Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
Sun News, Aug.14th, 2010 – Slater then grabbed two bottles of beer, pulled the lever to activate the inflatable escape chute and hurled himself down it.
CFRA, Aug.14th, 2010 – U.S. President Barack Obama is in favour of building mosque near Ground Zero. The place of worship is slated to be constructed a short distance from the site of the former World Trade Centre, destroyed nine years ago by terrorists in hijacked airplanes. Obama made the comments at a White House dinner Friday night, to mark the beginning of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month.
Related!
Update: Is there nothing that Obama can’t do? As has been noted elsewhere, all his statements come with an expiry date. All of them.
President Barack Obama on Saturday sought to defuse the controversy over his remarks on plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero, insisting that he wasn’t endorsing the specific project but making a general plea for religious tolerance toward all.
[deleted. pull a stunt like that again, and I’ll ban you without warning. ED]
. . . and in related news, Unions hating unions.
http://tinyurl.com/26hg9v9
Hate to raise a trifle like inconsistency—it’s the least of his sins—but does anyone remember all that religious tolerance in Waco, TX?
Don’t bet on it. Obama will pull the race card, as usual, and claim that IF you don’t like him, THEN you are a racist.
His speech to ‘celebrate’ the Ramadan month, included such outrageous claims as:
“These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s
role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human
beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and
racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that
Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made
extraordinary contributions to our country. And today, I want to extend my
best wishes to the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world – and your families
and friends – as you welcome the beginning of Ramadan.”
Tell me – what exactly has Islam done to advance ‘justice, progress, tolerance and human dignity’? How does stoning women, beheading men, rejecting democracy, suicide bombers etc – show these attributes?
And exactly what ‘extraordinary contributions’ have Muslims made to the USA? Tell us, Obama.
Now, he’s invited several openly anti-American supporters of terrorism (and Obama denies the reality of Islamic terrorism)..to the WH. He supports the imam, who is anti-American and supports terrorism, of this proposed mosque.
Obama references the Constitution – which he accepts and rejects on a daily basis according to his whim of the day – and religious freedom. This mosque has zilch to do with religious freedom; and nothing to do with openness to dialogue. Only Muslims are allowed in. It’s a political assertion of domination.
And that’s also what Obama is doing. He is asserting his dominance against the Will of the People. This is important to understand. Obama’s narcissism cannot allow him to stand equal to others. He has to dominate and reduce the individual power of others.
It’s a purely psychological pathology. So – the people don’t want this – and Obama’s reaction is to (as he did with health care, with the stimulus, with his cap and trade, with his rejection of Arizona’s attempt to stop illegals)…dominate the people and reduce their power.
Well, lets see.
Obama has used Freedom of Religion as the basis for his support. Either the US believes in Freedom of Religion for all religions, or it doesn’t believe in freedom of religion. In fairness to Obama, you cannot claim to have freedom of religion in your country and then apply it selectively to exclude certain religions.
On a separate note, I thought Bloomberg, who (if I m not mistaken) was, until recently, a Republican and who presumably still has strong Republican ties, had already approved this mosque, as had the city planning boards. Obama hasn’t actually contributed anything substantial to the process – he has simply voiced his opinion. Why the fuss?
As for Slater, he may be right. He may be wrong. Like me.
As with most celebrities, O thinks he is teflon. He thinks he can say and do whatever he wants and the people will still adore him. I am so looking forward to November.
»…you cannot claim to have freedom of religion in your country and then apply it selectively to exclude certain religions…»
said devil’S advocate
well…
If that religion is intolerant of other religions;
yes
If that religion encourages its followers to murder teen girls and women for »honour» reasons;
yes
If that religion encourage its followers to become terrorists.
YES
You can still call yourself tolerant while excluding extremely intolerant people at the same time.
If you don’t understand this, then there is a lot you don’t understand and I’ve just wasted my time.
ET @ 10:41, apart from the tiresome frequency with which you trot out your “diagnosis” of Obama, what is especially egregious is your insistence on “medicalizing” his problem: his narcissism is a pathology, you insist. Why offer him that excuse? The evidence is overwhelming that he is malign, not sick.
