Islamic Cultural Center/Muslim Mosque near ground Zero

[MightyB]

For years liberals have used the court system to attack religious prcatices, and now they suddenly are defending the rights of religious practicioners. They have sued to keep the 10 Commandments out of schools and out of courthouses. They have sent children home from public schools for wearing crosses, they sue to have nativity scenes removed from public places, etc. They have called the Bible a book of hate, but they defend the Koran. I'm also surprised the National Organization of Women isn't up in arms considering the horrible ways Muslims treat women.

But hey, if this is ok lets allow the Japanese to build a Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor. Let's also allow the Michigan Militia to build a church at the Oklahoma City bombing site.

It's not the same - whether we like it or not, Islam is a religion. It's not terrorism. Every wannabe teabagger tries to equate these groups as being the same as the Mosque issue... building "a Nazi shrine next to the Holocaust museum" etc. Wrong logic. Here's an example: Most Nazis, Neo Nazis, KKK, Skinheads, etc claim to be Christian and have churches. Using tea bagger logic, the Jewish people should be protesting Churches near the Holocaust museum.

Now I'm not a liberal. They are for the most part - deuchebags! If they wanted to do some good, they should fight for the separation of business and state.

The right to choose and celebrate an organized religion is part of the fabric of America as expressed by the US Constitution.

[BJJ-Blue]

Some fringe groups believe he did the right thing. Again, you are blanketing ALL muslims based on the actions of a very remote few. There are millions of muslims in the US, and I don't recall hearing anything from condemnation from them regarding terrorist actions. Should they all be judged by the actions of others? Should we dare try to discriminate based off of a religion? What kind of precedent would THAT set?

I'm blanketing no one. I just correctly pointed out that Muslims around the world were dancing in the streets while we were still digging out our dead and wounded. I also said you cant point to pictures of Christians all over the world doing the same thing when the Oklahoma City bombing happened. Facts are facts.

As for hearing only condemnation, there were indeed clerics/imams over here that cheered the murderers on. I actually named one in my earlier post.

Also, I was clear that they have every right to build their mosque there. I just feel it is in bad taste, and insensitive, to do so. Notice how even Obama won't comment on 'the wisdom of doing it', he has only said exactly what I said, that they do have that right.

[MightyB]

Also, I was clear that they have every right to build their mosque there. I just feel it is in bad taste, and insensitive, to do so. Notice how even Obama won't comment on 'the wisdom of doing it', he has only said exactly what I said, that they do have that right.

Obama messed up and shouldn't have retracted, and retracted again. His original statement stood on its own as defined by the US Constitution. That shows wishy-washy character traits.

Maybe we should start limiting how much we integrate with the Muslim world. The bible states that we'll always be enemies ever since Abe nailed Hagar and then exiled her and Ishmael because Sarah was bitter and didn't want a rival for her son Isaac.

[BJJ-Blue]

His original statement stood on its own as defined by the US Constitution. That shows wishy-washy character traits.

Actually it shows he picks and chooses. He took an oath to protect this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic, yet he refuses to halt illegal immigration. He actually sued a State for enforcing immigration law!

[sanjuro_ronin]

I would allow this on one condition, the very public and very demonstrable show by the head of the Mosque in support of religious freedom for all and a very open and clear cut denouncing of the extremisst elements AND writings in Islam.

[David Jamieson]

Actually it shows he picks and chooses. He took an oath to protect this country from all enemies, foreign or domestic, yet he refuses to halt illegal immigration. He actually sued a State for enforcing immigration law!

not one word of this is truth. All of it is obfuscation of the actual truth.

Do you not think there are measures in place for illegal immigration? For pete's sake, you nutters are building a wall israeli style down south and have lots of macho BS mustache wearing hicks running around calling themselves defenders of the country while taking potshots at hungry people in the rio grande.

Arizona was contested on whether or not their new laws were constitutional.
They are inclusive of racial profiling as far as the enforcement goes and so, they indeed are unconstitutional.

It is Arizonas right to patrol and manage it's borders. It is no ones right to single out a segment of the population and start demanding proof of citizenship when the only method they have is whether or not you are brown and speaking Spanish.

Meanwhile, some ex nazi could be living there but who would ever know because under arizona thinking, that guy would never be asked any questions about the legitimacy of his citizenship at all because he's white!

trouble with your kind of thinking is that you like to call a knife a spoon and as you cut the throat of one more person with it, you will still insist it is a spoon.

[MightyB]

The whole immigration thing is another can of worms. I have no problem with Arizona. Is it profiling? Yes... but we're not talking about thousands of undocumented Dutch people in Arizona are we? We have a system for legal immigration. It isn't very good, but there is a system in place. If the federal government wants to weigh in on that issue and revamp the legal immigration policies, that's one thing... to stop a state from enforcing legal immigration policy - that's another. These people are illegal immigrants.

