Up until now, I haven’t really let go with a full commentary on the Ground Zero Mosque, although I have commented here and there about it. But with the President’s misleading remarks about it at the White House Ramadan Iftar last night, any doubts that it is a national issue have been erased.
September 11, 2001.
Four domestic airliners are hijacked by acolytes of the Religion Of Peace, and true to their religion, they turn them into weapons. One crashes into the Pentagon, one ends up making a wreckage strewn hole in the Pennsylvania countryside, and the remaining two each crash into one of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. These last two are the ones that cause a nation to hold its breath, until the towers fall, dispatching 3000+ souls in mere moments, including scores of heroic first responders, and spreading a cloud of dust and ash over most of the island, while a nation watched the tragedy unfold through its tears on television broadcasts from coast-to-coast.
It was a galvanizing event. A moment when Americans volunteered their blood, their money, and for some, their lives. All to assist in recovery after the first attack on American soil in 60 years.And now, almost 10 years later, there still is no memorial to those who died there. And on an island where there are 30 mosques already, an Islamic group believes that it is imperative for them to build a 13 story mosque less than a block from one of the most stunning examples of their faith in action for the purpose of “building bridges”. This imperative, aside from being an affront to good taste, overrides the sensitivities of the families of those who died there, and resists the offer of the governor to obtain for them a suitable location elsewhere.
City officials, eager to deflect the criticism of a righteously outraged public, claim that nothing can be done…something that anyone who has contended with zoning boards across the country knows to be untrue. The muslims themselves continue to preach on tolerance, understanding, and sensitivity, while demonstrating that they only expect that to work one way…their way, as Greg Gutfeld so ingeniously demonstrated.The usual suspects acted on their typical M.O., dodging the real issue by pretending not to have an opinion, or like my friend Rutherford, playing coy by saying that it isn’t appropriate to place the mosque in the graveyard, but how close is too close? And all the while, the one person in the office with the gravitas to craft an acceptable compromise remained silent, too distracted by fund-raisers, his golf game, and a never-ending series of vacations to intervene in a matter that called for his intervention.
Until yesterday.
The President’s remarks at a Ramadan Iftar held at the White House:
Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.
This is what happens when a leader fails to be a statesman, and simply remains a lawyer. It isn’t about freedom of religion. Governor Patterson’s offer of assistance in obtaining another site should be ample proof of that, if indeed the other 30 mosques on the island are not. And it isn’t about what is legal. That was never the question. The question is, and remains “What is right?”. By spinning the issue into what it is not, the President dishonors the dead, and insults the living.
Never one to resist the chance to lecture to those he holds in contempt, or to miss an opportunity to damn Americans by implication, he wraps himself in a document that he earlier condemned as flawed, and implies that we are the hypocrites for not wanting a religion soaked in blood to hoist a banner atop the site of its greatest contemporary triumph, willfully turning a blind eye to the rank hypocrisy demonstrated by the backers of the mosque earlier this week.
It would be easy to dismiss this as another example of how 52% of the electorate chose a very small man to fill very large shoes in November of 2008. It would be easy to point to this and say that once again he missed the opportunity to represent all the American people. It would be easy to say that he opted for what was easy, to turn the argument to the law, and then boldly stand behind it, wagging his finger at the unwashed hoi poli who can see the real issue very plainly. I’m no longer convinced that these things are correct. I think that he decided a long time ago that the courageous play was to stand against America. Whether it is a contempt for those who are “bitterly clinging to their Bibles and guns” or the assertion that Americans can no longer live the way they have been, or his disdain for American Exceptionalism, his eagerness to “fundamentally transform America”, or the need to constantly apologize for us while travelling.
The legal excuse is merely a pretext. A means to diffuse criticism while allowing those who have no love for us to put their finger in our eye. If the law mattered, then our tax dollars would not be refurbishing and building mosques overseas, because that would be indefensible here. To do it elsewhere is unthinkable. If the law mattered to him, this would not be occurring.
Our submission to a faith foreign to this people is already under way. It is being facilitated by the government, largely without your knowledge, and without your consent. The Ground Zero Mosque is merely a provocation, a test of your awareness, and your resolve to resist the rule of outsiders. Our willingness to be lectured to about tolerance and sensitivity by people who have no interest in reciprocating that which they would shame you into is all the warning you should need. Changing the narrative about the real issue is merely another act of a surly teenager who continues to hand Mom and Dad’s valuables out the back door to waiting thieves, in an act of contempt and revenge.
Oh, and Rutherford? You asked “How Close Is Too Close?”
Look at the pictures from that day. Look at the reach of that dust cloud…that dust that was all that remained of two skyscrapers containing 3000+ people. Any place that dust reached is the resting place of people killed in the name of Islam, and they don’t deserve the insult of a mosque and calls to prayer over them, now or ever.
Standing against America IS the easy play. Except for us; what opprobrium does <0 endure. All the media, most of the politically correct political class and the international elite who despise this country for what it has traditionally been all give him a standing ovation everytime he stands with any two bit anti-American clown who feels the need to slander this country based on the left's conception of "morality".
This mosque is a particular thorn as Rauf has been linked with any number of scurrilous organisations and statements from essentially saying we got what was coming to us to not condemning Hamas as a terrorist organisation with a dissembling mien worthy of the prevaricator in chief. He is clearly part of the dawa(proseltyzing) strategy that the Muslim Brotherhood likes to invoke in western culture to try and get empty headed leftists to take up their banner.
The empty phrase of tolerance again is invoked by the most intolerant of "religions". They(the Islamist and there leftist stooges) always bitch and moan about how we are always trampling on the their sensibilties. What an absolute crock of S***. We tolerate more than would should from these disingenuous dirt bags. When has any Muslim given even the slightest consideration to the sensibilties of Americans? That's rhetorical as it hasn't happened yet. They want good will and the benefit of the doubt not because of what they do but by virtue of the fact that they are muslim. Good will is a two way street. To this date Islam has shown no willingness to reciprocate even afte this countyr bent over backward to white wash the fact that Islam since it's inception has been violent in extremis.
Everytime there is a major terrorist attack we get the moral equivalence runaround by the same old apologists who always throw it back on us. What they are saying is WE are to blame because we are not muslim. It doesn't matter to them that Islam has spread been spread by the sword and by mendacity since Muhammed tried the brown acid and came up with this nightmare. This was all just his justification for revenge and mass murder.
The position by the left is beyond delusional. Islam IS NOT A RELIGION. It is an all ecompassing socio-economic paradigm that has as it main tenet that it will become supreme throughout the world. Islam is here to replace the American system not accomodate it. The practice of this religion requires it to extirpate all other religions as heresy. This includes the collectivist religion of the Neo-Socialist.
Here is what both sides of the Islamist/Socialist convergence understand. They cannot over throw the political system on their own so they have made am alliance of convenience secretly assuring themselves that the one is using the other and will be able to trump the other when the time comes.
Both sides believe in an absolute tyranny they just may not agree on who will eventually run the thing.
Remember there is no honor among thieves.
Sorry for the long rant counselor. Feel free to edit or delete. I feel much better now. 😆
I was really hoping to be able to point out 51 Park on that 3rd picture, but when I got that same angle on Google Earth you can see that Ground Zero is just above that white building in the upper left corner and the mosque site is just left of that same building. I think the dust looks like it does because it has a big motorway to flow through right there. Still a powerful photo.
Anyway…I think Obama should have kept his mouth shut on this. Where places of worship do and don’t get built isn’t his concern, and he has plenty to attend to that is.
I think him giving his blessing is no different than if he would have given his condemnation. By the very nature of his Office, him giving his opinion on an issue is including the federal government in that issue. It gives a Presidential Stamp of Approval or Disapproval.
And of course, as soon as I write this I see that he is already in CYA mode…
“President Obama said on Saturday that in defending the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque near Ground Zero he “was not commenting” on “the wisdom” of that particular project, but rather trying to uphold the broader principle that government should treat “everyone equal, regardless” of religion.”
Which proves why he should have just had himself a big, hot cup of STFU all along.
You’re the Chief Executive, dude. If laws are being broken, and some local, state, or federal official is denying someone their religious freedoms, by all means, enforce the law.
But if that isn’t happening then keep your damn mouth shut.
A moment when Americans volunteered their blood, their money, and for some, their lives.
Yes, Americans and people around the world rallied behind us. Christians around the world, Jews around the world, Muslims around the world, atheists around the world… ALL rallied behind us. Muslim Americans gave blood, I’m sure, to the cause, right alongside Christians, Jews and atheists.
What reason would we have for not allowing these folk to build this building? Are they criminals? Are they breaking codes? Are they trying to build illegally or using stolen money?
What reason?
Why are you carrying on about allowing someone to do something when there isn’t anybody not allowing it?
This isn’t about if they can, it’s about if they should.
What reason would we have for not allowing these folk to build this building?
Because you don’t let murders build a home in the graveyard of those whom they kill. And you don’t give murderous thugs a trophy to rally around.
Muslims around the world danced in the streets after the carnage, or is your memory so selective that you blotted out all of that footage?
As for reasons against the building of a mosque on this particular site …….. take time to read the deluge of articles. stories and comments that surround this issue. Your question is both dense and delusional.
Every time Obama prefaces what he is going to say with “let me be clear” I KNOW the LIES and OBFUSCATIONS are coming. I wanna scream… so instead I just turn him off in my head and think “Yea, whatever, you moron.”
I hate feeling such disrespect for the man in the White House, but I must honor the Truth and those of us who desperately seek it.
I compared this mosque building to the Nazi’s marching in Skokie Illinois. As I am sure there will be those on the useful idiot side of the street who will try and do so.
The incident in Skokie was just that an incident. When it was over it was over, and the fools who marched were shown to be nothing more then fools at the end of the day, while the townsfolk of Skokie, honored not only the spirit of the Constitution, but themselves by taking the high road. Still it was nothing more then a nose tweaking.
What we have here, on the other hand, is an out and out attempt to force us (as a culture) to begin the long road of “appeasement” toward what we allow the Islamists to do, in the name of their “faith” (Why yes those are scorn quotes, why do you ask?), and their “culture” (ditto). Even in seriously entertaining the ideal of building said mosque WHERE they wanted to build it, was the first (admittedly tiny) step in appeasing them. If we don’t stop now, we will see our culture fade into the Crescent Mooned nightmare which is enjoyed by so many folks in the middle east and elsewhere.
Can we start the massive deportation screenings as a first step in removing this cancer from our shores NOW????
WELL said & WELL Written BiW. It is absolute NONSENSE that any enlightened HUMAN could not understand why it would be wrong to place this facility in this location.
Worth noting the Imam driving this charade has refused to admit Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. This is a bad egg we are now dealing with, neck deep with CAIR, the “unindicted co-conspirator” in the now defunct Holy Land Alliance.”
This is clearly a ‘victory mosque’.
And Dan, if this is truly an “interfaith alliance” as men like you and the Imam would like us to believe, where is the sanctuary and synagogue planned in the 13-story mosque?
BIC, this is an exceptional post that clearly outlines the issues and the inherent dangers that building a mosque in this particular location entail.
It should be evident by now that the current occupant of the White House is an impostor whose extremely limited qualifications for the highest office in the land are even further reduced by his clear deference to, and connections with, Islam. This latest gaffe (an inadequate term to describe this transgression if ever there was one) should be totally unacceptable to anyone who has any compassion or empathy for the remaining families of the victims of the most cowardly attack against our country on record.
My feelings toward Mr. Obama not only include active dislike and distrust, but utter contempt.
Because you don’t let murders build a home in the graveyard of those whom they kill.
And yet, these people had nothing to do with 9/11. Therefore, no problem on that front.
“Fypocrites” said…
This isn’t about if they can, it’s about if they should.
Well then, why shouldn’t they? Because SOME Muslims misbehaved on 9/11, NO Muslims should be allowed to build a building near Ground Zero? Should we not allow Christians to build near the Oklahoma City bombing site, because it was a nominally Christian fella who did that act of terrorism?
Why would we punish innocent people for the behavior of the guilty? Do you understand why I’m not getting this? These folk had nothing to do with 9/11, so why do you even think they SHOULDN’T (not saying they can’t)?
Dan, if this is truly an “interfaith alliance” as men like you and the Imam would like us to believe, where is the sanctuary and synagogue planned in the 13-story mosque?
I have no idea. I have no information about this building other than just the little reading I’ve done about the opposition to it for, what seems to me to be, frivolous and emotional reasons (like bringing up the issue that some Muslims rejoiced on 9/11, while 90% or so condemned it). That’s just a frivolous reason, it seems to me.
The thing is, we are a free nation that believes in letting people do what they wish with their money, legally. If there is no legal grounds for not “allowing” this, why would we oppose it?
Simply because some tiny minority of nominally Muslim folk misbehaved on 9/11 is not a rational reason to oppose it, seems to me, and that’s all I’ve heard thus far.
We’re better than that.
Except that Faisal Rauf basically came out and justified 9/11 by saying our policies were the cause of the attack.
He is of the same mind set as those who perpetrated those attack. Rauf also has connections to the Gaza flotilla which was essentially a Muslim Brotherhood operation.
The same Muslim Brotherhood that spawned HAMAS and al-qaeda. The same two entities he has justified and defended prior. If he is willing to to defend and justify those acts and engage in even more Islamist agitprop, ‘of which this “mosque” is quitessentially a piece, I have to seriously question his bona fides as a “man of God”.
But he isn’t really a man of god is he. He is a man of Allah. Which makes him a general in the political institution known as Islam. Again Islam is not a religion it is a comprehensive political and societal system with some religious overtones which couldn’t have been planned any better if Muhammed knew America would exist as the islamists play up the religious but his the political, military, financial and legal doctrines of this dark age blight. Islam is fundamentally political, quite often violent but primarily, always, imperious and supremacist. And this is the view of any number of polls taken in the middle east who feel sharia must be imposed on the whole world per the Qu’ran.
Allowing an avowed enemy to build a shrine to their dead martyrs in the cause to destroy this country isn’t a sign of enlightenment. We will get no points with those such as Rauf for extending them the courtesies granted under our law but will receive their spiteful contempt as they see us retreat perceiving us to be morally unsure an societally decadent. Beside it is already shown that we are better than that. We don’t need to allow the most intolerant violent ideology outside of international communism to build a monument to their high water mark to prove that. Any thinking otherwise is beyond folly and beneath contempt.
PS B is W, Dan isn’t a friend of yours is he?
And yet, these people had nothing to do with 9/11. Therefore, no problem on that front.
I think you need to augment your admittedly sparse reading and learn a little bit more about these people.
About your “innocent” cleric:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/will_the_real_imam_feisal_abdu.html
And about the “innocent” financial transactions his wife is involved with:
http://europenews.dk/en/node/33805
“Well then, why shouldn’t they? Because SOME Muslims misbehaved on 9/11, NO Muslims should be allowed to build a building near Ground Zero?”
Interesting word selection.
I found it so interesting that I took a closer look at your comments.
It seems you have an aversion to calling this “building” what it is. Which suggests that you actually know the answer to the question “why not?”.
“Should we not allow Christians to build near the Oklahoma City bombing site, because it was a nominally Christian fella who did that act of terrorism?”
And here we are back to where we started.
Nobody is disallowing anything. So you can feel free to drop that talking point from your argument any time.
Also, I’m not a Christian, so I don’t have any opinion on where people build churches.
“I have no idea. I have no information about this building other than just the little reading I’ve done about the opposition to it….”
Then you are drawing conclusions based on incomplete information.
Dan sez:
“Should we not allow Christians to build near the Oklahoma City bombing site, because it was a nominally Christian fella who did that act of terrorism?”
McVeigh didn’t do it in the name of his religion like the muslims who brought down the trade center towers.
Nice of you to lump all Christians in with that murderer…..and you have the gall to lecture us about “stereotyping” muslims.
Jay, you know that doesn’t make any difference. The same way that “moderate” muslims enjoying the fruits of their more passionate numbers’ labors means nothing.
The concept and potential of taqiya mean nothing to a smart fella like Dan.
PS B is W, Dan isn’t a friend of yours is he?
Never knew of him before yesterday. But a quick perusal of his site revealed a condescension and a belief in an intellectual superiority of moral equivalency.
Oh, and this blog has the pic I might have found if I had spent more time on it…scroll down…it demonstrates my point nicely:
Saw that one and thought of this post.
With all due respect, Dan… you seem to be purposefully missing some key points.
1) Timothy McVeigh, the supposedly NOMINAL Christian who was responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma City, was not following the directives from the Bible or Jesus Christ. When he bombed that building in OKC, he acted on his own and against Christian principles and guidelines. It’s offensive to me, a Christian & theologian, that you would align Christianity with the deaths and destruction in Oklahoma City. That’s just nuts. What McVeigh did was a clear violation of Jesus Christ’s directives and the Ten Commandments. And the bomber-dude was tried, found guilty and executed. Thank God. Move on.
It is also appropriate to say here that I am a sinful person. I blow it and violate God’s laws. But when I do this it is not BECAUSE I’m a Christian & motivated to behave this way. If I disrespect or hurt another person, I’m acting contrary to Christian tenets. And I’m not playing the ‘who is perfect game’ here. No one is perfect. We can all benefit in this discussion using comparisons that stick with the tenets of these faiths and how they motivate and guide behaviors in the believers.
2) Radical Muslims PRACTICE jihad. That is what they teach, inculcate in others, and carry out. They work together to accomplish these conquests. They collect money from Muslims all over the world to fund their terrorist activities. Throughout the history of Islam, the radical Muslims have mocked, demeaned, tormented, tortured and killed ‘infidels.’ All these things are commanded in their sacred writings and IF true Muslims don’t carry them out, they also are considered infidels and subject to punishment. And when a Muslim leader or spokesperson refuses to distinguish himself apart from radicalism by saying clearly that Hamas is a terrorist organization, you should be smelling dead fish, fella. Many of their writings also encourage deception of infidels to conquer, etc. Please open your eyes and be willing to exercise some skepticism here.
3) Throughout history there are examples of Muslim peoples (a.k.a. Turks in historic texts) overthrowing and conquering in order to force people into accepting Islam or to be killed. In fact some historians believe that MOST growth in the Muslim faith and cultures are due to conquests rather than people being attracted to the faith and becoming followers. And these Muslims are not acting as individuals when they threaten and harm others this way, but as a collective group working together (sometimes behind the scenes and sometimes as armies) to work their way into another culture and faith and then take it over. AND formerly sacred Christian & Jewish places are also ‘captured’ and made into Mosques or Muslim holy places… The cathedral in Cordoba was/is one of these, and Christian & Jewish holy places in Jerusalem are owned and run by Arab peoples. This is one method they mock and laugh in the conquests. Are you at all aware of the conflict and battles about the Flight #93 Memorial in Pennsylvania? Check it out. It will open your eyes. NiceDeb has published a lot on this over the past few years.
Tim McVeigh is a lousy example, a wild-card who fit your weak argument. Use the tenets of each faith (Jews, Christians, Muslims) and see how they are to motivate that faith’s believers to comply. Muslim law is filled with directives to conquer and hate those who do not believe the same thing they do.
It is important to also say there are decent human beings all over the world who happen to be Muslims. I have experienced and benefited from the generosity, protection and friendship of Muslims in my travels and I thank God for these people. But in a way, these Muslims who choose to be friendly to us are also considered infidels by the radical forces in this faith who are out to destroy and conquer everyone who is NOT Muslim.
Well done, Cathy. I rather doubt that Dan is receptive to well-reasoned arguments, but if he takes the time to read carefully all of the information that you have so carefully laid out it will undoubtedly provide him with more information than he has referenced so far.
Sorry, just saw this and have had limited time to respond, but let me try briefly…
Radical Muslims PRACTICE jihad. That is what they teach, inculcate in others, and carry out. They work together to accomplish these conquests. They collect money from Muslims all over the world to fund their terrorist activities.
ALL Muslims believe in Jihad, which is a word that means STRUGGLE. Most Muslims, it is my understanding, believe this to be the Struggle to follow Allah, to be faithful to Allah’s ways, which include being peaceful.
SOME FEW extremists have taken Jihad and made it out to be violent struggle. But, as we have agreed elsewhere, just because a few take something out of context does not mean that we ought to condemn the whole group, even those opposed to the few extremists.
I certainly agree that there has been too much violence associated with Islam – just as there has been too much violence done in Jesus’ name. I’d further state that it seems to me that there is even more of this sort of violence in Islamic history than there is in Christian history and that is troubling.
But the actions of the past and the actions of the few today do not mean that all or even a majority support such violence. Either in Christianity or Islam.
More on jihad can be read here.
