This is what it was leading to from the beginning. That's why I've been speaking out so much on this protest against the Mosque being built at Ground Zero. It was always a masked attempt to give a free hand to the Dregs of our society. A few of the 9/11 families have given the racist and bigots in our Country a free ticket to ride!
Why did Americans forget their past history and allow this to happen. We all knew this protest was wrong from the beginning. But out of sympathy, you allowed this country to be ruled by a few outraged people that are not thinking clearly. Today you saw the end result of giving your Country over to people that want to destroy an entire group of people. I hope, tomorrow, the real Americans in this Country will be down at Ground Zero to surround these racists and bigots, and send them back under the rocks they crawled out from under.
And by the way, to the 9/11 families that took our country back to a very bad place in our history; you no longer have any sympathy from me.
You know what, you are right. To all the families of people who died during the 9/11 attacks, your husbands, children, and wives got what they deserved. Kudos to al-queda for the peaceful attempts to spread Islam in America!
Actually Onusonus, he is right. Cheney allowed 911 and you can read my hubs to find out all about it. If muslims were involved they do not speak for all. We have a history of freedom of religion, and since that won't change the Republican cheap shot at the constitution is for votes.
Here is the deal Onusonus: Free speech, protest, and all that is fine. Violence and making this a political issue as one major Republican wants crosses the line. I would like to outlaw the Republican party personally, but I can't prove that most of them were involved in 911. i do know the neocons were though.
Hey, Onusonus: did you know that the Taliban went to Texas in 1997, and then refused to build the pipeline through Afghanistan to halliburton investments in the Caspian Sea? Did you know that the BBC reported it but not our propaganda press? Did you know that Onusonus?
Did you know that this gave motive for 911 and war on the part of Cheney who was CEO previously of Helliburton? Yes Hell i burton.
And did you know Onusonus, that the neocons, PNAC, wrote on their website in 2000 of the need for a new Pearl Harbor, and that this was fulfilled a year later? I read it with my own eyes as they left it up on the website after the dirty deed. Did you know this gave Cheney knowledge of 911?
Cheney had both motive and knowledge of 911. He is a cold blooded murderer. And some 911 families know this. The others just can't face it.
OK lets forget the fact that Bin Laden said he devised this plan because of so called injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States. But your conspiracy theories though colorful, and shocking, are about as valid as the Nostradamus predictions.
You haven't looked into it very carefully have you. I promise you, if you carefully understand what I have written, and go to the killtown 911 review website, read about WTC7 and read about Warren Buffet, you will see how guilty the bastards are. You can remain in a fog if you want. It doesn't change anything.
Your lack of compassion is very disturbing!
You think I'm going to suddenly fall in lock step with the rest of you that are being lead around by people that dont give a damn about New York or it's people? A few of the 9/11 families want to kill every Muslim on this planet, good or bad, right or wrong. That's as it should be. The rest of us has to look out for what's best for New York City and this Country.
No one leads me!
I think you might be prone to a slight bit of exaggeration.
Yea, yea, yea.
I'm exaggerating about what the bigotry and racism caused by the 9/11 families protests will do to my City.
http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/ … me-charges
Are you alright?
Is anyone threatening you right now?
I must check my local news surely they are reporting on these atrocities.
FBI Releases 2008 Hate Crime Statistics
Press Release — Hate Crime Statistics Web Site
– “An analysis of the 7,780 single-bias incidents revealed that 51.3 percent were motivated by a racial bias”
– Anti-Black Racial Hate 2,876, Anti-Jewish Hate 1,013, Anti-Homosexual 1,200, Anti-Hispanic 561
– Anti-Islam Incidents – 105
– Anti-Christian Incidents – 101
Unfortunately this is a part of our everyday life. I wish every racially biased crime could be stopped. Your city is not alone.
Quit lying, you're not from New York. You said in a forum post once that people shouldn't be upset over a little mosque. Anyone in New York would know that it's not a little mosque, it'a a five story building and they are expanding it to a 13-story building.
It's also the only mosque in lower Manhattan, where tens of thousands of Muslims live or work every day. This mosque has nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda, it's just a place where real New Yorkers (and yes, many real New Yorkers are Muslim) want to have a mosque and community center.
My only opposition to the mosque is that it will take away commercial retail and office space and turn it into a religious space that pays no taxes. If religions paid taxes on their earnings in the United States, I'd be gung ho for it.
I don't care so much for religion, but I do care about the rights of Americans. If these people want to build a mosque, it is absolutely their right to do so.
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=UTF-8&am … CDwQtQMwBg
There are plenty of places for Muslims to worship in Manhattan.
Whether or not Muslims have many places to worship in Manhattan doesn't seem germane. The litmus test should be, "would you allow a cathedral or temple on the spot?" If the answer is yes then you must extend the same rights to the mosque. If the answer is no, you could try to rewrite zoning regulations. You'll fail, and ultimately cost taxpayers a boat load of money.
Quite right, Jay Deck.
I kind of got side-tracked there.
You basically sum up the whole argument.
Some people might say, "Oh, well their Sharia Law doesn't support the 1st Amendment, so neither should we!" But they're Sufis. And even if they were lying about what type of Muslims they are, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt (legally) until they commit some crime.
I guarantee you this: If it is built, people will be observing how this mosque behaves.
Perhaps, but it may improve the neighborhood, for whatever that's worth. Right now the "hallowed" three blocks around Ground Zero includes a strip club, and a bunch of pizza parlors and hair salons.
We're becoming something like Nazi Germany quicker than I could have imagined.
Some of the 9/11 victims were Muslim.
I wrote a poem about this:
The constitution was designed to prevent this from happening... Those racists are the true "progressive," Anti-Americans Glenn Beck likes to pin on liberals.
Those standing up for religious liberty and the 1st amendment are the real group with principles.
How can this situation be defused?
Perhaps the greatest power the US Constitution has is that creates rights that cannot be overturned by popular opinion. A lot of the talking heads on television don't seem to understand that, especially when they keep pointing polls that show "70 something percent of New Yorker oppose this mosque, so why should we let them build it?" It doesn't matter if 99% of people oppose the mosque, because the Constitution grants them the freedom to practice their religion without government interference so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. People claiming that "these people" are just rubbing 9/11 in our faces are making a weak argument at best, because the Muslims in New York weren't connected to al Qaeda, just as I'm not connected in any way to people practicing my faith in Uzbekistan. Christians don't exactly have a history of only peace and good deeds either, but that doesn't mean every Christian is going to have you executed just for believing the Earth is not the center of the universe (something the Catholic church once did). The point is we can't punish people for the misdeeds of people they have never met or communicated with.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If these mosque builders were really interested in outreach, they'd rethink their plans. But like idiots everywhere, they are going to try to force this down people's throats. They'll have to learn the hard way why that is a stupid thing to do.
It's kind of like the pathetic way Pelosi et. al. tried to link their healthcare bill to the Civil Rights movement. They ignored the fact that a majority of people opposed that bill and they, too, are going to pay for it.
What will be the end game of the protests at ground zero? Race war? Extermination? Crusade?
How about violation of the constitution which brings jail. I am for that and the sooner the prosecutions start the better. You violate a person's civil rights and you can go to jail. What is wrong with you?
Indeed, and the more these opposition groups get organized and receive funding from supporters, the greater the chance they have of being the subject of a civil rights lawsuit. If they make any physical attempt to stop someone from creating this mosque, that's a civil rights violation right there. The Muslims planning on making this mosque could probably build a strong case already since the mass of protesters has interfered with their ability to reach the planned site. I think the only reason they haven't pressed the issue is that it would be even worse public relations for them. They'd rather make peace with these protesters, but that's looking like less and less of a possibility as Fox News and company riles up the opposition each day.
You don't even know how many Muslim places of worship there are in Manhattan, and now you think you know about how all the Civil Rights stuff is going to work out? I don't think you know as much as you think you do.
This would not be grounds for a civil rights suit. They can protest. If they are blocking access to the muslim center, it is for the NYPD to deal with.
If you keep pushing, probably. There is nothing wrong with building somewhere else. It's the bullheadedness of this Imam that is causing all of the problems. Why in the name of God would you want to do something like this? Look at it this way: You get upset when the Israeli's build in the West Bank, how is this any different?
The Israelis are building on land stolen at gunpoint from it's rightful owners. The community center is built on private, legally obtained land in accordance with all applicable laws and the best traditions of this country.
See the difference?
The problem, Ron, is that the property of many people has been stolen, on both sides. It that way it's kind of like Kashmir.
Silvie, this Imam is an idiot. I'm also thinking longer term about this. The big problem with building the center there is the fact that it will then become a target for takeover by radical Muslims. There is no guarantee that the leaders who succeed this guy will be moderate. And if you think that the radical Muslims aren't going to try to get control over this mosque, you're not thinking clearly.
This Imam could nip all this in the bud very simply. He claims that this is an outreach cultural center. And so it should be. He could make this very clear by building a mosque, church and synagogue in the building and inviting seminarians from all three faiths to study there. That would be outreach.
I don't think that will happen though. Islam has the same sort of problem Judaism has. They are a closed society. Unlike the Jewish people, who have generally been at the forefront of medicine, philosophy and what we now call humanities, the Muslim world abandoned those things before the Middle Ages ended. In the last century, they've been more prone to rely on violence than discussion to get their way. You can't act like that and there not be consequences for those actions.
So what's it going to be for these innocent Muslims here at Ground Zero? Forced Relocation?(to a nice Ghetto?) Internment?Extermination? I
By your reasoning, aren't all places muslims worship vulnerable to takeover by radical Muslims? There is already an actual mosque within 3 blocks of Ground Zero (no minarets or anything, but I believe it is only for prayer). Should we force them to move it? There are muslims worshipping all over the country...are these places not also vulnerable to extremist takeover? What threat to you actually perceive from this particular location? Do you believe it will be the staging ground for some radical attack on Ground Zero? Why this one and not the other local mosque? Mosques in downtown locations are popular because many Muslims like to stop in during the work day for prayer. But aren't all of these locations threats in some sense? After all, you don't need to be within walking distance of Ground Zero to perpetrate an act of terror there. If you want to prevent the proposed Muslim center as well as relocate the other mosque...exactly how far away from Ground Zero is safe? 5 blocks, 10 blocks? I am sure you appreciate that the government cannot do this, but shouldn't the Muslims just move out of sensitivity?
"Silvie, this Imam is an idiot." Where do you get your information, from Hannity and Beck?
Here's what Newsweek had to say about the Imam:
"The man spearheading the center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate Muslim clergyman. He has said one or two things about american foreign policy that strike me as overly critical--but it's stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day. On Islam, his main subject, Rauf's views are clear: he routinely denounces all terrorism--as he did again last week, publicly. He speaks of the need for Muslims to live peacefully with all other religions. He emphasizes the commonality among all faiths. He advocates equal rights for women, and argues against laws that n any way punish non-Muslims. His last book, "What's right With Islam Is What's Right With America," argues that the U.S. is actually the ideal Islamic society because it encourages diversity and promotes freedom for individuals and for all religions. His vision of Islam is bin Laden's nightmare."
How's them apples?
In his book “What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America,” Mr. Abdul Rauf writes:
“The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’ ”
Why do you think Bush sent him to the Middle East as a goodwill ambassador for the U.S.?
Please watch this video and respond, Jiberish and Ldt.
And yet this is the same guy who said "We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it."
According to the British govt's report, they attributed 50,000 deaths to the sanctions which were brought on by Saddam Hussein's actions.
It doesn't sound like bridge-building to me. Rauf is clearly a hypocrite and a liar.
Jiberish and Ledefensetech, where are you??? I proved you both wrong and you disappeared. It would be encouraging to our discussions if once in a while you would concede a point when someone produces facts that contradict your position.
Jiberish, show me where Bush and Cheney denounced terrorism. Take a real good look at George Bush's OJ moment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_SDGb-TJcU
Ron M. Amen to that. There is a huge difference and that land was stolen from the Jews by a group of Nomads that named themselves after Palestine. They were not even all from that area. Jews were in Israel thousands of years before them. How people do not understand this always confuses the hell out of me.
I'm confused. Are you agreeing with Ron M., or are you being sarcastic?
I think Ron M. meant that Israel was supposed to share half the land with Palestine (by the UN mandate that created it), but pushed back forces into the West Bank and Gaza strip during a war. Unlike America, they never relinquished the land back. That's technically illegal by Just-War standards... so...
Anyway, I really hope the government doesn't become a theocracy like some Middle Eastern countries. Do you want Sharia law here? That can only happen after you dissolve the separation between Church and State.
The lack of understanding history always confuses me. It seems that different histories are taught in different places, and huge amounts of relevant history deliberately ignored by different groups.
The other thing that amazes me is how the bitter little wars and nasty little religions that were thought up thousands of years ago could still be talked about as if they matter, and still affect the lives of so many intellignet, well informed people in such utterly ridiculous ways.
If you fail to see the difference I am not sure that conversation will help. Here is a hint. In the West Bank, it's not about "sensitivity."
You could tear down your home and "build it somewhere else" too. Would you do it just because a mob told you to?
I love this rationale. They are supposed to relocate the center for fear of being the victims of violence. Who are the real extremists here?
Yeah how dare he stand there being muslim rather than run away because people hate muslims--that totally means people should be violently attacked.
Nope. If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that I'm not actually saying "go out and lynch Muslims". What I'm saying is that if they push this volatile issue, there will be consequences. Much like the way things are in the West Bank. There, both sides are trapped by the religious nutjobs. The Israeli government use the West Bank to keep the Orthodox branch of their people focused on something other than grabbing power from other Jewish groups; while the Palestinian Authority use the West Bank as a way to keep their people distracted from the utter mess and corruption that is endemic in Palestinian run territory.
Also I believe I called the Imam, not Silvie an idiot.
English people, learn to read it. If this Imam really cared for people, he'd consider the impact his plans are having on the families of those who died on 9/11. By all accounts he's not even considering that, and that is where all of this emotion is coming from. Heck there are even Muslims who don't want to see this thing built there. All in all it's a bad idea to build a "cultural outreach center" that generates this much controversy. The outreach will be overlooked in the coming battles over this thing. And that's sad.
Led, you shouldn't be talking like this. You are inciting violence. There should be no consequences for the exercise of property rights and freedom of religion, none whatsoever. Shame on you.
Show me exactly where I'm inciting violence. Where do I say "go out and kill people". So much for your loving a country where you can say what you want. How dare you tell me what I am and am not doing.
What's going to happen is that the building of this mosque is going to attract protests. Do you really thing that Muslims will feel like a part of the country when people are picketing outside one of their houses or worship? Muslims have a tendency to circle the wagons when they feel threatened anyway, this will only make that worse. Withdrawing from mainstream American society is exactly the wrong thing to do. Any chance at interfaith dialog and understanding will be lost.
People don't live in a vacuum and you have to be respectful of the wishing and desires of people around you. A majority of people around there do not want this to happen. If they push the issue there will be repercussions, but the fault will be with the people who build the mosque. Like I said, if it were me, I wouldn't build it there. I'd build somewhere else and invite a Christian church and Jewish synagogue to be built in the relocated center which would specialize in the training of seminarians from all three faiths.
That would do more to ease these tensions than trying to make a stupid political statement. I'm sorry you don't agree with my analysis, but that's what I'm stating, an analysis. Don't you ever accuse me of inciting violence again without proof.
The proof that you are inciting violence against the peaceful Muslims near Ground Zero is your own words.
"Show me exactly where I'm inciting violence."
As you wish LED
"What's going to happen is that the building of this mosque is going to attract protests."
"A majority of people around there do not want this to happen. If they push the issue there will be repercussions, but the fault will be with the people who build the mosque."
You not only incite violence against Muslims, you incite violence against the peaceful Muslims near Ground Zero.
Why dont you get the fact that if these people move their Mosque they are saying to the world that they are guilty of some crime against the 9/11 families. That is a trumped up lie, and those Muslims are not moving anywhere. You and 9/11 families PACK YOUR BAGS, and go over to Pakistan and find Osama Bin Laden and get your revenge from him.
"If you keep pushing, probably. There is nothing wrong with building somewhere else. It's the bullheadedness of this Imam that is causing all of the problems."
Straight out of the book of BULL CONNER, or todays' Pamela Geller.
The Muslims that need a new Mosque are not criminals. And the bigotry and stupidity of some people are not going to force these people to relocate their Mosque anywhere! They are not the ones making the fuss. They are being terrorized...BY TERRORIST!!!
Led, your comparison between the construction in New York to that on the West Bank is completely nonsensical, and I consider that remark to be rather biased and reckless...
Glenn Beck was the same way on his television show today...what a charlatan and blowhard...
It is time for outsiders to stay out of debates that do not involve them....like Mormons in Utah pushing Proposition 8 in California...
But, I suppose it is more important to ignorantly wrangle around non-issues than discuss how our nation is going to deal with its loss of trade route control, and hence, its loss of strategic economic strength and support.
It is better to argue over who is more of an American or patriot as our livelihoods are outsourced more and more, and our standard of living falls on its face.....
"Its the Muslims".....
Its those who empower and enrich men like Glenn Beck.......
"It is time for outsiders to stay out of debates that do not involve them."
It's funny...during the antiwar protests of the 1960s, it was conservatives who decried "outside agitators" for stirring up controversy. Now it's the conservatives who are the "outside agitators." I guess anything is okay when a conservative does it.
The same ones who believe garbage like this..... (probably on the Glenn Beck reading list)...
No land was stolen in New York....at least not involving this issue we are discussing..
Again Led, your ability to correlate congruous issues is lacking...
I suppose there were many who wanted Black Civil Rights activists to "move on to another town" or another counter, or another timeframe....but I am glad that they didn't....
Ethno and religious centrism is key in this case...and opposed to showing idiocy, this man and his community have shown courage, strength under fire, and have symbolized what it means to be a true American...at least one who cares for the rights of others...
There are other more lowly and truly idiotic Americans out there who like to fuel passions of hate through nonsensical rhetoric....and it is too bad your showing a lot in common with them Led..
I'm shocked to see so many people who dismiss Ron Paul as a nutjob agree with him on this one,
and see so many people who would normally support him against his position here.
Once again, my main man RON PAUL hits the nail squarely on the head:
"the fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate raises the question of just why and driven by whom? In my opinion, it has come from the neo-cons who demand continual war in the middle east and central asia and are compelled to constantly justify it. They never miss a chance to use hatred toward muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars.... Defending the Controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many Conservatives AND liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for islam -- the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars..."
... but he's just a nitwitted tea bagger, isn't he?
Even mentally ill people have very lucid, rational moments....
Though I'd take Ron Paul ANY DAY over Glenn Beck. Beck seems to be the one fostering the lowest possible, misguided comments, flawed thinking, resulting in very poor behavior choices in the dregs of American Society. The idea that he is somehow connected to God, and therefore represents him is absolutely stupifying to me, as well as disgusting.
I agree that Ron Paul's statement is rational, lucid and should serve as a guide.
Actually, Ron Paul hits the nail on the head. And he is not really a Tea Bagger because I don't believe he thinks that the borrowers are at fault for the ponzi housing scheme. His son Rand apparently is appealing to tea party people. Ron Paul would say the bankers are at fault, I think.
And the neocons want endless war. We know this. They advocated it allong with a new Pearl Harbor on their website in 2000. Oh, they got the pearl harbor. That is why I believe the American people have been had. Cheney arranged 911 with or without the blind help of some muslims.
Ron Paul worries about US debt. You don't have to be a tea partier to do that. My view is that we need to cut some spending and raise tech stimulus. I don't trust the IMF like massive austerity, but I don't like the spend till we drop mentality of government either. There is a middle way.
If you don't believe that of Ron Paul, I suggest reading some of his books. http://www.mises.org
Where do you think his son gets his political views from?
I agree. And, this next presidential election, I'm writing in Ron Paul.
He's the only politician I trust anymore.
No you won't, you'll be throwing your way if you vote for the Glorious Leader. How does it feel to be in the minority, by the way?
I'd be wasting my vote if I pulled the red or blue lever. Let's be realistic.
Obama extended and beefed up the Patriot Act indefinitely. He raised troop levels in the Middle East higher than Bush (yes, higher, even accounting for Iraq withdrawal). His "universal healthcare" is fining you if you can't afford to buy insurance. He bailed out the corporations with a loan Bush had waiting for him on the oval office table.
He has lied to us, Ralph. He's Bush Mark 2. And I'm not voting for a Sarah Palin, either.
I'll gladly contribute to splitting the Democratic Party by voting for Clinton in the primaries. The republicans are taken care of by the Tea Party (and the rift between neo-cons and libertarians).
If the red and blues are split, don't you think the independents have the best circumstances in history so far? I'm not saying Ron Paul would win, but it would send a clear message: Adopt some of his policies, or suffer the next election cycle.
This is how reform works... and it's not a waste of time.
Cheeky Man is right. We’re getting super side-tracked. Muslims have the right to build this place constitutionally. Will it upset people? Probably. That doesn’t change the legality, however.
Obama is far from perfect, but he's an immense improvement over Bush. I don't agree with what he's doing in Afghanistan, but what he's doing is consistent with his campaign. He's doing the best he can to wind down our occupation of Iraq. He hasn't ended the Bush recession but it's not for lack of trying. He's been frustrated by the Party of No! and a couple of Blue Dog Democrats. On the positive side he's passed a historic health reform bill, not perfect but an improvement, revived the nuclear disarmament process, signed banking regulation and consumer protection bills, again, far from perfect, but improvements, he's put in motion a process to drop "don't ask, don't tell," he's saved thousands of jobs at Chrysler and GM which may not cost the taxpayers anything if the economy doesn't go into a double dip, and he's restored separation of church and state which was severely compromised by Bush. Thanks to the Republicans, Obama has had to make compromises to get anything passed, but progress has been made.
Ron Paul is not wrong on many issues, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with all of his views...which I most certainly do not.
But Led, this is something that needs to be addressed. Across the country anti-Muslim influence is impinging on Muslims trying to build religious houses.
Let the model of freedom, with said construction occuring, then be used nation wide.
For change to occur, there needs to be a defining moment....
The Imam did not ask for this controversy, or bring it on himself... If the mob influence that has been roused is empowered by success (the moving of the building) what will others do?
You might want to check out Journey into Islam, I haven't read it yet myself, but the topic sounds fascinating. I also don't agree with your assertion that there is a growing discontent with Islamic houses of worship being built. We have an Islamic Center here in town and there is never any demonstrations, picketing or anything like that, not even after 9/11. And I live in the Bible Belt in rural Missouri.
We don't need a defining moment. We just need to keep being Americans. The reason I brought up Ahmed Akbar is because there is a battle within Islam itself.
http://www.amazon.com/Journey-into-Isla … 0815701322
There are groups in Islam who really do want to conquer the world under the green banner of Islam. Now they'll never have a hope of doing that, but based on the damage religious fanatics and self-serving Christians have made in the past, the damage these guys can do is considerable. If nothing else the development of modern weapons have made an individual a much more formidable force than was the case in the early modern era.
