Hello clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I think it's a fine flag. What? Are you going to tell me that it represents some really ugly stuff, so I should add it to my list? Read the post above. I ain't got no stinkin list.
excon
|
Hello clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I think it's a fine flag. What? Are you going to tell me that it represents some really ugly stuff, so I should add it to my list? Read the post above. I ain't got no stinkin list.
excon
You finally got my point, but don't make my list for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If you're referring to ME, the only list I need, is the Constitution. If the mosque in question, DOES meet zoning and building codes, I don't say it's "OK". I say it's LEGAL. I actually DON'T think it's OK, but MY opinion isn't what counts. What the Constitution SAYS is what counts.
Tom has said, and I guess you agree with him, that the local zoning board (or whatever local board he's talking about) CAN ban this mosque on religious grounds. I disagree. The Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to adhere to the First Amendment. That is just so.
excon
I must have missed where tom said the mosque could be banned on religious grounds. That sounds like your interpretation of something else tom said.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
After discussing the zoning and building code issue, tom STILL said that he believed the local authorities COULD ban the mosque. He did NOT say why. I presumed that since we had put away the zoning issue, the only issue left would be religious.
So, you tell me. If the building next to you is a commercial building open to the public, and you built a building right next door, in the SAME zone, that is built to the standards of your neighbor, can the zoning cops prevent you from building your building because they don't like what you're going to DO there?
This isn't a trick question. I'm not talking about a business that's illegal already. Do you believe the zoning board can discriminate based upon religion?
excon
I never got the impression tom supported religious discrimination. The question's been asked and answered, if it meets zoning requirements and building codes the building can go up. You think that means we support religious discrimination or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Here are the remarks in my initial answer and follow-up clarification.
Quote:
The Mosque is going to be 2 blocks away from Ground Zero ,not at Ground Zero .
There are already many mosques in NYC... many already linked to jihadistan and terrorist organizations .I support Peter King's call for an investigation into the funding of the mosque. If it passes a clean bill of health ,and this edifice is not housing jihadist front groups ,then they have a right to build the mosque
Quote:
let me sum it up one more time.
There is a guarantee for the free exericise of religion . There is no guarantee you can build a house of worship anywhere you want to.
I can't make my position any clearer than that. IF the community approves it ,then whether I think it should go there or not is irrelevent.
None of my objections meet the status of 'religious discrimination'Quote:
But in the neighborhood in question there are already houses of worship so I do not dispute their right to build even though I oppose it (I mentioned that in my 1st response ) .I have argued against the size of the project ;which happens to be my biggest objection . Of that you just agreed with me that the local community can restrict the size of the edifice.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
THIS is the post I was referring to. Post #56, yesterday.
Your protestations above notwithstanding, on what grounds do you base that contention? Please clarify.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
excon
It's called the Eureka Flag Ex and it's equivalent of your original stars and stripes flag, sad part is that rebellion was quashed right when it began with military might and we never had our revolution. I guess your rebellion had taught the British somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
http://www.eurekastockadefilm.com/audio_frame03.htm
These days when ever we have conflict on a building site the Eureka Flag puts in an appearance, maybe you could use it
The southern cross eh ? Well that's the Crux of the problem .
Thanks ,I was not aware of that bit of your history .
Yes some of us have a strong history of fighting oppression, there are some interesting stories of americans and canadians who were involved in that incidentQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ba dum bump. I owe you one for the Kerry yacht trip to Cambodia, too, lol :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I've only read the first post.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
My position: If they disclose the financers of the project, then let them do it.
On the other hand, if the backers of the Mosque are also backers of terrorists, then the answer should be no.
I hate the analogy that it's the same thing as putting a tribute to the Kamikaze pilots at Pearl Harbor. It's not the same thing at all.
Rick just to clarify..
I don't know if anyone else mentioned Pearl Harbor,but I did (#53) .
I did not say... a tribute to the Kamikazi (there were no Kamikazi attacks during the Pearl Harbor sneak attack anyway) . ]
I said... Now if you said there was an absolute right to build a Temple for the Emperor of Japan at Pearl Harbor I would say wrong.
That would be an appropriate comparison because of the religious devotion the Japanese bestowed on the Emperor.
I hear you. It's only the likes of Shawn Hannity that make the Kamikaze argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't mind being called "conservative" or even "to the right", but when people like S.H. speak out, I often have to affirm that he does NOT speak for the majority of folks like me.
Correct . Don't let anyone else define you. People don't believe me when I tell them I am not glued to the television watching FOX .