Sorry. Realize I’m not finished with Dan *snigger*
Bear with me. Re-reading entire thread found something else very bothersome…
Dan said “Why would we punish innocent people for the behavior of the guilty? “
Operative word for me: Punish. Ouch. Punish? Really?
Prohibiting the building of yet another mosque so close to the ruins of the Twin Towers is not a punishment. This is not about blame.
If you can’t build a whorehouse or bar right next to a church is it a punishment? No way.
If you don’t get to build a substandard home in a ritzy gated community is it a punishment? I think not.
Is is a punishment to disallow a stock-yards to be built right next to a cluster fine dining restaurants, theaters, and adjacent outdoor parks? I think not.
Local communities and their governing bodies make decisions for what is reasonable & beneficial to the community and what is not all the time. The task is to do what is right for the citizens of the community. It is not the right of any organization to put whatever the hell they want where-ever they want. WE all are part of a larger community, and it is the right of the citizens in the community to make decisions about what gets in and what is not permitted.
Punished? NOT! The citizens of the community, residents and businesses in the area and the tax payers have the right to permit or disallow. They have spoken, but Mr. Bully Pulpit, Big-Bucks, and the Religion of Tolerance and Fear have overruled.
Good points, Cathy.
Being I was in OKC not 30 minutes after the bombing and am very familiar with how things played out, I need to correct the record here – especially Dan.
You’ve got McVeigh pegged wrong. McVeigh, though raised in a Catholic home, rejected his faith during his formative years, and was in fact an atheist – that is, until about 15 minutes before he was to be executed, McVeigh had a change of heart and ask for last rites.
Amazing, isn’t it Dan? I suspect McVeigh had a lot more in common with your beliefs than mine as an Evangelical Christian.
Another link for Dan, our underinformed friend, so he can learn more about the GZ Mosque Imam:
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/this-whole-islamaphobia-line-of-thought.html
Poor Dan Trabue. Speaking sense in a crowd of paranoid vengeful alarmists. Careful Dan, they’re planning to run us both out of town tarred and feathered because we’re appeasing the savage Muslims.
I’m so tired of this nonsense I can hardly lift a hand to type anymore. The site is not a block away from Ground Zero, it is two blocks away … and in Manhattan, home to skyscrapers, that means you cannot see Ground Zero from it and you can’t see it from Ground Zero. Huck challenged me to look at Google Earth and at first I found it alarming until I remembered we’re talking about Manhattan.
BiW says on the one hand that “white dust covered the entire island” (patently untrue) and then says that any place touched by that dust should not be home to a mosque. Ahhh ok so at least BiW has had the courage to answer the “how close is too close” question. He wants no more new mosques built in Manhattan.
The Governor offered to find them a “suitable” alternate location. Oh how nice of him. Kinda like the way the fictional white homeowners association rep in “A Raisin in the Sun” offered to make it worth a black family’s while not to move into their lily white neighborhood.
BiW wants to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand the Pres shouldn’t have been playing golf and should have weighed into this matter sooner … but then when he did he said the wrong thing and shouldn’t have butted in.
But once again … nuance escapes you folks. The President said at the Iftar that our American principles forbid us from restricting the location of the mosque. He’s right. His subsequent comment didn’t walk anything back nor was it CYA. He said that he would NOT comment on the appropriateness of the choice of location. You know why? Because the Fed is not supposed to favor one religion over another one. He was federally bound not to take sides. He was also federally bound to affirm our constitution.
But let’s get down to meat and potatoes here. Let’s talk about the worst case scenario that you’re all really afraid of. Let’s say this mosque, led by an Imam who defends al Qaeda and sympathizes with Hamas and Hezbollah, turns out to be a terrorist training center. Now, I hear at least every couple of months some new radical cell broken up by our police somewhere in the country. So why exactly are we so afraid that law enforcement in the greatest city in the world, would not be able to smoke out criminal activity at this mosque once it gets built? If anything, its proximity to Ground Zero will put it under greater scrutiny than at any other location.
As for the Timothy McVeigh parallel, that’s an interesting one to consider. I have found that Christian’s like to dismiss the book upon which their New Testament is based. In Leviticus 24:20 (King James version) we have the famous “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” instruction. McVeigh made it clear that OK City was revenge for Waco. It was clearly in his mind, an eye for an eye. BiW might counter this by citing Matthew 5:38-39, the famous turn the other cheek instruction. But how quickly he is willing to dismiss this advice when dealing with Muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11.
And last but not least, let’s dispose of this hallowed ground foolishness. This is a hole in the ground after nine years of neglect. We care sooooo much about those that died there that we have done NOTHING to honor them at this site. We put a man on the moon within ten years of saying we would do it … but we can’t build a monument to honor the dead at this site within 9 years? Please, save your respect for the dead.
“The President said at the Iftar that our American principles forbid us from restricting the location of the mosque.” – R
Really?
Under Coweta’s zoning ordinances, there is nowhere that a church is allowed as a “by right” use. Churches can be built in any zoning district but must be granted a conditional use permit.
Reconstruction of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church near ground zero in Manhattan remains stalled nearly nine years after it was destroyed by the falling south towers. It was the only house of worship destroyed on 9/11/01.
If they have a hundred Mosques in Manhattan, how is this restricting their freedom of religion?
“But let’s get down to meat and potatoes here. Let’s talk about the worst case scenario that you’re all really afraid of. Let’s say this mosque, led by an Imam who defends al Qaeda and sympathizes with Hamas and Hezbollah, turns out to be a terrorist training center. Now, I hear at least every couple of months some new radical cell broken up by our police somewhere in the country. So why exactly are we so afraid that law enforcement in the greatest city in the world, would not be able to smoke out criminal activity at this mosque once it gets built? If anything, its proximity to Ground Zero will put it under greater scrutiny than at any other location.” – R
Wow, let me sum up this statement for the benefit of the group- ‘AQ, we dare you to blow something up’.
This was and is a stupid statement. We’ll allow you to plan and radicalize because we think we can stop you anyway… like we did with Shazaad in Times Square. Shazaam! My bad, maybe we ought to rethink this delusion of grandeur for one moment and allow some rational thought to occur. Like who is this Imam really? Where is he getting this money? If it is from a foreign source, should that maybe concern us?
Methinks you’ve done little thinking on this…
“a crowd of paranoid vengeful alarmists”, who overindulge in “nonsense”.
Rutherford, you certainly know how to set the tone for a reasoned discussion. “hallowed ground foolishness” – this is a deliberately provocative stance that rivals the audacity of the Cordoba Project.
You obfuscate nearly as well as our “Distorter-in Chief”, with your references to Timothy McVeigh and various Biblical passages, but so far I have seen you offer little to justify the demand that America accept this deliberate affront to the memory of those who died on 9/11.
I disagree vehemently with the decision to build a mosque on this specific site (when there are already dozens of mosques in NYC) and with the appeasement-minded politicians who are all too willing to ignore the wishes of a majority of Americans. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately, your willingness to allow respect for opposing viewpoints diminishes your credibility.
BiW says on the one hand that “white dust covered the entire island”
I did? I don’t recall saying that. Perhaps you could point out to me where I said that?
He said that he would NOT comment on the appropriateness of the choice of location. You know why? Because the Fed is not supposed to favor one religion over another one.
So we are paying to refurbish mosques overseas because…?
And Tex … so what if McVeigh was an atheist? He was raised in a religion that at its root condones an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. That is what the Old Testament defines as justice. It also informs the support that many give the death penalty, which was carried out on McVeigh. If McVeigh had come to me seeking judeo-christian support for what he wanted to do, I could easily have found it for him.
The Bible and the Koran in the wrong hands leads to some bad stuff going down.
The Sura’s from the Quran:
Should I continue?
Christianity has a New Testament versus the Old Testament. Islam has a testament, none of which supersedes older stuff.
And I’m sorry, because he was raised in the Church makes him a Christian actor? Even though his justification for the attack were anything but religious based? And this makes him no different than al-Qaida, who justify EVERYTHING they do through Islam?
A wee bit out of your element aren’t you R…
Poor Dan Trabue. Speaking sense in a crowd of paranoid vengeful alarmists. Careful Dan, they’re planning to run us both out of town tarred and feathered because we’re appeasing the savage Muslims.
Yawn. The only tar and feathers you will find is what you might discover is between your ears. Sheesh. Dream on about any of us picking on you. Maybe you could leave the biblical quotations and exegesis to somebody who bothers to study it and know what these references are about. Huh? Oh. I know. You get to misquote and misrepresent something you know little about to make yourself look so above others with whom you disagree. I get it. We get to be the paranoid vengeful alarmists. Yawn. Did you leave out bitter clingers?
The passage from Leviticus 24 is not a major tenet of the Jew or Christian. It was a practical application for Jews to apply in cases where someone had wronged another and decisions were made by the leaders… not carried out in some willy-nilly fashion by an individual on his/her own. These laws were done to help keep order and balance among people in community who were actually friends and family — other Jews. IT was just good practical common sense applied to help keep the peace. Lawful societies are good stuff. And nobody was getting their eye torn out or their tooth yanked, but someone would pay damages for harming another or their possessions, and judgment and assessment was decided by the Jewish leaders and judges. Nobody’s a yanker, you wanker.
And the Levitical passage quoted it is NOT a Christian tenet at all. Christians are not bound by the law. But because of Christ’s redemptive work for us, we want to be obedient as a way to honor God and his love for us. Christians are encouraged to do their best to obey the 10 Commandments, but we are not bound by the 613 Levitical laws of the Old Testament Jew. Our ten commandments were rolled up into the basic message that Christ proclaimed: Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. (And a neighbor is anybody you come in contact with, btw.) And every one of the commandments has it’s root in the concept that we people who have been given such wonderful gifts as a loving God, abundance, life, possessions, family, sex and marriage, friendships, knowledge of the truth, etc… should HONOR God by respecting all these God-given gifts. Every commandment can be tied to one of God’s gifts. Simple.
Christians that I know don’t dismiss any one of the 66 books of the Bible — that’s 39 OT writings and 27 in the NT. We don’t get to pick and choose. From my studies, I find almost as much grace, joy and hope in the Old Testament as I do in the New. God was clearly a patient and loving God with his people. The Bible is a book that reveals just how much God has always loved us morons and mess-ups.
Cathy,
Rutherford is a world class Christian bigot – a confused hypocrite of biblical proportions. I appreciate your sound advice to Rutherford, but he is not looking for the truth. Rutherford is mad that Obama is being criticized for his abject stupidity and commentary concerning the mosque, and is now trying to come up with a zinger to be offensive, because he feels the need to try to defend the indefensible – status quo for Rutherford.
Rutherford does not seek truth. He seeks ammunition to fit he and his man hating wife’s preconceived notions. Stick around long enough, and somehow he’ll be blaming Sarah Palin for 9/11 and have the Imam as the new Ghandi – never mine the Hamas link.
The Bible and the Koran in the wrong hands leads to some bad stuff going down.
You are right.
Anything in the wrong hands leads to bad stuff going down.
The solution is simple. Address and deal with what is in the wrong. Discourage wrong and selfish behaviors. Affirm and protect what is right and just. Encourage good behaviors that build up the community and others.
It seems you have an aversion to calling this “building” what it is. Which suggests that you actually know the answer to the question “why not?”.
I haven’t called it a mosque because it is my understanding that it is NOT a mosque, but an “Islamic center.” If I’m mistaken, my bad, but I’m just trying to be factual. It ISN’T a “mosque at Ground Zero,” it is an Islamic Center 2 blocks from Ground Zero.
Just accuracy in word usage, nothing else going on there.
Tex said…
I suspect McVeigh had a lot more in common with your beliefs than mine as an Evangelical Christian.
Well, if we’d like to stick to facts, I’ve been a Christian for 37 years now, raised in an evangelical Southern Baptist church for the first half of my Christian life and attending a more Anabaptist-y (Mennonite, Amish) church the last 14 years. Deacon, Sunday School teacher, nursery worker, dad, husband of one wife, just a regular Christian guy.
We Christians believe in trying to stick to the truth and in loving our enemies, right? That’s all I’m striving to do here.
jaybear…
Nice of you to lump all Christians in with that murderer…..and you have the gall to lecture us about “stereotyping” muslims.
Except, if you’d read my words, you’ll notice that I DIDN’T lump all Christians (remember, I’m a Christian) in with McVeigh. That was the exact OPPOSITE point I was striving to make. I’m sorry if that was not clear. Let me repeat my point with a bit more clarity so I won’t be misunderstand:
It is WRONG to blame a whole group because of the actions of a few. You can’t blame the Cordoba project people (the folk wanting to build this Islamic center near Ground Zero) for the actions of some extremists who claimed to be Muslim. They had nothing to do with it.
Again: I see no logical nor moral reason to oppose this building. IF you have some evidence that these folk are extremists themselves, offer it up. But rumors and innuendo are not evidence, please keep in mind.
Just striving to be fair and live up to our best American and Christian ideals, folk.
Tex stated…
Worth noting the Imam driving this charade has refused to admit Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. This is a bad egg we are now dealing with
If I may ask a clarifying question: Would you all oppose ANY Muslim building or mosque at this location or is it just THESE particular folk you have a problem with?
That would be one thing, to say, “I think THESE folk are suspicious or not worthy,” in which case, all you’d have to do is make the case that they’re not worthy and demonstrate how those facts relate to obtaining a building permit (that is, do we refuse to grant permits to ANY who are not worthy in this way, or is this specifically targeting Muslims).
If that’s what you’re doing, go for it. Although, I’d suggest you concentrate on why THESE PARTICULAR individuals ought not be allowed to build. What I’ve heard instead is a lot about not allowing Muslims, as a group, not to build in this area.
Phrases like:
an Islamic group believes that it is imperative for them to build a 13 story mosque less than a block from one of the most stunning examples of their faith in action for the purpose of “building bridges”.
Makes it sound like you’re out to paint all Muslims with one brush. THAT is what I’m opposed to, for reasons of justice and honesty (that is, Muslim extremists killing people is no more “their faith in action” than Eric Rudolph blowing up abortion clinics is an example of “his faith in action.”)
Thus, my question: Is it about Muslims in general, or this group in particular?
Dan, if 1st Century Christians had thought the way you did, they would have been welcoming the Roman executioners into the church and voluntarily been walked to the Coliseum for execution. There would have been no New Testament because all Christians would have been dead…
And this is no “Islamic Center” for “interfaith alliance”. You make it sound like the YMCA. It’s first and foremost a mosque, where I can assure you Christians will not be welcome – lest they wail five times a day, while praying to Mecca.
if 1st Century Christians had thought the way you did, they would have been welcoming the Roman executioners into the church and voluntarily been walked to the Coliseum for execution.
Where did I say anything about welcoming executioners into the church? The thing is, the early church DID welcome repentant executioners into the church, we would, too.
And, even when the executioners, police and soldiers of the day WEREN’T repentant, the church got visits from them and they WERE walked to the coliseum to be put to death. So, I’m not sure of your point.
But none of that was my point.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding me, let me put my points out there again:
1. I think it is wrong to condemn a whole group for the actions of a few. Do you agree or disagree?
2. I disagree with slandering the whole based on the actions of a few. Yes, a few Muslims (and Christians and Jews…) behaved badly. That does not mean that it is the point of their religion. Agree or disagree?
3. I am opposed to religious discrimination. Agree or disagree?
It would seem hard for most Americans to disagree with any of my points, are you actually disagreeing with my actual points or what’s the problem?
It would help me if you could answer my questions, so I can know where we agree and disagree.
Thanks.
Rutherford,
Your analogies have to be some of the dumbest on record.
We can put a man on the moon in seven years because Conservative military and business men ran NASA back then – contrary to NASA’s new goal, directed by Bongo, to “hail muslim achievements.” We have a hole in the ground at Ground Zero because NYC is made up of libs with a terrorist appeasing cross dresser for mayor. Libs never accomplish anything of value and hopefully this now proves it.
Let’s dispose of this charade about the Cordoba “interfaith alliance” being two blocks away. The proposed mosque is exactly two football fields away from the WTC, and you’re ignoring that your “peace loving Hamas Imam” has been offered a better deal for free.
The fact you’re too stupid to see this is a victory mosque and too sociopathic to understand anything of behavioral sensitivities doesn’t surprise me either.
this is no “Islamic Center” for “interfaith alliance”. You make it sound like the YMCA. It’s first and foremost a mosque, where I can assure you Christians will not be welcome
I’m just trying to report the facts that I’ve read.
Cordoba Initiative seeks to actively promote engagement through a myriad of programs, by reinforcing similarities and addressing differences…
Park51 [THE PROPOSED BUILDING] will be dedicated to pluralism, service, arts and culture, education and empowerment, appreciation for our city and a deep respect for our planet…
Within that larger vision, Cordoba House will be a center for multifaith dialogue and engagement within Park51’s broader range of programs and activities.
I see nothing about a mosque there and it sure reads like anyone will be welcome. Do you have a reliable source to prove otherwise? What would make you think that it’s primarily a mosque where Christians won’t be welcome?
By the way, I’ve been to a mosque as a Christian, and I was welcomed kindly. No need to convert, no death threats, nothing but kindness.
Have you ever tried to visit a mosque? Do you have any Muslim acquaintances? What is your source of information about the Islamic faith?
I try to rely upon first hand sources, where I can, and reliable second hand sources, too.
I have dear trusted Christian friends who live in Muslim Morocco – she is a minister there in a Baptist church. They tell me the Muslims in Morocco are wonderful people who were horrified by 9/11 and who rejected such behavior as contrary to the teachings of Islam. I’ve read many Muslim writers who have said the same thing. I’ve worked alongside other Christians who have worked with some wonderful Muslim peacemakers (we are anabaptist and work strongly for peace and justice in our circles, and have done so hand in hand with Muslims and Jews).
What are your sources for information?
The fact you’re too stupid to see this is a victory mosque and too sociopathic to understand anything of behavioral sensitivities doesn’t surprise me either.
Tex, please. Are you a Christian, brother? If so, do you think that sort of abusive language is called for?
Mr Trabue, you ask for sources of information. What is the provenance of the foregoing piece of propaganda? It sounds like a press release from the mosque’s sponsor’s. Even if you gleaned this from some third party source it would be pure conjecture and the projection of an Islam that doesn’t exist.
If it was fed to the third party as justification it is at best self serving propaganda that obfuscates traditional Islam’s intent. The tenets of Islam do not brook equality and equanimity with other faiths it destroys them or at best makes them subservient. Even in countries where they do not hold the majority they try and impose shar’ia by using our own tolerance against us. In a case recently in New Jersey a restraining order against a muslim man was denied his wife because the Judge was deferential to shar’ia:
(I will give you the link in a subsequent post because more than one link gets me put in moderation.)
This is a tolerance they do not show towards others but demand from any and all in any society they live in. They want good will but show none and always insist that their way must be followed. We see how they act when they don’t get their way. Perhaps that’s why the zoning commission cleared this they were afraid of violence from those oh so tolerant muslims.
Those who treated you in a friendly manner were either engaging in dissembling to try and convince you they were not a threat or if they were sincere they were apostates. Your friend assures us the muslims of Morocco are lovely people again the same situation is apparent dissembling or apostate. Also keep in mind the plural of anecdote is not data. Poll after poll taken in the Muslim community show majorities of the umma who wish shar’ia to be the law of whatever land they inhabit. There is no middle ground.
You have been ignoring the fact that muslims, especially those with connections to the so-called radicals engage in dissembling and tactical lying to advance the cause of Islam. Their prime directive is to bring all into Dar-al-Islam. Those who don’t subscribe to that are the people we need to encourage but they are clearly heretics to traditional Islam. These are the people who need to cause the much needed reformation.
If you doubt Rauf has some shady connections and speaks out of both sides of his mouth here is an article that explains who Rauf is:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243536/raufs-dawa-world-trade-center-rubble-andrew-c-mccarthy
As with Arafat, it’s not what he says in english that matters as that is notion he wants to feed to soft headed leftists but it’s what he says to his real audience in arabic that matters
Rauf is an apologist for terrorists world wide. The message from the initial naming of the project to his lack of sensitivity to the people of New York is exactly the attitude we would expect of an enemy. And unfortunately the Islamist in Chief tried to engage in the same nonsensical dissembling about something no one really disputes. But by not taking a stance on the wrongness in harmony with the sensibility of the American people he just intensifies the feeling that he is not really American at heart. As matter of fact he obliquely tried to imply that somehow the fact that we don’t want triumphalist messages to the jihad that we are being irrational. Think the flag on Mount Suribachi and you will understand the propaganda value of such a gesture.
