Obama For Mosque at Ground Zero

[DAII]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exhibit A for the case for Religious Fascism.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DAII

Backpedaling how ... he gave his comments on the Constitutionality is what he clarified ... It is your side that wants him to not decide on the constitutionality but on the "wisdom".

PO your on the side of emotionalism on this one.

Excuse me, Danny, for the obvious. Obama, at the Muslim dinner, says they have a right to build at "lower Manhattan" - LATER - he tells a reporter he was not "commenting on the wisdom of the project".

Obama tells the Muslims one thing and the American reporters another. Taqiyya at it's finest. Trying to appease both sides with lies, we are not stupid.

Obviously, someone, uh, imam Rauf, needs to use a little wisdom in his "tolerance" and "bridge building" message.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by crakjak

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

We should stop building office buildings because of corporate greed?

Homes and hotels because of the adultery and fornication that takes place there?

Libraries and universities because they are hotbeds for atheists?

No more forums because there are those who practice evil on them?

Crakjak ... grow a vertebrae. Either you believe in the Constitution or your brand of rabid theo-political conservatism?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by DAII

We should stop building office building because of corporate greed?

Homes because adultery and fornication that takes place there?

Libraries and universities because they are hotbeds for atheists?

No more forums because there are those who practice evil on them?

Crakjak ... grow a vertebrae. Either you believe in the Constitution or your brand of rabid theo-political conservatism?

Typical liberal, diatribe, don't like the message so attack the person. Your arrogance is topped only by your boldness.

False comparison, none of your examples are engaged in terrorist on a broad scale.

But liberals are always, first liberal, everything else is secondary.

BTW: Most universities are hotbeds for liberals, so we could do without most of them and the country would be better served.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Typical liberal, diatribe, don't like the message so attack the person. Your arrogance is topped only by your boldness.

False comparison, none of your examples are engaged in terrorist on a broad scale.

But liberals are always, first liberal, everything else is secondary.

BTW: Most universities are hotbeds for liberals, so we could do without most of them and the country would be better served.

This coming from a guy who would broadbrush and attack every Muslim ...

Your brand of democracy and freedom is as dangerous as Osama Bin Laden.

You want to color code sins and broadbrush ... gotcha.

Bold enough?

This whole discussion with you rings ironic and hollow ... coming from an unabashed, heretical universalist.

Yet I firmly support your right to hold services in the Bible belt or even as a doctrinal "wolf" on this forum.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Are you serious?? You're not, are you? You don't really think Obama and the Muslims want to take over the world. Do you? If so, you've either been watch John Hagee or Fox News too much.

If you don't a you are missing a lot of news.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by DAII

This coming from a guy who would broadbrush and attack every Muslim ...

Your brand of democracy and freedom is as dangerous as Osama Bin Laden.

You want to color code sins and broadbrush ... gotcha.

Bold enough?

This whole discussion with you rings ironic and hollow ... coming from an unabashed, heretical universalist.

Yet I firmly support your right to hold services in the Bible belt or even as a doctrinal "wolf" on this forum.

Dan,

Your comparisons are stupid, as heretical as you may think me to be, I am not threatening to blow folks up. Again you behave as a typical liberal, attacking the person because your position is untenable!!!

My democracy and freedom has stood the test of time, show me one Muslim country that has freedom?? Surely you don't prefer the Islamic brand of freedom. To speak nothing of Osama Bin Laden.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

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.

Im sure someone see's it as unethical. Distasteful? Yes I think so. Provocative? Now, given the Imam behind this I would certainly say provocative though their spokesperson denies it.

I would not tend to believe them now unless they offered some sort of compromise to the groups represented on the other side and perhaps build it a couple more blocks away.

BTW did they ever provide a reason for why it needs to be there? Is there a high Islamic population living in the area?

I think most of the people upset before the part of the Imam got out have a right to be more emotional about the whole thing than we do. They live there and their family members died there. Maybe they feel about them the way military families feel about the Phelps clan arriving at a funeral to protest it?

[Praxeas]

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.

Sorry but I just didn't see it as the president upholding the constitution. I saw it as a case of brown nosing not just to American Muslims but internationally.

Is he equal in his brown nosing? Apparently not when it comes to the boy scouts or the Christians on National Day of Prayer, but it was ok to kiss butt on Ramadan.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by DAII

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.

IRRELEVANT! This isn't about CJ's warped doctrine now Dan
Just kidding CJ