard (ie the Orthodox church I mentioned earlier):

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38462

[steelwalls]

Of all the places in America a mosque could be built, for much, much cheaper and locations that are not going feel like a b&%$! slap to the majority of Americans, I would ask what is the point to it all? I liken it to the freedom of speech analogy... you can't go into a theater and yell "fire"!!!! People are bound to get hurt.

[ricardisimo]

Of all the places in America a mosque could be built, for much, much cheaper and locations that are not going feel like a b&%$! slap to the majority of Americans, I would ask what is the point to it all? I liken it to the freedom of speech analogy... you can't go into a theater and yell "fire"!!!! People are bound to get hurt.

Yes, it would be dirt cheap for Manhattan's Muslim community to build that center in Boise, except for the bullet train that would have to go with it if they expect to make morning services before heading back to work.

My suspicion is that after all of the reports of toxicity in the area of Ground Zero, real estate might almost be reasonable, in New York City terms, that is.

Yet another reminder: it's not at Ground Zero, it's near Ground Zero.

[Vincent]

It's not at Ground Zero, it's near Ground Zero.

Its in America.

[MasterOfPuppets]

Historic Church in Upstate New York Sold to Muslims and Turned into a Mosque

BINGHAMTON, NY: Episcopal Diocese Sells Historic Church to Muslims
The Church of the Good Shepherd, which has stood at #79 Conklin Avenue since 1879, has been willingly turned over to a Muslim entity by the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York, rather than have it remain in the hands of traditional Anglicans who practice the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

The death knell for the structure as a Christian house of worship was delivered on February 9, 2010, when it was sold to Imam Muhammad Affify, doing business as the Islamic Awareness Center, for a mere $50,000, a fraction of the church's assessed $386,400 value.
http://savageinfidel.blogspot.com/2010/04/historic-church-in-upstate-new-york.html

[MasterOfPuppets]

NY parish declines to sell property to Muslim group

NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) – A Roman Catholic parish in New York City on Thursday voted against selling one of its properties to a Muslim organization that planned to erect a mosque there, yielding to local residents' opposition.

The Staten Island parish's decision against the sale of its abandoned convent to the Muslim American Society comes as a another proposed mosque faces criticism for being located too close to the site of the September 11, 2001, attacks in Manhattan.


The Staten Island Advance, a local newspaper, reported that the vote came after heated exchanges between residents living by the beachside parish and members of the Muslim community.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_newyork_mosque

[MasterOfPuppets]

you'd think these good wealthy peace loving muslims would be using their resources to help out their unfortunate bretheren around the world instead of trying to buy up all the property they can in the western world. but then again i guess the catholic church didn't accumulate 400 billion in assets by helping people ...:noidea:

[ricardisimo]

you'd think these good wealthy peace loving muslims would be using their resources to help out their unfortunate bretheren around the world instead of trying to buy up all the property they can in the western world. but then again i guess the catholic church didn't accumulate 400 billion in assets by helping people ...:noidea:

Tssk, tssk MoP... you know as well as I do that their work is not of this world, but the next, and the sooner they get all of us there the better.

[ricardisimo]

Its in America.

And we wouldn't want Americans building churches in America. I can actually say that, by the way: I really don't want Americans (or anyone else) building churches in America.

Can you say that?

[steelwalls]

Maybe I could found a new religion based on worshiping atomic energy and place a couple atom churches on 2 sites in Japan. Afterall it wouldnt be at the exact impact areas, so whats the big deal?

Are they free to do this? Of course.. should they do it?

[ricardisimo]

Maybe I could found a new religion based on worshiping atomic energy and place a couple atom churches on 2 sites in Japan. Afterall it wouldnt be at the exact impact areas, so whats the big deal?

Are they free to do this? Of course.. should they do it?

First of all, that religion wouldn't work out, because atomic energy actually exists, very much unlike the objects of every other major religion. It does get bonus points for having killed many, many people, but it's not enough. Sorry.

In order for your analogy to be apropos, the religion in this case would have to be based around airplanes, and how they are the conveyance to the afterlife, or some such nonsense. But we're talking about Muslims, not Airplanians.

Timothy McVeigh was, I'm sure, a Christian... probably a radical one, inspired in some way by his beliefs. How much do you want to bet there's a Christian something or other within a block of Ground Zero in Oklahoma City? You know what? Let's run with your example: How much do you want to bet there's a Christian Church (http://www.japaninyourpalm.com/unionchurch.htm) in Hiroshima, Japan? Or how about in Nagasaki (http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5096/)?

Lay your bets, ladies and germs.

[Godfather]

Timothy McVeigh was, I'm sure, a Christian... probably a radical one, inspired in some way by his beliefs. How much do you want to bet there's a Christian something or other within a block of Ground Zero in Oklahoma City? You know what? Let's run with your example: How much do you want to bet there's a Christian Church (http://www.japaninyourpalm.com/unionchurch.htm) in Hiroshima, Japan? Or how about in Nagasaki (http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5096/)?


Wrong, as usual. McVeigh believed in natural law and said science was his religion.

And the United States is, by law, a secular nation. The correct analogy there would be putting a McDonald's near Ground Zero in Hiroshima.

[Vincent]

How much do you want to bet there's a Christian Church (http://www.japaninyourpalm.com/unionchurch.htm) in Hiroshima, Japan? Or how about in Nagasaki (http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5096/)?

Lay your bets, ladies and germs.

You might not be able to get your mind around this...

Atom-bombed Madonna a peace symbol on Nagasaki anniversary
http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/08/08/atom-bombed-madonna-a-peace-symbol-on-nagasaki-anniversary/#ixzz0wmW7Icjj

http://nationalpostlife.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mary2.jpg?w=620

Agence France-Presse August 8, 2010 – 6:17 pm

By Shingo Ito

NAGASAKI, Japan – When the atom bomb “Fat Boy” devastated Nagasaki 65 years ago on Monday, one of the buildings reduced to rubble was the city’s Urakami cathedral — then among the largest churches in Asia.

The blinding nuclear flash that would claim more than 70,000 lives in the city also, in an instant, blew out the stained glass windows of the church, toppled its walls, burnt its altar and melted its iron bell.

But, in what local Christian followers have likened to a miracle, the head of a wooden Virgin Mary statue survived amid the collapsed columns and scorched debris of the Romanesque church flattened on August 9, 1945.

The appearance of the war-ravaged religious icon is haunting. The Madonna’s eyes have become scorched, black hollows, the right cheek is charred, and a crack runs like a streaking tear down her face.

“When I first saw [the damaged statue], I thought the Virgin Mary was crying,” said Shigemi Fukahori, a 79-year-old parishioner at the church who remembers the statue before the explosion that destroyed the cathedral that is called St Mary’s in English.

“I thought it’s as if the Virgin Mary is telling us about the misery of war by sacrificing herself,” Fukahori said, quietly gazing at the statue. “This is a significant symbol of peace which should be preserved forever.”

The remains of the statue of the Virgin Mary have found a new home inside a rebuilt church, also called St Mary’s, built on the same site, only 500 metres from the bomb’s ground zero.

But the powerful relic has also travelled widely as a symbol of peace — most recently to New York for a UN nuclear disarmament conference in May, when it was also taken to a mass at the city’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

On their way, the Nagasaki religious leaders carried the statue to the Vatican, where it was blessed by Pope Benedict XVI, and to a ceremony in Guernica, Spain to mourn the victims of Nazi air attacks during the Spanish Civil War.

“We travelled overseas with the statue, with the idea that we would like to ask the Virgin Mary to act for peace,” Joseph Mitsuaki Takami, the archbishop of Nagasaki, said in an interview with AFP.

“There are many ways to make such an appeal — through pictures, film or narratives about the horror — but the atomic-bombed Mary appears to have a different power to tell us about it.”

Nagasaki, a southwestern port city, was Japan’s sole gateway to the outside world during much of the Edo era (1603-1867) when the country retreated into self-imposed isolation.

The Edo era’s Tokugawa Shogunate imposed anti-Christian edicts in the early 17th century, oppressing Christians and banishing European priests.

Some believers were martyred and others secretly maintained their creed as “hidden Christians” for more than 200 years until Japan reopened under the Meiji era that began in the late 19th century.

Some 8,500 local Christians were killed in the Nagasaki bombing.

Brother Thomas Ozaki Tagawa, speaking for other local Christians, said many were puzzled by why the United States attacked Nagasaki, Japan’s largest Christian community.

While many of the survivors try to see the tragedy as a tribulation handed to them by God, their agonies are still rooted deeply in their minds.

“I was too sad to cry because it was simply too merciless,” said Fukahori, who survived inside a Nagasaki factory when the mushroom cloud rose.

“Many survivors are still suffering the after-effects of the radiation,” Fukahori said. “All I can do is to pray for them. I hope Nagasaki will be the last place ever to fall victim to an atomic bomb.”

Many Americans believe the bombs were necessary to bring a quick end to the war and avoid a bloody land invasion, but the archbishop disagrees.

“Japan killed millions in Asia, but that doesn’t mean dropping atomic bombs is justified,” he said. “Possessing nuclear weapons in itself is a sin.”

Mayor Tomihisa Taue said: “People simply need to use the power of their imagination and consider how it would be if this happened to their family or friends. You can easily imagine that when you visit Nagasaki or Hiroshima.”

Read more: http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/08/08/atom-bombed-madonna-a-peace-symbol-on-nagasaki-anniversary/#ixzz0wmWjyfh0

[ricardisimo]

Wow... are you suggesting that setting up a religious facility near the site of a major atrocity might actually serve as a sort of olive branch, a symbol of hope and peace, instead of contempt and hatred, just as this Christian statue from Nagasaki has done? I wonder if the Manhattan Muslim community has thought of that.

Nah, they're Satanists who have no interest in peace and reconciliation, I'm sure.

[zulater]

“Japan killed millions in Asia, but that doesn’t mean dropping atomic bombs is justified,” he said. “Possessing nuclear weapons in itself is a sin.”


Japan didn't merely kill millions, they systematically tortured and destroyed just about everything in their wake without mercy. Ask any Korean, Phillipino, or Chinese citizen that's old enough to remember what Japanese wartime occupation was like and you'll find absolutely no sympathy for the victims of Hiroshimo or Nagasaki.

[Mach1]

The mosque in that location is nothing more than a monument to islams perceived victory over the U.S.

[SteelCityMom]

Wow... are you suggesting that setting up a religious facility near the site of a major atrocity might actually serve as a sort of olive branch, a symbol of hope and peace, instead of contempt and hatred, just as this Christian statue from Nagasaki has done? I wonder if the Manhattan Muslim community has thought of that.

Nah, they're Satanists who have no interest in peace and reconciliation, I'm sure.

To be fair, the church was there before the bomb was dropped and the statue is part of the wreckage.

I think a better example here would be the fact that Japan (Nagasaki and Hiroshima included) did more business with the US and opened up thousands of Americanized stores all across the country...with some surely to be near where the bombs were dropped...after the bombs were dropped.

[SteelCityMom]

The mosque in that location is nothing more than a monument to islams perceived victory over the U.S.

I posed this question earlier in the thread and no one responded...but do you think people would be so offended by this if NYC wasn't dragging its feet on rebuilding ground zero. I mean, it's been almost 9 years and all there is to show for it is 200ft of bare structure and no real final plans for anything. I mean, they've spent billions of dollars already, shouldn't they have SOMETHING to show for it?

Wouldn't be much of a victory for the terrorists if the site was already rebuilt...and it's not any Muslims fault that it's not.

[Mach1]

I posed this question earlier in the thread and no one responded...but do you think people would be so offended by this if NYC wasn't dragging its feet on rebuilding ground zero. I mean, it's been almost 9 years and all there is to show for it is 200ft of bare structure and no real final plans for anything. I mean, they've spent billions of dollars already, shouldn't they have SOMETHING to show for it?

Wouldn't be much of a victory for the terrorists if the site was already rebuilt...and it's not any Muslims fault that it's not.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the mosque itself.

[SteelCityMom]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the mosque itself.

Sure it does. A lot of people are upset because this mosque is overlooking the rubble and they see that as a victory for the terrorists.

Seriously, it's a valid question. They waited just shy of 9 years to build a mosque there (which doesn't even resemble a mosque in any way), it's not their fault that jack shit has been done at ground zero. I think the fact that nothing has been done there is more insulting than the mosque being built.

So again...do you think people, yourself included, would be as offended (if offended at all) by this if a proper memorial and rebuilding of ground zero had already taken place?

[ricardisimo]

Wrong, as usual. McVeigh believed in natural law and said science was his religion.

And the United States is, by law, a secular nation. The correct analogy there would be putting a McDonald's near Ground Zero in Hiroshima.

And Japan isn't secular? Japan isn't corporate-consumerist? Culturally we are far less secular than they are. The point here is that dominant-religion churches (Christian churches) from the country that obliterated two of their cities have been set up at or near Ground Zero of both cities. And as Vinny - I think - is trying to point out, the relics from one of the previously-existing churches have become some sort of icons for peace and reconciliation. I find it odd that a Virgin relic is the focus here, and not some half-charred Shinto kami, but that's neither here nor there.

Who's to say that this community center won't similarly become the locus of remembrances, vigils, peace activism, etc.?

