Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
And what would a chickenhawk know about that? LOL
Do you want the fed to determine where Churches can be built?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
He's being a typical wingnut Winter. He's all for freedom and liberty until someone actually practices them. Oh god forbid that someone shoud practice religious freedom! LOL
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
More than you know about 15ppMoot.
Damo does the Devil's advocate thing often. I am not sure if he does it when he is unsure about an issue or maybe when he feels sympathy for the side that seems wrong to him or maybe just because he thinks that side is being poorly represented. But, I just play along since he can probably offer a better argument than the nutcases and I would rather deal with a challenging opponent.
I will say again, if this were some sort of shrine to the Muslim "heroes" of 9/11 then there might be a point about not letting free speech trump courteous behavior. But no such shrine would be built there as the Muslims of the area are on our side, no matter how much right wing hate mongers try to make them the enemy. They feel the acceptance of American culture and want to be a part of it. That's all.
Further, it is not as if the Muslims just all of a sudden decided to build mosques in NYC. They have been a part of the area for a quite awhile and we should not chase them out just because of a few assholes.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
More like they want to subjugate America to the will of ALLAH in a new world CALIPHATE. You jews like theocracy too though, don't you? Come now. You're in it together to enslave the stupid wasps aren't you?
RAHOWA! Bring it on, semitic people of theocratic hellhole origin!
Remember the time...
John Madison, the fourth President of the United States, said this in Memorial and Remonstrance:
"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor."
He also said:
"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst."
In a Veto in 1811, James Madison also said:
"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'."
Thomas Paine, an author, in his book, The Age of Reason said:
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Abraham Lincoln [not a Founding Father] said:
"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read: 'All men are created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer immigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty--to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
John Madison, the fourth President of the United States, said this in Memorial and Remonstrance:
"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor."
He also said:
"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst."
In a Veto in 1811, James Madison also said:
"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'."
Thomas Paine, an author, in his book, The Age of Reason said:
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Abraham Lincoln [not a Founding Father] said:
"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read: 'All men are created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer immigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty--to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
See... Fever swamps.
That's right we are all coming to get you! Pass that baby and the bbq sauce. Hail Satan!
You realize I am not actually Jewish. I just told you all that to f with you, psycho. I am as white bread as they come and I was raised in mostly a Southern Baptist family which was here before the nation formed.
Why is it so hard for you folks to believe that ALL people are individuals with different opinions. Even among the nutcase fundies I am sure there is disagreement. There is no secret cabal of people that are out to get you. Our enemies are mostly out in the open.
There are many Americans who understand our TRUE heritage (indivdiualism) and will defend it against nutcases and Christian theocrats. And we disagree on things too.
Last edited:
Wanting them to not build the Mosque is one thing, wanting your government to prevent it is QUITE another!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
If they build the mosque at ground zero, the terrorists win.
Thank GOD that we live in a country with more religous freedom than Saudi Arabia!
If we back down on our core principals to prevent them from building a mosque at ground zero, the terrorists win!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Our core principle should be to win a war at any cost.
[Principle v principal. Learn it. The principal is your pal."]
Yes, or a Catholic church near a pre-school.Or a Catholic church near a pre-school?sm
Why shouldn't a Christian church be built in Mecca? Now memorials to war... How does that compare? It does not.
They have been in this area for many years, well before 9/11. They are expanding to meet the needs of the community, not as part of some crazed plot. The arguments against this thing are coming out of the fever swamps of the right. You guys (the few sane people that still have sympathy for the GOP) should be shouting these retards down as their arguments have no merit whatsoever.
The ONLY issue here is property rights and freedom of religion. The nuts are just trying to make an issue of this for political gain. They do not care who they slander in the process.
The things I listed weren't meant to be exactly the same things, each were a thing that would attack the sensibilities of some. Should they be legal if there were applied our "Freedom of religion and speech"? Yes. All of them should be legal, should they be done? Not necessarily.The reality is, that there are many places in the area that could be used without directly effecting those who may feel incensed that they dare build such a thing that close to where their family members were killed by people of that same religion in the name of the religion.
Should it be allowed by law? Yes, as I've argued before it should. Should it be ignored that it attacks the sensibilities of some? Maybe not.
For a religion that spends so much time calling for our tolerance, reaching to explain that it isn't "all of them", maybe a little reciprocity should be employed as running roughshod over the sensibilities of others isn't the best way to seek tolerance from them.
As for a church in Mecca, the place is so "holy" to the Muslims that Christians aren't even allowed to enter the city. If there was freedom of religion throughout their lands should they ignore such things to build their church? Why? What good does it do to directly employ such direct ignorance of the values of others?
I would not support winning a war at the cost of liberty.
I'm with Partick Henry when he said, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so you'll stand behind abolishing the machine gun ban, right?
Maybe, Id need the specifics. At some point this side of legalizing personal ownership of nuclear arms is a line that must be constitutionally drawn.
Much like I would not support allowing a Mosque to force kids to take large amounts of narcotic drugs, even if they claimed it was a ligitatmate religous practice, I would not support personal possession of nuclear arms.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You'd be among the first that they'd kill.
Yes, or a Catholic church near a pre-school.
I understood that, but this is not a memorial to the "heroes" of 9/11. It has nothing to do with that and so it does not compare to anything but maybe the Christian church in Mecca.
How far away should it be? Why wasn't it too close before?
The outrage is not coming from the family of the victims. It is coming from the fever swamps. I am sorry, but the neighborhood has the most say in this. I am sure they are willing to listen to reasonable concerns from the family members, but they already had a process for that.
For the most part, I will leave it to Mecca to decide how intolerant they want to be, just as this should be left to the locals. I would hope they would show an open mind, but I can't force it on them.
Jarod quotes Henry for a similar sentiment, but I like Mencken here a little more.
So far as I can make out, I believe in only one thing: liberty. But I do not believe in even liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.
You don't understand the sentiment. Maybe, I don't either but I read it as "Bring it on, bitches. I aint scared of freedom!"
You and asshat go hide in the corner and piss yourselves. Leave this to those who have more courage than you.
Last edited: