Christian centre to 'combat evil Ground Zero mosque proposal'
An outspoken preacher with a history of anti-Islamic rhetoric has launched a Christian centre next to the former World Trade Center - as a direct response to plans for a mosque nearby.
In a statement that brands Islam as a religion of 'violence and hatred', televangelist Bill Keller has launch his so-called '9/11 Christian Centre' in a hotel conference room directly opposite the Ground Zero site.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne … z0yYYYv8Sg
What do you think, is he right or wrong?this is tricky ...would it be good for america considering what it stands for?...i am not supporter of mosque on ground zero..not because i think islam is what this preachers claims to be..just because i empathize with families of 9/11 victims..as right..well muslims have right to build mosque anywhere in usa and as far as they aren't doing anything illegal..how can one stop them?..in same way this preacher can build what ever he wishes to ..but paradigm of building center to counter evil...well who defines what is evil in plural society?..building a worship place is evil?..if yes it should apply to all worship places ,if no ..who can be judge for other's belief?
Well as it's from the right wing Daily Mail it will be the usual inflammatory bullshit. Secondly if this televangelist (a fact that makes him the direct opposite of a true christian) gets his way then hopefully Sikhs, Hindu's and Buddhists will also open up a centre and they will prove that religious folk who are not chrisitians don't fill their lives with hatred that dumbfucks lke Keller does.
Now that would be cool"What do you think, is he right or wrong?"
You mean in general, or for building his anti-mosque?
He can found whatever kind of church he wants to. A coven of witches would (or ought to be) allowed to start a weekly spell casting ritual in a building near ground zero if they wanted. Free exercise and all that.
I think the guy is a slimeball, but that doesn't mean he hasn't got the same freedoms everyone else has.I say if it prevents the building of an Islamic,Muslim anything, Go for it. If Islam is a religious state that condones the tragic violence that happened at this site, don't permit them to build anything within ten square miles of "Ground Zero".
they already have permission and they are going ahead with building that islamic center which they call...
How have you arrived the figure ten miles; is it prescribed in the Law ?
He is definitely within his rights, and...although I don't know a lot about his ministry, I'm inclined to think he's right in doing this.
I'm a regular receiver of e-mails of Keller's newsletters, but have to say I don't keep up with them because I get so many similar e-mails from religious sites, etc..
Guess I better go open more of them and try to make a personal assessment.
For now I'll just say YAY that somebody's taking a direct stance against Islam.
Sometimes ya gotta fight fire with fire.
And I hope it's with Holy Ghost fire! haThe varied responses are amazing. Frankly i do not understand what all the controversy is about. 1. our constitution guarantees freedom of religion in this country. 2. The tragedy of 9/11 had nothing to do with the islamic religion per se. 3. The terrorists that did this dastardly act were no more radical than that idiot in Florida that plans on burning the Koran this month. 3. If these folks put as much effort in promoting love, understanding and tolerance instead of judging others and promoting hatred and bigotry in this country the world would be a much better place to live in.
Judge not, lest ye be judged. If everyone turns away from defending equality and justice for everyone, who will be left to help you when it is your turn?I think they are making things worse. To me it is completely hypocritical as an American and as a Christian to preach love, tolerance... and then basically condemn people who haven't done anything.
I am pretty sure that the Bible asked you not to bear false witness and I am pretty sure that those people didn't do anything wrong just by being Muslim.
To say "they are a religion of hate and violence" when they haven't done anything hateful or violent just because of a book doesn't make Christianity any different.
I see a lot of hate and violence coming from Christians these days but somehow you think it is okay? It's not okay. A couple weeks ago a Christian man beat up a Muslim just because he was muslim.
Another Christian tried to blow up a Mosque. Another Mosque was burnt down and left a ghetto sign that read something like "Islam no more".
Or how about the black dude who was at the protest where a Christian mans walks up to him to pick a fight. The man says, "I don't want any trouble." Of course that doesn't stop the Christian man from getting in his face and calling him a liar. As it turns out, the man wasn't even Muslim. Did you hear an apology for that? Nope!
They changed the name from "Cordoba" too just to please you guys. But that doesn't seem good enough. You don't recognize the other Muslims who also died on that day in that building or recognize their families.I think that people are confusing religious em battlement
with Patriotic outrage.
What if the United states bought property in Iraq and put up a statue of president Bush where Saddam's' once stood.
I can't imagine a Japanese Temple being built at Pearl Harbor. Even after all thee years.
Sometimes we get caught up in all of the rhetoric and miss the obvious.Or perhaps your "obvious" is not everyone's. Perpetuating the myth that America was attacked by Islam is dangerous to everyone, especially the U.S.
This situation is comprable to the laws which were passed in several states banning military funeral protests. By law they have the right to assemble or protest wherever they want. However the unwritten laws of common decency would dictate that they should let families grieve their lost ones in peace.
Whose rights are in violation? Those who wish to manipulate their rights to freedom of speech, or those who wish to manipulate their rights to religious expression.
I think they should rebuild the towers and forget about what the churches and mosques in that area are doing.Maybe if two very different places of worship are near to each other in this very renowned location, two sets of fellowships can view each other and learn that they need not be at odds concerning the other's spiritual worship practices.
I don't believe he's doing this for God. I do not think he's doing this for Jesus. It is my conviction that he's not doing this for the Gospel. It seems to me that he's doing it because it's a hot topic and he knows it will sell. It is his right to do so in America. But just because it is his right, that doesn't make it right.
Romans 12:18: "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men."
He says the Christian center will serve to 'combat this new evil being constructed near Ground Zero'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne … z0ycMxvWD8
He's doing it specifically in reaction to the mosque. That's not being salt and light. It's simply being provocative for the sake of being provocative. That is not choosing to live at peace.
The muslims and the christians each have the right to worship and build centers of worship. I believe both sides are doing it specifically to inflame the passions of their more radical supporters.I think the Preacher is wrong, and we should as americans seize this moment and oust both the Mosque and His Religious Hatred Center.
Problem is we have no rules no, everything is right, anything for the moment seems ok. So it will be allowed to Fester creating more hatred. There will be sevier trouble yet, you can see it building. No good.Why do you call Keller's church "hatred", but not the mosque's?
Brenda, you are spliting Hairs here, to me they both are hatred, thats why I say sieze them "Both" They preach the same anarchy. Either way, It is a doctrine of emptyness to me.
Neither one. The Mosque or Keller , necessary in a Civil world.
If either side was of God, then why allow the direct result of your actions to reduce things to emotional anger. Its sense-less to me. Islam's book says if you dont believe like a Muslim believes, then you are to be removed (possibly killed- depending on whos interpreting it at the time), Keller preaches same in a different direction. Both are worthless, and contrary to world survival. They both need to go.
Way to show the famous Christian tolerance towards other people.
Why can't they just build a university at ground zero, a place of learning rather than a place of worship.
then keep all holy books in that university...
If you permit them to build an Islamic university on the site, what are they going to teach? Bomb Building 101? Crashing planes 101? Killing of innocent people 300? Praise God, kill all Christians 300. How to become a martyr for allah?
