Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 91

Thread: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    I've never said you can't complain about it. It's your right. It's your right not to work on the building. I've not read anywhere about anyone trying to force construction workers to remodel an old Burlington Coat Factory.

    But those of you trying to prevents its construction are attempting to violate the freedom of religion of others.
    And what do you mean by "trying to prevent" if you mean those who want the state to intervene then you are absolutely correct, if you mean those exercising their right to protest the Mosque and encourage others not to help build it then you are absolutely wrong. They do not have the right to silence the opposition and they do not have the right to have someone build their Mosque, if they want they can build it themselves, no one is suggesting they can't practice their religion or that they can not own this property. We are exercising our rights not violating their's.

    What is the stated goal of the protest if not to prevent it from being built? If that's the case, then you're violating their 1st Amendment rights. Period. End of story.
    You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Only the state can violate someone's 1st amendment rights. The 1st amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" has anyone suggested that there should be legislation passed banning this Mosque from being built? Not to my knowledge.

    What you are suggesting is that our 1st amendment rights should be violated IE the rights of free association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech.

    By your logic someone protesting the Nazi party is trying to violate the Nazi parties right to free association.

    If you desire it not to be built despite it being utterly legal - then you are attempting to violate someone's rights and freedoms. Simple. Not hard to understand.
    lol yep Ghandi engaging in non-violent protest against the British were attempting to violate the rights and freedoms of the British colonialists. I guess Dr. MLK jr. was using the bus boycot to attempt to violate the rights and freedoms of the bus owners. We are not in any way trying to ban their religion, or ban the practice of their religion, or ban them from owning property. What we are doing is using our rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and association to protest how they are exercising those rights and encouraging others not to enter into voluntary contracts with them in order to build that Mosque.

    If the goal is just to shriek about how wrong you think it is, then you're well within your rights. Trying to drive someone out of the neighborhood because you don't like them is a violation of their rights. This is no different that the legal protests of the KKK. It's within their rights to march. But if it's their goal to drive black people out of town, then they're violating people's rights. If the goal is try to prevent a synagogue, from being built, then it's a violation of people's rights. If the goal is to make noise and be obnoxious, then it's perfectly legal.
    Once again only the state can violate peoples first amendment rights. Simply protesting does not violate anyones rights, now if the KKK were to say use violence and threats in order to drive those black people out of town then you would have a point but so long as they are only engaged in non-violent protest then they are not violating anyones rights.

    From what I see, I don't think the goal is just to make a lot of noise.
    The goal is to stop this Mosque from being built. By your logic non-violently protesting the construction of a KKK meeting hall is a violation of the KKK's right of free assembly and association.

  2. #62
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    The goal is to stop this Mosque from being built. By your logic non-violently protesting the construction of a KKK meeting hall is a violation of the KKK's right of free assembly and association.
    Except for the fact that the KKK is not a religion, but is, in fact, a terror organization.

    But - if the goal is to prevent a house of worship from being built, then your goal is to restrict the free practice of a religion.

    The protest is your right. But you can't deny that your goal is to prevent the free practice of religion for a group of people. If your goal was to prevent the KKK from building a meeting center, then your goal would be to prevent them from their first amendment rights of free assembly.

    I've not once said you can't protest it, therefore, I'm not restricting anything. But you have to admit that your goal is to prevent a group of people form enacting their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religious expression. Just because you're not asking the government to do it, doesn't mean that you're not restricting their rights.

    If you don't want the rights of those you abhor to be practiced freely, then you should expect those same rights of yours to be equally as tenuous.

    Despite my issues with the practice of Islam, American Muslims are free to worship as equally as you are. You want to tell them where they can and cannot do it through pressure (and Pat Robertson wants to sue them to prevent them from asserting their rights).

    I simply want them to follow proper laws of zoning and get the proper permits - as all churches should do. That's the only thing anyone should ask of a house of worship or anyone regarding their private property.

    Look, I have two GINORMOUS churches just down the street from me. Any attempt to head East on a Sunday is basically impossible. It pisses me off that what is essentially a major thoroughfare is shut down for two giant Christian churches that, for some reason, were allowed to build on two corners of a major intersection.

    I suppose I could protest, but I'm not going to. Because it's their right to worship and the city gave them permits to build where they did.

    I truly fear the motives of those who are protesting this. Just as I basically KNOW what the motives of those fighting the mosque in Murfreesboro, TN are. They're not simply about not wanting to see a mosque. They're about suspicion, fear, and a lack of understanding. It's about people who can't fathom seeing a crescent as something other than a threat.

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    Except for the fact that the KKK is not a religion, but is, in fact, a terror organization.
    A) They are not currently designated as a terrorist organization I don't believe.

    B) They still have the right of free association, assembly, speech, and property rights.