His fidelity to the constitution rings hollow on this issue as he essentially ignores and subverts it on all other applications. My main contention is Islam is not a religion in the traditional sense but is a rival system of governance and doesn’t really deserve the same deference. It is suicidal to allow what essentially ends up being a parallel government to grow unchecked. If Islam has it’s way the constitution will be replaced by Shar’ia. All those who are expert in Islam understand the political, military, financial and societal impact. Religion is just one small component. Those who dismiss the other aspects do not truly understand the nature of Islam. It is the original “liberation theology” as it obscures the political with the patina of religion. It has the effect of imbuing with countenance of God any action that spreads its influence. This is a dangerous delusion. Those who ignore these facts of refuse to educate themselves are being deliberately obtuse.
Gorilla had quoted from the Koran…
”9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
I suppose you know that similar quotes are available in the Bible?
As I listened, God said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and CHILDREN, but do not touch anyone who has the mark [ie, who have not repented – Dan]. Begin at my sanctuary.”
Ezekiel 9, in which God commands the “true believers” to slaughter the unrepentant infidels. There are, of course, many more. Unfortunately, both sacred texts have their share of violence within its pages – passages that have God commanding the killing of children, even!
And unfortunately, folk not taking into context these passages might think that these sorts of passages permit and even encourage the slaughter of infidels.
But just because some take these passages horribly incorrectly does not mean that they represent the best ideals either of Christianity or of Islam. Right?
Except that in Islam, and specifically the Quran, there is no ‘old testament’ or non-applicable verses. Christianity went through a reformation, Islam hasn’t. In fact, it is structually forbidden from such.
That’s the issue…
For the sake of our wonderful discussion here, I’d like to offer some differentiations about the Bible and the Koran. Can we agree on these?
The Bible is a collection of 66 books (39 OT & 27 NT) that were written by human beings over the span of thousands of years. Christians believe and confess that these works are the inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Canon, known as the Bible, was carefully
The Koran is a collection of passages that were spoken by one man, Mohammad, the prophet, over the course of his life. The passages were written down by others who would listen to what Mohammad was speaking. Mohammad claimed that he was receiving these inspired words from the angel Gabriel.
The Bible includes historical accounts of God’s people from our beginning with Adam through the accounts and letters of the early Christian writers and disciples. Although it includes guidelines and rules, it is not a book of rules. It is mostly a LOVE STORY — the story of God’s Love for his people and how God made promises to those whom he set apart, followed through on His promises, and then proclaimed that He had followed through and kept His promises.
The Koran is not a historical account of the story of Allah. It does include passages that sound encouraging, and some are very similar to passages in the Bible. HOWEVER there are contradictory passages WITHIN the Koran itself and and contradictions against what can be found in the Bible.
It is my understanding (and that is somewhat limited) that Mohammad was very bright and intelligent. From his early years he showed much curiosity and interest in the differing religions and beliefs and learned whatever he could as he traveled and encountered traders and travelers. He loved to debate and probably had a very good memory. However, we also need to take into consideration for this discussion that he was an illiterate — never learned to read or write — and even he confessed that he was concerned about the state of his own mind. Yes, he wondered if he was nuts.
Scriptures included in the Bible have gone through thousands of years of scrutiny by many academics, including theologians, language experts, pastors, etc. Many have poured over thousands of copies of early manuscripts to find inaccuracies or discrepancies, and yet the Bible remains a rather solid resource with little ‘fault’ or ‘error’ found. (Honestly — from my perspective — it’s a miracle that it has survived.)
Sorry, that should say, “Who HAVE repented,” not “have not repented…”
Good Morning, Dan. I appreciate hearing some background about your religious views and associations. Thanks. This morning, you asked us (I guess) whether we agree or disagree with these three points of yours:
1. I think it is wrong to condemn a whole group for the actions of a few. Do you agree or disagree?
2. I disagree with slandering the whole based on the actions of a few. Yes, a few Muslims (and Christians and Jews…) behaved badly. That does not mean that it is the point of their religion. Agree or disagree?
3. I am opposed to religious discrimination. Agree or disagree?
I agree with you on these points.
But I want to slow down and look closely at your thinking & discussion here. What about you? Why did you use Tim McVeigh and his supposed Christian beliefs to support your initial argument? Here are your words:
Should we not allow Christians to build near the Oklahoma City bombing site, because it was a nominally Christian fella who did that act of terrorism?.
Why did you say this? Several of us have lunged at that argument (not at you) when you associated McVeigh’s beliefs with Christianity. Your McVeigh challenge question was a bad example to support your argument to permit the mosque/whatever to be built near the 9/11 Twin Towers. McVeigh WAS NOT FOLLOWING Christian Tenets when he bombed the building in Oklahoma City. Period. Can you now agree with me on this?
There’s more I want to say, but ^this issue was for me the most disturbing because it attacked the TRUTH of the GOSPEL of JESUS CHRIST, of which I am a servant. Jesus’ directives had nothing to do with the evil or misguided intentions of Tim McVeigh. I want that point made clear. IF you are truly a Christian then you need to address this.
Hey Dan, While I’m waiting for your response to my why-the-use-of-TimMcVeigh challenge above I want to agree with you on a few more points you made here:
By the way, I’ve been to a mosque as a Christian, and I was welcomed kindly. No need to convert, no death threats, nothing but kindness.
Have you ever tried to visit a mosque? Do you have any Muslim acquaintances? What is your source of information about the Islamic faith?
I try to rely upon first hand sources, where I can, and reliable second hand sources, too.
I’ve had similar experiences with Muslims and agree with you on these perspectives. Made that clear yesterday. I thank God for the decent Muslims that God put into our journeys who befriended and protected us in our travels.
Why did you say this? Several of us have lunged at that argument (not at you) when you associated McVeigh’s beliefs with Christianity. Your McVeigh challenge question was a bad example to support your argument to permit the mosque/whatever to be built near the 9/11 Twin Towers. McVeigh WAS NOT FOLLOWING Christian Tenets when he bombed the building in Oklahoma City. Period. Can you now agree with me on this?
Of course he wasn’t! Nor were the 9/11 terrorists following the tenets of Islam when they did their deeds. Can we agree on that? Or are you familiar enough with Islam to reach a conclusion on that point? (Not saying you aren’t, just asking the question).
Again, my use of McVeigh (and then Rudolph) was EXACTLY that we ought NOT condemn the whole based upon the actions of extremists. Fair enough?
And I’m glad to hear we agree on those three points. So you are not saying that you, Cathy, are opposed to building ANY mosque or Islamic center here, you’re just concerned about these particular Muslims, is that right?
Then perhaps you could also agree with me that language such as that used by “blackiswhite” here where he condemned all Muslims (saying that the extremists’ actions represent the Islamic faith) is a bad way to go about opposing this particular group?
To clarify further, where I said…
my use of McVeigh (and then Rudolph) was EXACTLY that we ought NOT condemn the whole based upon the actions of extremists.
I would amend to say, my use of McVeigh (and then Rudolph) was EXACTLY that we ought NOT condemn the whole based upon the actions of extremists who might claim to have been from a Christian or Muslim background. I was thinking that McVeigh self-identified as a Christian, but perhaps he didn’t. Certainly, Eric Rudolph did, though. He identified with the “Christian Identity” movement.
source
So perhaps he would have been a better example. Regardless, my point is and remains that we ought not condemn the whole based upon the actions of the few and the fringe.
Jesus’ directives had nothing to do with the evil or misguided intentions of Tim McVeigh. I want that point made clear. IF you are truly a Christian then you need to address this.
And just to be really clear, OF COURSE McVeigh’s actions were contrary to Christian teachings. As noted, I’m a peacemaker in the anabaptist tradition because of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus would be, I believe, appalled by violence in his name, or even this sort of violence by his followers, who were taught to turn the other cheek, to overcome evil with good, to love our enemies.
I never meant to suggest otherwise, just to be clear. I think if you re-read my original words you can see I never made such a suggestion.
Thanks for asking so nicely.
an Islamic group believes that it is imperative for them to build a 13 story mosque less than a block from one of the most stunning examples of their faith in action for the purpose of “building bridges”.
Makes it sound like you’re out to paint all Muslims with one brush. THAT is what I’m opposed to, for reasons of justice and honesty (that is, Muslim extremists killing people is no more “their faith in action” than Eric Rudolph blowing up abortion clinics is an example of “his faith in action.”)
Thus, my question: Is it about Muslims in general, or this group in particular?
I’d like to believe that Islam could truly be a religion of peace. Really, I would. The problem is that where ever I look in the world, I see a religion that preaches tolerance and understanding, until they reach a number large enough to change their tune, and then the official line becomes submit or die.
The Phillipines…kidnappings and beheadings.
Indonesia…yeah, try to be a Christian there.
Pakistan…playing nice with the hindus in India since ….
The Middle East…where I am likely to be kidnapped and beheaded in video tape, while these peaceful practioners of Islam dance and chant to Allah.
France…Where “youths of indescrimant origin” have nightly car-be-ques in arrondisements.
England…Where the are demanding Sharia law.
The Netherlands…where Dutch authorities have had to recognize “no-go zones” within their own country. I’m sure Theo Van Gogh could tell you all about them, no wait, he can’t, as he was murdered pursuant to a fatwa.
Even if we were to stipulate that these acts were committed by a minority, the religion as a whole, including the “moderates” benefit from the acts of this alleged minority. Their silence (and acceptance) is complicity…make no mistake. One need not come to the conclusion I have…that a moderate muslim is one who is not yet serious about his faith, to begin to see the pattern, as Doc Zero demonstrates:
http://www.doczero.org/2010/08/atonement-and-absolution/
Another “tolerant” voice of Islam approves of the GZM:
http://m.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hamas_nod_for_gz_mosque_cSohH9eha8sNZMTDz0VVPI
I know it has been mentioned in other circles but seeing as some of tried to put up interdenominational/faith parameters….
Auschwitz and the nuns issue back in the 90’s…
Any comments here?
Dan,
Uh huh. Well, being you claim to be a Christian, why don’t you the next time you enter the mosque, utter these words
“Jesus is the way and the truth and the life, and nobody enters the Kingdom of Heaven but through him”, then report back to me about how peace loving the Muslims were in their mosque. Better yet, tell the men you consider your wife equal to them in every respect and see what kind of response you get.
With all due respect, you sound clueless to the real history of Islam, the intent of sharia, and the religion of peace. But you make a perfect rube for implementation.
As far as my harsh language to Rutherford, point taken. I’ll use FOOL next time instead of stupid.
an800lbgorilla said…
Except that in Islam, and specifically the Quran, there is no ‘old testament’ or non-applicable verses. Christianity went through a reformation, Islam hasn’t.
I think you’d find that most traditionalist Christians would suggest that there are NO “non-applicable” verses – that OT verses very much apply in some ways and that they represent the Words of God, who DOES NOT CHANGE.
My point there was that there are verses in both sacred texts that can be taken out of context and used to promote violence. The vast majority of Christians AND Muslims would reject such a take on those passages and both would insist that their faiths are peaceable, despite that some of the texts might argue for violence.
You might visit the Muslim Peacemaker Teams website, or about Muslim Peacemakers, or about Muslim Peacemaker.
I’m so tired of this nonsense I can hardly lift a hand to type anymore. The site is not a block away from Ground Zero, it is two blocks away … and in Manhattan, home to skyscrapers, that means you cannot see Ground Zero from it and you can’t see it from Ground Zero. Huck challenged me to look at Google Earth and at first I found it alarming until I remembered we’re talking about Manhattan.
From my friend X-Brad at the H2
Tex…
With all due respect, you sound clueless to the real history of Islam, the intent of sharia, and the religion of peace.
Again, I’m no expert, but I DO try to reference reliable sources from a variety of places, including what Muslims themselves say. Again: What is your source? How many mosques have you visited, how much of the Koran have you read, how many Muslims do you know, how many friends do you have living in a Muslim nation?
Tex…
As far as my harsh language to Rutherford, point taken. I’ll use FOOL next time instead of stupid.
Jesus tells us, “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
I’d be wary of that, too. Perhaps a simple, “I disagree,” would suffice?
Tex…
Well, being you claim to be a Christian, why don’t you the next time you enter the mosque, utter these words
“Jesus is the way and the truth and the life, and nobody enters the Kingdom of Heaven but through him”, then report back to me about how peace loving the Muslims were in their mosque.
As a matter of respect to the place I was visiting, I would not do that, not at a mosque, nor at a synagogue. Do you think that would be a productive, respectful and Christian way of witnessing to those you consider to be lost?
And, as a point of fact, I don’t “claim” to be a Christian. I AM a Christian, saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus. (With apologies to the blog owner and any non-Christians here for this digression – I’d invite Tex to email me if he’d like to continue this line of discussion, which is rather off-the-topic).
Dan….Me, you and the rest of the folks on the thread… road trip to Mecca. Oh wait!
Do you think that would be a productive, respectful and Christian way of witnessing to those you consider to be lost?
If you had any balls as a Christian…yeah.Just another poser.
Blackiswhite said…
I’d like to believe that Islam could truly be a religion of peace. Really, I would. The problem is that where ever I look in the world, I see a religion that preaches tolerance and understanding, until they reach a number large enough to change their tune, and then the official line becomes submit or die.
So, you’d have a problem for ANY Muslim group wishing to put up a building here, is that your answer to my question?
If so, THAT is where I disagree. We are a nation that values religious liberty and, as such, I don’t condone religious discrimination.
I certainly agree that Muslim nations tend to have a bad human rights track record. That would be just one reason among many that I’m NOT a Muslim. They tend to put up with oppressive leaders and laws and I can’t condone that. Not in a Muslim nation and certainly not in the US, which DOES have freedom of religion.
It is precisely BECAUSE of the problems of Muslim nations that I can’t support following in their footsteps and cracking down on religious liberty. That is what THEY do too often, but not us.
We’re better than that.
Dan,
What part of “brother” do you not understand? That’s from one Christian to another – not some rabid Christian hating fanatic like Rutherford. Your biblical know how sounds pretty superficial.
Here Dan. Lest you think you know more than Paul, author of approximately 2/3 of the N.T., let me demonstrate from Romans what Paul said to men like Rutherford:
I obviously know far more about Islam that you do if you think it a religion of peace. My neighbor a Muslim, though pretty secular in nature. I have visited a mosque for a tour, and I’ve read enough of the Koran to recognize a cheap rip off from both the Torah and New Testament without the mercy.
But I need know nothing more than what I observe. Show me those peace loving predominately Muslim countries Dan, where people are in a big hurry to immigrate.
So, you’d have a problem for ANY Muslim group wishing to put up a building here, is that your answer to my question?
I’m always entertained by people who are so smart, they abandon the need for reading comprehension.
As much as I find their MO distasteful and dangerous, I have never contested the legality of them building a mosque on their own property. What I (rightfully) question is the propriety a group that claims to represent islam (as the hijackers claimed to represent islam) building at a place so close to those murdered in islam’s name.
It isn’t an act of understanding.
It doesn’t reflect sensitivity.
And yet our need for tolerance demands that these words only have the intended meaning when they favor those who would perpetrate this insult.
I’m not a Christian, nor am I a conservative. I have traveled extensively in the Middle East. These are my opinions based on my experiences:
Islam is NOT a religion, it is a death cult.
Mosques are indoctrination centers for hate and weapons caches.
Dhimmis like Rutherford and Dan would pay the jizza and will gladly watch as your wife is stoned or your head is separated as long as they remained safe.
Tex…
What part of “brother” do you not understand? That’s from one Christian to another
This is really getting off topic. I’d love to talk with you more on this if you’d like to email me. In the meantime, consider the writing of Paul, in Colossians…
Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone…
You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips…
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
Or listen to the words of Peter, speaking of Jesus…
and while being reviled, He did not revile in return…
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed
Fair enough? If you other comments about ME (and since I’m not the topic here), I’d suggest you email me and likewise for “Rutherford.” Ad hominem attacks don’t help further discussion and understanding, right? Thanks.
Fair enough? If you other comments about ME (and since I’m not the topic here), I’d suggest you email me and likewise for “Rutherford.” Ad hominem attacks don’t help further discussion and understanding, right? Thanks.
He can attack Rutherford all he wants, as Rutherford is deliberately being a thick-headed git on this particular subject.
Dan
Considering your misinterpretation of scripture, your incorrect definition and overuse of another tired accusation of the worn out logical fallacy (ad hominem), your pantheistic sounding theological doctrine though claiming the exclusivity of Christianity, your predilection for the irrelevant conclusions and equivocation (two logical fallacies so that I can play the game :twisted:), your lack of responding to my specific questions, and your general “rubedom” about the true intent of Islam, why would I want to converse through email?
When you learn to quit casting your pearls in defense of swine, I’ll look you up. Until then, I consider you one step ahead of Rutherford in wisdom.
Considering your misinterpretation of scripture
I offered scriptures that raised the ideal of speaking respectfully with others. Do you think I’ve wrongly understood those verses? If so, I’d suggest emailing me about it or letting it go, since it’s not the topic here.
… your incorrect definition and overuse of another tired accusation of the worn out logical fallacy (ad hominem)
ad hominem: : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made (Merriam Webster)
Seems like I was using the definition correctly to me.
your pantheistic sounding theological doctrine though claiming the exclusivity of Christianity
Pantheistic? Meaning, ” the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently”? Clearly no.
But there IS this definition of pantheism: “toleration of worship of all gods”
Do I tolerate the worship of other gods? Sure, I don’t believe in killing the infidels or making them worship the one true God. But then, you are probably pantheistic by that definition, right?
Again, this seems like an attempt to demonize me (ad hominem) rather than deal with the topic.
…your predilection for the irrelevant conclusions and equivocation
I have not equivocated on any point of which I’m aware, and I’m not sure what you mean by irrelevant conclusions, as I don’t believe I’ve reached any…
your lack of responding to my specific questions
Umm, I don’t believe I have failed to respond to any of your questions, except maybe this irrelevant one…
if this is truly an “interfaith alliance” as men like you and the Imam would like us to believe, where is the sanctuary and synagogue planned in the 13-story mosque?
One need not have a sanctuary and synagogue in order to have an interfaith alliance, right?
As to missing any questions – I just went back and you asked me exactly two questions, the one above and the rhetorical question about “brother.” I have, in fact, addressed your comments. If you have some specific question, feel free to ask.
In the meantime, answering my questions would be helpful, too.
…and your general “rubedom” about the true intent of Islam, why would I want to converse through email?
1. Because it is off topic, to show respect for the blog owner and not go off on off-topic comments.
2. To clarify and strive to reach some understanding, if not agreement.
So again, I’d ask: On what basis would I accept that you are the holder of the knowledge about the “true intent” of Islam, over against what I’ve learned from first and second hand sources?
Dan, you bore me.
You’re intentionally obtuse (or dumb), your thought process superficial about your professed religion (and trust me, BIC will not care if we post about this as it an interest of his too), you’re not terribly objective, you seem to have little regard for intent or content, and still haven’t addressed any of my real questions – therefore, I won’t take your seriously in debate.
But to answer your question about what have you missed about the religion of pieces, if your eyes deceive you, maybe a link will not.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Here are but a few questions you didn’t answer. Which Muslim countries are people actively immigrating, where is the Islamic “good works” as you’ll know them by their fruits, how can you have an interfaith alliance with a mosque and nothing else (your answer was either misleading, incomplete, or misdirected – do we consider our sanctuaries “interfaith”?)?
Finally, would you have any problems if the Japanese chose to build a temple to their Emperor and the Shinto religion say 600 ft. from the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial? I can’t imagine why you would.
Remember, these are not questions of if they can do it – they can. The question is should they build the mosque two football fields from Ground Zero – because about 70% of the nation, including most NYers disagree with your opinion.
And it is not a matter of us being better than this. It is a matter of insensitivity, more specifically right vs. wrong.
Done my best to read and re-read all the comments in this thread to make sure I’m getting the point, and there are a lot of great points being made. I especially appreciate everything that BiW has added to the discussion… also mainenowandthen, fxpcpa, and gorilla, and others I’m sorry I’m not mentioning you here — I’m on board with most/all of your comments. Thanks.
Dan, you are obviously working hard to stay in this discussion and I commend you for your patience and forbearance. Hang in there.
Dan, you offered your understanding of the Muslim Jihad as being an internal struggle. I’m glad you brought that up. Yes — many Muslims have been taught this. The problem is that this definition is not the complete truth about the Muslim tenets.
You also asked for some clarification from me about whether I’m okay with the mosque/whatever being built 600 feet from the 9/11 Twin Towers. I’m not.