Get real!who is talking about islamic university..we are talking about general university and have all holy books in it...books are cause of what you say...'my way only way' is highly arrogant ideology ,unfortunately existing in many religions barring few..ironically those few are among oldest...
LOL No, crusade 101, witchhunt 202, and inquisition 303
A way to combat evil:
Merry meet and merry part, bright the cheeks and warm the heart
Mind ye threefold law ye should, three times bad and three times good.
Witchhunt?Not a witchhunt.
Just people who remember that America is a Christian Nation, not a Muslim one, no matter if our President has the audacity to try to change that fact.now when did usa become christian nation?
"... America is a [neither] Christian Nation, no[r] a Muslim one, "
There, fixed it for you. I should start charging people for remedial courses in civics and history....
FINALLY! A valuable idea and one that should be looked into, seriously. The World Trade Central University -studying global culture.
I think this guy must follow the mantra "be the change you want to see..."
He wants conflict and antagonism with Muslims, and it seems that he is willing to do what it takes to breed such tension and ridiculous animosity...
To build your church with the specific intent to go after a mosque says a lot....
Silly "Christian Americans".....are they so blinded and deluded?We are the "foolish" things of the world that confound the "wise".
I can see you're confounded, since you haven't grasped the concept at all.Well Brenda given that you're a right wing nutjob is it any surprise lotsof folk disageree with your moronic bush induced view of this world?
Why don't ya just open up that tiny mind of yours? or is that just too tough for you?Well, how RUDE of you!
LOL
I honestly don't care if you think I'm those things you said about me or not.
It isn't always wise to open up one's mind to things.
Matter of fact, it is wisdom to know which things to NOT open up one's mind to.You can strongly disagree with someone and still be polite.
Where is all that new found right to religious freedom the libs were preaching last week?
Oh I see, a Christian wants to do something so its an attack on others.
Everyday the hypocrisy shines through.
Confounded Brenda?
Hardly....
That projection problem of yours seems to be ongoing....The Mosque is a tool of the US to show the world we can be islamic friendly. I don't think the present level of controversy was anticipated, but, the fable of religious freedom here has been exaggerated. The ghost dance of the native american religion was forbidden by executive order in the late 1880's and the native religion itself has barely survived the assimilation of the native people's into the white world. These things are still discouraged among the american society.
...I'm not sure the native Americans WANTED or WANT their ways to be "assimilated"....
The treaty that formed the Indian Reservations, etc., was....both willing separation and reparation, was it not?No, it was neither. Offering a deal to someone under "agree or die" conditions does not equate to willing acceptance.
signing under duress. My wife is one of Oegon's "Lost Children". The forced assimilation hasn't yet been totally played out. The repercussions reverberate for generations. All aboriginal people's have had the white world crammed down their throats, and their cultures cast to the winds. It has led to much sufferring and inhumanity, on all sides. Loss of one's culture to be replaced by decadent "christian" values. Sorry, I'm venting.
Perhaps what you need here is a large breathing space, about 50 years should do it, to decide what kind of memorial you want. Something this big needs a great deal of thought, with the families and their multi-faceted views, taken into account. This isn't about religion is it? Surely, this is about something so momentous, so horrendous that only history ~(and a great deal of hindsight,) will decide what should happen next. How sad that in the face of such suffering, we argue about how to commemorate it.
OK, well elaborate on asking an Indian. Are we talking native American and the mass genocide that took place during the colonisation of the America's or Oriental Indian's and the mass genocide that took place during the colonisation of India?
Good one. But I didn't intend to highjack the forum. If I did, I apologize. Australia, New Zealand, The Phillipines, most of Africa. And when the active colonialization stopped, interference in internal affairs continues on. Now we come to reasons why terrorists walk the paths they do. There I go again....
And your right Dave. Globally, these things have gone on since before the Roman conquests of Europe and beyond. But the relatives of those lost in the world trade centre will not want to consider this. Their profound loss will continue to be just that, until the living memory is lost with their own demise. History will decide how it will all be remembered, but for now, couldn't we just let them have their grief?
Hi, Kathryn,
The comment I was responding to was this:
"The treaty that formed the Indian Reservations, etc., was....both willing separation and reparation, was it not?"
My answer was kinda glib, but what I was trying to get across was rather big, and hard to encompass in a forum post. I'll try to break it down.
First, there's this: "The treaty..."
The treaty? It's not like the Indians were all a single political unit under one government. There were scads of them, all over the continent, with different languages, different customs, different ways of life. There were as many treaties between Indian groups and the US government as there were Indian groups willing to (or forced to) deal with the US Government.
Second, there's this: "both willing separation and reparation, was it not?"
In a word, no. Ask a Cherokee if his tribe was "willing" to walk from Georgia to Oklahoma for no reason other than white people wanted to live in their Georgia homeland. Ask a Lakota how his tribe felt after a white guy discovered gold in the Black Hills and the US removed the Lakota from the area (in violation, I might add, of an earlier treaty). There are many more examples than I can list here.
The US has historically behaved abysmally toward the native peoples of North America. We're starting to do better, but we still have a long way to go.I have to agree Jeff. Although some of these treaties were worked out with all of the best intentions by honest treaty makers; there were too many white men that had no intentions of letting there be peace.
The same situation exists today concerning the trouble in the middle east AND this Ground zero debate.
There will never be peace until EVERYONE wants it."There will never be peace until EVERYONE wants it."
Oh, everyone wants peace. The problem is, everyone also wants something that doesn't belong to them, and there are only a few ways to get something that isn't yours.
You can buy it at a mutually agreed-upon price, which is the preferred method (and the method that libertarian idealists imagine would always be used if there were no governments).
You can intimidate the owner into selling against their will, or into a lower price than they'd otherwise agree to (which is what usually happens when one party is significantly stronger than the other).
Or you can forcibly take the thing from its owner (which is what usually happened in North America when white people wanted something belonging to Indians).
In the middle east, everyone wants peace, but everyone also wants to own Jerusalem, and letting anyone else but their own group own any of Jerusalem is unacceptable. Nobody's willing to sell their claim to Jerusalem, and everyone thinks they're entitled to all of Jerusalem. Therefore, they try to settle it through violence.
With this ground zero debate, it's a little more complicated. The builders of the not-a-mosque already bought the property at not-ground-zero. It's theirs, at a mutually agreed-upon price, in an intimidation-free sale. It ought to be cut-and-dried.
But there are people who want there not to be a not-a-mosque at not-ground-zero. They can't (or haven't tried to) buy the property from the builders (which is the only ethical way to stop the builders: buy the property from them at a mutually agreed-upon price). So now they're resorting to intimidation: don't build this not-a-mosque because all of us don't want you to, and look at how many of us there are. You're outnumbered...
They may (I hope they don't, but they may) resort to actual violence if their campaign of intimidation doesn't work.
Brenda Durham wrote:
...I'm not sure the native Americans WANTED or WANT their ways to be "assimilated"....
The treaty that formed the Indian Reservations, etc., was....both willing separation and reparation, was it not?
================================================
NOT I think that it was a "sign this treaty or die".You mean like the Indians said get off our land or die?
No the invaders (New Americans) said live within this circle that we have drawn in the sand (reservation) and quit fighting us over this land (surrender) or die.