[solo1]

The Muslims are using this as provocation. NY Governor Paterson has offered land upstate to build it but they insist it be built on this spot. Muslims build mosques on conquered territory and this is a deliberate provocation, its a victory mosque. Dont bother arguing religious freedom or property rights they have zero religious tolerance of anything or anyone, we are who are not Muslim are infidels and are to be converted or killed.
When they start allowing churchs and synagogues to be built in Tehran then and only then will a religious tolerance argument be valid. The Left is vapid, they believe we need to roll over and show how "sensitive" we are how "tolerant" we are. There are what, 30 mosques in NY? why this spot?
I have to ask because no one else will, has anyone considered the sensitivity of the families whose members were murdered at that site? Of course not. that might be provocative. However the interviews so far show shock, horror and dismay.
Who will finance the mosque? so far we know the Saudis, hardly a group that is pro American. How many synagouqes in riyadh? or churches? none. We dont have to display "tolerance" we have demonstrated our tolerance by welcoming every faith on the globe to our shores. We should be no more accepting of a mosque on this site then we would on the mall in Washington or god forbid Arlington Cemetary, but that is exactly what they are doing. Ground Zero is sacred ground, we were attacked, 3000 of us were murdered, are our memories that short? tolerance my ass, they are thumbing their collective noses at us. I havent forgotten the celebrations in the streets in the Middle East after 9/11.

[KC Elbows]

to stop a state from enforcing legal immigration policy - that's another. These people are illegal immigrants.

The state law was not constitutional. So the policy proved unconsitutional, and thus, not legal. You cannot warrant messing with the rights of legal immigrants because they speak a certain language or are a certain race in any state.

[solo1]

not one word of this is truth. All of it is obfuscation of the actual truth.

Do you not think there are measures in place for illegal immigration? For pete's sake, you nutters are building a wall israeli style down south and have lots of macho BS mustache wearing hicks running around calling themselves defenders of the country while taking potshots at hungry people in the rio grande.

Arizona was contested on whether or not their new laws were constitutional.
They are inclusive of racial profiling as far as the enforcement goes and so, they indeed are unconstitutional.

It is Arizonas right to patrol and manage it's borders. It is no ones right to single out a segment of the population and start demanding proof of citizenship when the only method they have is whether or not you are brown and speaking Spanish.

Meanwhile, some ex nazi could be living there but who would ever know because under arizona thinking, that guy would never be asked any questions about the legitimacy of his citizenship at all because he's white!

trouble with your kind of thinking is that you like to call a knife a spoon and as you cut the throat of one more person with it, you will still insist it is a spoon.

the southern border is porous and its not the best and brightest coming here illegally, its the trash. Canada has tough immigration laws AND they enforce them. A few years ago Canada had a massive flow from Taiwan and Hong Kong and the gov required them to have proof of no police record of any kind, a job waiting for them and proof of net worth before they would be considered for entry. Canada does not take in other nations refuse why should the US? Mexicos immigration laws are some of the strictest in the world, we should turn a blind eye to our own laws when every other country is forcefully enforcing theres? The US is not a dumping ground, we can niether support the numbers here nor should we be asked to.
To reduce this to a racial issue is the last vestige of losing the argument.

[KC Elbows]

We are known for strict enforcement of our immigration laws.

Unless it means we can't have a large, cheap labor force.

[solo1]

The state law was not constitutional. So the policy proved unconsitutional, and thus, not legal. You cannot warrant messing with the rights of legal immigrants because they speak a certain language or are a certain race in any state.

the state law is not unconstitutional, it mirrors the federal law. Even Virginias which is even tougher the Arizonas in not unconstitutional, the argument from the White House is that federal law trumps state law. the federal government is supposed to control immigration and they are not, the states have a right to protect themselves whether the feds like it or not. Arizona will prevail as will the other 29 states with similar bills in thier statehouses. Besides for Obama this is not about an immigration law, he couldnt care less about whats happening to the states dealing with illegals its about amensty and garnering the votes of millions of illegals, its about power. The law abiding, tax paying, voting public who have cried foul, be ****ed.

[solo1]

We are known for strict enforcement of our immigration laws.

Unless it means we can't have a large, cheap labor force.

Scorch, Pow!!!

[BJJ-Blue]

not one word of this is truth. All of it is obfuscation of the actual truth.

So the Justice Dept did not sue Arizona?

[BJJ-Blue]

The state law was not constitutional.

That's not true. The judge issued an injunction barring Arizona from enforcing certain parts of the law while the constitutionality of the law is decided.