[NeedKarma]

Plenty of Aetheists use their faith in they being the supreme being to object to all things religious....plenty of court cases that can be called up to support THAT as well.

What does that even mean?? Maybe citing a few of those court cases will help us understand.

[smoothy]

Smells like hypocrisy. LOL!

Hey... I wasn't the one stating the Muslims have the right to do anything they want free of any objections or repercussions.

But not just the muslims... the unknow secret Foreign entities who HAVE no rights that are the reall people building this. After all, has this Imam proven HE has the money or where this money actually comes from? After all, money laundering laws are pretty specific in this country.

Income derived from the Afgan Poppy fields (Global Heroin and Opium trade for those not aware) isn't money that can be legally used to build a Terrorist Memorial on USA soil.

[smoothy]

What does that even mean??? Maybe citing a few of those court cases will help us understand.

Really... just Google anything about Lawsuits, Aetheists and christmas even toss in the ACLU... in the query, take your pick. Otherwise I would be accused of cherry picking cases...

The ACLU makes Mob lawyers look virtuous in comparison. And worse wasting tax dollars doing it.

[NeedKarma]

Hey.....I wasn't the one stating the Muslims have the right ...

No you were the one chastising someone for name calling when it's a common theme for you. Man did that ever fly over your head.

Your posts are fun, I can almost picture the sputum of rage flying from your mouth as you write your poorly spelled posts.

[Synnen]

THe Minority religion does not have the right to dictate to the MAJORTIY religion. When was the last time someone was killed for refusing to go to church in the USA...or the wrong church...or even any church at all.

That is a standard practice where Muslims are the dominant group. Unlike the rest of the non-communist world. Exception being Communist countries that still practice this to various degrees against all religions.


Islam is not a MINORITY religion.....Islam is not a religon of peace. Islam is responsible for almost if not more misery and death as Communism has.

There was a reason "minority" was in quotations on my post, Smoothy.

The minority religion is NOT dictating to the majority religion. What is happening is that a non-Christian religion is trying to build a place of worship and community, and because the MAJORITY of Americans are sheep being fed on fear, they (the sheep) feel it is okay to protest a "church" being built where there is no reason why a "church" can't be built--except that people are feeding on fear and letting it escalate.

Christianity is guilty of as much misery and death as any other religion--more, probably, because it's been a religion of power in more of the world for a longer amount of time. Christianity, therefore (using your "Islam is not a religion of peace" argument) is NOT a religion of love and forgiveness.

[Synnen]

PS--never said Muslims could do whatever they wanted. But they LEGALLY got a permit to build there. They followed the LAW---like anyone else had to.

And it's amazing how annoyed you get about Christians not being able to flaunt their faith in public (state) buildings and other public areas---how do you think we non-Christians feel about Christians objecting to OUR places of worship?

And this is a BUILDING! It's not like they're putting a Muslim display in a state building and not letting any OTHER religion display their trappings--which is, I think, the case you are referring to.

PLEASE take a step back and realize those things that you are angry about the change on (no Christmas pageants in public schools, or whatever) is EXACTLY the way the rest of us feel whenever Christianity forces us to accept their "majority" opinion on something.

[smoothy]

No you were the one chastising someone for name calling when it's a common theme for you. Man did that ever fly over your head.

Your posts are fun, I can almost picture the sputum of rage flying from your mouth as you write your poorly spelled posts.

Really, The left does nothing but name call and make up falsehoods...

Look at nearly any coverage on Sarah Palin...

They got their panties in a knot about a dress that was loaned to her... yet totally ignore Obamas suits and Michele's attire completely as to what THAT came from and who paid for it...

And like I've told others... people who worry about misspellings are people that really don't have more important things to do.
And rarely are capable of viewing their own bias on a point of argument... even when its obvious they think the rules and law back only their own viewpoint.

English majors may be good at writing and spelling but they aren't the smartest people on the planet just because they can do THAT better than many.

Point of note being the 1st amendment... as well as the second. They won't even read it but think THEY are the only ones that know what it says... even though its written in plain english... not legalese. You remember... Bill Clinton thinking he could say anything he wanted... that whoever he wanted to twist a words meaning had to be followed or accepted by everyone else... otherwise they were being political, heaven forbid they grasp that they repeat the same quotes, the same talking points and even the same PHRASES so often it looks like a Guinness book of world records attempt for the largest simultaneous ventriloquist act in history

[NeedKarma]

smoothy,
It's amazing the amount of hatred you have for 50% of your fellow americans. Good luck with that.

