Democrats & Liberals Archives

It's None Of Our Business.

That is, the question of whether those folks, who own private property, should be allowed to build a mosque on it near where the Twin Towers once stood. Once we get past the question of rights, then all we have left are methods which rely on essentially pressuring these people out of doing what they want to do.

This picture, from the liberal blog Balloon Juice, pretty much tells the story. Are these people demanding that we sell Ground Zero itself over to them for their mosque. They're pretty much building the facility on land they either own or lease.

Will it break our leg or pick our pocket? No. The harm people imagine is imposition of Sharia Law, or something like that. But doesn't the First Amendment speak against that? Yes, indeed, it does. If you buy the argument that the establishment clause forbids government intervening for or against a religion, then there is absolutely no danger of that happening.

Do Muslims have magical hypnotic powers? Are liberals just going to suddenly all convert to radical islam, despite the fact that much of what Liberals and Democrats believe is in utter opposition to what the Radical Islamists claim to support?

We really need to be more levelheaded about things like this. I live not much more than a mile from a Buddhist temple. Didn't used to be there, and the majority of the people in my rather conservative neck of the woods probably wouldn't have decided to build it there, but then, the majority of people, by law, couldn't tell them that they couldn't build such a temple, no more than they could tell the Catholics not to build the several Catholic Churches that exist within a few miles of my home.

Does their existence mean that some people living close by might become Catholics? Well yes, they just might. But if they do, they do so by choice, the choice that all Americans have under the First Amendment. The Catholics are not broadcasting magic Catholic Brainwashing Waves.

I'd say the fear and loathing on display is about territoriality and insecurity, rather than truly about any real threat. The impulse, while understandable in some, should not be mistaken for something rational, or based on fact. We should also not mistake any success in the efforts to prevent this for a true victory in the fight against terrorism.

Terrorists want us to reject moderate, average Muslims, so they in turn can reject us, and turn to them. The more Muslims who instead reject the radicals and the terrorists who claim to be the pure representations of Islam, the better. Do we serve that end by driving them out, by even going so far as to reject building any more mosques in America, ever, as one prominent Conservative suggested? No.

The terrorists want us to react in fear and in panic, to go nuts trying to assume a God-like level of control over the world, so they can say to everybody, "Look, they're crazy thugs, look at all the things they do when somebody rips the scab off their civilized appearance."

America needs to live up to its ideals when its difficult and unpopular, or otherwise we aren't as committed as we would like to claim to what we claim makes us great as a nation. If freedom of religion only applies to groups not currently unpopular, if freedom of speech only applies to those who are voicing popular opinions, if the civil liberties easily get laid aside when somebody attacks us, then what's the point of all those rights? What's the point of boasting about our freedom when it's revocation is subject to the latest crisis?

In essence, these people are saying that in times of stress and strain, America should turn to the expedient habits of hypocrisy, instead of showing our integrity by living up to our founding principles.

The folks who have purchased and leased the properties necessary for this development have bought the right to do, within the law, what is their right to do with their property.

I think some of the doubts people have as to the wisdom of this project are legitimate, but what I think, or what anybody else thinks in this country, should be irrelevant. It should be none of our business what they do. If it doesn't break our leg or pick our pocket, they should be free to worship as they please, and build as they please to that end.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 15, 2010 4:32 PM
Comments
Comment #305892

Your right Stephen it is none of our business if a group wants to build on their own property as long as they have the proper permits and things. IMO it would have been better if the muslim group would have picked a different spot further away from the twin tower site. Most people IMO wouldn’t have thought twice about it. The Imam could have bought property elsewhere.

Posted by: MAG at August 15, 2010 6:56 PM
Comment #305896

Stephen, None other than the Newt himself has stated we should not allow another Mosque in this country until the Saudi’s allow churches and synagogues in their country. It seems those far right types like to shout small government and religious freedom but don’t like the practice of it. Such hypocrites.
Anyway my question is how many blocks away from the twin towers location would be acceptable to those small government religious freedom types to allow for the building of a Mosque? I also wonder if Newt thinks we should ban trade unions like the Saudi do. Or restrict freedom of the press like the Saudi’s.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/21/newt-gingrich-no-ground-zero-mosque-until-saudis-allow-churches/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Posted by: j2t2 at August 15, 2010 7:41 PM
Comment #305898

I don’t know how much land or how many buildings are for sale in a given area in New York City, but I’d guess not much and not many. Into the mix is how far from the people who wish to use it would it be appropriate to ask them to buy and build. Would we be willing to give them the difference in what they would have to pay for the new property and the sale price of the property they already own or lease? So many questions and so few answers.

C&J insist the Muslims be nice. How nice are we to ask these sacrifices of them?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2010 7:50 PM
Comment #305906

Re private property

I own rural land. There are many things I CAN legally do. But I choose not to cut trees even well away from streams. I leave trees near the roads and I leave the big, good looking trees that I know people passing by like to look at. I allow my neighbors to use one of my roads as a short cut, even though it causes me trouble keeping it up. My neighbors do similar things that benefit me. We don’t pretend to be good neighbors or make a big deal about our tolerance. Actions do the truth talking, just as they do for our Imam friend in New York. His actions are loudly proclaiming his true views on tolerance.

j2t2

You are misinterpreting Newt.

His position reflects the majority American opinion. They have the RIGHT to build a mosque but it is not “healing” and if they were more in tune with the feelings of others they wouldn’t do it.

I do hope that the Muslim world as a whole soon becomes as tolerant as we are. It is still physically dangerous to loudly profess Christianity or demand it be treated equally with Islam in much of the Muslim world. In much of the Middle East, where Christian & Jewish populations predate the Islamic conquest by centuries, these ancient communities are being or have been driven out. This is a much greater cultural loss than building or not a new mosque in New York.

Marysdude

I don’t insist they be nice. I just wish they would be as tolerant of the views of others as we are of theirs.

Posted by: C&J at August 15, 2010 9:05 PM
Comment #305909

C&J from the link in my previous comment. What exactly am I misinterpreting ?
“arguing on his Web site that New York should ban the lower Manhattan mosque “so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.”“


So what you seem to be saying is “well they do it so we should”. For someone the likes of Newt that seems to me to be pretty childish. Why should the American people fall into the “Crusades trap” because the middle east is so conservative? What else should we take their lead on? IMHO we should do what is best for this Country not follow behind some kingdom and their archaic laws simply because they are foolish.

This guy seems as bad as Palin with the politically charged comments and foolish follow the Saudi lead comments. Lets face it C&J these two were out to insult Obama and he did the right thing. They are now realizing it and then blabbering about “its not a religious freedom issue” when in fact it is. If they want to effect foreign policy with regards to churches and synagogues in Saudi perhaps they should do it with fly overs or invade the country.

But seriously, can you answer the question from my earlier post? Just how far away from the twin tower site would be acceptable for a Mosque, without giving up our rights in our haste to blame all Muslims for the acts of a few?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 15, 2010 9:24 PM
Comment #305910

j2t2

Obama seems to have also backed into my position. He says they have the right to build but won’t comment on the wisdom of doing it.

re Newt

He never called for it to be illegal. He says that it SHOULD not be there. I have seen him on TV explaining this. He understands that it is LEGALLY done, but morally maybe not.

re how far away - I don’t know. There are more than 100 mosques in New York City. They seem to cause no trouble.

I recall this sort of issue many times with the camp in Auschwitz. It is in the middle of a Polish city, yet whenever the locals wanted to expand a supermarket or build anything at all, there was always a problem. It is very hard to have something like this.


Re the Mosque - Somebody suggested building a gay club across from the Mosque. I understand the Imam was not okay with that.

Posted by: C&J at August 15, 2010 9:37 PM
Comment #305916

I wondre how many Christian Missions, Prayer Houses and Churches have been built in areas where the local populace was not in favor of it. I wonder why the missionaries were not nice enough to locate those facilities elsewhere. Then, I wonder how many of those same type facilities have been built on or near reservations here in our country, how many on what was considered by locals as ‘hallowed’ ground. So many questions, not enough answers…

Boy, I sure wish those darned old Muslims would be nicer than we are.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2010 11:11 PM
Comment #305917

>Obama seems to have also backed into my position. He says they have the right to build but won’t comment on the wisdom of doing it.

C&J,

There you go again. President Obama said he thought we should follow the Constitution, and never once mentioned whether he thought it was a good idea or not. That is NOT what I would call ‘backing’ into your position on anything. The right, so selfrighteously went after him for wishing to adhere to the Constitution and he qualified it by saying it was not his business whether it was nice of them to build it or not. Frankly, your nerve to assume bad from good is astounding…and a little unnerving. When you have to reach into your back pocket to put false words and meaning into the President’s mouth, you’ve totally lost your way.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 15, 2010 11:19 PM
Comment #305922

“Obama seems to have also backed into my position. He says they have the right to build but won’t comment on the wisdom of doing it.”

It seems to me that Obama has been pretty clear on his opinion and has not backed into anything. It seems those on the right turning this into a national political issue have been forced to use fear, half truths and outright lies to get some dirt on Obama and have failed to do so.

“He never called for it to be illegal. He says that it SHOULD not be there. I have seen him on TV explaining this. He understands that it is LEGALLY done, but morally maybe not.”

His exact words were “ban any more Mosque…” Ban means “to prohibit especially by official decree”. I said “should not allow”. So this red herring of illegal is nice but not factual. It seems Newt is backing into yours mine and Obama’s position after he had the bad judgment to call Obama out on it. It seems to me that once these conservatives whiners realized they were stepping on their ideology they started backpedaling to cover their buts.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/23/my-take-no-conservatism-in-gingrichs-attack-on-the-ground-zero-mosque/

“re how far away - I don’t know. There are more than 100 mosques in New York City. They seem to cause no trouble.”

So we know that according to Palin and Newt 2 blocks is not enough distance for a Mosque but we don’t know what those that oppose the Mosque based on proximity, as they claim, believe to be a proper distance from the twin towers location, funny how that works.

“Re the Mosque - Somebody suggested building a gay club across from the Mosque. I understand the Imam was not okay with that.”

If that doesn’t violate any laws then it would seem to be an acceptable location and the Iman will have to get use to it. If he can’t then his religious intolerance is showing, he will lose face and still have to deal with it.

Here is an interesting article on the Imam that has been called so many names by the extremist righties.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/ground_zero_mosque_imam_bush_partner_for_peace.php

Posted by: j2t2 at August 16, 2010 1:29 AM
Comment #305924

C&J are reminding me of a pretzel, by their twisting and bending of english to fit their arguments.

I’ll take mine with a little salt and some beer, please.

Posted by: gergle at August 16, 2010 2:34 AM
Comment #305927

“He never called for it to be illegal. He says that it SHOULD not be there. I have seen him on TV explaining this. He understands that it is LEGALLY done, but morally maybe not”

Are you really turning to Newt G as an arbiter of what is legal vs what is morally right??? Now that is about as funny as they come.

http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm#deadbeat

Posted by: 037 at August 16, 2010 6:45 AM
Comment #305928

To 7 out of 10 Americans, this mosque is a big deal. What the bama has done will cost dems in this election and will cost the bama in 2012. Sorry, that’s called truth and consequences. Spin it any way you want.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 16, 2010 6:53 AM
Comment #305929

C&J There is no accurate data that I have seen that suggests a majority of Americans are against building there. Actually the last poll I saw had Americans split evenly.

The building location is beside two strip clubs. Why isn’t it just as disgusting that two strip clubs are that close to hallowed ground?

How far away is acceptable. There is a fight in Tennessee to keep a Mosque from being built there and look how far away that is from ground zero.

This is about fear plain and simple and the right-wing’s continued attempt to scare American’s to win votes.

Posted by: Carolina at August 16, 2010 8:17 AM
Comment #305930

MAG-
In 2001, a piece of the wreckage from the planes that hit the tower landed in that place. The site was deliberately chosen, for a Mosque and community center meant to encourage moderate Islam and preach against what al-Qaeda stands for, as an answer to the 9/11 attacks.

It’s provocative, but if the response wasn’t dictated by Xenophobia, conservatives should have been backing this provocation against radical Islam, instead of vilifying the mosque and those who built it.

If we give them a fair shake and let them build, we both encourage moderate Islam by allowing it a place in our society, and we refute the notion that al-Qaeda would like to further, that the war we fight against terrorists is really against Muslims.

Unfortunately, Republicans are pushing the dangerous drug of political wish fulfillment and flattery towards people’s worse impulses, rather than standing up for what makes us Americans, and America head and shoulders above the rest.

C&J-
Joe Scarborough came out against Newt’s comments. Newt’s pandering to the lowest common denominator of the Republican Party, which has gotten pretty low in recent years, especially with some folks wanting to modify one of this country and their party’s greatest political legacies, just to get the votes of some John-Birchers in the border states.

I think the Republicans have made a bad habit of pushing and stampeding people into positions that strain at our constitutional protections. When I saw the terrorist attack of 9/11 live on TV, I quickly realized that the kind of chaos this could create in our society could easily lead us to undermine the very freedoms that make life worth living as an American. Something similar happened in Rome, when Rome was attacked in Ancient times, and Julius Caesar masterfully exploited folk’s sentiments to sieze power for himself, and end the Roman Republic.

Public opinion polls can reflect a whole bunch of people being wrong at once, as much as anything. That’s part of why an argumentiam ad populum is a fallacy. Sometimes pushing a point just based on popular opinion is simply being wrong with plenty of company.

We live not merely by majority rules, but the rule of law as well, including constitutional rights and provisions specifically meant to filter and counter the will of the majority when it endangers both the freedom of the individual and the existence of a democratic forum to discuss and debate ideas within.

Obama is standing up for the principles of this country’s founding. Maybe in the short run that’s unpopular and risky, but in the long run he’s like that guy who confronted McCarthy and asked him, “Do you have any decency?” He doesn’t have to explain himself later, on that count, about why he went along with what the others were saying. He’s got a simpler position with greater integrity to speak from, and in time, if not in short time, his will be the position folks can hold their heads up high for taking.

There are all kinds of things, that if the Republicans ever wake up from this political psychosis they’ve gone into, that future Republicans will feel shame for. Obama’s not going to have to worry about that here.

