Ground Zero: Mosque; or No Mosque

[actinanass]

So you think the best way to answer the extremist minority is to prove them right and actually discriminate against Muslims? Since when do we ignore our principles because of the opinions and feelings of assholes who will still hate us?
Your example is not only NOT better, it's completely false. First the history of Christians invading and attempting to subjugate that area of the world (see Crusades, The) is still a wound on the psyche of those people. Second, when you say "we're not that much different from them in that aspect", I say "we're supposed to be". How goal is to be better than that. Someone should remind you and Newt Gingrich that our standard of religious freedom shouldn't the lowest commond denominator.
What's funny is Khan speaks directly to the idea of extremists' being the face of Islam and how this center is a blow against them and that idea.
I noticed Ingraham (who's really trash) calls it an "Islamic center" in the segment but now it's a "mosque".
It's ironic to hear these political "Christians" who wants to mimic the intolerance of some Muslim dictators.



Now which one of those stories have been resolved? Which one should have been moved from the forefront for this very local story? Take dumbed down corporate media who add political opportunism and you have this mess.

1. To blame our religious ancestors for something that happened roughly 900 years ago is just as bad as people blaming ALL of muslims for what happened on 9-11. Now to clarify my stance on this situation, I simply said, MORE THAN ONCE, that if they build a mosque at that area I bet not hear SHIT about a church being built next door. In fact, the Church better have the same ease of getting a zoning permit the Codova house obtained. On top of that, I bet not hear shit about stopping a Synagogue being built also. To be honest, if I had my way, that whole area would be religion free, and a national landmark.

2. It only gain steam due to the fact that the Local government voted to allow it. To be honest, a lot of people didn't believe the story when OUR local news *I'm talking about Dallas* were talking about it. People are more worried about the economy than anything else. I must commend President Obama however. He was in a no win situation when it comes to this issue. He is doing right by trying to distance from this as fast as possible.

You see actinanass finds it in himself to defend Laura Ingram.

Why would I defend someone I don't follow? I read the article, and I listen to how she put it. If she said it how Salon put it, then I would agree with the article in full. However, liberals, such as yourself, tend to make sure you take someone out of context for political gain.

A really indefensible person. She may have some journalist talent and integrity but I've almost never seen it. This clip was the exception and she's messed that up.

Let me guess, Fox has the worst journalism out of the networks? So predictable....

 

[muckraker10021]

Assist

[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/q7WbTv_gsx4?fs=1&hl=en_GB&rel=0&border=1"[/FLASH]

 

[Upgrade Dave]

1. To blame our religious ancestors for something that happened roughly 900 years ago is just as bad as people blaming ALL of muslims for what happened on 9-11. Now to clarify my stance on this situation, I simply said, MORE THAN ONCE, that if they build a mosque at that area I bet not hear SHIT about a church being built next door. In fact, the Church better have the same ease of getting a zoning permit the Codova house obtained. On top of that, I bet not hear shit about stopping a Synagogue being built also. To be honest, if I had my way, that whole area would be religion free, and a national landmark.

Who would care if they built a church anywhere in that area in the first place? How would that be newsworthy? There's no controversy with that for the press to hype up. That's a fight you just made up out of whole cloth.
It's easy, if intellectually dishonest, to make the comparison of the Crusades and 9/11 but, as with all of your points in this thread, it doesn't hold up. Arab Muslims actually are still living in the areas invaded by Christians while relatively few of us actually live in Manhattan. The Crusades were state-sanctioned invasions while the 9/11 attacks were committed by rogue terrorist organizations.

2. It only gain steam due to the fact that the Local government voted to allow it. To be honest, a lot of people didn't believe the story when OUR local news *I'm talking about Dallas* were talking about it. People are more worried about the economy than anything else. I must commend President Obama however. He was in a no win situation when it comes to this issue. He is doing right by trying to distance from this as fast as possible.

I do think the President has made the correct choice in how to handle this. It is a local issue but there are constitutional issues at stake and it's his job to protect the Constitution.

Why would I defend someone I don't follow? I read the article, and I listen to how she put it. If she said it how Salon put it, then I would agree with the article in full. However, liberals, such as yourself, tend to make sure you take someone out of context for political gain.