[smoothy]

smoothy,
It's amazing the amount of hatred you have for 50% of your fellow americans. Good luck with that.

#1 Liberals are NOT 50% of the US population...

#2 Muslims are not 50% of the us population even if I DID hate 100% of them which I don't... just those who can not grasp or respect the sensitivites of others THEY have tried to kill.

#3, Women ARE 50% of the population... give or take a few points... and trust me there... I don't hate women.

[tomder55]

Careful now . There is an administrator at AMHD with a quick trigger finger when it comes to ending posts.

[NeedKarma]

Why. What would prompt that?

[tomder55]

Got me . What prompted the end of the Obama's religion question ?

[NeedKarma]

I guess the 'going around in circles' reason is as good as any.

[speechlesstx]

I guess the 'going around in circles' reason is as good as any.

No, that's a lame reason. I wouldn't want to literally be the judge of when all has been said... as soon as that call is made someone will come up with something else to offer.

[NeedKarma]

No, that's a lame reason. I wouldn't want to literally be the judge of when all has been said...as soon as that call is made someone will come up with something else to offer.

Nah, it's always variations on the same theme.

[speechlesstx]

Nah, it's always variations on the same theme.

Even if it is so what? What's the problem in letting us talk it out if there's no foul?

[Wondergirl]

Even if it is so what? What's the problem in letting us talk it out if there's no foul?

Tomder was worried that there would be a "foul" big enough to shut down this thread. We will all play nice, so there's no thread closing. If it does get closed, I will work my charms on whoever closes the thread to get it reopened. It's too important of a thread to shut down right now.

[excon]

Hello again,

Here's what Ron Paul has to say. Statements like THIS is why I supported him for pres.
-------------------------

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we're supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn't come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don't want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives' aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there's no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

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

You GO, Ron Paul.

excon

[tomder55]

Doesn't surprise me at all that he takes this line. He thinks the US was responsible for the 9-11 attacks.He confirms that sentiment when he writes "If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible."
I wonder why Paul isn't objecting to a taxpayer funded tour by Rauf to promote and solicit finances for his Victory Mosque ?
As I recall ;his answer to the jihadist threat was to call for the President to issues letters of Marque. His sense of foreign policy and the nature of the threats to the nation in the 21st century is in the 18th century. He should stick to ragging about the Fed.

[Synnen]

Wow... And I thought Ron Paul said it all.

In a way, the U.S. is responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Even if we ignore our arrogance in determining who needs our help and how we decide to help (regardless if whether that help is wanted or not) in this world--take a look at our economic policies toward other countries for the last 40 years.

And when the people who decide that we SHOULD have a military action are the people who PROFIT from a military action (Haliburton, anyone? ), I have to question their motives as well.

I've been against the war in the Middle East from the beginning. As a matter of fact, one of the first things I said when I saw the news on 9/11 is "Someone is going to use this as an excuse to go to war." IRAQ didn't attack us. Terrorists (mostly from Saudi Arabia) attacked us.

And I've been incredibly annoyed for the past 9 years at how much the government uses fear and hate to get Americans to give up their rights in the name of "safety".

And frankly--I don't think we've had a president since FDR that had a true grasp on foreign policy. Oh, most of them have known how to deal with long time allies, but almost none of them have known how to gain MORE allies, and NONE of them have stopped American economic aggression in other countries.

Either way--this whole issue IS about property rights and freedom of religion.

And I bet that those against the Mosque could give me ONE good reason that is not based in fear and hate for the mosque NOT to be built. Give me a reason that has NOTHING to do with 9/11 and the "64%" who are against it because of the religion of the builders.

If a Synagogue were to be built there, would you be protesting? What about if pagans wanted to build a temple? If your ONLY objection is that it is a MUSLIM place of worship, then you ARE basing it on bigotry, and on religious discrimination.

THAT is what "Freedom of Religion" is PROTECTING against. 64% of Americans (the majority) are NOT greater than the Constitution.