Beretta9-
If folks lose taking these positions, they lose with a lot more dignity than those who show the terrorists how scared of even moderate Islam we are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 16, 2010 8:44 AM
Comment #305933

“To 7 out of 10 Americans, this mosque is a big deal. What the bama has done will cost dems in this election and will cost the bama in 2012. Sorry, that’s called truth and consequences. Spin it any way you want.”

Beretta isn’t this a Faux news poll? The only real question is why the other 3 Faux watchers were not swallowing the kool aid. What exactly has Obama done other than stayed out of it until the extremist on the right demanded an answer. He then answered appropriately based upon his job.

From wiki- “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Now we have people like you claiming it is Obama’s fault, which is a pretty sorry and pitiful attack on someone upholding the Constitution.
I was watching some repub extremist from Texas last night and the first words out of his mouth were “it is not a religious freedom issue”, which is of course proof positive that it is in fact a religious freedom issue. It seems that conservatives still believe the Constitution only applies to slave holding landowners when it comes issues they don’t support.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 16, 2010 9:50 AM
Comment #305934

Religious freedom would have no meaning if unpopular religious expression were allowed to be suppressed by the wishes of the majority. Obama is simply stating the law of the land and our historical respect for individual religious expression. How strange that conservative constitutional fundamentalists embrace a movement so antithecal to our founding principals.

Posted by: Rich at August 16, 2010 10:12 AM
Comment #305936

A piece of the plane wreckage fell on that place and it was deliberately choosen Stephen. To preach against what Al Qaeda stands for? Or could it be a tribute to them? I’m all for religious freedom. I don’t care if they build 1000 Mosgues in N.Y. But on that site NO. They have the law on their side granted but did they think of the moral implications. Did they think maybe this will cause more trouble and cause more killings by some religious nut case or even some athesit nut case. What about other business’s in the area? Strip clubs, Gay clubs and other business’s that may open in that area that Muslims are against. The question is, is this Mosque going to cause more trouble then it will heal?

Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 10:42 AM
Comment #305938

MAG stated “A piece of the plane wreckage fell on that place and it was deliberately choosen Stephen. To preach against what Al Qaeda stands for? Or could it be a tribute to them?”

DO you have any factual info to back up the conspiracy theory that it could be a tribute to Al Qaeda? This Imam did not just appear suddenly he has had the same message for years now. Rather than the usual far right misinformation half truths and outright lies used to smear the guy why not some facts.

Also why not some exact distance from the site that would be acceptable? Seems no one on the right can answer this very basic question. So lets do this the hard way, considering the location is NYC is 3 blocks away from the site acceptable to those that find it morally unacceptable at 2 blocks?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 16, 2010 11:46 AM
Comment #305942

Here’s a piece that attempts to address the two sides of the issue…constitutional (vs) cultural.

“By global standards, Rauf may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.

They’ll need leaders, in other words, who understand that while the ideals of the first America protect the e pluribus, it’s the demands the second America makes of new arrivals that help create the unum.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 16, 2010 12:28 PM
Comment #305943

Greg Sargent of PLUMBLINE had this to say. I’d say he has it right…er, left…er, right (correct).

The angle here is that one of the criticisms of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Islamic center, is that he refused to call Hamas a terrorist organiztion. And here’s Hamas standing up for the Imam’s mosque, in firm agreement with Obama. Hamas, Rauf, and Obama all agree: Build the mosque!

In reality, of course, Obama did not “endorse” the Islamic center. Rauf is widely seen as a moderate, and he has condemned terrorism. And here’s what Rauf actually said about Hamas:

“I’m not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question…I’m a bridge builder. I define my work as a bridge builder. I do not want to be placed, nor do I accept to be placed in a position of being put in a position where I am the target of one side or another…

“The targeting of civilians is wrong. It is a sin in our religion. Whoever does it, targeting civilians is wrong. I am a supporter of the state of Israel. … I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary.”

Of course, this debate is all about symbolism, not about reality. It’s about insinuating, or indeed stating outright, that Obama is on their side, and not on ours. How long until Liz Cheney or Sarah Palin proclaims that “Hamas has now come out in support of Obama’s 9/11 mosque”?

UPDATE, 10:13 a.m.: Right on cue, the NRSC just blasted out a release attacking Chuck Schumer thusly:

As Hamas Weighs In On Ground Zero Mosque, New York’s Senior Senator Remains Silent

Schumer’s office has actually said he is “not opposed” to the center, but he hasn’t said anything beyond that. What we’re seeing here is that it does Dems no good to try to duck this issue. Republicans will attack them anyway.

But if the ‘right’, including many here, can blast the falsities long enough and loud enough that percentage of Americans who are gullible enough to listen to the crap, will undoubtedly go up again.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2010 12:29 PM
Comment #305944

I find it odd and troubling that many of those most fiercely defending religious rights of Muslim’s are atheists who take every opportunity to chip away at Christianty and Judaism.

Many of these same folks who like to wear the constitution as a patch on their shoulder when it comes to defending Muslims, are the same people who find no constitutional problem with government control of education, healthcare, energy, and more.

These same folks scream loudly when the name of God is dared to be spoken aloud in our nation’s schools. Each year at Christmas they roll out the usual admonitions against any display of the symbols of this national holiday on public grounds. Many have gone so far as to wish to ban religious symbols on the gravesites of our fallen military heros resting in national cemetaries. The dead, even our heroic warriors and their families have no religious rights.

It would lend great credence to their position on muslim’s building of the mosque in NY if they would show the same tolerance for Christianity and Judaism.

And, it would also reveal a sense of citizenship and consideration for the sensibilities of others if the mosque was relocated. This is not sacred ground for Muslims…it is for most Americans.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 16, 2010 12:55 PM
Comment #305945

j2t2 Is there any factual evidence to the contrary? The Imam’s comments and ducking questions are questionable.

Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 12:57 PM
Comment #305946

MAG-
Well, lets see what evidence you have that it’s a tribute. Then we can decide what the credibility of that notion is.

Royal Flush-
You dump any set of people in an area together, and let their families grow over the decade, and you can get his second America very easy: people who have forgotten where they came from, who identify themselves as normal, who have already had the place dug out for them from what long ago was the norm.

I’m part Irish by ancestry, and there was a time when to be Irish was to be stereotyped as a drunken lout. There was a time when folks were holding out that the Italians and Southern Europeans like them were all of substandard intelligence, that Catholics were as mind-controlled as some folks believe Muslims are today.

In short, there’s nothing new about this kind of prejudice, and absolutely nothing positive about it. If you read your history with due diligence, you will find this country was never what these people in the second America claim it to be, especially when you look at most of their ancestors. Assimilation has always been a tension, but it’s a tension in both directions.

America guards itself from no menace by becoming xenophobic or appeasing xenophobia.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 16, 2010 1:08 PM
Comment #305947

Royal Flush-

I find it odd and troubling that many of those most fiercely defending religious rights of Muslim’s are atheists who take every opportunity to chip away at Christianty and Judaism.

I find it odd and troubling that many of those most fiercely attacking religious rights of Muslims are Republicans and Right Wingers who hate America and take every opportunity to drown Buddhist children.

See, I can do it, too! I can hide a bigoted, poorly founded claim and hide it in a personal observation as well!

I’m a Christian, not merely by birth, but by choice. Had some people on the right had their way, that choice would have been forced on me.

Then, of course, it wouldn’t have been my choice. Then, of course, I would be appeasing the men and women who wielded their political power to force this on me, instead of truly believing in and having faith in God.

You can vilify us, but doesn’t the First Amendment basically say it’s a private decision? If we accept the broad Republican claim that you believe in the constitution wholesale, as it is written, then it should be plain as the nose on your face what the proper position is for government and government officials: indifference.

That government is explicitly barred from promoting a religion or hindering it. So anybody who goes on the campaign trail and sells their commitment to restore Christianity or anything like that is basically selling you a service they can’t or shouldn’t be performing by the oath they take.

One only has to look at the sorry track-record of Conservative interests in slowing the cultural evolution of this country away from Victorian Prudery to see that all such efforts have been a spectacular failure.

Where people have freedom, where the law says no law can be made, the best option is to deal with one’s own choices, and compete with the choices of others as they come along.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 16, 2010 1:29 PM
Comment #305949

SD wrote; “You can vilify us, but doesn’t the First Amendment basically say it’s a private decision.”

I certainly didn’t “vilify” anyone and merely pointed out the double standard of many atheists. And, nowhere did I write it was not a private decision.

What I did write with no comment by you was…”it would also reveal a sense of citizenship and consideration for the sensibilities of others if the mosque was relocated. This is not sacred ground for Muslims…it is for most Americans.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 16, 2010 1:52 PM
Comment #305950

Royal Flush, you know very well, as evidenced by your use of the word “many” several times, that given any group of people, that group will have a share of hypocrites, ignorant, and undereducated, making claims that are not shared by the larger group. So it is with Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and all other religious groups.

When one boils down your last reply, this is you saying in general. What is troubling though, is that your construction seems designed to specifically critique those who critique Christians, rather than acknowledging the fact you are doing the same of anyone who defends our Constitution and the private property and religious rights of these Muslims to build a Mosque on their own property. Your comment seems to cast you in the same critical shadow by action as those you critique.

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote your last reply above? Your words logically allude to it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2010 1:55 PM
Comment #305952

Stephen I asked a QUESTION in my comment I said Quote ” Or could it be a tribute to them?” You made the factual statement about the Imam preaching against al qaeda. Where is your proof he is going to do exactly as you say he is? Or are you just taking him at his word? Some of his statements and silence on others lead me to be skeptical of this guy.

Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 2:01 PM
Comment #305953

For those who disparage atheists for being ‘biased’ in favor of Islam over Christianity…hogwash! Stephen is a Christian, and I am an atheist…so what? Is there a question at or near ‘ground zero’ about a Christian church being built? The question has to do with Islamists wanting to build a few block from a site you have indicated is somehow sacrosanct from Islam, but not others. We are trying mightily to show that the religion should not bear witness here. The land is theirs, the intent is theirs and the city codes have been met. You can lambaste atheism all you want, but being an atheist does not stop me from being able to reason. Has being a Christian held the same sway with you?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2010 2:10 PM
Comment #305955

MAG-
Very Well. From Time Magazine:

And yet Park51’s main movers, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, are actually the kind of Muslim leaders right-wing commentators fantasize about: modernists and moderates who openly condemn the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents — ironically, just the kind of “peaceful Muslims” whom Sarah Palin, in her now infamous tweet, asked to “refudiate” the mosque. Rauf is a Sufi, which is Islam’s most mystical and accommodating denomination.

The Kuwaiti-born Rauf, 52, is the imam of a mosque in New York City’s Tribeca district, has written extensively on Islam and its place in modern society and often argues that American democracy is the embodiment of Islam’s ideal society. (One of his books is titled What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America.) He is a contributor to the Washington Post’s On Faith blog, and the stated aim of his organization, the Cordoba Initiative, is “to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions.” His Indian-born wife is an architect and a recipient of the Interfaith Center Award for Promoting Peace and Interfaith Understanding.

So there you go.

Royal Flush-
Ground Zero is sacred ground, certainly. But this mosque, despite the common name given it, is two blocks away. Should we deny the blocks around the former city of the Murrah Federal Building to Tea Baggers and staunch small government conservatives? It’s effectively the same logic.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 16, 2010 2:26 PM
Comment #305956

Mdude wrote, “You can lambaste atheism all you want, but being an atheist does not stop me from being able to reason.”

Nor does being an atheist stop some from being hypocrites.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 16, 2010 2:35 PM
Comment #305957

If all else fails, throw out a donut hole…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2010 2:41 PM
Comment #305958

Ground Zero is sacred ground, certainly. But this mosque, despite the common name given it, is two blocks away. Should we deny the blocks around the former city of the Murrah Federal Building to Tea Baggers and staunch small government conservatives? It’s effectively the same logic.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 16, 2010 02:26 PM

SD’s logic in this comment is firmly rooted in politics. I am pleased to read that he understands the concept of sacred ground and memories. Now, all that remains is for Muslin’s to understand that concept.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 16, 2010 2:43 PM
Comment #305959

Flush,

“This is not sacred ground for Muslims…it is for most Americans”

Really?

More than 70 Muslims also died working at the World Trade Center that day.
Is the World Trade Center site more sacred than the Pentagon?
More than 35,00 people died on American highways last year. Are our highways less sacred for the loss of life?

“And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.”

The vast majority of the more than 1.5 billion adherents to Islam would disagree with you.
These murders were not committed in the name of Islam, they were committed by criminals that belive that their twisted version of Islam is the only way.

The World Trade Center site is commercial real estate. It was before Sept. 11th, and it will be again.

If this is truly “sacred ground” why are allowing Wall Street to rebuild it’s shrine to capitalism?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 16, 2010 2:47 PM
Comment #305960

“j2t2 Is there any factual evidence to the contrary? The Imam’s comments and ducking questions are questionable.”
Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 12:57 PM

MAG are you asking for this Imam to prove a negative based upon the slimmest of suspicions by those that find a conspiracy behind every word uttered. Refusing to answer questions, he answered those questions just fine according to the Marysdude comment 305943 and my previous link to his background. How typical of those on the right to find someone guilty until proven innocent.

“Where is your proof he is going to do exactly as you say he is? Or are you just taking him at his word?”

MAG is this a requirement for all religious leaders before they can lead a flock or build a church? To discriminate against this guy simply because we cannot tell the future opens the door to some extreme totalitarian/authoritarian/conservative rulers to abuse all people in this country. Tsk tsk.
First they came for the….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…


BTW I am finding it odd that not one of you guys have been able to define an acceptable distance away from the twin towers site for a Mosque. Will the movement leaders get an appropriate answer to you guys any time soon or will this question be ignored?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 16, 2010 2:48 PM
Comment #305962

MAG asked the Constitutionally IGNORANT question: “You made the factual statement about the Imam preaching against al qaeda. Where is your proof he is going to do exactly as you say he is?”

