Excellent video. He says it all. And go to the web site of

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com

It lists the constant Islamic killings of non-Muslims (and lower Muslims) on a daily basis.

The video says it perfectly. Islam is not really a religion but a political and societal doctrine disguised as a religion. Take away that religious veneer and you are left with a hate-filled totalitarian ideology.

An ideology that rejects individualism, the use of reason, democracy, collaboration, the idea of equality of peoples, rejects gender equality and rejects even life itself! If focuses on conquering all peoples, reducing them to passive enslaved peoples and killing any and all who fight back. It's a militant political and societal ideology -formed as I've claimed - in the tribal politics of the 7th c world.

Why has it arisen as fascist, in that original militant form, after so many centuries of quiet? I maintain it's because of the refusal of the Islamic states to modernize, reject the elitism of tribalism, and enable instead a middle class (civic and non-tribal) to have economic and political power.

Bush was right to try to enable democracy in the ME. Obama is destroying its growth with his rejection of the growth of democracy (his refusal to support the Iranian demonstrations for democracy) and his focus on 'Islamic power'. At his Ramadan dinner the other night, Obama specifically referred to the Muslim achievements in 'justice, progress, tolerance and human dignity' - an outrageous statement given what we know of Islamic actions against all these attributes. And Obama praised Muslim 'extrordinary contributions to the US'. He couldn't, of course, provide even one example.

Stop the mosque. That is hallowed ground and no religion has a right to build there - and a Muslim mosque in particular.

This will all end in violence and "appeaser"/leftists will be to blame for it.

again.

Pat mentions Cordoba, Spain (Spain being Andalusia to the Muslims), but misses an opportunity to score a critical point:

The one thing that American leaders -- heck Canadian leaders for that matter -- refuse to acknowledge is that once Islam owns a piece of land, however small or large, they consider it *forever* owned by Islam. If the planned mosque goes ahead then the land next to Ground Zero will always be Islamic and anyone who may own it in the future will be considered an occupier of Islamic land, the same way Islamists consider Spain (Andalusia) to be occupied territory.

So, the only way to make sense of all this is that the Ruling Class wants Islam on their side ?

Is it that simple? Is it that crazy? Any historical parallels? Nazi collaborators in France? Charles Lindbergh? Environmental activists/fascists? Kings & Queens from opposing countries intermarried yet sent their people into wars?

Excellent post, as usual.The attacks by these revolting barbarians are too numerous to mention, but with school starting soon,let's not forget the innocent children slaughtered in Beslan...

remember,obama said on video, that he is a muslim before being corrected that he is a christian.
Can you imagine that, being reminded of the faith you below too. Something doesn't smell right.

Love this line from the CTV story:

"A Taliban spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment."

Such is the sad state of modern journalism. Can you imagine during the early 40s:

"A Nazi spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment [regarding the barrage of missiles fired over London]".

Was Air Force One practicing the flyby for the grand opening? I mean it wouldn't have true meaning without a flyby. Makes me ill.

Thanks for the link to the montage, Kate! How soon we forget!!! And that is what makes us the most vulnerable. We have to constantly be reminded of not only Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Bergen-Belsen and the hundreds of others but also of the USS Cole, the World Trade Center, London, Madrid, Bali, etc, etc, etc,. The Politically Correct elite are too numb to realize what is happening and they wont wake up until the Muslim call to prayer is echoing five times a day across Ground Zero. This is only the start of the beginning!!!

As the father of three young children I find it tremendously difficult to view pictures of the Beslan massacre. Yes, because of the children, but mostly because I find an incomparable rage builds in my chest.

Regarding the "back to school" link, let's not forget what that slimeball Putin is doing, too. Talk about a betrayal.

Excellent post cjunk.

The diversity - cultural competence - oh so tolerant ones are ignorant sheeple willfully submitting to dhimmitude - they are guilty of clearing the way for the murdering of their own and others children. Arrogant fools - the lot of them. They pride themselves in being more tolerant - sophisticated - cultured than those they consider average and unenlightened - they do not see that those they look down upon are wiser and more educated than they. Pride comes before a fall. Unfortunately, when they fall it will be back onto others taking many down with them.

I read some of the comments on You Tube - mostly Muslims trying to preach Muhammad while reminding Christians they are turn the other cheek.

Iowahawk foretells the future . . .

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/08/wedgeapalooza.html

Colin from Mission B.C. at 12:31 PM, this brings to mind the story of those two young men (one of them Jewish) in the Ottawa area that were attacked by machete wielding "youths" and the CBC (at least I think it was the CBC) wanted to interview someone from the "other side".

Fred at 1:04 PM, that's what it's come to, isn't. It's so bizzaro that all you can do is laugh.

Have the plans for the mosque been released? Will the be a stoning pit in the street in front of it?

The pictures of Beslan, as horrible as they are, tell only part of the story. You need to read what they did to those people... and then you can be truly horrified.
And yet more horrible still is how our politicians are selling out our society and culture to placate these terrorists. Neville Chamberlain was an innocent Saint by comparison.
Do not let this happen to our children...

And Pakistanis blockading roads and protesting because we aren't send aid for their floods quick enough. A thank you would have been nice.

Here's my message to Ban-Kee Moon (Spank-Mee Soon would be more like it) ...

We will send aid to Pakistan when they send Bin Laden to us. Until then, let 'em take swimming lessons. Or is that another thing the Taliban does not allow?

The boys at Hillbuzz.org have a new project assignment on this topic - http://hillbuzz.org/2010/08/16/research-and-graphics-needed-clear-and-concise-compilation-of-mosques-muslims-have-built-around-the-world-as-monuments-of-islamic-conquest-and-dates-of-their-construction/

They are good for getting facts out to their supporters to counter the lies that the left and the media keep generating.

We must be discriminating in the application of tolerance, else we’ll enable intolerance as a result.

I fear the true enemy is within. It is those that would defame and ruin you for speaking the obvious truth about the clash of civilizations that enables our enemies, making them also our enemies. We have long passed the point where we can look across the political aisle and assume that although we disagree, we have the same goals of freedom, liberty and happiness. Today when I look across the political aisle I see an aisle that's usurped by those that do not share the same goals and values for our society moving forward. The only cure I fear is a good'ol a$$ whoopen (literally) for the Leftist fckwads. Cheap and effective I say!

I believe that without this cancer in our midst the external threat could be managed with little difficulty.

*snip*

Lay off the personal war, or you'll be snipped permanently.

Cjunk

Lay off the personal war, or you'll be snipped permanently.

and not soon enough!

smitherenzes - yes, I've seen the complaints from Pakistanis against US Aid - declaring that they weren't sending enough..and fast enough. What absolute nerve.

Indiana Homez - yes, this internal threat, which is the progressives with their rejection of the individual and their focus only on group identities - with no evaluation allowed of the beliefs/behaviour of any group - is indeed a major obstacle to our civilization. It is, however, important to note that the individual, opting for the use of reason, personal responsibility and ethical judgments (as in the Tea Parties) is fighting back.

But when you have a govt leader - such as Obama - living in his own world and focusing only on group identities and openly in support of this mosque - it's very difficult.

The blood that pours below the feet of the Islamists should be all the proof we need that Wahhabi Islam is not compatable with our culture or our society. Stop importing that man made form of Islam.

He's right Islam would be banned if it weren't a religion, thus labeled it as a political ideology like Nazism and Modern Liberalism/Communism and Socialism/communism.

Ah, 'snipping' isn't too unusual around here eh? The blog that champions freedom and individual rights while practicing censorship.

How do those opposed to the Mosque defend the inherent attack on individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to all American citizens that comes from it?

"Bush was right to try to enable democracy in the ME."

America isn't interested any enabling any true democracy, history has proven that over and over again. They are interested in suppressing nationalistic progress. Read a history book.

Hmmmm..E llsworth T ooey?

