 |
"the Muslims?" Ok, fine. But as for me, I hesitate only because "they" (the Muslims that want to build it") don't want to disclose where the financing comes from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
If the financing comes from Al-Quaida I would not let it be built if I were the one in charge of making the decision.
I'd say "NIMBY".
Not in my back yard.
So why would they NOT want to confirm the financing source(s)?
Did you look at the Cordoba Initiative's Web site?Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
No, I did not. What's the link?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I am an open minded person so am happy to see other opinions (which is why I hang in there with this thread :) )
I had Googled to find it. It's difficult to believe the board of directors would allow funding from a questionable source.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
Lol what happened to that vaunted "wall of separation" ?Quote:
We should be out there helping the Muslims build that building.
In fact we have a history of rebuilding mosques . The most recent one being I believe in Fallujah .
Wondergirl .Knowing the significance of Cordoba and the Muslim conquest of Spain and the symbolism attached to that name ;why would they name their project the Cordoba Initiative ? They must think we are all ignorant .FYI... for those who may not know,The great mosque at Cordoba was built on the foundation of a Christian cathedral.
That's what I've thought from the beginning. If I were he mayor or the governor I'd want to know who is funding the project.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Wouldn't all americans be ticked to find out that something built on the site of the 9-11 terrorist attack was funded by those that support the ones that did the damage?
EDITORIAL: Tax dollars to build mosques - Washington TimesQuote:
In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque’s namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country’s Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of “Muslim triumphalism” glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument – and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm sure WG meant that well meaning Christians and Jews should be helping to build the mosque. She surly didn't mean the government should help. What's that called? A red herring?
excon
Why should that be?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If YOU, as a Christian, don't know why, this atheist can't help much.
excon
Do people generally inquire as to the funding behind the building of churches? Or those godawful "megachurches"?Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
But you knew what wondergirl meant, I'm sure you would know why as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Is there some reason we should?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Fondling of little boys and the subsequent cover-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I see, possible pedophile ties yes, terrorist ties no. Well I'm a Baptist anyway so I don't know what that has to with us or for that matter, those 'godawful "megachurches"'.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You're missing the point on sooo many levels.
Let me see. You have a GROUP of ORGANIZED pedophiles making a broad based attack on the WORLDS children, WITH the collusion of their hierarchy, AND our cops (who tend to BE Catholic). I'd call that terrorist activity. You wouldn't?? Dude!
The question NK asked, was asked through his prism of our Constitution, which is funny because he doesn't even have one. Interestingly, he knows more about it than regular right wing Constitution loving wingers... He realizes, where you don't, that calling for an investigation into a MUSLIM church, while not simultaneously calling for one on Christian churches, IS discriminatory. Now, it's FINE for YOU, as individuals, to call for an investigation. You're allowed, by our wonderful Constitution, to BE bigots.
The government, however, is not. As long as the finances of Christian churches are not routinely examined, the government may NOT require it for religions it doesn't like. That is what EQUAL treatment under the law means.
Equal treatment for people IS the cornerstone of our great nation. I don't understand, how YOU don't understand that.
excon
As I explained on another post where you insisted the church is under no obligation to IRS rules, my church IS already under government scrutiny as is I suppose just about every other church in America except yours. So, I have no problem with scrutinizing this mosque's funding either. Actually, especially so since Christian churches are not known for financing terrorism.
I personally don't support the building of ANY building at or around ground zero. I do support the idea of building a memorial honoring ALL who died in the tragic event.
I have never heard of a church's funding being scrutinized, can you point us to some examples?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Are you that dense you can't see it in my post or do you thinkQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
As ex does that the IRS (and others) doesn't look into church finances?
IRS Is Investigating Finances, Pastor of Sterling Church Says
Pastor, Brooklyn Park church fight rare IRS audit
Second IRS Violation Filed Against Living Word Christian Center and Pastor Mac Hammond
IRS questions Hinn's tax-exempt status
Investigating Televangelist Finances
Need more?
Why do you disparage people all the time? What does do for you? Make you feel powerful?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Anyway your links point to churches that have existed fro decades in some instances and are just now getting an audit.
Are there any instances where someone plans to build a church and the public is screaming for a look into its financing?
Hello again;
We're getting distracted. Let's NOT do that. Clearly, churches get investigated. That's NOT the issue. The issue IS, when a church moves into your neighborhood, does THAT event trigger an investigation into a church's financing. I don't think it DOES. As long as that event doesn't trigger an investigation into a Christian church, then that event shouldn't trigger an investigation into a Muslim mosque.
excon
It is true there is no requirement for disclosure . But most churches in the US are transparent.
All you really have to do is find the name of a Catholic Church ;anyone will do and more likely than not they have on line or another public forum a financial statement published .
Example : http://stmarkseagirt.com/2007/PDF/Fi...202008%201.pdf
Likewise the financial statements of organizations like Catholic Charities are also public record .
Financial Statement - Catholic Charities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, MN
Further ,the Vatican itself discloses an annual financial statement .
ZENIT - Vatican's 2009 Financial Statement
Regarding mega-churches ;most realize that they are better off volunarily disclosing their finances
U.S. churches find financial transparency | Reuters
Or they come under scrutiny
Sen Grassely has conducted investigations into the financing of mega church and televangelists
Televangelists: Who's Accountable? - Primary Source - CBS News
But the legit ones gladly disclose their finances .
Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I accept your apology.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Next time some local church whose pastor finances a deliberate, violent provocation and says the US is an accessory to a terrorist attack decides to build a 13 story, $100 million church by accepting anonymous Paypal donations we'll see what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isafjordur
Again - would you please pay closer attention before you answer. As was pointed out earlier - you look foolish.
Ex ,if their finances are suspicious on it's face then of course they should be investigated.
How many more Sulfi and Wahhabist mosques do we need in this country recruting jihadists ?
Again ,we have conceded their "constitutional right to build it. But we the people also have the freedom to denounce the placement of a victory mosque (as all jihadists will recognize it as such ) on the site of their biggest terrorist attack. We have every right to demand full disclosure .
It's notQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again:
The president SUPPORTS freedom of religion. Whaddya know about that? Last night, he said so. Good for Obama. Especially since he has NOTHING to gain politically by saying so, since 70% of the American public opposes the mosque. But he stepped up to the plate anyway.
Leaders lead - others read polls. This is what I expected of him from the get go. I guess it's better than nothing.
excon
Hello again,
Tom is in good company. Peter King, a congressman from NY, ALSO said Obama was being PC. That's what tom said about Bloomberg when he spoke about freedom, American values, and the Constitution...
I can imagine them at the Constitutional convention of 1787.
Patrick Henry: "Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"
Tom and Peter King: "Ahhh, he's just being PC."
Bwa, ha ha ha ha.
excon
Yup Pete King is one of the shining lights in an otherwise dim NY political landscape .
Actually Patrick Henry did not approve of the US Constitution ,and led the Virginia opposition to its ratification.He opposed it replacing the Articles of Confederation.
He made the speech that included the quote in 1775 when he was trying to mobilize the Virginians to take up arms against the Brits. During the Revolution however he is most notable for taking up arms against the Cherokee .
Later on ,after seeing the exesses of the French Revolution ,he warmed up to Federalism .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Good try. I don't disagree with your history, but my POINT was clear. WHENEVER he said it, you'd call it PC. DUDE!
I don't know what happened to the patriotic stuff you guys USED to be for. Patrick Henry PC?? DUDE! To be for FREEDOM, is to be PC?? I'm for freedom. I'm anything BUT PC. Dude, again!
excon
Your for freedom of what ? To put a political jihadist memorial in the guise of a religious structure next to the site where they mass murdered Americans . That's the freedom you are promoting .
I on the other hand have already conceded their constitutional "right" to do so while still opposing it.In other words ,exercising my freedom of speech ;which you would stifle because I am not espousing the politically correct garbage that says allowing them to build it shows our superiority .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm no stifler. I'm a disagreer. Big difference.
excon
PS> Isn't the point of right wing breast beating and flag waiving is that we ARE superior?? Dude! Why do you hate this country?
You are confusing a sacred narrative and a myth. Yes I adhere American "exceptionalism" (not superiority) .Quote:
Isn't the point of right wing breast beating and flag waiving that we ARE superior?? Dude! Why do you hate this country?
You know and I know what the motives of this cleric Feisal Abdul Rauf is in building on this site. He hangs out with the worse of the worse in Islam . He brazenly basically justified and blamed the US for the 9-11 attacks .
He is one of the enemy ,and I will never say I approve the building of a monument to jihadist triumphalism on the site of their attack on our country.
You are confusing a sacred narrative and a lefty myth. Yes I adhere American "exceptionalism" (not superiority) .Quote:
Isn't the point of right wing breast beating and flag waiving that we ARE superior?? Dude! Why do you hate this country?
You know and I know what the motives of this cleric Feisal Abdul Rauf is in building on this site. He hangs out with the worse of the worse in Islam . He brazenly basically justified and blamed the US for the 9-11 attacks .
He is one of the enemy ,and I will never say I approve the building of a monument to jihadist triumphalism on the site of their attack on our country.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No, I don't know that. I assume that if he's an enemy, he would have been rendered away to some black prison site for some good ole torture. Instead, we're sending him on a good will tour. Did George Bush slip up?
Nonetheless, and no matter what his objectives are, he's entitled to the same rights Christians have when they want to open a new church. As a matter of fact, don't YOU want Christian teachings in our schools? You DO! Don't YOU want the government to support CHRISTIAN symbols and monuments on government property? You DO! Don't you want CHRISTIAN prayer spoken at the opening of congress and in our public schools? You DO!
So, from MY perspective, Christian motives are no less threatening than Muslims motives are. Besides, the Constitution doesn't say you have rights as long as everybody AGREES with your MOTIVES. Nooo. Our Constitution says people are to be FREE to practice their religion ANY way they choose, and by gum, I believe it. I'm PROUD that I believe it, too. After all, I AM a patriot. I LOVE the Constitution. Not only that, I LIVE it too.
You?? Not so much.
excon
Hi, Ex.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So if, say, Jeremiah Wright wanted to build a church at 238 Mulberry in Memphis (where MLK was shot) you have no problem with that? How about Richard Butler(founder of Aryan Nation)? Sauce for the goose, man.
Pretty Ironic, they should leave it be in my opinion, it's a good tourist attraction and to build a mosque on it would be counterproductiv, I mean there are schools nearby and there's a lot of traffic in that area, not a good idea
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:59 AM. |