I can’t stop them. But I think it reveals much about the energy and motivation BEHIND the people pushing this. You and I have witnessed decent Muslim peoples and have good feelings about these relationships. GREAT. But we both need to be as “wise as snakes and as innocent as doves” because we are “sheep among wolves” as Jesus said in Matthew 10:16. There are Muslims (and others) who want to deceive us. Within the Koran and other related Muslim texts are lots of encouragements that Muslims learn how to lie, deceive, or hide their true intentions. It is a technique for how they conquer.
It is good for us to continue to be warm and generous to our Muslim friends and speak well of them, but also we are encouraged to be skeptical of the possibility that this mosque/whatever is not what it is being purported to be on face value.
That is the crux of this discussion from my perspective.
Blessings, Dan. Blessing to all who are attempting to work through this. We obviously all have a lot of passion about it and — I think — we all want what is best for our nation and the world.
One of the posters posed the question as to whether someone might walk into a mosque and begin testifying to the Word. The response essentially was “No, that would be disrespectful.” Right answer.
Why do these people want this particular site and no others? They are purposely disrespectful, and intentionally in our face about it. Right Answer. If you believe otherwise you either ignorant or willfully obtuse.
WE don’t need to be taught tolerance. WE already are tolerant.
That mosque is only going to teach US that THEY need to learn tolerance and respect.
Another bit of reading. Nothing to see here…move along.
http://dcfnfb.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-islam-will-dominate-world.html
So Dan & Rutherford, if Islam is a religon of peace, why are its followers responsible for 99% of the terrorist attacks worldwide? Or, as I read somewhere else (Ace’s, maybe?): “Why, whenever I hear someone saying we have to show Muslims respect/tolerance, do I think ‘What did they blow up this time?'”
Let me be perfectly clear: I don’t think them building a mosque/cultral center at Ground Zero is illegal – I think it is wrong.
With over 30 mosques already on that tiny island, the only reason they would build another one (and it is not a replacement – it is another one) right there is for the statement it sends. And the only statement Islam EVER sends is “Surrender. Or die.”
Well said AgileDog,
It blows my mind that there are people there are people like Dan that can’t determine this simple fact and what the mosque really represents.
But Rutherford, I understand why. He’s a Christian hating bigot, and anything that ruffles the feathers of Christianity, or destroys or demeans Christianity, Rutherford is a huge fan. Even the killing of ten humanitarians who provided much needed and free health care to Afghanis didn’t faze Rutherford a bit. He still swears Christianity is the real evil religion. He’ll excuse Obama’s pseudo version of Christianity because it’s the right flavor and race trumps religion. 😉
if Islam is a religon of peace, why are its followers responsible for 99% of the terrorist attacks worldwide?
Because they are flawed and fearful humans, prone to sin?
Because they fear US dominance over their way of life?
Because they want to be pleasing to their god and they think this is the way to do it, those 1-2% who engage in terrorism?
Because they are not listening to the moral reasonable followers of Allah?
Fear and hatred?
Poverty and lack of good education?
Probably many reasons would be my guess.
Why are Christians the only people ever to wipe out two whole cities (men, women, children and babies) with atomic bombs?
Probably many of the same reasons.
But to be factual, Islam’s followers en masse ARE NOT responsible for so much terrorism, just the tiny minority. It is THAT minority we need to isolate and marginalize. On the other hand, it is the more reasonable majority that we need to reach out to, engage in conversation with and demonstrate that we are a reasonable people with. If we, who supposedly stand for freedom of religion appear to be at war with Islam, that lends support and comfort to the deadly minority, encouraging others in the reasonable majority to consider siding with them.
That would be a logical and societal mistake, seems to me.
Which returns me to my point: Why would we choose to NOT allow reasonable Muslims to build a building? If your answer is, “There are no reasonable Muslims,” you might be a bigot, right? By definition.
And the only statement Islam EVER sends is “Surrender. Or die.”
This is demonstrably untrue. Cathy and I and my Christian minister friends living in a Muslim nation can all attest to the falsity of this proposition.
Once again: IF you are striving to say that THESE PARTICULAR Muslims are not worthy of permitting to build, then that COULD be a reasonable position to hold, if debatable. All you have to do is present your evidence about these particular Muslims.
BUT, if you’re saying ALL Muslims ought not build here because ALL Muslims want to kill or convert everyone, then you’re moving into bigotry territory. By definition.
(bigot: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance).
But to be factual, Islam’s followers en masse ARE NOT responsible for so much terrorism, just the tiny minority.
No, they just benefit from it.
It is THAT minority we need to isolate and marginalize.
Of course, in a religion that permits taqyia, how will we ever know?
On the other hand, it is the more reasonable majority that we need to reach out to, engage in conversation with and demonstrate that we are a reasonable people with.
Listen, I can be a giver too, but if this reasonable majority really wants to step up and join ranks with the rest of the civilized world, then it would be best if they cleaned house. We can’t even get the moderate majority to speak against these acts with a unified voice, let alone prove their sincerity by hosing out their own nests of vipers.
If we, who supposedly stand for freedom of religion appear to be at war with Islam, that lends support and comfort to the deadly minority, encouraging others in the reasonable majority to consider siding with them.
Now you’re just being silly. Islam has been at war with us for most of my life. (See: Iran Hostage Crisis) I don’t think you are reading very carefully. No one here is all hot and bothered about their legal right to practice their religion. No one here is advocating that the local zoning laws be changed to discriminate against them. What we have trouble with is representatives of the Religion of Peace setting up another shop so close to where their bretheren committed the worst mass murder in living memory. Especially when the people behind this plan apparently have so little trouble with the actions of the hijackers that day.
And if the moderate muslims prefer to interpret that righteous indignation as a personal slight, and decide to side with their more passionate brothers, then they made their choice…one that their global track record doesn’t assure me wasn’t in keeping with the plan all along.
Why are Christians the only people ever to wipe out two whole cities (men, women, children and babies) with atomic bombs?
Saving millions of American lives in what would have been a very brutal, bloody and costly invasion of Japan to end a war that they declared on us with a sneak attack? You really want to equate that with the worldwide legacy of pain and death that islam brings wherever it gains a foothold? Really? Are you sure you’re really discerning correctly?
Why are Christians the only people ever to wipe out two whole cities (men, women, children and babies) with atomic bombs?
Holy shit, you’re either ignorant, or a liar.
Two whole cities? Really? You said that?
Christians? Really? That’s what you think?
Cathy, I thank you for the polite conversation. I do have a remaining question, where you say…
The problem is that this definition is not the complete truth about the Muslim tenets.
I have to ask, says who? Based on what information are you making this claim?
Tex…
Dan, you bore me.
Well, I do apologize if I’m not interesting enough for you. I’m not sure what you’d like me to do about that, but thanks for the information. I’ll see if I can jazz things up a bit next time?
Tex…
You’re intentionally obtuse (or dumb), your thought process superficial about your professed religion
I’d remind you of the teachings of Jesus…
“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.”
If you are truly concerned about my spiritual condition, brother, I’d suggest a personal email or private conversation would be the way to address the problem, according to Jesus.
Or do you think I’ve only superficially understood that passage? Regardless, I’d also remind you of the many biblical teachings to be respectful and grace-full in how we disagree with one another.
Fair enough?
Thanks.
Probably many of the same reasons.
And the bombs were dropped because the U.S. was:
– flawed and fearful humans, prone to sin?
– feared
USJapanese dominance over their way of life?– wanted to be pleasing to their god and they think this is the way to do it?
– they are not listening to the moral reasonable followers of God?
– fear and hatred?
– were impoverished and lacked good education?
You’re not only sick. You’re dangerous.
Tex, you suggested I didn’t answer some questions, but none of your examples were questions that you asked of me. So, in truth, no, I did NOT answer questions that were never asked of me.
And yet you have not answered questions that I DID ask of you. Some balance in that criticism, perhaps?
You noted…
Here are but a few questions you didn’t answer. Which Muslim countries are people actively immigrating
You stated this but did not ask it. Even though you did not ask this as a question to me, I DID address it, but perhaps you missed my answer. I said:
I certainly agree that Muslim nations tend to have a bad human rights track record. That would be just one reason among many that I’m NOT a Muslim. They tend to put up with oppressive leaders and laws and I can’t condone that. Not in a Muslim nation and certainly not in the US, which DOES have freedom of religion.
Tex stated…
where is the Islamic “good works” as you’ll know them by their fruits
As far as I can see, this is not a question ever asked or point ever raised. I’m not quite sure what you even mean by it. Where are acts of good deeds by Muslims? All over. I pointed to several websites that talked about Muslim peacemaking efforts, I call that a moral good work. Do you?
Beyond that, almsgiving, or giving to the poor is a central tenet of Islam, I consider that a good work. Do you?
Beyond that, I personally know of Muslims involved in promoting sustainable living/living within our means, I know of Muslims involved in prison ministries. The list goes on. I’m not sure at all what you mean by this: Are you suggesting that Muslims don’t do good deeds at all?
Tex…
how can you have an interfaith alliance with a mosque and nothing else (your answer was either misleading, incomplete, or misdirected – do we consider our sanctuaries “interfaith”?)?
I have not read anywhere that there would be a mosque in this new building, but if there is, that does not mean that there can’t be interfaith actions done there. I recently attended an interfaith meeting at a Baptist church. There was no synagogue nor mosque there, and yet some Muslims came and interfaith activity did, in fact happen.
I’m not sure of your point here, either.
Tex…
Finally, would you have any problems if the Japanese chose to build a temple to their Emperor and the Shinto religion say 600 ft. from the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial? I can’t imagine why you would.
If you mean, DURING WWII, or even right afterward, if Japan wanted to build a temple to their emperor, would I have thought that was a good idea? No, I don’t think so.
But then, WE WERE AT WAR WITH JAPAN, WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH ISLAM.
That’s the difference and the point that I keep making that seems to fall mostly on deaf ears: It’s WRONG to condemn or blame the whole based upon the actions of a few.
Why would we? That is the BIG question that goes unanswered (other than the slightly nutty suggestions that all Muslims ARE to blame).
There: Questions answered – even though they had not been asked before or they had already been addressed.
Now, any chance in your answering some of my questions?
Dan, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I would not be surprised if you yourself are Muslim. You’re not fooling anybody here. You still haven’t answered my questions.
Where are these Muslim good works you speak? Where are these tolerant Muslims? Can you specify why you think Sharia Law is compatible with the U.S. Constitution? I certainly can concerning Christianity.
And stop with the intellectual dishonesty. America is not imperialist – we’re the most tolerant nation on earth. If we weren’t, there wouldn’t be a Muslim standing here on American soil after 9/11.
If you want to quote scripture, then let’s go all the way back to the beginning, shall we?
Here’s what the Almighty God said of Muslims about 3,800 years ago.
The angel of the LORD also said to Hagar:
“You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.
He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers.”
Some things never change Dan.
Hotspur said…
Holy shit, you’re either ignorant, or a liar.
Two whole cities? Really? You said that?
Christians? Really? That’s what you think?
I’m not sure what you mean. The US DID nuke two cities, killing civilians right down to infants. Hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths. Terrorism on the mass scale.
What part of that is mistaken?
The people involved in this bombing were Christians, at least nominally, if I’m not mistaken. Even today, widespread support for these bombings remain part of conservative Christian ethos.
What part of that is mistaken?
I don’t believe there is a lie there, nor is there any ignorance on display, since these are factually correct statements. So I am not clear on your meaning, sir.
To clarify: I’m not saying this was a CHRISTIAN operation, in that the Southern Baptists didn’t pull together and plan the nuking of two cities. I’m saying it was Christians who supported it and support it still and, if I’m not mistaken, many of the key players who DID plan and implement these acts WERE Christians, at least nominally.
You have it backward Dan. We are not at war with Islam. Islam is at war with us and it is time you woke up to that fact. Either be the good standing member, or be the infidel – but you can’t be both.
Pick a side Dan, but quit straddling the fence.
Did I mention you also speak out of both sides of your mouth Dan? Not five minutes ago, you told me that we were at war with Japan. Therefore, by definition there were no innocent deaths.
Japan had been forewarned three days before the bombs were dropped. I doubt they would have done the same for us. No matter how you try to spin that, Truman probably saved hundreds of thousand of lives with that decision.
Tex…
Where are these Muslim good works you speak? Where are these tolerant Muslims?
Again, brother, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you want me to point you to a specific good work? I did. The folk who work on Muslim Peacemaker teams. I told you specifically about the positive action of Muslims I worked with in encouraging more sustainable/responsible living.
What are you wanting, a link?
Can you specify why you think Sharia Law is compatible with the U.S. Constitution? I certainly can concerning Christianity.
Have I SAID that sharia law is compatible with the US Constitution? No, I have not said that. In fact, I have quite clearly said that there are serious human rights problems in many Muslim nations, related to those who try to implement sharia law, or at least their version of it.
So no need to add “Have you quit beating your wife?” to questions I have not yet answered.
Tex also said…
Dan, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I would not be surprised if you yourself are Muslim.
Last time I’ll point it out, then I’ll just ignore the ad homenim attacks: IF you have a problem with my positions unrelated to the topic at hand, I invite you to email me or give me a call. I’m quite transparent about who I am: Dan Trabue of Louisville, KY. You can find my phone number and probably my address on line. It’s easy enough to see that I am a Christian, raised and living still in Louisville, attending Jeff St Baptist Church in downtown Louisville.
I am quite transparent about who I am, not hiding behind a pseudonym or anything. That is a pretty serious charge to make towards a fella you don’t even know and haven’t even heard of for more than 48 hours, I don’t believe.
This is not the place for making scathing attacks of strangers, I would suggest. So, brother, I invite you to address your concerns in a polite and responsible way or I invite you to be ignored. I’ve answered your questions, you have not answered mine and I don’t expect to see any answers coming, based on the way this conversation has gone. So be it.
I pray God’s blessings and wisdom upon us all, with grace to you all for us all.
Not five minutes ago, you told me that we were at war with Japan. Therefore, by definition there were no innocent deaths.
Okay, I WILL have to address this point:
I believe in at least a degree of moral consistency and am opposed to moral relativism. That is to say, it is wrong and ALWAYS wrong to kill innocent people. Children and babies are ALWAYS innocent and it is, therefore, wrong to kill them.
Sir, don’t you dare defend the wholesale slaughter of children and babies and call yourself a follower of Christ. There is a word for the type of folk who’d kill children and then defend the act as if it were noble: Cowards.
I understand that because of our fears, some people think that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the lesser of two evils, and it’s one thing for a Christian to hold that view: but we must not mistake that it WAS an evil. A lesser evil remains an evil and does not get made “good” by the fact that it is lesser.
You are not seriously making the claim that babies aren’t innocent and that killing them was a moral good, are you? If so, shame on you.
May God grant us wisdom.
Dude, I don’t even know where to begin, but I’ll try.
You said “two whole cities.” The blast radius of the Nagasaki bomb, the bigger of the two, would be contained within the boundary of L.A. airport. Clearly that does not equate to wiping out two whole cities.
But, unlike the sneak attack the Japs pulled on us four years earlier, (a real act of terror) there was that little matter of the Potsdam Ultimatum in late July 1945 which was rejected by their military rulers. And, oh yeah, there were the millions of leaflets we dropped over Japanese cities in early August 1945, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, warning citizens to evacuate, and telling them about the bomb we would use. Oh, and urging them to overthrow their war mongering military rulers.
And then you blame Christianity for dropping the bomb? Is that because Christianity is the state religion here in the U.S.?
Religion played no part in it, not even nominally. But after kicking the ass of Hitler (another example of real terrorism) my dad returned from his stint in the European theater, and was about to deploy to the invasion necessary to remove the military leaders of Japan, but guess what? Among many other things, those bombs ensured that thousands upon thousands of U.S. soldiers didn’t have to die, and that there would be fewer Japanese casualties as a result of the bombings than in an actual invasion. Oh, one other thing, I and many like me would not be here today if it weren’t for those bombs.
So, you can take your analogy between muslim terrorists, and the humane act of ending a war by creating fewer casualties and shove it straight up your ass.
Please do not have children.
Wow. Dan. Dan. Dan.
Please don’t pull me into your arguments, Bro. I may be friendly and kind, but I’m not on your side. K?
You asked me to clarify. I said: “The problem is that this definition (about jihad) is not the complete truth about the Muslim tenets.
Then you asked: Based on what information are you making this claim?
My answer. My studies with theologians about Mohammad, the Koran, and Islam long before 9/11 and all this crap coming to a head in our nation. I’ve read numerous books WRITTEN BY FORMER MUSLIMS who are the ones who CLEARLY lay out the issues of the Muslim faith and WARN US. My ‘claim’ as you put it comes with a solid backing by folks who know a whole lot more about all this than I. This is rather evident for anyone who bothers to open his/her eyes, Dan. That includes you, my friend.
Um. You are on your own in this argument. Go for it, but please keep me out of it. Again, I may have Muslim friends and experiences that were positive, but my gratitude is to the Triune God foremost — not to the Muslims or their faith.
hotspur…
And then you blame Christianity for dropping the bomb? Is that because Christianity is the state religion here in the U.S.?
Read what I wrote. I DID NOT blame Christianity. I am a Christian, one who is opposed to war. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had NOTHING to do with Christian teachings.
What I ACTUALLY SAID was…
Why are Christians the only people ever to wipe out two whole cities (men, women, children and babies) with atomic bombs?
That is: IT WAS CHRISTIAN FOLK (at least nominally) who have supported and implemented those attacks. That is a fact, unless you’re saying that all those folk who call themselves Christians who supported/support those bombings were not really Christians and have nothing to do with Christianity.
When I say, “Two whole cities,” I apologize if I employed hyperbole. Let me change that: IT DESTROYED, KILLED, MUTILATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE – MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN – IN TWO CITIES.
Hope that clarifies.
Cathy, I apologize if I misrepresented your position, that was not my intent. I merely misunderstood your point.
Thanks for the politeness and I DO pray that God grant us all wisdom, myself moreso than anyone else.
And grace, as well.
“Which returns me to my point: Why would we choose to NOT allow reasonable Muslims to build a building? If your answer is, “There are no reasonable Muslims,” you might be a bigot, right? By definition.”
These are not “reasonable ” Muslims. These are “unreasonable Muslims” insisting on this site no matter the pain, fear or consequences to others.
I wish I could say its strange that you resort to a tortured claim of “bigotry” to support your argument. But I can’t. The sense of moral superiority is what’s really driving your defense of the mosque, not rationality. Too bad it’s blinded you from what it really means to the actual victims of 9/11.
don’t you dare defend the wholesale slaughter of children and babies and call yourself a follower of Christ. There is a word for the type of folk who’d kill children and then defend the act as if it were noble: Cowards.
I am not a follower of your god, so let respond:
A) I do not say that the deaths of the children is those cities was “slaughter”. You are calling it that – I disagree.
B) You just called me a Coward. I shall consider that in future dealings.
Back to Muslims:
Muslims/Islam is not a race or ethinicity – it is a idealology of world domination masked as a religion. SO DON’T CALL ME A BIGOT! I oppose their world view. I oppose their spread of their false god. I oppose their subjugation of women and non-believers. And I oppose their mosques. Islam is not a race – I am not a raaaaacist! Saudi are Arab – Iranian are Persian. And both of them are not Somolian – I repeat: Islam is not a race or an ethinicity – Don’t call me a bigot.
You claim that the violent are a small minority. How many Muslims are there? And how many terrorist acts have they committed in the last 20 years? Now, how many Chrsitians are there? How many terrorist acts have they committed in 20 years? Let’s see the numbers for the Buddists and the Hindus….
You claim to know Muslims that are peaceful and “good”. And I know “Christians” that support abortion. Are they “good” Christians? True Chrsitians? Someone can claim to belong to a faith, and not practice its tenents. The basic tenent of Islam is Surrender. You do know that is what “Islam” means, right? Or are you truely ignorant of what their “faith” teaches?
They are at war with us Dan. It is a symbol to them of their “victory” in knocking down the towers, the same ones they tried to blow up in 93.
It is a in your face insult. Perfectly legal, perfectly allowable.
yet no less insulting.
Telegraphed in advance to cause more insult.
It seems to me that you desire that those here not be insulted nor comment about the insult, yet those who give insult are given a pass.
These are not “reasonable ” Muslims. These are “unreasonable Muslims” insisting on this site no matter the pain, fear or consequences to others.
Simple and succinct. Well put El Tigre. Thanks.
*much less wordy than my efforts*kudos*
Dan, you seem to keep wanting to draw distinctions between muslims. What’s your opinion on these guys?
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html
Do they have it wrong and the backers of the GZM like Hammas and GZM Imam have it right?