Is there an English translation to :
Evangeliza semper, dicas si oporteat ?( I'd find it but I'm being lazy)
Yes! I hear that a lot and it ticks me off. I think that FOX does more harm than good for the conservative cause. I think all of the news channels are bunk. The only place to get real news is by surfing the News link at Google and reading from several sources. At most of them you get more opinion than news.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
For those of you that care to know: by tradition, it is attributed to St. Francis of Assisi (and fits in perfectly with what he taught), but there is no proof that he said it (sorry, recording devices were not available then) or wrote it.
In "secular" language I take it to mean "Actions speak louder than words". Of course words are valuable, but actions are more so.
Speaking of constitution loving people, let's hear it for Pete Stark, Democrat from California who thinks the constitution is basically meaningless:
In many ways I agree. It is too open to too many various interpretations.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
... but that being said, I don't think it matters. There is no way in hell that it could be re-written in our lifetime or even in the lifetimes between now and our great-great-great grandchildren.
Well we can see there how democracy works in america, the loudest person gets to speakQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Are you referring to the lady who asked the question or the congressman, who once said he wouldn't waste urine on one of his constituents?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hello again, Steve:
The lady is misinformed and the congressman is a dufus. What has THAT to do with the mosque? You always seem to come up with kookie INDIVIDUALS, I suppose to bolster your arguments.. But, finding kooks doesn't bolster your argument. It diminishes it.
excon
Ex, you referred to "Constitution loving" people in your OP and knowing how much you love the constitution I find it highly appropriate to show the kooks in congress that don't give a rip about our constitution. He ain't just a "kookie INDIVIDUAL," he's writing the $#@%% laws.
Hello again, Steve:
While I appreciate your help, pointing out odd thinking individuals, whether they be congressmen or citizens, DOESN'T contribute to OUR conversation.
excon
Sorry, but I can't sweep it under the rug as casually as you do.
Perhaps this will add to the mosque discussion.
Quote:
WTC Mosque, Meet the Auschwitz Nuns
Pope John Paul offers a model of tolerance for a heated controversy.
By WILLIAM MCGURN
With every passing day, the dispute over the planned Islamic Center near Ground Zero grows more acrimonious. These feelings will probably only get worse today, when the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission is expected to remove another hurdle by ruling against landmark status for the undistinguished old building the center will replace.
So maybe it's time to look beyond the lawyers and landmark preservation commissions and regulatory agencies. When we do, it will be hard to find a better example than the grace and wisdom Pope John Paul II exhibited during a similar clash involving another hallowed site on whose grounds innocents were also murdered: Auschwitz.
In the 1980s, Carmelite nuns moved into an abandoned building on the edge of the former Nazi death camp to pray for the souls taken there. As with the dispute over the mosque near Ground Zero, the convent's presence escalated into a clash not only between different faiths but between competing historical narratives. As with today's clash too, it seemed intractable until the Polish pope stepped in.
For Jews, Auschwitz is a symbol of the Shoah, and the presence of a convent looked like an effort to Christianize a place of Jewish suffering. Suspicions were further aroused by a fundraising brochure from an outside Catholic group, which referred to the convent as a "guarantee of the conversion of strayed brothers." The protests mounted over the course of several years and various interfaith agreements, and pointed to the real strains that remained between Poles and Jews over a shared history with very different perspectives.
Many Catholics, not just in Poland, could not understand how nuns begging God's forgiveness and praying for the souls of the departed could possibly offend anyone. There was also a nationalist element. Many members of the Polish resistance had also been murdered at Auschwitz. And again like our present controversy at Ground Zero, intemperate reactions and statements from both sides only inflamed passions.
So what did Pope John Paul II do? He waited, and he counseled. And when he saw that the nuns were not budging—and that their presence was doing more harm than good—he asked the Carmelites to move. He acknowledged that his letter would probably be a trial to each of the sisters, but asked them to accept it while continuing to pursue their mission in that same city at another convent that had been built for them.
Let's remember what this means. By their own lights, the nuns believed they were doing only good. They may have had a legal title to be where they were. And it is likely that they never would have been forced to move by local authorities had they insisted on staying.
There's a lesson here. Even those who favor this new Islamic Center surely can appreciate why some American feelings are rubbed raw by the idea of a mosque at a place where Islamic terrorists killed more than 2,700 innocent people. If feelings in Auschwitz were raw after nearly half a century, it's not hard to see why they would remain raw at Ground Zero after less than a decade.