I'm not saying let the bigots win. There is a third way out for this Imam. What it will take is him standing not only with Christians, Jews, New Yorkers, American's etc., it will force him to confront the radical hate in his own ranks as well. If he wants this to be an outreach, let it truly be an outreach. Build a temple and church alongside the mosque and invite seminarians from around the world to study with and alongside each other. That, more than anything else, will defuse the haters on both sides of the issue.
Actually, what Mike says is factually correct. Forces have rallied behind opposing 5 or 6 other mosques being built around the country. They have no relation to ground zero. Some are in the midwest.
Understand that many in this country have cast this in terms of a religious war. Newt Gingrich makes no secret of it. He has argued, forcefully, that Muslims should have no greater freedom to build houses of worship in this country than Christians in Saudi Arabia. Not everyone sees this as a religious war and I do not mean to suggest that everyone that has strong feelings about this issue wants to ban new mosques around the country. But it is true new mosques are being opposed in a number of locations around our country.
"But it is true new mosques are being opposed in a number of locations around our country."
Could it be the Mosques violate some building codes in those locations? Are the Mosques being built too close to schools? What are the reasons givin to deny these Muslims the right to build their holy places?
Regardless of whether you agree with my "assertion" or not, all across the country, including here in California in Orange County this drama is replaying iteself.
It is not up to the Imam to now bring in Christians...it is up to Christians to show that they even really care about this issue....
Let them open up their own shops...
As for divisions within Islam, the International Church of God has been up to world domination nonsense for over 100 years....with my own family included... The Catholic Church did whatever it could to make "God's Empire on Earth"...and there are Americans today who want to see Christianity, or rather, their particular or other "approved" branches of it playing out more in our society..
These "Christian" groups...like even the KKK tries to portray itself...are more of a threat than the radical, extremist Muslim....
Like Spain up to the end of the 15th century, in this "Christian" society we have more to fear from the "Christians" who desire to expand and perpetuate their control over American society.
You live in the OC. My dad was stationed at Camp Pendelton for years.
I disagree, it is up to the Imam to bring in other groups if he really is for Muslim outreach. His words not mine. If he isn't for Muslim outreach, he should stop pretending that he is.
You also inadvertently made my next point. Christianity of all flavors tried to dominate their world especially in the 17th century. Believers had to learn the hard way that conversion by the sword is no real conversion at all.
I have to laugh a little at the KKK trying to "mainstream" itself as a "Christian" group. That's just a pathetic attempt by a bunch of race baiters to de-stigmatize their hate. Nobody can be considered a real Christian if they cannot accept that fact that we are all of us brothers and sisters.
I really wish you people would stop comparing modern day Christians with jihadists.
Did you even thing before you wrote that, or do you think that's a pithy comment to make? Last time I checked, the Pat Robertson/Oral Roberts bunch were telling their followers to pull their kids out of public school and homeschool them because public schools were not teaching subjects they were comfortable with. That's a far cry from slamming planes into skyscrapers or telling Jews that they're going to finish the job Hitler started.
Way to generalize Islam again Led.
The American response to the September 11th attacks speaks louder... Look at the lies, fraud, and corruption (not to mention wholesale death of civillians) we have wrought while still not finding, or even letting escape the figurehead of extremism....of course...we then sideskirt that Osama was on our payroll...
I don't think you understood my statement regarding 15th century Spain...
You mentioned Islamic groups seeking world domination....what is the difference if it is Christians who are doing the same? I don't care what color or what symbols such flags bear....all are threatening....
Also, I do not live in the O.C.. I don't know where that information would come from.
When I say I am from the largest convict colony in the nation I mean it....and there is only one place in California that qualifies on that regard.....and it is not the O.C.
Finally, I still think your idea that the Imam should form a Christian Church and so forth at his site is ludicrous...I want to first see the Christian church to open its doors to Muslim worship.
Again...if Christians want to build centers let them. This Imam's responsibility is to those who will be working closely with him....not rabble rousers who don't really care anyway (aside from hatemongering).
Don't get me wrong, the way we've gone after Al Qaeda is stupid in the extreme. It would have been much better to flood Afghanistan with special forces and bring bin Laden's head back on a stick. Instead our boys and girls got shot up to appease the Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex.
You don't seem to get my point. Just because Christians in the past sought world domination that doesn't mean that it's a good idea for Muslims to try the same. They're going to find out, like Christians did that you can't do it.
Frankly Mike, these people are guests in our country, so it's the guests who need to show a willingness to open up and become a part of our society, not the other way around. Quite frankly I find quite a bit of Sharia law in particular and Muslim culture in general to be somewhat barbaric. Stoning rape victims and honor killings come to mind.
Elpaso I've never said that the Muslims who want to build that mosque are criminals. Really. Go back and look at what I've written. Never once have I used the word criminal. I'd also be careful throwing the word terrorist around when talking about Americans. Did we start a pogrom against Muslims after 9/11? Did you get thrown in an interment camp? Have we destroyed any mosques?
Ask the Jews how much they like Eastern Europe or Germany or ask the Japanese, Germans and Italians how they liked their stay in camps during WW II. You have no idea how tolerant Americans really are. Any other place and your people would be lucky to be alive, much less free and able to worship as you see fit.
I'm not a part of any cult. I'm an American that takes the words "Land of the Free" seriously. I dont care if they are a covern of witches; they are Americans with the right and the Citys' permission to build where they please!(without being TERRORIZED by the 9/11 families and there merry band of racist and bigots and political insects!)
Led, you do know that we went into Afghanistan to build a pipeline to Hallliburton investments in the Caspian Sea. I hope you realize that is the motive for war in Afghanistan. If you can't see it you aren't trying hard enough.
I'm really trying to remain logical and reasonable about all of this, but the conspiracy stupidity is really getting old. We went into Afghanistan the way we did because we have a military who have to justify their budges. Given the way our military is set up, it would have caused unrest to deal with bin Laden the way we should have and not used our military in the way it was designed to be used, no matter how badly it was organized to fight the kind of war we are fighting there now.
I'd look at little less as conspiracy theories and try to get a clue as to what really goes on.
Christians still do.....not all....but Christianity, or forces who identify themselves in this way, still expresses itself through imperialist ways....
This assault on the "Ground Zero Mosque" and mosque sites across the country is a perfect example of this... Similar anti-Muslim rhetoric has been expressed in France and the Netherlands, and Muslims and Jews in Spain (though now a "freedom of religion state) still creates the illusion that they are "foreign" and not truly "Spanish."
Now you go down the "sharia law" diatribe Led? Please....
How many Muslims do you actually know or converse with?
I encourage you to reach out and broaden your horizons a bit...
Led....how many Iraqi and Afghan civillians have died since we invaded? I wrote a hub about the amount of bullets we have used just in Iraq... Who were the people ending up in places like Abu Graib?
What scars have unneccessarily been left behind?
While it may not have been planned in such a way (in terms of a pogrom), the end result of our invasions speaks for themselves.
The lack of concern by the American people, on a whole, or support for aggression (the "carpet bomb the whole region", or "if we can't convert them we should kill them" crowd)towards the lives of the Iraqis who are trying to rebuild their lives, whether of Christian, Sunni, or Shia, Kurd, Persian, Arab, or Armenian (and so forth) speaks volumes...
How many destroyed lives have we created.. Now I am not speaking just about since the invasion, but now looking to the use of poison gas by Saddam against Shiites and Kurds....gas that we sold him to use on Iranians....which also happened.
Why don't we speak about the American funded and perpetrated invasion of Iran by Iraq? How many died on both sides?
From Sykes-Picot forward, the "western" perception of the Middle East has been crafted very methodically through the artificial boundaries and brutal tactics to enforce the rule of law in those new states... In the new country of Iraq that it built, the British would use bombs and mustard gas to force the "new citizens" to pay taxes....to a government that they had no part of, and never acknowledged...
The tactics of the American military during the wars were the same carried out by the British in the past.... Seize the resources and secure them....the oil... Bypass the outlying cities and work to the center, Baghdad....the other cities will be surrounded and so forth...
Back then there wasn't much live coverage of news...and one could get away with more...
Read the words of Lawrence "of Arabia"....he spoke out fervently concerning what he saw as gross inhumanity on behalf of the British military towards the diverse peoples of the new British constructed Iraq....
What about Lebanon?
Need I go on?
"They are guests in this country"...<---Led towards "the Muslims"
They are as much guests as you and your family, as well as my own....
In terms of life itself we are only guests....who has control over when they come or go? The false perception of privilege that is being projected through your words is troubling...
What ever happened to inalienable rights?
"Neither can any state acquire such an authority over other states in virtue of any compacts or cessions. This is a case in which compacts are not binding. Civil liberty is, in this respect, on the same footing with religious liberty. As no people can lawfully surrender their religious liberty by giving up their right of judging for themselves in religion, or by allowing any human beings to prescribe to them what faith they shall embrace, or what mode of worship they shall practise, so neither can any civil societies lawfully surrender their civil liberty by giving up to any extraneous jurisdiction their power of legislating for themselves and disposing their property."
--Richard Price, "Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty"
We have a responsibility to protect people who's lives have been endangered in their home country because of something to do with the United States...whether Native American, Vietnamese, Korean, Filipino, Hmong, Iraqi, Iranian, Mexican, Panamanian, Cuban...Japanese...
But who wants to talk about this stuff?
It's too easy to point at an easily targetable person or idea and turn on the "Mahomet" and "Ishmaelite" complex that works so very well.... It is better to feed false pride and superiority than tell the ugly self truth and set the house in order...
What attempted lynching? Two guys broke up a heated fight between some hardhat and a guy who dressed like a muslim. There was no sound, for all I know the guy in the outfit was provoking everyone around him.
"Two guys broke up a heated fight between some hardhat and a guy who dressed like a muslim."
OK...It was no big deal. Thank you for making the situation so clear, and nice, and neat, and clean, and easy! I dont know what I was thinking.
Try to keep up...My point is a sarcastic remark to you for making light of a racist MOB surrounding and attempting to attack a innocent Black Man they knew nothing about. But, you seem to think that because this innocent Black Man was "dressed like a Muslim", you feel that racist, bigoted Mob had the right to attack him. Are you with me so far?...Even if he had been a Muslim; you think that MOB had the right to attack him? Do you know if this man's children were watching this MOB surrounding their Father? Did anything about that attack disturb you in any way? Bless me with some more of your sharp insight!
Oh, the mob is racist because you deem it to be? The setting was contentious and there was a heated exchange but you were the only one who saw a racist lynching. It seems that attack was all in your head because I didn't see that on the video. And I'll give you some more sharp insight. You came to the forum peddling this crap. You seem to thrive on creating discord. You posted a video using an inflammatory title trying to create more havoc. Why would you do that? You seem to feed off these types of situations. You seem like a vulture, smelling an opportunity and waiting for something contentious to happen and it seems to excite you. It's a little sick -- no it's a lot sick. I think you need to get some therapy. And because you do get off on creating these types forums, I'm not participating in anymore threads that you create.
Seriously, get some therapy or find some other way to create excitement in your life.
Bottom line: we either abandon our Constitution out of fear and anger, or we stand up for the nation's ideals, which include freedom of religion. It really is that simple.
(And I agree with Flightkeeper... that was hardly a lynching. If you really want to have a discussion about fixing what's going on, you could start by not using ridiculous, inflammatory language in your thread title.)
Thank you for your editorial advice.