"That is hallowed ground and no religion has a right to build there - and a Muslim mosque in particular."

So you would equally be opposed to a Christian church at the site? Or any other religious structure?

"We must be discriminating in the application of tolerance"

Now that's tolerance for ya! :S :S :S

This all boils down to the American Constitution, and where or not you take is seriously.

If you believe that it represents the most freedom and individual liberty in human history, then you will support it's philosophy.

If not, then you will pick and choose who gets those liberties and when...and you will be an Ellsworth Tooey...champion of the collective majority.

I believe a simple answer has been provided with several Canadian commenters. This is a large prominent, permanent, notice "the reason for this building is to bring attention to the horrible; unjust attack; perpretrated on the American People by the foul attack in a direct distortion of the Quran by a group of cruel Arabic men. (sic)

I will place my usual cheers here; well apart from the hypocrisy of the trolls representing the elitist political class and their running journalistic dogs.

Watched this one a while ago, and he's fairly well spoken about the muslim problem. Unfortunately he can also be dead wrong on other issues and attack with equal aplomb.

I think Bob reaches more people in less time with less words. And how does he do it? With volume! (heh)

http://www.youtube.com/user/drinkingwithbob#p/u/31/966WFdC48PE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brcw0Wj0KYk

Islam is not a religion - it is a cult. Fits the definition perfectly - members are not allowed to leave - anyone who converts to another religion or denounces Islam or Muhammad is killed. Their leader instructs them to kill those who reject their beliefs. Islam is not a religion it is a cult, and cults have no protection under the constitution. Their leader married a six year old and consummated the marriage when she was nine - that is a crime - in every country. Their leader was a criminal,a murderous thug and sexual deviant. Islam is a cult.

Ask for something; the more outrageous the better. When you get it, ask for something even more outrageous. When you get that, ask for something even more outrageous. When they have nothing left to give, make them your slaves. When the slaves are of no more value, kill them.

@ ET

Just curious but who cares if democracy ends the dictatorial regimes of the middle east? I don't follow your point. Just because they are "liberated" from dictatorial regimes doesn't mean that they will reconcile themselves with modernity and the west. Islam is in and itself a political system, and one that doesn't rely on strongmen or politicians. Muslims are unified in purpose through Islam. I think it transcends the trivialities of representation and governmental "legitimacy".

Look at the bombings in Heathrow or wherever it was in Britain where it was perpetrated by Jordanian doctors. Look at that trust fund baby underwear bomber. Hell look at Turkey and Gaza where the free people voted in Erdogan and Hamas. Wealth and Liberty are simply not adequate weapons in stopping Islam.

While we're on the subject I don't think Islam is the one who rejects reason. I mean just look at this Ground Zero mosque right? They demolish two gigantic structures and we refuse to name them as enemies. They build a monument on top of the graves of their victims and we allow it in the name of "tolerance". Their reasoning is fine by my estimation. They are the ones practicing enlightened empiricism; they poke us we cower, the poke us again we cower, that's a bona fide peer-reviewable repeatable result! We're too busy drowning ourselves in the opiate of Romantic feel-good-isms. Even the so-called "moderate muslim" never condemn the acts, never stand in solidarity with Christians or Jews or the secular west they just give a weak press release saying they "condemn the acts". Yet even the worst of us are still qualifying all our statements with "of course not ALL muslims are terrorists, or I have a problem with 'militant' Islam and not muslims" and other inanities out of some misguided attempt to avoid prejudice.

The Japanese had their own brand of death cults during the war. You'll see now that it has died out. Why do we need to relive history?

Obamamosque

Islam is not a religion, it is a doctrine for world conquest masquerading as a religion.

The goals and objectives of Islam are no different from the goals and objectives of the Third Reich.

Write to Mayor Bloomberg:

http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.bd08ee7c7c1ffec87c4b36d501c789a0/index.jsp?doc_name=http%3A%2F

M - Islamism is incompatible with democracy. Therefore, you can't be both an Islamist and a believer in democracy.

The point of democracy is its focus on the individual as personally responsible, as someone who by the use of his own individual reason, makes evaluations - based on facts. Yes, we know that as fallible humans, we aren't always committed to reason, we fall into emotionalism. But the reality of democracy is that it exists to allow us to think, as individuals, and make decisions.

As such, democracy is built around a middle class. This is a group whose wealth and property are created by their own work - not by hereditary ownership (of land, titles, authority). This group is empowered to make decisions about the political, economic and legal nature of the nation. Islamism rejects a middle class; it is built around tribalism - which is a societal and political system based around hereditary rights or the lack of such rights. In tribalism, your duty is to your kin group and your tribe. Not to your civic nation or other peoples. Tribalism rejects other peoples.

Yes, I agree, there ARE moderate Musims who condemn Islamism but their voices are still not loud enough.

The fact that we in the west, with our decadent progressivism, our cultural relativism, are not fighting back enough against Islamism doesn't mean that Islamism uses reason or intelligence. It simply points out that they use physical power to deal with our own weakness.

Plus - the fact that they cloak their political agenda under the guise of a religion is something very difficult for the West to understand. The West is clear about the nature of religion and its separation of church and state is so well established that it cannot fathom that Muslims equate the two. The mosque/religion IS a state and for them, that state must dominate everyone.

We in the west have ignored Islamism for centuries and it really took 9-11 to wake us up. It's still difficult for people to acknowledge the nature of Islam. The majority have no knowledge of Islam, have never read its texts, never heard the term 'hadiths', have no understanding of its axioms, no awareness of its sharia law. All they hear is the word 'religion' and instantly think - oh well, that's someone's private business'. No - it isn't; Islamism is never an individual action; it's a group action.

BTJ: "How do those opposed to the Mosque defend the inherent attack on individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to all American citizens that comes from it?"

That's not the question. There is no "attack."

By God's grace, Muslims in the West have inherent rights and freedoms that no non-Muslim has in Muslim countries -- something to think about, BTJ. No one is attacking their inherent rights or freedoms to build a mosque in NYC. In fact, they've been offered other land by the government to build their mosque elsewhere in New York.

The question should be, despite their inherent rights and freedoms to build a mosque in NYC, is it wise or compassionate to build it so close to Ground Zero, where over 3000 people were killed by Muslims on 9/11?

Any thinking person, it seems to me, would have to answer "no."

Tell me this, BTJ: How do you defend the fact that although Muslims enjoy "inherent rights and freedoms" in the West, there are no commensurate rights and freedoms for non-Muslims in Muslim countries? Do you think that Christians, say, should have rights and freedoms in Muslim countries to build a cathedral in Mecca, a parallel situation? If not, why not?

And, further, would you tell me, please, what "inherent rights and freedoms" Muslims have to build a mosque on the site of Ground Zero and not somewhere else?

"Islam is not a religion, it is a doctrine for world conquest masquerading as a religion."

How about Mormonism?

"The goals and objectives of Islam are no different from the goals and objectives of the Third Reich."

Watching a little too much FOX news are we? You know, for people who denounce the MSM so much, you sure do love to regurgitate empty statements from the self-proclaimed '#1 News Source'...aka THE NUMBER ONE MSM OUTLET!

"Islamism is incompatible with democracy. Therefore, you can't be both an Islamist and a believer in democracy."

All religions, and in fact all collectives, are...hence the 'separation of church and state'.

"As such, democracy is built around a middle class."

I'm sorry but you're previous argument does not lead to that conclusion.

How does this: "The point of democracy is its focus on the individual as personally responsible, as someone who by the use of his own individual reason, makes evaluations - based on facts. "

somehow lead to the conclusion that democracy is built around the collective majority?

You give away your intention quite clearly here:

"This group is empowered"

"That's not the question. There is no "attack.""

No? What would you call the denial of the individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution? And how would you reconcile denying those rights?

"By God's grace, Muslims in the West have inherent rights and freedoms that no non-Muslim has in Muslim countries -- something to think about, BTJ."