Agile and Hotspur,
Dan had proclaimed twice at least that he is Anabaptist.
I am not familiar with all the flavors of it, but both the Amish and the Mennonites are stone cold pacifists. I have spent much time talking to many of my Amish and Mennonite friends about pacifism.
They (my friends) believe that self defense is wrong. In any way shape or form. You could literally walk into Dan’s home. (not that I am suggesting that in any way shape or form) and do bad stuff. No one would lift a hand to defend.
As a Christian, I admire having that kind of faith in God’s protection.
As a Christian I see where saving 20 million of lives by killing 200,000 might be more christian than not. However Most of the Anabaptists I know would disagree with me.
^ Good points, Vmax.
Well put and ditto everything you said.
Dan although I appreciate that you’d rather the thread went another direction I have to share an observation.
You’re the type of christian that makes atheists happy.
Poverty and lack of good education?
Huh? Then explain those that flew into the Towers. All wealthy, from wealthy families, and very educated.
Start reading the Koran.
Vmax, I get what you are saying. That’s why I implore Dan not to have children.
Dan,
You liberal piece of basket weaving trash. Go fuck yourself.
You fucking “Let’s all sit around and sing Kum Bah Yah” cocksuckers piss me off to no end, and I’d just as soon use your sorry ass for hog feed.
Die soon, suck my cock, and tell your mom to stop putting so much fucking starch in my shirts.
God damn pussy apologists…
Fuck you.
How has this become about me and my children?
Strange behavior, that.
Because some different folk are commenting, I’ll respond to them…
These are “unreasonable Muslims” insisting on this site no matter the pain, fear or consequences to others.
But my question is WHY? Why is there pain if people unrelated to the offenses build there? Why is there fear if people unrelated to the offenses build there? WHAT consequences?
They (my friends) believe that self defense is wrong. In any way shape or form. You could literally walk into Dan’s home. (not that I am suggesting that in any way shape or form) and do bad stuff. No one would lift a hand to defend.
Again, I’m not sure how this is about me instead of the post, but to address this: There are many different flavors of pacifism and the related Just Peacemakers. Some are truly passivists, as well as pacifists. I don’t personally know ANY of that flavor (who’d literally do nothing if, for instance, they saw a child being harmed), but I’m sure they exist.
Most in my community and circle of peacemakers would certainly take action if they saw someone being harmed. Many would even take action to prevent harm to themselves. But not a ONE of them/us would kill another person’s child in the hopes (no guarantees, of course, just a vague hope) of preventing another death.
As I said, though, there are many different stripes of pacifism.
As a Christian I see where saving 20 million of lives by killing 200,000 might be more christian than not.
1. We don’t know – can’t know – how many lives were or might have been “saved” if Hiroshima had not been bombed. We just don’t know.
2. Experts at the time disagreed greatly on this point. Admiral Leahy, for instance, said, “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated…”
3. I don’t think that saying “only” killing 200,000 is “more Christian” is in any way sound ethical reasoning.
4. As I already stated, I understand (disagree with, but understand) the line of thinking that the bombings were a lesser evil, but we must not confuse a lesser evil as being anything but evil.
Btw, I like pie.
Pecan is my favorite and apple and peach come in second and third.
God damn pussy apologists…
Fuck you.
Pleasant site you all run here.
No real need to respond to whiny ad hominem attacks. They are the fallacy that they are.
It is a in your face insult. Perfectly legal, perfectly allowable. yet no less insulting.
HOW? How is it an insult if people unrelated to the perpetrators put up a building? Put up a mosque?
Would it be an insult if Arabs unrelated to the terrorists built a building there?
What if they weren’t Arab, but they DID have darkish skin and beards, should THEY not be discouraged from building there?
You all are too high-strung and emotional, looking for insult where there is none, it seems to me. Are you that fragile emotionally?
Agiledog said…
Muslims/Islam is not a race or ethinicity – it is a idealology of world domination masked as a religion. SO DON’T CALL ME A BIGOT!
You DO understand the definition of Bigot, don’t you?
Agiledog said…
You just called me a Coward. I shall consider that in future dealings.
No, I called people who would kill children and defend killing children as a moral good, I call THEM cowards. Do you truly disagree? You think it takes a big strong man to wipe out a city full of children and call it “good?” IF so, then we disagree.
Does it hurt your feelings to have behavior you endorse to be called cowardly? I guess you’ll just have to get over that, big brother (or little brother, if you’re a younger fella), it is what it is.
Pleasant site you all run here.
To the best of my knowledge, one guy runs this site. And your offensive comments are part and parcel to the others who comment here.
Dan you seem to think you are not offending anyone with what you say. Dude. Look again and take some responsibility.
I like pie. Pecan, apple, peach are good. Key lime and lemon meringue are good too.
Dan,
You said you were not sure why it became about you. I only mentioned you to help others put you in context. I truly intended no offense by saying the thing about your home.
People here have been trying to figure out where you are coming from, you seem to be a Christian but hold “liberal” views. When I reread some of your comments the Anabaptist thing clicked. All of the Amish / Mennonite people that I have met are darn good people.
Just the pacifism thing throws people, and is incomprehensible to most people. Having spoken to friends that knew I was a friend and loved them and accepted them as they are (and they me…I think) The self defense thing and anti war thing is a subject worthy of discussion. I have never found anything fruitful from it except a better understanding of how my friends think.
I worked with a Amish “go team” in the 80’s and then spent about a year with them on several outreaches.
Key Lime!
Yum!
And to Dan I have helped make 100 shoo Fly Pies.
(who cares right?)
Pleasant site you all run here.
Suck the nuggets outta my ass, you cowardly cumstain.
You gutless wonders who think you can get by with nothing but sunshine and pony rides need to throw yourself in front of a pitch and take one for the team.
Once again: eat shit, die, firm letter to follow.
HOW? How is it an insult if people unrelated to the perpetrators put up a building? Put up a mosque?
Would it be an insult if Arabs unrelated to the terrorists built a building there?
Temple Mount, AKA Dome of the rock the Most Holy place of the Jewish faith, is a Muslim Mosque. The Hagia Sophia in Constantinople in the 13th century
What was the Spanish city Cordoba? and turning the Christian church into a Mosque in the 10th century.
Need I go on? I have 1000 years to add if necessary.
No, I called people who would kill children and defend killing children as a moral good, I call THEM cowards. Do you truly disagree? You think it takes a big strong man to wipe out a city full of children and call it “good?” IF so, then we disagree.
Does it hurt your feelings to have behavior you endorse to be called cowardly? I guess you’ll just have to get over that, big brother (or little brother, if you’re a younger fella), it is what it is.
A city full of children?
no, a city that was
Dan said: “But my question is WHY? Why is there pain if people unrelated to the offenses build there? Why is there fear if people unrelated to the offenses build there? WHAT consequences?”
Because symbolic or actual, they’re not unrelated to the offense.
Or perhaps they like pie.
Why must they build there? What’s makes it so damn important for a mosque to be there? Why are you asking the victims why they’re offended rather than the ones that insist on being there knowing that they do?
Just what the hell is the matter with you?
You said that you’re a Mid-westerner. While it shouldn’t make a difference, maybe you’re not connected personally enough to the event (although, you seem connected enough to try working bigotry into the equation). Try asking one of the widows, children of someone who learned their parent leaped out of the window — or me. I had five friends die that day. Regardless of your false assertions to the contrary, there was no outpouring from the muslim community that I saw. However, there was visible rejoice.
So your argument is that everyone that suffered is wrong for feeling the way the way they do?
Dick, you can take it from here. . .
oops
all italics courticy of Wikipedia
Also Dan,
I lived in in NYC from 89 to 93.
I took many of my family and friends to the WTC. It was awesome!
50,000 people worked in the WTC. I am amazed that only!!!! 2000 died
But my question is WHY? Why is there pain if people unrelated to the offenses build there? Why is there fear if people unrelated to the offenses build there? WHAT consequences?
DAN!!!
Yoo hoo! Over here! I guess you really aren’t reading all the comments, so once again I direct you to these moderate muslims…don’t seem to be having the trouble understanding this concept that you are. Are you not willing to address the voices of some moderate muslims on this point?
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html
Pleasant site you all run here.
Thank you. I like it just fine. And before you get too puckered, you might consider it a cross section of America. Lots of different voices, lots of backgrounds and experiences, and lots of opinions on stuff like this.
If you have a beef with what goes up here, I am the complaint department. If I have a problem with what is going on here, you’ll know. If you have a problem with what goes on here, I’ll listen. That doesn’t mean you’ll get your way, and if you haven’t figured it out yet, this group doesn’t really react well to those who won’t defend their views, those who ask the same questions after they have recieved the answer several times, and those who purposely play dumb.
Now if you have a concern about being a bad guest, I’ll refer you back to the tab up at the top marked “The Rules”, and my statement where I said, If I have a problem with what is going on, you’ll know.
Dan, like you I am a Christian. But you and I undoubtedly have a very different opinion of who Jesus really is, His message, and what it means to be Christian. Christianity is not for cowards. And we obviously have a very different opinion of what Islam means. I am guessing you see it at its heart as a religion of peace – I see it as a violent regime of submission. Doesn’t mean I don’t believe there aren’t some peaceful Muslims. But I think you vastly overestimate the number of peaceful Muslims and I believe the War in Iraq proved as much.
I would also guess you’re the type of Christian who sees Jesus as the Breck Girl – flowing hair and soft hands. I just don’t see Jesus as some pacifist – he certainly will not return that way when He rules with a rod of iron.
To each their own, you seem a nice enough guy. But I find you incredibly gullible and naive pertaining to Islam.
Dan, has it occurred to you that maybe Christ would be metaphorically turning over these muslim’s tables, even if they were as pure as the driven snow, and without the blemish of infidel blood on their hands, or the associations and sympathies of those who do? Some things simply are descretations.
You cavalierly suggest that we have gone out of our way to seek offense on this issue.
I have (twice) given you a link to moderate muslims who see this for what it is…and insult and provocation, and you have remained silent.
You have had non-Christians comment here, showing their clear understanding of some things that you just don’t do.
You are into pacificism? Great. More power to you. People like those who comment here will still fight, and die if necessary, to keep Americans with your views safe, but don’t ever call them cowards. That isn’t a right you’ve earned.
And you are free to find that Christianity requires you to be a pacifist. We don’t all believe that.
And then, when Peter pulled out the sword and struck a soldier with it, do you recall what Jesus said?
“Put away that sword! For those who live by the sword, die by the sword.”
And he healed the soldier who had come to arrest him.
For the record, I have not said that being a Christian requires that you be a pacifist. That’s for each person to decide. I’ve decided to be more pacifist and less trusting in war, recognizing the truth that he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
Tex…
I would also guess you’re the type of Christian who sees Jesus as the Breck Girl
Guess again. Christianity ISN’T for cowards. Anyone can pick up a gun to defend themselves, but it takes guts to strive to overcome evil with good, to turn the other cheek and make the assailant face you like a man, to rely upon God and not a military.
I’d hope you could agree.
Tex, since BIW doesn’t seem to mind the wandering off topic, where you said…
But you and I undoubtedly have a very different opinion of who Jesus really is, His message, and what it means to be Christian.
I doubt it, but you tell me:
I think Jesus is the son of God, come to earth in the form of a man.
I believe he came, as he said, “preaching good news to the poor, liberty for the captive, healing for the sick, the day of God’s good favor.”
I believe he came with a message of grace – that we are all sinners in need of grace, of God’s grace by which we are saved and of grace and love for one another – even our enemies.
I believe he came to seek and to save the lost.
I believe he came to teach us what he taught, that we are to forgive when offended, that we are to walk in his steps, that we are to overcome evil with good, that we are to be concerned about the poor, the marginalized, the foreigner, the orphaned, the widowed, the least of these.
I believe this Jesus came teaching these teachings and was crucified by a military after a sham trial put on by powerful, fearful religious hypocrites with cooperation from the empire.
I believe he rose from the dead, because life is stronger than death, goodness is stronger than evil, love is stronger than hatred.
I believe he offers us that same eternal life, by the love and grace by which we are called to live.
All that Jesus taught, I strive to believe. The life that Jesus demonstrated, I strive to follow, by grace. Unfortunately, I fail, being the flawed human being that I am. Thank God for grace!
Who do YOU think Jesus is? What message do you think he taught (I am sure you will recognize that I was roughly paraphrasing/quoting Jesus’ own teachings)?
Tigre asked….
What’s makes it so damn important for a mosque to be there? Why are you asking the victims why they’re offended rather than the ones that insist on being there knowing that they do?
Victims? You mean, like one of the dozens (hundreds?) of Muslims killed in the 9/11 attacks? What do you think their opinion is of this idea? How do you think THEIR families feel to read these attacks on Islam, when their own family members died that day?
Or are you suggesting that Muslim/Arab family members don’t count? Given your obvious concern for the dead and their families, I am sure you ARE concerned about them.
And so, I am just not seeing any significant reason to oppose this – and I especially find it offensive to my Muslim brothers and sisters to suggest that it’s ALL their fault or that it’s okay to blame the whole for the actions of the few.
Other than Cathy, I don’t think anyone ever answered that question: DO YOU think it is okay to blame the whole for the actions of the few?
I, for one, don’t think so, and because it is such an injustice to do this (in my opinion), THAT is why I’ve commented so much here. I had no strong opinions about it when I thought folk were merely questioning this one group and wondering if they were legitimately “worthy.” But when it began sounding like an attack on Muslims as a whole, THAT is why I started sounding off about it.
I hope you can understand that it is a concern for justice and righteousness that motivates me, but if not, so be it.
I’ve decided to be more pacifist and less trusting in war, recognizing the truth that he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
The sword?
Now “He who goes looking for blood will find it” I understand, but the Boss brought the sword and told us so. I live by that sword, and so have countless others. Turning the other cheek is a great way to live…but I only have two.
Tex, since BIW doesn’t seem to mind the wandering off topic, where you said…
I certainly don’t, but I would appreciate you addressing the link I have called to your attention twice, especially in the context of what you clearly seem unable to grok.
BIW…
has it occurred to you that maybe Christ would be metaphorically turning over these muslim’s tables, even if they were as pure as the driven snow, and without the blemish of infidel blood on their hands
That would not be an apt parallel to the story told in the Bible. The moneychangers were cheating the poor and doing so in the name of God in a supposed house of God. Jesus saw them doing this year after year and one day, when his time had come, he took action, driving out the animals and overturning the tables of the moneychangers, upsetting their systems of oppression.
What oppression is happening by these Muslims? What injustice is being righted?
On the other hand, I COULD see Jesus showing up at that planned “Koran burning” and overturning a few tables there. You see, Jesus in the Bible was always all about taking the side of the oppressed, the poor, the foreigner and the slandered. It’s a constant theme, not just through Jesus’ teachings, but throughout the Bible.
That is all I’m striving to do here.
Other than Cathy, I don’t think anyone ever answered that question: DO YOU think it is okay to blame the whole for the actions of the few?
I’m pretty sure I made my feelings clear on this. Especially in light of how they have operated around the world, and their lovely concept of taquiya, which means you never really can know for sure.
I’ve directly responded to several of your “justice” comments, to which you have yet to respond. If understanding is so important to you, I suggest you start there. Formulate a response. Convince me.
Sorry BIW, it has taken me a while to read your links.
But now I have and I’m not sure how they affect my argument. Two Muslims question the wisdom of building at this site. I’m sure there are others.
And there are Muslims and Christians and others in FAVOR of building it.
We have a disagreement, and that’s okay. But why the lumping in of the whole with the few guilty? These fellas don’t address that.
Also, the fact that they keep referring to it as a mosque makes me suspicious – I’ve not read anything but heated rhetoric referring to it as a mosque. WHO SAYS there will be a mosque there? All I’ve read is a community center.
Also, many folk here have suggested that we can’t trust Muslims because they have been trained to lie on behalf of their jihad. But THESE TWO GUYS you trust?
That sounds rather partisan and cynical to me.
I’m sorry if I’m just too slow to understand, but I don’t see how not allowing any Muslims to build because a few have sinned is just or reasonable.
Someone here noted: “Because symbolic or actual, they’re not unrelated to the offense.”
?? HOW are they related? That is the unanswered question and the hole in your argument.
On the other hand, I COULD see Jesus showing up at that planned “Koran burning” and overturning a few tables there. You see, Jesus in the Bible was always all about taking the side of the oppressed, the poor, the foreigner and the slandered. It’s a constant theme, not just through Jesus’ teachings, but throughout the Bible.
That is all I’m striving to do here.
????
No.
Jesus was not about making the world safe for a religion that viewed him as a mere “prophet”.
He lifted the downtroden, yes, but go forth and sin no more. He wouldn’t save them so they can continue to pray to Mecca, and kill his own followers with impunity.
And I don’t think he expected us to be shrinking violets, either:
BIW, as to your quoting from Jesus in Matthew 10 (“I have come to bring a sword,”) if we look at that in context, we can see a fuller picture. Immediately preceding that verse, Jesus had said…
So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Jesus is talking to an oppressed people about the dangers inherent in following God. People will kill you, brothers will turn against sisters and fathers against wives (in the verses after that), you’ll be mocked, arrested, slandered, killed.
NONETHELESS, Jesus taught us not to fear those who embrace violent solutions. God is stronger than that evil. Yes, swords will be produced because of Jesus coming, but he made it pretty clear that his followers were not to be the ones employing them. A judgment day WILL come, let God avenge, Paul tells us. But we who follow Jesus, we are to walk in his steps, take up the cross – be prepared to lay down our lives! – and follow him.
Those are our orders, not the marching orders of a militarized solution.
That’s what it seems to be saying in context, at least that’s how it strikes me and my faith community.
Scary stuff, not for the weak of heart. But fear not, right?
Dan,
Since you refuse to believe fellow Americans, at least two Evangelical Christians, perhaps you would listen to true peace loving Muslims?
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html
These people are neither poor, nor foreign, nor slandered, and certainly not oppressed. Your analogy doesn’t fit here and a poor example.
No. You’re appeasing evil – and that is not compatible with Christ or His Word.
BiW, I see where you say you’ve addressed my “justice” comments, but I’ve been striving to find that and can’t. I’m sorry, but could you humor me and say, “the problem with thinking this is a justice issue is…” and fill in the blank?
I see where you said…
Of course, in a religion that permits taqyia, how will we ever know?
How do we ever know anyone is telling the truth?
Do you think that Christian soldiers who were planning the Hiroshima bombing, if they were captured, would be justified in lying? Do you think that Christian soldiers would be justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima?
We all have a way of making moral allowances for why it’s okay for us to lie, cheat and otherwise misbehave IF we think the cause is just. It’s sort of the human condition.
The best way to know if someone is lying or not is to get to know them, to spend time with them, to work with them. Thus, this GZ building MIGHT just be a very good idea, for just these reasons.
Am I naive enough to think that no Muslims lie? No, of course not. I guarantee that Muslims lie. As do the rest of us.
Do I have any evidence that they lie more than anyone else? No. I have seen no evidence from you all to support such a charge either.
The only other thing close to taking on the topic of Justice is where you say…
What we have trouble with is representatives of the Religion of Peace setting up another shop so close to where their bretheren committed the worst mass murder in living memory.
They are not their brethren in any real sense, any more than Eric Rudolph is the brother of all Christians. Do you think it just to say, “Eric Rudolph killed innocent people in the name of Jesus and therefore, ALL Christians are not to be trusted?”
No, WE DO NOT CONDEMN THE WHOLE based on the actions of the few. THIS is the reasonable ideal to which I cling. It would be illogical and immoral to do so, seems to me.
Dan…
On the faith issue, one last shot before I go spend time with my kids: When your children are sick, do you take them to the doctor? And if so, why?
As for the continuing to pretend that there is no connection between the 9/11 murderers and the muslims who want to build their mosque, no, you really didn’t read all the links I so helpfully provided.
No. (Dan) You’re appeasing evil – and that is not compatible with Christ or His Word.
I’m with Tex on this one Dan.
We all have our point where we begin to defend our position to the point where it becomes our God. Your desire to achieve peace and pacifism at all costs is the danger-zone for you, I think. We see this. You don’t seem to.
Peace at all costs is not the highest virtue. Seeking Christ is. Christ points us and all people to HIM. He is the way, truth, and life. Not in an arrogant way, but as the shepherd who knows that stinky sheep need a guide.
Tex nailed it, Bro. You are annoying and offending us because you are revealing a desire to appease evil rather than fight it.
Good on you, Tex.
Dan. You have debated a bunch of us for a period of time that spans more than 24 hours. As I read some of your most recent comments, I see fresh challenge questions you are asking that I’ve (and others) already responded to way back, maybe even last night.
