Obama's support for Ground Zero Mosque

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Muslim terrorists. Pretending that Islam didn't play a role in these attacks is wrong.

Name one "christian" country that you would be afraid to travel freely in.

mexico.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

mexico.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

mexico.

their war is about gangs & drugs, not the Bible.

but with that said.

Mexico is a great place to explore.. like 5 years ago.

hopefully it will come back..

[dellinger63]

A telling Obama interview that gets no exposure

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” OMG ever hear it?

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn’t sure if his grandfather’s two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, Nice

or even if he was Sunni or Shiite.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06...stof.html?_r=4

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

A telling Obama interview that gets no exposure

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” OMG ever hear it?

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn’t sure if his grandfather’s two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, Nice

or even if he was Sunni or Shiite.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06...stof.html?_r=4

I dont have a problem with this. Its obvious that Obama isnt really a religious guy.. which is one thing I think is great.

I dont have a problem with Muslims building Mosque's in the USA either. I also believe the ground zero Mosque is incredibly insensitive.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I dont have a problem with this. Its obvious that Obama isnt really a religious guy.. which is one thing I think is great.

Hate to break the bubble but Obama gave these statements in another interview. Of course this wasn't at a Muslim breakfast.

NEWSWEEK: Do you and Michelle talk to your girls about having a God? Jesus?
Obama: Well, we do, but we don't have a systematic course of study for the girls. We say grace at the table. They are inquiring minds, so whenever they have a question about God or faith, then I have a conversation with them … I'm a big believer in a faith that is not imposed but taps into what's already there, their curiosity or their spirit.

You used to travel with your Bible. Do you still do that?
Sometimes, because my briefcase gets so packed, I forget to pack it, but I often have my Bible with me. It's something that I read in the evenings and it takes me out of the immediacy of my day and gives me a point of reflection.

What do you think about the Kingdom of God? Is it attainable on Earth by humans?
I am a big believer in not just words, but deeds and works. I don't believe that the Kingdom of God is achievable on Earth without God's intervention, and without God's return through Jesus Christ, but I do believe in improvement

Do you pray in your personal life?
Yes, I do.

Daily?
Yeah, every day.

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/11/i...and-works.html

I'd argue that's more religious than 90% of Americans

[Princess Doreen]

No one is arguing the premise of religious freedom. But simply asked, "Why there."

We're supposed to be sensitive, but where is the sensitivity in return?!

NYC is a union town. NOTHING gets done without a union doing it. Doubt they'll find any union willing to work on that project. But the illustrious mayor (who got himself a 3rd term and will probably lobby for a 4th) will probably spearhead some law that will allow non-union workers to build that mosque. Then watch WWIII on the streets of NYC. NYC union workers are not to be messed with.

PrezzBO would do best to stay out of it. We know what The First Amendment is all about - he doesn't need to preach or remind us of it. He has opened up a political donnybrook with every candidate in November feeling it necessary to weigh in the subject. National poll shows 65% of population not in favor of having the mosque where the Iman proposes.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

No one is arguing the premise of religious freedom. But simply asked, "Why there."

We're supposed to be sensitive, but where is the sensitivity in return?!

NYC is a union town. NOTHING gets done without a union doing it. Doubt they'll find any union willing to work on that project. But the illustrious mayor (who got himself a 3rd term and will probably lobby for a 4th) will probably spearhead some law that will allow non-union workers to build that mosque. Then watch WWIII on the streets of NYC. NYC union workers are not to be messed with.

PrezzBO would do best to stay out of it. We know what The First Amendment is all about - he doesn't need to preach or remind us of it. He has opened up a political donnybrook with every candidate in November feeling it necessary to weigh in the subject. National poll shows 65% of population not in favor of having the mosque where the Iman proposes.

And 100% of the population doesn't want to pay taxes, but you know that the majority doesn't always rule.

I'm not addressing this at you, but they have the LEGAL right to build this wherever they want. It's more hypocrosy from the right when they clutch the Constitution when it involves their precious guns but want to ignore it when they don't happen to agree.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GBBob

[/b]

And 100% of the population doesn't want to pay taxes, but you know that the majority doesn't always rule.

I'm not addressing this at you, but they have the LEGAL right to build this wherever they want. It's more hypocrosy from the right when they clutch the Constitution when it involves their precious guns but want to ignore it when they don't happen to agree.

