How many Walmart stores has the left prevented from being built?

[Red Dawn]

Perhaps you don't think those opposing the mosque are unconstitutional, but most lefties on these pages have expressed that opinion. Most of these same left wingers have no problem banning the Boy Scouts from public buildings or prohibiting crosses from being erected on public property; Christianity for too many on the left is unconstitutional wherever the slightest hint of it can be found, yet Islam is constitutional wherever it is found. Witness support for North Carolina's state colleges which ban public scholarship funds going to religion majors as violating the separation between church and state while simultaneously requiring that EVERY incoming freshman take a course on understanding Islam. It certainly isn't the Bible-thumping right supporting that dichotomy! The old Arab axiom that the enemy of my enemy is my friend has taken firm root with liberals, who see Christianity as THE enemy and Islam as a valuable ally. As for myself I see the Cordoba House mosque as a monument to Islam's victory, as was its namesake - it's perfectly constitutional to build it, and perfectly constitutional to voice opposition.

And it's constitutional for you and your ilk to be manipulated.

 

[sandorski]

Perhaps you don't think those opposing the mosque are unconstitutional, but most lefties on these pages have expressed that opinion. Most of these same left wingers have no problem banning the Boy Scouts from public buildings or prohibiting crosses from being erected on public property; Christianity for too many on the left is unconstitutional wherever the slightest hint of it can be found, yet Islam is constitutional wherever it is found. Witness support for North Carolina's state colleges which ban public scholarship funds going to religion majors as violating the separation between church and state while simultaneously requiring that EVERY incoming freshman take a course on understanding Islam. It certainly isn't the Bible-thumping right supporting that dichotomy! The old Arab axiom that the enemy of my enemy is my friend has taken firm root with liberals, who see Christianity as THE enemy and Islam as a valuable ally. As for myself I see the Cordoba House mosque as a monument to Islam's victory, as was its namesake - it's perfectly constitutional to build it, and perfectly constitutional to voice opposition.

You don't even know what you're arguing any more, do you?

 

[Sclamoz]

Perhaps you don't think those opposing the mosque are unconstitutional, but most lefties on these pages have expressed that opinion. Most of these same left wingers have no problem banning the Boy Scouts from public buildings or prohibiting crosses from being erected on public property;

So you're upset about your bogeyman left protesting Christians but support protesting islam is basically what you're getting at? Here I was thinking this issue was about a mosque being built at ground zero. Silly me.

As to the rest, I don't really give a fuck. You directly quoted me where I said it's not a freedom of religion issue (something I've already said in this thread) and then rant about the constitution. You people are freaking stupid.

 

[Carmen813]

Perhaps you don't think those opposing the mosque are unconstitutional, but most lefties on these pages have expressed that opinion. Most of these same left wingers have no problem banning the Boy Scouts from public buildings or prohibiting crosses from being erected on public property; Christianity for too many on the left is unconstitutional wherever the slightest hint of it can be found, yet Islam is constitutional wherever it is found. Witness support for North Carolina's state colleges which ban public scholarship funds going to religion majors as violating the separation between church and state while simultaneously requiring that EVERY incoming freshman take a course on understanding Islam. It certainly isn't the Bible-thumping right supporting that dichotomy! The old Arab axiom that the enemy of my enemy is my friend has taken firm root with liberals, who see Christianity as THE enemy and Islam as a valuable ally. As for myself I see the Cordoba House mosque as a monument to Islam's victory, as was its namesake - it's perfectly constitutional to build it, and perfectly constitutional to voice opposition.

I like discussing things with you, but you've gone round the bend with this post. Need to step back from the keyboard for a bit...I know you know better than to label everyone of a group as thinking a certain way.

Personally, I don't think its unconstitutional to oppose the mosque, unless government actively take steps to prevent it. I do think its irrational, against the principles the country was founded for, and in general, xenophobic...but there is no amendment against bigotry.

I went to a state school in NY and our mandated humanities courses required us to cover the Bible. No other religions were covered, though I did some additional course work on my own. Religion is far too rooted in our government, and that is a problem for me. I don't see Christianity as "the enemy" any more that I see any other religion as the "enemy." Religion is fine, and people should be free to practice whatever they want (so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others). When one religions principles begin being codified into law, or given special privileges, then I have serious issues.

 

[Carmen813]

Exactly is how saying you are opposed to the mosque preventing free exercise of religion? By your explanation I guess people can NEVER oppose anything a church does? Are democrats who say priests who molest children should be removed from the church somehow limiting freedom of religion?

Pedophilia is a tenant of the church? That's news to me...

Being opposed to the mosque doesn't violate free exercise of religion. Those who are saying they should build it elsewhere, that we should investigate the funding, and are basically trying to obstruct it's construction are.

