If a mosque opens at Ground Zero on 9/11 next year,Obama can kiss the White House goodbye

[ibinubu12]

Education.

 

I hope all here who have read these posts can learn that there is only one thing missing in the world - education. Extremists who blow up cars in street markets in Kabul and those who stand before a mosque and decry it's existence share one thing in common - a lack of education. If we spent our money on schools for Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of rockets, we would stop this problem from starting.

 

It we had not backed down on our commitment to the Afghanis after we aided the mujahideen fighting the Soviets, the Taliban would not have come to power, nobody would have sheltered al-Qaeda, and the growth of extremist Islam wouldn't have happened. We turned our backs on them after promising them our assistance. We left them with a bombed hulk of a country and somehow were staggered when they didn't embrace us in love twenty something years later.

[Mackintire]

Just some thoughts:

 

• 
   
  
• The location of the mosque is in bad taste.
   
  
• The name of the mosque is in bad taste.
   
  
• The size of the building with "THAT NAME" is in extreme bad taste in historical reference.
  

 

None of the above issues would have been a deal breaker...but the combination of the above list has totally poisoned the buildings chance of being a peaceful success.

 

 

 

Sounds like the building will piss off a lot of people, be historically held to standing for something contrary to what its intention was, and generally cause more issues for the muslim community.

 

 

The solution is simple.... for the moment rename the building and don't put a mosque in it.

 

Long term...

Build a more normal sized mosque a block farther away and DON'T use that name.

 

That above solutions would placate the educated more rationale US citizens and defuse the issue on multiple levels.

[Edstock]

Perhaps I understood it more clearly because I seem to be able to follow 6 paragraph's of words without a period or comma to be seen? I think it's just the way he rants.

 

I was impressed though, not a single mention of "classic f-150's" or "classic silverado's" anywhere!

 

The American said "Y'all mighta invented the language, but WE made it user-friendly"

Thank-you very much. Jelly's OK, just hard to comprehend sometimes.

 

IMHO, they really should build elsewhere. This confrontation benefits only the jihaddis who see the uproar as confirmation that the West really is the Dar al Harb. It also alienates all those young American Muslims who just wanna play rock n' roll.

[jpd80]

If we spent our money on schools for Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of rockets, we would stop this problem from starting.

 

They hate your guts, even if you did all of that they would still attack your aid workers and volunteers.

The pricks have indicated as much with America's offer of aid to Pakistan flood relief.

 

You need to understand, this blood feud between Al Quaida and the USA will go on for generations.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Mark, I won't ask you if you have any gay friends, because on this board... One of my best friends, and long time business associates, is gay. He is very active in the gay community and over a long period of time I have become much more aware of the issues that effect the community. It is difficult to be accepted, or really trusted, as a straight person in the gay community, but over time I have found acceptance. Some of the the things they deal with are appalling. I won't get into that here, but within the community gay marriage is seen very differently from civil unions. There is almost universal support for civil union within the community, but the opinion on gay marriage is much more divided. I can't speak for the gay community any more than I can speak for the straight community, but I do have at least a little insight into the issue.

 

I have several close friends who are Gay. Two have been in a committed relationship for more than 15 years and are as "married" as any couple I have ever known. Unfortunately, here in Pennsylvania they can't have the same legal committment despite their many years together as any two heterosexuals who decide to get hitched on a whim. Regardless of whether it is called a Civil Union or a Marriage, they should be entitled to all of the same rights and respect as the state gives to the couple who runs off to Vegas to marry.

 

I don't profess to speak for anyone but myself either. I do have some perspective having practiced in the area of Divorce Law for most of the past 22 years. I have represented gay clients in custody and divorce cases. I have seen first hand the difficulties they have in dealing with the law that doesn't apply to heterosexuals. They don't have the same rights to pass property tax free to a spouse nor to file joint returns. They are forced to jump through legal hoops to accomplish very simple tasks, sometimes with no way to predict the result.