Unlike Slater, Obama didn’t take a couple of beers with him down the chute. I’m guessing he has taken the Democrat majority in the house and senate instead.
Nice.
Syncro
If you consider that Obama is a Muslim who practiced taqiyya in order to ascend to the White House, its pretty much what should be expected.
My history is a little weak and maybe I’m talking oranges and apples, but, weren’t latter day saints denied admission into the Union unless they recanted polygamy? How tolerant is that? What facet of Islam should be expected to be disregarded for more inclusiveness in western civilization?
ED figure of speech, but kiss my ass, I’m outta here.
ED figure of speech, but kiss my ass, I’m outta here.
The establishment of a Ground Zero mosque is tantamount to raising a military outpost for the muslims.
As the Muslims gain more and more ground here in the West, they strengthen their resolve to introduce Sharia Law as a parallel legal system which is not our legal system, it is a religious legal system. It is base solely on the teaching of a pedophile/war-monger/messiah wanna-be!
Why would the Big O want to have a new legal system introduced and established in the US if his ultimate goal is its destruction? Only makes sense that his plans are right on track.
Anybody wanna bet just how long it will take some
nutbar to fly a plane into the completed mosque?
OK so, wishful thinking…….
»…Why offer him that excuse? The evidence is overwhelming that he is malign, not sick…»
I agree with you completely Nick,
Obama is not the victim of anything, he consciously choses to do what he does.
and about ET…
well…
ET writes very well, as some say »she writes elegantly», BUT…
either her point is weak (or wrong) compared to the nice packaging it is wrapped in.
Or she simply took someone else’s point in the above comments and »recycled it» by dressing it up »more elegantly» in her own nicer words and nicer sentences.
more often than not with ET the wrapping is far more spectacular and »elegant» than the content/substance.
nick – you seem to have a misunderstanding of the term ‘pathological’. It doesn’t refer only to a physical disease.
When the term is applied to a psychological aberration, it means ‘excessive, extremely abnormal’ and also, probably beyond treatment – which is how I use the term.
By ‘malign’, which is a verb, I presume you mean the adjective ‘malignant’. This can refer to both physical and mental illness. When it refers to the mental, it’s similar to pathological except that it adds more ‘effect’. The malignant term refers to the harm caused by this person to others.
Obama is both pathological and malignant.
If you don’t like my posts, then, what you do is you scroll up the thread from the bottom and when you see it’s from me, simply scroll past without reading. I stand by my diagnosis of Obama as a pathological narcissist.
devil’s advocate. This situation has zilch to do with freedom of religion. No-one is trying to prevent Muslims from practicing their religion. It’s one issue only; the geographic site of their mosque. To try to divert the focus on this basic issue to ‘freedom of religion’ is a red herring.
“..Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human
beings…” OB
You can see an example of that on the horrifying cover page of the Aug 09/10 issue of Time magazine. (just to throw in an aside, I realize not all Muslims would approve of that method of keeping females in line but a disturbingly large percentage would.
I am amazed this mosque thingy has turned into a religious freedom argument.
It isn’t that they can’t build mosques in the USA. It is they shouldn’t build one their.
There are numerous mosques in NYC and within zoning laws there will likely be many more.
The Ground Zero mosque isn’t about freedom of religion, it is about the Triumphalism of Islam, about poking a stick in your enemies eyes, about laying claim to ground, about showing perceived superiority.
It is called the Cordoba Mosque.
It is really the “F**k U” mosque.
»…Anybody wanna bet just how long it will take some
nutbar to fly a plane into the completed mosque?…»
Ben,
Unfortunately the Main Stream Media would use this to convince people the Tea Prty ( and everyone on the right ) is responsible and thus full of violent intolerant racists…
Either the US believes in Freedom of Religion for all religions, or it doesn’t believe in freedom of religion.
You’ll find a farmer without his hand out before you’ll
find principled consistency from the small dead teabagging crowd.
“If you don’t understand this, then there is a lot you don’t understand and I’ve just wasted my time.”
If all that you say is correct, then the religion should be illegal. But its not. If the US legal system hasn’t decreed it illegal, then as far as the law is concerned, it is a legal religion and therefore freedom of religion, as outlined in the Constitution, applies to it. By all means, go to your Congressman and try to get it changed. However, it is best you realise that what you believe may not hold up in the court of law.