I re-read the Salon article and watched the video again to see if they took her out of context and that's not what happened at all. They actually quoted her and credited her for her conciliatory tone.

Let me guess, Fox has the worst journalism out of the networks? So predictable....

Absolutely. If not for Sheppard Smith, they wouldn't even qualify for having any journalism to be listed. CNN can be very, very lazy but at least they don't lie on people and they're not an arm of any political party.
If you have someone worse, point out and tell me how.

 

[nittie]

Incredibly!

Nittie
Your lack of understanding in this is astounding. Those people you named based their argument on the law established in the Constitution.

The Law said Blacks were 3/5 human. How could anyone advocating equality base their arguement on that. They argued that the law was wrong.

 

[nittie]

A example of how the law really works is

First off, let me extend to all that come my sincere welcome and apology. Welcome to the "New" Politics and Topics of the Day Board; and my apology that all of those great threads of debate and comment didn't make it across the diaspora. Nevertheless, the same rules apply:

Rule Number 1. No "Personal Attacks" between users. Of course, at some point we all may be guilty of being a bit over zealous in making our points and sometimes frustration may lead to someone accusing another of being .... well ... lets just say, less than intelligent. LOL. Nevertheless, I think it is important that the discussion remains civil and that we avoid the personal attacks.

Rule Number 2. If you must resort to personal attacks to prove your point or disprove someone else's opinions, etc., then perhaps you need to take that to the BGOL board where talking shit is not only tolerated, but expected.


Rule Number 3. No "N" words. If you can't express yourself without resort to calling your fellow brother or sister an "N" -- then you don't belong on this board.

That is the law as written but when this exchange took place

Originally Posted by Alaskanredman
I'm waiting for his source on that, but I am pretty sure he won't come back.

Niggas lack of knowledge is shocking, but to try to act like you're having an intellectual argument based on that shaky knowledge is terrible. Niggas like this have no way of shaping their believes around logic or new information. Overall it's sad when black people support discrimination.

Where was the law maybe it was here

Quote:Originally Posted by Alaskanredman


Praising people who used the constitution to fight the discrimination of their time and attacking the usefulness of the constitution when you want discriminate against another group of people in this time... all in the same post.

Amazingly Illogical

Amazingly!

QueEx

A random arbitrary enforcement of the law. AlaskanRed aka Palin's homeboy should have been checked the minute he started that line of conversation. Now it's one thing to have this happen on a message board but in the real world it could be fatal that's why the law has to be taken with a grain of common sense.

 

[Alaskanredman]

The Law said Blacks were 3/5 human. How could anyone advocating equality base their arguement on that. They argued that the law was wrong.

were is the link to your last post.... you realize that the 3/5 human thing was for slaves and the 13th and 14th abolished that and it had very little to do with black people. It was all about white people battling over having power/better economy in the south or the north.

 

[Alaskanredman]

A example of how the law really works is




That is the law as written but when this exchange took place




Where was the law maybe it was here




A random arbitrary enforcement of the law. AlaskanRed aka Palin's homeboy should have been checked the minute he started that line of conversation. Now it's one thing to have this happen on a message board but in the real world it could be fatal that's why the law has to be taken with a grain of common sense.

Do realize you are comparing the rules of a porn board that I pay for to the constitution. Do I go to jail now? Have you been oppressed?

I think you realize how your comparison fails cause the laws of the land truly have an effect of people's freedom/lives.

I will still like that link to your previous post.

 

[nittie]

were is the link to your last post.... you realize that the 3/5 human thing was for slaves and the 13th and 14th abolished that and it had very little to do with black people. It was all about white people battling over having power/better economy in the south or the north.

You're taking what I said completely out of context and trying to make it coherent, 'the 3/5 human thing' smh might be your most racist comment yet, worst than the niggas statement.

 

[nittie]

Do realize you are comparing the rules of a porn board that I pay for to the constitution. Do I go to jail now? Have you been oppressed?

I think you realize how your comparison fails cause the laws of the land truly have an effect of people's freedom/lives.

I will still like that link to your previous post.

If the powers that be are willing to let you get away with this bullshit that's on them. Others have been banned for using the word, now what gives you a free pass is beyond me but it is a insult to the people who built this board, played by the rules yet you come here and degrade it in a couple of days and nothing happens so much for the rules.