In America, unlike Middle Eastern nations, MAG, one is presumed innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. Your question presumes guilt and asks for proof of innocence. How VERY UNAMERICAN, of you. Amd how like the thinking of so many in Muslim countries. Where were you born, exactly? :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2010 2:52 PM
Comment #305973

Remer Stephen made a comment I asked for proof he gave it I DID NOT presume guilt or innocence. All because you are a manager here on WB does that give you license to be rude or is it because you may have more education then some make you Better.I noticed that in a lot of your comments you think you are better and smarter then everyone else you know everything and your comments are Gospel. I was born here in the U.S. and I have a tendency to question peoples motives for doing something especially after something like 9/11. I don’t believe ANY church, synagogue, or mosque be built anywhere near the ground zero site. I believe the area should remain a memorial to those who died there and to those who survived. And NO religious group get preferential treatment on that site or around that site.

Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 3:23 PM
Comment #305975

MAG,

“I believe the area should remain a memorial to those who died there and to those who survived. And NO religious group get preferential treatment on that site or around that site.”

So what you’re saying is that you would be against rebuilding the towers as well?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 16, 2010 3:35 PM
Comment #305974

J2t2:

“To 7 out of 10 Americans, this mosque is a big deal. What the bama has done will cost dems in this election and will cost the bama in 2012. Sorry, that’s called truth and consequences. Spin it any way you want.”
Beretta isn’t this a Faux news poll? The only real question is why the other 3 Faux watchers were not swallowing the kool aid. What exactly has Obama done other than stayed out of it until the extremist on the right demanded an answer. He then answered appropriately based upon his job.”
“A proposed “mega mosque” to be built near New York City’s Ground Zero has little support nationwide, suggests a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll.”

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100812/poll-7-in-10-americans-oppose-ground-zero-mosque/index.html

Does it make a difference that it is a CNN/ORC Poll?

Now you guys on the left can talk all you want and as Royal Flush has already pointed out, it is the height of hypocrisy to defend the rights of Muslims and at the same time attack Christian principles. The effects of obama’s interference are going to be felt by democrats in Nov.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today and he made an interesting statement: he and Robert Novak were the only two people in the media to project a republican sweep in 1994. It was a total surprise to the democrats. He stated today that in November, the democrats have no idea what is going to happen to them. Even though they expect to loose seats in the house and senate, they have no idea how mad the American people are becoming. If the dem politicians listen to the MSM, they have no concept of the anger. What one needs to do is read the UK papers, in order to find out what is really happening in American politics.


Posted by: Beretta9 at August 16, 2010 3:35 PM
Comment #305976


The conservatives are only point out the fact that the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to conform.

Posted by: jlw at August 16, 2010 3:45 PM
Comment #305977

Rocky, Is there liberal stupidity in that comment. Rebuilding the trade center would be the Memorial.

Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 3:48 PM
Comment #305982

MAG,

“Is there liberal stupidity in that comment. Rebuilding the trade center would be the Memorial.”

I am just trying to wrap my head around how some people are all for building a replacement for the Twin Towers, the epitome of capitalism, on grounds that apparently some people consider “sacred”, or “hallowed”.

If you want to consider this area “sacred” why not just build a park that surrounds a fitting memorial.

It seems to me a bit hypocritical that you are against building what, for all intents and purposes, is a house of worship blocks away, but, at the same time, you are all for rebuilding what is essentially a shrine to the almighty dollar right on the site.

The fact that the shrine might be called a “memorial” seems inconsequential.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 16, 2010 4:10 PM
Comment #305984

Oh my, it sounds like a few “on the right” have their panties in a bunch. Methinks a few vulnerable spots have been found.


And this is a bit of humor…that is, if some here can find it.
I was reading the posts on a Newsvine/MSNBC forum re: the CA judge who struck down Prop 8.

Of course, there were those who cited religio-history to claim that gay marriage is wrong, and more than a few of the usual Bible-thumping, cafeteria conservatives who quoted Leviticus about abominations, but below is one guy’s response that was just too funny not to pass along. This guy’s screen name is Dan Austin, Texas:

· A marriage shall be considered valid if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

· Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

· I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

· I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

· When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

· I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

· A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

· Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

· Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

· I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

· My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: jane doe at August 16, 2010 4:11 PM
Comment #305986

jane doe; the real humorous thing is that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews and not to the Gentiles.

Secondly, Christ came to fulfill the Law.

Thirdly, the Law was not passed on to those in New Testament times.

Fourthly, those who want to live by the Law, will be judged by the Law, and “by the deeds of the Law, no flesh shall be justified”…

In the course of history, how many people do you think actually obeyed the Law to the letter?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 16, 2010 4:23 PM
Comment #305987

Here is a great link for those liberals who want to play “Kissy Face” with a violent religion. Why would Americans want to keep this religion out of America? We have judges who want to include Sharia Law with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7947717/Taliban-kill-couple-in-public-stoning.html

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 16, 2010 4:33 PM
Comment #305988

“Now you guys on the left can talk all you want and as Royal Flush has already pointed out, it is the height of hypocrisy to defend the rights of Muslims and at the same time attack Christian principles.”

Beretta it is not the right of Muslims alone that I defend I defend the rights of all because, as I have stated previously- First they came for… . The conservatives seem to seeking scapegoats for the conditions of today much like well…as in the past, in Europe prior to WWII. I do not denounce Christian principles nor seek to step on the religious freedoms of Christians. I do however extend the same courtesies to all other religions as well so IMHO the hypocrisy is in those that don’t include other religions.
I may not like these groups or agree with these groups but I agree they have the right to practice their religion as they see fit, well until the time they decide me or mine need to practice their religion or they are trying to establish a theocracy.

“The effects of obama’s interference are going to be felt by democrats in Nov.”

The effects of Obama interference is way overblown. He has stated they have the right which it now seems you agree with. It is the far right using this issue to fear monger the easily lead movement followers. If they could think with Rush they would realize that there has been no interference only a reply to a question from the far right and the “we will believe any conspiracy theory” followers. To bad these conservative movement leaders do not actually have a good record to run on or actual ideas for moving the country forward. Perhaps this kind of nonsense would not be needed if they did.

BTW the poll results you linked to did not show the actual question asked but I would find it easy to believe that 70 % of Americans would disagree with the Mosque being built 2 blocks from the site. I would also believe that 50% would not want it built period. I do wonder how many would disagree that they have the right to build the Mosque at the proposed location. You know that seems to be a conservative trait, this lock-stepping into banning the rights of minority groups.

“What one needs to do is read the UK papers, in order to find out what is really happening in American politics.”

Scary what 30 years of conservatism can do to a free press isn’t it?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 16, 2010 4:37 PM
Comment #305991

Beretta,

“Here is a great link for those liberals who want to play “Kissy Face” with a violent religion.”

So if I associate your beliefs with the Hutaree you won’t have a problem with that?

I find it hysterical that the right wing fundamentalists take exception when lumped in with “Christian” terrorist groups, but have no problem at all lumping the 1.5 billion Muslims in with the Taliban.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 16, 2010 5:20 PM
Comment #305992

MAG, then for consistency, tell us now that you are for forcing that Baptist Church near the former Oklahoma Federal building to be taken away. After all, it was self-professed Christians who blew the Federal building up, making it holy ground, as well.

Come on hypocrite. Tell us you are for taking the private property of a Christian group away from them because some people calling themselves Christians blew up the Federal building killing men, women, and children.

Nuff Said!

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2010 5:22 PM
Comment #305993

Baretta9 is still pedaling idiotic rhetoric, I see. Thank you, Baretta9. Diversity of opinion, including the idiotic, is what keeps WatchBlog alive and well. Much appreciated.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2010 5:25 PM
Comment #305998

Harry Reid sticks IT to both Democrats and Republicans. Wash. Post: “Harry Reid weighs in on N.Y. mosque: It ‘should be built someplace else’”

So, are Democrats supposed to support this hypocrite? And what is a die hard right wing conservative extremist to make of this? Should s/he support Reid’s position since it reflects Sharon Angle’s? Or, condemn his position making them self a fellow hypocrite, like Reid?

Good one, Reid.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2010 6:01 PM
Comment #305999

Remer, Was that Church there before or after the bombing? Anyone could call themselves Christian Remer but being one is something else. I DO NOT call anyone who kills in the name of God Christian or anyother religious preference. Did I not say be BUILT anywhere near that site. Being built and already built are two different things. So who is making the idiotic comments now Remer because I NEVER SAID TAKE AWAY If it’s there already. Remer because someone differs from your opinion what right do you have to call that opinion idiotic. Is it because it differs from your Liberal attitude? I never said that the Imam didn’t have the right to build there. I question his motives though and why there.

Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 6:12 PM
Comment #306001

DRR,

Even Reid can be wrong. He states that he thinks the Muslim Study Center should be built farther away…okay. He can buy the present site, use the money plus any extra and build it anywhere he wants…if he can get the Imam to agree to go along with his stupidity. I like j2t2’s question better than about any other raised here…exactly how far from this sacred, sacrosanct, beloved-by-all site will be acceptable? They want to build it about 2.5 blocks away, and there is currently one four blocks away. Will those folks have to tear theirs down?

j2t2,

Did anyone of these loudmouths ever answer your simple question?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2010 6:30 PM
Comment #306003

Muslim leaders to abandon plans for Ground Zero community center

“Insiders say Muslim spiritual leaders behind the controversial initiative are considering giving up on the former World Trade Center location, in a gesture of appeasement.”

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/muslim-leaders-to-abandon-plans-for-ground-zero-community-center-1.308426

If this article turns out to be correct may I say AMEN…go in peace and thank you for being sensitive to American feelings.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 16, 2010 6:56 PM
Comment #306004

Did someone say ‘these people’ were not American citizens? Who said that? Where’d they get their information?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2010 7:03 PM
Comment #306005

Royal Flush, and if the article isn’t correct, and these Muslim Americans insist they not be pushed to a slippery slope of concessions toward second class citizenship as they stand up for their Constitutional rights as hard as any American ever has, then I say Amen, build in peace, and thank you for your courage in the face of mob rule, which our founders warned us about.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2010 7:19 PM
Comment #306006

Marysdude said: “Even Reid can be wrong.”

No crap, Sherlock! And he has been many times. This is Harry Reid demonstrating that his reelection and politics comes before what is just and right. In other words, he is being a typical politician which anti-incumbent voters have had their fill of.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2010 7:22 PM
Comment #306007

Evidently Marysdude the movement leaders have not issued an acceptable distance in blocks, so the followers of the conservative movement cannot answer the question. It is pretty sorry when this simple question cannot be answered as it makes it seem as if the conservatives are saying there is no acceptable distance, there is only prejudice, and fear.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 16, 2010 7:23 PM
Comment #306008

MAG, to correct your ignorance, I am a Buddhist, and have been by choice since 1967. Thanks for the opportunity.

You said: “I DO NOT call anyone who kills in the name of God Christian or anyother religious preference. “

But, you DO support denying Peaceful loyal American Muslims their Constitutional Rights because of the acts of a few extremists calling themselves Muslims on 9/11. I frankly don’t see the difference that your cognitive dissonance attempts to hide your hypocrisy away, on this issue.

Built before or after, is not the issue. That is a straw man and red herring attempt to dodge your own hypocrisy. Didn’t work.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2010 7:27 PM
Comment #306009

What Mr. Remer describes as capitulation to “mob rule” I would characterize as sensitivity for the feelings of others and a desire to appease rather than become a reason for even more misunderstanding about motives.

I would argue that this is more in character for a major religion wishing to live peaceably with its neighbors and perhaps attracting more adherents to its beliefs.

Confrontation on this divisive issue would not serve Muslim interests well.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 16, 2010 7:35 PM
Comment #306012

Remer, If you would read what I wrote you would find that I said he has every legal right to build there as like Obama I question his WISDOM in choosing that site and Reid is siding with Obama though saying it outright instead of beating around the bush. Even Paterson said that he would help him find a site farther away like maybe 1/2 mile away. I know you are Buddist. As I said Remer I would discourage any religious group from building there. Poll 61% believe the Imam has the right to build there but 64% say that it is a wrong choice so I guess by your estimation 64% of Americans are idiots. By the way when you were a practicing councelor did you treat your patients the way you do some on this blog calling their remarks idiotic? Just curious.

Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 7:47 PM
Comment #306013

That’s counselor corrected spelling Remer

Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 7:52 PM
Comment #306015

If they already have one there why do they need another?

Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 8:18 PM
Comment #306019

Let’s sum up Obama’s position. Islam is a religion that is like all others. It is not unique or special and has no special insight into truth. Since we have a separation of church and state, the government has no opinion about the religious validity. As far as we are concerned, Christianity, Islam, Wicca and Voodoo are all equally valid ways to seek metaphysical truth.

Marysdude

All I am saying is that Obama and I agree on this. I am glad he seems to have come around.

Re missionaries in Muslim lands – it is a deadly business even to bring it up.

I consistently ask for similar treatment. My simple test is substitution. If we change places, do you still think the deal is fair? I believe these guys have the right to build a mosque and proselytize. I also believe that Christians have a right to build churches, Buddhist can build temples etc and they have a right to proselytize in Muslim countries. But in all these situations, I think it is a good idea to be sensitive to local opinions.

Do we agree on these things? If not, what is your opinion?

Gergle

Please see my comment above. I have stated an restated my positions. I regret that Newt doesn’t agree with me, if his position is what you interpret. Mine is simple and untwisted. They have the right to build. I wish they would be a little more sensitive to local feelings.

Carolina

Please see above. The poll I saw was not “split;” it is that most people have two opinions, which the pundits evidently cannot understand are not contradictory. Most people think they have the right to build but that they should exercise discretion by being more sensitive to local feelings.

Stephen

Please see above. If that is what Newt said, I disagree with him. My position can be stated in a couple lines, as I have above.

I understand his frustration, however. We are very tolerant. On the other hand, such toleration is rarely reciprocated.

Posted by: C&J at August 16, 2010 8:42 PM
Comment #306022

C&J,

See, you’ve done it again…”I am glad he seems to have come around.” Is this stupidity necessary in order to forward your silly twittle? The President was never ‘away’ so he did not ‘come around’ to your view. His own view was that Constitutionally the Imam had a right to build in that location as long as he met codes. He also thought this might not be the best time to make such plans. Say he ‘came around’ long enough, say it loud enough, repeat it enough times and pretty soon every monkey in the zoo will screech it at the top of their lungs…oh, the Tea Baggies and the visual media have already started screeching? Damn!

MAG,

>If they already have one there why do they need another?

