Obama For Mosque at Ground Zero - Page 12

Praxeas · #**111** 08-15-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Then why does the State Department have to fly the Iman out to Saudi Arabia to get the money to build the "mosque?" If there is really demand for another mosque in Manhattan, why don't the Muslims in Manhattan themselves seek to build one?

Just my take, there's too much foreign money involved and too much deception. The Iman himself blamed "the Jews" and the United States for causing 9/11.

Why should such a militant extremist be leading a group of foreign donors in building a mosque when the local Muslim community neither needs nor has demanded?

Oh there we go....I guess you were side tracked. All apologies to DA and Pel.

That money from outside the states is being used does not mean American Muslims are building the mosque. I don't like the Imam anymore than you do, or the idea that it's on the location or other issues, but I don't think it means constitutionally American Muslims can't have their mosque there is it? Is there any sort of legal precedent you can think of? See I don't see this as a legal issue...unless someone can prove there is legal precedent that they do not have that constitutional right,then it seems irrelevant to even bring up.

crakjak · #**112** 08-15-2010, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

No ... your doctrine has a heightened threat element. You'd endanger their eternity with your theological foolishness.

The Church of Jesus Christ thrives in persecution ... as history time after time shows ... I'm not glorifying it or encouraging such it... simply stating a reality ...

but in the end, if your ignant musings were true THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS and are biding in the shadows for their megalomaniac ambitions to take over the world ... than we'd might be in store for THE BIGGEST REVIVAL IN HUMAN HISTORY

Is it possible for you to stick to a subject? UR is not the the title of this thread.

I understand that many Muslims have found safety in the freedoms of this country, and they don't personally want to take over the world. But with (ok) one billion Muslims in the world, with an estimate 10% radicalized, and most of the remaining somewhat sympathic to the conversion of the world. The nations of the earth are in for a rough go. Europe has little hope of not being overrun by a Muslim majority, they are not there not to be assimilated into the European culture, there are there to evangelize.

O, well, I guess it is evolution, the survival of the fitness, or rather the most uncivilized.

pelathais · #**113** 08-15-2010, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Oh there we go....I guess you were side tracked. All apologies to DA and Pel.

That money from outside the states is being used does not mean American Muslims are building the mosque. I don't like the Imam anymore than you do, or the idea that it's on the location or other issues, but I don't think it means constitutionally American Muslims can't have their mosque there is it? Is there any sort of legal precedent you can think of? See I don't see this as a legal issue...unless someone can prove there is legal precedent that they do not have that constitutional right,then it seems irrelevant to even bring up.

The argument that this is a "protected" case - protected by the First Amendment, can be at least mitigated by the obvious foreign involvement. That was one of my points. This is NOT a simple and clear cut First Amendment case.

The fact that the State Department under the Obama Administration has paid for the travel expenses of the imam while he went about fund raising for this project would be an actual violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment (Would the US Federal Government have paid for Jimmy Bakker's fund raising efforts?).

"Legally?" Remember, "legally" FDR had the go ahead from the courts to round up everyone of Japanese ancestry living on the West Coast in 1942. That didn't make it "right," but it was "legal" at the time.

crakjak · #**114** 08-15-2010, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Wait a minute....isn't that what YOU and every other person, pretty much, on this forum wants to do with Christianity? You want to, they want to.

Yep, but not out of fear of being slaughtered, or marginalized. Rather by loving and friendly communication, at each person's choice.

crakjak · #**115** 08-15-2010, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Your generalization makes it sound as if every Muslim is a terrorist. I find that offensive and dangerous.

Show me ONE example of a peaceful Muslim nation, that provides a haven of freedom and peace, and has any semblance of tolerance for those that are not Muslims. Then we will have a starting place for your statement.

pelathais · #**116** 08-15-2010, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

Is it possible for you to stick to a subject? UR is not the the title of this thread.

I understand that many Muslims have found safety in the freedoms of this country, and they don't personally want to take over the world. But with six billion Muslims in the world, with an estimate 10% radicalized, and most of the remaining somewhat sympathy to the conversion of the world. The nations of the earth are in for a rough go. Europe has little hope of not being overrun by a Muslim majority, they are not there to be assimilated into the European culture, there are there to evangelize.

O, well, I guess it is evolution, the survival of the fitness, or rather the most uncivilized.

There are not "6 billion" Muslims on the planet (Yet?). There are a reported 1 billion. I suspect a typo or a gloss here.

Europe has even littler hope of not being over run by glacial ice sheets if we give it enough time.

"Evolution" is not defined as "the survival of the fittest." It is, with regard to the survival of organisms, the "survival of those that have survived." To find a way out of the tautology and into a meaningful discussion about life, evolutionary biologists have sought to understand why certain organisms, types and kinds have survived while others have not.

Radical Islam is a fad. It has come and gone for centuries. Usually gone, eventually. And what "makes it go away?" Rational Muslims.

pelathais · #**117** 08-15-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

Show me ONE example of a peaceful Muslim nation, that provides a haven of freedom and peace, and has any semblance of tolerance for those that are not Muslims. Then we will have a starting place for your statement.

Al Andalusia. Cordoba. But they were overthrown.

In the current climate (of the last 100 years or so) I can think of no Muslim country where a person could go and say, build a new church building.

COOPER · #**118** 08-15-2010, 07:48 PM

I was heart broke to hear this news that Obama supports the Mosque at Ground Zero.

DAII · #**119** 08-15-2010, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Where?

Who's being inflammatory?

DAII · #**120** 08-15-2010, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

There are not "6 billion" Muslims on the planet (Yet?). There are a reported 1 billion. I suspect a typo or a gloss here.

Europe has even littler hope of not being over run by glacial ice sheets if we give it enough time.

"Evolution" is not defined as "the survival of the fittest." It is, with regard to the survival of organisms, the "survival of those that have survived." To find a way out of the tautology and into a meaningful discussion about life, evolutionary biologists have sought to understand why certain organisms, types and kinds have survived while others have not.

Radical Islam is a fad. It has come and gone for centuries. Usually gone, eventually. And what "makes it go away?" Rational Muslims.

And Radical Islam has usually been greeted with Radical, Extemist Christianity ... See Pela and Crakjak (used generously for the universalist) ...

Tempered by Rational Christians ... see Dan.