    C) To suit your definition of who in this country is actually entitled to rights then fine then you wouldn't be able to protest the construction of a Christian Identity Church. Do you know what Christian Identity is?

    But - if the goal is to prevent a house of worship from being built, then your goal is to restrict the free practice of a religion.
    They have the right to practice their religion, but their religion does not take precedence over my right to free speech, free association, and free assembly or my right to self ownership to refuse contract to anyone for whatever reason I see fit.

    By your logic protesting the construction of a Christian Identity church is a violation of their freedom of religion.


    The protest is your right. But you can't deny that your goal is to prevent the free practice of religion for a group of people.
    I can't deny them that right, the only way I could deny them that right is if I walked in to their Mosque and threatened to do violence if they did not cease and desist, my protest does not violate their freedom of religion in any way.

    If your goal was to prevent the KKK from building a meeting center, then your goal would be to prevent them from their first amendment rights of free assembly.
    You simply are completely delusional. Only the state can violate the 1st amendment. Exercising my right of protest is not a violation of any one else's rights.

    I've not once said you can't protest it, therefore, I'm not restricting anything. But you have to admit that your goal is to prevent a group of people form enacting their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religious expression. Just because you're not asking the government to do it, doesn't mean that you're not restricting their rights.
    My goal is to prevent a Mosque from being built at ground zero, I do not have the power to violate their freedom of religion as I can not pass legislation preventing the free exercise of Islam, only the state can do that. You can not simultaneously be exercising your own rights and violate the rights of another, if that were the case then the protest of anything ever is a violation of the organization being protested rights.

    If you don't want the rights of those you abhor to be practiced freely, then you should expect those same rights of yours to be equally as tenuous.
    They have the right to practice their religion freely, they DO NOT REPEAT DO NOT have the right to silence the opposition or to force people to build their Mosque. That is not and never has been anyones right.


    Despite my issues with the practice of Islam, American Muslims are free to worship as equally as you are.
    Yep, and they're free to counter-protest our protests.

    You want to tell them where they can and cannot do it through pressure (and Pat Robertson wants to sue them to prevent them from asserting their rights).
    I can't force them to do anything, what I can do is protest the building of the Mosque, and encourage others not to help them build it, unless I initiate the use of force to stop that Mosque from being built I am not violating anyones rights but rather exercising my own.]

    ]I simply want them to follow proper laws of zoning and get the proper permits - as all churches should do. That's the only thing anyone should ask of a house of worship or anyone regarding their private property.

    Look, I have two GINORMOUS churches just down the street from me. Any attempt to head East on a Sunday is basically impossible. It pisses me off that what is essentially a major thoroughfare is shut down for two giant Christian churches that, for some reason, were allowed to build on two corners of a major intersection.

    I suppose I could protest, but I'm not going to. Because it's their right to worship and the city gave them permits to build where they did.
    They do not have the right to keep you from protesting, you have the right to non-violent resistance to anything you wish, the only way you could possibly violate their right of freedom religion is if you engaged in violence or threats of violence against the Churches in question
    I truly fear the motives of those who are protesting this.
    I truly fear the motives of an overt Islamist who blames the U.S. for 9-11 and is building a Mega-Mosque at ground zero.

    Just as I basically KNOW what the motives of those fighting the mosque in Murfreesboro, TN are. They're not simply about not wanting to see a mosque. They're about suspicion, fear, and a lack of understanding. It's about people who can't fathom seeing a crescent as something other than a threat.
    Oh I understand this Imam, he is an overt Islamist and an enemy of the secular liberalism upon which this country was founded.

  4. #64
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Oh I understand this Imam, he is an overt Islamist and an enemy of the secular liberalism upon which this country was founded.
    Why was he hired by the Bush State Department then, if his goal is apparently to destroy the nation?
    Imam at center of Ground Zero controversy helped Bush administration - Yahoo! News

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    Why was he hired by the Bush State Department then, if his goal is apparently to destroy the nation?
    Imam at center of Ground Zero controversy helped Bush administration - Yahoo! News
    Irrelevant red herring, he has professed his wish for a Sharia compliant U.S. in which secular laws do not contradict the Koran or the Hadiths he is an overt Islamist.

  6. #66
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Irrelevant red herring, he has professed his wish for a Sharia compliant U.S. in which secular laws do not contradict the Koran or the Hadiths he is an overt Islamist.
    Said it where and to what non-right-wing conspiracy-theory source?

    And why did Bush hire him? Why is his wife an award-winner of the Interfaith Center Award for Promoting Peace and Interfaith Understanding.

    Read more: Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam Behind the 'Ground Zero Mosque' - TIME

    You have no proof, other than some out-of-context statements. If you provide any evidence that he has funded terrorism or was dancing in the street when the Towers fell (which would be weird, since his current mosque is in the Tribeca neighborhood and he likely lost worshippers in the incident).