I’m done here. You’ve kept up with us in the debate with words, but as BiW and a few others have also hinted at, you DON’T SEEM TO BE READING OUR RESPONSES and making the connections.
Just a suggestion. Would you consider taking some time to look through what we all have said and find the answers you wanted. I think a bunch of good stuff is clearly there. Good night. My pooches deserve my time and their much needed walk.
Adios, for now. I mean that in the best Godly way.
Melodramatic stupidity. Some of those who jumped were Muslims.
Martyrs, not victims.
Incredibly callous, BiW. There are Muslims in this country every bit as patriotic for America as are you.
I love how post 9/11 everyone has become an expert on Islam. I don’t think the folks who pray several times a day think they don’t belong to a legitimate religion.
Here’s the deal gang. Clinton was not told that Islam was the enemy of America. He was told al Qaeda was the enemy of America. He didn’t do enough about it. Then his successor, George Bush was not told that Islam was the enemy of America. He was given a much more specific warning: “Osama bin Laden to attack America” and if I’m not mistaken some of the intelligence suggested passenger planes might be used. He did nothing about it.
So how ’bout we keep our eyes on the ball folks? We have nothing to fear from Islam. We have everything to fear from a minority of religious nutjobs who have twisted the Koran in knots and believe they’re gonna get to screw 30 virgins after they die trying to kill us.
The threat is not Islam. The threat is zealots … terrorists. We’re wasting our time on religious bigotry. We need to STOP it. It is shameful. I honestly have to wonder how many of you had parents. I swear, I am not kidding.
Dan, bless his persistent soul, has presented nothing but irrefutable facts throughout this argument. He has asked logical questions. He’s wasting his time. You folks have found the bogeyman and it is any Muslim who wants to practice too close to you.
A Muslim place of worship has existed near Ground Zero for years now … in fact it was there before the Twin Towers were built. Not until the Obama administration has there been any ruckus about it. For some reason, Obama has touched off a nerve in this country that every prejudice now gets to have a “fair hearing.” Stuff that even George W. Bush condemned is now bandied about with self righteousness.
My hat’s off to you BiW for triggering such a lengthy discussion. Sadly, you don’t seem to understand you’ve got a lynch mob on your hands. This discussion of the misnamed Ground Zero Mosque going on all over the country now, represents a new low in American discourse. It’s a sad day in America. But this is what happens to a people who are economically depressed. They need to blame someone. So this year, it’s Muslims and Mexicans.
We truly learn nothing from history.
I get oh so tired of this line. This is the infamous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. Tell me, without using 20/20 hindsight, if you could have picked out that after decades of using hijacked aircraft for negotiation, that you would have picked up on the change in tactics. Mind you, I want you keep in mind that you have to operate according to a policy memo that went “beyond what is legally required…[to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation” when it comes to sharing information between the intelligence community and law enforcement. That means that cops were prevented from intelligence on this.
Come now R, whip out that little Crystal ball of yours, or at least ask your wife if you can have them for a bit, and explain how you would have done this.
As for Clinton, during a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden’s extradition to the U.S., saying, “At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him.” You can hear Slick Willy himself. I’d invite you to read this article, you won’t like it, but you probably need to read it.
It was Clinton, not Bush who dropped the ball on al Qaeda and bin Laden. And I’m sorry, you continue to give a pass to Obama with the line that he’s only been in office for a year and a half. Bush was in office for 9 months. You can’t have it both ways…
I highly advise you to do a little more research on the history of Islam, but more importantly, study the ideology itself outside of the constructs of faith. You’ll find that Islam is more a political structure centered on political control than anything.
Please, don’t lecture me on the sanctity of Islam. I’ve forgotten more about Islam than you are likely to ever know…
OH …. Dan, please take my advice. Unlike me, you are a Christian and much better able to quote the good book than I am. But I can assure you that your quotes will get you no where. In the salad bar that is organized religion, the gang here will take whatever supports their views and discard the rest. I can see why they might attack my quoting verse since I am an infidel. But you will get no better break than I do.
Peace be with you brother, it’s a lost cause.
Rutherford its 72 virgins but still fuck off seeing as you continue to miss the point.
It isn’t about Obama.
It isn’t about a mosque or Islam per se,it’s about a 13 story mosque.
It is discourse that although perhaps not pc and definitely not liberal in nature is still a discourse needed to have happen.
Cathy…
Your desire to achieve peace and pacifism at all costs is the danger-zone for you, I think. We see this. You don’t seem to.
Thank you for your concern, but I assure you, have have misunderstood me. Keep in mind, you’ve read a few words of mine and you don’t really know me at all.
I have not said that I seek peace and pacifism at all costs. I don’t. I seek God’s will.
I’ll gladly keep in mind all that has been said and would hope you would do the same. I’d hope that you’d keep in mind, too, the knowledge that none of us are perfect and any of us can be so tied to an ideology (conservatism, Republican party, denomination…) that we become blinded to important truths.
That’s something that can happen with this poor soul and it can happen to any of you all, too, I suspect.
Keep in mind what I’m defending (something you said you agree with earlier): Religious liberty, human rights, following in Jesus’ steps… as well as what I’m guarding against – condemning the whole based on the actions of a few, killing children in the name of some higher goal. Do you truly think these are wrong ideals to support/oppose?
Hopefully, all of us more religious types will pray for wisdom for all of us and that we can see past our cultural traditions. Hopefully all of us fellow citizens can remember that we ARE fellow citizens and see past the differences enough to remember to treat one another with respect, even when we disagree, and can search for truth beyond our comfort zones.
Thank you all for the conversations.
Peace.
Dan,
Though mannerly enough, I sniff a little sanctimony in you, as if you believe yourself just a little more righteous than the rest of us. Perhaps a false sense of piety.
In fact, you sound a little like a liberal peace activist with a working knowledge of the Bible; complete with all the tacit innuendo – little shots at Fox News for instance.
Since you don’t think the American Thinker reputable, why don’t you provide what you believe the best source of objective and unbiased opinion – a few examples if you please.
And while I’m at it, what would be your suggestion of how Israel should approach their dealings with Iran? Should Israel intervene before Iran gets a nuclear bomb, or should they take your approach of live and let live?
Rutherford…
I can see why they might attack my quoting verse since I am an infidel. But you will get no better break than I do.
Peace be with you brother, it’s a lost cause.
Thank you, brother infidel. Peace to you, as well.
Sorry, though, but I don’t believe in lost causes.
(Which is not to say I’d keep banging my head against a wall, indefinitely, I’ll note…)
Cathy…
you DON’T SEEM TO BE READING OUR RESPONSES and making the connections.
I’ve read them, truly I have. But quoting some dubious sources or even a few more legitimate ones does not mean that I’ll agree with your/their conclusions. Sometimes, people of good faith can disagree. In fact, it happens all the time. See this dialog, for example. See the fights in the early church. Thus is the human condition.
Doesn’t mean that one of us is an angel and one of us is a devil. Just fellow humans who disagree whilst seeking the Good.
Cathy…
You are annoying and offending us because you are revealing a desire to appease evil rather than fight it.
You believe I have a DESIRE to appease evil rather than fight it? I can understand thinking that I’m mistaken on a point, after all, I think you all are mistaken on several points and in attitude. BUT, when did you become god enough to see my desires? The thing is, we humans are not very good at reading people’s minds and understanding their intentions. This is a case in point.
My desire is to do God’s will. My desire is justice. You may disagree with my conclusions on how to best do that (as I do you), but there is no need to presume you know me (after 24 hours and a few comments) well enough to know my thoughts.
We aren’t gods, and that’s a good thing to keep in mind. I hope you could agree, sister. After all, you disagree with me, does that mean I should conclude your desire is to appease evil and to give into fears and bigotry? That would not be a very fair way to treat someone I don’t know at all.
Get my point?
BiW…
When your children are sick, do you take them to the doctor? And if so, why?
I’m not sure why you’re asking, but yes, we go to the doctors when sick. Because they are sick and a doctor has training to alleviate that, we hope.
BiW:
As for the continuing to pretend that there is no connection between the 9/11 murderers and the muslims who want to build their mosque, no, you really didn’t read all the links I so helpfully provided.
Sorry, I’ve read most, if not all, of your links and found nothing compelling. I DID skip some especially dubious sources (I’ve read American Thinker enough to know that they don’t represent “Americans” or “Thinkers” either very well).
But tell you what: If you will post the Money Quotes right here (we can know that they are building a MOSQUE because CNN reports…”….” or, we can know that ALL Muslims are not to be trusted because we see on FoxNews… “”)
But I’ll have to tell you, any quote that says ALL of any group can’t be trusted or relied upon in some special manner is starting off with logical fallacies and thus are hard to take seriously.
As I have noted already, you might have an easier time and be able to make a reasonable case that THIS PARTICULAR group is problematic, that remains to be seen. But anyone who is suggesting “All the Muslims” or “ALL the Arabs,” or “ALL the blacks…” or whichever group you want to try to stereotype is just starting off with bad assumptions and is just hard to take seriously in a civil rational adult conversation.
Some how Dan I don’t think it would matter how much evidence was presented to you that shows this bunch has the same rancid ideology as those who killed almost 3000 people.
To the skeptic there is never enough evidence.
Perhaps this might convince you:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243536/raufs-dawa-world-trade-center-rubble-andrew-c-mccarthy
This is an explanation of Rauf’s jihadist connections from a man who has written a couple books on the jihad and has a good understanding of what it entails and was a prosecutor in the “Blind Sheik” case. Of course in your own twisted thought processes you will dismiss it out hand although you seem to accept the dubious blandishments of an ideology that looks kindly on dissembling as not requiring further examination.
Since you have the smug self assurance of one who thinks he is superior I am not sanguine as to it being able to dent the hermetically sealed vessel that appears to be your head on this issue.
I will leave you with this thought from George Orwell from War and Pacifism:
Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.
By you being deliberately impervious to any evidence contrary to your obscenely naive view of Islam you hamper the understanding of what the goals of this “religion” are. Shar’ia is literally from Allah any who oppose Shar’ia oppose Allah muslims who don’t wish Shar’ia are apostates. And please spare me the crass moral equivalencies about Christianity and it’s misdemeanors and equate them with muslim felonies. Christianity and Judaism do not act on there darker passages. Muslims do, and are quite often sanctioned by the most learned in their “religion”. This is the important point you miss in your smarmliy condescending moral relativism.
“Someone here noted: “Because symbolic or actual, they’re not unrelated to the offense.””
Rutherford, Dan. . . the most irritating thing about this debate is that you feign ignornace when it suits your purposes. There’s more here than you’ll ever acknowledge — because it suits your purposes not to.
Rutherford is the most offensive in this regard. His simulated disgust and intellectual dishonesty is precisely why the debate has become such a problem. I wager that Rutherford has spent time bashing those evangelical Christians that don’t agree with is politics because it makes him feel enlightened. Funny he needs to offer counterfeit sympathies for Muslims to maintain that self-righteous stance.
There are hundereds of mosques in NY. If there’s no connection, tell us why one is being built where it is again? Even the imam admits what you won’t — the location is connected.
How do you feel about those vile Westboro Baptists and their religious freedoms? What if they built their church next to Arlington cemetary? Would you invoke their religious freedoms in their defense? (that’s rhetorical — of course you would here even if you wouldn’t in private).
Please cut the playing dumb crap. At least admit the obvious. The whole thing has touched a nerve BECAUSE IT WAS INTENDED TO!
The whole thing has touched a nerve BECAUSE IT WAS INTENDED TO!
Précisément!
This is what Dan will not acknowledge, because he would rather engage in his “holier than thou” claptrap. My bet is that he is just as insufferable at church as well.
I think we’ve about said all there is to say here, but just looking through the latest link from fxpcpa, he referenced an Andrew C McCarthy article that includes this line…
The purpose of dawa, like the purpose of jihad, is to implement, spread, and defend sharia. Scholar Robert Spencer incisively refers to dawa practices as “stealth jihad,” the advancement of the sharia agenda through means other than violence and agents other than terrorists. These include extortion, cultivation of sympathizers in the media and the universities, exploitation of our legal system and tradition of religious liberty, infiltration of our political system, and fundraising.
And, indeed, this is the purpose of dawa, to spread their faith through legal and persuasive means. Not unlike the efforts of many evangelicals to do evangelism.
But what of it? There is nothing wrong with them seeking to evangelize any more than there is for Christians to evangelize. As long as they remain within the law, are respectful, understand the notion of a time and place for everything (and indeed, many on both sides have some issues with that notion – remember, I was raised in a very evangelical traditional Southern Baptist tradition which had whole series of classes, seminaries and schools and various other trainings on how to evangelize in schools and get the word out through the newspapers and other media and in any way possible, to the praise of God), there is nothing wrong with evangelism or dawa.
Having learned a little about Islam – having seen how human rights are too often a problem for Muslim nations, seeing how women and gays are treated, etc, I am not especially worried about losing the contest of ideas and ideals with Islam.
Do you think, anyone, that evangelism AND dawa ought to be limited, or only Muslim evangelism, or neither?
Again, while some Muslims and some Christians abuse our liberties, I remain in favor of religious freedom and opposed to condemning the whole based upon the actions of a few.
I don’t find this unreasonable and don’t think most of you do, either. It just seems you’re willing to make an exception for Muslims.
As with the many other links, I don’t see anything in the McCarthy piece that sways me against the ideal of not blaming the many on the actions of the few.
Cathy, one last for you…
you seem to think you are not offending anyone with what you say. Dude. Look again and take some responsibility.
I have spent some time re-reading what I have written and I’m not clear on what I have said that was offensive. I understand that I hold POSITIONS that you all apparently disagree with (or not, it’s been hard to get a straight answer), but do you think my offering my own opinion about a matter is offensive? Is saying that I think killing children is cowardly, is that offensive?
I’m just not real sure what you are finding offensive.
For my part, I have not been offended so much by the comments here – even the unnecessary and sometimes childish ad homenim attacks – I’ve just disagreed with them. I believe my only point of some modest outrage was when it was suggested that the children killed at Hiroshima/Nagasaki were not innocent. Beyond that, no offense taken whatsoever, that I recall.
My main concern is that I disagree with the notion that somehow ALL Muslims are to blame for the actions of a few, a point which you seemed to agree with at one point.
But I don’t see the point of being offended by other people having a different opinion than I do. I will just choose to object to implementing policy on what I consider to be irrational and immoral behavior.
For what it’s worth.
Peace.
I think we’ve about said all there is to say here, but…
Dan, that’s Priceless! Kinda screams the obvious, Bud.
“I will just choose to object to implementing policy. . . ”
What policy are you referring to? Our President came out and said it’s a wonderful idea, or perhaps he didn’t, wait I think he did. . .
Anyway, there’s no policy being debated on a serious level that I know of. I also don’t know where the “All muslims are to blame for the actions of a few” argument. That extrapolation is one offered by those that seek to selectively invoke religious freedoms rather than address the merits of their adversaries’ arguments. And that’s offensive to anyone with common sense and common sensibilities.
And, after some debate, one last aside to Tex, who wrote this commentary on me…
Though mannerly enough, I sniff a little sanctimony in you, as if you believe yourself just a little more righteous than the rest of us. Perhaps a false sense of piety.
In fact, you sound a little like a liberal peace activist with a working knowledge of the Bible; complete with all the tacit innuendo – little shots at Fox News for instance.
No doubt, I am an insufferable little prig at times. My apologies. I am an imperfect little human man, I hope you can sympathize.
Consider, too, though: Sometimes, when a fella we disagree with is polite enough and respectful enough, we might find this to be “holier-than-thou” and self-righteous, and SOMETIMES, it’s more of a defense thing on our part than anything the Other has done. Fair enough?
Remember how Paul tells us…
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”says the Lord.
On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Kindness and respect can sometimes be stinging, that seems to suggest to me, you think?
As to my “working knowledge” of the Bible, I’ll have to thank the Southern Baptists and my own current church for that – we DO believe in taking the Bible seriously and, thus, I’ve spent most of my 47 years studying pretty seriously (and having it read to me regularly those first few years before I could read).
I would hope I’d have picked up at least a little bit of Good News and God’s Word in all of that time.
Liberal peace activist? Perhaps, although I’m more of an anabaptist than a liberal, there is certainly that element in my faith community. From where I sit (at the feet of the prince of peace, hopefully) being a peacemaker is a blessed thing to be. I’d hope you could agree with that, too.
Taking “shots” at Fox News? I’ll have to say I don’t know what you’re speaking of there. I mentioned FoxNews once, and it was in the context of giving it the benefit of the doubt and presuming it was a more or less legitimate news group.
I would have preferred to do more of this kind of personal discussion in private, Brother Tex, as it would seem the more appropriate venue, but I hope you can see that, even if we disagree, I’m not the devil, just a fellow Christian who disagrees with you on at least a few points.
I think we’ve about said all there is to say here, but…
Cathy, one last for you…
And, after some debate, one last aside to Tex…
Self knowledge is a beautiful thing. Don’t ya think?
Peace, Dan.
Dan, I should clarify. The group of folks in this country represented by most of the folks assembled here are a lost cause. The cause of religious freedom in America is hardly lost and I hope that the vast majority of Americans, despite their misgivings about this community center, would sooner take “the risk” than abandon our First Amendment traditions.
As for the McCarthy article … I didn’t read it but from the excerpt Dan published, which mentions “scholar” Robert Spencer, I have to chuckle. One of the biggest loony tunes I ever “met” on the Internet constantly quoted Robert Spencer and that tells me all I need to know about Robert Spencer. 😉
Mr. Rutherford Lawson Farrakhan has spoken. Thank you for your enlightment Mullah Rutherford.
Dan, using your biblical know how (Southern Baptist, me too), you didn’t answer my question concerning Israel. What would you do if you were in Benjamin Netanyahu’s shoes?
I assume the dove of peace for Mahmoud?
Rutherford, you people are being played for fools, and you’re so wrapped up in bullshit, you refuse to see it.
Dan, fuck you.
Guys, y’all can try to reason with these folks til you’re blue in the face, and it’s not going to change a thing.
Ammo, that change things.
Tex, I’m done with the off topic discussions on this particular post. If you’d like to email me, I’d be glad to respond.
Peace.
Gorilla … I’ll respond to you here rather than back at my place.
Why can’t you accept some liberal self-recrimination when you see it? I acknowledged Clinton messed up. Are you now gonna sit there and say Bush was blameless?
C’mon … give me a break.
So where is the blame? Tell me, specifically when it comes to 9/11, what did Bush do wrong?
Likewise, answer my question- could you have picked out the plot?
Tex, from my perspective your challenge question about Israel to Dan was totally on-topic. It gets to the heart for those of us trying to understand Dan and the things we are discussing here.
Who has been in control of this discussion for the most part? Dan. And many of us have shown respect and given him our patience, time, and attention addressing issues brought up. There’s a lot of ‘grist for the mill’ here, and I commend Dan for sticking with it as long as he did.
But looking back through this thread when things get touchy, Dan suggests the discussions move away from here and into email. …or suggests he’s done… and then lobs a few grenades back into the mix after he’s said he’s done.
In conflict there are only three choices:
Fight (attack), flight (run away, change the rules or the subject, etc.), or healthy honest engagement in dialogue with others.
Fight & flight are choices made in fear (fear of man or self).
Healthy respectful engagement demonstrates trust (trust in God).
Just my perspective.
Dan,
You don’t just want to segregate these muslims from the 9/11 group, you want to contort in order to pretend that there are no commonalities that are cause for concern.
We find you some moderate muslims who want to call this what it is, you say “Well, that’s those two.”
We find you sources that call into question the goodness and peacefulness of this Imam, and you dismiss the sources.
We find you sources that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the money behind this is coming from (and going to) the muslims who kill people in the name of their religion, and you ignore it.
You wring your hands and sanctimoniously declare that we are not at war with Islam; and yet you have nothing to say that understands islam is and has been at war with us, despite the fact that we as a nation have extended to them every legal protection, and shown our characteristic defference, marked by the fact of 30 mosques on Mahattan alone, and many more across this nation that stand unmolested by our people.
You continue with your protests of how peaceful their religion is, based on your own knowledge, which does not match the world’s experience, and is in contravention with the experience and knowledge of others who have commented here.
I’m having trouble believing that your knowledge is not the exception, rather than the rule.
Cathy, as to how hard it is to “quit you” all, I guess I am trying to leave as the conversation seems to have run its course, but then people bring up additional questions or perhaps a misunderstanding (as in BiW’s last comment, which shows a lack of understanding of my actual positions), and I now ponder whether to respond or let it go.