The ATEMPTED lynching by the racist/bigoted/opportunistic 9/11 families MOB is just the beginning of where this campaign of hate is headed.
I see that clearly, and I'm conveying my concern in the strongest terms possible. But, you just go on your merry way with your deep concern for the writing skills of the people here on hubpages.
"A guy that dressed as a Muslim"?
And it was his fault? What did he do to set it off?
Was that what it was?
It is that type of ignorant mob mentality that, while maybe leading to ridiculous altercations in front of the national/international media spotlight, can lead to lynchings elsewhere....where the cameras aren't going to record the nonsense...
Way to show your bias Flightkeeper...
And Onus' statement is even worse... How backwards thinking and unaware can people be?
I don't know that it was his fault but why do you conclude it wasn't his fault? How do you know? Were you there? The only bias and ignorance shown is yours because you automatically assign someone innocent or guilty. You're a real liberal alright. Attack someone before you know all the facts. Thanks for showing everyone your true colors.
No...I wasn't there.... But it was you who made the assertion... It was you who said he "dressed like a Muslim"..and I want you to define for us what a Muslim dresses like....
Is this the best response you can give? You try to play hot potato with the ideas you created?
You should run for office.....Sarah Palin would probably endorse you....
I automatically assign the label of "stupidity" to the men who puffed themselves up in front of this man..... I look to the reports of what was being yelled at him.... I look at the signs of those who surrounded him..... Those are bigots... And you try to take their side...
I am just an observer...watching ignorance play out in front of my eyes..
How is "he dressed like a muslim" an assertion of hate? If you don't have reading comprehension problems, my post was about how there was no lynching and it looks like a heated discussion was prevented from becoming a fight. Does the descriptive "dressed like a muslim" look like code for hate to you? It seems you are the bigoted one. Again thank you for your obvious one-sidedness, you knew no more than I do about the situation and yet you assigned someone as the victim and someone as the criminal. Where's your liberal fairmindedness now? What happened to the presumption of innocence before judging guilt? Or do you only have it for certain people?
You were caught in your hate and now you're just trying to take cover by bringing in Sarah Palin!?! Ain't gonna work pal. Hah!
Maybe you need to wear the black guy's shoes and see what it all felt like in the moment.
A little more of that shoe wearing idea might help us to understand each other just a bit better. It's easy to make snippy remarks based on bias and limited experience. It's not so easy when you have to get to know all these different kinds of people. What happens is you form a connection with another human, and you realize how much LIKE them you are.
At least that's the way it is with me. If there are people who can't do this, then I suspect there's a lot more going on besides just basic bias.
So do you have any more information on than video that I do? Did you hear what the exchange was about? Because I didn't and I don't think you did either. All I'm reading right now are some self-righteous indignation when you don't have any idea of what the situation is. All you see is a black man surrounded by white people having a heated exchange with one or two people and you automatically assume that he's being attacked and white people are doing the attacking. I saw a fight being prevented and a man led away so that everyone can cool off. You seem to me in your posts to be a little more thoughtful and less judgmental but I'm obviously wrong.
I don't see a need to rant and rave. I think what I said speaks for itself.
Well you did do some ranting and raving and I responded to your assumptions.
Perhaps she finds it difficult or impossible to "wear the black guy's shoes."
Obama is a brave and astute man. He knows what must be done in the Middle East and is not afraid to stand up to racists and bigots. He is an international leader who has the power to make a real difference to peace in the Middle East. I wish him every success in all his endeavours!
I didn't take the time to read through all of the comments, but how many are aware that there is a mosque inside the Pentagon? it was also attacked during 9/11.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_ … index.html
another issue for political theatrics.
There isn't a mosque inside the Pentagon. The author of the article was being factitious.
Sorry about the spelling error, should be facetious.
I'm not worried about your spelling of the word. I'm worried about what you think it means. The article is providing a factual account. Did you read it?
Yes, I read it the other day and was very surprised that there could be a mosque inside the Pentagon that I never heard of, so I did some investigation and there is no mosque inside the Pentagon. There have been Muslims praying inside the Pentagon as they did on 9/11, but there is no mosque there.
the author is not being facetious. it's more a question of what exactly is a mosque? a place where Muslims worship 5 times a day. in that literal sense, it would not be a mosque, but they do pray there and hold worship meetings,
they take in their prayer mats and pray. is there a problem with that? not at all. I did some fact checking also and this is about the best I found in explaining what it is.http://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/no-pentagon-mosque/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvBYb8bo … r_embedded
WHY THE SILENCE? It would not have drawn in the same amount of CIRCUS DUMMIES the Ground Zero protest has drawn in.
Is that the correct link because I'm not finding an attempted lynching anywhere on that website and I'm not finding a news story anywhere else about an attempted lynching?? I've Googled it every way I can think of and am not finding it.
I have no problem with a Mosque being built on private property following the guidelines and the ordinances where it is to be built.
This is what I am curious about, I see some left leaning people fighting for religious freedom.
Prior to this Mosque what was the biggest issue of religious freedom that the left stood for?
You mean like the Greek Othodox Church? OOPS, nope, no outrage there.
You mean this one?
http://www.projo.com/news/content/GROUN … e4a58.html
Plan to rebuild Greek Orthodox church at Ground Zero remains puzzle
01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, August 19, 2010
By Richard C. Dujardin
Journal Staff Writer
NEWPORT, R.I. –– As controversy continues to swirl about the plans by a Muslim group to build an 11-story mosque a couple of blocks from Ground Zero, some Greek Orthodox Christians here and in New York say they are puzzled as to why there has been so little progress in the rebuilding of yet another house of worship. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, a tiny, four-story building that had been located directly in front of the second tower, at 155 Cedar St. was destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. It has yet to be rebuilt, despite assurances in July 2008, regarding a tentative plan to rebuild the church just east of its original site.
Those negotiations fell through, however, with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey saying the church was demanding too much money, and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of New York asserting that Port Authority had apparently decided to renege on the deal and refused to meet with church officials even to discuss it.
Of course they will be discounted as greedy and unreasonable.....
You don't see the distinction? How much money are the builders of the Muslim center demanding? (None). They needed zoning approval to build there, but otherwise they aren't asking anything from anyone. If a few media nutjobs and politicians had not jumped all over this, it would have been a private matter on private land that they own.
It's unfortunate that the church feels that the city has reneged on an offer to contribute money to rebuiding the church and the city thinks that the church is asking for too much money. But this has nothing to do with the muslim center.
Under normal circumstances I would agree. However the church actually owns property. Property that the City wants because of changes in security. Property that was damaged by the attack on 911. Many people and business' have recieved assistance. Money that flowed from the Fed to the city in the aftermath. The disagreement is centered around compensation for their existing property. Further the church is raising it's own money as well. Lets be clear. Project 51 only owns a lease with a purchase option. They don't actually own the property out right.
What do you believe is the legal significance of the distinction you have drawn? There isn't any. A lessee has legal rights to possession of the leasehold that can be enforced in court against anyone, including the property owner. I'm not criticizing the church in any way. Just pointing out that the dispute between NY and the church over how much money the church should get to rebuild has nothing to do with the muslim center. I hope the church gets its money. But to equate these issues is illogical.
C.J. Wright wrote:
Of course they will be discounted as greedy and unreasonable.....
You don't see the distinction? How much money are the builders of the Muslim center demanding? (None). They needed zoning approval to build there, but otherwise they aren't asking anything from anyone. If a few media nutjobs and politicians had not jumped all over this, it would have been a private matter on private land that they own.
It's unfortunate that the church feels that the city has reneged on an offer to contribute money to rebuiding the church and the city thinks that the church is asking for too much money. But this has nothing to do with the muslim center.
My whole point was a response to Arthurs comment regarding the left standing up for religous freedom. I'm making NO legal distinction. We have covered that. Project 51 is on solid legal ground. YOU introduced the idea that the church was looking for a hand out. They are not. They are in negotiations that have reached an empase. You created the distinction not me.
You and I have already covered the legal issue. We agree. The mosque is NOT a legal issue. It's a zoning issue. One, like you said has been ruled upon. A rulling by all measures is extremely unpopular.
Is it legal for project 51 to build? Yes
Did they get zoning approval? Yes
Did the zoning board listen to the community? NO!
Is the zoning board restricted to black letter law? NO!
Thats the issue. Plain and simple.
I am not sure I understand your point. Perhaps you have a nuanced definition of "religious freedom." For instance, violating the Establishment clause by Christianizing government institutions violates the religious freedom for people of all faiths (atheists don't care for it much either). But if you mean the freedom to Christianize our government, I would not call that "religious freedom." If you are talking about being free to worship as they choose on private property, I believe people from many ends of the political spectrum would support that, myself included.
My question is very simple!
What was the last issue of violations of religious freedom did the left stand up against?
Forget government/religious seperation.
When was the last time that the left stood up for ANY religious freedom?
simple question eh?
I'm not sure what you mean by "left" and I'm not sure what you mean by "stand up for" but the ACLU, which is one of those organizations that is often accused of being "liberal" frequently defends religious freedom. Here is a list of recent cases:
The ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia (2009) argued against the censorship of religious materials being sent to detainees in the Rappahannock Regional Jail. The ACLU wrote a letter to the superintendent of the jail, asking that the jail cease the removal of Christian-themed materials and biblical passages from letters written to detainees. http://www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/402 … 90709.html
The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) argued in favor of the right of Christian preachers to distribute pamphlets at the Breaux Bridge Crawfish Festival. The ACLU wrote a letter to the mayor in support of the preachers, who had been ordered to stop handing out religious material. http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom … 6437.story
The ACLU of Louisiana (2009) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Donald Leger, a devout Catholic and prisoner on death row at Angola State Prison. The lawsuit challenges the prison?s policy mandating that all televisions on death row be tuned to predominately Baptist programming on Sunday mornings. Under the terms of a settlement in the case, Mr. Leger was able to view Catholic Mass regularly and was permitted private confessional visits with a priest. http://www.laaclu.org/newsArchive.php?id=342#n342
The ACLU of Texas (2009) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor and his faith-based rehabilitation facility in Sinton, Texas. The ACLU of Texas urged the court to reverse a decision that prohibited the pastor from operating his rehabilitation program near his church and also sharply limited the reach of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In June 2009, the Texas Supreme Court agreed and ruled in favor of the pastor. http://aclutx.org/article.php?aid=726
The ACLU of the National Capital Area (2009) brought suit on behalf of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish firefighters and paramedics who wear beards as a matter of religious observance. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the ACLU that the District of Columbia?s policy prohibiting these individuals from wearing beards violated their religious freedom rights, and the court of appeals affirmed in 2009.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/o … 168865.pdf
The ACLU of Arizona (2009) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Maricopa County Sheriff?s Office detention officer who was demoted and eventually forced to leave for failing to abandon his practice of wearing a beard in accordance with his Muslim faith.
The ACLU and the ACLU of New Jersey (2008) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner ? an ordained Pentecostal minister ? seeking to restore his fundamental right to preach to other inmates. The minister had preached at weekly worship services at the New Jersey State Prison for more than a decade when prison officials issued, without any reason, a blanket ban on preaching by inmates, even when done under the direct supervision of prison staff. http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/37 … 81203.html
The ACLU of Michigan (2008) filed a successful lawsuit on behalf of a Benton Harbor minister who was sentenced to 3-10 years in prison for writing an article both criticizing and predicting what God might do to the judge who presided over his case ? actions protected by the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and religious expression. http://aclumich.org/issues/free-speech/2009-07/1383
The ACLU of Maryland (2008) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Christian ministry for the homeless in the town of Elkton, MD, which purchased a site for a religious day center to help the local community through job training, food, showers, and religious services. Though the site is legally zoned for the use of churches as well as centers which provide those services, the zoning board refused to recognize the religious nature of the center, placing undesirable limitations on the community center. http://www.aclu-md.org/legal/Legal.html … GION-48213
The ACLU of Southern California (2008) filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity organization after park rangers threatened to arrest the members for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individual?s right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana. http://www.laaclu.org/News/2008/Netherl … 60408.html
http://www.aclufl.org/issues/religious_ … ligion.cfm
“The First Amendment does not require students to leave their religion at the schoolhouse door…It is especially important that parents feel confident that their children can practice religion…We need to make it easier and more acceptable for people to express and to celebrate their faith.”