For the same reason there are two Baptist churches within half a block of each other in my little town in Georgia.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2010 11:36 PM
Comment #306023

Christian missionaries had the United States Army in reserve, or most reservations would not have had Christian churches built on or near their ‘hallowed’ grounds. Sensitivity must be a new requirement for ‘Christians’. SBlaaaat!

Posted by: Marysdude at August 16, 2010 11:42 PM
Comment #306024

Kinda stupid if you ask me Dude to have two of the same denomination within half a block unless one is a freewill baptist and the other southern baptist.

Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 11:59 PM
Comment #306025

Trust, but Verify.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 17, 2010 12:14 AM
Comment #306026

Beretta 9, it’s good to see that your perspective hasn’t changed, and I’m sorry you failed to see the humor in what I posted. And I didn’t author it, by the way….

Posted by: jane doe at August 17, 2010 1:25 AM
Comment #306030

>Kinda stupid if you ask me Dude to have two of the same denomination within half a block unless one is a freewill baptist and the other southern baptist.
Posted by: MAG at August 16, 2010 11:59 PM

MAG,

You are under a misconception. The one four blocks away is a MOSQUE. The one proposed is a COMMUNITY CENTER. The one four blocks away is NOT a COMMUNITY CENTER. The one being proposed is NOT a MOSQUE.

Get it yet?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 7:29 AM
Comment #306031

PS:

As far as I’m concerned, it is stupid to have built the churches as it was to build Mosques or Temples or Synagogues or…or…or. But it is no more stupid to build this Community Center dedicated to Islam, two point five blocks from ground zero, than the churches half a block apart in my town, dedicated to Baptism.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 7:34 AM
Comment #306033

PPS:

It is truly strange just how UN-Christian, Christians can be. You would think it would be YOU making my arguments.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 7:37 AM
Comment #306036

Dude The name of the Mosque and community house will be called the Cordoba House named after a Muslim victory over Christians in the ninth century where they took over a Christian Church in Cordoba, Spain. Maybe you liberals would think that insignificant but I don’t considering the small victory Muslims had on 9/11 in killing 3000+ Americans.

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 8:41 AM
Comment #306037

MAG-quit listening to Newt. He is wrong. The Christians took back Cordoba house and it remains a cathedral to this day. The name has been changed to Park 51 to appease those who were upset by the title Cordoba House.

Also, MAG my point with the “there is already a mosque at ground zero article from daily kos is that no one is challenging that one so why are they challenging this one. I could ask the same question of christian religions. You have one baptist church in a town why do you need another one? This is actually not even going to be a mosque it is a community center with basketball courts, a culinary school, and a prayer center on the top two floors.

This is engineered outrage by repubs in the hopes of getting a few extra votes in November. As is usual for repubs if it wasn’t election time they wouldn’t care at all. If the MSM hadn’t jumped on this and pumped it up until it took on a life of it’s own-it would have died down with a few nuts complaining. As is usual now, the MSM is deciding for us what is news and what isn’t and the repubs are loving it. This way they don’t have to talk about voting down funds for first responders. Now that is something everyone should be upset about but where is that-nowhere-because the MSM and the repubs don’t want to cover that-amazing since the media is so liberal-and before I get jumped on by fellow liberals here-that’s a joke since there is no liberal MSM and never has been.

Posted by: Carolina at August 17, 2010 9:06 AM
Comment #306039

Carolina It wasn’t newt it was google Yea Christians took it back after some 300 years of muslim rule in the area starting in the 7th century. He changed the name after it upset people, I wonder why. Why did he want to name it that in the first place and why build it near ground zero? Why not Harlem, Queens, or Brooklyn?

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 9:22 AM
Comment #306041

jane doe:

Sorry, hahahaha

Posted by: Berett9 at August 17, 2010 9:40 AM
Comment #306043

By the way…Cordoba House was a shared house between Christian and Muslim for a couple of those centuries.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 11:00 AM
Comment #306045

Dude after the Christians retook the area in 1236. They liked the beauty of the mosque and decided to build a Cathedral there.

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 11:38 AM
Comment #306046

MAG,

I’m talking about BEFORE the Christians retook it. Both Christians and Muslims used it for worship at the same time for a couple of hundred years. Can you imagine that happening with modern Christians and Muslims? Religion is a false premise, and a false promise.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 11:51 AM
Comment #306054

Hmmm…makes one wonder about the intentions of some in this “peaceful” religion.

“Perhaps most worrisome were signs of support for the action from mainstream religious authorities in Afghanistan. The head of the Ulema Council in Kunduz Province, Mawlawi Abdul Yaqub, interviewed by telephone, said Monday that stoning to death was the appropriate punishment for an illegal sexual relationship, although he declined to give his view on this particular case. An Ulema Council is a body of Islamic clerics with religious authority in a region.

And less than a week earlier, the national Ulema Council brought together 350 religious scholars in a meeting with government religious officials, who issued a joint statement on Aug. 10 calling for more punishment under Shariah law, apparently referring to stoning, amputations and lashings.

Failure to carry out such “Islamic provisions,” the council statement said, was hindering the peace process and encouraging crime.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/world/asia/17stoning.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 12:48 PM
Comment #306058

MAG,

By the way…this Community Center that was going to be named Cordoba House before Christians began to wail, has been deemed by its owner and builder to be open to all New Yorkers. Those who want to play basketball in the Gym, and those who wish to learn to cook or taste the food in the Culinary Center, or those who wish to pray in the prayer rooms on the top two floors. Sounds pretty vicious to me too…er…huh?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 1:34 PM
Comment #306059

RF,

Is Mawlawi Abdul Yaqub trying to build a Community Center in Manhattan too? Did you know that in Appalachia there are Christian preachers who play with poisonous snakes to prove their faith in God? Did you know that some of them encourage (force?) children of the faith to do so as well? Did you know there are Christians in this country who will not allow doctors of medicine to attend family members, no matter how serious the illness or injury? Blah…blah…blah…

Why do you bring all that unrelated stuff into the mix? Distraction from a losing cause?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 1:40 PM
Comment #306060

PS:

Do the names, Jim Jones, David Koresh, David Duke etal mean anything to you? Weren’t/aren’t they Christian? How about the guy who wanted to spiritually visit Hale-Bopp, wasn’t he one as well? There are/were so many I have a hard time keeping up…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 1:45 PM
Comment #306061

To all,

Has anyone noticed the issues that have the GOP fighting mad?

1) Mexicans
2) Hatred of the President
3) Gays
4) Muslims

It seems pretty obvious what the Republicans care about.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 17, 2010 1:46 PM
Comment #306063

Dude and all those religions which practice those things are groups of idiots. But the Imam in question supports shiria law within our borders, another idiot.

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 1:49 PM
Comment #306064

I have a very simple query. Many on this blog have explained why they resist having this mosque cited where proposed. None have explained why it should be built there.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 1:52 PM
Comment #306065

dude asks, “Why do you bring all that unrelated stuff into the mix?”

How exactly is this unrelated…”And less than a week earlier, the national Ulema Council brought together 350 religious scholars in a meeting with government religious officials, who issued a joint statement on Aug. 10 calling for more punishment under Shariah law, apparently referring to stoning, amputations and lashings.”

What dude quoted above are abberations of mainline Christianity. When 350 religious scholars declare a tennant of their mainline religion we should take notice.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 2:02 PM
Comment #306066

RF,

One and a half BILLION
Muslims. 350 fundamentalists meet…how many members are there in the college of Cardinals?

I ask it again…why do you bring all this unrelated stuff into the mix? Is there a problem of attention span? Did you get bored with the subject and just decide to go on a separate rant? What you are talking about is TOTALLY unrelated to the Community Center being proposed in Manhattan.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 2:16 PM
Comment #306067

>I have a very simple query. Many on this blog have explained why they resist having this mosque cited where proposed. None have explained why it should be built there.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 01:52 PM

RF,

1. It is NOT a Mosque.
2. The Muslims own or lease the property.
3. The proposal has passed all city ordinances and codes.
4. There is an implied Constitutional guarantee in the Separation Clause, against holding Islam to a higher standard.
5. There are several other places of worship situated as close or closer than this one will be.
6. The the proposed Community Center will be open to all who wish to enter it.
7. The area of the Center is in bad need of rejuvenation as it is turning seedy and the Community may help delay the decay.

How many more do I need to delineate?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 2:24 PM
Comment #306068

It is only unrelated for those with closed minds, inability to read and comprehend, and a political agenda manifested by an obvious mental disorder.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 2:27 PM
Comment #306070

Those 350 fundamentalist are the leaders of the muslim faith Dude. The college of Cardinals don’t call for punishment under shriah law.

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 2:30 PM
Comment #306072

Sorry dude, no prize. Doesn’t explain why there?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 2:31 PM
Comment #306073

Correct MAG, and the college of Cardinals worst punishment may be excommunication.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 2:33 PM
Comment #306074

Another question for you Dude. Why has the city of N.Y. dragged their feet to rebuild the Church that was destroyed on 9/11 near the ground zero site but acted quickly for this so called community center being built by muslims?

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 2:35 PM
Comment #306075

Wow. Look at what those insensitive Christians did near the Oklahoma City bombing after Christian Timothy McVeigh killed 168 Americans there. Churtches near OKC Federal Building site

Why there? Where was the outrage then? How could all of those now flailing their arms screaming have missed this? Don’t we need to hold everyone accountable for the actions of extremists in their groups?

Posted by: boomxtwo at August 17, 2010 3:07 PM
Comment #306077

Those churchs wre there already boomxtwo. Have any been built there since? I think we did hold Timothy McVeigh accountable, he was put to death wasn’t he? He may have said he was Christian but I kinda doubt it. Not like muslims whyo kill in the name of their god.

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 3:24 PM
Comment #306078

bomxtwo, comment to ignorant, can’t comment.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 3:36 PM
Comment #306080

MAG-
This article should illuminate what the true significance of the name is.

In essence, Cordoba became a place where all three Abrahamic faiths could co-exist, with rich cultural and scholarly exchanges between the cultures.

That is what the imam in question hoped to invoke.

Royal Flush-
I don’t have to explain why I want it built there, because I consider it none of my own damn business. What I want is irrelevant. You might as well ask me why I would want a Kohl’s built in a new strip center close to home. I can explain why somebody else might want to build it, but I don’t have to explain why I would want it built, because I have nothing to do with it.

But I tell you what: if these folks are honest, more power to them. We need to foster moderation in our Muslim communities, and we need to show that our fight is against those who choose to fight against us, that we aren’t a bunch of paranoid xenophobes who think that a few thousand out of over a billion mostly peaceful souls makes Islam a religion of hatred and violence.

I am a Christian, and a Catholic to boot, so I know what it is, and how it feels to have folks badmouth my religion, badmouth my denomination in particular.

Yet I do not see the point in lashing out with hatred, and I think half the reason my denomination is in hot water has been its fearful reaction to the rise of secular society.

Folks who think they’re in some kind of war have a tendency to justify stupid and immoral things, including cover-ups of terrible actions, because they are afraid of losing the fight. But if you endeavor to make peace, like a certain rabbi from Galilee once suggested, you will do much more to remove enemies from this world- not that you’ll kill more of them, just fewer of them will actually find true justification to fear and loathe you, as you fear and loathe them.

Answering hatred with hatred is not Christ’s way.

Americans do not need to smear the many peaceful, law abiding muslims with the actions of hateful people who claim the justification of the Qu’ran. We do not need to make enemies, claim enemies, where they are not now.

Our peace should be stronger than al-Qaeda’s war. Our justice should be stronger than their criminal behavior. Our laws should trump their lawlessness, our courts of law their courts of Muslim public opinion. We should not fight chaos with chaos, but imprison it here and abroad with law and order, only using military force when we don’t have a choice, and when we do have an idea of how to finish the fight quickly. A long fight can be noble, but length is not what lends nobility to a struggle. Principles and virtues must do that.

As for Sharia law?

First, they cannot impose Sharia on us without our permission. They would somehow have to impose it on a First Amendment-protected society, get us all to make that okay, one way or another.

Otherwise, any such attempts to completely make over the system would run right into that barrier, that protection, and those trying to impose it would find themselves liable to prosecution for whatever laws they’ve broken of ours.

If Christians can’t impose prayer in school, how the hell do Muslims impose full-fledge Sharia law? Those who try would be punished, the minute they crossed the line.

Liberals will not support imposition of religious law of any kind on our government. We believe, even if we are Christians, that government should be kept Secular, so as to maintain a truce of kinds between all religion.

If people want to practice Sharia Law, within the confines of American law, within state and local codes, that is their business, just as it the business of folks handling snakes in Appalachia how they interpret Christianity’s law.

I do not support my own Church’s mistakes with pedophiles in the priesthood. I think they should have taken the hit by defrocking them and reporting their bad behavior. They did the church harm by keeping secrets, and failing to stop the abuse. They didn’t think so at the time, but nonetheless, their well intentioned actions brought us shame.

But, however, if somebody wants to go real hardcore on Catholic Doctrine, or Pentacostal, or whatever, I’d say, you’re free to live your own life. I might try and persuade you differently, but then it will always be your choice what you believe.

Law Abiding Muslims should be free to build their facility on property they’ve bought or leased, and there should not be a double standard, nor shameful bullying of these people about where they choose to build. Let’s have the tolerance and the self-confidence of a free people, not the phobias and the furies that prisoners of fear carry with them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 17, 2010 3:54 PM
Comment #306082
In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with “a clear picture,” said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI’s New York office.

Brought in to speak that morning — at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero — was one of the city’s most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The iman offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. “Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron,” he said. “It is a fundamental contradiction in terms.”

It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture.

Flash forward six-and-a-half years, and Feisal Abdul Rauf occupies a far different place in the political consciousness. The iman behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near those same FBI offices has been called “a radical Muslim,” a “militant Islamist” and, simply, the “enemy” by conservative critics. His Cordoba House project, meanwhile, has been framed as a conduit for Hamas to funnel money to domestic terrorist operations.

For those who actually know or have worked with the imam, the descriptions are frighteningly — indeed, depressingly — unhinged from reality. The Feisal Abdul Rauf they know, spent the past decade fighting against the very same cultural divisiveness and religious-based paranoia that currently surrounds him.