Why? It has nothing to do with the issue. We are talking about American citizens...it doesn't matter what happens in other countries.

"No one is attacking their inherent rights or freedoms to build a mosque in NYC."

What would you call it then!?

" BTJ: How do you defend the fact that although Muslims enjoy "inherent rights and freedoms" in the West, there are no commensurate rights and freedoms for non-Muslims in Muslim countries?"

I don't defend it, there's nothing to defend...we're talking about AMERICAN CITIZENS IN AMERICA...nothing else..it doesn't matter what happens in other countries.

"Do you think that Christians, say, should have rights and freedoms in Muslim countries to build a cathedral in Mecca, a parallel situation? If not, why not?"

They should, but they don't...because other countries don't the the rights guaranteed by the American Constitution...luckily we're talking about AMERICAN CITIZENS IN AMERICA!!!

"what "inherent rights and freedoms" Muslims have to build a mosque on the site of Ground Zero and not somewhere else?"

They have the right build it where ever they want so long as the don't break the law, and own the land.

A lady who is a semi-retired church minister, and does some chaplaincy work in the cancer ward in a Saskatoon hospital told me yesterday at a family reunion that one of the young women at her home church who married a Muslim a number of years ago, has some small children, one of whom is a boy. This woman no longer come to the church.

This chaplain woman knows all the family members and recently met the family at the cancer ward. The little boy came up to her and said that Ramadan had started and he could kill some infidels now.

Needles to say, she was quite disturbed about this. So there is at least one little boy in Saskatoon that is being trained for the future.

Ignore the troll. He or she is probably looking forward to the bloodbath that is coming.

"That is hallowed ground and no religion has a right to build there - and a Muslim mosque in particular."

So you would equally be opposed to a Christian church at the site? Or any other religious structure?

End quote:-------------

If Christians killed 3000 innocents on 9/11 yes I would demand that they not build a Church. Unlike Islam Christians don't build monuments to a mass murder ala terrorism. We Christisans don't partake of slavery in the 21st century nor do we riot and burn down our communities over cartoons you loon.

I think we have found the new primary target for every arsonist in New York City. And I think the firefighters will arrive promptly anyhow.

"If Christians killed 3000 innocents on 9/11 yes I would demand that they not build a Church. Unlike Islam Christians don't build monuments to a mass murder ala terrorism. We Christisans don't partake of slavery in the 21st century nor do we riot and burn down our communities over cartoons you loon."

Thank you for completely ignoring the question, deciding instead to rant on about Christianity vs Islam.

The quote I was questioning stated the following:

"no religion has a right to build there"

This outrage - the Mohammad Atta Memorial - is, I believe, going to finally wake a lot of people up to the essential arrogance and supremacism of Islam.

MAM is the proud work of real, honest to goodness, "moderate" Islam. No criminal fringe to put the blame on for this one.

In all this talk about rights, why don't we talk about what's decent, and what's considerate of those who lost loved ones at ground zero.

It seems ethics and understanding is something owed Muslim killers and fanatics, but not to the victims: the ones they murdered.

Perhaps the resident troll(s) would like to enlighten the fine posters here about how tolerance works in Islamic countries. Can I go to Mass in Saudi Arabia, the same country which offers funds for mosques to be built on foreign soil?

//Islam is not really a religion but a political and societal doctrine disguised as a religion. Take away that religious veneer and you are left with a hate-filled totalitarian ideology.//

Islam is a religion. All religions include an ideology. And any monotheistic religion has totalitarian tendancies.

"In all this talk about rights, why don't we talk about what's decent, and what's considerate of those who lost loved ones at ground zero."

Ok, but it has absolutely no bearing on the individual rights of American citizens to purchase property and do what the please with it so long as it is within the law.

A talk on what's decent and considerate is inherently subjective...so really there's no 'right' or 'wrong' answer.

Should we ban South Park or Family Guy for continually doing things that aren't 'decent' or 'considerate' by most people's standards? Should we go the route of China and censor the internet to eliminate anything that is deemed 'indecent' or 'inconsiderate'? And who should decide such things? Am I to assume that it would be the collective majority? Is this site honestly supporting the collective over the individual rights? The same site that claims to support Ayn Rand's work? The site that claims to support the individual and the individuals' rights and freedoms?

"erhaps the resident troll(s) would like to enlighten the fine posters here about how tolerance works in Islamic countries."

Again..WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AMERICAN CITIZENS IN AMERICA...what they do in other countries has no bearing whatsoever...unless of course you are suggesting that we adopt to philosophy and policies of Islamic countries. Is that the case?

"Can I go to Mass in Saudi Arabia, the same country which offers funds for mosques to be built on foreign soil?"

No, which is why you should be supporting the rights and freedoms bestowed upon American citizens, rather than suggesting that they be ignored to be replaced by the discrimination of less free nations.

"Islam is a religion. All religions include an ideology. And any monotheistic religion has totalitarian tendancies. "

Well said.

dizzy: You are completely and thoroughly wrong, both historically and factually.

Christianity, as just one example, does not set out a regime that involves governance of the state ... ie: taxation, crime and punishment, banking, etc. It deals only with the congregation of believers and only in matters outside state control; hence it concentrates on "personal" faith.

The reason is historical. Christianity came into being under the Roman Empire, where all civic and even international norms were set down and enforced by Rome. Christians were scattered throughout the empire and did not enjoy domination in any state. Rome allowed freedom of religion, as long as it did not contravene Roman law, and as long as it did not interfere with taxation, the raising of slaves, the raising of legions, etc.

Islam grew up later and outside of Roman domination, and by the time Muhammad died it was the dominant force where it abided. Islam codified every single aspect of civic and private life far beyond anything found within Christianity. Islam is, in every sense of the word, a complete system that sets the structure of society far beyond personal belief or local Muslim group ... it is a manual for governance.

Nothing in the New Testament approaches this.

BTJ

As I said the other-day to DA, I concede the point and support the rights of those that wish to build the mosque at ground zero! Can you please quit saying or inferring that I don't. Furthermore, I don't think I'm alone in this. My position, again, is that I think it's classless to wish to build such a mosque in THIS location. I do not advocate the government intervening on behalf of those that don't want the mosque there! I do advocate the people that wish to build the mosque there to reconsider building it there, respecting the wishes of their neighbors.Not because they are forced to, but because it's the classy (and right) thing to do.

Query: do you see how deciding to build the mosque elsewhere would be a very gracious thing to do?

PS I'm taking you at your word that you are not DA from the other day, else I would not have responded because I feel DA is being disingenuous about his/her view; therefore, any debate is a waste of time. Regardless of who you are, if you can actually address the issues that I'm bringing-up instead of harping on the same legal argument that has been conceded, I won't respond.

"Christianity, as just one example, does not set out a regime that involves governance of the state "

Huh? Who's not familiar history? Prior to the US Constitution who ran the state? No one said that all religions 'set out a regime that involves governance of the state'...that was your own doing. What was said is that all monotheistic religions have totalitarian tendencies. eg. the pope, the King, the fact that it is prescribed that one may not worship any other entity, otherwise one is committing sin.

And I guess you missed Sarah Palin suggesting that instead of relying on the US Constitution, the US should rely on the Bible for governance.

"Ok, but it has absolutely no bearing on the individual rights of American citizens to purchase property and do what the please with it so long as it is within the law."

Nobody is talking about RIGHTs here except you BTJ. DO YOU FCKING UNDERSTAND?

No, BTJ, you would be content in cowing to bullies. Building the mosque has NOTHING to do with freedom of religion (or any freedom, for that matter). It is all about Islamic triumphalism. That can't be said enough. If the mosque was to be built elsewhere, no one would be saying anything.
Muslims are as perfectly happy to live under Western laws and customs as they are never extending the same courtesy to others. They throw money at Westerners who come into their countries to do the work they CAN'T do but will never allow them freedom of worship or congress. THEY are the hypocrites.