 

While civil unions may grant all of the legal benefits of marriage, it doesn't feel equal to marriage. Many gay people have been ostracized from their extended family. Their relationships are not accorded the same respect as their straight brothers and sisters. These gay people want and crave the acceptance that they feel only a "real" church wedding can provide. They are asking government to step in to force the churches to accept the lifestyle, to allow them to marry in the church, and to help them achieve the recognition they desire. I understand their motivation, and I sympathize with their need for acceptance, but I don't think forcing the churches to do this is within the bounds of what government is about. Many in the the gay community feel the same way. Like so many issues, the truth is in the details.

 

When I married my Catholic Wife, we knew right from the start that we would have to have a civil ceremony as neither my synagogue nor her church would perform an interfaith wedding. Her first divorce didn't help matters with the church and an annulment was out of the question. While there are some churches and synagogues that would have been willing, we were married by a Judge who was a friend of my family.

 

 

We could not have forced any religious authority to marry us. I know of no proposed law that would require a church of any faith to perform such a wedding. No such law could ever pass Constitutional muster. Your statement that Gays are asking the government to order churches to accept them is a red herring. Churches are free to accept or deny membership to anyone and there is no legal recourse through the Courts.

 

I certainly would not support any law that would infringe on the rights of any religion to refuse to perform a marriage.

 

While you say that government will not do this, all you have to do is to look at how government has treated the religious based adoption agencies to see that the government will most certainly step in. The last Catholic adoption agency in Britain was just order to close or begin offering adoption services to same sex couples. The same thing has happened in the US. These are not government funded groups. So the government does tell the churches how they will will have to behave.

 

Britian does not have our Constitution so comparing British law to US law is not compelling. I have no issue with a religious exemption in any law recognizing Gay marriage for churches and other religious institutions so long as no public funds are used for the programs. If they accept public money then they should not discrininate. While the Boston Catholic Bishops chose to close their adoption, it was on the fear that they might have to permit gays to adopt. These was no court decision requiring them to do so.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[Mark B. Morrow]

Just some thoughts:

 

• 
   
  
• The location of the mosque is in bad taste.
   
  
• The name of the mosque is in bad taste.
   
  
• The size of the building with "THAT NAME" is in extreme bad taste in historical reference.
  

 

None of the above issues would have been a deal breaker...but the combination of the above list has totally poisoned the buildings chance of being a peaceful success.

 

 

 

Sounds like the building will piss off a lot of people, be historically held to standing for something contrary to what its intention was, and generally cause more issues for the muslim community.

 

 

The solution is simple.... for the moment rename the building and don't put a mosque in it.

 

Long term...

Build a more normal sized mosque a block farther away and DON'T use that name.

 

That above solutions would placate the educated more rationale US citizens and defuse the issue on multiple levels.

 

 

They have abandoned the Cordoba House name in favor of Park 51, which is the address of the building.

[ibinubu12]

They hate your guts, even if you did all of that they would still attack your aid workers and volunteers.

The pricks have indicated as much with America's offer of aid to Pakistan flood relief.

 

You need to understand, this blood feud between Al Quaida and the USA will go on for generations.

 

They hate us BECAUSE they do not know who we really are. They know what they are told by extremist clerics about the US. They know what extremist clerics tell them about the Qur'an, because they are illiterate and cannot read its peaceful message for themselves. There is a reason moderate and liberal Muslims are in the West and in the more modern parts of the Mid East, and it's not because of our culture - it's all education.

 

And the flood relief offered by the same American government that they have thirty years of broken promises as reasons to distrust? Hell, even I don't trust my government.

[xr7g428]

While the Boston Catholic Bishops chose to close their adoption, it was on the fear that they might have to permit gays to adopt. These was no court decision requiring them to do so.

 

The last time I checked, Boston was in the USA. I used the example from Britain because it happened just the day or so before. So clearly you know that there is precedent for the government to act intrusively. Be honest, if civil unions accomplished the goal would there be any real controversy? Most people see civil unions as a live and let live issue. The controversy begins when you start to redefine marriage, and the power of government over the institution. Your people want to expand government influence, most people do not see that as a good thing.