 

[Alaskanredman]

You're taking what I said completely out of context and trying to make it coherent, 'the 3/5 human thing' smh might be your most racist comment yet, worst than the niggas statement.

study history and post that link. You seem to have a small understanding of.... everything

 

[Alaskanredman]

If the powers that be are willing to let you get away with this bullshit that's on them. Others have been banned for using the word, now what gives you a free pass is beyond me but it is a insult to the people who built this board, played by the rules yet you come here and degrade it in a couple of days and nothing happens so much for the rules.

well complain. you have little room to argue the actual issue.

 

[nittie]

study history and post that link. You seem to have a small understanding of.... everything

lol ain't gon happen, what you gon do lynch me, have your klan buddies dress up in their white sheets and pay me a visit. lol Fucking A man, Fucking A.

 

[Alaskanredman]

lol ain't gon happen, what you gon do lynch me, have your klan buddies dress up in their white sheets and pay me a visit. lol Fucking A man, Fucking A.

I knew it wasn't going happen cause you made it up. I'm in the Klan supporting Muslim rights

 

[QueEx]

A example of how the law really works is

First off, let me extend to all that come my sincere welcome and apology. Welcome to the "New" Politics and Topics of the Day Board; and my apology that all of those great threads of debate and comment didn't make it across the diaspora. Nevertheless, the same rules apply:

Rule Number 1. No "Personal Attacks" between users. Of course, at some point we all may be guilty of being a bit over zealous in making our points and sometimes frustration may lead to someone accusing another of being .... well ... lets just say, less than intelligent. LOL. Nevertheless, I think it is important that the discussion remains civil and that we avoid the personal attacks.

Rule Number 2. If you must resort to personal attacks to prove your point or disprove someone else's opinions, etc., then perhaps you need to take that to the BGOL board where talking shit is not only tolerated, but expected.


Rule Number 3. No "N" words. If you can't express yourself without resort to calling your fellow brother or sister an "N" -- then you don't belong on this board.

That is the law as written but when this exchange took place

I'm waiting for his source on that, but I am pretty sure he won't come back.

Niggas lack of knowledge is shocking, but to try to act like you're having an intellectual argument based on that shaky knowledge is terrible. Niggas like this have no way of shaping their believes around logic or new information. Overall it's sad when black people support discrimination.

Where was the law maybe it was here

Praising people who used the constitution to fight the discrimination of their time and attacking the usefulness of the constitution when you want discriminate against another group of people in this time... all in the same post.

Amazingly Illogical

Amazingly!

QueEx

A random arbitrary enforcement of the law. AlaskanRed aka Palin's homeboy should have been checked the minute he started that line of conversation. Now it's one thing to have this happen on a message board but in the real world it could be fatal that's why the law has to be taken with a grain of common sense.

Now that the record more accurately reflects the colloquy:

• Clearly, there is language in Post No. 168 that violates the Rules of the Board. As I always do, when I read things that violate the rules, I point that out to the Poster, the first time typically by Personal Message.

• In your FAILED ATTEMPT to make a point, even you should have noted that my comments to Alaskanredman's point to you came at Post No. 164, clearly, before his violation at Post No. 168. So, to the extent that you are insinuating that I turned my head to the "N" word violation, like you are about most shit, you're just plain wrong.

• In your Haste to Fail, you should have noted that my last post in this thread was at Post No. 165, again before Post No. 168, where I admonished cbm_redux for violating the Rules of the Board.

• Also, in your Haste to Fail, you should have noted that Post No. 165 was my last post in this thread, before reading and responding to you, in this one.

Had I read Alaskanredman's comments before now, I most certainly would have advised him of the Rules. Be advised, however, that I'm not the Board cop reading every post for violations. To the best of my knowledge, all of the posters here are grown folks capable of policing their own behavior.

Alaskanredman​

Please read the Rules regarding the "N" word and we would appreciate it if you edit post 168 accordingly.​

QueEx

 

[nittie]

I knew it wasn't going happen cause you made it up. I'm in the Klan supporting Muslim rights

You're not supporting Muslims, you don't give a fuck about Muslims. When I said I normally wouldn't even acknowledge you it's not because you are racist, it's because you are a disease, a walking talking infection. You came here, tested the winds and thought you could get some respect by attacking me. All you really want to do corrupt this board and so far you are on the right track.