Invaders?
Why not "immigrants", "refugees from tyranny" migrating to a VAST land where there was room to share?There was plenty of room to share from our perspective,
And the Indians were willing to do so until ,,,
They just kept coming and kept coming and kept coming until there wasn't enough room for all of us so we put "them" on reservations.So....do you think that made it okay for them to KILL the "white people"? And the only reason they didn't succeed in eradicating the "invaders" was because they were outnumbered?
hmm......if we said that now about our current border situation in the USA, we'd be called haters for sure, and be charged with inciting murder.....I'm not kicking America, I love it.
But I can picture myself. an indian standing on plymouth Rock watching a couple of ships landing, Thinking " welcom the strangers" But if I had seen 10,000 ships all at once, the war woulda been on right then.
The Indian way of life was doomed. Progress marches on and doesn't stop for anyone. Europeans were coming one way or another.
Tis the way of the world.
We can't point our finger and say Shame, Shame.
Well, We can but if anyone is looking ,, they are also being pointed at them.Again,
there was enough room for EVERYONE.
Think about it.
Why were the Indians so intolerant of immigrants who were different from them?
Did it perhaps threaten their livelihood? Deplete the number of buffalo and other wildlife? Threaten their religion, their belief in the "Great Spirit" (which is supposedly "God" but which really isn't the same thing as Christianity)?
Just asking what you think.I'm not an American Indian history buff, but It is my understand that as they were being pushed out of their homes along the coast lines that they began pushing back.
The Indians were pushed back to the Mississippi river.
President Jackson promised equality to the remainig Indians that were left east of the Mississippi for their support during war times and then after the war the Indians were sent on their trail of tears.
It seems that it was the immigrants that developed their intolerance for the Natives.
That is just my undrstanding.I see.
That's not my understanding.
But who would really know anymore, what with the propensity of the liberal agenda to even "change" history?About 45 years ago I had read a lot of American history, and this is the concept that we studied in the schools that I went to.
The Indians had little choice in doing what they did.
At the time of the plains Indian wars (Custer) Most of the Indians crossed over into Mexico to escape total extermination.
They were not accepted into the Spanish society, Most of the poor Mexicans that are coming over here looking for work are in fact the descendants of the American Indian.
It is a long and shameful story. But that is the way life has been for someone since the beginning of time.
Progress marches on.Hmm....strange how history's been taught differently in different places in America. Apparently part of it has been left out of what one of us was taught, because it most assuredly wasn't that cut-and-dried when I went to school, and that's been.....about the same time you went to school, Jerami. At least grade school. And there were some very positive aspects of American colonists' immigration.
But anyway, I was drawing a parallel to the original topic. Which seems to go right past some people; that it isn't always the "white man" who's to blame, either then or now. But whatever.Brenda Durham, are you talking about "revisionist history" accounts?
I have heard the saying often, "the victor writes the history" and if this is correct, I think we should stop taking sides and take a look at differing viewpoints to see which details do match up, if any...Yeah I'm talking about revisionist history accounts.
Like.....how our President and others in the liberal agenda are trying to re-write the Christian history of America and turn it into a third-world country where we'll have to start all over again with human rights, because the rights of decent-behaving people are being trodden on even as we speak; and a guilt-trip the width of the Continent is being laid upon people who never did anything wrong, because of the prejudice and unforgiving hearts of the descendants of some oppressed people plus some supposedly-oppressed people.
It no longer matters what details "match up", because (don't you get it??) there is an agenda to make WHITE people in particular pay for the sins of their fathers, and for some things that weren't even sins at all. There's where most of the pre-conceived notions (prejudice) about America is coming from, from decades-long prejudices backed by liberal rhetoric and propoganda that's now splitting America into factions in so many arenas it ain't even funny anymore.
"It is my understand that as they were being pushed out of their homes along the coast lines that they began pushing back."
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, as it always is.
When Europeans first came to North America (we're talking fishing and trading missions, even before permanent colonies, during the 1500s), there were a LOT more folks living there than most people realize. But they had no immunities to diseases that Europeans (mostly) shrugged off without (much of) a problem. Smallpox, for instance: it was still sometimes (but not always) fatal to Europeans. They could survive it, but with major damage to their complexions. The Indians, however, had built up no such immunity, and smallpox and other diseases wiped out a lot of the native populations.
This is nobody's fault. The Europeans had no idea what the heck germs were any more than the Indians did. But this is why by the 1600s the northeastern coast of North America looked pretty empty compared to Europe.
Even so, colonization was not all this rosy picture that Brenda paints. Look up the early wars between settlers and the local tribes. These are wars mostly between Indian tribes in which the Dutch and English colonists were embroiled because they had trade and aid deals with one tribe or another, and the ones who were friendly with the Dutch got into a war with the ones who were friendly with the English. (A necessary oversimplification.)
In one instance during the Pequot war, a group of English settlers from Massachusetts Bay (of City on a Hill fame) surrounded a village of Pequot Indians and burned it to the ground, with the people (mostly women, children, and older men--not warriors) inside their homes, shooting anyone who fled the flames. Their native (Narraganset and Mohegan) allies were horrified by this massacre of Pequot women and children. Yes, the Indians were horrified at the savagery of the Christian settlers. An interesting reversal, no? But it's true.
Of course, Brenda will probably accuse me of buying into some "revisionist" agenda, since this account makes the Christian settlers look pretty bad, and anything that casts a bad light on anything those early settlers did must be some nefarious plot to undermine America, corrupt our children, and curdle the milk in the fridge.
"Did [colonization] perhaps threaten their livelihood? Deplete the number of buffalo and other wildlife? "
Well, yeah, when white people migrated West, they killed a lot of the buffalo: more than could be used for food. White hunters would shoot buffalo, skin them, and use/sell the hides and only some of the meat, leaving dozens and hundreds of buffalo carcasses to rot on the plains. not only did this waste a lot of buffalo, it depleted the herds to the point that they almost were wiped out. Certainly this made it much more difficult for the plains tribes to survive, since there weren't anywhere near enough buffalo to support them anymore. That was one of the causes of the plains wars.
Don't believe me, or dismiss this account as 'revisionist' if you choose, but it's true (if oversimplified) for all that.Haven't you left out some major parts, like the meetings between Indians and the English settlers that were civil and not only civil but friendly, like the "first Thanksgiving" and ....I forget the names of both Indian and settler who were the famous "peacemakers".....
And even IF all that you said were true, does that justify the hatred NOW that many Indians have against MODERN Americans?
Since you're probably a liberal, right? and all for "tolerance" and "forgiveness", right? What justifies that NOW? Just like---what NOW justifies the agenda of groups like the Nation of Islam (google the website if you want) which is a black-rights group, and other groups/persons who want not only reparation but who have not only subtle but sometimes outright anti-white agendas?
I am not anti-black or anti-any skin color etc., but I am anti-specific religions that go against what America was based on. And I am anti-other-nationalities taking over what is now specifically American. And......yes, no matter who doesn't like it, it is now America, not "India" or "the land of the Great Spirit" or the land of Muhammad, or whatever, it is a Nation based on Christian principles, which is under attack politically (and sometimes literally).