“It’s a purely psychological pathology. So – the people don’t want this – and Obama’s reaction is to (as he did with health care, with the stimulus, with his cap and trade, with his rejection of Arizona’s attempt to stop illegals)…dominate the people and reduce their power.”
Your diagnostic powers remind me of those leftie psychologists who published books about how Bush was mentally-challenged. I think the term we now use for those armchair psychologists is Bush Derangement Syndrome. I wonder if there is an Obama Derangement Syndrome too.
“The establishment of a Ground Zero mosque is tantamount to raising a military outpost for the muslims.”
Does this proposed mosque come wiht some kind of supernatural powers? Because for the most part, it appears to be just a building, albeit one that will get heavy scrutiny simply because of its location.
What is this world coming to? Hating a religion on the basis of its hatred for you is a bit wierd. Immitation is generally considered a form of flattery.
Just saying. As always, I believe in everything. And I believe in nothing.
RE devil’s advocate @ 10:43, no doubt they have the right to build the mosque but when you consider the behaviour, for instance, of the catholics and protestants in Ulster 400 years after various battles etc. you must question the wisdom, surely?
“It isn’t that they can’t build mosques in the USA. It is they shouldn’t build one their.”
Ah, but why not. If muslims are equal/regular citizens in the US – and the last time I checked, they are – they can make a claim to set up a mosque in an area that is being promoted as an inter-faith something or the other.
I can understand your argument if US law and the constitution recognized muslims as second class citizens not entitled to ALL rights that other US citizens have, but as far as the law goes, they do have a right to build the mosque there.
By banning the mosque, you are, either wittingly or unwittingly, implictly suggesting that all muslims are responsible for the events of Sept 11. Whether you personally think they are (or are not) responsible for the events is irrelevant. What we do know is that the laws of the US do not hold all adherents of Islam as being guilty of the events of Sept 11, or else they would all be deported/in jail. They are not. As such, they have the same rights and claims as any other US citizen, and it stands to reason that they should be able to practice these rights and make claims that do not violate US laws.
Just saying. As always, I maybe right. I may be wrong. Either which way, you can curse me all you want, it won’t make a difference.
DA
“””What is this world coming to? Hating a religion on the basis of its hatred for you is a bit wierd.”””
it’s called not accepting it for what it is presented as,
“””Immitation is generally considered a form of flattery.””””
and nobody is immitating it, that’s just a silly construct of your mind
“”””Just saying. As always, I believe in everything. And I believe in nothing. “”””
it’s not your beliefs I question, just your reasoning
As the comment above by the devil’s (alleged) advocate (Hey advocate, I think you’re over-charging), and rejoinder by Friend of USA remind us, Islam, or certain elements of it (I’m not persuaded of this qualification), in their war against the modern west are using the west’s own institutions against it, in order to destroy it. That assault is succeeding; but success depends upon perversions of those institutions, and on the west’s inability to distinguish their own institutions from the perversions. “Friends” reply to “advocate” makes the point. If you think, like Obama (pretends), that the individual freedoms protected by the rights enshrined in the first amendment to the US Constitution protect equally a religion that would subjugate or kill non-believers, and allow it to do whatever it wants on its own private property, irrespective of where that property is, then you do not understand the value of religious belief, nor the value of speech, nor the value of private property, nor why we protect them with rights; nor why those rights cannot be absolute. Seems to me it’s long overdue that we re-educate the members of our political class about the very foundations of western civilization.
Those of you who like to deride what you take to be the “softer” academic disciplines in favour of something “hard” and practical like engineering might ask yourselves where in the engineering curriculum we might look for understanding on matters of such grave importance.
“RE devil’s advocate @ 10:43, no doubt they have the right to build the mosque but when you consider the behaviour, for instance, of the catholics and protestants in Ulster 400 years after various battles etc. you must question the wisdom, surely?”
One of the admirable things (IMHO) about the US is that the citizens did not have a knee-jerk reaction that saw non-muslims lynch muslims in the aftermath of Sept 11. Contrast this with some of the mob violence we see around the world. In light of this, comparing the muslim-nonmuslim dynamic in NYC to the Protestant/Catholic dynamic in Ulster 400 years ago is a bit far-fetched.