 

[nittie]

​

​

​

Now that the record more accurately reflects the colloquy:

• Clearly, there is language in Post No. 168 that violates the Rules of the Board. As I always do, when I read things that violate the rules, I point that out to the Poster, the first time typically by Personal Message.

• In your FAILED ATTEMPT to make a point, even you should have noted that my comments to Alaskanredman's point to you came at Post No. 164, clearly, before his violation at Post No. 168. So, to the extent that you are insinuating that I turned my head to the "N" word violation, like you are about most shit, you're just plain wrong.

• In your Haste to Fail, you should have noted that my last post in this thread was at Post No. 165, again before Post No. 168, where I admonished cbm_redux for violating the Rules of the Board.

• Also, in your Haste to Fail, you should have noted that Post No. 165 was my last post in this thread, before reading and responding to you, in this one.

Had I read Alaskanredman's comments before now, I most certainly would have advised him of the Rules. Be advised, however, that I'm not the Board cop reading every post for violations. To the best of my knowledge, all of the posters here are grown folks capable of policing their own behavior.

Alaskanredman​

Please read the Rules regarding the "N" word and we would appreciate it if you edit post 168 accordingly.​

QueEx

That happened on Saturday, todays is Monday, kinda late don't you think, if you intervened earlier it wouldn't have gotten to this point.

 

[nittie]

​

​

​

Now that the record more accurately reflects the colloquy:

• Clearly, there is language in Post No. 168 that violates the Rules of the Board. As I always do, when I read things that violate the rules, I point that out to the Poster, the first time typically by Personal Message.

• In your FAILED ATTEMPT to make a point, even you should have noted that my comments to Alaskanredman's point to you came at Post No. 164, clearly, before his violation at Post No. 168. So, to the extent that you are insinuating that I turned my head to the "N" word violation, like you are about most shit, you're just plain wrong.

• In your Haste to Fail, you should have noted that my last post in this thread was at Post No. 165, again before Post No. 168, where I admonished cbm_redux for violating the Rules of the Board.

• Also, in your Haste to Fail, you should have noted that Post No. 165 was my last post in this thread, before reading and responding to you, in this one.

Had I read Alaskanredman's comments before now, I most certainly would have advised him of the Rules. Be advised, however, that I'm not the Board cop reading every post for violations. To the best of my knowledge, all of the posters here are grown folks capable of policing their own behavior.

Alaskanredman​

Please read the Rules regarding the "N" word and we would appreciate it if you edit post 168 accordingly.​

QueEx

That happened on Saturday, today is Monday, kinda late don't you think, if you intervened earlier it wouldn't have gotten to this point.

 

[Alaskanredman]

​

​

​

Now that the record more accurately reflects the colloquy:

• Clearly, there is language in Post No. 168 that violates the Rules of the Board. As I always do, when I read things that violate the rules, I point that out to the Poster, the first time typically by Personal Message.

• In your FAILED ATTEMPT to make a point, even you should have noted that my comments to Alaskanredman's point to you came at Post No. 164, clearly, before his violation at Post No. 168. So, to the extent that you are insinuating that I turned my head to the "N" word violation, like you are about most shit, you're just plain wrong.

• In your Haste to Fail, you should have noted that my last post in this thread was at Post No. 165, again before Post No. 168, where I admonished cbm_redux for violating the Rules of the Board.

• Also, in your Haste to Fail, you should have noted that Post No. 165 was my last post in this thread, before reading and responding to you, in this one.

Had I read Alaskanredman's comments before now, I most certainly would have advised him of the Rules. Be advised, however, that I'm not the Board cop reading every post for violations. To the best of my knowledge, all of the posters here are grown folks capable of policing their own behavior.

Alaskanredman​

Please read the Rules regarding the "N" word and we would appreciate it if you edit post 168 accordingly.​

QueEx

no prob

 

[Alaskanredman]

You're not supporting Muslims, you don't give a fuck about Muslims. When I said I normally wouldn't even acknowledge you it's not because you are racist, it's because you are a disease, a walking talking infection. You came here, tested the winds and thought you could get some respect by attacking me. All you really want to do corrupt this board and so far you are on the right track.

okay guy. You win. I'm the black racist that says give people equal rights and you are the oppressed "probably white" racist that wants to discriminate.