[stillers4me]

To be fair, the church was there before the bomb was dropped and the statue is part of the wreckage.

I think a better example here would be the fact that Japan (Nagasaki and Hiroshima included) did more business with the US and opened up thousands of Americanized stores all across the country...with some surely to be near where the bombs were dropped...after the bombs were dropped.

I don't think that is really a fair comparison. We dropped those bombs to end a war. We never made statements that we wanted to kill every Japanese person on the face of the earth. We didn't infiltrate their country afterward and hide amongst their people in order to propagate more attacks. Apples and oranges.

[ricardisimo]

I don't think that is really a fair comparison. We dropped those bombs to end a war. We never made statements that we wanted to kill every Japanese person on the face of the earth. We didn't infiltrate their country afterward and hide amongst their people in order to propagate more attacks. Apples and oranges.

No, we obliterated at least three of their cities, two with nuclear weapons, and then we occupied their country for years (and actually, our troops are still there 60 years later, a fact which has not been lost on Iraqis and Afghanis, I'm sure), and dictated their new constitution to them at the point of a gun. Sound familiar?

Why is it not a fair comparison? Because we are good and benign, and our enemies are evil?

[SteelCityMom]

I don't think that is really a fair comparison. We dropped those bombs to end a war. We never made statements that we wanted to kill every Japanese person on the face of the earth. We didn't infiltrate their country afterward and hide amongst their people in order to propagate more attacks. Apples and oranges.

The government didn't outright say it (though they DID put over 100k Japanese into internment camps...most of which were American citizens), but a lot of people thought it. I can still remember both of my grandpa's talking with pride about the bombs being dropped and the stupid dead japs. People HATED them back then. Now everything is hunky dory...go figure. I credit Gojira with the final peace solution. It appeased Americans appetite to see Tokyo destroyed over and over again.

My example for sure isn't the same as what the terrorists have done, but it's a better example than the church thing I guess.

[MasterOfPuppets]

“Japan killed millions in Asia, but that doesn’t mean dropping atomic bombs is justified,” he said. “Possessing nuclear weapons in itself is a sin.”


Japan didn't merely kill millions, they systematically tortured and destroyed just about everything in their wake without mercy. Ask any Korean, Phillipino, or Chinese citizen that's old enough to remember what Japanese wartime occupation was like and you'll find absolutely no sympathy for the victims of Hiroshimo or Nagasaki.

indeed...the japanese were as brutal and ruthless as any army has ever been...


Victims of Japanese aggression suffered terribly, from Korea to the Philippines to Southeast Asia to the islands of the Pacific. The nation hardest hit, however, was probably China. Beginning with the invasion by Japan in 1931, perhaps 15 million Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese Army or from the war's attendant starvation and disease. The toll on Asia and the Pacific was psychological as well as physical; controversy still rages over the numerous war crimes committed by the Japanese Army, including biological warfare experiments conducted on civilians, the execution of prisoners of war, and wholesale rape and murder committed against entire cities, such as happened in 1937 in the Chinese city of Nanking where 200,000 or more Chinese civilians may have died.

if your a history buff, here's an excellent account of how it all went down..
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/index.htm

[JonM229]

You don't see any German bars in Israel, do you?

[Vincent]

Wow... are you suggesting that setting up a religious facility near the site of a major atrocity might actually serve as a sort of olive branch, a symbol of hope and peace, instead of contempt and hatred, just as this Christian statue from Nagasaki has done?

No. I’m not suggesting anything about that article. It speaks for itself.


I wonder if the Manhattan Muslim community has thought of that. Nah, they're Satanists who have no interest in peace and reconciliation, I'm sure.

But I will comment on that. I have said that islam is satanic. And I’ve said for many reasons, not least of which is the behavior of their fringe element, which by the way equals close to half our population. islam is the inspiration and reason for the bad behavior. They use it as their justification to kill, maim, rape, lie, steal, and terrorize the world. Such a “religion” is satanic. But you are correct, they have no interest in peace and reconciliation.


We dropped those bombs to end a war. We never made statements that we wanted to kill every Japanese person on the face of the earth. We didn't infiltrate their country afterward and hide amongst their people in order to propagate more attacks. Apples and oranges.

What she said.

We should have dropped bombs to end this war.

[zulater]

No, we obliterated at least three of their cities, two with nuclear weapons, and then we occupied their country for years (and actually, our troops are still there 60 years later, a fact which has not been lost on Iraqis and Afghanis, I'm sure), and dictated their new constitution to them at the point of a gun. Sound familiar?

Why is it not a fair comparison? Because we are good and benign, and our enemies are evil?

We occupied their country for 60 years? That's what you call it? http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/japan/japanworkbook/modernhist/occupation.html

The American Occupation of Japan, 1945-1952
When the war ended, it was the common intent of all the Allied Powers to render Japan incapable of ever returning to the field of battle. "Demilitarization" was thus the first policy of the Occupation authorities and was accompanied by abolishing Japan's armed forces, dismantling its military industry, and eliminating the expression of patriotism from its schools and public life.

But the American government, which had led the Allied war effort and whose representative, General Douglas MacArthur, was named the Supreme Commander of the Occupation forces, felt that only a democratic Japan would be truly peace-loving. It was assumed that democratic countries like the United States and Great Britain were more peaceful than nondemocratic countries such as Hitler's Germany and prewar Japan under the emperor. But what makes a country "democratic"? Is a country democratic simply because of certain political institutions, like free elections and free speech? Can these political institutions survive if economic power is concentrated in just a few hands, and social structures like the educational system and the family preach unlimited obedience to authority?

The American government believed that establishing democracy in Japan involved change in all areas of Japanese life. Under MacArthur and with the cooperation of the Japanese, Japan undertook tremendous changes in just seven short years--the Occupation lasted from 1945 to 1952. The success of the Occupation can be judged by the fact that forty years later, Japan has not fought a war, is a close ally of the United States, and has not changed most of the important reforms made by the Occupation.

Political Changes: The most obvious changes were political. During the Occupation, Japan adopted a new constitution (sometimes called the MacArthur Constitution because of the major role Americans played in its drafting). This constitution was completely different from the Meiji Constitution of 1889.


The biggest change was that it declared that sovereignty rested with the people, not the emperor. This is the political basis of democracy.
The emperor was to continue as a symbol of Japanese unity and culture, somewhat like the Queen of England in Britain's democracy, but without any political authority whatsoever.
The supreme political institution was now to be Japan's parliament, the Diet, which was to be made up of freely elected representatives of the people.
Women were given equal rights under the new constitution, including the right to vote.
Local governments were strengthened to encourage "grass-roots level" political participation.
The constitution established many new civil liberties, such as the right of free speech, and the powers of the police were weakened and carefully regulated.
Finally, the military forces were completely abolished and Article 9 of the new constitution forbade Japan to maintain an army or go to war ever again.

Economic Changes: To support these political changes, the Americans instituted reforms to make economic power in Japan more "democratic." In prewar Japan, two-thirds of the agricultural land was rented, not owned, by the farmers who farmed it. The farmers, who made up over 50 percent of the labor force, often rented the land from landlords who lived in distant cities and paid them as much as half of the crops they grew. Since the average "farm" was little more than an acre, many farm families lived in poverty. The land reform took land away from big landlords and redistributed it to the farmers, so that farm families could own the land they worked. Because farm families became more independent economically, they could participate more freely in the new democracy.

The Americans also tried to make workers in the industrial sector more independent by changing the laws to allow free trade unions. Before the war there were only a few small unions; by 1949, about half of all industrial workers belonged to a union.

To democratize economic power further and create competition, the Occupation intended to break up the giant business corporations, the zaibatsu, but this reform was not implemented, in part because it would have made Japan's economic recovery more difficult.

Changes in Civic Values: Besides changing Japanese institutions, the Americans wanted the Japanese people to understand better the idea of democracy. To do this, the occupation government used its control of newspapers and magazines to explain and popularize democracy.

They used American democracy as a model to be copied. The complete defeat and devastation of Japan after the war had left many Japanese shocked and disillusioned with their own military leaders, and they were open to the new ways of their American conquerors.

To ensure that Japanese children learned democratic values, the Americans insisted that the education system and the laws regulating families be revised. "Moral training" in schools was abolished, and instruction in democratic ideas was begun. Control of education and censorship of textbooks were taken from the central government and given to local administrations. The laws giving the head of the household complete control of every family member (for example, he could withhold his consent when his children wished to be married) were changed to make each family member more equal and thereby more democratic.

Support for Change Within Japan: After the Americans left, the reforms that did not find strong support within the Japanese system were discontinued. The anti monopoly laws were weakened, and new giant businesses appeared. The central government assumed control of the schools, although the democratic school structure and curriculum remained. The ruling conservative party suggested other changes, including re-introduction of "moral training" in the schools and abolition of the "peace clause," Article 9 of the constitution, but these were not adopted. In sum, there was great popular support for most of the changes, and the changed system thus continues to the present.

[SteelCityMom]

He didn't say they the US occupied Japan for 60 years, he said they occupied Japan for several years and that there are still troops there 60 years later. All of which is very true.

In fact, there are quite a few people in Japan who have protested the American troops being there because the bases are so close to heavily populated areas and there have been problems with noise, crime and military accidents. There's been a number of protests over the past couple decades.

[BnG_Hevn]

I say let them build it ... wait 'till it fills up with Muslims and then blow it up. Too cruel for you? Oh f'n well.

Or better yet, put a big American flag on the top and maybe their own will blow it up.

[ricardisimo]

He didn't say they the US occupied Japan for 60 years, he said they occupied Japan for several years and that there are still troops there 60 years later. All of which is very true.

In fact, there are quite a few people in Japan who have protested the American troops being there because the bases are so close to heavily populated areas and there have been problems with noise, crime and military accidents. There's been a number of protests over the past couple decades.

What she said.

[tony hipchest]

He didn't say they the US occupied Japan for 60 years, he said they occupied Japan for several years and that there are still troops there 60 years later. All of which is very true.

In fact, there are quite a few people in Japan who have protested the American troops being there because the bases are so close to heavily populated areas and there have been problems with noise, crime and military accidents. There's been a number of protests over the past couple decades.its quite a shame on this board that anyone who doesnt go with the flow or side with the masses almost ALWAYS automatically has their words twisted and misconstrued i.e. "spun".

kinda throws the confines of fair and logical debate out the window from the get go and that is probably the purpose of the spin and demonification in the 1st place.




I posed this question earlier in the thread and no one responded...but do you think people would be so offended by this if NYC wasn't dragging its feet on rebuilding ground zero. I mean, it's been almost 9 years and all there is to show for it is 200ft of bare structure and no real final plans for anything. I mean, they've spent billions of dollars already, shouldn't they have SOMETHING to show for it?

Wouldn't be much of a victory for the terrorists if the site was already rebuilt...and it's not any Muslims fault that it's not.

actually, i kinda touched on this earlier (probably 200 or so posts ago) and i pretty much agree-



what gets me the most about the whole situation is the symbolism. if the 9-11 attacks never happened, americans really couldnt care less about a giant mosqu going up... HOWEVER,

towers come down. monolith mosque goes up. the symbolism to the rest of the world is replacing an icon of capitalism, with an icon of islam. since it looks like noone can stop this (due to the U.S. being a FREE country) i only wish it could be delayed until the WTC site is developed and complete.

but this begs the question. how do we disallow muslims to purchase this land for their site? property value in downtown NYC isnt cheap. who the hell is the free enterprize capitalist who sold them the site in the first place? did they put making a buck and turning a profit ahead of nationalism and being a patriot?

if i owned the land, i would turn it into a junkyard, before i sold it for that purpose. then again, didnt we sell the empire state building to the chinese?

now as a Christian first and a patriotic american second i can say w/o shame that the symbolism behind this is disturbing and downright disgusting. but then again, i can separate my emotion and see the reality of the situation and accept things for what they are.

capitalism and freedom from religious persecution will always come before Christ in this nation. the almighty dollar is our god. its the only piece of govt that is even allowed to have the word, god it seems.

[silver & black]

I say let them build it ... wait 'till it fills up with Muslims and then blow it up. Too cruel for you? Oh f'n well.

Or better yet, put a big American flag on the top and maybe their own will blow it up.

:applaudit:... :usa2:

[Vincent]

now as a Christian first and a patriotic american second i can say w/o shame that the symbolism behind this is disturbing and downright disgusting. but then again, i can separate my emotion and see the reality of the situation and accept things for what they are.

capitalism and freedom from religious persecution will always come before Christ in this nation. the almighty dollar is our god. its the only piece of govt that is even allowed to have the word, god it seems.

What he said.

[Vincent]

I think we should make muslims conform to our "ways", and wear cheery clothes and facial expressions, and do fun stuff, and eat pigs, and guffah over girls in bikinis, and overindulge, and rant, and elect idiots, and overspend, and drive like mindless imbeciles, and beer, and except make them all go to parochial schools, and wear school uniforms and talk with their mouths full, and throw batteries at baseball players, and beer, and max out the plastic, and reality shows, and mortgages, and car payments, and tuition, and beer, and hot dogs and Chevrolets. A $14 Trillion economy is a lot of work! And get rid of those damn birkas and dress hawt. And, like, maybe they'll go home and leave us alone.

Can't we all just get along?

