Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Riddle me this; Many artists have displayed work in museum depicting Christ or the Virgin Mary in very provocative or disgusting ways. How many have used Mohammed as their muse? And why is that?
wow, gotta love the revisionist history hereThat has been discussed in this thread, and you are entirely wrong, the attacks were COMPLETELY about religion, as are ALL Islamic terrorist attacks. Read about Jihad for God's sakes.
Since Bin Laden himself said that the attack was because we had bases in Saudi Arabia, that is unequivocal PROOF the attacks were not all about religion.
Oh, and in case anyone forgot...AFTER the 9/11 attack Bush quietly closed our Saudi bases.
Between, Reagan pulling out of Lebanon after the Marine Barracks attack, and Bush pulling out of Saudi Arabia after 9/11, those tough Republicans showed the terrorists what for, eh?
Riddle me this; Many artists have displayed work in museum depicting Christ or the Virgin Mary in very provocative or disgusting ways. How many have used Mohammed as their muse? And why is that?
America is supposed to be an example TO the rest of the world,
not an example OF it.
Our tolerance is not supposed to be conditional.
The admonition is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "not do unto others unless they don't return the favor".
wow, gotta love the revisionist history hereSince Bin Laden himself said that the attack was because we had bases in Saudi Arabia, that is unequivocal PROOF the attacks were not all about religion.
Oh, and in case anyone forgot...AFTER the 9/11 attack Bush quietly closed our Saudi bases.
Between, Reagan pulling out of Lebanon after the Marine Barracks attack, and Bush pulling out of Saudi Arabia after 9/11, those tough Republicans showed the terrorists what for, eh?
Riddle me this; Many artists have displayed work in museum depicting Christ or the Virgin Mary in very provocative or disgusting ways. How many have used Mohammed as their muse? And why is that?
America is supposed to be an example TO the rest of the world,
not an example OF it.
Our tolerance is not supposed to be conditional.
The admonition is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "not do unto others unless they don't return the favor".
You're missing the point.
People know they can make fun of Jesus and crazy Christians aren't going to threaten them. They also know that make fun of Mohammed and crazy Muslims most definitely WILL threaten to L kill you. That has nothing to do with the USA.
America is supposed to be an example TO the rest of the world,
not an example OF it.
Our tolerance is not supposed to be conditional.
The admonition is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "not do unto others unless they don't return the favor".
You're missing the point.
People know they can make fun of Jesus and crazy Christians aren't going to threaten them. They also know that make fun of Mohammed and crazy Muslims most definitely WILL threaten to L kill you. That has nothing to do with the USA.
There is no point there. I say again, if you think our nation is wrong to have religious freedom explicitly written into our Constitution, then amend the Constitution.
Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, a secular government, with a great degree of religious freedom.
What is our beef with the Muslims of Indonesia?
America is supposed to be an example TO the rest of the world,
not an example OF it.
Our tolerance is not supposed to be conditional.
The admonition is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "not do unto others unless they don't return the favor".
You're missing the point.
People know they can make fun of Jesus and crazy Christians aren't going to threaten them. They also know that make fun of Mohammed and crazy Muslims most definitely WILL threaten to L kill you. That has nothing to do with the USA.
There is no point there. I say again, if you think our nation is wrong to have religious freedom explicitly written into our Constitution, then amend the Constitution.
Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, a secular government, with a great degree of religious freedom.
What is our beef with the Muslims of Indonesia?
Not within 2 blocks of the U.S.S. Arizona, tho.
Seriously, the distance doesn't matter. It's not like they're building the damn thing on Ground Zero.
There are two churches within a block of the OKC Memorial, by your logic we should tear those down too because its insensitive to the victims, asshole.
Not within 2 blocks of the U.S.S. Arizona, tho.
Seriously, the distance doesn't matter. It's not like they're building the damn thing on Ground Zero.
There are two churches within a block of the OKC Memorial, by your logic we should tear those down too because its insensitive to the victims, asshole.
Yeah. The distance doesn't matter, unless it's too close......Wait. That didn't make sense.