 

[QueEx]

That happened on Saturday, todays is Monday, kinda late don't you think, if you intervened earlier it wouldn't have gotten to this point.

Bruh, you might want to leave the cheap wine alone for a while. Post No. 168 was made on yesterday, 08-22-2010 at 06:40 PM. As I said, you're usually WRONG.

QueEx

 

[actinanass]

Who would care if they built a church anywhere in that area in the first place? How would that be newsworthy? There's no controversy with that for the press to hype up. That's a fight you just made up out of whole cloth.
It's easy, if intellectually dishonest, to make the comparison of the Crusades and 9/11 but, as with all of your points in this thread, it doesn't hold up. Arab Muslims actually are still living in the areas invaded by Christians while relatively few of us actually live in Manhattan. The Crusades were state-sanctioned invasions while the 9/11 attacks were committed by rogue terrorist organizations.

I do think the President has made the correct choice in how to handle this. It is a local issue but there are constitutional issues at stake and it's his job to protect the Constitution.




I re-read the Salon article and watched the video again to see if they took her out of context and that's not what happened at all. They actually quoted her and credited her for her conciliatory tone.





Absolutely. If not for Sheppard Smith, they wouldn't even qualify for having any journalism to be listed. CNN can be very, very lazy but at least they don't lie on people and they're not an arm of any political party.
If you have someone worse, point out and tell me how.

1. It is also intellectually dishonest to think that actual states do not fund such organizations to carry out their deeds. Al Queda didn't become what it is with just a couple of millions of dollars. Governments had to support the organization to make it as big as it is.

2. I'm going to say this one last time, no one is questioning the constitutional legality of this situation. However, everyone , who disagrees with the mosque, is questioning the Cordova house motives. I must ask you, Dave, do you care about the motives of this group?

3. Well I expect you to see it that way. Hell, you support the article.

4. Personally, I think the form of journalism I was taught is damn near dead. Cnn, MSNBC, and Fox just tell their audience what they want to hear on the most part. Fox is busy destroying any liberal they can find, while MSNBC is just angry about everything, and CNN is playing both sides.

 

[QueEx]

1. It is also intellectually dishonest to think that actual states do not fund such organizations to carry out their deeds. Al Queda didn't become what it is with just a couple of millions of dollars. Governments had to support the organization to make it as big as it is.

Including the government of the United States. How about that for honesty ?

QueEx

 

[actinanass]

Including the government of the United States. How about that for honesty ?

QueEx

Noticed I said governments.

The truth is everyone is guilty of creating this monster in some form of way. I, for one, believe that our role is simply due to our laws, and common nature to give anyone an opportunity for success. Our immigration policy has done more for Al Queda than any so called conspiracy theory you may come up with. Oh, I forgot, we can't talk about how LIBERAL America has helped made this monster right?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

1. It is also intellectually dishonest to think that actual states do not fund such organizations to carry out their deeds. Al Queda didn't become what it is with just a couple of millions of dollars. Governments had to support the organization to make it as big as it is.

No doubt but it's not an officially sanctioned arm of any particular government or agency. There is no comparison to the Crusades.

2. I'm going to say this one last time, no one is questioning the constitutional legality of this situation. However, everyone , who disagrees with the mosque, is questioning the Cordova house motives. I must ask you, Dave, do you care about the motives of this group?

No. It's impossible to know what's someone's motives are because most of us can't read minds. So, unless there's something concrete that says otherwise(and there isn't), we have to take them at their word. They don't have to show and prove their "good motives", it's on the detractors (who keep shifting their arguments) to show them to be false.

3. Well I expect you to see it that way. Hell, you support the article.

Okay.

4. Personally, I think the form of journalism I was taught is damn near dead. Cnn, MSNBC, and Fox just tell their audience what they want to hear on the most part. Fox is busy destroying any liberal they can find, while MSNBC is just angry about everything, and CNN is playing both sides.

Okay. I had a longer retort but it's early and I don't have the energy right now. Maybe later.



Que
You and Alaska have some Job-like patience. Nittie's so confused and confusing, I've given up.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Noticed I said governments.