No one here and very few from the right are denying the muslms have a constitutional right to build. We're just not coming out in support of it and under the first ammendment that expression of non-support is also a right.

And BTW second ammendment rights in Chicago have been denied for over 20 years and it took a patient African American with the last name McDonald over 10years to 'right' that 'wrong'.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

[/b]

And 100% of the population doesn't want to pay taxes, but you know that the majority doesn't always rule.

I'm not addressing this at you, but they have the LEGAL right to build this wherever they want. It's more hypocrosy from the right when they clutch the Constitution when it involves their precious guns but want to ignore it when they don't happen to agree.

No one is ignoring the constitution rights, just trying to explain why the loaction is a poor choice and why those who agree that it is a poor location don't believe that "all muslims are terrorists".

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by GBBob

[/b]

And 100% of the population doesn't want to pay taxes, but you know that the majority doesn't always rule.

I'm not addressing this at you, but they have the LEGAL right to build this wherever they want. It's more hypocrosy from the right when they clutch the Constitution when it involves their precious guns but want to ignore it when they don't happen to agree.

Much the same as ElPrezBo embraces the constitution when it suits his needs - albeit infrequently?

It shouldn't be a right vs. left issue. It should be a right vs. wrong issue, and it's just flat out WRONG to build that building where they want to put it. And, is it really just a mosque? It's supposed to be a cultural center with lots of other things going on - even a swimming pool. How does religious freedom play into that?

The vast majority of Muslims live in Bay Ridge Brooklyn. I would think a cultural center in that location would be of more benefit.

I doubt the Muslims in charge of this project could give two hoots in hell over the sensitivity of Americans.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by GBBob

[/b]

And 100% of the population doesn't want to pay taxes, but you know that the majority doesn't always rule.

I'm not addressing this at you, but they have the LEGAL right to build this wherever they want.

If that's true, then why did 9 people have to vote on it? Seems the public does have a say where something can be built. There is public input on zoning.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

No one is arguing the premise of religious freedom. But simply asked, "Why there."

Because the Muslim population of that mosque predates the building of the World Trade Center. There are other mosques near WTC site. Because these Americans live and work and pray in their neighborhood, a neighborhood that was blown to bits by terrorists on 9-11. Because they've been in that location forever - which nobody cared about until the right wing whackjobs decided to scream DEATH TO AMERICA OHMYGAWD THE EVIL MUSLIMS - and they simply want to update and expand a building that is already an integral part of the community. They are already there, and have been there.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because the Muslim population of that mosque predates the building of the World Trade Center. There are other mosques near WTC site. Because these Americans live and work and pray in their neighborhood, a neighborhood that was blown to bits by terrorists on 9-11. Because they've been in that location forever - which nobody cared about until the right wing whackjobs decided to scream DEATH TO AMERICA OHMYGAWD THE EVIL MUSLIMS - and they simply want to update and expand a building that is already an integral part of the community. They are already there, and have been there.

Then why build a second mosque. Why not say we respect our neighbors and we'll expand?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

mexico.

Because of drug dealers, not Christians.

[Honu]

So hypothetically lets say there is a neighborhood where children have been assulted sexualy by some sick freaks years ago. In this neighborhood NAMBLA wanted to build a building where people of like minds could meet and discuss their common intrests, does anyone think that it would be ok?
Its very akin to the subject at hand, the people who are offended by the thought of a Mosque being built in close proximity to where practishoners of a certain religion commited crimes against thousands of people are no diffirent than anyone else who have been a victim of a crime.
I just dont get why the Muslims feel a need to build a place so close to where their brothers killed Americans for no other reason than hatred.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Honu

So hypothetically lets say there is a neighborhood where children have been assulted sexualy by some sick freaks years ago. In this neighborhood NAMBLA wanted to build a building where people of like minds could meet and discuss their common intrests, does anyone think that it would be ok?
Its very akin to the subject at hand, the people who are offended by the thought of a Mosque being built in close proximity to where practishoners of a certain religion commited crimes against thousands of people are no diffirent than anyone else who have been a victim of a crime.
I just dont get why the Muslims feel a need to build a place so close to where their brothers killed Americans for no other reason than hatred.

It is not even CLOSE to "akin to the subject at hand." Child rapists are criminals to begin with by their very nature.

Muslims are not.