Do some "cultures" not live in the past, in vengeance and unwillingness to forgive and move forward in peace? Yes indeed, or at least a portion of them do, the portion, maybe, that shouts the loudest.
...What we have in America now is a situation where the basic core of our foundation as the U.S.A. is being mocked and hated because of grudges that keep being brought up, never letting us move forward in the right way, always dividing the thing that HAS turned out to be a GOOD thing. If we keep listening to the liberal agenda that's based on vengeance, we will be right back to the days of civil war. It's already civil unrest, starting to be a "cold war". There comes a time when we have to say enough is enough. America has righted its wrongs the best it can. We should NOT let the influence of other Nations (like Islamic nations and Africa and China or anyone else) turn us from the course of tried-and-true principles, yes tried-and-true concerning integrity and righting wrongs, and we should nip this new "invasion" in the bud now (by political means and social pressure from patriotic citizens) and not let it change the course of our history. For another reason-----if we let it do that, it will change things not only for the "white" man but for everyone who now lives here within that boundary."Haven't you left out some major parts...?"
Of course. It's a forum post, not a dissertation. I even said that my post was oversimplified. My point is that when the settlers showed up, it wasn't just a happy shiny friendly situation for a long time until the Indians flipped out and started killing people for no reason.
It was a complicated situation, not a cut and dried one like you seem to believe.
"And even IF all that you said were true"
It is, if oversimplified.
"does that justify the hatred NOW that many Indians have against MODERN Americans?"
Uh? I never suggested it did. I only brought it up because you seemed to think that every Indian attack on white settlers was entirely unprovoked, and Indians were only too happy to move to their current reservations, completely voluntarily, and not at all at the point of a gun.
"it is a Nation based on Christian principles,"
*Sigh.* That old canard.
Show me in the Constitution where those Christian principles can be found?
Or if you're talking about the Massachusetts Bay colony, the one founded by Puritans, that's where criminals were sentenced to mutilation (having ears chopped off) for the crime of being a Quaker (that is, a different sect of Christianity than the Puritan majority). Yeah, that's totally a Christian thing to do.
Yes, you over simplified ; as was my first comment on this subject. What Hitler did to the Jews was no less honorific than what our forefathers did to the American Indians.
Let me add though that this was not done in the name of God.
This was done in the name of economic advancement.
Progress must keep marching forward, no matter the cost to the other guys.
===============================================
Brenda Durham wrote .... So...
you think the natives were peaceful, tolerant, non-violent, totally civilized, righteous people, none of whom raped and tortured white women and kids, nor their own people, and who never scalped anyone UNTIL the "white man" showed 'em how?
=============================
Jerami Yep the white man shewed um a lot of stuff worse that that.
That is the way that history told it when I was going to school.Wow. I didn't know liberal teachers had already invaded the school system during your school days. Or maybe people like Arne Duncan already had their hands around the necks of the textbook writers even back then....
Are you talking about grade school? Or college (that "higher" learning element that preys upon unsuspecting minds?)It doesn't take a history professor to know that 50,000,000 Native Americans would not have wanted to graciously just get up and move out to the center of the desert just cause the immigrants were so nice that the natives wanted to give them their lands.
APARTHIED. Did you know that in the days of the Roman Empire under the Caesars, the place we call Israel was known as Palestine? The Hebrew lands were referred to as Judea, in Palestine. Aparthied.
As in any society there were good and bad.
And which that we recognize as good depends on which side we find our self standing on.
Any great change will be seen from both prospectives.
Usually not by the same person though.
Back to the topic of the Mosque.
I don't understand such a large area of such a high tax base is being designated for a church building. I thought that The building was exempt from proprty tax?? Maybe not?
Any way, looks like a big change is coming from this development.The developer is exempt, not the location, since it is to be a cultural center. From the reports the board of directors consists of multi-faith persons of the Big 3. But the real issue is that the building in use already as an Islamic worship center. It was what the public first heard and everyone ran with it. They are not building "A Mosque" in particular, but a cultural unit containing a mosque. The BOD is also considering a synagogue and chapel area.
What I find scary is the Keller group using the Hilton hotel right across from Ground Zero as their encampment. Who died and made Christians the authority over that location?
Little to they tell, they have plans or had plans to build a huge mega church near that location. Besides that, it really shows the undertone of hate America really has with a smile of welcome and a mouth full of worms. 10 people caused a lot of havoc using the phrase "allah ou akbar" and now millions are going to be punished on their behalf. Rome wasn't even that cruel. I am sorry, but racism especially among religion is worse than ever in this supposed place where anyone can come and live. I have seen the place up close, lost friends as well and the location of the cultural center does not effect ground zero directly.Again, for those outside NYC, the location of Cordoba House (cultural center) is Park Place, approximately 2 1/2 CITY blocks from the corner of Vesey Street (Hilton Hotel where Keller is camped out) -G-Zero entry point & Port Authority train terminal. You cannot even see G-Zero from the location. Walking distance is 10 minutes...
10 people?
And how many people did those 10 people hurt?
Instead of diminishing the gravity of what happened, maybe you should start doing a body count of the people who've been hurt or killed by those who shouted "Allah Akbar" or whatever their terrorist cry is. Like the Fort Hood guy who was allowed to be a counselor, no less!, while he himself was in dire need of either counseling or reprimand and deportation, 'cause if he wanted to be a Muslim he should've gone to a Muslim country to live.And this is YOUR perfect expression of christian racism, Brenda.
Disgusting is not the word. If a handful of Christians did the same, you would protect them, just like England did in the crusades that wiped out millions -not thousands- millions of moors in the name of God and the legions of soldiers who destroyed and burned the land of India to China, South to Jerusalem in the name of God.
Even still, the Islamic global community does not protect those who caused this mess nor sympathize with this faction group (for all we know is not a faction group at all, but a group fabricated to cause the further assimilation of the American Ideology, since it was America who funded and supplied this faction with knowledge, weapons, etc.). Why should they be punished? Same as why should you be punished for the deeds of your fellow believers?
It's really sad, knowing I personally lost friends in WTC, that you or anyone else can stand there and blatantly justify YOU are better than those 10 people who stole three planes and killed themselves and thousands for no reason, with/without calling out allah ou akbar ( god is great ) in the process). If they had said Steve Jobs ou akbar, I bet apple would still build a store in downtown.
Now this fellow Keller is screaming god is Great, comfy at the Hilton, overlooking the site and raking in the money. Who is the terrorist now? Unbelievable the level of racism in America! And especially under the covering of "holiness".
It was such a man who invaded a country with no just cause who's war still continues today and was quoted on many occasions as the "process of global assimilation is in full swing" referring to the American right wing fundamental ideology...
That, sister IS terrorism. No amount of planes can measure up to it. You live in and are Babylon! It was the Greatest City and place imaginable; full of wealth, golden streets, every kind of desire and luxury, church, temple, dungeon, you name it...Typical example of someone blaming all Christians for what some who claim to be Christian did, and all the while claiming to be speaking against what you perceive as intolerance of Muslims. The twist you put on that is very ironic.
Typical liberalism.