Given the whole interfaith religious area (I really dont know what it is) that this proposed mosque is going to be built in, I doubt it is meant as a provocative move. For one, the builders of this mosque are willing to build it in close proximity of other religious centers, including religions that they fundamentally oppose (Idolatrous Hindus for example). If they were fanatical, I doubt they would have been willing to put this mosque in this area. It is clearly being built under the understanding of inter-faith dialogue which, I think it would be fair to assume, some in the muslim community may actually believe in.
Just saying. As always, I may know everything. And I may know nothing.
ET @ 11:55 Your (high school) pedantry has caused you to entirely miss the point. I suspect it’s pathological. (You might one day learn to use a dictionary).
“and nobody is immitating it, that’s just a silly construct of your mind”
OBL hates America because America kills Muslims.
GYM hates Islam because Islam kills non-muslims.
Just saying. As always, I may be capable of reasoning. And I may be incapable of reasoning.
“Seems to me it’s long overdue that we re-educate the members of our political class about the very foundations of western civilization.”
Time to call your congressman and make your case. Fretting about it on SDA will only get you so far.
ET: “Obama’s narcissism cannot allow him to stand equal to others. He has to dominate and reduce the individual power of others.”
Hey, he sounds like a lot of Muslim men who dominate their women and reduce their individual power by stuffing them into burqas. Hmmmm.
I can’t see the upside. Bloomberg doesn’t need a job and neither does bambam but these guys don’t do something without an upside. I can’t see it, this seems to be one of those too stupid to believe thingies. I doubt it is going to lead to warm fuzzy feelings. Maybe if they build a National Swat Training facility across the street..on high ground.
devil’s advocate/BTJ – a few things.
First, you totally misunderstand Islam. It is not just or even, a religion. It is a socio-political infrastructure, protected from analysis, debate and criticism, by defining it as a religion. If you read the texts of Islam, it says little to nothing about the metaphysical, and most of that is purely copied from the judaic – but it says a great deal about societal and political behaviour. The Qur’an and hadiths are almost exclusively about societal and political behaviour – and that is grounded in a 7th century nomadic pastoral militant economy. I suspect that you have no knowledge of Islam.
This societal and political behaviour is tribal rather than civic. Do you know the difference?
Now, DA/BTJ – to then declare that any and all societal and political systems are protected under the Constitution is of course, pure nonsense. The US operates within ONE societal and political system: a civic (not tribal) republic with democratic principles of decision-making, operating within the rule of law and a constitution.
The Islamic societal and political system rejects equality, rejects democracy, rejects a rule of law legislated by man, rejects a constitution legislated by man. Are you even slightly aware of this? It instead, sets up an ideology (and it is an ideology in the sense of utopianism) which cannot be changed or amended because it has been removed from such by defining those beliefs as ‘religious’.
For you, DA/BTJ, to then move on to say that all beliefs and behaviour are equivalent is the height of postmodern relativism. Yes, we know you are a leftist, and that suggests a rejection of reason. Some of us, frankly, disagree with such relativism – which bespeaks, as you admit about yourself, someone incapable of reason. We reject a tribal political system with its kin-based authoritative elite, we put power in the hands of a middle class (non-existent in a tribal system) and in the legislated (not divine) rule of law.
As for my diagnostic powers, I’m hardly alone in defining Obama as a pathological narcissist. No, it isn’t a ‘disease’; no, he isn’t a victim. It’s a state of mind and behaviour that he probably moved into as a young boy and is far beyond any treatment. Again, how about doing some research? you could check the psychological texts on this syndrome..instead of babbling inanities.
And your reductionism of the mosque to ‘just a building’ is pure nonsense. It isn’t ‘just a building’. It’s a mosque – which means it is defined as a meeting place for and only for Muslims. Then, it is being run by a radical imam who rejects the reality of terrorism. And above all, since Islam is hardly purely a religion, since most of its axioms are political and societal (again -read the texts!) – this ‘building’ is a political and societal statement. Of dominance in a terrain that was devastated by the political and societal agenda of Islamic fascism. BTJ – again, your posts are empty.