What would actually be "akin to the subject at hand" would be a child molester's brother who doesn't agree with that behavior, who has denounced his brother, and doesn't talk to him, moving into a neighborhood, and the neighbors telling him to move out or they'll vandalize his house.

That would be stupid. Just like this.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It is not even CLOSE to "akin to the subject at hand." Child rapists are criminals to begin with by their very nature.

Muslims are not.

What would actually be "akin to the subject at hand" would be a child molester's brother who doesn't agree with that behavior, who has denounced his brother, and doesn't talk to him, moving into a neighborhood, and the neighbors telling him to move out or they'll vandalize his house.

That would be stupid. Just like this.

Oh for crying out loud! The point Im making is that even if a person is a member of NMABLA and has never touched a child do you still think you would want their meeting hall in your neighborhood? Prolly not! Just like the people who had relatives and loved one's die at the hand of terrorist Muslims dont want a Mosque so close to what they consider a killing field.
I just dont get how anyone who has a bit of feeling in their person for the people killed at the trade center can see this as not offensive and disrespectfull to the people who lost their lives that day and the hundreds of rescue people who so bravely tried to save them and who are still dying today from all the **** they breathed in during rescue operations.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Honu

Oh for crying out loud! The point Im making is that even if a person is a member of NMABLA and has never touched a child do you still think you would want their meeting hall in your neighborhood? Prolly not! Just like the people who had relatives and loved one's die at the hand of terrorist Muslims dont want a Mosque so close to what they consider a killing field.
I just dont get how anyone who has a bit of feeling in their person for the people killed at the trade center can see this as not offensive and disrespectfull to the people who lost their lives that day and the hundreds of rescue people who so bravely tried to save them and who are still dying today from all the **** they breathed in during rescue operations.

The point I'm making is that if you're a member of NAMBLA, you're part of a group whose entire purpose is to promote child rape. People who don't support the goals of NAMBLA, aka legalized child rape, don't regularly attend NAMBLA meetings as far as I know, unless there's a secret cabal of them out there that nobody knows about.

So the only way your point makes any sense at all is if you believe all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters, and their connection to the religion by default makes them incapable of not supporting terrorism (which is why the NAMBLA comparison was crap, because their group supports exactly one thing, child rape. Muslims do not support exactly one thing, terrorism) -- and people on this board go out of their way to make sure we know they don't think that. If you believe that, then that's your prerogative, but that's the only way your comparison comes close to working, and I doubt you believe that, so then the comparison doesn't work.

So if these Muslims don't support killing of Americans, don't support terrorism, then your point is a complete toss-out because it makes no sense whatsoever.

It's not that I don't understand the emotional reaction some people have, and I actually somewhat sympathize with it, but the idea that emotion or the threat of attack against this group should somehow make it so that they set up shop elsewhere (which also doesn't avoid vandalism/attack, as my post earlier clearly points out) basically takes away their right to freely practice religion by threat of force, which is rather un-American, which is why the "increased threat of attack against the mosque" line of argument is pisspoor too.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The point I'm making is that if you're a member of NAMBLA, you're part of a group whose entire purpose is to promote child rape. People who don't support the goals of NAMBLA, aka legalized child rape, don't regularly attend NAMBLA meetings as far as I know, unless there's a secret cabal of them out there that nobody knows about.

So the only way your point makes any sense at all is if you believe all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters, and their connection to the religion by default makes them incapable of not supporting terrorism (which is why the NAMBLA comparison was crap, because their group supports exactly one thing, child rape. Muslims do not support exactly one thing, terrorism) -- and people on this board go out of their way to make sure we know they don't think that. If you believe that, then that's your prerogative, but that's the only way your comparison comes close to working, and I doubt you believe that, so then the comparison doesn't work.

So if these Muslims don't support killing of Americans, don't support terrorism, then your point is a complete toss-out because it makes no sense whatsoever.

It's not that I don't understand the emotional reaction some people have, and I actually somewhat sympathize with it, but the idea that emotion or the threat of attack against this group should somehow make it so that they set up shop elsewhere (which also doesn't avoid vandalism/attack, as my post earlier clearly points out) basically takes away their right to freely practice religion by threat of force, which is rather un-American.

My friend how will you know they dont support some things terroristic? Just so we are clear, you find Nambla offensive even if the members dont touch lil kids, right? But its ok to support a Mosque near ground zero even if the members dont support blowing shyte up?