Surprising coming from you, though, James, especially when you said I'm no better than the 911 terrorists. Very surprising.
I see the vengeance agenda of progressive liberalism has you in its clutches.Apparently, you missed the gist of my post. It clearly points out how even you a 'god fearing, born again, bible toting believer, does not understand exactly what happened. Second, how easily you throw the liberal card, when it is fundamental Christianity that is moving liberalism to new heights. Take G. Bush Jr & Mrs. Palin, etc. America is the Great Harlet and the mid-western bible belt of Christianity is so rooted in hatred, racism and denial, it is ridiculous.
Fundamental Liberalism under the disguise of peaceful holiness is worse than a few loonies flying planes into public areas. Billions of people effected, millions of dollars raked in, thousands of preachers feeding the masses while you chant faithfully, "God is great". Yes, I stand behind my statement: You are no better than the preacher terrorist or the militant terrorist, so long as you sit there and justify who and why. And just as equally pitiful are the atheists. So don't think you're alone or that I am picking on Christians only. But from this thread, that Christian preacher is more a terrorist. Anyone who agrees with him, or supports him -politically, socially, spiritually, economically or otherwise --under the umbrella of Christianity is equally a terrorist. That is liberalism at its finest.I had no idea you had so much vengeance in your heart.
I am shocked.
hmm....well, as I said before, I don't know Keller personally, but from the devotionals I've read so far, and from the info I've seen, I do indeed support his viewpoints. Notice I said from the info I have so far.
And from that, you have labeled me a terrorist! Oh my.
So....tell me, James, what is it that Keller has done that warrants you calling him a terrorist? And myself as well? I didn't fly planes and kill your friends. Matter of fact, I've never flown in a plane in my entire life. And I've never planted a bomb or killed anyone, nor threatened anything like that. And I don't advocate that anyone do those things unless it's in sanctioned war.
Neither am I Catholic nor did I have anything to do with the Crusades, nor anything that I know that you can hold against me.
So please enlighten me as to why you're so against me personally.
Do you just hate Bush because he actually put a plan in effect to DEFEND America against terrorism?
Or is it just a generalized hatred for all Christians?Keller has stated that his 'encampment' in the Hilton Hotel, directly across from the WTC Site is rightfully a "Christian terror-torium err territory". --By who's authority???
He has also stated it is an 'anti-mosque' campaign. Anti mosque = anti muslim. --That is racism and goes completely against all written biblical ideology and certainly spiritual.
Yet, you say you support his views.
He is putting fear, terror and anger in the hearts of people, under the guise of his perspective of truth. Thousands upon thousands of angry and hurt people, plus his followers of Christianity are flocking to him with money and more. You call that Christ like?
I call that evil. A worse evil than the men who committed that act in the first place. Why? Because this kind of evil parades as if it were pure light, pure truth itself. And they flock to it like flies to dung.
So long as people still continue to hate each other, no matter what principle they follow, no matter what reason, terrorism will always be.
So, there is it.
As for vengeance, Brenda, I do not hate Christians, Hebrews, Hare Krishnas, Muslims, Scientists or even Atheists. To me, all of it are lies and should all be done away with, once and for all. Am I aware that America is leading the world as the whore of Babylon, you betcha. Every corner of the planet is being infected, assimilated, etc by her. --from remote paradise islands to a village deep beneath the snow covered mountains of Tibet.
If you want to call that my perspective liberalism, vengeance, problem, go right ahead.I see nothing wrong with calling it a "Christian territory", especially since this IS a Christian Nation.
Like you, I don't hate anyone personally either, but I am "anti-mosque" and anti-Islam, if you want to call what Keller is doing as "anti-mosque". He isn't threatening to blow the place up! He's just using non-violent opposition to it, a RIGHT that he has as an American citizen.
As for the "whore of Babylon", ummm....maybe America is becoming that, but it certainly is NOT because of true Christian churches/groups; it's because of liberalism, and those who follow liberalism, some even claiming to be Christians.But just because a legal document gives him the right to, does not mean it is not verbal terrorism.
In addition, America is NOT even remotely close to a Christ like nation, nor was it founded on true Christ like principles. The very first Puritan act on this soil was to make war with Spain, France, Mexico and the native Indians, then England. Very Christ like indeed.
But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, as the saying goes: Show me ONE true Christ like church or group, just one. Not a sort-of-trying-to-pretend-to-be-Christ-like-church, but a true Anointed one in America or anywhere for that matter. If there was, none of this would be happening.The last one like that that I was in was probably.....over 20 years ago. I agree they're hard to find! But they are around, I believe. However, James, that's not exactly the kind of Church that would fit your mystic beliefs, since it was a Bible-believing, hellfire-&-brimstone, Love-of-God-preachin', Salvation-showin' place.
You tell me, James.
Or else tell me you're a Christian. Tell me you're born-again by the blood of the Lamb Jesus Christ. Tell me He is the One from whom the power to heal and to raise the dead comes. Tell me He was the Son of Man and is the Son of God; tell me He is God as the book of John tells me.I did not make the mystic statement, you did. I am merely wondering what the thought from you entails.
As for the second part, I will never consider myself a "born again Christian" --ever. Simply because it has nothing to do with the entire circumspect of whom the man Y`shua is and certainly nothing to do with why he did and from whom he came.
I have said this quite often, and oddly continue to repeat it:
1. All people who call themselves Christians (or any other belief/anti belief system) are mark-up worshipers of ba`al. They grafted in pagan ideology --from selfism to hedonism-- into what was to be perfect liberty for every human.
2. The book you worship --and yes you do worship a book-- is the same technique the Hebrews used to consider themselves right and correct in the eyes of the law. They even went so far as to bind it and put it between their eyes, just as you put a book between you and Creator.
Both of these are the false prophet and anti-christ. Y`shua himself said the anti-christ was already appearing even before he died. Why? How? Because the people were already abuzz with founding a new religion that would shadow Rome AND Jerusalem combined. Since then thousands of new theologies have been born, millions of lives wasted, countless killed to keep it alive.
And it certainly has succeeded in that.
What I am, is far beyond your hokus pokus belief or their hokus pokus disbelief. I do not need either. The power of Truth and Anointing is building a testimony in me. I am not stealing another mans testimony and calling it my own, like all those bible-toting people are. Yes, it has cost me friends, family, wealth and more. But, I laugh about it, because literally they have no power over me.
I know who made me and the infinite measure of love He has. If I did pray for you, and any other person who would permit me to, it would be that you would understand --not just know-- but understand what it really means to be born again, what it really means to be free...
Night.I worship Jesus/God, the Author of the book (the Bible).
Maybe you have my Faith confused with the "religion" that some call Christianity.
Either way, when I think about it, it is very tempting to open up to what you say. But then I remember what the Bible teaches, and I hear His voice calling me, and I'm right back on-track. Amen and Hallelujah!!
I'll be keeping you in heart and mind and prayer, James.Here are the root issues with that:
-Y`shua SPECIFICALLY stated NOT to worship Him, but you do.
-He is not the author of the bible, He is Life, all things, not a book. You spend more time in the book than with him, as almost ALL believers -and even some nonbelievers do.