“If students can wear T-shirts advertising sports teams, rock groups or politicians, they can also wear T-shirts that promote religion…Religion is too important to our history and our heritage for us to keep it out of our schools…Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the schoolhouse door.”
“Government’s schools also may not discriminate against private religious expression during the school day.”
Bill Clinton 1995.
I have no idea whether this is the most recent ( I doubt it) but it took about 3 seconds to find. IF you really want your question answered....
But perhaps you don't.
Huh? When hasn't it? Try to railroad a bunch of Jews, Hindus or Christians and I will feel the same way. If there were attempts to stop Christians from praying within 2 blocks of any federal building out of sensitivity to the Oklahoma City bombing, I would be against it. The reality is that it is hard to be persecuted if you are in the majority.
Separation of church and state? First amendment. You name it.
You began your defense of the mob by using what is called "stereotyping"...
You created the illusion of "Muslim attire" (which you still cannot define for me it seems) and put forward the idea that he might have started the whole thing...
These are your ideas...clear as day... About this there is no illusion...
"Dressed like a Muslim" is not directly a phrase of hate....but when you create a false image and then point out it could have been his fault to begin with, the larger connotation speaks louder than the individual words...like the ones I am writing here which part of me believes you really won't read anyway...
You even boost your own ego, though falsely, because when you claimed this man was in "Muslim attire" you also put forward the idea that you must know something about Muslims, or about what they wear, or about how to identify them....
But it is evident that Islam or Muslims are not something you hold much insight or knowledge about......But you can change...
My Palin statement was simply that....she likes to put forward manipulated concepts that work primarily through emotional response to internal biases based on grand generalizations and outright lies feed anger, insecurity, and reward ignorance........
I defend the idea that nothing the man was wearing put forward any clue that he might have been Muslim... I believe that people looked at his head, saw his skin color, thought of men like Farakhan, and went wild... "Those Black Nation of Islam folks" then the ignorant mob comes in....
As for those "mob"-sters
These people need to get jobs, and produce something instead of sitting back and taking that Koch and Mellon "protest for us" kickdown.... For largely being Christians, these demonstrators against the Cordoba House remind me a lot of the mob that sent Jesus to the cross to begin with.... Largely hypocrites to their own faith, and their own beliefs in the sanctity of the Constitution....
I hope the Greek Orthodox community is able to come up with the money to rebuild their church, and I'm looking to fellow Christians (which I am not one of) to assist their brothers.... How many of you are ready? Or are they just "Greek Orthodox" after all?
As I suspected a lot of what you said are all assumptions or projections and not based on any facts. You know nothing of any of those people there. You assume those white people don't have jobs. You assume that all those white people hated him. You don't ask how the black guy in visibly different attire came into that group people. You assume it is the white guy who is saying the nasty things and you project your bigotry on them and me. You called them a mob when in reality they are protesters. You have problems with reading comprehension. It is something that you can fix if you admit that you have a problem. What can't be fixed is your bigoted attitude. You've been found out and there's nothing you can do about it.
PP That was an awesome post.
Ron same thing
Thanks for pointing out these issues. It proves that religious freedom is important to all Americans. It proves that we all believe in our Country and our Constitution.
It shows that no matter how hard those in power try and divide us, in our hearts we are first and foremost Americans!
Good job Flightkeeper.....keep trying to run away from your words... But they are published right here... The intelligent readers will know for themselves...
Keep suspecting....perhaps you'll look at the cap I'm wearing in my profile and see more "Muslim" concoctions....
As for the Koch, Mellon, and other financial movers who have been supporting the organization of this anti-Muslim drive (and the anti-Obama, and anti-undocumented/anti-anything except English language in the U.S.) and its overall tie to the Tea Party....I have done independent research of my own tying the Heritage Foundation (the Mellon Family) involved in this, and some great jounalism has been put out recently regarding the Koch family through their own foundations....
I ask the question....where are these protestors getting money in order to buy food, pay rent, and take care of their families? Are these just church groups with their parishoners funds spending away?
Where is their money coming from???? Are you interested in actual thought and research Flightkeeper?
Oh, so you thought that these protesters were funded the way that Soros funded the SEIU thugs, etc. Of course it would never occur to you that perhaps they took this one day off because this issue mattered to them. Again your assumptions show your bigotry. This is a one-day protest from local people, you know, the 60% of NYers who don't think building that mosque is a good idea. These are not professional protesters.
And to what purpose would all these financiers fund these protesters who you project to be anti-muslim? If anything they would support the muslims because their powerful sheiks have oil and money. How do you think that mosque will be funded? You've been listening to too many of those half-baked conspiracy theorists haven't you?
It really doesn't seem to penetrate through that head of yours that they're not protesting the building of all mosques, there are hundreds in New York City. What they protest is building a mosque at a site where their extremist co-religionists murdered thousands of people. Do you expect a mosque to be built next to the school where extremist muslims killed hundreds of children and parents in Beslan and it would be okay with people?
In this country we don't base minority rights on opinion polls or votes. The opinion of New Yorkers or families of 9-11 victims are irrelevant.
Now why doesn't it surprise me that you have no consideration for the families of victims of 911?
What about the VICTIMS OF THE 9/11 FAMILIES?
That black Man Terrorized by the 9/11 families' Mob.
Stabbing victim Ahmed Sharif.
The father of Michael Einright.
What about their ruined lives?
Are you insane? You seriously think that the 911 families are responsible for that cabdriver's stabbing?
Are you just plain stupid to not think it is? Watch the name calling. If you dont have any legitimate responses left, just shut up. Dont call me names. Be a grown up.
Who's name calling? It's a legitimate question about your sanity, your soundness of judgment, to connect the two disparate things. And let me remind you that not all the facts are in. So again I'm asking you if you are insane?
And it's actually stupider for someone to think it is connected, in my opinion.
Thank you Mr.Deeds
I hope you reach some people here. What is wrong with some of these people. The KLAN can march up and down the Main Street of any town in America! But no one is going to entertain their request to return their headquarters to them because it was taken from them by a Black Woman! Oh...that was so wrong! But, she won it in a lawsuit. End of Story. She doesn't have to give it back because it insults the Klans' sensibilities. That's the way America works!
Jiberish, you should listen to the show that both this Imam and Glenn Beck were on..together, at the same time, and listen to the compliments and support he gave to this Muslim leader...
Flightkeeper....we are talking about you and your words that express racism, not "people" in general...
It seems that you have a tendency to run away from your individual flaws and attempt to mask them in the crowd.... But you're all alone right now....there is no one to hide behind..
My mom is a proud SEIU member....and she is no thug...
"One day protest".....there are people out there all the time...
"And to what purpose would all these financiers fund these protesters who you project to be anti-muslim? If anything they would support the muslims because their powerful sheiks have oil and money."<---Flightkeeper..
"All those sheiks"..... The generalities continue...
By the way, how much of your taxpayer dollars have been doled out in order to create a false sense of peace in Iraq and Afghanistan (and it still doesn't work)... How much of your money has left this country through bribery and corruption?
Why do you not think to even ask these questions, let alone find the answers?
Laziness? Lack of actual caring regarding any of this?
I don't know...but I don't mind venturing guesses...
Keep trying to use your flawed and false allegories and comparisons.....
Read the words of the Imam again...the same ones you posted...and actually think... Look into what he says...do research, and you will find that he is correct.
I don't follow the "half-baked", and I definitely do not listen intently to the "half-brained." This latter category is drawing nigh to thee..
You have a lot of learning to do....
Apparently you've resorted to even more accusations of not only racism but stupidity and laziness because you interpreted the situation wrongly. How predictable and incredibly pointless. And you still persist that there are people there all the time which shows not only your ignorance but your bigoted assumption. People can't be there all the time, it is a working city, it would be disruptive and the city won't give them that long-term protest permit because it doesn't exist.
Then you try to distract by bringing in taxes, Iran, and Afghanistan. You have made the worst assumptions and made distortions and distractions to hide your bigotry. It's not going to work. Your bigotry is made apparent.
Operation Northwoods......read it.....and substitute Communist Cubans with Radical Muslims...
These documents were bone-chilling.
All of a sudden, conspiracy theories may not be as crazy as I've been lead to believe.
I still don't think 9/11 was an "inside job." I think it was an example of criminal negligence on the part of the US. Osama bin Laden declared war on us as far back as 1998. Why didn't our government do a better job of protecting us?
The Patriot Act is Big Brother. Can't the Republicans see that?
I'm never voting for Obama again because he extended the Patriot Act (indefinitely). He bailed out the corporations. His idea of "universal healthcare" is fining us if we can't afford to buy insurance. That makes a lot of sense.
I'm writing in Ron Paul.
Of course Flightkeeper...
I bring in the tax payer dollars because you mentioned the "rich sheiks"....... How much of our money has created and enhanced such wealth....and for what purpose, what end?
Thanks again Flightkeeper for your responses....
Another distraction and distortion. You are always full of them, so ready to ask other people to think but you do very little critical thinking yourself.
I have not been to the forums for a while - it is like I have never been away, Mikelong and others puting up reasoned arguments and the few flat-earthers trolling as hard as they can because they have no reasoned arguments.
I am still trying to work out whether the trolls are just indoctrinated to the bone with Fox misinformation services or really just plain stupid.
I'm pretty sure it’s misinformation.
Isn't that a shame? The internet is amazing. We're the most highly educated generation to ever exist... but we're so confused.
I include myself in that figure.
I'm starting to realize that I barely know anything for sure. Existentialism grips me in new ways every day. It's never been more relevant.
What we need now is a Plato or Descartes...
I disagree that we are the most highly educated - we are the most widely educated, but with what? When schools are teaching ridiculous flat earth theory and biblical babble as fact then I would have to say that those students are well educated with rubbish. The internet is an amazing place filled with 10% high quality information, 20% ok information and 70% drivel and deliberate misinformation.
Just because we know more 'stuff' does not make us more intellignet or better thinkers unfortunately.
More predictable and incredibly pointless namecalling
If the cap fits . . . It was your long list of empty name calling posts that I noticed first.
Just for the sake of accuracy, assuming your use of "troll" and "trolling" is simply a matter of misunderstanding, a "troll" is a person who comes to a thread or starts a thread with the singular purpose of making everyone who says anything as angry as possible. They do not have a political point or agenda, and will happily use the opinions of any side of any argument if it will infuriate someone.
Now, if you are only using that term because you don't agree with the people who don't agree with you, and because their arguments are filled with fallacy and terrible reasoning, so you're calling them trolls to insult them, then that's different. They aren't really trolls because they do have a position and are trying to make it, they're just making it poorly. But lots of people call people they don't agree with trolls these days. If that's what you're doing, carry on and pretend I wasn't here.
Of course....I suppose you can't answer to my point then..
You brought up the "sheiks"....not I.
You obviously have so much relevent and real information to pass....
