Obama For Mosque at Ground Zero

[Praxeas]

For the record I did not use the term moral in a religious context referring to rules as if this is an issue of sin or Christian vs Islam.

I never made this an issue of christian vs Islam, someone else did. I made this an issue of society and the victims of 9/11

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

For the record I did not use the term moral in a religious context referring to rules as if this is an issue of sin or Christian vs Islam.

I never made this an issue of christian vs Islam, someone else did. I made this an issue of society and the victims of 9/11

I gotcha... I understand.

I was just asking about the word "moral" that someone else brought up. I took it to be an ethical thing, and I'm trying to understand the unethical part of it. I truly am. One could argue distasteful? Provocative?

I think those who threw a fit at first word of this lose credibility. Those who held out judgement to get the "full story," learned more about the Imam, funding, etc have a right to be skeptical and emotional. The former group has only shown a deep-seeded Islamaphobia.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

For the record I did not use the term moral in a religious context referring to rules as if this is an issue of sin or Christian vs Islam.

I never made this an issue of christian vs Islam, someone else did. I made this an issue of society and the victims of 9/11

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I gotcha... I understand.
Those who held out judgment to get the "full story," learned more about the Imam, funding, etc have a right to be skeptical and emotional.

Exactly!

[DAII]

We can argue about the Constitutionality of a million issues in the past but this one is CLEAR CUT. We expect the office to uphold the Constitution and in this case it does and the zealots go bananas.

Now the litmus test is what others do - the Germans, the Japanese, et al and our "emotions".

We're not the French! Remember that argument?

Perhaps we should re-examine the Churches built near Indian reservations and near massacre grounds in order to Christianize the "savages"?

If this were a Church being rejected by our nation's leader on the Trail of Tears because it is not "wise" to offend ...? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Really? Don't argue for "strict constructionism" any more when the next Supreme Court appointee rolls around when the President uses it to guide his opinion ... because you don't give a rat's lass' tail about the Constitution.

All this talk about betrayal and our mores .... where were the kool-aid drinkers when the last Christian President lied to us and said we needed to nation build because some non-religious despot had WMDs while committing our troops to bloodshed, killing of innocents under the banner of "collateral damage" and betraying the trust we've worked so hard to garner from our allies? ....

Your brand of constitutionalism only applies to your asinine agendas.

Timlan nailed it when he remarked on FB today ... about the Christian "right" who would mix their Christianity and spiritualize politics like any radical Islamic fundamentalist ...

"Oh yeah, the right is like a bunch of greased pigs on this one. You can't pin them down. Someone was saying that "Saudi Arabia does not allow churches" so we should shut down mosques. Yeah, that's what we should aspire to, I guess, being a fundamentalist religious theocracy instead of a constitutional republic. Great logic."

Liberty is not a la carte.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

When did you decide the clerics of this Mosque were anti-American?

You sir, sound so virtuous.

I think by over-reacting on everything he says it only serves to make some look like Right Wing nut job, religious fundy, Islamaphobes. React when it counts for something. And FTR, having an opinion that you can articulate reasons why concerning the mosque is one thing, hanging Barack on it is baseless.

By a casual review of his history and rhetoric.

The Muslims have one underlying objective, and that is to establish Islam in the whole world. And the fact is, they are aggressively pursuing that goal, and by not recognizing this fact, and resisting this pursuit we facilitate the same.

My virtue is not the issue in this discussion, so by attacking my person, serves to make you look like a liberal that loves feely, touchy, but lacks the moral courage to stand against glaring evil in our world. Islam is truly the current wolf in sheep's clothing, radical Islam is the wolf.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by crakjak

The Muslims have one underlying objective, and that is to establish Islam in the whole world. And the fact is, they are aggressively pursuing that goal, and by not recognizing this fact, and resisting this pursuit we facilitate the same.

My virtue is not the issue in this discussion, so by attacking my person, serves to make you look like a liberal that loves feely, touchy, but lacks the moral courage to stand against glaring evil in our world. Islam is truly the current wolf in sheep's clothing, radical Islam is the wolf.

It doesn't matter ... they're all saved and if they achieve their "agenda" ... we'd be saved as Muslims in your theology ... Politically you don't match up ... Your generalizations about all Muslims can be said about all Christians, Crakjak ... and still be ignant.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DAII

We can argue about the Constitutionality of a million issues in the past but this one is CLEAR CUT. We expect the office to uphold the Constitution and in this case it does and the zealots go bananas.

Now the litmus test is what others do - the Germans, the Japanese, et al and our "emotions".

We're not the French! Remember that argument?

