[excon]

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.

Hmmm...

Hello again, Steve:

Hmmm, what? I thought you winger types LOVED the Constitution... Guess not, huh? Freedom of Religion means freedom of religion for YOU, but not the other guy.

Frankly, I don't understand how you can even call yourself a Constitution loving patriot. Have you READ it?? You keep asking me find stuff about gay marriage in there... WHERE does it say that you DON'T get rights if we don't like your agenda??

Tom called the speech Bloomberg made, which is the BEST speech on our FREEDOMS I've heard in a long, long time, PC. Talking about freedom is PC?? You guys have fallen off the deep end. I have NO idea what document you're taking your lead from.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Why does the author say it's a mosque at ground zero when it's not at ground zero?

Why you don't comment on the point of the column?

[speechlesstx]

Hmmm, what? I thought you winger types LOVED the Constitution... Guess not, huh? Freedom of Religion means freedom of religion for YOU, but not the other guy.

You've gone off the deep end, ex. No one said a darn thing about the constitution or freedom of religion and quite frankly, I'm about fed up with you implying all kinds of BS in the absence of any evidence. And just so this doesn't get lost in yours and NK's diversion, here it is again:

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

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.

[NeedKarma]

Why you don't comment on the point of the column?

I did, why did you deflect the conversation instead of answering my question?

By the way: congratulation on finding someone who agrees with you (re: the article)! You must be ecstatic!

[excon]

And just so this doesn't get lost in yours and NK's diversion, here it is again:

Hello again, Steve:

Ain't no diversion. No, you didn't mention the Constitution. You just said that you don't like the mosque. Fine. I don't like it either.

So what?

IF, however, the "so what" IS, that you believe the authorities should STOP it from being built, that's a Constitutional question. Or, on the other hand, if I have misjudged you, and your link to the article was just to show us how BAD the Muslims are, BUT that you SUPPORT the mosque being built, because you CELEBRATE our Constitution, then you should excuse me.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Ain't no diversion. No, you didn't mention the Constitution. You just said that you don't like the mosque. Fine. I don't like it either.

So what?

IF, however, the "so what" IS, that you believe the authorities should STOP it from being built, that's a Constitutional question. Or, on the other hand, if I have misjudged you, and your link to the article was just to show us how BAD the Muslims are, BUT that you SUPPORT the mosque being built, because you CELEBRATE our Constitution, then you should excuse me.

So what? So what is I've already made my opinion, which you continue to distort beyond recognition, clear. I presented another point of view which is what you should be addressing, not speaking on my behalf.

[speechlesstx]

I did, why did you deflect the conversation instead of answering my question?

Why don't you ask the authors, I don't speak on their behalf. And no, you didn't address the point of the column, you never do. In fact, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe you're capable of having even a semi-intelligent discussion.

[NeedKarma]

In fact, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe you're capable of having even a semi-intelligent discussion.

Ad hominem attack- the refuge of the frustrated. LOL!

[excon]

I presented another point of view which is what you should be addressing, not speaking on my behalf.

Hello again, Steve:

I thought I did. If the author's conclusion is, the mosque shouldn't be built, I agree... If the authors conclusion is, that it should be PREVENTED from being built, for the reasons I've never varied from, I don't agree.

So that I don't misinterpret YOUR opinion again, can you state it here, as succinctly as I just stated mine?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Ad hominem attack- the refuge of the frustrated. LOL!

Then you must be awfully frustrated.

[speechlesstx]

The Muslim authors' conclusion is pretty simple, the mosque is "meant to be a deliberate provocation," an act of '"mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.'

My conclusion is right in line with that, they have the right to build it, but that doesn't make it right.

[excon]

they have the right to build it, but that doesn't make it right.

Helo again, Steve:

Okee, doakee. We can move on now.

excon

[earl237]

The Anti-Defamation League also made a similar comment that building the mosque may be legal but extremely insensitive to do so.

[speechlesstx]

Greg Gutfeld is trying to help promote tolerance and understanding, too. He's raising money to build a gay bar with a special emphasis on gay Muslim men - next to the Ground Zero mosque.

So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it's all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing.

I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

My place, however, will have better music.

For investment information, contact me at dailygut.com

Who's in?

[tomder55]

They can meet at the bar and then go next door to wed.

[speechlesstx]

Absolutely.

[NeedKarma]

Religion is crazy ain't it? LOL!

[tomder55]

The President and Evita are also complicit in this charade. Word is that Imam Feisal
Abdul Rauf will represent the United States while travelling in the ME on one of these out reach initiatives .
Claudia Rosett is again the first on the case . She has been tracking the Imam's movements after being frustrated in seeking an interview. She also brings up more interesting questions about the funding for the ground zero mosque.
Further Travels Of Imam Feisal - Forbes.com

Andy McCarthy at NRO brings up more info about the site ownership (much of it will be leased from Con Edison.It is not fully owned by the project's major sponsor Sharif El-Gamal of SoHo properties.)
For Obama, All Politics Is Local . . . Except When It's Not - The Corner - National Review Online

[paraclete]

Religion is crazy ain't it? LOL!

Yes, it's a laugh a minute, almost as funny as US politics, but not as amusing as Australian politics at the moment.

We have an atheist contesting a catholic for the top top and the religion card has been played as well as the family values v un-married card. They are both staying away from the climate change card and tax features in some interesting twists. In fact I think they are both round the twist

[tomder55]

Guv Patterson has finally added some sanity to this issue. He says he will help negotiate a property swap to move the mosque away from the WTC site .

This is a sensible compromise. You know ,for a Dem he has not been a terrible Guv. Too bad the Dems bumped him for the ideologue Andrew Cuomo .