“Imam Feisal has participated at the Aspen Institute in Muslim-Christian-Jewish working groups looking at ways to promote greater religious tolerance,” Walter Isaacson, head of The Aspen Institute told the Huffington Post. “He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam. Some of this work was done under the auspices of his own group, the Cordoba Initiative. I liked his book, and I participated in some of the meetings in 2004 or so. This is why I find it a shame that his good work is being undermined by this inflamed dispute. He is the type of leader we should be celebrating in America, not undermining.”

A longtime Muslim presence in New York City, Feisal Abdul Rauf has been a participant in the geopolitical debate about Islamic-Western relations well before 9/11. In 1997, he founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement to promote a more positive integration of Muslims into American society. His efforts and profile rose dramatically after the attacks when, in need of a calm voice to explain why greater Islam was not a force bent on terrorism, he became a go-to quote for journalists on the beat.

As researched and written by Sam Stein.

RF,

Why there? You are going to have to ask it the way you know will sound stupid and foolish. Don’t hesitate, just jump in with both feet…ask it!

MAG,

Are the circumstances the same? Why would the city rebuild a church? Is the site of the old church being designated for other purposes? If you want to know the answer to your question, you should answer all of mine and more, then you may know. The thing of it is, you infer that there is some chicanery involved in the not rebuilding of the church, but you don’t elaborate on what the chicanery is. It’s kinda like RF, when he asks, “why there?” The inference is there is something shady about what seems an above board transaction.


Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 4:11 PM
Comment #306083

Stephen In that article they forgot to mention that in the year 711 a church was destroyed by the muslims and a Mosque was built in it’s place and Muslim rule was in place for approx 300 years and one of the leaders was a dictator much like Sadam and the Iranian President and in the year 1236 the Christians re took Cordoba and instead of destroying the Mosque they saw the beauty of it and built a church around it. There may have been co existence at one time during that period. But muslims did have there lets say jihad within that period. So that periopd wasn’t all that hunky dory as you portray.

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 4:14 PM
Comment #306085

MAG,

I’m not stephen, but what do you mean when you say things were not so hunky-dory? Do you mean that that area under the Islamists gained mightily on anything the so-called ‘Christians’ could come up with in the arts and sciences? Are you saying that others in Europe at the time had it a lot better than those in Iberia? I’m not sure where to go with your question…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 4:42 PM
Comment #306086

PS:

A church was destroyed during an invasion? Wow! I don’t suppose any Mosques were destroyed during the Cruesades…

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 4:43 PM
Comment #306089

From Mr. Daugherty’s quote; ” In 1997, he founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement to promote a more positive integration of Muslims into American society.”

Hmmm…is that what’s going on today with this controversial mosque? I wrote earlier, “And, it would also reveal a sense of citizenship and consideration for the sensibilities of others if the mosque was relocated.”

And, I still ask the question…”why there?” Mr. Daugherty’s comments were useless in answering this question.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 5:19 PM
Comment #306093

Frankly, my dear Mr. Flush, nothing Mr. Daugherty can say, and no matter how much sense it makes, and no matter how much research he does to attain that information, you’ll NEVER be satisfied, because you start from a preconceived notion that all Muslims are bad, and all ideas put forth by Muslims, by virtue of where they came from, must also be bad. Convince a knot that it should not fall out of a pine board fence in the Summer…nope, can’t be done.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 5:42 PM
Comment #306094

PS:

I’ll make an attempt to convince Mr. Dougherty, that he should try to answer your question, “why there?”, if you will answer Mr. j2t2’s question, “How far away is far enough?”.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 5:45 PM
Comment #306095

dude…thought the rules on WB prohibited attacking the messenger. OH WeLL…you wrote; “…you start from a preconceived notion that all Muslims are bad, and all ideas put forth by Muslims, by virtue of where they came from, must also be bad.”

Hmmm, care to provide the quote to back up your comment concerning my personal beliefs. I linked to a story in the NY Times. Do you find that somehow to reflect my views?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 5:54 PM
Comment #306096

“HOw far away is far enough?” That is up to the citizens of New York City. No Muslin terrorists crashed a plane into my city. And, New Yorkers will have to live with it wherever it is built, not me.

Next tough question please…

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 5:59 PM
Comment #306098

MAG-
If I were in your position, and wanted to give that claim credibility, I would be careful to cite statements by the imam in question concerning that incident.

If I could find such statements, I would indeed be able to call the symbolism in that case into question. But so far you haven’t offered evidence that this is the reference point.

The province does have a considerable reputation in medieval history as a place of learning and coexistence. Given the fact that the man has long been a voice of reason and moderation in the American Islamic community, he deserves some benefit of the doubt there.

Republicans and right-wing folks have said plenty about finding moderate Muslims who will stand for the country. This man fits the bill, but the Republicans, denying this man’s history of promoting tolerance and moderation, have just seized on one or two quotes, injected a whole bunch of anti-muslim Xenophobia, and made like this guy’s a radical al-Qaeda preacher.

It would be preferable if some looked at this man before they leapt to their conclusions.

Royal Flush-
Why is it controversial, might I ask? Who is making a big deal out of this, despite the fact that Government has no legitimate means of singling these people out?

Why there? I think I did answer for why the builders sought out that place: they sought it to be their answer, their repudiation of al-Qaeda’s terrorist activities, because the building is one of the places wreckage from the attacks landed, going through the roof of the building.

If we were smart, we would play along with what they’re doing, because what they’re doing is a challenge to al-Qaeda’s status as representing the Islamic World’s true faith. Instead, we have all sorts of people, even some Democrats, unfortunately, getting weak in the knees at the thought of actually leading and standing up for American principles.

Republicans beat up on these Muslims because they haven’t been able to reach and destroy the man who actually did these things. They can’t say “we defeated al-Qaeda”, so instead they say that pulling stunts like this is defending the country. The irony is thick, and so is the stench of fear from the right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 17, 2010 6:03 PM
Comment #306102

SD asks; “Who is making a big deal out of this…”

He then answers his own question with, “Instead, we have all sorts of people, even some Democrats, unfortunately, getting weak in the knees at the thought of actually leading and standing up for American principles.”

Perhaps Mr. Daugherty could learn a lot by reading his own comments.

He is also making an erronous statement about those who object not defending American principles. Nonsense…your principles perhaps, but not that of the majority of Americans. Please don’t go postal now and start talking about the constitution. You said “principles”.

As a member of a mainline religion surely Mr. Daugherty would agree that citing a Catholic church in a location that is causing dissention within the community, would not be built there as evidence of the church’s love and consideration for all, not just its members.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 6:27 PM
Comment #306103

Before I went to work this afternoon (I only work 4 hours a day) there had been 60+posts. I come home from work and now there are over 100 posts. I find it really sad that with so many important issues-this basically non-issue has garnered so much passion. This is exactly why republicans and the MSM use issues like this to inflame.

This was a good post when it first started but IMO it has gotten way out of hand. Why don’t important issues get as many posters: like how do we get democrats excited about voting, what about the fact that they just found oil and toxins on the floor of the gulf, how can we help the Pakistan flood victims, how can we get the senate to vote on sending the money to Haiti that we promised and the list goes on. These are the topics that deserve 100+ responses.

Posted by: Carolina at August 17, 2010 6:39 PM
Comment #306104

I wonder if Mr. Daugherty or any other defender of the site location in NY can provide any other case in recent history where there was any substantial resistance to the building of a mosque anywhere in America.

If they can’t, I would suggest that this is convincing evidence that the debate is not about Muslins or the building of mosque’s, but rather, the citing of this particular mosque. If that is true, then all the hand-wringing and nasty comments are meaningless.

IT IS THE SITE…STUPID

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 6:43 PM
Comment #306105

MAG,

I don’t know what your source is for the history of Islam in Andalusia. First of all, the original inhabitants of the iberian penninsula are long gone. By 711, the region had been already colonized/conquered by Greece, Phoenicia, Carthage, Rome, the Vandals and lastly the Visigoths. When the Visigoths came, the Cordoba site already contained a Pagan Roman Temple which was torn down and replaced with a church. Many of the Visigoths practiced Arianism, but conversions to Catholicism were in progress. During a civil war in the Visigoth Kingdom, the Umayyads conquered the area. Half a century after the Umayyad conquest, emir Abd ar-Rahman I decided to purchase the Cordoba church from the Christians in order to begin construction on his grand mosque. Cordoba was reconquered by Christians in 1236 and a cathedral was built on the mosque site. During the period of Al-Andalus, there was an unprecedented period of religions toleration when members of all three Abrahamic faiths were free from persecution and were all able to contribute to a flourishing society.

Carolina,
I agree with your sentiment. I tried to avoid commenting here for a very long time until just now. Sorry :(

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 17, 2010 6:44 PM
Comment #306106

Good topics Carolina…start a thread.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 6:45 PM
Comment #306107

RF,

Here you go:

Opposition to Mosques proposed in:
Murfreesboro, TN
Temecula, CA
Sheboygan, WI

A church in Florida is organizing a mass burning of Korans this coming September.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 17, 2010 6:54 PM
Comment #306108

Royal Flush,

“I have a very simple query. Many on this blog have explained why they resist having this mosque cited where proposed. None have explained why it should be built there.”

There is a simple answer. Nobody has to or should be required to explain “why it should be built there.” They have a constitutional right to practice their religion wherever they want excepting compliance with local zoning ordinances applicable to all religious organizations. It is not really a debatable issue. Unless, of course you want to change the Constitution or reverse centuries of religious tolerance in our country. Tolerance is the operative term.

Posted by: Rich at August 17, 2010 6:55 PM
Comment #306109

With the heated debates regarding the planned mosque near Ground Zero in New York making headlines in recent weeks, a New York Times report that was also published in the San Francisco Sentinel over the weekend serves as a reminder that not only the Big Apple has experienced confrontations due to a planned building of a mosque.

The report highlighted what has taken place in other locations across the United States in which mosques are proposed. For example, hundreds of protesters marched in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where a large Muslim center was proposed near a subdivision. Republican candidates have already denounced these plans, said the report.

In late June, members of a local Tea Party group in Temecula, California, protested during Friday prayers outside a mosque that is seeking to build a new center on a nearby vacant lot. The Muslim community in Temecula has grown to 150 families who have outgrown their makeshift worship space in a warehouse. Their imam, Mahmoud Harmoush, (who is also a lecturer at California State University, San Bernardino), explained that the group wants to build a 25,000-square-foot center, with space for classrooms and a playground, on a lot it bought in 2000. He added that his community had contributed to the local food bank, sent supplies to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and participated in music nights and Thanksgiving events with the local interfaith council. He said that “nobody notices” when all these activities are done by his community. “Now that we have to build our center, everybody jumps to make it an issue,” he added.

Meanwhile in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.

The report also cited that the reasons for the protests are no longer things such as traffic and noise, but rather an issue with Islam itself. American citizens nowadays are in the midst of a debate on how to uphold the country’s democratic values, and whether allowing Muslims the same religious freedoms enjoyed by other Americans would indeed threaten these values.

Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky, said: “It’s one thing to oppose a mosque because traffic might increase, but it’s different when you say these mosques are going to be nurturing terrorist bombers, that Islam is invading, that civilization is being undermined by Muslims.”

Proof of Bagby’s words might be found in a quote by Diana Serafin, who opposes the Temecula mosque: “As a mother and a grandmother, I worry. I learned that in 20 years with the rate of the birth population, we will be overtaken by Islam, and their goal is to get people in Congress and the Supreme Court to see that Shariah is implemented. My children and grandchildren will have to live under that.”

She added: “I do believe everybody has a right to freedom of religion. But Islam is not about a religion. It’s a political government, and it’s 100 percent against our Constitution.”

A two-year study conducted by professors with Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina, has concluded that contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism. Many mosque leaders, according to the report, have put significant effort into countering extremism through efforts such as building youth programs, sponsoring anti-violence forums and scrutinizing extremist teachers and texts.

Perhaps the most controversial planned mosque is still the one which is planned near Ground Zero in New York. Last week, the plan to build a Muslim center which includes a mosque adjacent to the ruins of the Twin Towers passed a crucial hurdle when New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9-0 not to declare the building now occupying the site protected. This means it may be demolished and the planned mosque and Islamic center may be built in its place.

Retired Brigadier General Dov Shefi, a former chief military prosecutor and now attorney general of the Defense Ministry who lost his son in the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, told Arutz7 last week: “I think that the establishment of a mosque in this place, a place that serves as a memorial site for 40,000 families, is like bringing a pig (an unkosher animal) into the Holy Temple. It is inconceivable that in all the city of New York, this site was specifically chosen to establish an institution that represents the culture that led the terrorists of Al-Qaeda to carry out the greatest crime ever.”

Shefi added that “America sometimes loses its mind. America raised the banner of the freedom and liberty, allowing everyone to express an opinion, but this belief often makes them lose sight of reality.”

Shefi is not alone in his battle against the plan. The New York-based Anti-Defamation League (ADL) joined the opposition to the plan last week, and said in a statement: “Ultimately, this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right.”

Sarah Palin and former House speaker Newt Gingrich have also voiced their opposition to the plan, yet despite the opposition and massive protests that have taken place, the project appears to be going ahead. Following the decision by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg hailed the decision with a forceful speech on religious liberty.
(IsraelNationalNews.com

Posted by: Jeff at August 17, 2010 6:58 PM
Comment #306110

RF,

Your question, “why there?”, was answered, and the answer was, “it’s none of our business”. j2t2 asked the question, “How far away is far enough?”, and your answer was, “it’s none of our business”. Then you find fault with Mr. Dougherty for not adequately answering your question…hmmm…who’d a thunk it.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 7:01 PM
Comment #306111

RF,

>bomxtwo, comment to ignorant, can’t comment.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 03:36 PM

>dude…thought the rules on WB prohibited attacking the messenger. OH WeLL…you wrote; “…you start from a preconceived notion that all Muslims are bad, and all ideas put forth by Muslims, by virtue of where they came from, must also be bad.”

You made the top comment, and I made the bottom one. I read your entries, and find what I said to be true. I assume you read a comment by bomxtwo, and found what you said to be true. Which one is more like attacking the messenger?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 7:06 PM
Comment #306112

Nice try WR. I read the link and here is just one quote to show how small the number of protesters were…

“Ms. Serafin was among an estimated 20 to 30 people who turned out to protest the mosque, including some who intentionally took dogs to offend those Muslims who consider dogs to be ritually unclean. But they were outnumbered by at least 75 supporters.”

