Do you want the fed to determine where Churches can be built?

Stringfield, the expansion of the Community IS the crazed plot. The intent is to replace freedom oriented citizenry with God brainwashed Noahide compliant broken individuals.

Bazinga!

Yes, yes... Ask your mommy to change your diapers again.

They are expanding to meet the needs of the community. They are not going to take us over anymore then you fruit loops from the fever swamps are, and you apparently have more numbers.
 
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.
Sure, biatch. Dick.
 
LIve, dont live...

Die, dont die...

These questions dont matter so much, the question that matters is,

"When you did live, were you free?"

If the Government did not allow religous freedom, you were not truely free.
 
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.

It compares to all those things. Each is an example of something that could cause the same type of controversy.


How far away should it be? Why wasn't it too close before?
Before it was a furniture store. Furniture stores don't seem to have the same type of controversy attached to them.

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.

This is ignorant of the fact that one of those groups most outspoken against it are a group of family members.


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.

Which is all fine, but that doesn't change the sentiment that I have stated. It should be legal, but probably shouldn't have been done. Those who seek tolerance should practice it.
 
Read the 10th Amendment. The States or local governments can do pretty much what they want. New Yorkers overwhelmingly don't want this. Their government failed them.
They cannot forbid the building of a church based on the religious beliefs of the people building the church. That would violate the first amendment to the point that every justice on the supreme court would overturn it.
 
It compares to all those things. Each is an example of something that could cause the same type of controversy.



Before it was a furniture store. Furniture stores don't seem to have the same type of controversy attached to them.



This is ignorant of the fact that one of those groups most outspoken against it are a group of family members.




Which is all fine, but that doesn't change the sentiment that I have stated. It should be legal, but probably shouldn't have been done. Those who seek tolerance should practice it.

I would say moving the mosque to a different location would be in good taste and would show good faith.

I want the polititians to stay out of it however, and I call on the Consivertaves to stop using religen as a bludgeon to scare people into giving them power they should not have..
 
It compares to all those things. Each is an example of something that could cause the same type of controversy.

No, it doesn't compare at all. Unless, of course, you are one of those that views 9/11 as an attack by "Muslims" as opposed to an attack by a specific terrorist group. Again, Al Qaeda ain't building the mosque.


Before it was a furniture store. Furniture stores don't seem to have the same type of controversy attached to them.

That doesn't answer the question.

This is ignorant of the fact that one of those groups most outspoken against it are a group of family members.

Fair point.

Which is all fine, but that doesn't change the sentiment that I have stated. It should be legal, but probably shouldn't have been done. Those who seek tolerance should practice it.

What have the folks that are building this mosque done that is intolerant? They just want to build a place of worship and community center. Have they protested Christians building churches or something?
 
It depends on what your meaning of defend is? Ghandi earned freedom without firing a shot.
He wasn't fighting against radical Islam. Read up on parts of Africa where Islam is imposing itself and what is happening to the non-believers. Entire villages have been hacked to death.
 
They cannot forbid the building of a church based on the religious beliefs of the people building the church. That would violate the first amendment to the point that every justice on the supreme court would overturn it.
That's not the argument that I proposed.
 
They cannot forbid the building of a church based on the religious beliefs of the people building the church. That would violate the first amendment to the point that every justice on the supreme court would overturn it.

Even Thomas?
 
ANd Scalia? Thomas usually just says, "Whatever Scalia says I agree with it..."
 
ANd Scalia? Thomas usually just says, "Whatever Scalia says I agree with it..."
imgres
 
Back
Top