[JonM229]

Can't we all just get along?

Finally, something we can agree on

[The Patriot]

Honestly, I don't think these Muslims are agents from Saudi Arabia. I don't think they're trying to be cruel, I think they're just clueless. Their whole world revolves around their religion, and the idea that someone could possibly be offended by Islam just doesn't compute. They don't support terrorism; in their eyes they are no more linked to the 9/11 terrorists than any other American. This mosque will get built unless someone can convince them to back off. The government can't just swoop in and prevent them from practicing their religion.

[zulater]

What she said.

What she said misrepresents the truth, just as what you said before did. Sure there will always be revisionist history, but the truth is considering the barbaric treatment Japan showed to those they vanquished the brief American occupation of Japan and subsequent reconstuction of their country should serve as a case study on how to treat a beaten foe. And the vast majority of the Japanese supported the American military's continued presense in Japan. Our purpose there wasn't as" occupiers", as you have clearly implied, but to help protect their soverign interests against the threat the North Koreans and Chinese posed in that region.

[JonM229]

Our purpose there wasn't as occupiers, but to help protect their soverign interests against the threat the North Koreans and Chinese posed in that region.

And now our President is a communist...oh, the irony.

[zulater]

And now our President is a communist...oh, the irony.

Where does that come from? I'm not a great fan of Obama, but I respect him nonetheless.

[SteelCityMom]

What she said misrepresents the truth, just as what you said before did. Sure there will always be revisionist history, but the truth is considering the barbaric treatment Japan showed to those they vanquished the brief American occupation of Japan and subsequent reconstuction of their country should serve as a case study on how to treat a beaten foe. And the vast majority of the Japanese supported the American military's continued presense in Japan. Our purpose there wasn't as" occupiers", as you have clearly implied, but to help protect their soverign interests against the threat the North Koreans and Chinese posed in that region.

I didn't misrepresent the truth at all. I understand why the US military was there and why the bombs were dropped. Nothing I said was trying to revise history. I was merely correcting you on what Ric said, and what you said he said. The US bombed Japan, ended the war, occupied the nation for several years and imposed a new Constitution....eventually most of them left, but 60 years later there are still troops and bases throughout Japan. This is all true. This is not the same as saying the US occupied Japan for 60 years (which is false) as you misinterpreted ric as saying.

Also, nobody needs to imply that the US occupied Japan for several years...they DID occupy Japan for several years. Both to protect their sovereign interests and to impose a new system of government.

The other part of my post wasn't misrepresenting the truth either. There really are people in Japan (mostly in Okinawa) who are protesting the military bases there for various reasons.

[tony hipchest]

In fact, there are quite a few people in Japan who have protested the American troops being there because the bases are so close to heavily populated areas and there have been problems with noise, crime and military accidents. There's been a number of protests over the past couple decades.

we have a squadron of F-22 raptors there right now. i can attest 1st hand that you never get used to them breaking the sonic barrier less than a mile overhead, and you most certainly cant get over the feeling of your heart jumping into your throat every time it sounds like there is a 500 lb bunker buster dropped in your back yard.

talk about waking you up from your nap at work... :doh:

[zulater]

I didn't misrepresent the truth at all. I understand why the US military was there and why the bombs were dropped. Nothing I said was trying to revise history. I was merely correcting you on what Ric said, and what you said he said. The US bombed Japan, ended the war, occupied the nation for several years and imposed a new Constitution....eventually most of them left, but 60 years later there are still troops and bases throughout Japan. This is all true. This is not the same as saying the US occupied Japan for 60 years (which is false) as you misinterpreted ric as saying.

Also, nobody needs to imply that the US occupied Japan for several years...they DID occupy Japan for several years. Both to protect their sovereign interests and to impose a new system of government.

The other part of my post wasn't misrepresenting the truth either. There really are people in Japan (mostly in Okinawa) who are protesting the military bases there for various reasons.

we occupied their country for years (and actually, our troops are still there 60 years later, a fact which has not been lost on Iraqis and Afghanis, I'm sure), and dictated their new constitution to them at the point of a gun. Sound familiar?

This is exactly what he said, and to me this is twisting the reality of the situation greatly.

I think the vast majority historians would say the American ocucupation of Japan was done in a just and fair manner and that in the end we left the country in a better state than what we found it in.

. I know this doesn't fit in with ric's world view that all beings on this planet are born with an inherit innocence save middle aged white conservative men, who are the root of all evil.

[SteelCityMom]

we occupied their country for years (and actually, our troops are still there 60 years later, a fact which has not been lost on Iraqis and Afghanis, I'm sure), and dictated their new constitution to them at the point of a gun. Sound familiar?

This is exactly what he said, and to me this is twisting the reality of the situation greatly.

I think the vast majority historians would say the American ocucupation of Japan was done in just and fair manner and that in the end we left the country in a better state than we we found it in.

. I know this doesn't fit in with ric's world view that all beings on this planet are born with an inherit innocence save middle aged white conservative men, who are the root of all evil.

Eh...maybe a little. There probably weren't ACTUAL guns pointed at their heads, but they didn't have any choice about it either.

It wasn't without it's problems, but yes, Japan was treated as fairly as possible for a nation that had been so cruel.

[tony hipchest]

. I know this doesn't fit in with ric's world view that all beings on this planet are born with an inherit innocence save middle aged white conservative men, who are the root of all evil.

:uhoh:

[JonM229]

Where does that come from? I'm not a great fan of Obama, but I respect him nonetheless.

It was an attempt at humor using the tired "He's a secret Muslim/communist" rhetoric after you mentioned us protecting Japan from China and N Korea (both communist countries)

I voted for the man, so I'm not disrespecting him at all...just the people who use that ridiculous statement.

[zulater]

It was an attempt at humor using the tired "He's a secret Muslim/communist" rhetoric after you mentioned us protecting Japan from China and N Korea (both communist countries)

I voted for the man, so I'm not disrespecting him at all...just the people who use that ridiculous statement.

China is still communist in an economic sense? News to me. Totalitarian yes, and hostile to democratic nations, yes as well.

[JonM229]

China is still communist in an economic sense? News to me. Totalitarian yes, and hostile to democratic nations, yes as well.

Really? You're going to pick apart an explanation for a joke? Let me rephrase then:

It was an attempt at humor using the tired "He's a secret Muslim/communist" rhetoric after you mentioned us protecting Japan from China and N Korea (both communist countries at the time)

[ricardisimo]

we occupied their country for years (and actually, our troops are still there 60 years later, a fact which has not been lost on Iraqis and Afghanis, I'm sure), and dictated their new constitution to them at the point of a gun. Sound familiar?

This is exactly what he said, and to me this is twisting the reality of the situation greatly.

I think the vast majority historians would say the American ocucupation of Japan was done in a just and fair manner and that in the end we left the country in a better state than what we found it in.

. I know this doesn't fit in with ric's world view that all beings on this planet are born with an inherit innocence save middle aged white conservative men, who are the root of all evil.

I don't know what to tell you. Being a white, middle-aged man myself, I don't have too many issues with my own demographic. I've made it abundantly clear where my ire is pointed: towards overly large concentrations of power and wealth. In today's world, it's just a fact that "middle aged white conservative men" are disproportionately represented there (as are middle-aged Japanese conservative men, for the record).

But of course this thread is not about me, so let's keep it on track. [There is a thread about me (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php?320-The-Official-Bash-Make-Fun-of-Ricardisimo-Thread!) in the Soapbox, and if you feel you must take a swipe, feel free] The question is whether the Muslim community of Manhattan has a right to build this center (they clearly do) and whether or not this is just the next step in some nefarious Islamist plan to "infiltrate [our] country... and hide amongst [our] people in order to propagate more attacks".

It clearly is not an insidious plot... Or is it...?

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

[zulater]

I don't know what to tell you. Being a white, middle-aged man myself, I don't have too many issues with my own demographic. I've made it abundantly clear where my ire is pointed: towards overly large concentrations of power and wealth. In today's world, it's just a fact that "middle aged white conservative men" are disproportionately represented there (as are middle-aged Japanese conservative men, for the record).

But of course this thread is not about me, so let's keep it on track. [There is a thread about me (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php?320-The-Official-Bash-Make-Fun-of-Ricardisimo-Thread!) in the Soapbox, and if you feel you must take a swipe, feel free] The question is whether the Muslim community of Manhattan has a right to build this center (they clearly do) and whether or not this is just the next step in some nefarious Islamist plan to "infiltrate [our] country... and hide amongst [our] people in order to propagate more attacks".

It clearly is not an insidious plot... Or is it...?

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

Having the right to do something, and it being a good or sensible idea aren't always a hand and glove thing ric. Yes they have the right, but when you say it out loud, " huge new Mosque near ground zero" it just doesn't have a good ring. You know it's going to create strife and make people that lost loved ones that day uncomfortable. There's other places to build it.

[zulater]

Really? You're going to pick apart an explanation for a joke? Let me rephrase then:

It was an attempt at humor using the tired "He's a secret Muslim/communist" rhetoric after you mentioned us protecting Japan from China and N Korea (both communist countries at the time)

I don't want to be lumped in with those that carry those banners. If your attempt was at humor, fine I apoligize, but if you were trying to lump me in with that crowd through humor then I'm just letting you know I don't stand with them.

I voted against Obama once already, and I'll vote against him again, given the chance. But in the interim I respect the fact that he's our duly elected President, I believe him to be a decent man who has our countries best interest at heart. I just don't agree with the way he goes about doing his job.

[steelwalls]

First of all, that religion wouldn't work out, because atomic energy actually exists, very much unlike the objects of every other major religion. It does get bonus points for having killed many, many people, but it's not enough. Sorry.

In order for your analogy to be apropos, the religion in this case would have to be based around airplanes, and how they are the conveyance to the afterlife, or some such nonsense. But we're talking about Muslims, not Airplanians.

Timothy McVeigh was, I'm sure, a Christian... probably a radical one, inspired in some way by his beliefs. How much do you want to bet there's a Christian something or other within a block of Ground Zero in Oklahoma City? You know what? Let's run with your example: How much do you want to bet there's a Christian Church (http://www.japaninyourpalm.com/unionchurch.htm) in Hiroshima, Japan? Or how about in Nagasaki (http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5096/)?

Lay your bets, ladies and germs.


Ok, since you want to pick apart the atomic scenario with your ASSUMTION that religion is based on things that are not “real” then here’s a real scenario, simplified so you may (or may not) get the point.

Would you go to Iran (or any other devout Muslim nation), sit on a well know Muslim cleric’s tomb and preach about how America is so great, cause we allow moderate Muslims to build a mosque at the site of the 9/11 attacks?

It would be legal to say that, maybe even legal to sit there, but would it be the right thing to do? Would your words be accepted with open arms? Even YOU know the answer to that.

Perhaps you could move over a few feet (not out of your way) but just enough to keep from pissing off everyone in the area and show some RESPECT. Maybe even you would decide not to sit on a tomb just because you CAN.

[venom]

Incase people here dont know how close this mosque will be to Ground Zero , heres a pic . Its about 3 short blocks away .


http://images.craigslist.org/3n83k83mf5O35W45X4a8gb416dd5dd47817ea.jpg

[Killer]

Reid breaks with Obama, opposes mosque near Ground Zero

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is breaking ranks with President Obama over the issue of the proposed construction of a controversial Islamic center and mosque just blocks away from Ground Zero

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," spokesman Jim Manley said in a statement. "Sen. Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else. If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation."


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/16/reid-breaks-with-obama-opposes-mosque-near-ground-zero/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+%28 Blog%3A+Political+Ticker%29

-----------------------

Gearing up for that election Harry? This oughta be fun. Like rats leaving a sinking ship.

[venom]

Wow, a Democrat thinking like what the majority of Americans would like to see ???? Thats unlike them .

[SteelMember]

I posed this question earlier in the thread and no one responded...but do you think people would be so offended by this if NYC wasn't dragging its feet on rebuilding ground zero. I mean, it's been almost 9 years and all there is to show for it is 200ft of bare structure and no real final plans for anything. I mean, they've spent billions of dollars already, shouldn't they have SOMETHING to show for it?

Wouldn't be much of a victory for the terrorists if the site was already rebuilt...and it's not any Muslims fault that it's not.

Yes. It's been 9 years, but the first few were a clean-up effort. The fact that while doing so they unearthed other problems wouldn't surprise me. Manhattan was practically built on a garbage dump. Hell, they even found a boat under all that mess. I'm sure if they keep digging, they might even find some of the beads used in the original purchase... :chuckle:

Anyway, the point being if they have a plan to rebuild some proposed superstructure on the site, the first priority would be to make sure the foundation is sound. I'm sure they don't just keep digging to look for a quicker way to China.

It would be more of a shame to rush through it all, just have it all fall down again.


As far as the mosque... I think (the vicinity) is in poor taste and will breed yet more contempt for the faith.

Have you seen some of these NYer's? They don't need much to get them going. :lol:

[Killer]

Reid breaks with Obama, opposes mosque near Ground Zero

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is breaking ranks with President Obama over the issue of the proposed construction of a controversial Islamic center and mosque just blocks away from Ground Zero



Wow, a Democrat thinking like what the majority of Americans would like to see ???? Thats unlike them .

Make that Democrats - in an election year.

They are all scrambling, trying to save their phoney baloney jobs.

[Mach1]

As far as the mosque... I think (the vicinity) is in poor taste and will breed yet more contempt for the faith.

Bingo! It's not a constitutional thing as far as I'm concerned. They have the right to practice religion and to build. As I said before it's nothing more than a monument to islam and the killing of 3000+ Americans in that location.

[SteelCityMom]

Yes. It's been 9 years, but the first few were a clean-up effort. The fact that while doing so they unearthed other problems wouldn't surprise me. Manhattan was practically built on a garbage dump. Hell, they even found a boat under all that mess. I'm sure if they keep digging, they might even find some of the beads used in the original purchase... :chuckle:

Anyway, the point being if they have a plan to rebuild some proposed superstructure on the site, the first priority would be to make sure the foundation is sound. I'm sure they don't just keep digging to look for a quicker way to China.

It would be more of a shame to rush through it all, just have it all fall down again.


As far as the mosque... I think (the vicinity) is in poor taste and will breed yet more contempt for the faith.

Have you seen some of these NYer's? They don't need much to get them going. :lol:

If it were that, I would understand...but it's not. Not at all. It's been politics getting in the way.

There are estimates that have the "remodeling" being done in 2037. 2037???? No wonder people are pissed. All the wanted was rebuilding...meaning having the WTC buildings rebuilt as they were along with some simple memorials. People in NY were pissed about this before the mosque fiasco and I think this just makes them angrier.

Edit: As for the cleanup...it took less than a year. This article was written in May of 2002, 8 months after 9/11.


No one expected that it could ever happen as quickly as it has, three months ahead of schedule, under budget and without one serious injury in 1.5 million man-hours. Most of us have found our own ways to accommodate the meaning of Sept. 11. But for the crews that have been at work on that unimaginable site -- and at the holding areas where the debris has been sifted and analyzed -- the one way to deal with the tragedy has been to dismantle it, fragment by fragment, until there was nothing left. Those crews have served as our surrogates. The public displays of the first days may have passed, when crowds cheered the rescue crews and heavy-equipment operators as they moved toward the site, but the gratitude will be unceasing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/30/opinion/the-last-steel-column.html

[Shoes]

Well one thing is clear.....Mr. Obama, Biden and Mahmoud al-Zahar all agree and condemn Israel for building homes in their own country but support a Mosque being built in the GZ area.


A leader of the Hamas (http://www.nypost.com/t/Hamas)terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims "have to build" it there.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hamas_nod_for_gz_mosque_cSohH9eha8sNZMTDz0VVPI

[Hindes204]

Muslim leaders to abandon plans for Ground Zero community center

After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero - the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York - it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site.

read more... http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/muslim-leaders-to-abandon-plans-for-ground-zero-community-center-1.308426#article_comments


Hope this is true...I dont know much about this source, Ive never heard of the website, so I cant say either way if this is true or not

[SteelMember]

If it were that, I would understand...but it's not. Not at all. It's been politics getting in the way.

You are right about that. Everyone seems to have their own idea. At this point, I don't think there is a resolution of what will be placed there, but even if they were to "just rebuild", which I don't think they would because the engineering had a something to do with them falling in the 1st place, they still need to excavate properly. The superscraper I referred to earlier was an idea to not just rebuild it, but to rebuild it even taller. That's where I made the argument from.

[SteelCityMom]

You are right about that. Everyone seems to have their own idea. At this point, I don't think there is a resolution of what will be placed there, but even if they were to "just rebuild", which I don't think they would because the engineering had a something to do with them falling in the 1st place, they still need to excavate properly. The superscraper I referred to earlier was an idea to not just rebuild it, but to rebuild it even taller. That's where I made the argument from.

Well, yeah, of course it wasn't proposed that they just build it the same exact way...just the same design, but with better safety modifications.

And just to make it perfectly clear how long excavating properly would take (or DID take I should say...they've been ready for years now)...The symbolic cornerstone of One World Trade Center was laid down in a ceremony on July 4, 2004 and further construction of the tower was stalled until 2006. What happened in '06? Supposedly the disputes over money, security, and design were resolved in April...but over 4 years later and only about 360 ft. of finished framework stands (as of now). It's a shame.

I'm no architect, but in an article I posted quite a few pages back it was stated that the Empire State building was started and finished in a year, during the great depression and that the original WTC towers were completed within 5 years. This should have been finished a long time ago.

[Vincent]

Mischief in Manhattan

We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation

By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen Special August 17, 2010 8:04 AM

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand.

The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to....

...The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Raheel Raza is author of Their Jihad ... Not my Jihad, and Tarek Fatah is author of The Jew is Not My Enemy (McClelland & Stewart), to be launched in October. Both sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html#ixzz0wsRyJXzH

[SteelCityMom]

Muslim leaders to abandon plans for Ground Zero community center

After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero - the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York - it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site.

read more... http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/muslim-leaders-to-abandon-plans-for-ground-zero-community-center-1.308426#article_comments


Hope this is true...I dont know much about this source, Ive never heard of the website, so I cant say either way if this is true or not

Sorry Hindes...it's being reported as incorrect.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/islamic_leaders_owner_abandoning_kG0XF7BKAXIjStoNC SxKpL

[SteelMember]

Well, yeah, of course it wasn't proposed that they just build it the same exact way...just the same design, but with better safety modifications.

And just to make it perfectly clear how long excavating properly would take (or DID take I should say...they've been ready for years now)...The symbolic cornerstone of One World Trade Center was laid down in a ceremony on July 4, 2004 and further construction of the tower was stalled until 2006. What happened in '06? Supposedly the disputes over money, security, and design were resolved in April...but over 4 years later and only about 360 ft. of finished framework stands (as of now). It's a shame.

I'm no architect, but in an article I posted quite a few pages back it was stated that the Empire State building was started and finished in a year, during the great depression and that the original WTC towers were completed within 5 years. This should have been finished a long time ago.

Well, to be fair and not hijack this thread anymore, I will just say that the design of the original buildings compounded the issue because they were basically working on an external (perimeter) support system. The architect wanted that "open" feeling on the interior. Sure, they might be able to construct a facade to resemble what was there, but it would probably be mostly aesthetic.

... And the Empire State Building... it was also in a "race" to be the highest building in the world (although short-lived). They modified plans for just that fact. That's why the top looks like it does today. This isn't about that.

[tony hipchest]

Conservative Muslim-Americans' Letter To GOP Leaders: Don't Bring Mosque Debate Into Elections (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/conservative-muslimameric_n_684692.html)

"bu..bu..bu..bush" lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/conservative-muslimameric_n_684692.html


Dear Republican Colleague:
We are writing to you today as loyal Americans who are active members of the Republican Party. We also happen to be proud of our Arab American and Muslim American contributions to the Republican Party.
We are deeply concerned by the rhetoric of some leading members of our party surrounding the construction of the Muslim Community Center in downtown Manhattan. These comments are not only constitutionally unsound, they are also alienating millions of Arab American and Muslim American voters who believe, as we do, in the principles of our party - individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.
As you know, our party has had a long history of inclusion - beginning with our great President Abraham Lincoln, whose leadership on the slavery issue was monumental, and continuing through President George W. Bush whose public statements and actions on the differentiation between Islam and the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were critically important. We are particularly proud to note that President Bush appointed more Arab Americans and Muslim Americans to his administration than any other president in U.S. history.
That being said, it perplexes us as to why some vocal members of our party have chosen to oppose the construction of a cultural and religious center on private grounds. Not only does the First Amendment to our Constitution protect the right of these private citizens to worship freely, it also prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Our party and the leaders in our party should not be engaged in judgment issues of the location of a cultural center and a house of worship in direct contravention of the First Amendment.
While some in our party have recently conceded the constitutional argument, they are now arguing that it is insensitive, intolerant and unacceptable to locate the center at the present location: "Just because they have the right to do so - does not make it the right thing to do" they say. Many of these individuals are objecting to the location as being too close to the Ground Zero site and voicing the understandable pain and anguish of the 9-11 families who lost loved ones in this horrible tragedy. In expressing compassion and understanding for these families, we are asking ourselves the following: if two blocks is too close, is four blocks acceptable? or six blocks? or eight blocks? Does our party believe that one can only practice his/her religion in certain places within defined boundaries and away from the disapproving glances of some citizens? Should our party not be standing up and taking a leadership role- just like President Bush did after 9-11 - by making a clear distinction between Islam, one of the great three monotheistic faiths along with Judaism and Christianity, versus the terrorists who committed the atrocities on 9-11 and who are not only the true enemies of America but of Islam as well? President Bush struck the right balance in expressing sympathy for the families of the 9-11 victims while making it absolutely clear that the acts committed on 9-11 were not in the name of Islam. We are hoping that our party leaders can do the same now - especially at a time when it is greatly needed.
While we share the desire of all in our party to be successful in the November elections, we cannot support victory at the expense of the U.S. Constitution or the Arab and Muslim community in America. As President Lincoln so eloquently stated in his famous speech: "a house divided against itself cannot stand."
As proud and patriotic Americans, we are grateful for all the rights our U.S. citizenship allows us, and we will always do our best to not only protect our rights but the rights of all others as well. May God Bless our nation, our freedoms, and our party.
David Ramadan
Vice Chair, Ethnic Coalitions, Republican Party of Virginia
Sherine El-Abd
President, New Jersey Federation of Republican Women
Randa Fahmy Hudome
Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy, Bush Administration
George Salem
Solicitor of Labor, Reagan Administration
Suhail Khan
Chairman, Conservative Inclusion Coalition

[tony hipchest]

What happened in '06? Supposedly the disputes over money, security, and design were resolved in April...but over 4 years later and only about 360 ft. of finished framework stands (as of now). It's a shame.

.
the funny (and truly ironic) thing is the same huge contingency that opposes the mosque would probably have absolutely no problem with new towers being financed and backed by a saudi arabian investment group and middle eastern oil money.

that same group has no problems with the ownership stake muslim money has in some of our largest financial institutions.
:doh:

[Hindes204]

Sorry Hindes...it's being reported as incorrect.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/islamic_leaders_owner_abandoning_kG0XF7BKAXIjStoNC SxKpL

yea, i was skeptical...but hopeful. I honestly dont think this thing will ever get built anyway

[tony hipchest]

how far is wall street and the stock exchanges from ground zero?

isnt it funny how muslim money is more than welcome in NYC but worshippers arent?

http://www.gata.org/node/5788

Middle Eastern Muslims "makin it rain" in NYC



Citigroup Inc., seeking to restore investor confidence amid massive losses due in credit markets and a lack of permanent leadership, is receiving a $7.5 billion capital infusion from the investment arm of the Abu Dhabi government.
The investment by the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority will help rebuild Citigroup's capital levels, which have been eroded by a credit crunch that began in the summer. Citigroup Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Charles Prince resigned earlier this month after the bank, which had already written off billions of dollars, said it was facing as much as $11 billion more in losses.
Citigroup announced the transaction last night.
As a result of the deal, the investment authority known as ADIA will become one of Citigroup's largest shareholders, with a stake of no more than 4.9%. The stake will exceed that of Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, long known as one of Citigroup's largest shareholders, according to a person familiar with the situation.

...

"This investment reflects our confidence in Citi's potential to build shareholder value," said ADIA's Managing Director, Sheikh Ahmed Bin Zayed Al Nahayan.
In exchange for its investment, ADIA will receive convertible stock in Citigroup yielding 11% annually. The shares are required to be converted into common stock at a conversion price of between $31.83 and $37.24 a share over a period of time between March 2010 and September 2011. The investment, which came together in about a week, is expected to close within the next several days.

where is the outrage?

[Vincent]

how far is wall street and the stock exchanges from ground zero?

isnt it funny how muslim money is more than welcome in NYC but worshippers arent?

http://www.gata.org/node/5788

Middle Eastern Muslims "makin it rain" in NYC

where is the outrage?

A single law rules NYC. "Money talks. Bull@#$% walks".

What outrage? That single law transcends all law, religion, party, family, or allegiance of any kind.

And muslims don't worship. They submit.

[Shoes]

the funny (and truly ironic) thing is the same huge contingency that opposes the mosque would probably have absolutely no problem with new towers being financed and backed by a saudi arabian investment group and middle eastern oil money.

that same group has no problems with the ownership stake muslim money has in some of our largest financial institutions.
:doh:

I oppose both, including Saudi oil worship from Obama, Bush or anyone else!

[tony hipchest]

outrageous, isnt it?

all we can really do is laugh all the way "to hell in a handbasket".

http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/image.php?u=141&dateline=1275533214

[SteelCityMom]

Hey, just as an aside, can we all stop falling into the media trap of calling this the "ground zero mosque" already? I was skeptical by the design of it to keep calling it a mosque, but now that I know fully what will be going on there and what is included in the building, it's silly to keep calling it a mosque.


- Mosques may only be used for Muslim worship. Cordoba Center will allow interfaith services. Therefore it is not a mosque.


What Imam Feisal is describing here seems to be a no-strings-attached gift to lower Manhattan from a group of idealistic Muslims who aim to soothe interfaith tensions at Ground Zero. In describing a "prayer space for many religions," he seems to paint a picture of a place where Muslims of every stripe (Sunnis, Shiites, Sufis, Ahmadiyyas, Koranists), along with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and even Baha'i (who are viciously persecuted in the Arab world), can all offer prayers together in interfaith services, and where each faith group can pray separately in its own tradition in space designated for it.

http://www.aina.org/news/2010089105850.htm

- Mosques must publicly broadcast the calls to prayer. Cordoba Center will not. Therefore it is not a mosque.

- Non-Muslims may not eat or sleep at mosques. Non-Muslims will be welcome to eat at Cordoba Center. Therefore it is not a mosque.


Among the questions we have heard regarding Cordoba House is what is the definition of a prayer space, and how is that different than a mosque.

Most practicing Muslims pray five times a day, at set times. While some Muslims do their prayers in a mosque, most pray where they are, whether at work, school, or home. Much like other faiths, they have a house of worship, but prayers can take place anywhere.

Prayer space does not signify a mosque. Certain aspects of Cordoba House disqualifies it as a mosque, including space for musical performance or a restaurant, which are not allowed to be in a mosque. However, additional prayer is necessary as the existing nearby mosques are no longer able to tend to the need for prayer space.

Furthermore, Cordoba House’s vision is bigger than being a mosque. It is about creating a community center that serves all New Yorkers. A prime example of this fact is the planned meditation room, where people of any faith can pray or meditate. For all these reasons we believe it is imperative to have prayer space in the Cordoba House.

http://cordobainitiative.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/what-is-prayer-space/


Besides...there's already a building only 4 blocks away from ground zero that is considered a mosque only. People should go protest it. Why aren't they? Because it was there before 9/11.

[venom]

Its funny how Liberals want the mosque to be bulit. Liberals have tried to remove any traces of religion from our lives . But they will fight to the death to erect a mosque near Ground Zero in the name of religious freedom.

[zulater]

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

From an earlair post from vincent.

This really resonates with me.

[Shoes]

Hey, just as an aside, can we all stop falling into the media trap of calling this the "ground zero mosque" already? I was skeptical by the design of it to keep calling it a mosque, but now that I know fully what will be going on there and what is included in the building, it's silly to keep calling it a mosque.


- Mosques may only be used for Muslim worship. Cordoba Center will allow interfaith services. Therefore it is not a mosque.



http://www.aina.org/news/2010089105850.htm

- Mosques must publicly broadcast the calls to prayer. Cordoba Center will not. Therefore it is not a mosque.

- Non-Muslims may not eat or sleep at mosques. Non-Muslims will be welcome to eat at Cordoba Center. Therefore it is not a mosque.



http://cordobainitiative.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/what-is-prayer-space/


Besides...there's already a building only 4 blocks away from ground zero that is considered a mosque only. People should go protest it. Why aren't they? Because it was there before 9/11.


Ah yes, good old Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.... who refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist group and said "The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end."

The Iman that the State Dept just sent traveling on our dime to "foster greater understanding and outreach around the world, among...Muslim majority communities"

Here is an interesting article from the same Assyrian International News Agency on "Will the Real Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Please Stand Up"?
http://www.aina.org/news/20100813120808.htm

[SteelCityMom]

Funny, it's not just liberals who support the community center being built.


But the truth is, not every 9/11 family opposes the center. In fact, there's quite a large group of supporters.

"There is no simple, singular 9/11 group who really should or could speak for all 9/11 family members," said Donna Marsh O'Connor of September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, a coalition of over 250 families who support the building of the mosque. O'Connor's 29-year-old pregnant daughter was killed in one of the World Trade Center towers. "This is not a small issue, this is what America has always been -- a place where people come to escape religious persecution. I can understand people saying that this is a slap. This does hurt. But we don't change fundamentally what our nation is about because it will hurt people."

Charles Wolf of New York City lost his wife, Katherine, 56, in the attacks. He supports the mosque "100 percent."

Herb Ouida's son Todd died on 9/11, and warns against harsh tone of the opposition. He said, "What we are doing is we are saying to the world that we are at war with Islam. And we can't be. I want my grandchildren to live in a better world."


We live in a nation of laws. And we live by the rule of law. And the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. We don't govern in some ad hoc, knee-jerk, arbitrary manner based on the prejudices, sensitivities or whims of a select few. We also don't govern based on majority rule. If that were the case, despicable groups like the KKK and white supremacists would not be able to march and protest in places like Selma, Ala and Skokie, Ill against the wishes of blacks, Jews and others who find such activity highly insensitive and offensive, and rightly so. But the Constitution is quite clear about the freedoms we enjoy such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom to assemble, as well as the laws that prohibit religious discrimination. Sorry, but there's no gray area here. We may not like the words or actions of some people or groups and might find them reprehensible, but that still doesn't give us the right to impose our views on the rest of society and expect decisions to be made based on those narrow judgements.


We cannot become a nation where we allow the squeakiest wheel of ignorance and intolerance to get the most grease. We also don't live in a nation where victims of a crime, or their families, get to rewrite the Constitution... no matter how sensitive we are to their pain and suffering.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/whats-truly-at-stake-in-t_b_684511.html


stood in front of the site and said, "What we're rejecting here is outright bigotry and hatred."

Catholic priest Kevin Madigan, of St. Peter's Church, which is about a block away, agreed.

"I think they need to establish a place such as this for people of goodwill from mainline Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths so we can come together to talk," Madigan said.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nyers_wage_jihad_vs_wtc_mosque_UgJiOBYEhrSOw4Q6hpv bQL

I myself am not a liberal either. I'm a different kind of lib (libertarian), and I'd be going against my own political and social views if I were to object to this community center being built. I also have no problem with religion in anyone's daily life, though I am not religious. Far be it from me to stop people from believing and worshiping something that I personally do not think is there.

[SteelCityMom]

Ah yes, good old Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.... who refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist group and said "The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end."

The Iman that the State Dept just sent traveling on our dime to "foster greater understanding and outreach around the world, among...Muslim majority communities"

Here is an interesting article from the same Assyrian International News Agency on "Will the Real Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Please Stand Up"?
http://www.aina.org/news/20100813120808.htm

Yeah...I know all about that. He's been doing this for YEARS now. Bush is the one who initially appointed this position to him.

Funny how nobody brought this up until Obama was president or before he decided to build an interfaith community center in Lower Manhattan.

Also, he did not say that the US foreign policy was only to blame for 9/11...he said he thought it might be partly to blame. So what if he thinks that? At least he doesn't think it was a secret government plot like a bunch of "truthers" who are allowed to spout their nonsense (as close to ground zero as they want even) wherever they please.

I'm not focusing on the man's views and vilifying him for whatever things he may personally believe about Hamas or the flying spaghetti monster. I'm focusing on the purpose of the community center alone.

[Shoes]

Yeah...I know all about that. He's been doing this for YEARS now. Bush is the one who initially appointed this position to him.

Funny how nobody brought this up until Obama was president or before he decided to build an interfaith community center in Lower Manhattan.

Also, he did not say that the US foreign policy was only to blame for 9/11...he said he thought it might be partly to blame. So what if he thinks that? At least he doesn't think it was a secret government plot like a bunch of "truthers" who are allowed to spout their nonsense (as close to ground zero as they want even) wherever they please.

I'm not focusing on the man's views and vilifying him for whatever things he may personally believe about Hamas or the flying spaghetti monster. I'm focusing on the purpose of the community center alone.

I hold no allegiance to Obama or Bush and you can call it a community center two blocks away if you want Mom (I do respect and appreciate your point of view).....but this is the reality of it from my experience.

"Ground Zero" is both the geographic and symbolic heart of the attacks in which Islamist terrorists on September 11, 2001, murdered almost 3,000 Americans." The trophy mosque planned for Ground Zero will surely represent another victory for the stealth jihadist struggle if it is built".

[urgle burgle]

so freedom of religion trumps freedom of speech. as has been said by many others before, here and elsewhere, although they have the legal right, and the govt. should not step in, many believe it is the insensitive and wrong thing to do. just as many in other communities protest when a wal-mart comes to there town. or when the kkk marches down their streets, or some who protest gay-day parades. not to mention anti-war protesters with die-ins, etc. we are all supposed to protect their freedom of speech and expression, while we may not agree. so all who protest this insensitive and inexplicable move should now be quiet and move along. both freedoms we hold dear are in play and should be exercised, regardless of how anyone feels.

[tony hipchest]

Its funny how Liberals want the mosque to be bulit. Liberals have tried to remove any traces of religion from our lives . But they will fight to the death to erect a mosque near Ground Zero in the name of religious freedom.this is putrid right wing spin and propoganda fueled by irresponsible rhetoric.

to downplay the sacrifice made by all those who laid down their lives for all of us and all of our freedoms (of all parties and creeds) is repugnant.

it is your own sins and shortcomings that have removed all traces of religion from republicans lives. if they look to the schools, and courts, and naitivity scenes on state grounds as "all traces' then they are lost to begin with.

i know the republican way is to just show up on sundays and toss some cash in the offering tray and be cleared of their sins for the rest of the week
but one is so butt hurt about the govt not supplimenting the rest, perhaps they should look into the bibles instead of looking at the libs.

absolutely disgusting, but typical of the right wing hatred i have come to expect.

i see you are troubled and i will pray for your enlightenment and forgiveness as i will my own.

in the meantime some republicans may wanna consider banning themselves from preaching on public forums. most are far less qualified than they think. as they say, "dont try to remove a splinter from your brothers eye, when you got a log in yours".



"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." the sermon on the mount wasnt given in a classroom or courthouse, and the beatitudes werent delivered in a public park or even the temple. there is alot one can learn from this.

[zulater]

i know the republican way is to just show up on sundays and toss some cash in the offering tray and be cleared of their sins for the rest of the week
but one is so butt hurt about the govt not supplimenting the rest, perhaps they should look into the bibles instead of looking at the libs

Damn tony that's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there.

[tony hipchest]

Damn tony that's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there.

and this wasnt?- http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php?p=38463#post38463) Its funny how Liberals want the mosque to be bulit. Liberals have tried to remove any traces of religion from our lives . But they will fight to the death to erect a mosque near Ground Zero in the name of religious freedom.

the sad thing is, he really believes it, and i just did it to illustrate a point (and how absurd the claim was.)

how come the right is never called out for painting with a broad brush around here? :scratchchin:

[Texasteel]

Republican? Is it possable that one man is so enlightened that he can look into the sole of so many people and level such as harsh judgment on all of them. I know the man the uttered the words you just quoted, and I feel it safe to say, you are not him. I think that such an indictment of a whole group of people should be handled by God himself and no one else. I also believe that you just describe as many Democrats as Republican

HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, LET HIM CAST THE FIRST STONE.

[zulater]

and this wasnt?- http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php?p=38463#post38463) Its funny how Liberals want the mosque to be bulit. Liberals have tried to remove any traces of religion from our lives . But they will fight to the death to erect a mosque near Ground Zero in the name of religious freedom.

the sad thing is, he really believes it, and i just did it to illustrate a point (and how absurd the claim was.)

how come the right is never called out for painting with a broad brush around here? :scratchchin:

The beauty of irony escapes you Tony.\

By the way tony if I take the first sentence and slightly alter it would you disagree with it?



to wit...

Its funny how Liberals want the mosque to be bulit. Liberals have tried to remove (m) any traces of religion from our public lives . But they will fight to the death to erect a mosque near Ground Zero in the name of religious freedom.

[tony hipchest]

Republican? Is it possable that one man is so enlightened that he can look into the sole of so many people and level such as harsh judgment on all of them. I know the man the uttered the words you just quoted, and I feel it safe to say, you are not him. I think that such an indictment of a whole group of people should be handled by God himself and no one else. I also believe that you just describe as many Democrats as Republican

HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, LET HIM CAST THE FIRST STONE.

finally... somebody gets it! :applaudit:

perhaps now venom can finally realize that he is on the outside looking in with his constant barrage of hate speech and twisted propoganda.

[MasterOfPuppets]

Republican? Is it possable that one man is so enlightened that he can look into the sole of so many people and level such as harsh judgment on all of them. I know the man the uttered the words you just quoted, and I feel it safe to say, you are not him. I think that such an indictment of a whole group of people should be handled by God himself and no one else. I also believe that you just describe as many Democrats as Republican

HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, LET HIM CAST THE FIRST STONE.
isn't that the core of this whole debate ? people painting all muslims with the same brush. people thinking they know the motive behind the planned mosque.

[zulater]

isn't that the core of this whole debate ? people painting all muslims with the same brush. people thinking they know the motive behind the planned mosque.

Personally I think the motive is common sense. If it sounds like a bad idea to so many people it probably is.

[JonM229]

isn't that the core of this whole debate ? people painting all muslims with the same brush. people thinking they know the motive behind the planned mosque.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/thejoshchronicles/TacgJ.jpg

[ricardisimo]

Ok, since you want to pick apart the atomic scenario with your ASSUMTION that religion is based on things that are not “real” then here’s a real scenario, simplified so you may (or may not) get the point.

Would you go to Iran (or any other devout Muslim nation), sit on a well know Muslim cleric’s tomb and preach about how America is so great, cause we allow moderate Muslims to build a mosque at the site of the 9/11 attacks?

It would be legal to say that, maybe even legal to sit there, but would it be the right thing to do? Would your words be accepted with open arms? Even YOU know the answer to that.

Perhaps you could move over a few feet (not out of your way) but just enough to keep from pissing off everyone in the area and show some RESPECT. Maybe even you would decide not to sit on a tomb just because you CAN.

You're talking to the wrong person. I find all religions bizarre and at least vaguely offensive. And the violent, evangelical religions - like Christianity and Islam - are beyond words for me.

The question is if they can do it (they can) and if it is part of some sort of plot (it's not, although being evangelicals there is the "plot" of trying to gain converts). Are you going to be converted by this? Is anyone? The third alternative is Mach's take: that this is basically just popping the bird at Christian America. I can't imagine the organizers (and specifically the money people) purposely picking that fight. I could be wrong... religions make people do some crazy shit, to be sure.

As far as "sitting on some prophet's tomb" or however you put your analogy, take a look at this picture, which gives a much clearer perspective than Venom's:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/10/article-1301846-0AC03417000005DC-107_634x344.jpg
Does this look like "sitting on the World Trade Center" to you? It's at least two blocks away. That's close enough to have the realty price drop because of the debacle at Ground Zero, but far enough not to be visible or alternately not to have all of the future construction become a traffic issue for visitors. That's just my best guess, not having been in Manhattan for almost twenty years now.

[Texasteel]

isn't that the core of this whole debate ? people painting all muslims with the same brush. people thinking they know the motive behind the planned mosque.

To some, maybe. To others like myself it is more the message that will be sent. Like it or not it was ones of that belief that cause the destruction, even if it were extremest. I think whether it is meant to or not it rewards and honors those that did the deed. Thats just my opinion, but it is my opinion

[MasterOfPuppets]

Personally I think the motive is common sense. If it sounds like a bad idea to so many people it probably is.

irregardless the constitution gives them the benefit of the doubt. you either believe in the constitution , which is supposedly what makes this the greatest nation , or you don't. that being said, do i think this is poor judgement on their part ? sure i do , but there's a whole lot of things that go on in this country i don't agree with. does it change anything ? nope.

[tony hipchest]

isn't that the core of this whole debate ? people painting all muslims with the same brush. people thinking they know the motive behind the planned mosque.

*ding ding ding* somebody else gets it. and even though i have stated i dont even want a muslim community center there due to the percieved symbolism multiple times, i am the one accused to paint with a borad brush for simply illustrating how rediculous some of the hate filled rhetoric and propoganda has gotten.

venom should blame new york. i have yet to hear him condemn all the muslim money flooding the NYC streets that keeps capitalism afloat in this country.

its nothing but "lib this, lib that" (in a thread about a mosque no less). some people are better off protesting in the streets instead of on a public forum full of people who could care less about their misguided opinion and misdirected hate...

[venom]

finally... somebody gets it! :applaudit:

perhaps now venom can finally realize that he is on the outside looking in with his constant barrage of hate speech and twisted propoganda.

" Propoganda ", I dont know what that is . Hooked on Phonics for you . Most Americans do not want the mosque to be bulit near GZ . Thank God ( can I say God ) you dont live here .

[SteelCityMom]

:pop2:

Wow...this is getting good. Now we get to debate about those damn libs always hating G-O-D and the midgets who love them.

This could be the best episode of Maury eva!

[JonM229]

:pop2:

Wow...this is getting good. Now we get to debate about those damn libs always hating G-O-D and the midgets who love them.

This could be the best episode of Maury eva!

All we need now is to throw in some paternity tests

[zulater]

irregardless the constitution gives them the benefit of the doubt. you either believe in the constitution , which is supposedly what makes this the greatest nation , or you don't. that being said, do i think this is poor judgement on their part ? sure i do , but there's a whole lot of things that go on in this country i don't agree with. does it change anything ? nope.

The Constitution also allows for protest and debate for those that disagree.

[SteelCityMom]

All we need now is to throw in some paternity tests


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOcTh5rRxaM

[ricardisimo]

And muslims don't worship. They submit.

Just like proper Christian women (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=1Tim+2%3A11-12).

[SteelCityMom]

The Constitution also allows for protest and debate for those that disagree.


And nobody's stopping them from voicing their opinions. :noidea:

It's just...unless you want to rewrite the 1st amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, then that's all it will be, voicing opinions.

[ricardisimo]

Hey, just as an aside, can we all stop falling into the media trap of calling this the "ground zero mosque" already? I was skeptical by the design of it to keep calling it a mosque, but now that I know fully what will be going on there and what is included in the building, it's silly to keep calling it a mosque.

And it's silly to keep insisting that it's "at Ground Zero". It's not. But it's in Manhattan, and I guess that's enough for some people.

[X-Terminator]

I've already had to delete one post in this thread. I'd suggest to all involved to keep things on the level, or further action will be taken.

Carry on.

[ricardisimo]

so freedom of religion trumps freedom of speech. as has been said by many others before, here and elsewhere, although they have the legal right, and the govt. should not step in, many believe it is the insensitive and wrong thing to do. just as many in other communities protest when a wal-mart comes to there town. or when the kkk marches down their streets, or some who protest gay-day parades. not to mention anti-war protesters with die-ins, etc. we are all supposed to protect their freedom of speech and expression, while we may not agree. so all who protest this insensitive and inexplicable move should now be quiet and move along. both freedoms we hold dear are in play and should be exercised, regardless of how anyone feels.

I missed the part where someone told you to be quiet. Could you point that out?

Religious liberties (much to my chagrin) are very well protected in this country. That's just the way it is... you should learn to live with it as a Christian just as I have learned to live with it as a non-believer.

[JonM229]

How the "Ground Zero Mosque" Fear Mongering Began (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins)


•Dec. 8, 2009: The Times publishes a lengthy front-page look at the Cordoba project. "We want to push back against the extremists," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the lead organizer, is quoted as saying. Two Jewish leaders and two city officials, including the mayor's office, say they support the idea, as does the mother of a man killed on 9/11. An FBI spokesman says the imam has worked with the bureau. Besides a few third-tier right-wing blogs, including Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs site, no one much notices the Times story.
•Dec. 21, 2009: Conservative media personality Laura Ingraham interviews Abdul Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, while guest-hosting "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox. In hindsight, the segment is remarkable for its cordiality. "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it," Ingraham says of the Cordoba project, adding at the end of the interview, "I like what you're trying to do."
•(This segment also includes onscreen the first use that we've seen of the misnomer "ground zero mosque.") After the segment — and despite the front-page Times story — there were no news articles on the mosque for five and a half months, according to a search of the Nexis newspaper archive.
•May 6, 2010: After a unanimous vote by a New York City community board committee to approve the project, the AP runs a story. It quotes relatives of 9/11 victims (called by the reporter), who offer differing opinions. The New York Post, meanwhile, runs a story under the inaccurate headline, "Panel Approves 'WTC' Mosque." Geller is less subtle, titling her post that day, "Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction." She writes on her Atlas Shrugs blog, "This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is no accident. Just as Al-Aqsa was built on top of the Temple in Jerusalem." (To get an idea of where Geller is coming from, she once suggested that Malcolm X was Obama's real father. Seriously.)

It goes downhill from there. Let's all thank Rupert Murdoch for once again getting everybody's panties in a bunch.

[Vincent]

And the violent, evangelical religions - like Christianity and Islam - are beyond words for me.

Ric, I will entertain your mindless athiesm and anarchy in civil debate, but don't ever equate Christianity to islam on any level, and certainly do not suggest in any way that Christianity is a violent religion. That is offensive beyond words and illustrates your appalling ignorance of the subject in general.

[JonM229]

Ric, I will entertain your mindless athiesm and anarchy in civil debate, but don't ever equate Christianity to islam on any level, and certainly do not suggest in any way that Christianity is a violent religion. That is offensive beyond words and illustrates your appalling ignorance of the subject in general.

You should probably read this:

Why is Ethnocentrism Bad? (http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ethno.htm)
Ethnocentrism leads us to make false assumptions about cultural differences. We are ethnocentric when we use our cultural norms to make generalizations about other peoples' cultures and customs. Such generalizations -- often made without a conscious awareness that we've used our culture as a universal yardstick -- can be way off base and cause us to misjudge other peoples. Ethnocentrism can lead to cultural misinterpretation and it often distorts communication between human beings.

[ricardisimo]

Ric, I will entertain your mindless athiesm and anarchy in civil debate, but don't ever equate Christianity to islam on any level, and certainly do not suggest in any way that Christianity is a violent religion. That is offensive beyond words and illustrates your appalling ignorance of the subject in general.

Please forgive my mindlessness. I had imagined that since it was OK to equate Islam with Satanism, that it was likewise permissible to point out that both religions are evangelical in nature (they are) and that both have extremely bloody histories - although one bloodier than the other, to be sure.
:wave:

[X-Terminator]

Ric, I will entertain your mindless athiesm and anarchy in civil debate, but don't ever equate Christianity to islam on any level, and certainly do not suggest in any way that Christianity is a violent religion. That is offensive beyond words and illustrates your appalling ignorance of the subject in general.

Come on man, there are ALL KINDS of incidents in the history of the Christian religion that say otherwise. While I do agree with you on some level about Islam being a violent religion, there is NO shortage of brutality and bloodshed from many who professed to be Christians. This is one of the myriad of reasons why I am no fan of organized religion, even though I do believe in God.

As for this "mosque" at/near Ground Zero, I do not support it in any way, shape or form. But at the same time, there isn't anything that can be done to stop its construction other than the protests getting so loud that the proponents will look for another building far away from Lower Manhattan, which ultimately I hope they do. If it does get built, then someone should open up a rib smokehouse next door so that they have to deal with the smell of roasting pork all day, every day.

[SteelCityMom]

How the "Ground Zero Mosque" Fear Mongering Began (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins)



It goes downhill from there. Let's all thank Rupert Murdoch for once again getting everybody's panties in a bunch.


Interesting article. I know I had never heard anything about this before May.

I also never heard about Muslims praying INSIDE the Pentagon (did someone already bring this up already???)...which is an attached story in your article.


Why did no one object to the "Pentagon mosque"?
Muslims have been praying inside the Pentagon since Sept. 11 but right-wingers have been strangely silent

Navy imam Chaplain Abuhena M. Saifulislam lifted his voice to God as he called to prayer more than 100 Department of Defense employees Monday at a celebration of Ramadan at the Pentagon.

God is most great, sang the lieutenant commander and Islamic leader, in Arabic, as iftar — the end of the daily fast began.

Uniformed military personnel, civilians and family members faced Mecca and knelt on adorned prayer rugs chanting their prayers in quiet invocation to Allah.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/05/muslims_infiltrate_pentagon

[JonM229]

I also never heard about Muslims praying INSIDE the Pentagon (did someone already bring this up already???)...which is an attached story in your article.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/05/muslims_infiltrate_pentagon

....they've already won

[Vincent]

I had imagined that since it was OK to equate Islam with satanism...

What I said was that islam is satanic. I did not equate it with satanism. The former is of satan. The latter worships satan. There's a difference.

[zulater]

Come on man, there are ALL KINDS of incidents in the history of the Christian religion that say otherwise. While I do agree with you on some level about Islam being a violent religion, there is NO shortage of brutality and bloodshed from many who professed to be Christians. This is one of the myriad of reasons why I am no fan of organized religion, even though I do believe in God.

As for this "mosque" at/near Ground Zero, I do not support it in any way, shape or form. But at the same time, there isn't anything that can be done to stop its construction other than the protests getting so loud that the proponents will look for another building far away from Lower Manhattan, which ultimately I hope they do. If it does get built, then someone should open up a rib smokehouse next door so that they have to deal with the smell of roasting pork all day, every day.

The difference being most of the violent episodes done in the name of Christianity occured several centuries ago ( save a lone nut here and there) while multiple attrocities are being commited in the name of Allah daily throughout the world. I challenge you to find a day any time in the last 5 years where some Muslim nut didn't blow up or execute innocents in the name of his god.

The difference here is so big you could drive a fleet of semi's through it.

[Vincent]

Come on man, there are ALL KINDS of incidents in the history of the Christian religion that say otherwise...

Mom and I beat that one to death a month or so ago. Here I took issue with Ric's overt taunt that islam and Christianity are both...


And the violent, evangelical religions - like Christianity and Islam - are beyond words for me.

[tony hipchest]

" Propoganda ", I dont know what that is . Hooked on Phonics for you . Most Americans do not want the mosque to be bulit near GZ . Thank God ( can I say God ) you dont live here .you live amongst muslims. i dont have any mosques in my town. pity you.

:bananalama:

[JonM229]

What I said was that islam is satanic. I did not equate it with satanism. The former is of satan. The latter worships satan. There's a difference.

This is factually incorrect

[X-Terminator]

The difference being most of the violent episodes done in the name of Christianity occured several centuries ago ( save a lone nut here and there) while multiple attrocities are being commited in the name of Allah daily throughout the world. I challenge you to find a day any time in the last 5 years where some Muslim nut didn't blow up or execute innocents in the name of his god.

The difference here is so big you could drive a fleet of semi's through it.

It doesn't matter to me when they were committed, the fact is that they were. Therefore, Christians cannot claim that their religion is superior to any other. I am a Christian, but I'm also a realist.

[tony hipchest]

It doesn't matter to me when they were committed, the fact is that they were. Therefore, Christians cannot claim that their religion is superior to any other. I am a Christian, but I'm also a realist.from what i've found, thats not kosher on this board with the abundance of uber-right wing patrons. that just makes you a liberal and a communist.

http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/image.php?u=141&dateline=1275533214 (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/member.php?141-tony-hipchest)

[zulater]

It doesn't matter to me when they were committed, the fact is that they were. Therefore, Christians cannot claim that their religion is superior to any other. I am a Christian, but I'm also a realist.

Attrocities commited hundreds of years ago are the same as crimes being commited currently on a daily basis? Right.:der:

[tony hipchest]

Attrocities commited hundreds of years ago are the same as crimes being commited currently on a daily basis? Right.:der:

complete twisted spin of what was said. totally not in context.

[zulater]

Ok let me get this right, we're going to equate attrocities commited in the name of god back in the day when science was mostly a rumor, when people had no reason to believe the sun didn't orbit the earth, when medical treatment for illness consisted of bleeding out your bad blood, that thought bathing and fresh air were dangerous to one's well being. we're going to equate the acts of those ignorant beings with the daily blood letting currently being done in the name of allah? Yeah, ok, makes perfect sense to me.

[tony hipchest]

you give to much credit to the dune dwellers for being educated. plus you have condemn me while turning a blind eye towards your right wing brother, and have already had personal attacks removed towards another in this thread.

at this point i could really care less about your null and void opinion on this matter, or what makes PERFECT sense to you. only those who you deem as perfect such as yourself will you understand.

[zulater]

complete twisted spin of what was said. totally not in context.

I read it in perfect context tony. We're trying to equate attrocities commited by christians centuries ago with the daily blood letting down by todays radical Islamics. supposedly christians have no moral highground. well I'm agnostic, so I have no dog in the fight, and I'll tell you anyone who subscribes to that theory is barking mad.

[SteelCityMom]

Ok let me get this right, we're going to equate attrocities commited in the name of god back in the day when science was mostly a rumor, when people had no reason to believe the sun didn't orbit the earth, when medical treatment for illness consisted of bleeding out your bad blood, that thought bathing and fresh air were dangerous to one's well being. we're going to equate the acts of those ignorant beings with the daily blood letting currently being done in the name of allah? Yeah, ok, makes perfect sense to me.


Yeah...they weren't all centuries ago, and they're not only committed by lone nuts today.

Vince is correct in saying that we beat this topic to death before, but the end result was basically this....those that commit atrocities in the name of God (Christian God) are just not true Christians and don't represent true Christianity, so the Christian faith cannot be held responsible for it. Something like that. But the Islamic faith I guess is to blame when radical Muslims twist the words of the Qur'an to fit their agendas.

As an aside...If any one of these people had their way, you'd better believe there'd be some atrocities in the name of God right here in America.


Pat Buchanan:

Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.


David Chilton:

The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers - the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel.


Ann Coulter:

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.


Jerry Falwell:

If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth.


D. James Kennedy:

This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with God's help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no power on earth can stop us.

and many more...http://www.skepticism.info/quotes/archives/christian_extremism_index.shtml

[zulater]

you give to much credit to the dune dwellers for being educated.

I realize many are not, Wahabism thrives on fanning the flames of the ignorant. But at the same token all the 9-11 murderers had a good understanding of how the real world works and chose to ignore it anyway.

[JonM229]

Yeah...they weren't all centuries ago, and they're not only committed by lone nuts today.

Vince is correct in saying that we beat this topic to death before, but the end result was basically this....those that commit atrocities in the name of God (Christian God) are just not true Christians and don't represent true Christianity, so the Christian faith cannot be held responsible for it. Something like that. But the Islamic faith I guess is to blame when radical Muslims twist the words of the Qur'an to fit their agendas.

As an aside...If any one of these people had their way, you'd better believe there'd be some atrocities in the name of God right here in America.

and many more...http://www.skepticism.info/quotes/archives/christian_extremism_index.shtml

All of this

[zulater]

Yeah...they weren't all centuries ago, and they're not only committed by lone nuts today.

Vince is correct in saying that we beat this topic to death before, but the end result was basically this....those that commit atrocities in the name of God (Christian God) are just not true Christians and don't represent true Christianity, so the Christian faith cannot be held responsible for it. Something like that. But the Islamic faith I guess is to blame when radical Muslims twist the words of the Qur'an to fit their agendas.

As an aside...If any one of these people had their way, you'd better believe there'd be some atrocities in the name of God right here in America.











and many more...http://www.skepticism.info/quotes/archives/christian_extremism_index.shtml

Mom what would you guess the numbers to be in a time frame such as in the last decade for murders commited in the name of a Chrsitian god to those commited in the name of Allah? I'd wager that the numbers stack up several hundred to one, no make that several thousand to one in favor of the present day radical Islamics as compared to todays radical Christians. so it's really a bullshit point you make in my opinion. It would be like me being more worried about getting run over by cow on the interstate than a motor vehicle because a hundred years ago many settlers got trampled by some raging buffalo.

sorry I'm not trying to be mean, but it's a ridiculous comparison.

[X-Terminator]

Attrocities commited hundreds of years ago are the same as crimes being commited currently on a daily basis? Right.:der:

Hundreds of years ago? Are you serious? There are Christians committing atrocities TODAY. SteelCityMom posted a number of them in a thread last month.

Regardless, you completely missed the point. The point is that before those who are Christians attack Islam for being a violent religion, they should take a look at their own back yard first. There is a LOT of blood on the hands of Christians the same as it is for Islam.

[Shea]

Jesus ... :rolleyes2:

What happened to being the "supposed" higher educated and civilized society that we think we are, compared to "them"? After reading some of the posts here and I'm not so sure anymore.

There's a lot of prejudiced people on here that need to quit pointing fingers and take a long look in the mirror instead.

It's not proposed to be built on the actual site of where the two towers were, actually it looks to be a respectful distance from there.

Why not be better than the extremists? Why lump a whole religion because of the minority? And why not allow and honor the Mosque and show the world we are about peace and exceptance?

It's long past time to heal some much needed wounds, and I think this would be a step in that direction.

I say build it!

[steelwalls]

Lets all just try to 'one-up' every atrocity thats ever happened. This has gotten stupid. Peace.

[tony hipchest]

Jesus ... :rolleyes2:

What happened to being the "supposed" higher educated and civilized society that we think we are, compared to "them"? After reading some of the posts here and I'm not so sure anymore.

It's not proposed to be built on the actual site of where the two towers were, actually it looks to be a respectful distance from there.

There's a lot of prejudiced people on here that need to quit pointing fingers and take a long look in the mirror instead.

Why not be better than the extremists? Why lump a whole religion because of the minority? And why not allow and honor the Mosque and show the world we are about peace and exceptance?

that sounds like WWJD and is not to be tolerated by these religious republicans.

[zulater]

Hundreds of years ago? Are you serious? There are Christians committing atrocities TODAY. SteelCityMom posted a number of them in a thread last month.

Regardless, you completely missed the point. The point is that before those who are Christians attack Islam for being a violent religion, they should take a look at their own back yard first. There is a LOT of blood on the hands of Christians the same as it is for Islam.

Last decade, murders commited in the name of a christian god as compared to those commited in the name of allah? You think it's even remotely close?

[Vincent]

isn't that the core of this whole debate ? people painting all muslims with the same brush. people thinking they know the motive behind the planned mosque.
Nobody is painting muslims per se, anything. It is islam that is being confronted in this debate for what it is and being painted accordingly. The silver lining to this cloud is the outrage of even suggesting that something even vaguely islam be built anywhere near Ground Zero. islam has again angered a sleeping giant. Whether that giant does anything about remains to be seen. One can hope.

The enemy is islam. muslims are among its victims. Personally, I’d like to minimize the number of victims, and certainly not be among them.

The precepts of islam foment radicalism. “imams” stand in front of muslims and advocate violence. muslims run with it. The violence has manifested itself in at least 13,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. islam is satanic.

The motive behind the mosque is obvious. islam’s strategists understand the weakness of our open secular society and how to use that weakness against us. If there’s another silver lining to this cloud, perhaps it will be the awakening of the giant to confront the enemy within – liberalism.

One side of this debate sees it for what it is, as articulated by the Brit in the video. He warns us from the standpoint of having seen the scourge of islam to his own country. The other side has had their brains systematically deconstructed by “education” and can’t. Simple relationships elude the liberal mind.

Can a non-muslim even enter mecca or medina? No. The liberal will say “You can’t make that comparison. That’s a different country altogether”. The same liberal will argue that “religious freedom” not only guarantees that that bigotry can coexist within in our country, but actually defends the movement to “make America sharia compliant”, completely oblivious to the affront sharia is to liberalism. It’s spectacular to watch, really.

The sane among us argue against islam because we understand their agenda for our country, and don’t want any part of it. We recognize what islam has done to the open societies of Europe and don’t want to succumb to the fate that awaits them

[zulater]

that sounds like WWJD and is not to be tolerated by these religious republicans.

I've already told you I'm agnostic. If John Lennon's song Imagine could come true that would work fine for me.

but at the same token I'm not blind or an idiot. To equate the token nut Christain that goes off the deep end or the lunatic fringe element like the David Koresh's or Jonestown cult types with the daily bloodletting that's going on throughout the world in the name of Allah, like I said before, find me a day, any day in the past 5 years where multiple murders aren't occuring in the name of allah and I'll let it rest.

[X-Terminator]

Last decade, murders commited in the name of a christian god as compared to those commited in the name of allah? You think it's even remotely close?

What part of "Christians have a lot of blood on their hands and therefore can't put there religion above anyone else's" don't you understand? I'm not talking about numbers, I'm talking about the acts themselves.

[Vincent]

What part of "Christians have a lot of blood on their hands and therefore can't put there religion above anyone else's" don't you understand? I'm not talking about numbers, I'm talking about the acts themselves.

What acts do you speak of X?

[JonM229]

What acts do you speak of X?

Here's one, presented by Mel Brooks:


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

[zulater]

What part of "Christians have a lot of blood on their hands and therefore can't put there religion above anyone else's" don't you understand? I'm not talking about numbers, I'm talking about the acts themselves.

You're talking about mostly ancient history, save the lone nut or wacko cult, I'm talking about daily murders taking place, every flipping day! I don't care what happned 200 years ago, i already told you I'm not Christian I've never bought into orginal sin, my fathers sins are not my own.

Radical Islamics commit murder on a daily basis. Don't believe me, tommorow I'll find you at least 5 instances where innocents were killed at the hands of radical Islam. And I'll do it the day after that and the next day and so on and so forth. I challenge you to do the same with christians.

[MasterOfPuppets]

Reasonable Religion? When Christians Attack Critics
Sunday May 13, 2007
An ideology cannot be considered "reasonable" by any stretch of the imagination if its adherents feel a need to threaten or engage in physical violence against critics. That, however, is what we have with some Christians in America. Mikey Weinstein isn't so much a critic of Christianity's theology, but rather a critic of the manner in which so many Christians are abusing their positions in the government and military to promote Christianity in the Air Force academy. For this, he has received death threats and supporters have had a church burned down.
Imagine how fearful these Christians must be if they think it is appropriate and/or necessary to burn down others' churches, to damage a synagogue, or to send death threats to a politically conservative Jew in order to silence critics. Yes, Weinstein is politically conservative — he's no godless liberal and you don't need to be either godless or liberal in order to support the separation of church and state. Christians who benefit from the privilege of state support and endorsement, though, cannot accept separation because that would place them on the same level as all other (and "false") religions.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/05/13/reasonable-religion-when-christians-attack-critics.htm

[SteelCityMom]

Mom what would you guess the numbers to be in a time frame such as in the last decade for murders commited in the name of a Chrsitian god to those commited in the name of Allah? I'd wager that the numbers stack up several hundred to one, no make that several thousand to one in favor of the present day radical Islamics as compared to todays radical Christians. so it's really a bullshit point you make in my opinion. It would be like me being more worried about getting run over by cow on the interstate than a motor vehicle because a hundred years ago many settlers got trampled by some raging buffalo.

sorry I'm not trying to be mean, but it's a ridiculous comparison.

I did not compare a death number count, though I'm sure you're right. I just don't compare deaths like that. I also did not compare radical Christians to radical Islamists. You assumed that yourself. I disagree with and abhor both. I was merely pointing out to you that radical Christians do still operate today and do still commit atrocities in the name of God today (and not just lone radicals either). I'm sorry you read too much into it.

[MasterOfPuppets]

good thing the abortion clinic bombing fad died out.


Sarah Palin Refuses To Answer Whether Or Not Abortion Clinic Bombers Are Terrorists
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/1023

[Vincent]

good thing the abortion clinic bombing fad died out.

How many perished in that "firestorm"?

[tony hipchest]

The violence has manifested itself in at least 13,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. islam is satanic.


like I said before, find me a day, any day in the past 5 years where multiple murders aren't occuring in the name of allah and I'll let it rest.and like ive said before to the exact same arguments, perhaps your priorities arent straight. you guys see worldwide deaths by the hands of terrorists in the name of islam as a grave danger (which it most certainly is). i happen to see teh religion of drugs and the cartels who push them as a much more imminent threat.

the easiest door for a terrorist to walk through is probably through mexico, under the escort of these cartels. the drug war murders in juarez alone dwarfs the worldwide killings by terrorists since 9/11 (especially when looking at a per capita basis).

the difference is thousands of murders and terrorism happens within 2 miles of our boarder, and are ignored because we want the drugs in our country, much more than a different religion.

if we are a Christian nation, yet afraid of being converted to islam, we have already lost and not true Christians. the power of Christ is inpenetrable.

so the point is, find me a day in the past years where multiple murders arent occuring in the name of money, greed, drugs, lust, power, etc and i will show you where having such a narrow focus on islam is a case of not seeing the forest through the trees.

[MasterOfPuppets]

How many perished in that "firestorm"?

even if it were only 1 thats 1 too many, considering the crime is based on nothing more than someone trying to force a religious moral agenda ,by use of violence.... just as palin refused to call it what it actually was, terrorism , i'm sure there was more than a few christians silently applauding it.

[tony hipchest]

how are things in ol juarez? lets look at todays headlines-


Alleged Juárez trafficker extradited to U.S.; 51 die in Juárez

By Daniel Borunda \ El Paso Times
Posted: 08/17/2010 12:00:00 AM MDT

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site525/2010/0203/20100203_035825_mexico150x75.gif (http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/mexico/) MEXICO IN FOCUS (http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/mexico/)
Analysis on news out of Mexico



Fighting the border drug war
Juárez gunmen kill two police officers (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15808462?source=pkg)
Mayor of Mexican city kidnapped by armed gang (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15798888?source=pkg)
51 people killed in Juárez over weekend (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15796202?source=pkg)
NPR: Mexico's drug war hits historic border cantinas (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15796184?source=pkg)
Bulletin warned of drug violence in El Paso (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15789756?source=pkg)
BBC: Mexico TV station Televisa hit by blasts (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15784603?source=pkg)
Report: Chihuahua has highest number of Mexico drug war murders (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15786887?source=pkg)
Police dispatch: Cartel members may seek rivals in El Paso (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15786868?source=pkg)
Coronado grad, nephew of ex-PAN leader, is slain in Juárez parking lot (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15764053?source=pkg)
Narco-blogger beats Mexico drug war news blackout (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15760441?source=pkg)
Nephew of former PAN leader Manuel Espino Barrientos killed in Juárez (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15757767?source=pkg)
Drug war: Woman led Sinaloa cells, officials say (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15749883?source=pkg)
Washington Post: Mexico hopes $270 million in social spending will help end Juarez drug violence (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15747490?source=pkg)
Mexican president critical of low conviction rate (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15744954?source=pkg)
Video: Border violence keeps Juarez paramedics busy (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15737144?source=pkg)
U.S. steps up fingerprinting program along border (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15737138?source=pkg)
Mexico to investigate federal officers (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15725597?source=pkg)
Gov. Perry delivers letter to President Obama on border security (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15721106?source=pkg)
Mexican journalists seek more protection (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15713608?source=pkg)
Dismembered body of federal agent found (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15714057?source=pkg)
Fewer Mexican students register at Texas colleges (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15714438?source=pkg)
Dismembered body of federal agent found in Juárez (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15711966?source=pkg)
Heads of three men found in Palomas, Mexico (http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15711963?source=pkg)




EL PASO -- A suspected Juárez drug trafficker appeared in U.S. District Court in El Paso on Monday after being extradited from Mexico even while rampant bloodshed continued in Juárez.
Felipe Dominguez Vargas is purported to be a "cell head" running a drug-trafficking ring that smuggled heroin, cocaine and marijuana into El Paso County to be distributed throughout the United States, a DEA spokeswoman said. It was unclear what cartel Dominguez worked for.
Dominguez, a Mexican citizen, was arrested in Juárez by Mexican authorities in November.
On Aug. 10, Mexico's attorney general's office, or PGR, extradited Dominguez and handed him over to the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration at the PGR airplane hangar at the Mexico City airport, officials said.
The DEA said Dominguez made his initial appearance in federal court Monday morning in Downtown El Paso. He waived a detention hearing. He faces six counts of conspiracy to distribute heroin, cocaine and marijuana. If convicted, he could face up to life in prison.
In Juárez, street shootings and other violence continued Monday after a bloody weekend. There had been nine homicides as of Monday evening.
Fifty-one people were slain between Friday and Sunday, a police spokesman said. There were 24 homicides on Sunday, making it one of the deadliest days of the year.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_15800542



this shit is every day people.

right on our doorstep. yet 13,000 deaths by the hands of different psycopaths in the past 10 years is supposed to concern me more. :doh:

[SteelCityMom]

You're talking about mostly ancient history, save the lone nut or wacko cult, I'm talking about daily murders taking place, every flipping day! I don't care what happned 200 years ago, i already told you I'm not Christian I've never bought into orginal sin, my fathers sins are not my own.

Radical Islamics commit murder on a daily basis. Don't believe me, tommorow I'll find you at least 5 instances where innocents were killed at the hands of radical Islam. And I'll do it the day after that and the next day and so on and so forth. I challenge you to do the same with christians.

And I'm telling you that it hasn't been hundreds of years. I'm not going to debate with the numbers of people killed...because we're talking about people killed by radicals of their faiths (who are doing it to further their own political agendas). But if you want a good example a crazy nutjob who used Christianity as a propaganda tool to further his own political agenda, look no further than Hitler.


n a speech from April 12, 1922 and published in his book My New Order, Adolf Hitler explains his perspective on Jesus Christ:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/a/HitlerJesus.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/a/NaziChristian.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerChristian.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/NaziChristiansGermany.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm

Or in Uganda if you want something more recent...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7802804.stm
http://allafrica.com/stories/200812310002.html

Or in India...


The main aim behind the establishment of this political party is to give a separate identity to a Christian fundamentalist Tripura state outside the nation of India. This political entity was later banned as it fell under the Unlawful Activies Prevention Act. This act was passed in the year 1967.

http://www.mapsofindia.com/tripura/government/national-liberation-front.html


National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) is an active terrorist organization. However, NLFT is constantly in flux and has given rise to several splinter groups. In 2001, NLFT split into two main factions, one led by Nayanbasi Jamatiya and the other by Biswamohan Debbarma. According to confisicated records of NLFT, the split was caused by internal bickering among senior leaders, misappropriation of funds by certain senior NLFT members, and disagreement over the forcible conversion of NLFT members to Chrisitainty. According to at least one report, approximately 90 percent of senior NLFT members are Christians. Despite the internal fighting and regardless of future splintering of NLFT, the group remains an active terrorist threat in the Tripura state of India.

http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data/...le.asp?id=3644

This was all discussed way, way earlier in the thread though...but I'll happily engage in discussion with anyone EXCEPT Vincent...we've already danced that dance. :chuckle:

[tony hipchest]

i like this one-

Dismembered body of federal agent found in Juárez


no terrorism there though. :doh:

seriously people, who the fuck cares under what name these atrocities are committed under?

BTW- click a link, any link, in my previous post. they all work. this is the headlines i read everyday in our local "big city" paper. you think i give a rats ass about 2 people killed by a pipe bomb im indonesia, rawanda, or yemen? :sofunny: that stuff is childs play.

[ricardisimo]

I realize many are not, Wahabism thrives on fanning the flames of the ignorant. But at the same token all the 9-11 murderers had a good understanding of how the real world works and chose to ignore it anyway.

And here you're touching on a fact which has been completely overlooked in this discussion, That the 9/11 murderers were Muslim is secondary to their being Saudi and Kuwaiti, maybe even a distant second. Their voiced objections were not to Christianity or Judaism, but to United States troops being stationed in their countries.

In other words, this non-mosque which is not being built at Ground Zero is also completely unrelated to the motivations behind the 9/11 attacks which created Ground Zero.

[SteelCityMom]

i like this one-

Dismembered body of federal agent found in Juárez


no terrorism there though. :doh:

seriously people, who the fuck cares under what name these atrocities are committed under?

Exactly. And I don't mean to give the impression that I think Christian radicals are worse than Islamist radicals or anything like that. They all piss me off. And I don't like basing my level of hatred on who's killed more people. There's a lot of crazy people out there killing for a lot of messed up reasons.

[X-Terminator]

You're talking about mostly ancient history, save the lone nut or wacko cult, I'm talking about daily murders taking place, every flipping day! I don't care what happned 200 years ago, i already told you I'm not Christian I've never bought into orginal sin, my fathers sins are not my own.

Radical Islamics commit murder on a daily basis. Don't believe me, tommorow I'll find you at least 5 instances where innocents were killed at the hands of radical Islam. And I'll do it the day after that and the next day and so on and so forth. I challenge you to do the same with christians.

If I didn't have to leave for work right after I posted that, I would have answered then, but SCM already answered for me. Despite that, you still are NOT getting my point at all. I said that Christians have a LOT of blood on their hands. That is a FACT. Whether the incidents happened 200 years ago or 2 days ago does not matter to me when it comes to the point I am making. And knowing that FACT, Christians cannot put themselves on some sort of pedestal and claim that their (my) religion is superior to all others, which BTW is the very thing that many anti-Islamist folks criticize Muslims for doing. Not when they have a long history of bloodshed and brutality that continues to this very day. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp - I've been as clear as I possibly can. :noidea:

[MasterOfPuppets]

*Catholic extermination camps

Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II
were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years
1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by
Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practising
Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even
concentration camps exclusively for children!

In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a
Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial
number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha
burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to
have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply
stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated
between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the
killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough
to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching,
to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew
about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]

*Catholic terror in Vietnam

In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally
defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by
then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2
billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all
(most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge
anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South.
With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman,
the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the
U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to
prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist
Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo
Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]

Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance
was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were
ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics
for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman
Catholicism.

The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American
counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read

"Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common
security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."

Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and
monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of
buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over
themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned
themselves in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile
some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with
Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into
no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of
terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street
riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or
tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention
camps. [MW76-89].

To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of
American GI's lost their life.

*Christianity kills the cat

On July 1, 1976, Anneliese Michel, a 23-year-old student of a teachers
college in Germany, died she starved herself to death. For months she
had been haunted by demonic visions and apparitions, and for months
two Catholic priests - with explicit approval of the Catholic bishop
of Würzburg - additionally pestered and tormented the wretched girl
with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital -
her body was littered with wounds - her parents, both of them
fanatical Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having
called for medical help. None of the priests was punished on the
contrary, Miss Michel's grave today is a place of pilgrimage and
worship for a number of similarly faithful Catholics (in the
seventeenth century Würzburg was notorious for it's extensive witch
burnings).

This case is only the tip of an iceberg of such evil superstition and
has become known only because of its lethal outcome. [SP80]
http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html

[ricardisimo]

What acts do you speak of X?

I hasten to point out that your president, Bush, said in plain English that his god (the Christian God) told him to smite Afghanistan and Iraq. He also referred to these as "Crusades", more vehemently and often after having the offensiveness of the word pointed out to him. The religious Right embraced this openly. There's a strong argument to be made that these are two religious wars we are fighting now. Many Iraqis and Afghans certainly view it as such.

So, did you still want to compare (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) bloody hands?

[ricardisimo]

i like this one-

Dismembered body of federal agent found in Juárez


no terrorism there though. :doh:

seriously people, who the fuck cares under what name these atrocities are committed under?

BTW- click a link, any link, in my previous post. they all work. this is the headlines i read everyday in our local "big city" paper. you think i give a rats ass about 2 people killed by a pipe bomb im indonesia, rawanda, or yemen? :sofunny: that stuff is childs play.
A very good friend of the family lost her brother (I think in Chihuahua), shot in the back of the head eight or nine times. His crime, and that of the others shot with him: they were working a job for which they had failed to pay a "referral fee". I am very, very sorry for what you must be seeing every day, Tony.

[tony hipchest]

And here you're touching on a fact which has been completely overlooked in this discussion, That the 9/11 murderers were Muslim is secondary to their being Saudi and Kuwaiti, maybe even a distant second. Their voiced objections were not to Christianity or Judaism, but to United States troops being stationed in their countries.
.

weren the religious 9-11 hijackers ordering pepperoni pizza from dominos, boozing it up, and visiting strip clubs, the short while they were here on their "holy mission?

[Wallace108]

In other words, this non-mosque which is not being built at Ground Zero is also completely unrelated to the motivations behind the 9/11 attacks which created Ground Zero.

I partially agree with you, ric. It's not a mosque. And it's not being built at Ground Zero. But I disagree that it's not related to the 9/11 attacks.

The motivation behind the "cultural center" supposedly is to help bridge the gap between Islam and the western world.

But it appears that building the "cultural center" is only widening that gap. If those behind the center were to come out and say that they understand why people find it offensive and oppose it, and they decided to relocate it, that would go a long way toward building respect for Muslims and Islam.

But that's not the case. What they're saying is we don't give a damn if you're offended. We really don't care what you think. We're going to build it anyway. Oh, and by the way, you need to respect Islam, because it's a religion of peace.

But they won't consider scrapping the plans to build the center because their goal isn't to bridge the gap. Their goal is to plant their "flag" as close to Ground Zero as they can. Once this center is built, it will embolden Muslim extremists throughout the world. Hell, the fact that Americans are fighting over the issue is a victory for them.