While your at it, can you discuss what nations empowered Saddam Hussein....what they empowered him to do...and what this has to do with American foreign policy in the "Middle East" or towards "Muslims" in general?
When Saddam gassed Kurds and killed Shi'ites, what was his motivation? Why was he doing these things?
Rhetoricize what you wish....but how about a little substance please?
Another distraction. You really can't keep to the subject because you've been caught at projecting your bigotry to a group of people who are sincere about the protest. You don't question the motives of the owners of the building or the imam, you unthinkingly validate it in the face of considerable local opposition. You ask for substance when you have shown so little.
Let me say, I dont think the 9/11 families opposition to the mosque is wrong. They are justified in their hate. The problem is nobody on their side is looking them in the eye and telling them they are wrong to expect the Mosque be moved. That is a totally UnAmerican way of acting.
Your framing of the situation is predicated on the assumption that they hate muslims. Where would you get that idea? They've said over and over again they think it's inappropriate and yet you keep ignoring that.
I agree with the sentiment - except where you say that the 9/11 families are justified in their hatred. This is why 9/11 happened in the first place, a group of 'others' worked up a deep hatred of the US and attacked the centre as a response to what has been inflicted on them by the US. It is the hatred between the peoples that needs to be addressed, the interference in each others lives that needs to be reduced. The 9/11 families are not sacrosanct, by heading up racism and hate groups they just lose respect.
Daniel, factions within the U.S. government and policy making sectors were looking for any way they could to get back into Iraq... The timing, the lies, all of it stinks to me....something is not at all what it seems...
And the 9/11 Commission somehow didn't think it was important to find out where the specific funding for these attacks came from...it "wasn't relevant" in their eyes....
If I paid to have any crime committed, the cops would be very eager to track the money down and find me.....but not when it is Public Enemy Number One?
As for Bin Ladin....I am still not convinced he is who our government says he is....just as I look at Lee Harvey Oswald and do not see the face of the person who killed John Kennedy...
We had Bin Ladin trapped at Tora Bora....and someone inside our government denied the Delta Force men on the ground the vital support they needed.... This very tall man needs dialysis... This man is worth more alive and active than dead or in prison.... He worked for us once, and I am not convinced that he still is not playing around with our warmongers and profiteers here....
Well... I think I'd rather be in denial. I can't imagine the government being that evil. I'd rather believe they were opportunists after 9/11 to connect the attacks to Iraq and Afghanistan.
That argument fell apart after we all learnt Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda and we now will "reconcile" with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Don’t get me wrong. Saddam was awful… but so is the genocide in Sudan and Liberia… and the terrorism in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, etc. We’re just not being consistent. The common denominator is oil and minerals.
At this point, who destroyed the WTC becomes sort of irrelevant. We got ourselves into an endless war with little justification (except, perhaps, profit).
I don't like where this is going.
China-man...it seems the Flightkeeper can't keep us from flying together.... That must be why we tend to be over her head.... Look out below...
I wouldn't prevent a couple of turkeys from attempting and believing they could fly.
Except if they were Islamic-worshiping turkeys, eh? Then it's okay.
Flight Keeper, I like most of your hubs, but I'm afraid I'll be mean if I keep responding to your posts truthfully.
I hate what this issue is doing to us. We're the Divided States of America...
Hey, I play no favorites, if islamic-worshipping turkeys want to fly, let them. They'll fail because turkeys aren't built for flying but it doesn't hurt to try.
And sorry Dan, truly I didn't even notice you were responding to my posts.
Good. So, to continue with this analogy, is it okay to let the towel-wearing turkeys worship their turkey-God in the oven of their choosing, as long as it's private property? Aren’t those turkeys’ beliefs protected under the gravy Constitution?
At the end of the day, we're one turkey race of people. We ought to embrace our turkey differences, but share common turkey rights.
I'm glad you're open-minded. I misunderstood some of your previous posts.
Daniel, you and I are looking at it from a different perspective. And hopefully you get where I'm coming from but I ain't all that hopeful. Muslims are not being prevented from putting up a mosque because they're not allowed to practice their religion, it's putting up a mosque in a place that's considered inappropriate. Would you put up a mosque next to the school in Beslan where those kids and parents were murdered?
But we're falling into "their trap," if you believe this mosque was built to divide us. Even if this whole locale is a plot to destroy our constitution through provocation, why would you give in? Why would you reward them by being so predictable?
We're the United States of America. We pioneered human rights. Let's take the high road and allow them to build this house of worship. Let's stick to our principles. Give them the benefit of the doubt.
If they're making a terrorist headquarters there, then that's super easy to spy on.
Good, I'm glad you wouldn't I'm not so sure about others.
As for "their trap" explain why you think it's giving in to provocation.
We're imploding. We're destroying ourselves. We're committing suicide.
What made this country great (liberty) is being trampled every day our government or the media presents this false dichotomy: Privacy or security? Choose. Rights or life?
We can have both. We can let anybody build any house of worship anywhere, but make sure they don't attack us. I honestly don't think they're terrorists. The last I read, they're Sufis... a denomination of Islam that believes in dialogue between faiths. Regardless, it’s un-American to prevent them from leasing this property. The time to section off blocks near Ground Zero was yesterday. Now it’s ex-post facto. Besides, there’s other mosques near that area and no one seemed to mind (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyreg … osque.html)
We need to understand Islam, or else we're going to be in a position eerily similar to Germany after World War I.
So if I understand you correctly, you interpret their trap as a presentation of false choice. Didn't we just agree that it's not about preventing Muslims from practicing their religion it's about putting up a mosque in a place considered inappropriate? That mosque could be built five blocks further away and everyone would be happy, so it's not about preventing the muslims from exercising their religious rights. It's about putting a mosque in a place considered inappropriate. Just as you would consider it inappropriate to put a mosque next to the Beslan school, it's inappropriate to put a new mosque so close to Ground Zero. I'm not looking at it as a presentation of false choice of security vs preventing the exercise of religion.
I believe every mosque is probably under some sort of surveillance so it's not a concern from a security aspect. And I agree with you that we need to understand Islam but muslims also needs to understand that in America, the freedom to exercise their religion is not absolute.
I may not have decided to build a mosque near where the WTC used to be, but that doesn't change the constitution. We can't throw away our principles over political correctness.
I fail to see what neo-conservatives are trying to "conserve" anymore. They are far from constitutionalists and more like white supremacists. I don't get it anymore, frankly.
Are we really going to ask the U.S. government to stop a religious house from being built because, 9 years later, we decide the 9/11 victims hate all Muslims?
If it's a 3-minute walk by Ground Zero, that may upset the victims' families. I get that. But that's no excuse to give up our American ideals of pluralism and a republic of laws.
I'm just as adamant about upholding the 2nd and 14th amendment. I love this country's constitution and I'm somewhat of an anomaly: a Marxist and Libertarian.
Dan, I've already said that the protest was not about preventing the free exercise of religion. Why do you not get this?
"Are we really going to ask the U.S. government to stop a religious house from being built because, 9 years later, we decide the 9/11 victims hate all Muslims?"
Where do you get the idea that the 9/11 families hate all muslims?
"If it's a 3-minute walk by Ground Zero, that may upset the victims' families. I get that. But that's no excuse to give up our American ideals of pluralism and a republic of laws."
But this is an exercise in pluralism as well, there are differing views that are clashing. As far as I know there are no laws that are being broken because of this protest.
I didn't mean to sound like I'm disagreeing with the protest or the debate. It's very healthy and I'm glad we're talking about it now before it turns into something like the Holocaust.
And, no, I'm not exaggerating. It happens very quickly when you're dealing with toxic hate.
"Where do you get the idea that the 9/11 families hate all Muslims?"
I get that idea from the media. I watch Fox News just as much as (if not more than) CNN and MSNBC. All I see on the box are 9/11 victims holding up signs saying, "Mosques are monuments to terrorism."
Until you can prove this house of worship has anything to do with 9/11, all you've got going for regulating religious belief is bigotry. It's islamophobia. Keep in mind News Corporation received funds from the same prince that helped fund the Cordoba mosque.
Flight Keeper, I admire your passion, but I hate to break it to you: Muslims died in the WTC too.
Soldiers died in many wars to secure these freedoms, and you're so quick to tear down the separation of church and state. That’s frightening. From my point of view, you should agree with me.
No matter how you "feel," the government simply doesn't have the legal standing to take away these Muslims' rights to building a Mosque on private property they purchased.
If they did, then this wouldn't be America.
So you decided that an entire group of people is Islamaphobic based on several signs that newscasts love to focus on because it look great on television. That there are many people in that group who refuted that but it has no bearing to you.
"Until you can prove this house of worship has anything to do with 9/11, all you've got going for regulating religious belief is bigotry."
You're exaggerating. It's one building that the majority of people don't want to have built near there so I would hardly call it regulating religous belief and use that as a basis for accusing them of bigotry.
"It's islamophobia." Because they don't want one new mosque to be built near there because they consider it inappropriate. Again, it's an exaggeration.
"Keep in mind News Corporation received funds from the same prince that helped fund the Cordoba mosque." Yes, and is it surprising that they focus on the signs that are extreme.
I'm very aware that people from all walks of life were murdered by islamofascists. But I think you exaggerate when you say that this is a church and state matter. There are hundreds of mosques in New York, they are not being shut down and they are not being moved. This particular mosque existed after 9/11. No one has prevented this mosque from starting up and the local council has given their approval to let the building commence so no one is taking their rights away. What you have are a large numer of people objecting it to be built there and they have a right to protest that if they wish. It seems that it is you that is conflagrating this into some constitutional issue which it isn't.
I'm out of ideas. I give up. I guess you "win."
I was wrong to say all 9/11 victim families are Islamophobic. Obviously that isn't true, since some victim families are, in fact, Islamic.
Is the location insensitive? By majority (democratic) opinion: Overwhelmingly yes.
But is this a constitutional issue? Of course it is. The government cannot prevent this from happening. The land has already been leased privately. It will be built.
I suggest we learn to live with it. No one is forcing you to convert to be a Muslim. The terrorists might try to do that, but until this Mosque starts killing people, there's nothing you can do to stop it—except break the law. In which case, you'd also be a terrorist.
The freedom of religion prevents a democratic consensus from violating libertarian human rights. Don’t look at the Mosque when you walk by it, I guess (if it hurts your feelings).
Meanwhile, what do you think of a bunch of other places, far, far from Ground Zero also protesting Mosques? Do they have the right to protest? Yes. Do they have the right to lynch people because of their beliefs? No. That's why the terrorists are bad and we're Americans with principles.
I hope, somewhere, we're reaching some kind of agreement...
Wow talk about confused. You can in no way be a Libertarian and a Marxist at the same time. Marxist thought can never be implemented for any length of time without the use of force; see North Korea, Cuba, the USSR, Warsaw Pact nations, Vietnam, etc.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, abhors the use of force to create a certain outcome. You may call yourself a "Libertarian/Marxist" but in reality no such animal exists.
Read some of my hubs:
The animal may not have existed, if you want to give me credit for creating it.
I've read the original Communist manifesto, and it can marry quite well with anarchy and democracy.
I'd rather not get side-tracked, though...
No - you are the one totally confused.
Marxism is a branch or thread in philosophy that defines social structures and explains their mechanics, what you do with that information becomes an ideological 'ism - and then it becomes Capital-ism, Social-ism, and of course Communi-ism. You have the whole thing upside down as usual, any revolutionary thought or ideology is said to be only possible through force, ie started with force, - this is because having all the stuff that you have stolen, coerced and sweated from the population under your control gives you the money and so the power to keep it, unless forced to give it up.