 

It would not surprise me to see the government claim marriage as an entirely civil function so that they can protect against all forms of discrimination. They might still permit symbolic but not legally sanctioned marriage ceremonies in the church. How did the camel get in the tent? first the nose, and then.. LOL!

 

Californian has had civil union for some time and there is still a press for marriage. You should tell your friends to go to New Jersey, they have civil unions there.

 

Oh well, the same kind of thought process that says build the mosque no matter how distasteful, will mandate that the church perform gay weddings no matter how distasteful. Using the power of government is okay as long as it is used in a way that meets your approval. Must be a quandary? Discrimination and religion... Which one of these is hot button issue for Democrats? Hmm... Might be fun to mess with those right wing evangelicals? So tell me, will Islam be required to perform the same as the Methodists? Some how I bet the Muslims will get a pass.

Edited August 26, 2010 by xr7g428

[suv_guy_19]

A cursory read of the US Constitution should very quickly show you that a church can't in fact be compelled to do much of anything. We have almost the exact same clause in our Constitution, and gay marriage has been legal here for 5 years. No church has been or can be compelled to perform a marriage of any kind.

[RangerM]

A cursory read of the US Constitution should very quickly show you that a church can't in fact be compelled to do much of anything.

Don't be too sure

[mustang_sallad]

For Christ's sake would you please stop using the actions of a few radicals to represent the beliefs of an ENTIRE RELIGION? I am a Christian and I would be devastated if people treated me like I'm part of the KKK. Or if people restricted the practice of my religion because some psycho priests like to touch little boys. "No Churches within 2 blocks of any elementary school!"

[suv_guy_19]

Don't be too sure

 

I'm in fact quite sure.

[xr7g428]

I know what the Constitution says, but I also know how government works. I am sure that Mark and SUV are fine with all of this, but the rest of us should take the lesson.

 

The liberal Democrats who are now running the country have an agenda to reshape society; Constitution be damned if need be...

 

Oh, and this is from that bastion of conservatism, National Public Radio.

 

 

When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash

 

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

 

In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

 

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

 

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

 

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

 

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

 

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

 

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

 

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

 

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

 

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

 

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

 

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

[xr7g428]

For Christ's sake would you please stop using the actions of a few radicals to represent the beliefs of an ENTIRE RELIGION? I am a Christian and I would be devastated if people treated me like I'm part of the KKK. Or if people restricted the practice of my religion because some psycho priests like to touch little boys. "No Churches within 2 blocks of any elementary school!"

 

Mustang, if the rest of the Christian Church gave a pass to the KKK, then you would have a valid point. By and large I have never seen any sort of un-categorical rejection of the actions or justifications of the 9/11 murderers. Imagine if you sat in church and the best they could muster regarding the KKK was to say lynching was bad, but those negros are partly to blame? You would not stand for that and neither would any one else. Islam has an obligation, a huge and unrelenting obligation, to the civilized world to set themselves apart from the murderers and to do their best to eliminate that kind of theology from their religion. Until Islam declares the murderers to be criminals rotting in hell, instead of martyrs deflowering virgins in paradise, we can expect more violence.

[xr7g428]

I'm in fact quite sure.

 

 

And quite mistaken as usual.

 

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Ronald Reagan

[suv_guy_19]

And quite mistaken as usual.

 

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Ronald Reagan

 

Well, when Ronald Regan says something, it doesn't automatically become right. But, in this case, it is. You're simply looking at it wrong. Religious freedoms are things that have existed in America for a long time, and they are things that continue to exist and that people continue to defend and protect to this day. Freedom of equality, on the other hand, is not something that has always existed in America, and it is something that people have fight for every day. Right now, homosexuals are fighting for equal treatment under the law. The recognition of that equality doesn't take away anyone's rights. In fact, it enriches every person in America, and it enriches America itself.

 

Freedom or religion and freedom of equality for homosexuals can and does coexist in many places around the world. America has superior constitutional protections to many of those places, and so religion will still enjoy the protection that it does today. There is no reason to be afraid.