On the other hand, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is right about the law: Our freedom of religion means nothing if it doesn't mean freedom of religion for all. Indeed, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—a sort of ACLU for freedom of religion—has spent decades defending churches, synagogues, mosques and even a Zoroastrian temple against public officials who have tried to invoke zoning laws or arcane regulations to keep them off a property.
Yet not all big questions can—or should—be reduced to legal right. Living together as neighbors in a free and inescapably diverse society requires more skills than just knowing how to hire sharp lawyers. Sometimes it requires leaders willing to sound a grace note, even yielding to the feelings of others who may not see our plans the same way we do.
For their part, the two people at the heart of this center—Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan—defend the center as an antidote to 9/11. "Our religion has been hijacked by the extremists," Ms. Khan told National Public Radio, "and this center is going to create that counter-momentum which will amplify the voices of the moderate Muslims."
Perhaps. But it's hard to argue with the Anti-Defamation League's assessment that the controversy created by building the center at this location "is counterproductive to the healing process."
Without doubt Pope John Paul II did not share the more malevolent interpretations attached to the presence of the Carmelites at Auschwitz. By asking the nuns to withdraw, he didn't concede them either. What he did was recognize that having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Not really. No one here is arguing that building the mosque is the right thing to do. The only thing anyone is arguing, is whether they have the RIGHT to do it.
I again, suggest that Muslims are on your list of people to whom the Constitution does NOT apply. Otherwise, when you read the First Amendment, you'd see that it applies to EVERYBODY, not just a selected few.
excon
PS> By the way, the Pope doesn't HAVE a Constitution that he answers to. We do.
Well ex, the argument goes way beyond here and people are in fact arguing that it is the right thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And if you were honest, you'd acknowledge that I've already said they have the right to build the mosque instead of misleading others about me. So since we all seem to agree they DO have the right to build it it's time to move on to whether it's the right thing to do.Quote:
I again, suggest that Muslims are on your list of people to whom the Constitution does NOT apply. Otherwise, when you read the First Amendment, you'd see that it applies to EVERYBODY, not just a selected few.
Another interesting article: The Republican campaign against a Ground Zero mosque. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine
And don't forget page 2: The Republican campaign against a Ground Zero mosque. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine
Not to mention, there is already a mosque closer to the site than the proposed one. And the proposed one will be built not ON or even ADJACENT to, but 2-3 blocks away.
Facts, they come to bite you eventually.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You and I agree, it's not the right thing to do. But, my post has nothing to do with RIGHT. Besides, I'm not much interested in what people think is "right", cause most of 'em are wrong. Certainly, they're not interested is what I think is right.
So, is it better to celebrate peoples' bigotry, intolerance, and IGNORANCE of the Constitution, or is it better to celebrate the Constitution itself? I choose "B".
excon
NK, since we all seem to agree they have the right to build, exactly what facts are coming back to bite me?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I always find providing a context helpfulQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I was referring to the bad mannered woman who wouldn't allow the congressman to answer. Obviously her question wasn't a question but a statement of political position and a more experienced politician might have treated it as such and moved on. One can understand how the congressman might have formed such an opinion but some things are better left unsaid since they will haunt you forever. What I do know is a person who was so slow in response should not have held office for as long as he did
Hello again,
What Mayor Bloomberg said, in this video. I kind of sound like him, don't I?
excon
He's a PC nut .
The example cited recently about Pope JPII is instructive .
William McGurn: WTC Mosque, Meet the Auschwitz Nuns - WSJ.com
Here is the tolerance I want to see . I want to see some Muslim sr. cleric ;understanding the sensitivity of building a Mosque there like JPII did at Auschwitz ,tell the Cordoba people that there are other places they could locate because it's the right thing to do.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I didn't know speaking about our cherished freedoms WAS PC. It was the most eloquent speech on freedom I've heard in a LONG time from either party.
Not surprised you didn't get it.
excon
Suppose the U.S. bombed Mecca. Do you think that Muslims would allow them to build a church there less than ten years later? Pretty soon, the PC crowd will want to build a statue of Colonel Klink at Auschwitz.
Hello again, earl:
Are you saying we should LOWER our standards to those of Saudi Arabia?
excon
Yes a few executions, whippings and hand loppings should do much for the crime problemQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Mischief in Manhattan
Hmmm...Quote:
We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation
By Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, Citizen Specia
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.
It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.
Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.
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.
Why does the author say it's a mosque at ground zero when it's not at ground zero?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:23 AM. |