 

[werepossum]

So you're upset about your bogeyman left protesting Christians but support protesting islam is basically what you're getting at? Here I was thinking this issue was about a mosque being built at ground zero. Silly me.

As to the rest, I don't really give a fuck. You directly quoted me where I said it's not a freedom of religion issue (something I've already said in this thread) and then rant about the constitution. You people are freaking stupid.

I specifically said the mosque IS constitutional - my rant was specifically about the knee jerk reaction of the left to support (or at least rationalize) anything and everything Islam does whilst opposing Christianity at every turn, NOT about the Constitution per se.

Perhaps you could have someone who is not a liberal explain to you the difference.

 

[Red Dawn]

I specifically said the mosque IS constitutional - my rant was specifically about the knee jerk reaction of the left to support (or at least rationalize) anything and everything Islam does whilst opposing Christianity at every turn, NOT about the Constitution per se.

Perhaps you could have someone who is not a liberal explain to you the difference.

Opposing them how?

 

[Sclamoz]

I specifically said the mosque IS constitutional - my rant was specifically about the knee jerk reaction of the left to support (or at least rationalize) anything and everything Islam does whilst opposing Christianity at every turn, NOT about the Constitution per se.

Perhaps you could have someone who is not a liberal explain to you the difference.

I didn't say anything about the fucking constitution, you brought that up!

You oppose the Mosque and have problems with Islam and call people who oppose Christian things knee jerk. I agree the "leftists" (I'll use your simple terms to make it easier on you) who oppose everything with God on it and Christian are stupid just like the people who oppose the mosque are stupid. Do you see the problem with your stance yet? You are no different than they are yet you criticize them!

 

[werepossum]

Pedophilia is a tenant of the church? That's news to me...

Being opposed to the mosque doesn't violate free exercise of religion. Those who are saying they should build it elsewhere, that we should investigate the funding, and are basically trying to obstruct it's construction are.

Nancy Pelosi is calling for the investigation of those who oppose the mosque, including their funding such as it is. She is the sitting Speaker of the House. The Port Authority is prohibiting the Greek Orthodox Church which was crushed by the falling Towers from rebuilding, or from rebuilding as they wish - the official line on what they may and may not do seems to change daily. These are official government actions. The opposition to the victory mosque is by contrast a grass roots movement composed of approximately 70 percent of the American public. Even those Congressmen (Democrat and Republican alike) speaking out against the mosque are not calling for government action to prohibit its construction, only opposing it. You simply cannot have these actions by free individuals be unconstitutional and yet have the former actions by GOVERNMENT be constitutional. That is just not possible.

 

[heyheybooboo]

... North Carolina's state colleges which ban public scholarship funds going to religion majors as violating the separation between church and state while simultaneously requiring that EVERY incoming freshman take a course on understanding Islam...

LOL

Only in that magic Fantasy Land that exists in your mind.




--

 

[Sclamoz]

LOL

Only in that magic Fantasy Land that exists in your mind.




--

yeah I'm looking for info on that and I can't find anything about it so far lol.

 

[heyheybooboo]

yeah I'm looking for info on that and I can't find anything about it so far lol.

UNC-Chapel Hill has a summer reading program for incoming freshmen which is used to 'stimulate debate'.

In 2002 the summer reading program involved a book on Islam, for 2010 the requirement is Picking Cotton.




--

 

[Jhhnn]

I specifically said the mosque IS constitutional - my rant was specifically about the knee jerk reaction of the left to support (or at least rationalize) anything and everything Islam does whilst opposing Christianity at every turn, NOT about the Constitution per se.

Perhaps you could have someone who is not a liberal explain to you the difference.

So the proposed mosque & Walmart aren't the real issue at all- they just provide an attack vector against the strawman of what you attribute to teh ebil libruhls, right?

Why, that's downright devious in a rather clumsy way...

 

[werepossum]

I didn't say anything about the fucking constitution, you brought that up!

You oppose the Mosque and have problems with Islam and call people who oppose Christian things knee jerk. I agree the "leftists" (I'll use your simple terms to make it easier on you) who oppose everything with God on it and Christian are stupid just like the people who oppose the mosque are stupid. Do you see the problem with your stance yet? You are no different than they are yet you criticize them!

Your post, with my post quoted.

Originally Posted by werepossum
This thread can show WalMart the secret to making liberals happy. Since liberals are insisting that this isn't a mosque, but merely a community center with a mosque in it - but also insisting that religious freedom gives them the right to build it wherever they choose - then it's clear that WalMart merely needs to add a chapel to all their standard floor plans. Then all liberals will support their construction everywhere, 'cause you guys keep insisting that your continual support FOR Islam and AGAINST Christianity is mere coincidence.

WalChurch is an interesting concept. Might be worth a try. God wants you to stock up and save!

As for your last line, I support the Constitution. Why don't you?