 

You sir, are the one who is mistaken.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

The Mark & Obama Ground Zero mosque come close to its getting its first death yesterday as a poor innocent Muslim New York cabbie got attacked by a bigot as the mindless violence and backlash against the Ground Zero mosque starts sad to say. This guy was a US Marine l wonder what the other Armed Forces personnel will do to Muslims around your stupid Ground Zero mosque when they start to return home on mass to the big Apple after being used as target practice by the Taliban in Afghanistan or Iraq .

 

Gotta say that l thought this is what would happen you could see this coming off, but the Marks of this world could not sad to say. New York will erupt descend into a endless a war of religious hatred that will escalate and mindless violence between Muslims & Christian in a IRA type sectarian violence & killings spree.

 

Ground Zero mosque as got arson attack written all over it, it stirs up hatred towards Muslims everywhere maybe thats what the Marks & Obama of this world want to create a Muslim Hornets nest on ground zero, but l don't!!!! l want the common option for all that keeps the peace between for ALL Americans which is build the mosque somewhere elsewhere not so close to Ground Zero. That creates a common PEACEFUL option for all involved Muslims, Christians & Atheists etc.

 

Gotta say looking at the posts on BON this thread and Marks thread you can't help but feel the great pain & hatred that the 9/11 attack has bubbling under the surface of America. Ranger M wants the mosque built right on the site of ground zero not on its doorstep so it stirs up maximum hatred towards Muslims so it creates a civil war right across America thats not l want to see happen.

Mark want the mosque built on Ground Zero's door step which l find to provocative and troublemaking it shits on the graves of non Muslims who died in 9/11 sorry to say Mark, nobody is saying there should not be a tribute to the American Muslims that got killed in 911 attack at Ground Zero site itself Mark, but l find the mosque totally tasteless.

 

Two thumbs up to Ed Stock for agreeing that the site needs to be build elsewhere, but two thumbs down for all your multi colored replies hidden in quote boxes so you cant reply to the post either you are spineless and don't want people to reply to your posts when you write something bang out of order, or you are just plain thick & stupid and like Mark you don't know how to multi quote. I think its the former rather than the latter as it must have taken you a lot longer to construct a post in blue fonts in Post 119 of this thread rather than just type in the normal black fonts (Also placed above the Quote so you can't reply with answer to your spineless post) .

Ed Stock Post 119

Jelly, they're DEAD. They aren't practicing anything anymore.

That post is absolutely outrageous & a disgrace Ed Stock, you show absolutely no respect at all any for others, other than your selfish self, because they are all dead that makes it all right. Folk lost their Grandparents, Mums, Dads, Sons & Daughters forever on that dreadful 9/11 attacks. You can't just erase the damage these Muslim Islam Extremest have done in New York by waving a magic wand as if it never happened Ed Stock, you are dreadful bang out of order. If you were sitting on window ledge of one of the twin towers somewhere near the top floor knowing that all the mass murdering Islam extremists were all dead in a 757 kerosene fireball below you, and your only option was to jump l bet you that last thing you would not be thinking is they're DEAD. They aren't practicing anything anymore.

That makes killing 3,000 innocent people OK then Ed in your books we have all gotta eraze our memory banks as if 911 never happened. You can go and fook yourself Ed Stock, l will never forget the tragedy of 9/11, the 3,000 Americans that died there they will remain remembered in my heart forever. God Bless America.

I just hope we never see another 9/11, keep the peace in New York build the mosque somewhere elsewhere

Never forget 9/11

Edited August 27, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Ford Jellymoulds]

DAILY EXPRESS (Not Fox News)

 

JAILED MUSLIMS 'CONVERTED TO TERRORIST CAUSE

UP to 800 Muslims in UK jails may have been turned by fellow inmates into fanatics ready to launch a new wave of terror attacks.

 

An alarming report by defence experts warns that the security services face a "significant challenge" in spotting and keeping tabs on possible suicide bombers and other jihadists as they are freed from prison over the next five to 10 years.

