Murky
Deity
As usual, the Republicans have made a mountain out of a molehill. Maybe their strategy with this is distraction from the real issues facing us today.
Plan for Mosque III...
- Thread starter MobBoss
- Start date
- Status
Sigh.
1. The mosque doesn’t exist yet
2. The demagogues have used their bullhorn to make this non-issue an issue – so if indeed it hasn’t improved relations it is more to do with the demagogues and not the mosque/Muslims
3. The KKK does not have as part of it’s mission to improve relations with the black community. Saying that because they haven’t increased relations (when they are really trying to do the exact opposite) they are the same as what this mosque is attempting to do (but haven’t been given a chance yet) is extremely disingenuous at best. Any attempt to link the KKK and the mosque builders along these lines is ludicrous.
I don’t even know what you are trying to say here.
I fully support their RIGHT to march. I don’t support their views or what they stand for.
Even this reason has a shaky foundation: http://www.channel3000.com/news/381962/detail.html
What is the basis for opposing the mosque then? Public Safety?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
It is rather obvious. If there are no blacks around, the KKK members will be less inclined to lynch them.
There used to be signs at the border of the main roads leading into Cherokee County, GA, until the 70s. They said something like "If you are colored, don't let the sun set while you are still in this county." They called them "sundown counties" and "sundown towns". And they still exist, at least to some extent.
There used to be signs at the border of the main roads leading into Cherokee County, GA, until the 70s. They said something like "If you are colored, don't let the sun set while you are still in this county." They called them "sundown counties" and "sundown towns". And they still exist, at least to some extent.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
In all fairness, we've achieved around two and a half thousand posts in just over two weeks, so they're hardly alone in that.
Julian Delphiki
Anton's key
Interesting to follow how comments about that Pentagon prayer room seem to be totally invisible to those who oppose this ground 000 mozkue.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Nah, just take it for what it is, because I think its fairly self-evident in how they operate and that fits into their beliefs quite well. I dont really care to dredge through their dogma to simply find you an answer I heard someone mention in passing on a tv program.
Just treat it as anecdotal if you want.
This is exactly the point that ends the entire discussion. (My prediction: it will not end the entire discussion.)
Cleo
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
But even it was a serious answer – what is the basis for opposing the mosque then? Public Safety?
No one has said they dont have the right to build it there. EDIT: To clarify, I meant to say that public safty has never been a concern for opposing the mosque (that I know of) nor thought of being used as a 'legal' method to oppose the mosque via the law.
And after 2 and a half threads on it, I would have thought the basis for opposing the mosque to have been fairly plain by now. Not that I expect you or others to agree with that reason, but I do think its been mentioned more than a few times.
BSmith1068 said:
I didnt fail to answer it. Try reading my comment in context and you will plainly see the answer to your question.
Murky
Deity
You missquoted me. I did not say that.
Yeah – I saw that and edited my response, but you got there first…
Your answer was that you would only not support the KKK from marching if there was a significant public safety concern (I am assuming you mean a valid public safety concern).
Why no mention of public support for this opinion? What if a majority of Americans didn’t hold this view and thought that they shouldn’t march due to their message of hate and discrimination?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Meanwhile, Imam Rauf continues to visit Qatar and other sites in the Mideast to promote peace and harmony as a speaker for the State Department:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gDxUkbwjYQmndwA-S4DlpXvKsTigD9HP9TMO0
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gDxUkbwjYQmndwA-S4DlpXvKsTigD9HP9TMO0
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Dont lump all Republicans. Ron Paul, yet again, is consitent.
Is the controversy over building a mosque near Ground Zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?
It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”
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 in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
The claim 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 (are) 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-conservative’s 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.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-bl...-islamaphobia/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog
Is the controversy over building a mosque near Ground Zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?
It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”
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 in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
The claim 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 (are) 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-conservative’s 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.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-bl...-islamaphobia/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog
dwaxe
is not a fanatic
Haven't you heard all those politicians disingenuously questioning the funding from Saudi Arabia and Iran?
btw I was wrong when I said the funding was coming from governments--it might come from private sources.
If you have no evidence, then why do you continuously claim that your 'public pressure' is affecting the mosque's funding? At the very least, you insinuated that it is when you said "Possibly even more important is the question has it had an affect [on the funding] so far?" I asked you to back up your answer to your rhetorical question. Please do so.Rofl, no one keeps track of funding that didnt happen.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
I'm just going to repeat one line from Mr. Ron.
This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
I frequently agree with Ron Paul. I just sometimes really disagree, too.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Holy crap, the first time ever Ron Paul has said something that makes sense..
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I suppose he does say some smart things from time to time, but overall he is kinda crazy..
- Status
Similar threads