"A talk on what's decent and considerate is inherently subjective...so really there's no 'right' or 'wrong' answer."

Exactly, so quit being so obtuse!

Re-read the founding fathers of the US, BTJ.
Actually, read anything that isn't the Daily Kos.

"My position, again, is that I think it's classless to wish to build such a mosque in THIS location."

And you have every right to do so.

"I do advocate the people that wish to build the mosque there to reconsider building it there, respecting the wishes of their neighbors.Not because they are forced to, but because it's the classy (and right) thing to do."

And they have every right to tell you to go get bent. I'm not sure how you feel you've managed to correlate 'classy' with 'right', although it is evident from the parentheses you put around it that you were not confident in doing so.

"do you see how deciding to build the mosque elsewhere would be a very gracious thing to do?"

Are we to do things based on what's 'gracious' for others? Are you suggesting we live for others? Are you suggesting we disagree with Ayn Rand, and instead take on the philosophy of Jim Taggart?

"PS I'm taking you at your word that you are not DA"

For the love of god, I'm not DA. Drop the paranoid conspiracy theory already.

"Building the mosque has NOTHING to do with freedom of religion (or any freedom, for that matter). "

Whether or not you think they should bow to the whims of the collective majority has everything to do with personal, individual freedom.

"If the mosque was to be built elsewhere, no one would be saying anything."

No? Except for in California, Wisconsin, Tennessee, or Connecticut right? But other than THOSE places it's ok...you really should keep up with current events if you're to get into a discussion.

""A talk on what's decent and considerate is inherently subjective...so really there's no 'right' or 'wrong' answer."

Exactly, so quit being so obtuse!"

I'm sorry, how am I being obtuse...you're the one who claimed that your opinion on the matter was 'right'.

Here's a thought. Sorry if it is a bit OT, but it could happen with King Barry and his merry misfits;

Say Israel decides to attack Iran, and the US decides it must intercept and destroy the Israeli attack planes, but the Israelis easily shoot down several of the US attackers and still successfully bomb Iran? What would show up in the news?

The Israeli version of the F15 is arguably the best in the air. Not to mention all of the other goodies Israel has bought and upgraded.

BTJ said: And they have every right to tell you to go get bent

This is a completely accurate statement. But that's not at issue here.

Muslims have "the right"; but IS it right, decent, and sensitive? This is a moral question, based entirely on cultural norms, and not law, hence it comes down to opinion and emotion.

The beauty of it is, that Obama, with his bending over to Muslims, has now utterly and completely destroyed his presidency and is taking down the progressive elite with him ... it's not a matter of rights, but a matter of opinion and cultural norms and sensitivities.

Gallup today issued a result that gives the Republicans their highest score in a generic poll question, Republican versus Democrat ... the score was the highest of all time, dating back to the 40's.

So, in a world where opinions matter, sensitivities matter, and cultural norms matter, progressives have now set themselves up against the majority of Americans. And, keep in mind, that the Gallup result was pre-Obama condoning the Ground Zero Victory Shrine.

So BTJ, you are correct that Muslims have the "right" to build the Shrine unless laws are passed that state otherwise. But, that doesn't mean that the Shrine won't be insensitive, intolerant, and a grotesque edifice to Islamic supremacism.

If you don't find the Shrine insensitive, intolerant, and a grotesque edifice to Islamic supremacism ... good for you, you are entitled to your opinion.

Cjunk wrote that I was --
"completely AND thoroughly wrong" also & "historically AND factually"

When you make these little rhetorical flourishes, you should keep in mind what the words mean.
You clearly don't know what ideology is.
But since most of your answer, such as it is, deals with the "totalitarian tendancies" bit of what I wrote --

Are you saying that Christianity doesn't have totalitarian tendancies?
Have you ever heard the phrase "Outside the church there is no salvation"?

You wrote
//Christianity came into being under the Roman Empire & Rome allowed freedom of religion, as long as it did not contravene Roman law //

You are not entirely wrong here. But during this period Rome had many gods. Once christianity became the state religion, things changed.
Ask the Jews. [never mind other versions of christianity]

Jefferson put this very well in a letter to a jewish notable --
"Your sect by its sufferings has furnished a remarkable proof of the universal spirit of religious intolerance inherent in every sect, disclaimed by all while feeble, and practiced by all when in power. Our laws have applied the only antidote to this vice, protecting our religious, as they do our civil rights, by putting all on an equal footing."
That's why religious freedom [& property rights, another aspect of American ideology] is invoked by people defending the right to build Park51.

And if you think there aren't totalitarian tendancies present in modern christianity, clock this --
// I think we should kind of keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant.
They're quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the 10 Commandments. //
S Palin

BTJ Thanks.

dizzy: You are confusing the Roman Empire with the Holy Roman Empire. You are also mixing the Holy Roman Empire's "behavior" and laws, with Christian foundational texts. Apples ... Guano. Foundational texts ... state behavior.

Obama's Manhattan Project. Only the mushroom cloud with be over the Dem party this November.

Useful idiocy defined.

BTJ

Good, you understand.

"Are we to do things based on what's 'gracious' for others? Are you suggesting we live for others?"

No, I'm suggesting we consider others.

The problem, as I see it, is you are too pompous to give a respectful response to the issues people actually have with the mosque, because you don't believe they are valid concerns. You can extrapolate this to those that wish to build the mosque, and most people on the Left regarding most issues. We see it with AGW, immigration and every other issue. As far as the Left is concerned, on every issue, not only is the Right wrong, their concerns/arguments are not even worthy of a respectful response. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but what's not in question, is that I and others have had to wait two days for you to say: "A talk on what's decent and considerate is inherently subjective...so really there's no 'right' or 'wrong' answer." On this we can agree, or disagree, but at least we're talking about the same thing. All of your dancing around and wasting peoples time is very disrespectful of others; regardless of your political stripes. But I guess that's just my opinion, right? Actually, even that isn't so considering that most people (because most people do believe in God) do believe that right and wrong is NOT SUBJECTIVE but it's actually quite clearly defined. So for the sake of discussion, most reasonable people CAN agree on what is right and wrong. The ONLY people that have a problem with right and wrong are atheists and agnostics(which I'm one)- in other words, the Left.

regarding the rest of your post, a few quick answers:

"I'm not sure how you feel you've managed to correlate 'classy' with 'right', although it is evident from the parentheses you put around it that you were not confident in doing so."

Classy is always "right". You can't have class, or be classy if you are doing something that is "wrong".

Also, don't read too much into my grammar. I'm working on it!

"Are you suggesting we disagree with Ayn Rand, and instead take on the philosophy of Jim Taggart?"

Nope, it's a personal choice to be considerate of others. I doubt Ayn would object.

"Drop the paranoid conspiracy theory already."

I've got no such theory; but, I don't want to get hoodwinked by some ahole just in case. If you read the previous thread, it is very difficult to discern the two opinions. It's very difficult for those on the Right to understand why almost every Left thinker, on every issue, exhibits the same disrespect to those they argue with. Likely, it's rooted in Secular arrogance. Hopefully this helps explain why people would confuse you, DA and every other Left minded commenter.

Then, BTJ, tell me why- of all places- would they choose to build a mosque on the place where nineteen adherents killed thousands of people?
Where is your support for the Greek Orthodox church destroyed by these same nineteen adherents of a rotten cult?
Your whole point is solely to be contradictory.
Is there no salvation outside of Christ? A theological point outside of the law. Also know that Christianity does not execute its apostates. Read the parable of the prodigal son.

Ken (Kulak) @6:17

That's friggin' scary.
Home grown terrorists in the making....

"The beauty of it is, that Obama, with his bending over to Muslims,"

Is he to deny them their constitutional right then? I'm not real sure what you're getting at with this 'moral' discussion?