I could find articles with more folks protesting the citing of a new city land fill or the playground at the local park than protestors of mosques.

I will restate what I wrote for your benefit. “…any substantial resistance to the building of a mosque anywhere in America.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 7:13 PM
Comment #306114

Dude, certainly any person with reasonable intelligence couldn’t construe my statement…”comment too ignorant, can’t comment” as attacking the messenger.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 7:19 PM
Comment #306115

Rich shouldn’t the religion which ever it may be be tolerant to the wishes and sentiments of the people? I have said on this blog that the Imam has every right to build where he wants but in building where he choose may cause more harm then good. As far as W.R. post I agree those are stupid reason and radical reasons.
Carolina Ihave googled History of Cordoba, Spain and read some of what they provided in the sites. Here is what I found in one
History
The Roman colony of Corduba founded in 152BC became Capital of Baetica province, covering most of today’s Andalucia. In 711 Cordoba fell to the Muslim invaders and soon became the Islamic capital on the Iberian Peninsula. It was here in 756 that Abd ar-Rahman I set himself up as emir of Al-Andalus.
Cordoba’s heyday came under Abd ar-Rahman III(912-961)who in 929 named himself caliph to set the seal on Al-Andalus’ independence of the Abbasid caliphs in Bagdad. Cordoba was then the biggest city in western Europe and it had dazziling Mosques, libraries, observatories, and aqueducts, a university and highly skilled artisans in leather, metal, textiles and glazed tiles. Abd ar-Rahman III’s multicultural court was frequented by Jewish, Arab, and Christian scholors, even if Cordoba was certainly NOT the fabulously tolerant paradise that’s sometimes imagined.
Towards the end of the 10th centur, Al-Monsour(Almanzor), a fearsome general, took the reins of power and struck TERROR into christian Spain with over 50 razzias(forays) in 20 yrs. When he destroyed the Cathedral at Santiago de Compostela home of the Santiago cult he had the bells carried to Cordoba by Christian slaves and hung upside down as oil lamps in the Mezquita. But after his death band of Berber troops terrorized Cordoba and the caliphate decended into anarchy.
Cordoba was captured in 1236 by Fernando III of Castilla and became a provincial town of shrinking importance and only reversed in the arrival of industry ion the 19th century.
Other sites have more info but I choose this one because it was short.

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 7:34 PM
Comment #306118

Royal Flush, and all others opposed to this Muslim community center,

What is the point of this debate? You don’t like it. I understand that. However, the Constitution protects their right to construct the facility. So, what are you proposing? Thwart the building of the community center by overwhelming public opposition and obstructionism despite the law? Isn’t that the very reason why the the founding fathers passed the Bill of Rights in the first place: to protect unpopular minorities from oppression of the majority?

Posted by: Rich at August 17, 2010 7:54 PM
Comment #306120

Rich, Not opposed to the building of the Muslim community center, just opposed to the site he choose. Like I said above in 306115 he may cause more harm then good by his choice. The tolerance thing works both ways.

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 8:02 PM
Comment #306123

http://www.alarabiya.net/views/2010/08/16/116802.html

“Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the 11 September cemetery, and are not bothered with Bin Ladin’s cook being put on trial in a civilian court. Muslims have issues that encroach upon the destinies of nations; these issues are the cause of isolation and calamity, such as the establishment of the State of Palestine. For Obama to focus his energy and efforts, and fight for the establishment of peace in the Middle East is more important and more valuable than a mosque in New York.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 8:04 PM
Comment #306125

MAG stated: “Rich, shouldn’t the religion which ever it may be be tolerant to the wishes and sentiments of the people?”

Quite frankly, no. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of the Bill of Rights other than to protect minorities from the wishes and sentiments of the majority (“the people”). It is beyond strange for conservatives to be arguing for suppression of minority religious rights on the grounds of the wishes of and sentiments of the majority.

Posted by: Rich at August 17, 2010 8:20 PM
Comment #306126

I wonder why Rich suggests that only conservatives are against the site of the planned mosque. When did this become a Dem, Rep, Con, Lib issue?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 8:26 PM
Comment #306129

Royal Flush,

Ok, I will add Harry Reid to that list. It is not exclusively conservative. However, it is dominately conservative. Do you actually contest that characterization?

Posted by: Rich at August 17, 2010 8:35 PM
Comment #306133

Royal Flush-
If somebody tried to force local government to deny the Catholic Church the right to open up a church in a community over the Priest abuse scandals, I would tell them the same thing I will tell you in defense of the Muslim’s right to build that center: This is a private matter now, now that they have satisfied the law as to different codes and plans.

Republicans learned nothing from Terri Schiavo, nothing about the futility of putting Governments nose where it does not constitutionally belong.

When we yield to this kind of temptation, the tool gets taken out of the box for other things. I don’t want the precedent set, the record of our country in this decade stained by such an act of constitutional cowardice.

Because really, there are only three ways that we see Government get what the GOP seems to want: One, we trample their First Amendment rights. Two, we trample them indirectly, via some sneaky application of technicality. Three, we trample them indirectly by simply applying so much intimidation or pressure that they relent.

Great. All these create a wonderful chilling effect, sure to tell any Muslim in this country that their rights don’t count as much as somebody else’s.

What you want is government’s stamp of approval on an act of deliberate and unaccountable bigotry. This man is no rabble-rousing fundamentalist. He’s a moderate, an extoller of America’s virtues. And you’ll cut him out for some reason I can’t fathom.

To tie in 9/11 to this, you must broad brush this moderate Sufi as if he were one of the extremists who committed this crime. You have to be blind to who this person is on so many levels to make such a connection, and that is the deep and bitter irony about those who are stoking this controversy.

And if you can make this kind of assumption, push this kind of political bull**** on a moderate muslim like him, what room is there for any Muslim?

This is about draping prejudice in socially acceptable language about the tragedy of 9/11. This is about making an entire Religion the guilty party in that crime, rather than the handfuls of extremist who actually attacked us.

MAG-
The Imam in this case idolizes the golden age of accommodation that Cordoba of its heyday represents. Yes, things were rather less than nice on either end of history, but then, we could say the same about King Arthur’s reign, not couldn’t we? While Bin Laden hungers after the territory, this man yearns after a golden age of tolerance, of learning and mutual respect.

Whose dream do you want to see fulfilled? It shouldn’t even really be difficult. You want Muslims who come together with us in the spirit of accommodation, who smother the false Jihad of Bin Laden and his imitators.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 17, 2010 8:51 PM
Comment #306137

Rich if a religion is not tolerant to the sentiments of the people I want no part of that religion.

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 9:27 PM
Comment #306142

MAG,

“Rich if a religion is not tolerant to the sentiments of the people I want no part of that religion”

Thats your choice on a personal level.

Posted by: Rich at August 17, 2010 9:49 PM
Comment #306144

Stephen, When Muslims are truly accommidating and tolerant and embrace ALL PEOPLE no matter what their religious background is be it Christian or Jew then and only then will I believe we can come together and co exisit. But that will never happen until the second comming of Christ.

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 9:59 PM
Comment #306152

>Stephen, When Muslims are truly accommidating and tolerant and embrace ALL PEOPLE no matter what their religious background is be it Christian or Jew then and only then will I believe we can come together and co exisit. But that will never happen until the second comming of Christ.
Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 09:59 PM

MAG,

By that you mean that Jews accept the teachings of Muhammad, and Christians love Islamists correct?

That is why I find ‘religion’ to be repugnant, but not one more so than the other.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 17, 2010 10:30 PM
Comment #306154

Dude, Comment ignorant, can’t comment.

Posted by: MAG at August 17, 2010 10:51 PM
Comment #306155

“When Muslims are truly accommidating and tolerant and embrace ALL PEOPLE no matter what their religious background is be it Christian or Jew then and only then will I believe we can come together and co exisit. But that will never happen until the second comming of Christ.”

That’s awfully magnanimous of you.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 17, 2010 11:02 PM
Comment #306156

Rich

A majority of Americans think that they have a right to build a mosque. A majority also think they SHOULD not.

A little tolerance on ALL sides would be good.

Marysdude

Look at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean world in AD 600, one that shows languages spoken and religions practiced. Look at that same area in AD 1000. What has changed? How do you think that happened? If you are in doubt, visit some of the mosques. They tended to build them in places of Muslim military victories.

Muslims called it jihad; Christians called it crusades. They could have called it counter-jihad. What happened was that Christians were successful in taking back Spain. They failed to take back Syria & the Middle East. On the other hand, Muslims manged to conquer and hold the Anatolia, which was the cradle of Christianity after the Holy Land. Muslim armies conquered Europe all the way to the borders of Poland and Austria and they ruled over and enslaved local populations for hundreds of years. When I say, enslaved, I mean that literally, BTW. The counter-jihad took a long time.

These are the stories of conquest and empire. It is bloody on all sides. Most of human history is like that. The strong take what they can and the weak grant what they must. Christians were at the receiving end of Muslim aggression for around 1000 years. The tide finally turned at the very gates of Vienna when Austrian and Polish troops destroyed the army of the Sultan.

These are all parts of history now and we don’t have to be bound to them. Muslims can bring up the crusades. Christians can bring up the various jihads. Anybody who actually makes today’s decisions based on centuries old grievances is a pin head. We should can make decisions about the future.

The U.S. and the West have developed into the most tolerant large-scale societies in history. This is a break with earlier history. You are right that we should respect the rule of law and not stoop to the level of other societies. But we that doesn’t require we pretend we are intolerant compared to others.

Everybody knows a Muslim is freer & safer in New York to practice his religion the way he sees fit than he would be in any Muslim majority country.

I saw on the news today that they stoned a 20 year old woman to death in Afghanistan. It was done according to Shariah law. The Iranians regularly stone homosexuals. Their was a story about a woman who came to the attention of the Brazilians, who were visiting Iran. She was going to be stoned for adultery. The Brazilians offered to take her in. Of course, the Iranians couldn’t let this happen. Half the country would commit adultery if they could use it to get to Rio but the Iranians showed mercy. They will now hang her instead. This is also according to Shariah law. Surely if we are in the religion condemning business, we should recognize there are worse things than asking someone not to build a mosque, but having a law that will allow it should he want to go ahead anyway.

Posted by: C&J at August 17, 2010 11:10 PM
Comment #306167

C&J………..it wasn’t a woman, it was a couple, for eloping re: an affair.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-stoning_17int.ART.State.Edition1.35b302e.html

Posted by: jane doe at August 18, 2010 4:08 AM
Comment #306174

C&J said: “A majority of Americans think that they have a right to build a mosque. A majority also think they SHOULD not. A little tolerance on ALL sides would be good.”

You stand our concept of minority rights on its head. The implication of your comments is that the minority should accede to or qualify the exercise of a fundamental right by reference to the wishes of the majority. It is a slippery slope. How far away would be sufficient to appease public opinion? It is a question that opponents on this blog tellingly refuse to answer.


Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2010 8:15 AM
Comment #306178

“To bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance….” - George Washington.

Posted by: boomxtwo at August 18, 2010 10:01 AM
Comment #306181

Rich, C&J comment came from a poll that states 61% believe the Imam has a right to build but 64% believe not on ground zero area. One other thing a church was destroyed in the 9/11 attack right at the site surruonding ground zero yet the city of N.Y. is dragging it’s feet in letting that Church rebuild yet is all in favor of the Muslim Community Center. Makes you wonder.

Posted by: MAG at August 18, 2010 10:21 AM
Comment #306184

C&J,

“Look at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean world in AD 600, one that shows languages spoken and religions practiced. Look at that same area in AD 1000. What has changed? How do you think that happened? If you are in doubt, visit some of the mosques. They tended to build them in places of Muslim military victories.”

And in virtually every place there was a Mosque, science and the arts flourished.
It was after the “Christians” took most of these areas back that the Inquisitions began.

I have to say I was pretty ambivalent about this whole “ground zero” Mosque thing. I was willing to listen to all sides of the issue up to the point the right started this conservative, hair-on-fire, crap, and started spreading lies about the “intentions” of the Iman involved.
Hell, if I was in his shoes I wouldn’t answer the question about Hamas any differently.

What I see here is a bunch of [sarcasm alert] “red blooded American patriots” attempting to scare the crap out of the population of this country to further their own narrow nationalistic agenda.

“I saw on the news today that they stoned a 20 year old woman to death in Afghanistan.”

And you bring this up because…
The right continually shows it’s willingness to use the word they to condemn the entire world population of Muslims because of the actions of a few zealots.

IMHO this whole “sensitivity” thing is way overblown. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I thought Americans were bigger than this.

I see that in a recent post that Royal Flush is using the word “cemetery” to describe where the Twin Towers once stood, yet we are going to build a commercial building on that site and call it a “memorial”.

Really?
I realize this is valuable commercial property, but I thought the site was sacred, hallowed ground.
Apparently money talks, and lots of money screams.

The people that are protesting the loudest about this issue need to get their heads out of their collective as*&^, and start living up to the principles they claim to espouse, except, of course, when those same principles can be kicked to the curb in the name of their agenda.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 18, 2010 10:37 AM
Comment #306185

To those condemning the Mosque. I’m wondering what you propose as the solution.
Some possible options:

1. No Mosque-building in America.
2. No Mosque building where people oppose it.
3. Change the laws regarding religious freedom.
4. If they can prove they are peaceful, and nice, they can build it.
5. When the Muslims accept Jesus Christ as their only God, they can build it.
5. One Mosque in the US for every Christian church approved in Saudi Arabia.

Lots of uproar over this issue. Most contrived outrage from those ignorant of the facts. But, instead of the ongoing “Muslims are bad” chicken little responses, what do you propose be done? You know, instead of filibustering, what is your solution? Uh oh.

Posted by: boomxtwo at August 18, 2010 10:41 AM
Comment #306186

MAG,

What does public opinion have to do with the issue? Should the Muslim organization alter its plans to accommodate public opinion? I think not under our system of religious freedom. There was a reason for complete protection in our Constitution from majority opinion.