The truth is everyone is guilty of creating this monster in some form of way. I, for one, believe that our role is simply due to our laws, and common nature to give anyone an opportunity for success. Our immigration policy has done more for Al Queda than any so called conspiracy theory you may come up with. Oh, I forgot, we can't talk about how LIBERAL America has helped made this monster right?

'splain
I expect this to be very interesting.

 

[Alaskanredman]

Que
You and Alaska have some Job-like patience. Nittie's so confused and confusing, I've given up.

I really wanted to see how far that would go.... sadly enough he had nothing solid to grab onto that would have taken his original arguments further down the path of non sense.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I really wanted to see how far that would go.... sadly enough he had nothing solid to grab onto that would have taken his original arguments further down the path of non sense.

Dude has presented two conflicting side of his own argument. It's like I'm arguing with Nittie with Nittie on my side.

 

[nittie]

Dude has presented two conflicting side of his own argument. It's like I'm arguing with Nittie with Nittie on my side.

It's about the principle, if you can argue that Muslims have a right to build a Mosque on that site then the principle is that the law is absolute. But if that's the case then it should be absolute everywhere in everything. It's not. The law is arbitrary, it's a tool, people in power use it to have things their way. This thread is proof of it. Statements taken out of context, racial attacks, personal attacks, spinning issues. No principle, just politics. For instance

Quote:Originally Posted by nittie
That happened on Saturday, todays is Monday, kinda late don't you think, if you intervened earlier it wouldn't have gotten to this point.

Bruh, you might want to leave the cheap wine alone for a while. Post No. 168 was made on yesterday, 08-22-2010 at 06:40 PM. As I said, you're usually WRONG.

What difference does it make when it happened, it shouldn't have happened at all. And the cheap wine comment is cheap, petty.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Ground Zero Mosque Supporter: “Get Over” 9/11
At 51 Park Place in New York City–the proposed Ground Zero mosque location – a American Muslim supporter of the mosque said to “get over” 9/11 and that despite Manhattan having over 200 mosques, they need to keep the location of the mosque “right here.”

“God d****it, my wife is Jewish. Come on you guys, get over it”, the man said in regards to 9/11 after trying to draw an analog More..y using the Vietnam War. Right after he says to “get over it”, a lady responded “Oh my God, I’m not going to get over it- it happened right there”, pointing towards Ground Zero. An argument then breaks out between the two. In typical left wingnut debating fashion, he later calls her a “racist”.

note: not m/b words here

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/0de_1282664451"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/0de_1282664451" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Ground Zero Mosque Supporter: “Get Over” 9/11
At 51 Park Place in New York City–the proposed Ground Zero mosque location – a American Muslim supporter of the mosque said to “get over” 9/11 and that despite Manhattan having over 200 mosques, they need to keep the location of the mosque “right here.”

“God d****it, my wife is Jewish. Come on you guys, get over it”, the man said in regards to 9/11 after trying to draw an analog More..y using the Vietnam War. Right after he says to “get over it”, a lady responded “Oh my God, I’m not going to get over it- it happened right there”, pointing towards Ground Zero. An argument then breaks out between the two. In typical left wingnut debating fashion, he later calls her a “racist”.

Is he a left wingnut for saying "get over it"? Interesting to see someone say out loud and in public.

 

[Lamarr]

Is he a left wingnut for saying "get over it"? Interesting to see someone say out loud and in public.

interesting exchange. I've found that when people can't accurately articulate their feelings, they resort to name-callin' (most of the time).

Idk, in that exchange, he didn't come across right.

1) he called her a racist
2) he said "Where are you from, Alabama?" that was funny

He comes across as someone who wants the Center / Mosque built at that location only to get some type of revenge against his "oppressors" as opposed to standing up for his constitutional rights. He didn't have to bring Palin into the conversation if he believes in the right, of freedom of religion and property rights.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

It's about the principle, if you can argue that Muslims have a right to build a Mosque on that site then the principle is that the law is absolute. But if that's the case then it should be absolute everywhere in everything. It's not. The law is arbitrary, it's a tool, people in power use it to have things their way. This thread is proof of it. Statements taken out of context, racial attacks, personal attacks, spinning issues. No principle, just politics. For instance

.