My, my – devils advocate/BTJ – to believe in everything and in nothing bespeaks an empty mind. One incapable of reason and evaluation. Hmmm.
Your other arguments, BTJ/devil’s advocate, about your support for the mosque are equally empty of reason and facts. It has nothing to do with religious freedom or equality of citizenship. It has to do with morality and ethics. Should the equal citizens of the Sikh religion build a temple on the site of the Air India bombing? Should the equal citizens of Japan fund a museum about Japanese military exploits on the site of Pearl Harbor? Try to think, BTJ and don’t just spout your babble of empty rhetoric.
Nick’s comment that we cannot dispense with evaluation and that includes of religious beliefs, is, in my view, accurate. Islam is a tribal perspective, and dysfunctional in the modern world. But again, this whole issue is not about religion but about respect and acknowledgement of others.
The site is ‘sacred’ to the memory of 3,000 killed by Islamic fascists. Therefore, a reasonable proposal to deal with this idea would not be to build a mosque but a centre for all religions and a centre for debate about collaboration. Not a temple isolated from these other religions and debate.
nick – I suggest that the hard sciences, with their focus on the need for observable evidence, logical connections and ethics – are a strong place for understanding these issues.
Ignore the troll. He is here only to irritate you, not debate you.
Ignore the troll. He is here only to irritate you, not debate you.
The site of this mosque is not owned/controlled by the Iman. In fact Con-Ed the electricity supplier to New York has a piece of the parcel. My second concern is the source of funding, certainly the Iman does not have $100 million U.S.
What is the source of the financing. Some speculate Saudi Arabia, considering it is against the law with severe punishment to enter Saudi Arabia with a christian bible or horrors a jewish skull cap, I do wonder about equivalency – perhaps a R.C. Cathedral in Mecca?
Juxtaposed. Because they both mention airplanes?
From “Related!”
// The president has long been governing against the will of the American people.
It’s good to see, concretely, whose will his governance favors //
Andy McCarthy
This is the sort of nonsense that gives nonsense a bad name.
batb – I see your point, but I think that Obama’s narcissism is far beyond a cultural attribute of male dominance – which can be found in any and all peasant economies (try Mediterranean etc). These men dominate economically and politically. But Obama’s nature is not culture; it’s a genuine psychological pathology.
What is also interesting about Obama is that he’s not dominant in the family; his wife is. Obama seems to have always required a dominant mother-figure in his life. He remains adolescent, unaccountable, not required to put in a day’s work, forgiven and adored, skilled at manipulation etc.
Forget Obama! I just think it’s not the right time and place to build a mosque. Perhaps in ten years, when this is all behind us, it would be accepted. What next? A statue of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dealy Plaza?
PS: I thought the CIA had more imagination than that!
I doubt it is meant as a provocative move.
Hilarious.
Politically this is a huge mistake by obama. A very large majority of americans oppose it.
As for islamists who profess outrage at it not being built, I say they can lay one brick for every brick the Jews get to lay in building a synagogue outside the gates of Mecca.
“This societal and political behaviour is tribal rather than civic. Do you know the difference?”
I have never professed to having a strong understanding of Islam – or indeed any understanding of it. I am not going to repeat what I have written before. I will simply state that as equal citizens of the US, muslims have a legitimate claim to build a mosque in an ‘interfaith’ area. Islam can stand for whatever it wants to. If it violates US law, it should be banned. If it does not, I fail to see the point of engaging in a lengthy discussion about what you think it is.
“The Islamic societal and political system rejects equality, rejects democracy, rejects a rule of law legislated by man, rejects a constitution legislated by man.”
If it does, ban it. If it is incompatible with US law, arrest the adherents or deport them. Simple as.
“Now, DA/BTJ – to then declare that any and all societal and political systems are protected under the Constitution is of course, pure nonsense. . . cannot be changed or amended because it has been removed from such by defining those beliefs as ‘religious’.”