-the bible is not the Word of Creator. Even according to the book, it says the Word is in you, heart, mind -if the Spirit dwells in you. No need for books then.
-you continually repeat you are a Christian. Christianity would be your Faith/Doctrine. But THE faith, you lack, is why you do the previous.
-do this. This week consciously count the time you spend in 'prayer' and reading the bible. Then count how much time you actually spend listening to Creator, his voice as you say, not your voice in your head, and see which one is really worshiped.
If you ask, I will pray for you. else, I can do nothing.
"I see nothing wrong with calling it a "Christian territory", especially since this IS a Christian Nation."
No, the US is a nation with a Christian majority, NOT a "Christian nation." There's a difference, and it's a big one.
Or you can keep bearing that false witness if you like.
No, you didn't fly a plane into anything and kill innocents yet. But you said on the first page of this thread, and I quote:
For now I'll just say YAY that somebody's taking a direct stance against Islam.
Sometimes ya gotta fight fire with fire.
And I hope it's with Holy Ghost fire! ha
So, you have a problem with "generalized hatred for all Christians," eh? You make it sound like if someone lumps you in with the fantatics behind the Inquisition, the Crusades or Catholicism and their child-molesting problem that it's wrong, that lumping you and all Christianity is generalized hatred... it almost seems like you think GENERALIZED hatred is a bad thing.
And yet you write "Yay, someone is taking a direct stance against Islam." Like it's all of Islam that flew the planes in, and EVERY Muslim was sitting there as part of the cabal.
Do you have any idea how dangerous people like you are? You can't even see your own raging hypocrisy because the light of your hateful selfrighteousness is burning so bright it blinds you. I know why Twenty One Days called you a terrorist. You have everything you need to be one except for the bomb and the courage to go kill innocents for your delusion. My God but you are a scary person.Umm... Islam is by its very foundation anti-Christian. So yes it's perfectly okay for me to say YAY someone's taking a stance against Islam in my Country.
And it looks more like a character flaw within yourself that would bring you to the conclusion you just drew.
If THAT wasn't so scary, it would be funny.Fathoming ignorance of this enormity is impossible to do. Easier to do Calculus in my head, or count to infinity.
Then, maybe it's best to have a war over these anti-Christian beliefs? Wipe them out? For the better of mankind, of course.
YES, YES... MORE KILLING IN THE NAME OF GOD!!! KILL THEM ALL, HETHENS, BLASPHEMERS AND UNBELIEVERS... DIE ALL OF YOU DIE IN THE NAME OF MERCIFUL GOD AND JUSTICE. DIE. DIE. DIE.
Hard to believe that with all the information available in modern times there are still people primitive enough to want to rally to this kind of crap. ESPECIALLY in America. Just shows how slow humanity is evolving (and that nobody reads history). Too many damn religions and too many people in a big hurry to get to the Disney story at the end of their particular book, scroll, hieroglyphic wall, epic poem, hallucinogenic vision or other cryptic sign.
(sigh).
Brenda, the lesson learned from the native American/United States relationship was that even if someone or a group assimilated, they were not desired...and their lands were..
I point to the Cherokee as the clearest example of this...
They were considered "removable" if it even meant their physical lives...
Cultural and physical genocide........Brenda...
You want to use the "Islam is opposed to Christianity" concept...
So that means you must also see Christianity as opposed to Judaism...
You present the problem with those who see their religion as a flag..."onward Christian soldier" types...
I am glad to know that not all Christians are like you....
You represent a person who has no respect for those different from yourself, and you hide your resentment in the frock and fetters of nation and religion.....
But, what would Jesus do....what would he say?
And, being that Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Quran, it would probably interest you to find out...
Have you ever read the Gospel of Mary Magdelene, by the way?As if there is any chance she will open herself to anything other than indignation and self-righteous fury.
I hope there really is a Jesus waiting in Heaven just so he can slap the sh-t out of people like that right before he punts their hateful souls down to the red man with the pointy tail and the pitch fork.There is no such thing as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, so no I haven't read it.
Indeed I do have respect for people as human beings, everyone.
But not for some religions nor State/National policies.
Just as you have no respect for my Faith; that's your legal right. But I am not the one(s) who shows outright personal disrespect; that lack of honor is attributable to some others here, maybe including you?
And no, Judaism is not directly opposed to Christianity, as Islam is.I couldn't agree with you more, Brenda. You're absolutely right. And, I would stand by you to uphold that respect and those rights.
If we vie to control the rights of the individual while attempting to gain their respect, you would probably also agree the result of that would end in dismal failure.
What would you think then would be the answer to resolving the stance against an anti-Christian religion, while attaining the respect of the people at the same time?
- Brenda Durhamposted 9 years ago
0Oh wait.
There are more than the one church like I was talking about that I've been to.
One is actually a Methodist Church whose Pastor has shown, and is still showing, the perseverance of the saints.
Another is a church in Ellettsville, Indiana, a Bible-believing, born-again, biker-rider congregation which many of them were rescued by the Lord from the streets, and are now in the Kingdom of God.How exactly do you ride a biker......?
...never mind, I don't want to know.
America was christian nation earlier ? LOL since when ? red indians used to worship jesus. ?
I think church, mosque and other religious hoopla is waste of time.Judaism refutes the idea that Jesus is the son of God....and Muslims believe that he was a prophet, but not the son of God...
That sounds awful similar....except for the fact that Islam uses Jesus...and Judaism rejects him...
What Jewish texts cite Jesus?
Again....Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Quran...
As for my lack of honor...I am standing in opposition to hate-speech and rhetoric against a group of people.... This is much different than what you do...
I have to fight against the self-righteous....those who brandy about some feeling of superiority based on superstition spread by other power hungry people.....Contrary to what Jeff put forward, disease was understood by Europeans....
Small pox was, at times, intentionally spread by British and Americans to the native population....
The infamous small pox blanket.....Amhurst Massachusetts anyone?
What of similar tactics used against the Seminoles??
What of the practice of the government paying for the scalps of natives? The "scalp bounty"....
This is why natives, in turn, started scalping Europeans...this was a European tactic of destruction turned against the creator...
I wonder where Jesus was when these fine Christian, God-fearing men went out to earn their money via the pelts of human heads?
So, when one thinks of the fear of being scalped by an "indian"...remember, it was the Christian European who "educated" the "savage aborigine" of America in this practice.....
Rape in California was brought through European hands as well....
What would Jesus do? Where did he go? Where is the justice for crimes covered by flags and bibles?Even if what you said were true....
Where is the justice, you ask?
Um....you're forgetting about reparation again, about how America has tried to right the wrongs that were done.
It has made something called....LAWS....that have corrected those things.
Beyond that, where is justice?--------
The same place where justice is for all wrongs.
And...
The Lord says vengeance belongs to Him. Not to some so-called civil-rights activist group.
And...
vengeance is different from patriotic actions that protect the welfare of a Nation as a whole.
So....what else are you going to blame on those European "Christian" immigrants?
Who do you blame for AIDS? Let me guess......Everything that you said is true except .... Christians didn't do it, Government did it.
But truthfully some self professed Christians (?) did join in on the frenzy."Contrary to what Jeff put forward, disease was understood by Europeans...."