I notice you include Korea and Vietnam where the US did most of the killing. I also notice you left out China which is still run by the Communist Party and is successfully growing and set to become the worlds number one in the next ten years, or sooner if the US does not deal with its debts.
Maxism claims to explain social structures, but it does so poorly. It defines people, not as individuals, but as members of an economic class. If that wasn't bad enough, Marxism claims that there is eternal war between the several economic classes.
And you don't think the Soviets and Red Chinese didn't have blood on their hands in Korea and Vietnam? You fail to mention that. China is, as you've mentioned, controlled by the Communist Party, but much as the USSR was controlled by the Communist Party during the 1980's you can hardly call it Communist anymore.
You can't seem to understand that the only reason China and India are doing well is because they are adopting more and more free-market and capitalistic structures than they did in the past. You also don't get the collar. The decline of Western Civilization is due to the adoption of more and more socialistic structures.
You would expect China and Russia NOT to act to keep the US away from their immediate territories? You would not expect the US to react to Russia taking military action in Panama, or Canada either I suppose ?
If we forget the rabid ideology that had the US rampaging around Asia with bombs and napalm then a quick look at the geography will give you enough answers.
You constantly pound out one side of a two sided argument, it is a one-eyed view that has no depth.
Marx explains social structures perfectly well, how we interpret them is a matter of discussion.
And how you come to the conclusion that social policies are bringing down Capitalism is beyond me. Unless you are advocating a return to the 'good old days' where the workers had no care of any kind and were either paid below subsistence wages or directly enslaved. That is the only way Capitalist economics can continue for a little longer, by increasing the profits at the expense of the workers.
You're confused because you can't comprehend anything other than Marxist ideology. As for fighting against Communist aggression, well it was the Soviets who fomented Communist uprisings in Eastern Europe and developed Communist regimes in North Korea and North Vietnam. It was, furthermore, North Korea who attacked South Korea without provocation. Personally I can't blame Western policymakers for thinking they had to stop Communist aggression at all costs.
Or have you forgotten Prague Spring and how that was put down. Or perhaps the Berlin Airlift, remember that?
You lefties have a horrible case of CRS disease.
Calling people like myself lefty - who consistently and clearly put the case for a new way of dealing with things because the old ways are clearly not working, is part of your blindness. You have no idea what I 'comprehend', Marxism is not an ideology and I am not a Communist.
This name calling is a large part of your thinking - because you have no rational argument.
You cannot just ignore all of history except the bits you want with your personal slant on them.
Really? Based on your states beliefs, they sure as heck sound like Marxist beliefs. How, exactly, am I wrong? I understand that you might not think you're a Marxist, but it's your states beliefs that determine what you are, not what you say you think you are.
I'm sorry you see it as name calling. I called you Marxist. That's labeling. Now if I said something like you being a "mass-murdering supporter of polices that degrade humanity", well that would be name calling. See the difference?
It's funny that you accuse me of ignoring history. I've stated many times before that it was stupid to try to "contain" the Soviets. The Soviet system was doomed from the start, it was only a matter of time. What happened in the US is that people who wanted temporal power used the dictator's favorite media (newspaper, radio, film and a new one, TV) to make people fearful. Fearful people rarely question those in "authority". Both parties used this to great effect during the Cold War to cement their ideological hold over the electoral process.
Daniel, my point about healthcare and police is simply this. Right now we have a mostly public police force in this nation. Your idea to privatize it leads me to believe that you find fault with a "public" police force. (I happen to agree with that statement). But you also seem to support a public healthcare system in this nation. Right now we have a (mostly) private system. If you have a problem with a public police force not respecting the rights of the citizens, how can you expect a public healthcare system, in time, to wind up doing the same thing?
How is people deciding how much tax money to pay for things like justice, healthcare, etc. any different from letting people keep their money and purchasing these services in the marketplace? Granted I think people choosing how much of what they put into the tax pool pot goes to what service is a good first step, but as a workable system, it's suboptimal.
I wonder how much economics you've ever studied. Except for your Marxist views, I'd have thought you'd studied it a bit. I don't think you have, which is quite remarkable, you seem to have good instincts for it. I'd suggest reading up on the Austrian School of Economics. It's a known fact that these were the only guys to see the economic meltdown coming. http://www.mises.org
Game theory, OK that explains why you think there can be a reconciliation between libertarianism and Marxism. One thing that Game Theory doesn't take into consideration are things like the South Seas Bubble and Tulip Mania. I'd start with researching those two. I'd also look at the example of the first French National Bank. Game theory, I think, doesn't deal with the "madness of crowds" very well.
There is a paradox between individual freedom and the group. I'm glad you can see that. The reason for the paradox is that you can't simply pigeonhole most people into a group. I'm a good example. My dad is white and my mom Mexican. So am I white, or am I Hispanic? I have some Aztec ancestry that goes back a few generations. Does that make me a Native American? Do I choose what groups I belong to, or do other people? Does the group decide if I'm a member? What are the criteria for belonging to a group?
Individuals have all sorts of wants and needs that they arrange in a hierarchy. What I think is important may be very different than what you think is important. We value different things, no matter what group we or someone else puts us in. That's why trying to separate society into different groups is such a bad idea. It winds up leading to civil unrest or civil war in the worst cases. That's why I prefer a libertarian, individualist approach to society. The society which maximizes freedom for each person to meet their needs tend to be the most harmonious ones.
Le Defense Tech,
This is a classic example of a red herring. You think global warming is changing the climate? Nonsense. It's snowing today. You're a vegan? Hitler was a vegetarian.
You're using sensationalism. Marxism is bigger than any permutation of it in policy.
The American Declaration of Independence wrote, "All men are created equal."
You can name it what you'd like, but you're sadly mistaken if you think any of these ideas will go away.
We may be created equal, but we all have different skills and preferences. I'm horrible at math for example, mostly because I don't like to take the time to do the work. There are others who would think I was mad. They love nothing more than to solve equations and think about mathematics all day. That's fine. They're doing what they want and so am I. Marxism tries to make the outcome equal, which never works. In that case we all become equally poor and miserable. Equality of opportunity, however, is a noble goal worth striving for. That way everyone has the ability to reach their potential.
P.S. There are plenty of bad ideas that have never gone away. Genocide, divine right of kinks, conversion by the sword. Those will always be with us too, but that doesn't make them good ideas.
Le Defense Tech,
Don't you think giving everyone education, no matter if you're poor or rich, would allow for equal opportunity?
In reality, you're supporting my argument.
I agree that humans are diverse. That's where plurality and civil rights come into play.
Did you know MLK was financed by Marxists in the Soviet Union?
No. Quality of education matters. I'll admit I'm a bit of an exception, but I've always been rather studious and like to read, but public education tends to produce mediocre graduates. If that weren't the case, why do so many parent support vouchers to send their kids to private school. Also I don't think you understand the significance of spending more per student yet getting less and less educated graduates. Look up "theory of bureaucratic displacement"
http://hadm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/ECON/cla … edman.html
Do you know why MLK was funded by the Soviets? It was Cold War games, pure and simple. Soviets could care less about the plight of blacks in the South. They just wanted to promote civil disturbances in the US. Kind of like what we did with Solidarity in the early 1980's. Have you considered the lessons to be learned from the life of Eldridge Cleaver?
What I find most interesting about him is his initial portrayal of his conviction for serial rape as an act of insurrection. This was something he later rejected, which suggests an introspection foreign to many so-called revolutionaries. This can be seen as an indicator of his later disavowal of radical ideology and return to the US from his exile. He said that unlike the US, socialist countries were good at talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Of course by that time, Jim Crow and other institutions that promoted racism were long gone, which says a lot about the general American sentiment of being basically fair people.
Le Defense Tech,
We could afford to send every American to a state university if we didn't go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan. The education system could be much, much better.
It's important that everyone gets the choice to learn equally. Privatizing education causes only the rich people to have power. That's sets up a plutocracy (where money votes), like our lobbyist-funded politicians.
You know, without the government and taxes, you wouldn't have a military, law enforcement, or a judicial system. These things are all socialist. They are group investments for the community.
Marxism is just a word. It cannot be demonized in full without someone looking it up for themselves to realize that we've already got socialism, and it can be improved. How do you do that? Some people are trying to begin the dialogue.
As for your comments about the Mosque, I agree with bgamall. Your criticism of my Libracracy is funny, considering you're condoning the bypassing of the 1st amendment to appease a democratic consensus. Hmmm. Isn't that mob tyranny? Consistency, my friend...
Not for long we couldn't. Seriously study economics and you'd understand why universal college is a bad idea. Hint. The more prevalent something is, the less valuable it is. You also don't seem to get that when you subsidize something, you cause the price to go up. That's because people who would otherwise opt out of that choice, opt in because the price has gone down. The only problem is that this new demand drives the price up. That's what happened in the housing industry. Low interest rates spurred demand, but before long people were priced out of the housing market and it collapsed. Subprime was developed as a way to keep demand up by lending money to people who couldn't pay it back. And we all know how that turned out don't we?
Mike, one of the main reasons for the decline of the Ottomans was the Age of Exploration and the Industrial Revolution. Anatolia has always waxed fat on income generated by taxing trade. This was true from the Ancient world to the early Modern one. When Europe began developing their own trade routes bypassing the Empire, that began the decline.
Anatolia, especially during the Byzantine era, but also during the succeeding Islamic era had always been known for its cottage industry and high level of economic production, for a pre-industrial society. The Industrial Revolution shattered that. Goods that were easy to manufacture now became so chap to buy that even the lower class could afford them. That is the true hallmark of the Industrial Revolution. It dropped the cost of goods to the point that people who otherwise would not have been able to afford them, or who would have starved to death, were not able to afford those items and live.
Hi Mike - I am beginning to get this idea that some people can't think past the pawn levels at chess. The supporters of the right seem to be stuck with the two-dimensional face of what they see, like looking at a billboard and thinking they are really looking at a fantastic view, or The Simpsons and believing they are real people.
This would account for their flat, seemingly ignorant, views, and they must know they are intellectually challenged which would account for why they keep making empty comments and why they are so vicious.
"Now why doesn't it surprise me that you have no consideration for the families of victims of 911?"
They want to be unelected rulers of my City, and I'm not havin it!
That statement was meant for Mr. Deeds and you, as usual, are exaggerating.
This is my Thread!
I thought this was an important question to answer.
Elpaso, have you heard or read any follow-up reports on the man who was accosted in the protesting crowd? You implied above that his life was ruined. Is that fact or exaggeration? I am interested in knowing.
As far as the issues of the protest and the building of the mosque are concerned, I am still weighing both sides, and I understand and agree with some of the things said on both sides.
But in your first post in this thread, I honestly could not understand your point. Since I'm not familiar with previous posts of yours, I didn't know what you meant in referencing your own previous comments.
Because of that, I made sure to look at the video you linked, and I have watched it a dozen times or more to try to see what you meant by "attempted lynching."
It appears that heated words were exchanged. The reporter quoted three loud comments from the crowd, two of which seemed to me to be somewhat ambiguous. Many of the people surrounding him and crowding close to him were reporters, making sure they were close enough to catch as much of the exchange or argument as they could.
But does heated verbal argument equate with "attempted lynching"? If that be true, we have attempted lynchings in the HubPages forums several times every hour, every day.
Aficionada, there have been several times on this thread that various posters have attempted to lynch me according to the OP's definition.
Who is surrounding you and yelling in your face?
I got to scroll up and read that definition of Troll again...
You did, via internet. Same thing with Mikelong and China-man.
You can catch up by reading these 2 forums:
I got an idea? Let's build a mosque at Ground Zero.