Now I'm unclear whether you have confused me with another poster, or with yourself - perhaps you think I'm one of your little voices?

Good point vis-a-vis liberals protesting Christianity versus conservatives protesting this mosque. I'll raise you three differences. First, this is roughly 70 percent of America, not the ten or twenty percent usually behind liberal attacks on Christianity. Second, this is conservatives opposing THIS mosque - we are not protesting every single mosque, merely ONE mosque being built in part of Ground Zero by an Islamacist dedicated to establishing Sharia in America (and thereby destroying America as it currently is and historically has been constituted.) And third, unlike many leftist attacks on Christianity this is not a lawsuit attempting to prohibit the free exercise of an aspect of their religion, merely a public outcry against that aspect. As the very same Amendment establishing their right to exercise their religion also establishes our right to express our opinions about their actions, I fail to see where there is any constitutional issue whatsoever.

 

[Sclamoz]

Your post, with my post quoted.

Now I'm unclear whether you have confused me with another poster, or with yourself - perhaps you think I'm one of your little voices?

Good point vis-a-vis liberals protesting Christianity versus conservatives protesting this mosque. I'll raise you three differences. First, this is roughly 70 percent of America, not the ten or twenty percent usually behind liberal attacks on Christianity. Second, this is conservatives opposing THIS mosque - we are not protesting every single mosque, merely ONE mosque being built in part of Ground Zero by an Islamacist dedicated to establishing Sharia in America (and thereby destroying America as it currently is and historically has been constituted.) And third, unlike many leftist attacks on Christianity this is not a lawsuit attempting to prohibit the free exercise of an aspect of their religion, merely a public outcry against that aspect. As the very same Amendment establishing their right to exercise their religion also establishes our right to express our opinions about their actions, I fail to see where there is any constitutional issue whatsoever.

That's Ironwing not me. Keep going though, this getting beyond funny. You quoted us both and asked us what was unconstitutional about opposing the mosque (or something I don't really care enough to check at this point). As to your points your political point of view doesn't matter, its telling though that you try and justify it by saying well the difference is we aren't liberals!!!1!

Mosques all over the country get opposed by Christians. A group just burned korans in Florida. The one here in Boston caused the same kind of national controversy. I believe it was during an election year as well, after the elections ended mosque opens and no one cares.

FINALLY, FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME I KNOW IT'S NOT A FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE YOU FUCK.

 

[IronWing]

Your post, with my post quoted.

Now I'm unclear whether you have confused me with another poster, or with yourself - perhaps you think I'm one of your little voices?

Good point vis-a-vis liberals protesting Christianity versus conservatives protesting this mosque. I'll raise you three differences. First, this is roughly 70 percent of America, not the ten or twenty percent usually behind liberal attacks on Christianity. Second, this is conservatives opposing THIS mosque - we are not protesting every single mosque, merely ONE mosque being built in part of Ground Zero by an Islamacist dedicated to establishing Sharia in America (and thereby destroying America as it currently is and historically has been constituted.) And third, unlike many leftist attacks on Christianity this is not a lawsuit attempting to prohibit the free exercise of an aspect of their religion, merely a public outcry against that aspect. As the very same Amendment establishing their right to exercise their religion also establishes our right to express our opinions about their actions, I fail to see where there is any constitutional issue whatsoever.

Show me a "leftist" lawsuit "attempting to prohibit the free exercise of an aspect of their [Christian] religion".

 

[werepossum]

So the proposed mosque & Walmart aren't the real issue at all- they just provide an attack vector against the strawman of what you attribute to teh ebil libruhls, right?

Why, that's downright devious in a rather clumsy way...

WTF? Yes, the mosque is the issue. This particular mosque by this particular imam is THE issue. Not every issue non-liberals support is because of a perceived violation of the Constitution. WalMart was brought up by Fear No Evil presumably because the same liberals that use the armed might of government to prohibit evil Walmart stores from being built are now arguing that even voicing opposition to the victory mosque is unconstitutional. To break it down to a level you MIGHT understand, this is pointing out hypocrisy. WalMart itself is not "the issue", nor is bringing it up some sort of strawman.

 

[IronWing]

WalMart was brought up by Fear No Evil presumably because the same liberals that use the armed might of government to prohibit evil Walmart stores from being built...

Paleeze! Do you have any filter at all between your cerebral cortex and the internet?

 

[werepossum]

Show me a "leftist" lawsuit "attempting to prohibit the free exercise of an aspect of their [Christian] religion".

Honestly? Well, I'm going to assume you have actually been in a coma for the last few decades and aren't just being facetious, so I'll post a few. This took like two minutes on Google.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1656296.html

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/federal_court_hears_arguments_in_roadside_crosses_lawsuit/

http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...e.publishers.over.homosexual.verses/20395.htm

http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief...e-unconstitutional-bible-class-public-schools

http://www.christianpost.com/articl...rs-group-stands-up-to-goliath-aclu/index.html

 

[werepossum]

Paleeze! Do you have any filter at all between your cerebral cortex and the internet?