Not even going to bother reading it. Not interested in engaging in a sophomoric argument about a religious I have no interest in. Let me repeat again – If Islam is incompatible with US law, I expect that the US legal mechanisms will take their course. If it is not, this discussion is a waste of time. Your beliefs about Islam are, ultimately, your own. As things stand, there is a legal system in place. If you feel that it is dealing with the problem inadequately, write a ltter to your congressman. Couching hot air in sophisticated language proves nothing.
“As for my diagnostic powers, I’m hardly alone in defining Obama as a pathological narcissist. ”
Indeed. And there were hundreds of people who suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Not a handful.
“For you, DA/BTJ, to then move on to say that all beliefs and behaviour are equivalent is the height of postmodern relativism.”
Do not bother putting words in my mouth. I never said all religions and beliefs and behavior are equal. I said all citizens of the United States have equal rights. If their beliefs and behaviour are incompatible with the laws of the US, those rights are partially suspended. Saying all US citizens are equal is not the same as saying all religions are equal. As far as I know, the US constitution recognizes all US citizens as equal, regardless of religion, race etc. Therefore, I suspect your gripe is not with me, but with the US constitution, which presumably is engaging in relativism by stating that all US citizens are born equal.
“Then, it is being run by a radical imam who rejects the reality of terrorism.”
If what he says or does is illegal, he will be persecuted under US law.
“to believe in everything and in nothing bespeaks an empty mind. One incapable of reason and evaluation. Hmmm. ”
Amen.
“Should the equal citizens of the Sikh religion build a temple on the site of the Air India bombing? Should the equal citizens of Japan fund a museum about Japanese military exploits on the site of Pearl Harbor?”
First and foremost, you must excuse my ignorance and explain to me how the citizens of Japan are equal to US citizens. I said all US citizens are equal. I did not say all US citizens are equal to all other citizens of all other countries in the world. Again, please do not put words in my mouth. If you want to build strawmen and knock them down, practice it on someone else.
Secondly, I fail to see how a mosque is equivalent to a memorial about japanese military exploits in WWII. Will they be building memorials to the terrorists in there? Will they be advocating further attacks on the US? Because, if they do, I suspect US anti-terror laws will take care of them rather quickly. You will, I hope, excuse me for questioning your line of thought. I am, of course, incapable of reasoning or, indeed, thinking, hence my inability to see the logic in your argument.
We know that there were several sikh victims in the Air India bombing. And we know for a fact that Japanese Americans fought for the US military during WWII. Indeed, it is a little known fact that the 442nd Infantry Regiment, which consisted mostly of Japanese Americans, is the most highly decorated unit in the history of the US military, with 21 Medal of Honors (all Japanese Americans) and 52 Distinguished Service Crosses, along with another 18,000 medals and 7 presidential citations. In light of this, I would see nothing wrong with a Sikh temple at an Air India memorial or a monument to Japanese American soldiers at Pearl Harbor. After all, the current Sikh prime minister is one of the most popular Indian PMs of all time, despite the bombing.
Given that Muslims (apart from the perpetrators) did, in fact, die on 9/11, I fail to see what the point of your comparison. Now if, as you claim, the imam is a radical, then throw him into jail the moment he steps out of line. Otherwise, as things stand, and I am really getting tired of repeating this – according to the US constitution, all US citizens are equal regardless of race, religion etc.
Also, either BTJ is an abbreviated insult, or you have mistaken me for someone else. I am not BTJ nor do I know who that is. Whehter you want to believe that or not, is your problem.
I’m curious to see how this will play in New York esp NY city. Traditionally a Democrat stronghold, this just might be enough to get more than a few New Yorkers to at least start questioning who their friends on capitol hill actually are.
Islam has a voracious appetite for tolerance when it is the suppliant; when it is, so to speak, a sojourner among the infidels. It is aggressively, even imaginatively, vigorous in availing of the democratic rights of societies to which some of its followers have migrated. It has acquired an admirable expertise in taking advantage of the institutions and practices of host societies, from politics and the media, to protests and the courts, which aid the full pursuit of those rights.
This commendable agility finds no mirror in most Muslim societies. Tolerance received or enjoyed by Muslims in the West does not seem to awaken a concordant impulse to afford a reciprocal tolerance from Muslims to other religions in countries where Islam is dominant.