Do You Think it's Right to Build a Mosque at Ground Zero?
It happens a lot, doesn't it? But in honesty, I have seen it from all sides and from the middle too. Sad to say.
"Now why doesn't it surprise me that you have no consideration for the families of victims of 911?"<--Flightkeeper..
I have read articles written by journalists who interviewed family members of victims, and I watched today another on television, and I have heard overwhelming support for the completion of this center...
You are beyond ridiculous, and how sad that you now try to put yourself in the same position as the "Muslim dressed man" who, you asserted, might have started the whole controversy...
Do you even read your own words after you compose them?
And you have still failed to explain what a "Muslim dressed man" looks like...
These are your words...no deviation from topic... To try to place yourself in the middle of this topic is to call Glenn Beck a moderate mind....
Not gonna jump into a religious or political debate because Im a horrid atheist/pagan who happens to be a bleeding heart socialist.
I agree wit the OP. Totally.
These people who are protesting the "mosque" which isn't even a mosque, don't hold any value to the constitution. They complain about "the left" saying everything we do is unconstitutional, but then when something comes up they don't agree with, they throw the thing aside like it never had any value.
It's hypocrisy, ignorance and bigotry. Bottom line.
that is all.
I checked the other forums - no additional info on the man accosted by protesters - only the same link as posted here.
If you do find out anything further about him and the after-effects of the public argument, I hope you will post it. I am genuinely interested in knowing the long term effects of that confrontation.
Flightkeeper wants the attention pointed at her for some reason...
Full off assertions...and then backtracks...that one..
I think it best at this point to let such people feel they have accomplished something real....
As for the rest of us "turkeys," as the Keeper of Flight (or the one who keeps back intellectual flight), likes to call us,....how did we let this clown get away?
Not only is the paper funny but so is the fact that until your last breath you will keep blaming Bush. That's the only topic that you don't get distracted from. Your intellect has failed you once again.
You saw the video in the first few threads about Bush's OJ moment regarding 911 didn't you? He was a pawn of Cheney, who carried out 911. Look at the video as it was asked if Howard Dean's questions regarding his knowledge of 911 was hate speech. The Repubican committee tried to pawn Dean's question off as hate speech. Turns out, Bush cried in guilt. Take a look at the video. The man is a murderer, at least an accessory to the crime.
Of course Flightkeeper....you are right as usual?
Oh wait...that must have been your talent for constructive criticism talking...
I will emphasize Bush...for he lied to the American people about Iraq.... He enabled our national wealth to be squandered on two wars....while cutting the taxes that were paying for programs already in place, let alone wars...
Obama in no way can be compared to the personage of Bush...if one is upset at Obama....then one should want to drag Bush in on charges....and set the precedent for what is done to Presidents who abuse their power...or let others abuse the powers of elected office...
But, for some reason...like Sab Oh....I see support for Bush from so many Obama-haters...
I go after Bush now because I was a fool who voted for him....believing the rhetoric "WMD's"..."stay the course"..."al-Qaida-Iraq".....
If Bush and Cheney can get away with what they pulled off....who will ever stand accountable?
I'm still waiting for your description of a "Muslim dressed man."
That projection issue of yours never ceases to amaze me...
What's your obsession with the muslim dress? It's a description. I don't see it as a code for racism like you do, not that it will stop you from making things up but go ahead, it's amusing.
Here's another NY <slur snipped> that had it coming. He got stabbed for having the temerity to admit he was muslim, after his assailant asked him. In light of 9/11, perhaps he should have denied being muslim out of sensitivity to his assailant's feelings. Lots of hate crimes occur all over the country so I don't want to make assumptions about all white men (or all Christians) based on the isolated acts of one extremist nutjob.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100826/ap_ … ie_stabbed
I am a non muslim dressed man. What is that supposed to mean flightkeeper?
Why are you obsessed with running away from your own ideas... I mention these things because of your ongoing diatribes...
You love to criticize others, but can't stand up to the scrutiny yourself.... I love watching you dodge substantive questioning....
Like I said before....you'd make an excellent politician...especially in the world of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
You made up the "muslim dress" and you put out the nonsensical idea that the "muslim dressed man" may have started the whole altercation...
I continue bringing you back to your own points.....and you refuse to address yourself.. You created the discourse...and then refuse to take responsibility...
Cognitive dissonance is a butt-kicker..
How is it nonsensical? You know no more than I about what the altercation was but you can't even consider that he might have started it. I guess it must have been the outfit that proclaimed him innocent?
Substantiative reasoning, hmmm haven't seen that from you this whole thread, I'm sorry to say.
Cognitive dissonance? I know you don't what you're saying.
Bringing me back to my own points, well of course, it's the only thing you can do because you can't refute them. It's tiresome to always point out your distortions and distractions but I guess that's what you take for intellect these days.
"I guess it must have been the outfit that proclaimed him innocent?"
What was he found guilty of??
"Substantiative reasoning, hmmm haven't seen that from you this whole thread, I'm sorry to say."
You don't look very hard. Others seem to view it just fine.
"Cognitive dissonance? I know you don't what you're saying."
Hardly... Denial is strong in you...
"Bringing me back to my own points, well of course, it's the only thing you can do because you can't refute them."
"the man in Muslim dress" was refuted....blatantly... But what you don't wish to see, you never will...
Your claim about the 9/11 families I also refuted...
You pointed out the "rich sheiks"...and I questioned you further...
You then mentioned Saddam Hussein, and I even pressed you there....and in each case you had nothing to reply....
I use George Bush...you question the "blaming Bush" issue, and I then explain myself substantively....and yet you missed it...
Self-blinding is a horrible thing...
"It's tiresome to always point out your distortions and distractions but I guess that's what you take for intellect these days."
You have proven, as others here will agree, to be the distortion and distraction here...
You have argued about your own self, and somehow missed it all...
Now you're just exhibiting circular reasoning. And you've resorted to others to validate your viewpoint because your own logic fails. And you still keep bringing in diversions. It has to be some type of accomplishment to keep going round and round and claim it to be substantive reasoning.
My failed reasoning leads me to understand that those who wish to build the Cordoba House have every right to build, and that it would be a travesty of justice and civil rights for this establishment to be moved....
It is my lack of true logic that keeps me from looking at a video and making stereotypes based off someone's clothing....
"Circular reasoning"..."diversions"....Keep running away from reality...
And the Cordoba Center will be built, and Muslims will have a place to commune and worship....and I will be very glad for them.
My evident lack of sense leads me down this ridiculous road?
Absolutely....especially when I understand the origins of the oppositions claims....
The "Islamic other".... The false connotation that Islam poses a threat to this nation....and the ongoing delusion that Islam is any one particular thing altogether.
"Those Mohammedans" ...being raised in a Christian home, and being the grandson of a minister, I listened every week to the connection of the "false prophet" of the Revelations to Islam.... We would hear over and over the "jihad" warnings.. "The Muslims will rise up and destroy...."
Nonsense.... There have been a select few in the world who have been able to carve up the continents to their liking.....and they have not been Muslim.... Sykes Picot and beyond...what do we see...
I see past the "have sympathy for the 9/11 families" argument...for it is not reality-based..
And I do not give in to the "this is hollowed-ground" argument... This is smokescreen used by others to justify anti-Muslim concepts....enabling people to express discrimination without appearing to be doing so...
This is nothing new...
I want to see the public outcry to the rebuilding of the Greek Orthodox Church.... But there is none....
I mentioned this before, but that was part of the "unsubstantive" stuff you must have missed...
Ethno/religious centrism, in any of its forms, is nonsensical, dangerous, and fraudulent...
Sorry that you are so disappointed that you didn't see a public outcry of a christian church being rebuilt and that has been there since 1922. It must be that you expect every church experience to be similar to yours, how very me-centric you are And you also see world history as being carved up only by westerners although you are talking about a very limited span of time.
Still waiting for that substantiative reasoning but not really expecting to be presented with it given your post.
In Denmark, once-liberal immigration policies have forced huge governmental change and zero tolerance for Muslim immigrants intent on turning Denmark into an Islamic welfare haven. FSM Contributing Editor Susan MacAllen reveals a shocking reaction there and lessons America must learn.
Read it, then decide whether Islam having a foothold in your country is within what the founding fathers thought when the called for FREEDOM of religion.... Islam does NOT allow freedom of religion.
Actually, your observation, for the most part is correct. There are HUGE problems in Europe with this sort of thing. Peaceful Muslims are just that—peaceful. They integrate and become neighbors and friends. There is just as much corruption and power mongering and greed and lust among the Muslim world as there is the Christian, Jewish, etc. Each calling the other infidel, gentile, or heathen.
Until people are willing to take a more rational, sane approach, we can expect much more of the same as we see now.
No Flightkeeper, I did not see any outcry against the rebuilding of that Greek Orthodox Church...
Instead, I read about how they are having a hard time raising funds...
Very different issues.... And I hope they are able to rebuild....
As for my "me-centric" religious experiences, my family was trained by the best....the American Church of God...,
They did wonders tearing apart the Ottoman Empire from the inside...turning Greek and Armenian orthodox Christians against themselves....as can be seen through the story of my own family...
Before walking away from Christianity altogether I tried my hand at different sects...and the latent or blatant anti-Muslim rhetoric existed in each.... When it comes to interpreting the Book of Revelations...which is pivotal to the entire concept of Christianity, I have yet to meet a Christian who doesn't point his or her finger at the Muslims in the way I have already mentioned....the Biblical "false prophet."
"Me centric".....no...I have been spending a lot of time over the past few years observing and learning about anti-Muslim ideations in the "West."
I think you are projecting again Flightkeeper....some things never change....eh?
This mosque controversy demonstrates that my perspective is correct....or else there would not be any protestors out there, or any "no mosque in my back yard" complaints..
The mosque controversy as filtered through your bias supports your perspective -- well of course!!
You're not saying anything new and you still only see one side of the issue. That's projection for you, see how it works?
Yeesh, it's like talking to a brick wall.
by TruthDebater 9 years ago
I know this question has probably already been slung around the forums quite a bit. Forgive me if I am being repetitive. If the religious behind 9/11 would have been christians instead of muslims, would there be any controversy about christians building a temple at ground zero? I understand...
by Liberian1847 8 years ago
Even though I'm not Muslim however, I can't help but wonder if it is fair to hold all Muslims accountable for the deeds of other Muslims ( especially those extremist groups). Would'nt it be absurd to blame every living White man for the enslavement of Blacks? Or, do you call every German a...
by cindybarrymore 7 years ago
Building the Islamic community center at Ground Zero on private property is a Constitutional Right.Correct? If not, then why? Please support your arguments with facts NOT emotions. Because we all know that more than just Christians died in the 9/11 attacks, correct? If I'm wrong, please tell me so,...
by Julie Grimes 4 years ago
Who is Imam Mahdi, and what is his/her's significance with Jesus Christ and Christianity? Is Islam and Christianity closely related, more than what Christians are taught to believe? I'm just curious as to how Muslims view Christians, and Jesus Christ. They must think Christ was a...
by Morgan F 8 years ago
Most of us have heard about it already, plans are in the works to construct a mosque at ground zero. The site where over 3,000 people died in the catastrophic event of 9/11. Mothers, fathers, husbands, and wives died in the twin towers that day, and now a giant mosque is being erected in their...
by vicki simms 8 years ago
Can anyone state 3 reasons why a mosque should be built at Ground Zero?Everyone is quick to say No to a mosque (which can I add I do AGREE with) but I want to know if anyone can give 3 reason why there SHOULD be one built......
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|