”..city of N.Y. is dragging it’s feet in letting that Church rebuild yet is all in favor of the Muslim Community Center.”

The Muslim center is using its own money and passed zoning requirements. The Greek Orthodox church, according to the Port Authority, is perfectly able to go ahead with its reconstruction. The issue relates to Port Authority funding for the project. It is unrelated to “letting the Church rebuild.”

Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2010 10:49 AM
Comment #306188

MAG-
The beauty of the First Amendment is that it makes religion a purely private affair. You can have all of the no-part-of-Islam that you could ever want.

As for being tolerant, and embracing others, Jews and Christians long practiced in Muslim lands. In fact, Saddam Hussein’s spokesman Tariq Aziz was a Christian, a Chaldean Catholic. There’s even a term for Jews from Arab lands: Sephardic.

The tolerance wasn’t perfect, but the capacity for it has been demonstrated before, and the history of those people in America has demonstrated that they can live within our borders peacefully. Are we going to demonstrate to them that being loyal, law abiding Americans isn’t going to keep them from being treated like the violent thugs those terrorists were?

C&J-
Do you think that Christian/Jewish laws were all that kinder in their medieval period? Do you think Christians, and Jews in their time didn’t make war on others?

You’re right that we shouldn’t make decisions about things based on centuries old grievances.

But we should also not lump the modern Americans who, for the most part, abide by our laws, for whom Sharia law is little different in its implications than Jewish law is for Orthodox or Hasidic Jews, with the terrorists. We should show the world that we make the distinction, that they are on our side and we are on theirs.

Politicians in this country should not be dividing one set of countrymen from another. The Sons and Daughters of Abraham should not be pitted against each other in this country.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 18, 2010 11:07 AM
Comment #306191

Ok, I will add Harry Reid to that list. It is not exclusively conservative. However, it is dominately conservative. Do you actually contest that characterization?

Posted by: Rich at August 17, 2010

Rich, with polls showing nearly 65% of Americans against the site chosen for the mosque, you are admitting that nearly 65% of Americans are also conservative.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2010 11:45 AM
Comment #306194

Rocky wrote; “The right continually shows it’s willingness to use the word they to condemn the entire world population of Muslims because of the actions of a few zealots.

IMHO this whole “sensitivity” thing is way overblown. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I thought Americans were bigger than this.

I see that in a recent post that Royal Flush is using the word “cemetery” to describe where the Twin Towers once stood, yet we are going to build a commercial building on that site and call it a “memorial.”

Rocky, I posted a link to the story of the stoning and if anyone bothered to read it they would take note that the stoning had the approval of 350 muslim scholars and the government. That is hardly a few zealots.

Again, if one could and did read the article I posted, it was linked to “Alarabiya” the largest TV station in Saudia Arabia and written by the director of that station.

Would Rocky argue with the words he chose as being anti-muslim? Sometime it’s better to engage the brain before typing the words.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2010 12:05 PM
Comment #306195

RF & MAG,

These polls you spout about…lynch mobs were made up of majorities of those folks attending them…do I need to draw pictures? What in the hell do your polls have to do with what is right and just in Amrica?

At any given time 65% of Americans might be picking their nose. Should we condemn handerkerchiefs?

Trolling ain’t nice, and it’s a waste of time and energy.

Stephen and all,

If you ignore ‘em, they’ll crawl back under the bridge. I think I’ll practice what I preach, and ignore ‘em I shall.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 18, 2010 12:11 PM
Comment #306196

Polls say 61% of people say they don’t care if a mosque is built, but 64% say they don’t want it at or near ground zero. IMO that 64% is Liberal, conservative Rep. and Dem.
Tolerance Stephen is a 2 way street. Iraq may be the exception but I wouldn’t suggest you carry a bible in Saudi Arabia or Iran and maybe a few others because you may find yourself on the inside of one of their jails. That is the difference here we let people walk around openly proclaiming their faith be it Muslim, Jew, Christian, or Hindu, Voodoo, or anyother you could think of. But also those faiths must think of the sentiments of the people around them. If this Imam does want to promote healing and goodwill he would move the location. What would be the outcome if a Christian or Jew would want to build in a Muslim area.

Posted by: MAG at August 18, 2010 12:15 PM
Comment #306197

The number and virulence of the posts on this issue proves to me that there is not a chance in hell of this country coming together over important issues relating to our economy and future.

We have libs and dems for the most part pitted against cons and Reps. One side repeatedly states that it is a constitutional issue of freedom of religion and the other side agrees that the constituion does give the right to build but asks for the sensitivity to choose another location.

This is not a religious freedom issue for either side of the debate as we both agree, but rather, politics as usual.

And, in this debate both sides agree that it is their right to build the mosque where presently planned. Yet, the two sides still write endless words defending something…I am not sure what. What idiots we all are.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2010 12:17 PM
Comment #306205

Totally agree R. F.

Posted by: MAG at August 18, 2010 2:29 PM
Comment #306206

Dude Like I said before COMMENT IGNORANT can’t COMMENT

Posted by: MAG at August 18, 2010 2:32 PM
Comment #306210

royal flush,

You’re trying to propose that you, and others arguing against the Mosque (actually Cultural Center) building are all for the right to build, you’re just expecting sensitivity.

If I deemed it insensitive for you to disrespect the duly elected president of the United States, would you comply and no longer be disrespectful? I understand you have the right to do so, I just want some sensitivity here. OK? Are you fine with me understanding and believing in your rights, but expecting you to see it my way and “be sensitive” to how I view the issue. How ‘bout it?

And I wonder if it were built in your backyard instead, if you’d be just fine with that? Not sure where you live, but would that be far enough away from Ground Zero (actually two blocks from there)?

Posted by: boomxtwo at August 18, 2010 3:24 PM
Comment #306212

Royal Flush,

“I posted a link to the story of the stoning and if anyone bothered to read it they would take note that the stoning had the approval of 350 muslim scholars and the government. That is hardly a few zealots.”

There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. 350 “scholars” is an infinitesimal amount by comparison.

“Again, if one could and did read the article I posted, it was linked to “Alarabiya” the largest TV station in Saudia Arabia and written by the director of that station.”

Was the word “cemetery” in your post?

If so you used it.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 18, 2010 3:51 PM
Comment #306221

Rocky…your comments are too ignorant to comment upon. Bye

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2010 4:58 PM
Comment #306224

Wow Rocky, whoda known it could be that easy??!

Posted by: jane doe at August 18, 2010 5:11 PM
Comment #306232

Rocky. Those 350 scholars are the rule setting arm of those 1.5 billion Muslims. DUH.

Posted by: MAG at August 18, 2010 6:08 PM
Comment #306234

Jane,

Good to see you back.

The truly sad thing about all this is until recently I didn’t care about this issue at all. It doesn’t affect me one way or the other. It doesn’t affect those opposed one way or the other either, except they want it their way, and they will brook no opposition, and no discussion opposed to their way.

Newt wants the Saudis to allow churches to be built in Saudi Arabia, and then, and only then the Muslims can theoretically build as many Mosques as they want.
My question is since when has it become fashionable to compare the American way of life to that in Saudi Arabia?
We have freedoms in this country that the Saudis can only dream about.

Those here on this thread that oppose the Mosque say that they recognize the right to build the Mosque, but they whine and bitch about the “insensitivity” of it all. Conservatives in this country haven’t been sensitive to anything for generations, yet now they’re worried about what people will think?

Give me a freaking break.

Conservatives can’t have a debate, they have to harangue, insult, and belittle. They make outrageous claims without a scintilla of proof to back it up. They bitch and whine about how poorly Christians are treated in this country yet would turn around and do worse to those that don’t believe as they do, and when confronted with actual fact, they take their ball and go home.

I got involved in this discussion because of the outright lies that are being told here.

It amazes me what these drugstore “Christians” are capable of to get their way.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 18, 2010 6:22 PM
Comment #306235

Rocky wrote; “I got involved in this discussion because of the outright lies that are being told here.”

About time Rocky. All the libs on this site weren’t capable of such a mission. Please…set us all straight.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2010 6:26 PM
Comment #306236

MAG,

There are several Ulama Council around the world in several countries. They set the agenda for the Muslims in those separate countries.

DUH.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 18, 2010 6:27 PM
Comment #306238

They set the rules for those millions of Muslims in their areas don’t they Rocky. DUH

Posted by: MAG at August 18, 2010 6:37 PM
Comment #306239

LOL…Rocky “got involved in this discussion because of the outright lies that are being told here.”


He wrote; “There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. 350 “scholars” is an infinitesimal amount by comparison.”

and also wrote

“There are several Ulama Council around the world in several countries. They set the agenda for the Muslims in those separate countries.”

Let’s see here, 350 muslin scholars set the agenda in these separate countries yet they don’t count for spit among the 1.5 billion regular muslims.

Is that truth-telling or just a joke?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2010 6:46 PM
Comment #306244

I keep waiting for the liberals to bring out their big gun writers to set us conservatives straight and all we continue to get are the second third string wimps.

We’ve finally heard from the chief liberal in charge, Ms. Pelosi (some say she is the illegitmate grandaughter of Mussolini) today and in her brilliant liberal flair she has called for investigations to reveal who is behind the call to move the mosque location.

Yup…that’s just what our government should spend money and time on. Let’s get to the bottom of this radical group who consider the area around the 9/11 site to be special, what the head of Alarybia TV in Saudi Arabia calls an American cemetary.

It’s just a damn shame that obama doesn’t have his brown-shirt goon squads organized yet. He could crown Pelois the CIC of the bunch and set the thought police prowling thru the land.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2010 7:14 PM
Comment #306251

Stephen

We moved beyond those medieval laws.

BTW - it really is not a good argument for Islam to bring up the mistakes of the medieval church. It is really pathetic that most of the defenders of the mosque feel free to engage in tearing down other religious traditions to fight bigotry.

Posted by: C&J at August 18, 2010 7:50 PM
Comment #306252

Let me make one more point. How rotten would Muslims have to be if they are driven to commit acts of terrorism if a mosque is not built in New York?

I have more confidence in their humanity than you guys do.

How about you? Would you attack random groups of Muslims if you hear that some Muslims in other countries have disrespected Americans? Of course not. Do you believe that you are so much better than they are?

Posted by: C&J at August 18, 2010 7:53 PM
Comment #306264

Royal Flush said: “And, in this debate both sides agree that it is their right to build the mosque where presently planned. Yet, the two sides still write endless words defending something…I am not sure what. What idiots we all are.”

Exactly!

Posted by: Rich at August 18, 2010 9:04 PM
Comment #306312

MAG & Royal Flush,

Did you guys bother to read the link Jane Doe provided about the stoning?

Had you read it, this is the lead paragraph;

The Taliban ordered their first public executions by stoning since their fall from power nine years ago, killing a young couple who had eloped, according to Afghan officials and a witness.”

The Taliban ordered their first public executions by stoning. It has a nice ring to it.
These are the guys we defeated, right?

On the subject of the Ulema Council;
Recently the council in Saudi Arabia announced that terrorism is a punishable sin. It seems they have set the agenda for their country.

You guys don’t want to be lumped in with the radical terrorists of your religion, yet you are way too willing to assume the worst of others, and spread this crap without questioning the source of your information.
You take the opinion of a guy on Saudi TV, and assume that it is the facts for the entire Muslim world.

Sept. 11th wasn’t a “victory” for the Muslim world. It was a horrendous, criminal act performed by lunatic fanatics that, oh, BTW, just happened to be Muslims. Yet you continue to assume the worst, and paint the entire Muslim population with the same broad brush you would complain that others paint you with.

That is the height of hypocrisy.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 19, 2010 10:45 AM
Comment #306315

Rocky wrote; “That is the height of hypocrisy.” Yup, it would be if what you wrote about conservative beliefs was true. It isn’t, so that comment of yours was just nonsense.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 11:09 AM
Comment #306316

More spin Flush?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 19, 2010 11:11 AM
Comment #306317

Taliban=Muslim extremist
9/11=Muslim extremist victory
terrorism is punishable sin but shriah law accepts stoning as a punishment. You want to keep going Rocky we can do this all day.

Posted by: MAG at August 19, 2010 11:13 AM
Comment #306319

MAG,

You didn’t write “Muslim extremist” victory, you wrote Muslim victory.

Your exact words were;

“Maybe you liberals would think that insignificant but I don’t considering the small victory Muslims had on 9/11 in killing 3000+ Americans.”

I could do this all day, but I have other things to do.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 19, 2010 11:35 AM
Comment #306332

More spin Flush?

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 19

LOL…interesting definition of spin, I called your comments nonsense. No spin required?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 2:00 PM
Comment #306342

Excuse me for the slip Rocky but didn’t I correct the slip in post 306317. Like R.F. says your comments are nonsence.

Posted by: MAG at August 19, 2010 3:16 PM
Comment #306398

MAG-
Feel free to insult your way to being listened to by no-one.

Royal Flush-
In my readings on Islam, the attitudes about the religion are as diverse as the peoples who practice it, and since there aren’t real clear lines of hierarchy, since the political caliphates died out, there are all different kinds of the religion practiced in the world.

It’s not this monolithic religion and never was. The divisions date back as far as our own divisions between Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

I keep waiting for the liberals to bring out their big gun writers to set us conservatives straight and all we continue to get are the second third string wimps.

Yeah, that’s why you feel the need to bluster.

We’ve finally heard from the chief liberal in charge, Ms. Pelosi (some say she is the illegitmate grandaughter of Mussolini) today and in her brilliant liberal flair she has called for investigations to reveal who is behind the call to move the mosque location.

Illegitimate granddaughter of Mussolini? Man, you guys are getting creative. Not that it’s creativity that will be recognized for its genius in your lifetimes. No, folks years from now will recognize that what Conservatives were really doing with their political chicanery was enacting a kind of postmodern performance act, designed to highlight the absurdity of life through acts of absolute stupidity.

That’s why Palin, Rand Paul, and Sharron Angle are regularly featured as the stars of the party. And that’s why Boehner wears that strange make-up all the time. My compliments to the Avante-Garde!

C&J-
Look, there are plenty of modern Muslims who don’t subscribe to the medieval level of Sharia law that al-Qaeda and the Taliban do. I’m talking about my own faith when I talk about their being provisions that if taken literally would be quite nasty under modern American law.