Perhaps we should re-examine the Churches built near Indian reservations and near massacre grounds in order to Christianize the "savages"?

If this were a Church being rejected by our nation's leader on the Trail of Tears because it is not "wise" to offend ...? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Really? Don't argue for "strict constructionism" any more when the next Supreme Court appointee rolls around when the President uses it to guide his opinion ... because you don't give a rat's lass' tail about the Constitution.

All this talk about betrayal and our mores .... where were the kool-aid drinkers when the last Christian President lied to us and said we needed to nation build because some non-religious despot had WMDs while committing our troops to bloodshed, killing of innocents under the banner of "collateral damage" and betraying the trust we've worked so hard to garner from our allies? ....

Your brand of constitutionalism only applies to your asinine agendas.

Timlan nailed it when he remarked on FB today ... about the Christian "right" who would mix their Christianity and spiritualize politics like any radical Islamic fundamentalist ...

"Oh yeah, the right is like a bunch of greased pigs on this one. You can't pin them down. Someone was saying that "Saudi Arabia does not allow churches" so we should shut down mosques. Yeah, that's what we should aspire to, I guess, being a fundamentalist religious theocracy instead of a constitutional republic. Great logic."

Funny that Obama decides to "backpedal" after his comments at his Muslim dinner speech. He never mentions the "wisdom" of it at the dinner, but taking some heat, he decides to backpedal to a CNN reporter.

"President Barack Obama told CNN Saturday that in defending the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque near ground zero in a speech Friday night, he was "not commenting on the wisdom" of the project but trying to uphold the broader principle that the government should treat "everyone equal, regardless" of religion."

http://www.breitbart.tv/backtrack-ob...d-zero-mosque/

That is why Prax is correct - "I never made this an issue of christian vs Islam, someone else did. I made this an issue of society and the victims of 9/11."

That is why this is not a "religious" issue or "constitutional" issue. Your President, in effect, said the same thing in his "backpedaling" comment.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Funny that Obama decides to "backpedal" after his comments at his Muslim dinner speech. He never mentions the "wisdom" of it at the dinner, but taking some heat, he decides to backpedal to a CNN reporter.



That is why Prax is correct - "I never made this an issue of christian vs Islam, someone else did. I made this an issue of society and the victims of 9/11."

That is why this is not a "religious" issue or "constitutional" issue. Your President, in effect, said the same thing in his "backpedaling" comment.

Backpedaling how? ... EXACTLY my point .... he gave his comments on the Constitutionality is what he sought to clarify to the reporter... It is your side that wants him to not decide on the constitutionality but on the "wisdom".

His oath is to the Constitution ... remember?

PO your on the side of hormonal emotionalism on this one.

[coadie]

If we are so big into this freedom deal, would we let BP build a fuel tank farm there? Nothing illegal about fuel.
The Muslims are unable to have a Mosque for religion and no more. They use them as safe harbors for terrorists and other political and non religious uses.
If the Amish wanted a church there I say OK. If Amish used their churches for guerilla training and lodging, I say no.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by DAII

We can argue about the Constitutionality of a million issues in the past but this one is CLEAR CUT. We expect the office to uphold the Constitution and in this case it does and the zealots go bananas.

Now the litmus test is what others do - the Germans, the Japanese, et al and our "emotions".

We're not the French! Remember that argument?

Perhaps we should re-examine the Churches built near Indian reservations and near massacre grounds in order to Christianize the "savages"?

If this were a Church being rejected by our nation's leader on the Trail of Tears because it is not "wise" to offend ...? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Really? Don't argue for "strict constructionism" any more when the next Supreme Court appointee rolls around when the President uses it to guide his opinion ... because you don't give a rat's lass' tail about the Constitution.

All this talk about betrayal and our mores .... where were the kool-aid drinkers when the last Christian President lied to us and said we needed to nation build because some non-religious despot had WMDs while committing our troops to bloodshed, killing of innocents under the banner of "collateral damage" and betraying the trust we've worked so hard to garner from our allies? ....

Your brand of constitutionalism only applies to your asinine agendas.

Timlan nailed it when he remarked on FB today ... about the Christian "right" who would mix their Christianity and spiritualize politics like any radical Islamic fundamentalist ...

"Oh yeah, the right is like a bunch of greased pigs on this one. You can't pin them down. Someone was saying that "Saudi Arabia does not allow churches" so we should shut down mosques. Yeah, that's what we should aspire to, I guess, being a fundamentalist religious theocracy instead of a constitutional republic. Great logic."

Liberty is not a la carte.

So, Dan, we should not resist evil, simply because some Christians somewhere have not been Christlike?