1. You cannot build a WalMart here.

2. If you try, men with clipboards will come out and order you to desist.

3. If you continue, men with guns will come out and intervene.

QED

Anything government does not allow is backed by the armed might of government. This is understood by most people, which is why the actual armed might of government is not usually required.

 

[sandorski]

Honestly? Well, I'm going to assume you have actually been in a coma for the last few decades and aren't just being facetious, so I'll post a few. This took like two minutes on Google.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1656296.html

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/federal_court_hears_arguments_in_roadside_crosses_lawsuit/

http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...e.publishers.over.homosexual.verses/20395.htm

http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief...e-unconstitutional-bible-class-public-schools

http://www.christianpost.com/articl...rs-group-stands-up-to-goliath-aclu/index.html

...and not even one example similar to the Mosque issue.

 

[IronWing]

Honestly? Well, I'm going to assume you have actually been in a coma for the last few decades and aren't just being facetious, so I'll post a few. This took like two minutes on Google.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1656296.html

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/federal_court_hears_arguments_in_roadside_crosses_lawsuit/

http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...e.publishers.over.homosexual.verses/20395.htm

http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief...e-unconstitutional-bible-class-public-schools

http://www.christianpost.com/articl...rs-group-stands-up-to-goliath-aclu/index.html

Story 1) Issue: Spending public funds to promote religion.
Story 2) Issue: Using a publicly owned right of way to erect religious symbols (Note: I think the atheist group in this case are being asses, but we'll see what the courts say.)
Story 3) Issue: Private person suing private company for publishing offensive words in private publication, no governmental involvement. Good call, the plaintiff is a twit. Hopefully suit dismissed quickly.
Story 4) Issue: Public school being used to promote a specific religion. This is a classic case of a religious group attempting to use the power of government in a patently unconstitutional fashion and then getting asshurt when someone calls them on it.
Story 5) Issue: Public school being used to promote a specific religion. A religious group attempting to use the power of government in a patently unconstitutional fashion. When called on it, the school agreed to knock it off. Then a third party religious organization intervened. The story is basically their version of events. The facts may vary.

So you're 1.5 for 5. Better than I expected of you.

 

[werepossum]

...and not even one example similar to the Mosque issue.

Story 1) Issue: Spending public funds to promote religion.
Story 2) Issue: Using a publicly owned right of way to erect religious symbols (Note: I think the atheist group in this case are being asses, but we'll see what the courts say.)
Story 3) Issue: Private person suing private company for publishing offensive words in private publication, no governmental involvement. Good call, the plaintiff is a twit. Hopefully suit dismissed quickly.
Story 4) Issue: Public school being used to promote a specific religion. This is a classic case of a religious group attempting to use the power of government in a patently unconstitutional fashion and then getting asshurt when someone calls them on it.
Story 5) Issue: Public school being used to promote a specific religion. A religious group attempting to use the power of government in a patently unconstitutional fashion. When called on it, the school agreed to knock it off. Then a third party religious organization intervened. The story is basically their version of events. The facts may vary.

So you're 1.5 for 5. Better than I expected of you.

Well - at least Ironwing isn't demanding an exact Christian lawsuit analogy to the non-existent Muslim mosque lawsuit. Maybe I'm getting somewhere with someone.

 

[Red Dawn]

Story 1) Issue: Spending public funds to promote religion.
Story 2) Issue: Using a publicly owned right of way to erect religious symbols (Note: I think the atheist group in this case are being asses, but we'll see what the courts say.)
Story 3) Issue: Private person suing private company for publishing offensive words in private publication, no governmental involvement. Good call, the plaintiff is a twit. Hopefully suit dismissed quickly.
Story 4) Issue: Public school being used to promote a specific religion. This is a classic case of a religious group attempting to use the power of government in a patently unconstitutional fashion and then getting asshurt when someone calls them on it.
Story 5) Issue: Public school being used to promote a specific religion. A religious group attempting to use the power of government in a patently unconstitutional fashion. When called on it, the school agreed to knock it off. Then a third party religious organization intervened. The story is basically their version of events. The facts may vary.

So you're 1.5 for 5. Better than I expected of you.

Really, major fail from wereposs.

 

[Sclamoz]

Well - at least Ironwing isn't demanding an exact Christian lawsuit analogy to the non-existent Muslim mosque lawsuit. Maybe I'm getting somewhere with someone.

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...o-stop-ground-zero-mosque-20100805-11htj.html

The American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson, filed suit on Wednesday to challenge a city panel's decision to let developers tear down a building to make way for the mosque two blocks from ground zero.

I'll provide something even better. Freedom of religion!!1!!