[NeedKarma]

Are you that dense?

Why do you disparage people all the time? What does do for you? Make you feel powerful?

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?

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[speechlesstx]

Why do you disparage people all the time? What does do for you? make you feel powerful?

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

[NeedKarma]

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

I accept your apology.

[speechlesstx]

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

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.

[JudyKayTee]

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.

Again - would you please pay closer attention before you answer. As was pointed out earlier - you look foolish.

[tomder55]

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 .

[NeedKarma]

.. the placement of a victory mosque

It's not

on the site of their biggest terrorist attack.

It isn't.

[excon]

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

[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

[tomder55]

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 .

[excon]

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.

Hello again, tom:

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[excon]

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:

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?

[tomder55]

Isn't the point of right wing breast beating and flag waiving 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) .
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.

[tomder55]

Isn't the point of right wing breast beating and flag waiving that we ARE superior?? Dude! Why do you hate this country?

You are confusing a sacred narrative and a lefty myth. Yes I adhere American "exceptionalism" (not superiority) .
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.

[excon]

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 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:

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

[Catsmine]

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.

Hi, Ex.

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.

[darknald3]

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