Let me make one more point. How rotten would Muslims have to be if they are driven to commit acts of terrorism if a mosque is not built in New York?

I have more confidence in their humanity than you guys do.

Real cheap, both towards liberals and the Muslims within our borders. What we’re saying about that is not that the average Muslim will committ acts of terrorism, but as one FBI interrogator said, that folks like Bin Laden will use our hostility to encourage more hostility against us.

I am not under the impression that Bin Laden would be nice to us otherwise, but it would be nice to force the bastard to make crap up, rather than be forced to listen to him and others like him feed folks real, problematic things we’ve done.

We want to show the world that we are not what he says we are. We want to prove that America is a land of Religious freedom, not the land of prejudice that our enemies might call it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2010 8:21 PM
Comment #306401

Whats the matter Stephen you can’t take it? You have Dude who’s remarks a very insulting, Remer make some good ones to that are insulting, you better grow some nards if you want to be in a political debate and be able to take the heat. Have you heard the commentators on MSNBC they even have Dude and Remer beat. The conservatives on this blog are just fighting back Stephen. I’ve been insulted numerous time on this blog but I keep fighting back.

Posted by: MAG at August 19, 2010 8:40 PM
Comment #306417

MAG-
Let me tell what I think by the numbers. I’ve been here since December of 2003, becoming a Blog author in January 2004. I have written 446 entries. Only Paul Siegel, David R. Remer, and Jack/C&J have written more posts.

I’ve written tens of thousands of comments. I respond to just about everything you folks write. You seriously think that somebody who deliberately decided during the Bush Administration to publish openly liberal and critical blog entries under his own name is not able to take it?

If I couldn’t stand up to the criticism, at the level you apply it now, I’d have been gone years ago.

I’ve been fighting back against insulting people for the better part of half a decade, and often, I’ve been able to stick to just attacking their facts, rather than bashing them. So, not only can I take it, but I can also keep a cool enough head to take your points down on the merits.

It’s not who can shout BS back. It’s who can come back with the kind of thinking and facts that really represent progress in the debate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2010 10:44 PM
Comment #306423

Stephen The only thing that I see out of you is your posts always seem to only fault Republicans and never Democrats. Even though you are a staunch Democrat there are faults in your party like there are with Republicans. I can almost bet that out of all of what you wrote none contained anything about the wrong doings of your party. I can’t respect anyone who has a one sided attitude. Both parties have handled this economy piss poorly that encludes Bush and Obama. This congress has been in power since 2006 and when Obama took office you guys had a super majority but couldn’t get it together. You had 60 votes in the Senate but had to resort to buying votes to get HC passed. Your policies are going to cost this country dearly in the next decade. My grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying for those mistakes and probably their children. I am a conservative, I don’t claim any political party because neither show me they have a clue of what is going on and Democrats especially now. So as long as you keep writing about how great democrats are I’ll keep bashing those comments and likewise if someone writes about how great Republicans are. I have told you before I’m an equal opportunity basher.

Posted by: MAG at August 19, 2010 11:35 PM
Comment #306425

Mag:

Your right, I think Stephen is cracking. But you have to look at it this way, the dems are expecting to get beat in November and the pressure is really on them. They have been blowing the old bazoo from almost two years about their mandate to pass a liberal socialist agenda. They have also said over and over that the republicans are just the party of “NO” and that they have blocked everything the American people wanted. But, it appears the only one who wanted all this liberal crap, was the liberals. The voters have woke up and do not want to become socialist. Hence, butt whooping in November. They don’t know how to handle it. This is the last great chance to destroy America, and it’s falling apart. Stephen wrote a whole dissertation to me about something that was written by Tom Humes. Are they loosing it, yes…

He has resulted to telling you how long he has been writing on WB, and how many entries he has made, to prove he is more qualified than you on these matters.

Stephen complained that we, on the right, call Obama by insulting names, and to you he insulted Congressman Boehner. Is there a difference?

But, seriously, I do expect some of us conservatives to be banned from WB. The heat is getting to them.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 19, 2010 11:57 PM
Comment #306428

B9 That new guy Stephen Androes I read his post and he has really taken it to them. I think most liberal are disappointed in their party and they want to blame anyone but themselves. I guess I’d be P.Od if I were a Democrat now. If they do ban some for just saying their piece about the comments then I guess they really are sore losers.

Posted by: MAG at August 20, 2010 12:15 AM
Comment #306462

“We want to show the world that we are not what he [Bin Laden]says we are. We want to prove that America is a land of Religious freedom, not the land of prejudice that our enemies might call it.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2010

I am going to be very gentle with Mr. Daugherty today. Do we really have to prove to anyone that America is a land of religious freedom? I believe we have proven that over a few centuries to anyone with eyes or ears. I just can’t believe you care a whit what Bin Laden thinks about our religious freedom. Have you been challenged to proved what every other American already knows?

Let’s say the proposed mosque in NYC is located at 100 Main Street. If they move it to 900 Main street out of sensitiviy to American feelings will Mr. Daugherty write that we have given Bin Laden ammunition against us? Will it prove that we don’t practice religious freedom?

Mr. Daugherty, have a nice day.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2010 1:13 PM
Comment #306464

When you really read what SD writes, it don’t make much sense, does it. I would venture to say, if the most prominent liberal in America, kissed Bin Laden’s rear end, it wouldn’t have any effect on how they feel about us.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 20, 2010 1:23 PM
Comment #306676

MAG-
I fault Republicans the most because I see the most BS out of them. It’s not like I really love what some Democrats do.

Republicans are taking a party line against anything being changed from the Bush years, and have done so to the point that they’re setting records for preventing legislation and appointees from getting through the process. You say we got control in 2006, technically yes. But everything had to pass by a 60 vote majority because Republicans pitched such a parliamentary hissy-fit. They almost doubled the previous record for filibusters.

And, according to the constitution, if you can’t pass anything through the Senate, the bill dies. Not content to tell people yes the first term, Republicans have again obstructed at a record breaking pace, this time perhaps with more success in getting Democrats blamed for doing nothing.

But really, what does the Republican Party have to offer? I wish the Democrats in Washington were stronger, more unified, and more willing to kick the crap out of their counterparts, but I’m not going to blame them for what the Republicans are doing, because if the Republicans stopped filibustering today, we could cut out quite a few of the worst of the Democrats, and get things passed.

Then, I’d concern myself more with reforming my party, because then, it would be the biggest obstacle to me getting what I want in politics.

See how I work? I go after what I think is the biggest problem first, and right now, the Republicans are the biggest impediment. If that doesn’t change in 2010, I will keep on bashing the Republicans, and I will be advocating for whatever steps it takes for my party to start taking seats back.

As for what our children and grandchildren suffer? You guys pushed most of the debt, and the debt creating programs on this country, not us. You won’t admit that mistake, though, so your people will continue to act in ways that worsen the deficit, even as you get all high and mighty with the rest of us.

You’ve destabilized America’s power in the world by wasting our prestige and our military readiness and morale on two wars you couldn’t be bothered to win. Was that the best thing to leave our kids and grandkids?

You’re prepared to let markets bottom out and collapse, with terrible consequences for our economy, for our infrastructure, hell , for our ability to move into the future on techonlogy. So you tell me what good the GOP’s done for our system?

And on Healthcare? The Republicans are unwilling to do anything real to cut costs or make care more available for what we pay. What kind of gift is that to our future?

Don’t use that BS “Will anybody think of the children” argument on me. I happen to have a different perspective, probably a more fact-based perspective on what might cause future generations trouble. You can’t sucker me into taking your views with such a fallacious guilt trip.

Beretta9
Keep telling yourself that. I’ve outlasted many people who have made it personal with me, and the main reason is that I argue and fight with facts, more than I do people.

Because I don’t make it so personal, I don’t end up flaming out.

Royal Flush-
I want the SOB to have to reach when he makes those tapes, not rip things from the headlines. I have no expectations that if we’re nice that Bin Laden won’t hurt us. But what I do think is that the fewer facts Bin Laden can appeal to, the better. I want him to have to pile on a bunch of BS rhetoric to fill out those tapes of his. I want people to start scratching their heads about the relevance of his message.

I want Muslims around the world to know on the basis of fact that America, when it sorts itself out is a tolerant, unbigotted place where they have a friend if they’re willing to be a friend. I don’t want our people to do Bin Laden’s job in dividing the Middle East against us.

I want to isolate and discredit that man, until he’s just a pathetic crank sitting alone in a cave. If he doesn’t go nuts and start making a target of himself first.

The first step to doing that is to prove that Bin Laden is wrong when he says we’re hypocrites about religious freedom. I want to deprive him of fodder for his anti-American Propaganda.

I want people to believe that my country is the better friend than he his, and that doesn’t exactly work, if we’re pushing around and being intolerant towards muslims here, now does it?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2010 9:01 AM
Comment #306689

Stephen, You can fault Republicans all you want but the fact remanins that you had a majotiry in congress since 2006. Your party talked real big when they took over congress but that’s all it was, was talk. It’s is not the fault of the Republicans that your party dosen’t have the GUTS to stand up to them.

Posted by: MAG at August 23, 2010 2:31 PM
Comment #306694

MAG-
Republicans have used their power as minority to block everything they could in the Senate. Democrats like me know this, and being civically educated, know what this means for passing legislation period.

If you really wanted us to believe everything was the Democrats fault, you could start by letting the Democrats actually legislate from our mandate. Then if things continued to screw up, or Democrats had a hard time passing things you could honestly say you had nothing to do with it.

For now, you’re basically asking why we’re running so slow with your anchor chain around our waist. Gee, let me guess why Democrats have not done more….

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2010 4:52 PM
Comment #306698

Stephen Did I say everything was the fault of Democrats? NO.
The thing I did say was they had NO GUTS to stand up to the Republican minority. If your party is to Chicken S—t, when they have the majority to stop the filibuster that isn’t Republicans problem. You had 58 Dems and 2 ind. who caucus with Dems prior to Brown getting elected and your party had problems getting anything done. It was the infighting of your own party. Filibuster could have been stopped. They could still stop a filibusters with the Rino’s in the Senate. Republicans, Republicans, Republicans is getting old and people are seeing through the BS.

Posted by: MAG at August 23, 2010 5:59 PM
Comment #306735

MAG-
And the Republicans could not filibuster in the first place, letting the party voters elected govern. Then, if the Democrats failed, there wouldn’t be any question of why. The Republicans, by their own admission and by obvious fact, are having a huge effect on what what policies are coming out of Washington. Don’t they need to be held accountable for that?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2010 2:04 PM
Comment #306738

Stephen, Both parties need to be held accountable. When the party voters elected go against said voters then the elected party has problems and that young man is what your party did.

Posted by: MAG at August 24, 2010 2:24 PM
Comment #306747

MAG-
Is it? Or did Republicans throw a whole bunch of BS into the air to justify a pre-determined course of undermining Democratic political gains?

I think if a party deserves to be held accountable for terrible policy, it should be held doubly accountable for continuing to fight to preserve that policy.

Which is what the Republicans are doing. Bush Tax Cuts, with their Deficit exploding potential, a prime example.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2010 5:31 PM
Comment #306751

Stephen, Your crap about Republicans is getting old and wore out. Yes Republicans made mistakes, and yes Democrats made mistakes. Your party and the Republican party should be held accountable for the condition of this country. The only thing that will make these politicians listen is the Nov. elections. We need to vote out the scum that got us into this mess and that scum is both Democrat and Republican. If we keep putting the same scum back into office we got nothing to bitch about.

Posted by: MAG at August 24, 2010 6:06 PM
Comment #306824

MAG-
The image that formed in my mind reading your comment is of a man being asked where a robber ran off to. He then says “The thief went thataway!” and points with both hands in opposite directions.

You can’t hold a winner accountable. You aren’t. If the Republicans win seats, they will take that as a sign of encouragement. Just watch.

And why shouldn’t they? You’re hiring them.

If you want to fire Democrats, fine. Find somebody better than them, though, if you want improvement. Given even you can’t find much love for the GOP, though, what exactly are you hoping to gain?

I’d say, if you kick the bums out, keep the bums out. The Republicans have not changed their policies, so I have not changed my opinion of them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 25, 2010 8:24 PM
Comment #306825

Stephen All because you don’t want to admit that your party screwed up that’s you. IMO they have along with the Republicans been to blame for what is going on now. It’s time we got rid of the DC elite of both parties. I haven’t changed my opinion of either party they’re both F——-UP and haven’t a clue of what is going on.

Posted by: MAG at August 25, 2010 8:49 PM
Comment #306862

MAG-
Do you have an alternative to offer?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 26, 2010 11:59 AM
Comment #306863

Come November Stephen you will see the alternative. Incumbents from both parties getting the boot, Hell your seeing it now with the primaries. Very few incumbents will return to congress come January 2011.

Posted by: MAG at August 26, 2010 12:19 PM
Comment #306981

MAG-
What’s your policy alternative? What are you seeking power for? What are you doing?

For the sake of all that is holy, could you answer one simple question? The Democratic voter has policies they are willing to fight for, goals they have a vision for. Republicans have succeeded, in some part, in demoralizing them, but to what end?

To what end do conservatives and right-wingers demoralize, debase, and make everybody else’s efforts collapse into mediocrity? Are they weakening them to push their alternative, a policy they think will be the better fresh start America needs?

Or are they simply mounting a backdoor defense of an indefensible status quo, by essentially dunking every other alternative in the swampy goo of Washington politics?

The Republicans, instead of rebelling against the mediocrity and incompetence in their ranks, are trying to heap up enough bull**** so that people start celebrating that BS instead of being repulsed by it.

So, when I ask you, just what the hell you are intending to do with that power, I’m trying to see whether you’re serious about doing good with that power, or whether you’re really just interested in playing the same old bull**** games.

I’ve had quite enough of that. We need a true alternative, not a Washington run by Republicans and Democrats too afraid of change to do anything but gridlock the place.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2010 9:14 PM
Comment #306983

Stephen The alternative is to do just the opposite of what you Democrats are doing because what you’ve done so far is not working. By the way Stephen I don’t have the power to turn this country around but the politicians we elect do be it Democrat, Republican, or Independent. I don’t care which does it but it better get done.

Posted by: MAG at August 27, 2010 9:55 PM
Post a comment