So Thurgood Marshall was a "person in power"? He used the law to get what he wanted.
The First Amendment, when it comes to religious expression and worship, isn't absolute but it's clear in this case.

interesting exchange. I've found that when people can't accurately articulate their feelings, they resort to name-callin' (most of the time).
Idk, in that exchange, he didn't come across right.

1) he called her a racist
2) he Where are you from, Alabama? that was funny

He comes across as someone who wants the Center / Mosque built at that location only to get some type of revenge against his "oppressors" as opposed to standing up for his constitutional rights. He didn't have to bring Palin into the conversation if he believes in the right, of freedom of religion and property rights.

He seemed to get flustered but I thought the "left wingnut" label was a reach.

 

[actinanass]

No doubt but it's not an officially sanctioned arm of any particular government or agency. There is no comparison to the Crusades.



No. It's impossible to know what's someone's motives are because most of us can't read minds. So, unless there's something concrete that says otherwise(and there isn't), we have to take them at their word. They don't have to show and prove their "good motives", it's on the detractors (who keep shifting their arguments) to show them to be false.


Okay.


Okay. I had a longer retort but it's early and I don't have the energy right now. Maybe later.



Que
You and Alaska have some Job-like patience. Nittie's so confused and confusing, I've given up.

1. I could argue the fact that certain governments in the middle east have been compromised to a point where the power brokers *of the countries in question* have to obliged by the rules of certain terror organizations. Similar to the Crusades, if a government can use a group keep their population attention on fighting the infidel, instead of corruption on their part, they will play the part of "the weak government who's compromised".

2. You speak of concrete evidence like the Muslim faith believe in a western way of law. What good is reaching out to us, if they are unable to hear our point of view, and act accordingly? That is enough "concrete evidence" for me to see that this isn't about reaching out to other faiths. This is about marking their territory. Like I've said many times before in this thread, there are ways to reach out to America. However, this group want their way, and they know what's better for us, right?

3. I find it funny that the left is so adamant towards this issue. God forbid a cross being showed next to Obama on a photo op...

'splain
I expect this to be very interesting.

Well for one, before 9-11, damn near anyone could get a work visa to come here. Not to mention, the open border to our north, in which, lets any "worthy" person come in from any third world country. Just the overall immigration situation.

 

[QueEx]

It's about the principle,

• if you can argue that Muslims have a right to build a Mosque on that site then the principle is that the law is absolute.

• But if that's the case then it should be absolute everywhere in everything. It's not.

The law is arbitrary, it's a tool, people in power use it to have things their way.

This thread is proof of it. Statements taken out of context, racial attacks, personal attacks, spinning issues. No principle, just politics. For instance.

I believe the argument is that Muslims have the same right to build on the site, as does any other religious group but NOT a right superior to any other group's right to do the same thing. If the property is not properly zoned for "use" as a Church, Synagogue, or Mosque, -- then Muslims have no right to construct a Mosque on the site, and neither would Christians, Jews, or Nittiest for the purpose of practicing their religious beliefs.

Hence, the religious provisions in the First Amendment are NOT absolute. They are relative to the factual background (different facts may yield different results). They are respective of local law (to the extent that local law would prevent any group from erecting structures for religious worship) and they assure that all parties are treated equally and NOT with regard to what they believe, religiously speaking.

Moreover, we've all know about the "Freedom of Expression" provisions of the First Amendment. You know the ones -- which give us all the right to express our opinions in public without interference from government. But, that is NOT an ABSOLUTE right: as someone pointed out above, "you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre." The reason: public safety, in that case, outweighs one's freedom to say whatever. There are many, many other exceptions, too numerous to mention. But, if you're a reasonable sort, and not just talking out of the side of your neck for the purpose of making noise, I believe you would see that your characterization of the law as "absolute", is in error.


I wanted to add something here about arbitrariness, but I've probably already said more than most care to read.

QueEx

 

[Alaskanredman]

It's about the principle, if you can argue that Muslims have a right to build a Mosque on that site then the principle is that the law is absolute. But if that's the case then it should be absolute everywhere in everything. It's not. The law is arbitrary, it's a tool, people in power use it to have things their way. This thread is proof of it. Statements taken out of context, racial attacks, personal attacks, spinning issues. No principle, just politics.

you won't even back up your quote with a link and you are concerned with principle.