So, Let me start by saying I am not making this argument. I heard someone make it today and wanted to know what others thought of it as I found it rather compelling.
Note (I am personally leaning towards being oppose to the mosque being built where they want. But do not think we have a legal means to stop it, and would not support a non legal means)
The argument is that Islam has a tradition of building mosques on sites they have concurred. Now I do not even know it that is true. I mean we all know about the dome of the rock in Israel, but is this something they do all the time? Is it tradition to build mosques on the sites of some victory? If so how do you feel about the Mosque held in that light?
My personal Leaning towards being against it has to do with the loss of life at Ground Zero, The planned Mosques proximity to it, and the fact that the building they want to tear down actually had the landing gear of one of the planes that hit the WTC crash into it. That is How close it is to the site. I feel like they could build it just a few more blocks away and it will alleviate most of the angst about it. I feel that if this mosque and community center is really about reaching out to us, then they should respect the feelings of almost 70% of Americans and build it somewhere else. After all how can you reach out when you are doing something that many Americans are against?
We allow Mosques to be build all over the country, so this is not about discrimination, it is about the site, and the history of it.
However all that said, like I said I do not see any legal way left to stop it, and would not support any non legal way, So while I am personally opposed to it, I recognize their right to build it.
This country has a "freedom of religion" clause somewhere. Its just that. There arent any "except if" clauses. Any argument against is just plain discrimination.
So, Let me start by saying I am not making this argument. I heard someone make it today and wanted to know what others thought of it as I found it rather compelling.
Note (I am personally leaning towards being oppose to the mosque being built where they want. But do not think we have a legal means to stop it, and would not support a non legal means)
The argument is that Islam has a tradition of building mosques on sites they have concurred. Now I do not even know it that is true. I mean we all know about the dome of the rock in Israel, but is this something they do all the time? Is it tradition to build mosques on the sites of some victory? If so how do you feel about the Mosque held in that light?
My personal Leaning towards being against it has to do with the loss of life at Ground Zero, The planned Mosques proximity to it, and the fact that the building they want to tear down actually had the landing gear of one of the planes that hit the WTC crash into it. That is How close it is to the site. I feel like they could build it just a few more blocks away and it will alleviate most of the angst about it. I feel that if this mosque and community center is really about reaching out to us, then they should respect the feelings of almost 70% of Americans and build it somewhere else. After all how can you reach out when you are doing something that many Americans are against?
We allow Mosques to be build all over the country, so this is not about discrimination, it is about the site, and the history of it.
However all that said, like I said I do not see any legal way left to stop it, and would not support any non legal way, So while I am personally opposed to it, I recognize their right to build it.
This country has a "freedom of religion" clause somewhere. Its just that. There arent any "except if" clauses. Any argument against is just plain discrimination.
if you shred the 1st amendment for one, you shred it for allThis country has a "freedom of religion" clause somewhere. Its just that. There arent any "except if" clauses. Any argument against is just plain discrimination.
Islam is far more then a religion it is a separate legal social economic system based on the cult of personality .
Muslims civil rights are always being violated until everyone lives as a muslim.
How far will your idealism fall back ? Is there any line that is to far?
Idealism at other people's expense, and without regard to the ruin and slaughter which fall upon millions of humble homes, cannot be regarded as its highest or noblest form.
if you shred the 1st amendment for one, you shred it for all
The Constitution is not a suicide pactThis country has a "freedom of religion" clause somewhere. Its just that. There arent any "except if" clauses. Any argument against is just plain discrimination.
Islam is far more then a religion it is a separate legal social economic system based on the cult of personality .
Muslims civil rights are always being violated until everyone lives as a muslim.
How far will your idealism fall back ? Is there any line that is to far?
Idealism at other people's expense, and without regard to the ruin and slaughter which fall upon millions of humble homes, cannot be regarded as its highest or noblest form.
if you shred the 1st amendment for one, you shred it for all
its shortsightedif you shred the 1st amendment for one, you shred it for all
Exactly. I find it appalling that people who complain about Obama supposedly shredding the first amendment are on a daily basis are giddy on running it through the shredder for this.