Just striving to balance my time vs the importance of this conversation vs the importance of not going on forever in a polite and respectful way. I hope that’s not a problem, just doing the best I can.
So, where you say…
Dan suggests the discussions move away from here and into email. …or suggests he’s done… and then lobs a few grenades back into the mix after he’s said he’s done.
1. No grenades, just some additional comments/responses.
2. I suggest email when the comments have begun to focus on ad homenim attacks and/or concerns about me personally. A blog does not seem to me to be the appropriate place to discuss problems you have with another person.
Discuss the ideas, fine, that’s what I’ve tried to do here, but when it moves to the personal or to the off-topic (and discussions of an individual’s faith – “you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing, etc” – does seem to me to be both off topic here and personal), that’s where I suggest a private email. Just as a matter of biblical ethics and proper blog etiquette.
Hopefully you can see the wisdom of that.
Very briefly, BiW, I believe you misunderstand my position on several fronts. For instance, where you say…
You continue with your protests of how peaceful their religion is, based on your own knowledge
As I have repeated several times, many if not most Muslim nations have bad human rights records. My saying that is NOT an indication that all is peaceful within Islam. There are problems with – at the least – the way Islam is practiced in Muslim nations, if not with every Muslim.
But at the same time, there ARE peaceful and reasonable Muslims. I’ve met them. My friends are surrounded by them, SAVED by them (literally, in a flash flood in Morocco once), embraced by them. There ARE reasonable and peaceful Muslims. Not based upon some special knowledge peculiar to me, but just living in the real world where Muslims and others interact.
I’m just striving for the balanced and reasonable position that not every Muslim (or even most Muslims) is a terrorist or a terrorist supporter. They are just folk, like the rest of us. That’s all I’m saying, and saying that is not from some “special knowledge,” just normal everyday logic and knowledge.
And Islam is NOT at war with us. Islam is a belief system and can’t be “at war” with anyone any more than “terror” can be at war with anyone. People wage war against people. Belief systems don’t.
And not everyone within the Muslim belief system is waging war with us. That’s just factually incorrect. Demonstrably so.
Agreed?
Dan
You have again shifted the argument. This whole exercise is about this particular muslim(Rauf) in this particular place making this particular gesture.
You have been presented chapter and verse about how this man seems to share and has expressed the same mindset of those who killed 3000 people and how he has many dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood, a notorious terrorist outfit. You just blithely swan by as if this is irrelevant to conversation, as a matter of fact it is central. This guy is highly connected to elements of the jihad. If you actually read, instead of excerpting what was essentially background, you would have known that the article I cited listed out this Imams nefarious connections. Dawa is strictly the act of religious propaganda(proselytizing). Using it to advance the aims of the Muslim Brotherhood is essentially partaking in the Brother’s war against us specifically and western civilisation in general and is an obscenity. Defending it as merely persuasion is naive and profoundly wrongheaded.
No one has made the assertion that ALL muslims are terrorists as a matter of fact I just heard one of those mythical moderate muslims on the radio, too bad there aren’t more of him who will actually stand up and call this for what it is and did in the artilce B is W cited yesterday. A moderate muslim would actually have the good grace to understand that this is a poke at us while someone with an agenda and looking to send a message would keep moving in this direction.
Again you cite your friends and their experience with muslims and presume it conclusive. The plural of anecdote is not data. The whole rest of the world is dodging muslim bullets and car bombs. The muslims are fighting with the Hindus, the Bhuddists, the atheists, the Copts, the Zoroastrians, the Christians for God’s sake they are even fighting inter-denominationally within Islam, they can’t even get along with themselves. That should speak volumes as to their attitudes towards everyone who is not muslim. Open your eyes man. They are using our tolerance and good will to insult us purely and simply. People like you who just refuse to accept any new information other than your own hardened biases help advance their cause. The way you make excuses and apologize for them you will will make the perfect dhimmi as you condone them advancing and because of what appears to be some contorted view of Christianity as a suicide cult you codemn our confronting their aggressive and historically imeprialism.
Unless this mythical majority of the umma rises up and their elites condemn the behavior of these so-called radicals we have to assume they are down for the struggle or at least positioning themselves to take advantage of a potential Islamic subjugation of the west.
If you don’t think this is what the Muslim Brothers and their intellectual mouthpieces like Rauf, CAIR, Sami al Arian and Rashid Khalidi are after then you really have to stop with your prententious navel gazing and read about who these people really are. There is plenty of literature that explains exactly what their aims are.
No one is so blind who will not see. I’m afraid that’s you.
Dan, what race or ethnic group is a Muslim? What race or ethnic group do the following people all have in common:
Adam Gadahn (Pearlman)
John Walker Lindh
Mohammed Atta
Richard Reid
Khalid Shekih Mohammed
Yassar Arafat
Malcom X
Louise Farrakhan
Answer: None. But they are all Muslims. So by “your” own definition of bigot (in your comment at 2:06 on 8/16):
“(bigot: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance).”
treatement of someone a certain way because they are Muslim is NOT bigotry, because Muslims are not all the same race or ethnic group. And yet all Muslims treat Israelis with the same intolerence and hatred – the Muslims must be bigots then, huh?
BTW, nice definition of bigot you have there. Why didn’t you include the full definition from the online Merriam-Webster site that you stole that from:
“: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Since you didn’t attribute it, and used it selectively, are you a thief or a plagurizer? And it sure seems like you (and Muslims), in your fixed, unflexable beliefs, fit into that first definition. I notice you didn’t use that part – touch a little too close to home there?
I have said in other discussions on other blogs that religion is a matter of personal perspective.
I see that as applicable to this discussion. Bear with me as I set up some important initial points….
The project is called the Cordoba Initiative, named after the Iberian city conquered by Muslims in the 8th century. After the city was conquered, a mosque was built on the site of its Visigothic Christian church. That mosque remained until it was rebuilt into a church after the Spanish reconquered the Iberian Peninsula.
The city of Cordoba is located in the southern portion of the Iberian Peninsula, which made it a perfect rally point for future encursions into Christain Europe. And from there, Muslims pushed north into Spain and eventually controlled its southern half.
That is the namesake of this mosque. Most Americans might not know that history, but you can be sure Muslims do.
Perspective.
Historically, Muslims do have a history of conquering lands and forcing their religion onto its population. Part of how they did that was by destroying existing religious symbols and buildings, and replacing them with Muslim symbols and buildings.
Most Americans might not know that, but you can be sure Muslims do.
Perspective.
There is absolutely no doubt that there will be many Muslims among the 1.5 billion that make up Islam who will see this mosque as just another trophy in the long line of mosques built to celebrate triumph over the infidel. And why wouldn’t there be, since it is named after one of the most historic examples of such? It doesn’t matter what you, or I or Rutherford, or Obama, or Harry Reid, or Sarah Palin, or anyone else thinks about it.
I don’t want to give those people that trophy–regardless of their numbers or percentage of Muslims worldwide. That its organizers are so steadfast, and unreasonable in my opinion, suggests to me that this is perhaps more of an important trophy than some people want to recognize or admit.
Reconciliation and togetherness cannot be forced onto people. It has to come naturally. And that is obviously not going on in this instance. Therefor, it is destined to fail, and will likely even have the opposite effect. The organizers would see that if it were truly their motive.
As I was saying….
…says the General Manager of al-Arabia television network.
Agreed?
No.
Agiledog, I received a circulating email with various joke anti-Obama bumper stickers. Your comments reminded me of one that said, “Voting for someone because he’s black is as racist as voting against someone because he’s black.”
Racism and bigotry from the left only apply to conservatives. Like I said to Rutherford at his place, mirrors are to libs as they are to vampires.
So by “your” own definition of bigot (in your comment at 2:06 on 8/16):
“(bigot: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance).”
treatement of someone a certain way because they are Muslim is NOT bigotry, because Muslims are not all the same race or ethnic group.
As you note, it’s not “my” definition, it’s the standard English definition found in Merriam Websters, which I tend to use as a reference. Sorry for not noting that, nothing sinister there.
That definition mentions “as a racial or ethnic group” but it does NOT LIMIT it to that. You can be a bigot against Christians as a RELIGIOUS group, for instance, or a bigot against Muslims as a religious group.
Make sense now? Do you see why it is bigotry, by standard English definition, to treat a religious group with intolerance?
I didn’t use both definitions of bigot because it wasn’t necessary to make my point. Which has now been made and clarified.
Tigre said…
Your comments reminded me of one that said, “Voting for someone because he’s black is as racist as voting against someone because he’s black.”
I almost hate to point this out – and your bumper sticker is fine as a joke, I guess – but no, it’s not definitionally correct. That is, voting for someone because they are black is NOT racist, BY DEFINITION. Look it up.
Agreed?
Nope. Can’t agree with you anymore. You are working too hard defending Muslims and Islam. I personally think you fear them.
Suggest you let it go. This mosque/whatever is a bad idea. Bad because it further upsets the balance of needs and desires in a diverse community. The restoration of health, well-being, and peace at a place that has lots of metaphors and meanings for EVERYONE is in jeopardy.
It is not a blame issue.
It is not a religious freedom issue.
It is not a racism/bigotry issue.
I look forward to a day when the true peace-seeking Muslims are able to differentiate themselves from Sharia law, outdated practices, acts of violence, etc. This REFORM is in the works for some, but NOT THIS PARTICULAR group trying to build this mosque/whatever near 9/11. My guess is that many peace-seeking Muslims know that they owe our society a demonstration of a clean track record of NO Sharia law, NO violence, NO outdated practices, etc. They want it too. We have the right to expect this. Let’s give them a chance to prove it. They can start by taking into consideration the feelings and needs of non-Muslim peoples by convincing these other Muslims to move the building of this Ground Zero mosque/whatever somewhere else.
Those who capitulate to those who want to impose more Sharia law, more Muslim rights, more blame of non-Muslims for the violence that their people have inflicted on all of us, etc. are impeding this healthy Muslim reform.
Want to do some good? Pray for true Muslim reform and hold them to it. http://www.reformislam.org
Cathy,
I don’t think he fears them but would be perfectly fine with dhimmitude paying the jizya and complying with the onerous provisions of shar’ia. That appears to be the way he interprets his faith, that under no circumstance that a christian may defend himself and bades us to follow him in his misapprehension.
He has shown he will hide behind his self-righteouness and presumed piety so he will not have to lift a finger to halt the advance of this dark age paradigm. He won’t avail himself of the knowledge of what this particular Imam stands for and whom he stands with.
May the chains of subjugation rest lightly on his shoulders.
You are quite correct Islam is in need of a doctrinal reformation and must disavow all those violent passages that appear to be intrinsic to its nature.
They need to get past the violent passages of the Qu’ran in the same manner as Jews and Christians have gotten past the darker passages in the the Bible. Jews and Christians striking in the name of God are notable by their scarcity and that fact that their actions are condemned as unequivocally wrong by those professing that faith.
Muslims who strike in the name of Allah are notable how commonly they do so and how many in their community rush apologize, make excuses for and equivocate on the action with now infamous Yes…but defense. When the Muslim community stops excusing these atrocities and start overtly opposing the violent fundamentalists(and that’s what the terrorists are ardent fundamentalists) then maybe there will hope.
Hey, you might be right about the ‘fear’ thing. But for me it is a possible puzzle piece that fits the rest of this stuff. Fears, insecurities, or whatever issues can be easily covered with a blanket of pacifism. People with fear issues often treat their oppressors and abusers with an inordinately large amount of cooperation and kindness.
Jesus said “Blessed are the peace-keepers.” Most of us assume this refers to people who promote and preach peace and are kind to others. But the word Jesus uses that we interpret as “peace-keepers” was also used to refer to military personnel. I don’t think this is an accident. I don’t think Jesus’ use of this word excludes military personnel such as a soldier or centurion. If he wanted to exclude them, then he would have chosen a different word.
I thank God for our military who are doing what they are doing to protect our liberties and help keep the peace.
My, My, My. You are tied in a logic knot that you don’t even see. You said:
“That is, voting for someone because they are black is NOT racist, BY DEFINITION. Look it up”
So I did. Here is the definition of racism from that same Meriam-Webster site:
“1. animosity toward other races: prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races
2. belief in racial superiority: the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior”
Doesn’t say anything about animosity towards whites being exempt, so choosing a black man over a white man based soley on the fact that the black man is black is, by definition, “racism”.
Here’s your petard. Hoist away.
Or go away.
Gosh darn *!@*#&$^% html tags!
fxpcpa said…
You have again shifted the argument. This whole exercise is about this particular muslim(Rauf) in this particular place making this particular gesture.
I understand in this big ol’ rambling conversation how one could miss something, but I’ve been pretty specific about this – I’ve said that ONE COULD make the case (debatable, but the case could be made), that my main concern was the lumping of ALL Muslims into the class that should be discouraged from building, as if ALL ought to be blamed for the actions of a few.
One of my earlier comments:
As I have noted already, you might have an easier time and be able to make a reasonable case that THIS PARTICULAR group is problematic, that remains to be seen. But anyone who is suggesting “All the Muslims” or “ALL the Arabs,” or “ALL the blacks…” or whichever group you want to try to stereotype is just starting off with bad assumptions and is just hard to take seriously in a civil rational adult conversation.
And I had said it earlier than that, too, as you can see.
If we agree on that much, that is my main concern and we’ve accomplished a great deal. I’m not saying that THIS PARTICULAR fella/group is or isn’t problematic. I’m not omniscient enough to know that, nor have I seen enough data (from what seems a reliable source) one way or the other to know for sure, but I’m sure a case can be made in good faith.
So, do at least you and I agree on the notion that the whole group (Muslims) should not be blamed for the actions of a few? That you aren’t saying NO Muslims should be encouraged to build here, it’s just this group that you are concerned with?
Dan says
First of all I think you lost track somewhere in the middle of this as it soesn’t make much sense.
Second, I really don’t recall in this jumble that anyone is actually seriously making the claim that all muslims are to be viewed as terrorists or terrorist apologists. That would be the height of stupidity as no group is 100% anything and as I said in the the post you are responding to I know of at least three who do not appear to be such creatures. The only point being advanced is that a significant proportion agree with the terrorists methods and aims. It is more than just a few as you so blithely put it. It is not a few. 10 to 20% of a billion along with 50% looking to see which way the wind is blowing can hardly be construed as a few.
This coupled with the fact that many of the high profile Islamic organizations have radical ties makes YOUR formulation dubious.
And if Islam is being colored by the actions of the “few” it is because their own actions in making excuses and engaging in the Yes..but condemnation brings suspicion because they all appear to be nodding in assent. No one from the inside ever challenges this craven this crass moral equivalency. If you know of examples I would be glad to see them.
Third As for your claim that this particular Imam is just some run of the mill Imam has been refuted hither and yon. Evidence is presented and because it doesn’t fit your biases it is dismissed as problematic. This group is clearly part of the Islamist supremecist wing of Islam.
As for muslims in general if it could be guaranteed that elements of the Brotherhood could not gain influence and the meesage of such a center could be kept truly ecumenical I would be open for discussion with the clear understanding that it was infiltrated it would shut down in a heart beat.
Islam the religion would be fine stripped of its political et al components. Political Islam which hides behind the patina of religious Islam which this Imam represents is a clear danger. One which you apparently refuse to acknowledge.
That definition mentions “as a racial or ethnic group” but it does NOT LIMIT it to that.
Yes, it does. You should reread that definition very carefully. By saying
“the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group)”
they have limited the types of groups that can experience bigotry to just racial or ethnic groups. That may be wrong, it may be right, but that is the exact meaning of that phrase construct. Now, if they had said “such as a racial or ethnic group”, they would have been using those groups as examples. But they didn’t, and therefore limited it to just those group types. You picked it and used it – so we’ll go with it AS IT ACTUALLY SAYS – not what you want it to say.
Agile Dog said…
“1. animosity toward other races: prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races
2. belief in racial superiority: the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior”
Doesn’t say anything about animosity towards whites being exempt, so choosing a black man over a white man based soley on the fact that the black man is black is, by definition, “racism”.
You are making a presumption not based upon solid evidence. If a person votes for a black man solely because he’s black (and I know of no one personally who has done that, but let’s pretend that it happens) and the reason for that is, “We’ve never had a black president and it’s about time!” then there is no animosity towards a race there.
Now, if you could prove that people voted for a black person BECAUSE OF ANIMOSITY towards white folk, then that would be racist. You have not suggested that as a possibility, nor have you proven it.
Your presumption is flawed, therefore your conclusion is flawed. But better luck next time.
You’re welcome to borrow my petard if you’d like it. I’m not using it.
“I almost hate to point this out – and your bumper sticker is fine as a joke, I guess – but no, it’s not definitionally correct. That is, voting for someone because they are black is NOT racist, BY DEFINITION. Look it up.”
I looked it up. You’re wrong. And it’s not so much a “joke” to me as it is a truism — regardless of its definitional limitations.
My observation relates to the absurdity of labeling those opposed to the mosque as racists and bigots to avoid having to reconcile viewpoints that conflict with your own. The strategy is relied far too frequently by the left.
The latest is use of the term “nuance” as a substitute for logic. Since “nuance” is always in the eye of the beholder, its another tool of shutting down debate under the guise of self-proclaimed intellectual and moral superiority.
Wow, fear? Dhimmitude? You all really need to give up on trying to read minds. You ain’t god enough to do so and you’re WAY off on guessing at my thoughts or even accurately repeating my positions.
Oh, and Cathy…
Jesus said “Blessed are the peace-keepers.” Most of us assume this refers to people who promote and preach peace and are kind to others. But the word Jesus uses that we interpret as “peace-keepers” was also used to refer to military personnel.
Peace-keepers? Military? You’d have to provide some sort of support for that sort of claim, I’ve never heard of that translation. Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of someone who wants to hold on to military defense, but maybe I’m wrong.
NIV
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
New Living Translation (©2007)
God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God.
English Standard Version (©2001)
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
International Standard Version (©2008)
“How blessed are those who make peace, because it is they who will be called God’s children!
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Blessed are those who make peace. They will be called God’s children.
King James Bible
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
American King James Version
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
American Standard Version
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.
Bible in Basic English
Happy are the peacemakers: for they will be named sons of God.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Blesses are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.
Darby Bible Translation
Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God.
English Revised Version
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.
Webster’s Bible Translation
Blessed are the peace-makers: for they shall be called children of God.
Weymouth New Testament
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for it is they who will be recognized as sons of God.
World English Bible
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
Young’s Literal Translation
‘Happy the peacemakers — because they shall be called Sons of God.
source
Greek Bible translations
Dan, let me ask.
Are you saying there’s a time limit on being pissed off?
Responding to Dan’s remarks: Peace-keepers? Military? You’d have to provide some sort of support for that sort of claim, I’ve never heard of that translation. Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of someone who wants to hold on to military defense, but maybe I’m wrong.
Dan. I didn’t make claims for your benefit. Sorry — this is not about you.
You misunderstood if you think I was addressing you with an argument. Sorry, Bro. I’m affirming those who fight for us in battle, who help to keep our laws and the constitutions, and or those who help to keep the peace in our neighborhoods and on our borders. They are getting bashed a lot lately — and if any of them show up and read this thread, I just want them to know. They have my gratitude and support, and also that God blesses them when they do his bidding as they serve.
I just don’t owe you any support or explanation. Given your lack of ability to absorb any of the proofs/support many of us have given you on a silver platter, I seriously doubt that anything offered would be good enough. So I’m not going to bother with you.
Sorry. You seem like you might be a nice guy, but you are annoying me.
The fact of the matter remains this- they think they are at war with us.
We can sing kumbayah all day long, it won’t stop them from lopping off your head. I’ve been in the den with these vipers. I’ve read their rhetoric and we can argue the nuance of whether or not they’re accurately reflecting the tenets of Islam all we want- they think they are. Period.
There is no negotiating with that kind of mentality, not when you think your actions are sanctioned by God. All we can do is kill as many of the little fuckers as possible and hope the rest get the message- my jihad is stronger than your jihad.
😉
So by “your” own definition of bigot (in your comment at 2:06 on 8/16):
“(bigot: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance).”
treatement of someone a certain way because they are Muslim is NOT bigotry, because Muslims are not all the same race or ethnic group.
As you note, it’s not “my” definition, it’s the standard English definition found in Merriam Websters, which I tend to use as a reference. Sorry for not noting that, nothing sinister there.
That definition mentions “as a racial or ethnic group” but it does NOT LIMIT it to that. You can be a bigot against Christians as a RELIGIOUS group, for instance, or a bigot against Muslims as a religious group.
Make sense now? Do you see why it is bigotry, by standard English definition, to treat a religious group with intolerance?