"If you don't find the Shrine insensitive, intolerant, and a grotesque edifice to Islamic supremacism ... good for you, you are entitled to your opinion."

No, I don't...I also think that people are responsible for their own responses to the world around them and so you have a choice whether or not to re-enforce your own response by choosing to focus on the potential ills of any situation.

Dizzy:
"Jefferson put this very well in a letter to a jewish notable"

GREAT quote!

Cjunk: your lack of response speaks volumes.

Indiana:
"No, I'm suggesting we consider others."

You're suggesting we not only consider them, but guide our own decisions based on those considerations....in other words bowing to the collective majority. I've noted that you refuse to approach this issue, of placing the collective before the individual.

"The problem, as I see it, is you are too pompous to give a respectful response to the issues people actually have with the mosque"

THAT'S the issue? How does me standing up for individual freedoms and rights, as well as being weary of bowing to the collective not respecting conservative philosophy? And how are you respecting conservative philosophy by insinuating that the individual should do as the collective majority demands?

"I and others have had to wait two days for you to say: "A talk on what's decent and considerate is inherently subjective...so really there's no 'right' or 'wrong' answer.""

You didn't, you could have read it in all the other posts, though I didn't directly express it in those words. You can have a discussion on 'decency and considerations' and you can have a discussion on 'what should be done under the rules and governance of the US'...but you can't mix the two as you seem to propose. The former will come to no objective answer, while the latter supports a useful and productive discussion which can quite easily be objectively decided.

"All of your dancing around and wasting peoples time is very disrespectful of others"

Again, that's your opinion, and it's subjective...we can't have an objective discussion based on what you feel is 'disrespectful of others'. I've done my best to observe individual rights and freedoms as it pertains to the issue.

"Actually, even that isn't so considering that most people (because most people do believe in God) do believe that right and wrong is NOT SUBJECTIVE but it's actually quite clearly defined"

It is you that can't stick to your story...it's either SUBJECTIVE or it's OBJECTIVE..pick one and stick to it, please.
I see here you've once again proposed that the collective majority decide personal rights and freedoms...what can be objectively decided as right or wrong is in the US constitution...not in the minds of the collective majority. In fact the collective majority is not something that can, by definition, be objective as it is subject to change.

"So for the sake of discussion, most reasonable people CAN agree on what is right and wrong."

So the collective majority should decide my 'rights' and 'wrongs' then? Is that correct Jim Taggart?

"Classy is always "right". You can't have class, or be classy if you are doing something that is "wrong"."

Really? Classy = 'right'...that's got to be one of the simplest, most vapid statements I've read here to date. I'd love to see a philosophy based on that premise...that would truly be a sign that this world has gone to sh1t.

"Nope, it's a personal choice to be considerate of others. I doubt Ayn would object. "

I KNOW she would object...its written over and again in her works.

"If you read the previous thread, it is very difficult to discern the two opinions. "

And same could be said about the opinion that echos through this place, voiced by most posters. What the logical thing to consider would be the improbability, and in fact the impossibility, that DA and I are the same poster. Did you not see how much writing he and I accounted for? I'll take it as a compliment though, that you give me enough credit to consider that I could have accounted for all that work.

OK:
"tell me why- of all places- would they choose to build a mosque on the place where nineteen adherents killed thousands of people?"

What am I, some kind of psychic? You'll have to ask the people themselves.

"Where is your support for the Greek Orthodox church destroyed by these same nineteen adherents of a rotten cult?"

I don't support any church or organized religion. Individual rights, yes.

"Is there no salvation outside of Christ?"

There is salvation where ever your being finds it. Whether that's in a church, in nature, on top of a skyscraper looking down on the city...what and where ever you find it.

In regards to BJT arguments. Here is a assignment. First go to Utah and in the middle of town light a copy of the Book of Mormon on fire and then report results.

Next go to Saudi Arabia - I am sure SDA can take up a collection to help with travel expenses - and light the Koran on fire and then report results. As for Saudi if all does not go well where do you want the body parts buried.

Trying to defend this is like trying to defend socialism, it leave you sounding small and silly.

I'm not particularly superstitious, nor am I any kind to put too much credence to ghost stories.
But I have to believe that while the tower was burning and some of those victims awaited death, their had to be some of them that vowed that their soul not go to eternal rest while radical islam still existed.

Then again it could have the dubious honour of being the only mosque haunted by the dead victims of 9-11.

"First go to Utah and in the middle of town light a copy of the Book of Mormon on fire and then report results. "

And that would accomplish what in respect to this discussion?
The only thing bringing Mormonism into this discussion accomplishes is support for my argument. Mormons have been given every right granted under the law despite their questionable religious practices...in fact Mormons have been allowed to break laws that your everyday citizens are not. Yet I don't see anybody up in arms over it.

"Next go to Saudi Arabia"

Please, stay on task...we are discussing an issue of AMERICAN CITIZENS IN AMERICA.

"it leave you sounding small and silly. "

Right, and typing three sentences, one of which does not apply to the discussion, as a response doesn't?

BTJ said: Please, stay on task... we are discussing an issue of AMERICAN CITIZENS IN AMERICA.

Actually we aren't, the original post covers a wider spectrum of concepts.

BTJ,

How much do they pay you to post hundreds of leftist comments a day on a right-wing site?

I once tried to discuss issues with leftists on their own leftist site but it was useless.

Calling me names and using the F word was mostly what they posted as replies to my comments.

oh yeah and they used urban legends as fatcs...

You'd have to pay me to spend all day on a leftist site.

So how much do they pay you?

BTJ:

Remember our discussion about the separation of church and state?

In that vein, what is your opinion of New York governor Patterson offering state land to build a mosque? In a different location.

Or, the mosque's imam sponsored by the US administration for a trip to the MIddle East.

@ ET = If you're still around that is :D

I think you're mistaken about democracy. Just because modern western democracy grew out of a strengthened middle class doesn't mean that that is what will happen elsewhere. It's a simple matter for American trained graduates to go home and start implementing similar ideas in their own countries that does not have the history that it ought to have to support it. Just look at India they have horrendous poverty but is always hailed as "the worlds largest democracy". Just as Lenin brought "socialism" to an uncapitalistic horribly backwards agrarian Russia, democracy can just be implanted by any politico with delusions of grandeur. You yourself conceded in the first post that it was the, I dare say, Wolfowitz vision of democratic expansion that was pushed onto Iraq. It's not a natural development to them, and quite honestly, it probably would never be natural to them. I think you're overly optimistic in the power of individuality and democracy to transfigure the person.

There has always been an underlying cynicism with regards to democracy anyways the fear that it degenerates into mob rule. How many people actually made voting decisions rationally? Especially in Canada where there is this obscene party loyalty to the liberals and as a result also to the conservatives. How many people voted against Harper because of his Lego-man haircut? You can't expect Reason to come down on the secular Pentecost and graze the foreheads of muslims everywhere with a differential equation and expect them to be like us.

An intelligent muslim can reason that the world ought to be part of the Umma and we all should be put to the sword. Hell a lot of far left Americans, some of whom are "enlightened" and "driven by Reason", have had similar criticisms of our society and modernity. What is the notion of human rights and equality rights but an fanciful modern contrivance and dogma that stems from the ramblings of all those idiotic Christians who say that "we are all equal before the Lord?"

I wouldn't so quickly dismiss them as the unreasoned unintelligent barbarian horde. I mean they have so astutely deduced our weaknesses and also have masterfully exploited them. Terrorists aren't the only threat we face. Just look at all the clerics converting people to their cause undermining us from within. Look at how CAIR and the CIC have gotten governments and people and the media to so obsequiously hail them as "moderates". Look at how Hamas has transformed the public opinion of Israel. Hell, the Europeans have forgotten the horrors of the 1940s and are ready to throw the Jew back into the kiln.

I honestly just don't think that a ballot and a book will do anything to turn the tide of this conflict or to ultimately save us.