Not at the time I was talking about it wasn't. I was talking about the late 1500s. Smallpox inoculation wasn't invented until Dr. Jenner started experimenting with it in the mid-1770s.
"Small pox was, at times, intentionally spread by British and Americans to the native population...."
Those incidents happened much later in history than the late 1500s (which is when the first contacts between Europeans and American Indians took place). The first smallpox blanket incident was sometime in the 1750s, long after first contact.
Those initial contacts are what introduced smallpox &c to North America and wiped out so many of the native population, and those initial infections were nobody's fault.
But yes, the English and later the US did send smallpox blankets to native groups, it was certainly a deliberate attempt to spread the disease among the Indians, and it was pretty un-Christian for a so-called "Christian nation" to be doing to its neighbors, don't you think?
"Even if what you said were true...."
Oh, it is. Deny it as much as you wish, it won't change what happened.(And here I thought you valued truth...)
"...America has tried to right the wrongs that were done." And is still trying, and has a long way to go. But it's trying, and that's a good thing.
"The Lord says vengeance belongs to Him."
Well then maybe we should have turned the other cheek after 9/11?
"vengeance is different from patriotic actions that protect the welfare of a Nation as a whole."
Sure, wrap it in the flag and you can justify pretty much anything, especially if it victimizes an unpopular minority.
- Brenda Durhamposted 9 years ago0
So...
you think the natives were peaceful, tolerant, non-violent, totally civilized, righteous people, none of whom raped and tortured white women and kids, nor their own people, and who never scalped anyone UNTIL the "white man" showed 'em how?
And all the different tribes or groups or settlements of natives were.....united, in unison, just tryin' to live peaceful productive lives, right? Thank you Brenda for agreeing that it was the "white" European "Christian" who brought scalping to the "new world" and rape to California....
California was home to the largest number of native peoples, the broadest diversity of linguistic and ethnic groups, and of cultural identities....and yet rapine and warfare were nonexistant....
The coming of the missionaries and the soldiers would change all this....
Justice....wrought at the Carlisle Indian School one beating at a time..... We put their families on reservations and then demanded that they hand over their children to us...or else we would withold the food and medical allowances this original federal welfare system created....
We took their kids....beat them if they spoke their native languages....they died of disease in our care....and we culturally committed genocide...
John Eastman anybody......Brenda, how about you?
He was converted to Christianity....rose from the Carlisle Indian School to go to Yale, if I recall....the only one to do so.....he became a doctor, went back to the Sioux reservation, from whence he came, and beheld that "Christian Americans" were doing firsthand to his people.... And he published his findings....
Read up......it is too bad our great American public schools don't share this great American's writings...... He puts "Christian America" in great perspective.....Hold on now....
Someone around here wrote a hub about the reservations, etc; a rant about how they blame the "white man"/"Christians"....
Are you talking about elements of the Catholic Church? Or non-Catholic individual Christian groups? or what?
I speak of both.....for both are christian...whether catholic or protestant, they are of the same root....and behave in very similar, if not identical, ways....
Read John Eastman, Brenda...
Learn about the Carlisle Indian School....
Find out about the Cherokee....who read and spoke English...lived in neighborhoods and wore clothes just like their American counterparts....published newspapers....the whole nine yards...
And then look at what the U.S. government did to them....
When John Sutter came west and set up in Northern California they would routinely ride out into the countryside and round up native peoples to work and "play" with....(remember..rape in California was brought from outsiders)...
When they needed more people, they went out and gathered more, until there weren't any left, or until the native population moved away completely....
But the real question to you, Brenda, is....how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
How deep until cognitive dissonance forces you to look away?
By the way.....the tomohawk....most notably a weapon of the native Americans, was a weapon brought over and introduced by the French......and alcoholism wasn't far behind..
Another little factoid to throw out there....I think you mean Charles Eastman, not John Eastman, right?
And...the "rabbit hole"....I'd delve all the way down to the bottom of it IF I knew the history sources were reliable.
But that's the thing about "history"...the telling of it can be so lop-sided, or people get it twisted, or only tell one side of it, that it's practically impossible to know for sure what happened.
The part of history I'm concerned about right now is TODAY. I see tomorrow's history happening before my very eyes. Just like you do. And people are already being used as scapegoats to avoid looking at the real problem.
Let me say this----
I think if you ever had to be under Islamic law, you'd just maybe start to appreciate the Christians who've spoken against it. But it would be too late then, wouldn't it?..."I think you mean Charles Eastman,"
There's a John Eastman and a Charles Eastman (no relation that I'm aware of), both of whom were born to native/white parents, and both of whom were educated "back east."
"But that's the thing about "history"...the telling of it can be so lop-sided, or people get it twisted, or only tell one side of it, that it's practically impossible to know for sure what happened."
Well, it's impossible to know a lot of the details for sure, that's true. But it's not all that hard to reliably document atrocities committed against the various Indian nations by the so-called Christian people of the US. That is, if you're interested in, y'know, actual history and not some bowdlerized grade-school Thanksgiving Day pageant version of it.
"The part of history I'm concerned about right now is TODAY."
Convenient.
No Jim.....not so...
IF a man is trying to do something to intimidate, cause fear, to provoke, or to incite, whatever he does needs to be analyzed....especially when we are using his own words against him....
The "ground zero mosque" was a concoction of Christian extremists and the media.... The hype was about as honest as the Bush/Cheney build-up to Iraqi invasion..... A bunch of smoke and mirrors....
I have no problem with religious groups having their places of worship.... But what this thread speaks to...the original topic of this thread that is, is something much different...
There was a Greek Orthodox church actually located at Ground Zero.... I hope it gets rebuilt... I hope that real Christians, and not the political charlatans that like to cloak themselves with the cross, show their support for their bretheren....
But, the last time I checked, there aren't enough donations coming in...
How is the expansion of an already existing community center synonymous with the proposed idea related by the original poster in this thread?
These are not the same thing...Jerami...the government is made of people....
People did these things.....and these were people who identified themselves as Christians....
It was based on the "superiority" of "European," "Christian", and "manifest destiny (which of itself is a religious connotation) that these acts were perpetrated...
But, God fearing Bible folk also owned slaves...they also had illegitimate children with women they viewed as property...
They also lynched....
And this goes directly to Brenda's ongoing assertion that the U.S. is a Christian nation....
It is time responsibility was taken.....stand up and take a bow for the legacy of blood, bullets, abandoned children that has been carried forward, generation upon generation since European Christians stepped into the "New World"....I'm on your side on this.
My only objection is that there is a difference between self profession of faith in God and doing it.
I know this has nothing to do with the issue at hand and is not an excuse for the genocide that occurred. BUT ...
As I stated on another thread. 1% of the earths population dies every year.
Had all those Europeans not come to america, They possibly would have died of starvation or something else.
They chose to kill the Indians in lien of their own self preservation. Is that a Christian thing to do? Of course not or maybe depending upon the definition.
Is it a doing Gods will thing to do? I think by this time he would rather we came on home than to send someone else.
Forgive me.....I do mean Charles Eastman.....
That's what I get for writing from wrote...