I didn’t use both definitions of bigot because it wasn’t necessary to make my point. Which has now been made and clarified.
So I guess I should simply ignore the Fatwa placed on my head, huh?
Wake the fuck up.
my jihad is stronger than your jihad
Hahaha! Cute!
I just wish-jihad-a piece of pie. Pecan.
*still recall the guitar chords for Kumbayah*
So I guess I should simply ignore the Fatwa placed on my head, huh?
I forgot about that.
You lucky bastard! I wonder what Jamal is doing these days…they blow up so fast.
This was so good, I decided it need to be posted here too. Let Bill Whittle explain the ultimate conclusion of Dan’s mindset.
You seem like you might be a nice guy, but you are annoying me.
I AM a nice guy, ask anyone.
People have differences of opinion, such is life. Get over it.
You all are too easily annoyed.
Peace.
Here. I’ll even share a bit of my family music with you to give you a taste of how nice we all are…
Photos and songs from our church retreat last year.
A Prayer for Peace in Jerusalem, featuring my wife, my son and myself.
A song I co-wrote and performed with my brother in honor of my parents’ 60th anniversary.
The kids at my church singing about God’s creation on Earth Day.
Perhaps not terrific performances, but just about as cute as you could hope for and, as you can see, peopled with all sorts of nice folk.
Peace.
Good one Tex.
Tex, I listened a bit to your Pajama TV guy, not that impressed.
I see your Whittle and raise you a General George Washington:
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
Or General Omar Bradley:
We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living.
Or General William Tecumseh Sherman:
War is at best barbarism…. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.
Or President Thomas Jefferson:
War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Or, my favorite, Jesus:
But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them…
Blessed are the peacemakers…
Put your sword back into its place; for those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
Or even Paul, the Apostle…
Do not return evil for evil. Avenge not yourselves, but rather give way to wrath; for it is written, vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.
I prefer them quotes over all that Whittle’s said. I do not have a spirit of fear that need worry about his worries.
Be bold, be brave, friends.
Of course you were not impressed. As I continue to become more unimpressed with you as your veil incredibly thick. The lost, the cowardly, the appeasers never are – until the scimitar is at their throats and they realize heaven is not for cowards. Sorry Dan, I am not impressed with you – milquetoast men like you have caused millions of innocent lives from your acquiescence and appeasement.
And make no mistake – Bill Whittle was talking directly to you Dan. If you were smart, you might listen.
P.S. – every one you listed made war Dan. Christ will certainly make war with the lost. There are two absolute traits I know God has no tolerance for Dan – haughtiness and cowardice.
Given the choice, I’ll be Joshua or Caleb. You on the other hand, can be Ahab.
2nd Timothy 1:7
For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.
Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
Thanks, Tex.
…I listened a bit to your Pajama TV guy…
But couldn’t listen longer, because he wasn’t on your list of approved sources?
I suppose this won’t work for you either:
http://tinyurl.com/omq9e
Or this:
http://tinyurl.com/24zpdxs
Dan, that is quite a list of quotes, but I think you forgot two:
Later followed by:
Both Neville Chamberlain…and we know how successful he was.
Hey Tex, are you a Texan? Live in Texas?
(Asking for a reason — BiW knows why…)
Time to walk the pooches.
No one cares how much you know
until they know how much you care.
BIC,
Thank you for the Neville Chamberlain quotes – you saved me a bit of work. 😉 I wonder if Dan had been in charge, we wouldn’t be worshiping at the altar of King George’s great, great, great grandson about now.
Cathy,
I am the only member of my immediate family not a Texan at this moment. My wife works out of Houston, TX, and commutes back and forth to Oklahoma. My eldest daughter will be attending medical school in Texas, and my youngest is currently visiting Rice contemplating acceptance to college.
Long story about the name “Tex” which I will relay some day. Very possible I could be a Texan before too awfully long.
Tex,
How far are you from Dallas, and would you be willing to make the trip for a weekend of good company, cracked humor, shooty shooty bang bang, and bacon?
…would you be willing to make the trip for a weekend of good company, cracked humor, shooty shooty bang bang, and bacon?
… and pie. (BiW, you left out pie)
Pecan pie and maybe peach.
Somebody put in an order for peach.
Kels already has my back on the peach. 😉
You really like pie don’t you?
The ‘I like pie’ thing got started by DaveInTexas, co-blogger at Innocent Bystanders and Ace of Spades. When Dave comes for a visit I always make him a pecan pie and my husband likes to kid about being jealous.
If there is going to be pie, I may need to reorder my priorities.
Cathy, loved your comment at my blog, and yes, I was the initiator, but how could I resist?
Dan,
You are an outright liar, or a complete idiot.
“You are making a presumption not based upon solid evidence. If a person votes for a black man solely because he’s black (and I know of no one personally who has done that, but let’s pretend that it happens)”
Blacks, based on exit polling, voted for Obama at a rate of over 90%. This completely crossed their established party affiliation, and no other group voted in such a one-sided way, or in such a contrary way to their established party affiliation. That is PROOF that they voted for him because he was black. That is solid evidence.
Which just makes this spin:
“and the reason for that is, “We’ve never had a black president and it’s about time!” then there is no animosity towards a race there.”
They’re still making their decision based on the fact that they like one guy’s race, and don’t like the other guy’s race. The “it’s about time!” bullshit is just more cover for the fact that it was still about race. Why is it “about time”? Will a black man do the job better? Believing that fits right into the definition of thinking one race has superior qualities or skills over another. Electing a black man to a position just so you can say a black man held the position is doing so just on race.
You, sir, are a lost cause.
Agiledog, Thanks for your comment. Yesterday I started typing something very similar to this… and then just sorta ran out of steam emotionally.
I’ve spoken with black people who have been willing to engage me in friendly conversation about this very subject… who AGREE and sorta even have been willing to CONFESS that they voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black… and now regret it and are leaning much more to the conservative side of issues. Generally speaking many of them expressed disappointment in him and some embarrassment on their own part as they realize that this is what they did.
I’ve also had conversation with black people who were willing to tell me that until they met me that they believed that the Tea Party was a bunch of racist white people, but meeting me and having conversation with me, they are willing to now consider the merit of the 5 basic Tea Party principles that they realize have nothing to do with white or black concerns.
^ These conversations were only possible, I think, because of the gentle, non-confrontational ambiance, a friendliness that was being established based on other things like us talking about kids, religious values, food we like, simple stuff that most of us have in common… and then the willingness of us all to move to the more uncomfortable possible differences and show respect for each other as we engaged. It was awesome and I’ll never forget these conversations. I truly believe God was there blessing the opportunities. I pray for more of them to happen and the right frame of mind for them to bridge us even more.
Just a few days ago I also heard on Hannity radio a black woman who has sort of become famous on Talk radio for calling into Rush and Hannity to speak out. She clearly states every time she is on the radio — that she believes that white people — ALL WHITE PEOPLE — are from the devil and claims she is a follower of Louis Farrakhan. ALSO — being a regular listener to conservative talk radio I have heard LOTS of callers willing to confess that they voted for Obama because he is black and they have now been “Hanitized” or “Levinitized” or whatever.
Just curious (I’m a newbee here) Agiledog, do you have a dog that competes in agility competition (if I’m saying that correctly)?
Thank you Dan!!! This is why the “war on terror” is a joke. You cannot wage war on a concept. You can only wage war against people.
I’ve also noticed this thread has turned to a discussion of race vis-a-vis Obama’s election. I can’t tell you how sick and tired I am of mostly white people not understanding why Obama’s election might be a moving, important moment for the average American black man or woman. From slave to President in 140 years … can you folks figure the f*ck out of that? What is so goddam hard to understand?
By the way, any of you have a clue why Mitt Romney hasn’t weighed in on Mosque-gate? I think I know why. He’s thinking “only a fool Mormon would wade into this religious debate”. Mitt knows that a good number of Americans hold his religion in disdain. He ain’t going there. Smart man.
Cathy, if you’re depending on God to facilitate civil debate in this country about race, you’ll be waiting a long time. The debate will become civil when all races cast aside their prejudices, judge people as individuals and then work together for solutions.
Judging from the current political climate, that ain’t happening any time soon.
Judging from the current political climate, that ain’t happening any time soon.
You’re so right. But I hold out hope that someday the Left will quit responding to every pointed question and criticism by screaming “RACISM!!!”
Then maybe we can have a real conversation.
He who has ears let him hear.
The conversation has already started. Good things are and will continue to come from it. God’s power and wisdom will do what is needed HIS way — not mine or anybody else’s. God is sovereign.
Yes Tex, we know. All gays are going to hell. Thanks for the reminder. 😉
Gee-Wilikers, Ruthless. Thanks bunchees for your wisdom and counsel. I so get how you care so much about all this from all the brilliant comments, kind words and affirmations you have already shared here.
Wow. I’m in awe.
*yawn*
In all honesty Cathy, I’m usually a bit “nicer” than I’ve been in this thread but the topic pisses me off to no end.
And FWIW I’m finding you quite the paradox. On the one hand, on the surface you seem very reasonable, willing to listen and politely debate the issues, but I sense underneath a rock hard partisan who isn’t going to be moved one inch from her positions.
I get the feeling that after a couple of stiff drinks, you’d be calling me a motherf*cker. I give Dick credit for doing that completely sober.
Ehhhh, Dick you are sober aren’t you? 🙂
That’s hardly fair.
Cathy wouldn’t resort to that. She’s far too polite.
And I’ve already said I could have a drink or three with you, despite you annoying propensity to be wrong about political matters. If the topic strayed unwisely to politics, you might hear a “Dumbass!” tumble from my lips to your head, but that would have to do with your choices. I see no reason to bring your mother into it.
Most days, anyway. And hell Rutherford, I like you.
Rutherford said: “I can’t tell you how sick and tired I am of mostly white people not understanding why Obama’s election might be a moving, important moment for the average American black man or woman. From slave to President in 140 years … can you folks figure the f*ck out of that? What is so goddamn hard to understand?”
Well here’s your proof Dan. Obama’s black. He must be the best choice for President. No one could disagree, unless they’re a racist, right? What’s so goddamn hard to understand? Sheesh.
Obviously, Rutherford supported Alan Keyes, didn’t he?
Funny. I don’t recall the last woman president we had either. Rutherford must be a misogynist. Or is it that race trumps gender?
Rutherford, go back an read how the discussion came about before lashing out with your self-righteous bullshit. If Obama was white all of the criticism you’re hearing would still exist.
I am truly sorry our first black president sucks as bad as he does. The fact that you didn’t insist on better as “your” doesn’t make “most of us white people” racists.
BTW, terrorism is not “a concept.” It’s an act. Carried out by people.
I pray for Obama and his family. Although I don’t like what he is DOING or what he says most of the time, I am truly concerned about his safety, health, and decision making ability which all affect his judgment calls (from my perspective).
I don’t hate him. I don’t wish evil for him or his family. But what he does and says still makes me scream because I believe he is hurting the future welfare, safety and security of our nation.
Whoops
“your” president
Okay, we got our first black president. When will we get our first competent black president?
Yes, Cathy, I have a dog that I compete in Agility with – hence the screen name. I’ve been doing it for over 10 years – I’m actually on my second Agility dog.
Thank you for asking.
“This is why the “war on terror” is a joke. You cannot wage war on a concept. You can only wage war against people.”
Almost right, but actually wrong. The actual physical fighting is against people, but we are fighting against their ideas. If we really were fighting against the Japanense in WWII, we would have eradicated them, wouldn’t have we? No, we were fighting against Japanense Imperialism. Once we made them acknowledge they would stop that, we stopped fighting them.
And what about the war on drugs? Or the war on poverty? Or the war on Christmas? 🙂 None of them are a battle against people.
Santa Claus is a person.
Sorry, Santa Claus is not real.
Sorry to have to break it to you like this, but I thought you needed to know.
Stop lying like that or I’ll tell mom!
I met Santa Claus in a U.P.S. shipping store a few years back. He produced a business card to prove it. It was summer so he was not wearing the red suit, btw.
I met the real Orville Redenbacher in the Valparaiso Indiana post office back in the late 70s also. He was shorter than I was, but looked exactly like we picture him on TV and his popcorn jars.
So there.
…never met the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, however…
*just want to set the record straight*
I met the boogeyman once. He used to live in my closet.
Agile: War on drugs: failure.
War on poverty: failure.
War on terror: failure.
I rest my case.
When we elect our first black Republican President … right? 😉
Rutherford: Clear on the concept: failure.
Able to comprehend: failure.
Responds with relevant item: failure.
You proved my case.
Tigre, for people, again mostly white people … not “most white people” there’s a difference … for people to think that electing the first black President should not be a moving moment for blacks, does not show them to be bigots … it shows them to be insensitive. Empathy would make it clear as day to anyone that progressing from slave to President is a big deal.
I would have sooner died than voted for that lunatic Alan Keyes … but had he been elected our first black President I still would have been amazed at the historical consequence of it.
Quite frankly, the next black dude that becomes President won’t pull as many of my heart strings ‘cos it’s now been there, done that.
I can’t wait to see the black Republican I can take halfway seriously. Sure ain’t Alan Keyes and it sure ain’t Michael Steele. 😆
“…it shows them to be insensitive. Empathy would make it clear as day to anyone…”
Notice how Rutherford is in tune with the sensitivities of blacks regarding the election of Barack Obama, but he is not in tune with the sensitivities of those of us who feel a mosque should not be constructed 600 feet from Ground Zero?
Like he says…”empathy would make it clear as day to anyone.”
So close, yet so, so far…..
Rutherford:
1. I’m moved
2. Obama sucks
Why are you screaming at us about not being able to figure it “the f*ck” out?
We get it, we get it, we get it . . . we fucking get it for Christ’s sake.
What is so goddamn hard to understand about that?
The false accusations of racism and bigotry are completely out of hand.
If I’m one of these “don’t get its” that you’re referring to — you’re dead wrong.
I have no interest in giving up my anonymity, but I assure you that if you knew who I was you’d retract and apologize.
I know EXACTLY what you’re saying, and although I wish it were mutual, it doesn’t change a thing.
The real damage is being done by you self-righteous assholes that insist on calling people racists and bigots to terminate meaningful discussion from anyone holding a contrary viewpoint.
Damn! Now you got me pissed-off and ranting like you. And now I’m told Santa Claus doesn’t exist. I’m going for walk.
Congrats on 235+ comment thread BIC
Rutherford:
Thank You!!!!!! You know that will come back and bite you in the ass, right?
And also at R. Do you think there are people, both black and white, that’ll be very excited when a 100% black person is elected POTUS?
Congrats on 235+ comment thread BIC
Thanks. I think this must be how Rutherford feels except I understand law, politics, and history.
Thank You!!!!!! You know that will come back and bite you in the ass, right?
I suspect that his answer is that government doesn’t spend enough of other people’s money.
In all honesty Cathy, I’m usually a bit “nicer” than I’ve been in this thread but the topic pisses me off to no end.
And FWIW I’m finding you quite the paradox. … I get the feeling that after a couple of stiff drinks, you’d be calling me a motherf*cker.
Ruthless (hope you don’t really mind my name for ya… lemme know if ya do and I’ll stop, honest… I enjoy a good fun food fight too)
Most of what you have said has not been much of a problem for me, but I’ve enjoyed poking you in the eye a tad. It would not surprise me at all that you are nicer than this. Honestly whatever place (not side) in this issue we all find ourselves, we can easily get hot about it. That’s normal for us humans and that’s okay. We want to protect the things we hold precious, and sometimes others have no idea what might be precious to us… maybe they care or maybe they don’t.
I’d have a beer with you. No prob. And iffin I had a few I just might call you… well you get the idea.
So, do you want me to call you a motherf*cker?
It could be arranged, ya know.
LOL Cathy as the old saying goes, you can call me just about anything as long as you don’t call me late to dinner. 🙂
Since you’re somewhat the pseudonym aficionado, I’ll volunteer my explanation. Rutherford is from Rutherford B. Hayes, one of our more obscure Presidents (I used to be a Presidential buff before I forgot a good half of what I’d learned). Lawson is my father’s middle name.
I’ve been blogging for almost three years so at this point if someone yelled out the name Rutherford on the street, I’d probably turn around. The name has kinda stuck.
I wonder if the same thing would happen to Hotspur if someone yelled Hotspur? 🙂
Huck … I am in touch with the sensitivities of 9/11 survivors and others who have a problem with the mosque. I simply think that reaction is visceral and needs to be overcome by common sense.
Let’s go back to the Obama election. OK, it was history. It was big. But now he needs to govern. Anyone who supports him now only because he is black is allowing their visceral feelings to interfere with common sense.
I’m not where I was with Obama 18 months ago. I’m still in a bit of wait-and-see but I’m certainly not jumping for joy anymore. There are ways in which he has underwhelmed me. His being black doesn’t change that.
Nothing like a back handed compliment. 😉
Oh I forgot, BiW … you also have me beat on humility. 🙂
Ahhh Alfie … I’ve been planning a blog post on this very topic. Maybe later this week. 😉
I get what you’re saying here Gorilla but that begs the question whose God sanctions our killing as many of the little f*ckers as possible?
FWIW, I do agree with Cathy that Islam is in need of reform. Many say it cannot happen. I’m not sure I agree with that.
I’m not saying in can not happen. I am saying it will not happen…ever “R”.
BIC, I’d love to meet both you and Rutherford, but I’m about four hours a way by car from Big D. However, I will be driving through this weekend to finally see my daughter at college. She’ll only be a senior this year. 😳 Thought I ought to know something about the A&M campus before she graduates.
Would be fun and unlike Rutherford, I do like bacon. I like barbeque ribs even better.
Congrats, BiW. Methinks you just hit 250… Woo-hoo!
Reformation of Islam,. Yeppers. Rutherford.
Who knows? Mark Levin had a Muslim friend on his show last night who has an organization similar to the link I included last night. Levin has so much admiration for this guy. He mentioned him again tonight.
Sometimes the world needs a “Tipping Point” for things to click into a better place. My daughter recommended I read the book “The Tipping Point” by Malcolm Gladwell. Purchased it last week but need to get to it soon.
I’ll watch for the signs of a tipping point. Hey! And pray for it too.
Rutherford, are you in the Dallas area?
Sorry Gorilla, just seeing this now.
If someone in my admin saw a memo that said “Osama bin Laden to attack the United States” I think I would’ve done something more than the Bush admin did. Were all of the hijackers losing their cherry on that mission or were some already known terrorist sympathizers? I’m pretty sure Mo Atta was already on one of our lists.
Look I am not one of those who says 9/11 was Bush’s fault. I think you would agree that 9/11 was the culmination of years of poor foreign policy regarding al Qaeda. That covers Clinton and Bush at least.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think FDR could have avoided our being attacked at Pearl Harbor had he implemented a different policy toward Japan? If your answer is yes, why the double standard?
Rutherford,
You mean this inconclusive piece of background.
Click to access pdb8-6-2001.pdf
It was just a rehash of stuff that was already generally known. If you really want to get on Bush’s case about anything regarding 9/11 you should be slamming his lax enforcement of immigration laws. That’s one thing he and the boy king have in common.
What a thread. Is going to keep going like Marathon Dancing until it gets to 300? 🙂
(puts on Pacino mask)
I keep trying to get out but they keep pulling me back in!!!
No Cathy … I’m a CT Yankee. 🙂
LOL Tex, I don’t hate bacon. It’s not my favorite food but I’ll eat the occasional bacon strip.
I like ribs too. 🙂
P.S. Ahhhh I get it … we Muslim apologists don’t like pork right?
I miss bacon.
Diets suck….
Rutherford, hubby and I were just in CT for a moron meetup and two weeks vacation in New England a.k.a. “definitely NOT Texas!” country.
Next time we come you should hook up with us.
fxpcpa, while it makes absolutely no sense within the context of this thread, I’d prefer to put my Pacino mask on and scream:
Attica, Attica, Attica! 🙂
Cathy … you’ve got a deal. Great burger joint right near me.
I miss bacon.
Diets suck….
Got a solution for ya, Huck. Switch diets.
I wonder if the same thing would happen to Hotspur if someone yelled Hotspur?
I have been “Hotspur” ever since the days of CB radios. Every boat I’ve owned in my adult life has been christened “Hotspur.” And I have been “Hotspur” on forums going back to probably 1999.
So yeah, it would most definitely turn my head.
http://tinyurl.com/23bsywf
Nice boat.
Let me put it this way…I know Dick’s real name, and when I talk to him on the phone, I still think of him as Dick, and not Cyril M. Tweedjacket.
Cyril M. Tweedjacket ROTFLMAO! 😆