    Additionally, your proof that he wants Sharia for the US? Do you refer to this writing? Where he clearly explains that he sees Sharia as needing to be understood in America so that we can encourage change in it in other nations, where brutal sentencing takes place? How, if we learn what Sharia is and apply our system of justice as a framework for its understanding, we can more effectively rid nations where it's used to brutalize women to change their ways?

    Because if that's your proof that he wants American to follow Sharia, then it's not a civics lesson we need to give you - it's reading comprehension.

    Plus, I note that you've not provided a single source throughout any of this.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    Said it where
    In an article he wrote.

    and to what non-right-wing conspiracy-theory source?
    The Washington Post:

    At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

    On Faith Panelists Blog: How Islamic Law Can Work - Feisal Abdul Rauf
    And why did Bush hire him?
    Irrelevant.

    Why is his wife an award-winner of the Interfaith Center Award for Promoting Peace and Interfaith Understanding.
    Irrelevant.

    You have no proof, other than some out-of-context statements.
    I provided the whole article straight from his own keyboard, in it he clearly promotes Sharia, his only opposition to current Sharia is the stringent penal codes involved, however, though the punishments would not be as severe this would still entail the criminization of homosexuality, apostasy, premarital sex, adultery, along with the various gender discriminatory regulations found in Sharia; such as, unequal inheritance for women even when they are of equal relation to the deceased as the male heir.

    If you provide any evidence that he has funded terrorism or was dancing in the street when the Towers fell (which would be weird, since his current mosque is in the Tribeca neighborhood and he likely lost worshippers in the incident).

    Additionally, your proof that he wants Sharia for the US? Do you refer to this writing? Where he clearly explains that he sees Sharia as needing to be understood in America so that we can encourage change in it in other nations, where brutal sentencing takes place? How, if we learn what Sharia is and apply our system of justice as a framework for its understanding, we can more effectively rid nations where it's used to brutalize women to change their ways?

    Because if that's your proof that he wants American to follow Sharia, then it's not a civics lesson we need to give you - it's reading comprehension.

    Plus, I note that you've not provided a single source throughout any of this.
    You're laughable, he was promoting Sharia in that article, he was saying that he wants reform in the penal code, not that he opposes Sharia, in fact he clearly says that he wants is to "...ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad....".

    And I have provided sources for every single one of my claims.

    Here's a link to the full 60 minutes transcript along with the relevant portion relating to his blame the victim terrorist apologetics:


    Bradley: Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

    Faisal: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

    Bradley: You say that we're an accessory? How?

    Faisal: Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

    Prominent American Muslims denounce terror committed in the name of Islam
    Here's him refusing to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization:

    According to the State Department's assessment, "Hamas terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets."

    Asked if he agreed with the State Department's assessment, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf told WABC radio, "Look, I'm not a politician.

    "The issue of terrorism is a very complex question," he told interviewer Aaron Klein.

    "There was an attempt in the '90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that."

    Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn't budge.

    "I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy," Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in Israel between Jews and Arabs.

    Rauf also would not answer a question about Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

    "I have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. My father was never a member of the Muslim Brotherhood," he said, disputing a rumor.

    Muslim Imam leading push to build a mosque near Ground Zero wavers on questions about Hamas as a terror group - NYPOST.com
    Here's the link to the Podcast of the interview which starts about 13 minutes in:

    News Talk Radio 77 WABC New York
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 08-22-10 at 10:03 PM.

  8. #68
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    You've misinterpreted his writing on Sharia, as I've pointed out in another thread.

    It wouldn't make sense that his father or he were members of an Egyptian organization, since he's Kuwaiti. And what he says regarding Hamas, he's right. If he is to be a peacemaker, pissing them off isn't the best method to creating peace.

    And he clearly said that he doesn't blame the US or that the US deserved to be attacked - but added that bad foreign policy decisions over the years added to the likelihood of the attack.

    Do you deny that the US funded the mujaheddin in Afghanistan during Soviet occupation (and no, I'm not arguing that they directly funded bin Laden)? And did that not come back to haunt us in essentially creating the Taliban? And didn't the Taliban shelter the planners of the attacks that brought down the towers?

    Thus, is it not accurate to say that foreign policy mistakes are part of what caused the attacks? That's not the same thing as blaming America and that's not what Rauf said. If he'd said that, then I guarantee you that Bush wouldn't have hired him as a bridge-builder to the Middle East.

    This is a manufactured controversy by the right-wing to stir xenophobia, anti-Muslim behavior, and hopefully keep the Tea Party so artificially fired up that they can get control of the House.