But his words are no less meaningful...
As for living under Islamic Law, Brenda, my family did so for around 500 years....and they did quite well... The Armenian Genocide, which had more to do with Western Christian conflicts among Eastern Christian sects, like the Gregorians, changed my living location...
How about yours?
Have you had any family live under Muslim rule?
I also am from native American descent..... In the Ottoman Empire, my family was able to keep their language, their system of beliefs, and their properties...and live according to the rules of their church....
For native Americans...much of our history has been lost...stripped...stolen...erased...
Given this track record, along with that of Jews (kicked out and abused by European Christians while protected and enabled to follow their customs under the Ottoman Muslims.....it is interesting to think what America would have looked like....
Again Brenda, how much experience does your family have with "Muslim rule"?Wait a minute.
I'm not talking about your ancestors. I'm talking about whether you yourself want to be under Sharia Law.
And if everyone wanted to be "social justice" activists, I imagine I could do the same if I looked up my family history from waaay back. Heck, I've been told that my father's family had some "Indian" blood. And I'm fair-skinned, so maybe on the other side of my genetics I'm.....part Irish or part...whatever! So what? I honestly don't really want to know! Because it might sway me toward prejudices or vengeance for what people AGES AGO did to my ancestors! I'm a Christian, so I believe in forgiveness, not vengeance. And forgiveness doesn't mean allowing someone to run all over ya; it can mean getting them the heck away from ya even after they're forgiven.
And I'm an American.
So I don't want to be agged into saying I'm an "Irish American" or "Chinese American" or "African American" because those are MISNOMERS! No matter where my ancestors came from, I am here in America. And even if I were from ....say....Africa.....I'd have to go back and live in Africa if I were to stake claim to BEING African.
This is getting tedious.
Some people just don't seem to even grasp what it means to be an American citizen, to actually have allegiance to the U.S.A., not the label of any other Country.
Jerami..... Self preservation? I don't think so....
Material profit...gain from stolen lands and lives....
Power.....hegemony....this is what drove Europeans west...and through the Americas...
Survival?
I don't see how.....I have just tested your knowledge of "sharia law" and you have been found wanting Brenda....
As a Christian, Brenda, you would not be ruled by sharia, but by the rules and laws of your religious sect, which would have a protected status....
Just think, you would have the christian theocracy that it seems you want at times...
Not being a "person of the book" I'm sure I will find my way just fine...I'm a big boy... I am very glad that many, many, many Muslims are very happy with secular states....as am I...
They have learned, as have many Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, and others...that when it comes to governance, religion needs to stay at home...Ah. And now we get to the real bottom of this.
You're upset that the Laws of the U.S have heretofore been based on Biblical principles, and you are part of the "social justice" movement to secularize our laws.
Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
I guess I'm slipping, or I would've seen that to start with, and not wasted my time trying to show anything to you."...the Laws of the U.S have heretofore been based on Biblical principles"
Utter nonsense.
Brenda, you should back up your claims with evidence...quote me where I expressed what you put forward...
Upset? You are the one ranting about Muslims....I'm standing up for a minority population....which I don't even belong to....
I am countering your aggression with equal force....but also with facts...which are not angry...
Perhaps you should project less....
Read Charles Eastman......
Learn about the terms you use before you actually use them.....I will project that, even if my ancestors were under the tyranny of England, I would not NOW blame the current residents of England.
"You are the one ranting about Muslims....I'm standing up for a minority population....which I don't even belong to...."
Why?
The majority of them would never stand up for you, your loyalty is very misplaced.
By the way, a billion Muslims are not a minority.""You are the one ranting about Muslims....I'm standing up for a minority population....which I don't even belong to...."
Why?"
Because minorities still have rights, even if you don't think they deserve them.
"By the way, a billion Muslims are not a minority."
There aren't a billion people in the US, let alone a billion Muslims.
Jim.....really?
To begin with, I speak as an American...and Muslims are a minority population in this nation...
Also, being that Muslims are of diverse ethnicities, I am also supporting them on a non-religious level..
Why?
Why not?
As for "them", and how "they" would treat me....I know too many Muslims to fall prey to your rhetoric...
How many Muslims do you know Jim?
As Americans, these men and women deserve support...they are entitled to protections....and should be given the same rights and respects that we receive...
Anyone who says otherwise should think about that before they start trying to talk about "America."
Jim.....think about what you are saying before you say it....
Brenda....thus is demonstrated the flaws of "common sense"..Small pox innoculation may not have come until later...but the Spanish and other early "New World" colonizers coupled their Black Death experiences with the pandemics wiping native peoples out...
Charles Eastman was a Lakota Sioux who was taken at 15 to attend Carlisle Indian School... He wrote many various works discussing the conflicts between native peoples and "white" Americans..
He became a medical doctor, and after gaining prominence he returned to the Sioux reservation from the East Coast in time to behold American military animosity towards his people...
He was disillusioned by the "Christian" way he had been taught, especially when American soldiers were killing the Sioux people that he was trying to save....
His books should be read in middle schools across the nation, in my opinion...
Otherwise Jeff, I agree with your viewpoints 100%...
I don't think Brenda realizes that the more she tries to turn the U.S. into a Christian nation the worse Christianity appears and becomes....."the Spanish and other early "New World" colonizers coupled their Black Death experiences with the pandemics wiping native peoples out..."
Indeed. Many writers of the time viewed the mass death of the North American natives as the will of God. Ew.
"the more she tries to turn the U.S. into a Christian nation the worse Christianity appears and becomes....."
And more to the point, the worse the US will appear and become.
I came across this interesting history lesson recently:
http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08 … story.html"So it's easy to see why a group of Muslims creating a community center in the heart of a majority Christian country in a city known for its large Jewish population might name it "The Cordoba House" They're not, as Gingrich hopes we would believe, discreetly laughing at us because "Cordoba" is some double-secret Islamist code for "conquest"; rather, they're hoping to associate themselves with a particular time in medieval history when the largest library in Western Europe was to be found in Cordoba, a city in which scholars of all three major Abrahamic religions were free to study side-by-side."
*Sigh* The religious Right has been distorting history to further their political ends for years, and continues to do so. They usually distort American history to bolster their claims to a privileged place in the US (the Christian Nation BS), but now they're distorting the history of Medieval Spain to make it okay to stir up discord in NYC (contributing to...what was Brenda's phrase? "The balkanization of America?" Something like that.)
Related Discussions
- 69
Ground Zero Mosque
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...
- 179
Do you support Obama's statement about Ground Zero Mosque?
by Liberian1847 9 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...
- 160
Do You Think it's Right to Build a Mosque at Ground Zero?
by Morgan F 9 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...
- 9
Building the Islamic community center at Ground Zero on private property is a Co
by cindybarrymore 8 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,...
- 117
A Mosque at ground zero NY; You are kidding right.
by TMMason 9 years ago
I would say your kidding right. But they are not."What could be more insulting and humiliating than a monster mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center buildings that were brought down by an Islamic jihad attack? Any decent, American, Muslim or otherwise, wouldn’t dream of such an...
- 9
Can anyone state 3 reasons why a mosque should be built at Ground Zero?
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......