What is the numerical gap, I wonder, between the number of mosques in Western, nominally Christian cities, and the number of Christian churches or cathedrals in predominantly Muslim ones? In New York alone, there already are at least a hundred mosques. How many Catholic cathedrals, shinto shrines or Buddish temples in Saudia Arabia?
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/14/rex-murphy-testing-americas-tolerance/
When I heard Barry O’s comments on CFRA there is one thing that came to mind:
The leopard has shown it’s spots.
P.E.T. used to show his every so often…
DA, you are either willfully and intellectually dishonest or a fool.
The more you write, the more I witness the latter.
As you have stated, you are ignorant of Islam and Christianity and have no desire to learn about them. To you detriment and eventual enslavement.
The objectives of the tenants of the US Constitution are based on the fundamentals of a Judeo/Christian teachings being the foundation of the Union. The document was meant to level the playing field for all inhabitants of the land. It was to ensure that the citizens were to remain a free people, governed by the statutes of the Creator of the Universe, God or Yahweh-Christian or Jew, and to ensure that the state was to never be able to infuence or change the tenants of these beliefs.
The building of a mosque is not a magical thing. But, there are spiritual forces which are associated with the religion of Islam, just like there are in every religion. To deny these spiritual forces is to deny the the force behind the production of electricity which we use every day. You have stated that you don’t want to educate yourself about the religions, yet you take yourself out of any logical argument without that knowledge.
The war with Islam is real. All your pseudo-intellectual clap-trap sounds like lawyer-speak. Able to talk around a point without actually taking the issue head on.
Islam’s intent is to dominate the world, control it and kill all if its enemies. To allow that mosque to be built is to have a military outpost being built in my village.
You and your hair-splitting friends fiddle while Rome burns. I hate your music. Find another country to destroy.
Media Matters must be on a spending spree lately. Maybe it’s Porkulus money that’s come their way.
What else accounts for all the trolls? I’ve noticed more paid whore-trolls on other sites too.
If you want to build strawmen and knock them down, practice it on someone else.
You’re a real comedian, seeing as you just built several of your own in your comment.
Then again, what can one expect from someone who doesn’t see a mosque on the site of Islam’s greatest act of terror against the US a provocation?
devil’s advocate/BTJ – (and I do suspect that you are that individual) – your comments are not arguments.
All you say is: IF they are violating the laws, then, throw them into jail. A nation under the rule of civil and criminal law doesn’t operate in such a simplistic manner. These civil and criminal laws don’t oversee religious beliefs.
You ignore that:
– the political and societal actions of Islam are a vital part of their religion. These include jihadism, domination of other peoples etc. Defined as religious beliefs – means that they are outside of the civil and criminal law.
You admit that you know absolutely nothing of Islam, nothing of the difference between political systems, nothing even of legal or logical issues and have no beliefs in anything. Then why are you commenting here since you have, effectively, no arguement about anything.
Your key error is that you ignore the institution and belief system of Islam – and focus only on the individual. That is a key error, for the individual is not identical to the institution of Islam.
It may not be illegal to reject the notion of Islamic terrorism but it rejects actual reality. Why should someone who rejects the reality of Muslim terrorism be permitted to build a mosque in an area devastated by that same terrorism?
Again – Reducing the argument to ‘any citizen can do what he wants’ is illogical, for you are ignoring that the individual is not operating as an isolate entity but as a member of a collective, the Islamic ideology. You ignore this.
To equate BDS with pathological narcissism is stupid. The latter is a medically defined psychological syndrome.
To again, reduce the attack to ‘some Muslims were also killed’ ignores that the sole agents of the attack were Islamic fascists.
Again, focusing only on ‘all citizens are equal’ is totally and completely irrelevant to this debate. The issue is the moral and intellectual legitimacy of an agenda to build a centre devoted to the Islamic religion, an ideology focused on the annihilation of other religions and cultures, in a site that was devastated by that ideology.
Your red herring that it’s all about ‘equal citizenship rights’ is bs; the issue is the moral and intellectual legitimacy of such an action.
Planning to opening the mosque on the tenth anniversary of Islam’s greatest act of terror against the US? I guess that’s not a provocation either.
Wonder if they will allow construction workers on-site carrying bacon and tomato sandwiches…