Also, I think you mistook what I said as well. There are only a very very tiny population of moderate muslims who are reasonably versed enough in its history and theology to suggest its reform. The thing is is that Islam isn't really a revolution in theology like Christianity was to Judaism. So much of it was the glory of Mohammedan conquest and the necessary doctrines to keep those gains. It's really hard to "kinda sort of" believe that all people were born muslim and that their lapsing (or ignorance) is already an active act of rejection and apostasy. Or that all the lands in the world should be brought under the shadow of Mecca. I honestly don't believe that the "moderates" are out there in any sizeable number. It's probably just another modern day "statistic" that is overplayed and exaggerated. I'm pretty sure some hotshot trial lawyer won't go to bat for that minority.

"Actually we aren't, the original post covers a wider spectrum of concepts."

ACTUALLY, Ford Perfect referred to:

"In regards to BJT arguments."

In addition, the majority of the posts are focused on Islam IN AMERICA, and the construction of the Mosque BY AMERICAN CITIZENS IN AMERICA.

But nice try.

"In that vein, what is your opinion of New York governor Patterson offering state land to build a mosque? In a different location."

In the vein of the separation of church and state, the governor should not get involved in such actions. Which I assume you will find complies with my main argument. Let individuals be individuals and assume their personal rights and freedoms under the US constitution. That is all government should be doing.

"the mosque's imam sponsored by the US administration for a trip to the MIddle East."

Link for clarification purposes please? Since it is somewhat of a random specific issue you've brought into play.

Rubbish, BTJ. You are a coward. You are a troublemaker. If you cared about individual rights, you would be sensitive to people who escaped with their very lives from the towers and the relatives of those who died. Instead, you are here to be- as I said before- contradictory. I have yet to see you run up the flagpole for the Greek orthodox church.

'Remember "new"? When I detect (it takes only a glance) the idiocy of a certain, similar poster's remarks here, my eyes glaze over and I go on to the next comment--immediately.

You are right Osumashi,

BTJ is a trouble maker and is only here to be contradictory, that is why I think he is paid to do it by some sick leftist organisation.

Pretty much every right-wing site has one of them and they all operate the exact same way as if they had been trained for it, you know like community organisers...

Strangely they are all free in daytime, all have the energy to posts hundreds of posts a day, and all share the axact same opinions, and all use the exact same methods to annoy and try and discourage right-wing people.

It does not seem a natural phenomenom at all to me.

the similarities are too numerous.

this is an organised effort by some sick leftist group.

Those people are trained and paid to do this.

I'd bet money on it.

Would it not be a good thing to ignore trolls?

The Glengarrian, right and it sure shook her up, so much so that she did not know what to say. There appear to be some that have no problem with this.

I used to go to a North Dakota right wing site; there was someone acting exactly like BTJ.

I used to go to an Arizona right wing site; there was someone acting exactly like BTJ.

I used to go to a California right wing site; there was someone acting exactly like BTJ.

I used to go to a Oregon right wing site; there was someone acting exactly like BTJ.

I used to go to an Ontario right wing site; there was someone acting exactly like BTJ.

I used to go to a Manitoba right wing site; there was someone acting exactly like BTJ.

I could go on and on.

This can not be coincidence.

Those people are organised, trained and paid to annoy us in the hope we will abandon our conservaitve beliefs.

Good luck with that.

Conservatism is actually on the rise in most Western Nations.

Oh Friend you're ever so cynical. Why would anyone pay someone to annoy people that would be like if Ashton Kutcher got money to pull pran....oh...wait!

Anyways, I'm pretty sure trolls just do it for the lulz. We're really not so important that the vast left wing media consortium has to dispatch troll ninjas from their secret underground command center to convert us with annoying comments :D The similarity probably arises from the fact that all the leftist arguments have been recycled from the 1960s. If you do have evidence of troll ninjas for hire then let me know for I'll send my wing-nut pirates to keel-haul them! Yargh! Oh a pirate's life for me!

over half a century ago, before WWII, Sinclair Lewis wrote a book called "It can't happen here" theoretically describing the rise of Fascism in the USA. He was pointing out to Americans who felt themselves somehow better than Europeans that the insanity in Europe could come to the USA if it was not fought.

Condell used the phrase "it can't happen here" at the beginning of his video. As he says - it can and is happening here just as it has happened in Europe.

When are our leaders going to wake up?

The idiot troll is getting his wish- non-stop engagement!
Why are you all falling for his ploy? It's unwinnable, he changes parameters on every rejoinder!!

That old Chinese guy, Cunfucious, was a pretty perceptive dude. Obviously he had BTJ in mind with his classic: "Man with head up his ass can't see for shit!".

Now, quit feeding it....it's becoming extremely bloated....and tiresome!

"this is an organised effort by some sick leftist group."

If I were a psychologist I would have to conclude that you suffer from paranoid delusions. Might I suggest you focus on expanding your knowledge, rather than on irrelevant and irrational conspiracy theories.

"I'd bet money on it."

I hope you're not a gambler, otherwise I'd bet you lose more than you win.

I miss W & Giuliani. Please bring them back. That "fn" bozo they have in the WH is beyond pathetic.

BTJ,

As I have said before to you. You haven't a clue about the difference between the law and the "spirit" of the law.

The law always makes criminals of everyone, and you are a master at using the law through words to try and trap people in their arguments.

I have yet to read anything which you write which adds to the posts, you always use a twisted form of logic or socialist bent when commenting.

It is wearisome to read your Marxist drivel, but the humor value is definitely there. It shows your shallowness and utter disregard for humanity and for being at peace with your fellow man. You stir the pot and then just run away from any comments which pin your a$$ to the wall, running off to pi$$ in another corner.

Must be almost past your bedtime, mom should be by with milk and cookies just before she tucks you in. Sweet dreams!

BJT>

I wonder if you realize the useful idiot you've become?

I don't mean just in life and politics either. You create a wonderful platform for SDA commanders to vent and air thier ideologies. Much of it would undoubtedly lay by the wayside.

So in a very odd way, we owe you our gratitude. You will only here this once here, maybe anywhere but, here it is anyway - Thanks pal.

excuse the bad typo's, still traveling and on iPod. Fusterating and slow, but it does "reach the world".

And those eleven Russian spies that got caught a couple weeks ago must have been created by my paranoid mind...right ?

People:

If you stick to debating ideas, you'll be much better off.

Name-calling is juvenile and intellectually hollow.

First time I've ever seen anyone "snipped" here, BTJ. Congratulations. Couldn't have happened to a better candidate.

Yhatzee! Give the boy a prize!

BTH has defined him/herself by saying: "...what's decent and considerate is inherently subjective...so really there's no 'right' or 'wrong' answer."

Now substitute 'decent' with 'moral' and you've got the moral relativism of the leftist/statist.
No matter how repugnant an immoral or indecent act, their is 'no right or wrong' - cuz who are we to judge?

"You haven't a clue about the difference between the law and the "spirit" of the law. "

Ah, ok...let me guess...the 'spirit of the law' is how the collective majority determines who the law applies to and who it doesn't right?

"The law always makes criminals of everyone"

The only 'law' I've referred to are the ones that grant individual rights and freedoms.

"you are a master at using the law through words to try and trap people in their arguments. "

Is that the case? Or am I just doing my best to discuss an issue in rational, reasonable, logical terms which tends to entrap those who are not using those same tools into their own empty arguments?

"Marxist drivel"

What in Christ's name are you talking about? Pretty easy to fall back on calling whatever you don't agree with 'Marxist'..even if I've been arguing for individual rights and freedoms, and the individual over the collective, somehow that's 'Marxist'.
Here's a tip...go read some books...and not the kinds with pictures.

"You stir the pot and then just run away from any comments which pin your a$$ to the wall, running off to pi$$ in another corner."

Any examples?

"You create a wonderful platform for SDA commanders to vent and air thier ideologies."