 

The Royal United Services Institute's study, released today, predicts a switch from highly-planned outrages such as 9/11 and the London 7/7 bombings to attacks by lone suicide bombers with only slight links to Al Qaeda and using home-made explosives.

 

The authors warn: "Perhaps some 800 potentially violent radicals, not previously guilty of terrorism charges, will be back in society over the coming five to 10 years."

 

The report also says that many of those caught in the anti-terror campaign of recent years were not convicted of very serious charges and will, therefore, be freed fairly soon.

 

LINK

 

The shit just continues, one lot die another lot pop up what a sick world we live in today.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[RangerM]

I'm in fact quite sure.

To deny in the face of contradictory evidence isn't being sure, it's being blind.

[RangerM]

Ranger M wants the mosque built right on the site of ground zero not on its doorstep so it stirs up maximum hatred towards Muslims so it creates a civil war right across America thats not l want to see happen.

Actually, that's not accurate. I'd rather people just take notice.

 

Peoples' dismissal of 80 Million dedicated jihadists seems (to me) foolish, and the jihadists are given cover by those who claim to oppose them, yet do nothing (as far as I can tell) to thwart their efforts. Their voices speak one thing, and their actions speak another. America has been distracted from this.

 

In this thread we have (the same) people who.....

 

.....say "get over it" regarding past events and ignore a dedicated (and dangerous) Muslim minority, even though noone is saying that government should be used to force them to move.

 

and

 

.....also express that when Christians are forced to relent some of their religious freedoms, they seem to be not only openly silent, but actually in agreement with the imposition. (or in SUVs case, denies it even exists)

 

 

Remember, it's not a Christian saying this....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkugB4cbkAw

 

 

Here's an Muslim Minister preaching tolerance regarding gays. This is admirable. Although, why the need for the inflection ? (start listening at 0:30)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc6GqzQeA2E

Edited August 27, 2010 by RangerM

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Actually, that's not accurate. I'd rather people just take notice.

 

Peoples' dismissal of 80 Million dedicated jihadists seems (to me) foolish, and the jihadists are given cover by those who claim to oppose them, yet do nothing (as far as I can tell) to thwart their efforts. Their voices speak one thing, and their actions speak another. America has been distracted from this.

 

In this thread we have (the same) people who.....

 

.....say "get over it" regarding past events and ignore a dedicated (and dangerous) Muslim minority, even though noone is saying that government should be used to force them to move.

 

and

 

.....also express that when Christians are forced to relent some of their religious freedoms, they seem to be not only openly silent, but actually in agreement with the imposition. (or in SUVs case, denies it even exists)

 

 

Remember, it's not a Christian saying this....

 

 

 

Sorry Ranger M, l don't agree with you

 

l don't want to see the centre of New York's Ground Zero turned into another Northern Ireland IRA religious sectarian battleground of bombings and killings that nobody wins it just spreads misery & destruction and nothing else. Stabbing of the taxi driver in New York is just the start.

 

Build the mosque somewhere elsewhere and keep the peace.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KC7uhMY9s

Edited August 27, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[RangerM]

Sorry Ranger M, l don't agree with you

 

We're two different people. It's expected from time to time.

 

Although we both agree that we don't want violence. (NOTE: there's more to that taxi driver story than you may know. It was not related to the mosque. The student has a history of mental illness from what I understand)

 

Build the mosque somewhere elsewhere and keep the peace.

And if they don't? Does that mean they don't want to keep the peace, or don't care if they don't?

Edited August 27, 2010 by RangerM

[suv_guy_19]

To deny in the face of contradictory evidence isn't being sure, it's being blind.

 

Well, we'll have to see what happens. I don't see this particular case holding up.

Edited August 27, 2010 by suv_guy_19

[RangerM]

Well, we'll have to see what happens. I don't see this particular case holding up.

I wish I shared your optimism (if that's what it is).

 

I've seen enough people who relish in what they do to believe their motivations are benevolent.

[fmccap]

Ground Zero Muslim center may get public financing