I sure do...and look what's popped up..a bunch of Jim Taggarts and Ellsworth Tooeys...a whole lot of collectivist thoughts and collectivist support...essentially the unraveling of this facade you call a 'conservative, pro Ayn Rand blog'. The resounding echo in here screams of Neo-Conservative views.

"And those eleven Russian spies that got caught a couple weeks ago must have been created by my paranoid mind...right ?"

Huh? What has that to do with ANYTHING?! You've gone off the deep end!

Here's something for the trolls [you know who you are] to chew on.

You probably have a 'right' to crap in the bushes of a public park like a dog. Would it be acceptable and appropriate behavior even if it was your 'right'?

Not many are debating the right of Muslims in America to build a mosque. However it should be fairly obvious to anyone with at least a shred of intelligence, that a mosque near 'Ground Zero' is meant to be provocative and inflammatory.

Let them try to build it. Do you really think NYC firefighters are going to respond when someone torches the site?

Looking at the furor that's erupting over the Wiz of 'O's toe sucking pro-Victory Mosque speech, I'd say the big man's taken at least a few calls from some very irate Sr. Dems.

It's like watching someone going through the sucker punch obstacle on an episode of "Wipeout". Ouch.

"Now substitute 'decent' with 'moral' and you've got the moral relativism of the leftist/statist.
No matter how repugnant an immoral or indecent act, their is 'no right or wrong' - cuz who are we to judge?"

Well, first you substituted words into my mouth...what made you think that was ok, I'm not sure. You didn't even attempt to show how 'decent' and 'moral' are equivalent.

Second, I gave a means of judging right and wrong, or 'morals', the means by which the US was founded upon...the US constitution (which represents the most individual freedom humanity has seen) and all of the nations laws.
Now you point out which one denies the right to build that Mosque.

"You probably have a 'right' to crap in the bushes of a public park like a dog."

Key word 'probably'..as in you're not confident in what you're saying...it is NOT legal to crap in a public park...it's not even legal to let your dog crap in the park without picking it up in most areas.

"a mosque near 'Ground Zero' is meant to be provocative and inflammatory."

And so is most of the content on South Park and Family Guy...are you proposing we censor them?

Sorry to be contrarian here. But isn't it good to hear the "arguments" of leftists from the "paid scriptwriters" who haunt these sites? Essentially, it gives us the arguments we are most likely to hear in our daily lives and we can hone our arguments, bone up on our facts when we come face to face with a person who holds these views because he/she hasn't heard anything else. For the true believers, we cannot change them. However, for those naifs who were fed this pablum by their leftist teachers/professors, news agencies, etc. we can, by having real facts and reasonable arguments, change their point of view.

Just a thought,

favill

M - thanks for your excellent comments. I agree with all your points but have some additional comments.

First, I agree totally that Islam was not a theological revolution. Indeed, it says almost nothing about the metaphysical and most of what is says is taken from judaism. Yes, the Christian movement was revolutionary, a dramatic change from the judaic. The judaic is a tribal theology, focused around the intact group identity of one tribe; the christian is non-tribal, focused around the individual, any individual, as networked neighbours. The opposite of the tribal. The islamic is tribal but in opposition to judaic, it's a militant tribalism, focused around conquering any and all who are seen as threats to its existence.

I won't go into what I analyze as the economic and demographic reasons for these emergence of these three different theologies but I do ground them all, in those economic and demographic realities.

As for democracy, my view is that it is not a matter of choice but of demographics and economy. When a population reaches a certain threshold - and it can only do this in a particular economy (a chicken and egg situation) then, its political organization must give authority to the basic source of economic growth. This is a population that is engaged in production of more products - rather than a sustenance economy.

A sustenance economy is stable; it is no-growth; the population is stable. There is no need for innovation of technology or products. This economic mode works within a tribal political system where a small elite set rules over the mass of the population..who are engaged only in sustenance or 'continuity of the same type of lifestyle'.

When the population expands beyond the carrying capacity of this economy (agriculture) then, the society must innovate and produce more. It can no longer be stable and no-growth; it must be growth. That requires a political shift to put power in a class that is non-hereditary, flexible, uncommitted to one and only one mindset, questioning, dissenting..a middle class.

Democracy is the political mode the empowers this class. To try to repress this class, in a large population base, and try to remain in the no-growth authoritarianism takes a LOT of energy from the elite powers. This elite class has to use religious authoritarianism, military repression, vicious threats ..against the people. AND - it has trouble because it can't keep up, economically, with the support of the increasing population.

That's why the Soviet Union communism (which is a tribal or two-class mode) collapsed, even though it tried to repress the people. China's communism is irrelevant and the people move themselves into capitalism. This must happen in the ME. The repression in the ME is easier than in the SU, because the oil buys new technology and feeds the people. But - it can't last.

I hope this explains things in a small measure.

I addressed a few questions to BJH at 5:11 P.M. last evening. S/he studiously avoided answering the one that really got to the heart of the matter, as so many other posters have pointed out:

"The question should be, despite their inherent rights and freedoms to build a mosque in NYC, is it wise or compassionate to build it so close to Ground Zero, where over 3000 people were killed by Muslims on 9/11?"

When s/he refused to answer this question, I realized that BJH was not operating in good faith and stopped engaging him/her as s/he is obviously a troll, intent on hijacking this thread and taking up way too much of Kate's bandwidth.

I'm pretty sure Kate means it when she says, "Don't feed the trolls."

btj small and silly.

batb:

I guess, to summarize your point:

Legally, a mosque CAN be built in the same building that was hit by airplane fragments on 9/11.

The moral question is ... SHOULD it be built?

We set the tone of this debate.

As long as we continue to stay in the realm of ideas and stay away from belittling those with different ideas, then our side will prevail.

Concede the juvenile name-calling and intellectual hollowness that follow from it to the other side.

Those who rise above the tribal mob's tactics of personal attacks will win the day.

Yes, syf, the moral question is, "SHOULD this mosque be built at Ground Zero?"

Why not write to Mayor Bloomberg, staying in the realm of ideas, and making a strong case that while Muslims in the U.S. have the right and freedom to build a mosque at Ground Zero, it appears not to be a good idea and sends the wrong message to the American people -- if the message is peace, good will, and reconciliation:

http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.bd08ee7c7c1ffec87c4b36d501c789a0/index.jsp?doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fmail%2Fhtml%2Fmayor.html

Bloomberg, like Obama, seems to find some sort of pride in governing against the will of the people.

That pride will, most certainly, be their undoing.

BJT said: "They have the right build it where ever they want so long as the don't break the law, and own the land."

Yep that's right for sure. And the Japanese government would be 100% ok to buy a spot next to the USS Arizona memorial in Hawaii and erect a 13 story Shinto shrine honoring the Emperor and the glorious warriors of Japan.

Uh huh.

Do you even think about these things, or do you just post whatever you imagine will be the most annoying? Talk about invincible stupidity...

A shrine to the Japanese Emperor would be -less- heinous than the 9/11 mosque, as Pearl Harbor was a military target and the crew of the USS Arizona at least had the opportunity to shoot back before they died.

I predict if the mosque gets built, people will die over it. Most likely innocent people who had no part in it, that's how these things usually go. Hope it makes you happy when they haul the bodies out, BJ. It'll be what you say you wanted.

BTJ

Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree. That said, all of your talk about my desire to do as the "collective" wishes is your projection. Those are not my thoughts, and quite possibly I haven't articulated my POV well enough for you.

Re: classy

I didn't say classy = right. You can be in the right and not be classy about it. That is exactly what I think is happening here. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd like to think I'd have the same view on this issue. As far as rights go, I'm with you. I just don't think that this particular situation is analogous to a community not wanting a particular group setting-up for business because they disapprove of proprietors behavior(a gay bar has been mentioned as an example). right or wrong that is my view, and you haven't convinced me otherwise.

RE: BTJ
For what it's worth, this discussion has been going on for three days + and I don't recall BTJ playing the "race card" once. At least THAT is worth something.

Indiana Homez, you're too kind ...

ET - (again if you're still around, I'm actually surprised this threat is still going, thanks BTJ :D)

While I understand that this is the way our particular democracy and civilization evolved this may not necessarily be true for other societies. It may not even be possible for other societies to develop along the same lines simply because it is my belief that there cannot be, and possibly should not be, a robust middle class in every country in the world. Furthermore just having someone else around changes the evolution of a society. Look at Africa for instance, there are some places with democratically elected governments even though they're dirt poor and their history has had no great scholars and has comprised of little else other than tribal warfare. I just find your historical retrospective analysis rather limiting.

That said I'd like to go back to my original disagreement with you vis-a-vis Obama's rolling back of Bush's democratic expansion. The middle east doesn't have our kind of history. Their culture is Islamic and not Christianity. As such based on what we've discussed they could never form a western style democratic society just because the different outlook that Islam has of the world. If Obama rolls back Bush's democracy building projects we really are none worse for wear. The Mumbarak regime for example has been a bulwark against the Islamist takeover of the country. So has Assad, Musharaf, Hussein and the Turkish military.

I think we're too wrapped up in the dogma of secular inoffensiveness. The problem with the middle east is not that they have dictatorial regimes, or that they can't have "free and fair" elections, the problem is Islam plain and simple. Not "militant Islam" or "Islamists" or any other vague inane distinction we attempt to draw but Islam period, no qualifiers. Yes I know in the modern world such speak is both blasphemous and heretical but hey it's true. The implications of that statement are both horrendous and philistine and would probably fundamentally alter our society forever. It's not really a bad thing though. If you think about it, Islam aside, our society is finished anyways.

Party like it's 1999 anyone?

Too many comments to read, but here is my two cents anyway on BTJ

"Ok, but it has absolutely no bearing on the individual rights of American citizens to purchase property and do what the please with it so long as it is within the law."

They are only American Citizen of convenience.

The goal is to convert the whole world to Islam, and they will use anything to do it.

Here in Canada we have citizen of convenience, they only become Canadians to get free health care and other goodies, they live in places such as Liban or Morroco and only come back top Canada to use our system.

Their passeport may say Canadian but they are not are not really Canadian citizen, they are fraudsters who use our system.

No matter if it is to use the free hatlh system or turn a nation into another Muslim conquest, it is all the same; those are not really citizens, they are a FRAUD.

By your same 'Should or Should not' argument could one not argue that one 'should not' build a catholic church next to an elementary school? Since those 'extremist' catholics molested small children? Is that not indecent by the same standards.

IH:

" That said, all of your talk about my desire to do as the "collective" wishes is your projection."

I think not my friend, and I quote:

"I do advocate the people that wish to build the mosque there to reconsider building it there, respecting the wishes of their neighbors."

ie. Respecting the collective majority

"As far as the Left is concerned, on every issue, not only is the Right wrong"

ie. grouping people into two opposing collectives

"Actually, even that isn't so considering that most people (because most people do believe in God) do believe that right and wrong is NOT SUBJECTIVE but it's actually quite clearly defined. "

ie. stating that what is 'decent' and 'considerate' depends on the views of the collective majority (those that 'believe in god').

" The ONLY people that have a problem with right and wrong are atheists and agnostics(which I'm one)- in other words, the Left."

ie. more gouping of people into collective identities and judging their character and values based on those collective identities.

"I didn't say classy = right."

No? That's funny, I could have sworn I read the following:

"because it's the classy (and right) thing to do."
"Classy is always "right"."

"Classy is always "right"."

But right isn't always classy.

I use terms like Left and Right for lack of better terms. That's it, nothing else.

ie. Respecting the collective majority

nope, I'd be considerate even if it was a minority of people upset. Even if you disagree, I still reject you labeling of me as a "collectivist". Perhaps you could take me at my word?

"nope, I'd be considerate even if it was a minority of people upset."

That's still a collective...majority or minority.

"I still reject you labeling of me as a "collectivist". Perhaps you could take me at my word?"

I AM taking you on your words. You can state that you reject thinking in collectivist terms all you want, it doesn't have any bearing when the rest of your statements show otherwise.

"They are only American Citizen of convenience."

Ah, and your true colours show.

And coming from a Canadian citizen too...laughable.

batb:
I'm sorry if I didn't answer the one question you really wanted a response to.

"The question should be...is it wise or compassionate to build it so close to Ground Zero, where over 3000 people were killed by Muslims on 9/11?"

I've answered this numerous times. First of all, whether or not it is 'wise' or 'compassionate' is not an objective question...it depends on how the viewer perceives these actions.
If I look at this Mosque and immediately start thinking that it represents all the bad things about Islam and it's connection to 9/11, well, I'll likely feel that it is unwise and not compassionate. If I look at this Mosque and immediately consider the fact that innocent Muslims lost their lives in that attack, that the attackers did not represent the religion of Islam as a whole, and in doing so, consider each individual Islamic practitioner as an individual independent person, rather than considering each individual Islamic practitioner as inherently connected to terrorism (a collectivist mentality)...then I may see that their intentions are meant to heal, and so may be wise and meant to show compassion.

Here is an alternative example. If I look at Christian missionaries in Africa and I immediately think of the fact that Protestant Christianity played a role in the KKK..well, I'll probably think it unwise and not compassionate. But if I look at each missionary as an independent individual then I'll probably see that they seek to do well.

My last comment on this.

A few years ago, Telus (I think) ran a TV ad set in a Nativity setting. Shortly after, they removed the ad and apologied to any of those that may have been upset by the ad.

Now, was there something wrong with the ad? No.
Did Telus have the right to air the ad? Yes.

Perhaps it was class, perhaps it was out of self-preservation, but one thing seems clear to me; they didn't want to alienate a group of people for no good reason.

At the time, my wife and I discussed this issue of "rights" and "right and wrong". In the end, my wife convinced me that even though it was Telus's right to air the ad(they paid for it after all), pulling the ad was the right thing. They decided to not poke those in the eye that quite frankly TOOK IT THE WRONG WAY.

Finally, reports are now saying that those that wish to build the mosque appear to be pulling-back; like Telus. Those commie bastards!/sarc

BTJ still small and silly.

Friend of the USA
I am with you on citizen of convenience.
More than 50.000 Lebanese Canadian were evacuated
from Lebanon during the last conflict at a huge expense to taxpayers. In the end the majority returned once the conflict over.
Compare to the US with a population 10 times higher, their numbers were 30.000.
BTJ I am getting tired of your drivel and I wish
people put you on ignore. You must be paid by the word.
I will leave you with 2 quotes.
One from Erdogan PM of Turkey a so called moderate islamic country.
There is no moderate islam, there is only islam.
The mosques are our caserns and the minarets are our bayonets.
The other one is from Boumedienne former president of Algeria and not even a fundamentalist.
The west will be conquered with the womb of
our women.
Get a clue man, they are after us.

"One from Erdogan PM of Turkey a so called moderate islamic country."

Would that Turkish government official be from the same Turkey that received US support of arms and finances, while the Turkish government brutalized the Kurds, it's own citizens?

You cannot label nearly 2 billion followers with the words of a single man. Are all Catholics pedophiles? Are all Germans' Nazi's?

Why are you suggesting we take on a collectivist judgment?

Would that Turkish government official be from the same Turkey that received US support while the Turkish government brutalized the Kurds, it's own citizens?

Do you understand the relationship between the US, Britain, and the Middle East/North Africa? Literally fueled by oil, the greatest kind of oil to date..lots and lots of energy..'one of the world's greatest prizes' - 1948, US Secretary of State Cordell Hull. A lot of US influence has gone into ensuring that oil keeps flowing at the desired rate, price, place, and end destination.

BJT>

You are obviously just a bigot and a racist.