    Ironic that it was ignored for months - even though the founders were on Fox News back in December talking all about it (where Laura Ingraham said it was a good idea) and, when Republican numbers start to drift a bit (Democrats take generic ballot lead - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com), it suddenly becomes a cause celebre for the right-wing brought up by the New York Post and Fox News...Hmmm...

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    You've misinterpreted his writing on Sharia, as I've pointed out in another thread.
    I didn't misinterpret a thing he was advocating Sharia law but said that he didn't support the stringent penal code. Just because he doesn't support the death penalty or corporal punishment for homosexuality doesn't mean that he doesn't support the crimilization of homosexuality, the same is true for apostasy, adultery, and pre-marital sex. He supports Sharia or in his words he wants to ensure that our"... secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad....". Aside for the aforementioned criminalization of non-criminal acts that would, also, entail such things as gender discrimination in property cases and the like.

    It wouldn't make sense that his father or he were members of an Egyptian organization, since he's Kuwaiti.
    What the Muslim Brotherhood? The Muslim Brotherhood is international not Egyptian though I have not claimed that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, I have seen no evidence to that effect, but being Kuwaiti and being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood are not mutually exclusive as the Musliim Brotherhood is a Sunni fundamentalist organization not an Egyptian nationalist organization.

    And what he says regarding Hamas, he's right. If he is to be a peacemaker, pissing them off isn't the best method to creating peace.
    Hamas intentionally murders men, women, and children, if you're for peace then you must be opposed to Hamas, if you're having trouble labeling them a terrorist organization then there's something wrong here.


    And he clearly said that he doesn't blame the US or that the US deserved to be attacked - but added that bad foreign policy decisions over the years added to the likelihood of the attack.
    He said the U.S. didn't deserve it, but he did blame the U.S. he clearly said that the U.S. was an "accessory" to the 9-11 attacks and that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after 9-11.

    Do you deny that the US funded the mujaheddin in Afghanistan during Soviet occupation (and no, I'm not arguing that they directly funded bin Laden)?
    I'm denying that they directly or knowingly and intentionally indirectly funded, armed, or trained the foreign Mujaheddin which would go on to form AQ, in fact AQ was what was left over of the fund-raising network of the foreign Mujaheddin.

    And did that not come back to haunt us in essentially creating the Taliban? And didn't the Taliban shelter the planners of the attacks that brought down the towers?
    Not really a lot of the people we directly funded and aided went on to become the primary adversaries of the Taliban; such as, Ahmad Shah Massoud leader of the Northern Alliance.

    Thus, is it not accurate to say that foreign policy mistakes are part of what caused the attacks?
    No it is not accurate because we did not fund the foreign Mujaheddin that would go on to become AQ.

    That's not the same thing as blaming America and that's not what Rauf said. If he'd said that, then I guarantee you that Bush wouldn't have hired him as a bridge-builder to the Middle East.
    No he said that we were an accessory to the crime.

    Accessory - An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.

    Words mean things.

    The U.S. was not an accessory to 9-11, we did not create AQ, we did not create the Taliban, we did not aid in the creation of AQ and we did not aid in the creation of the Taliban. We aided indigenous Afghan Mujaheddin some of which would go on to form the Taliban, but if you want to play this 10 degrees of separation BS then we can say that the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan prompted us to support the domestic insurgency thus the Soviet Union is an accessory to 9-11, or we can say that Mohammad created the philosophy of Jihad in the defense of fellow Muslims thus prompting the foreign Mujaheddin to want to go to Afghanistan in the first place, thus Mohammad is an accessory to 9-11. And hey why stop there? If it wasn't for the ancient Israelite s then Mohammad never would have formed a monotheistic Abrahamic religion, thus the Jews are accessories to 9-11, or wait, if it wasn't for the Jewish contact with the Zoroastrian King Cyrus of Persia who released them from the Babylonian Captivity then the monotheistic Abrahamic religion of Judaism would never have existed, thus King Cyrus and the Babylonians are accessories to 9-11. Hey Babylon and Persia are modern day Iraq and Iran, Iraq and Iran were accessories to 9-11.

    This is a manufactured controversy by the right-wing to stir xenophobia, anti-Muslim behavior, and hopefully keep the Tea Party so artificially fired up that they can get control of the House.
    There is nothing manufactured about it, this is an overt Islamist who blamed the U.S. for 9-11 and said that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after the attacks, whorefuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, and who supports Sharia law.

    Ironic that it was ignored for months - even though the founders were on Fox News back in December talking all about it (where Laura Ingraham said it was a good idea) and, when Republican numbers start to drift a bit (Democrats take generic ballot lead - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com), it suddenly becomes a cause celebre for the right-wing brought up by the New York Post and Fox News...Hmmm...
    Not that it changes a thing regarding my views about the victory Mega-Mosque but what exactly did Laura Ingraham say about the Mosque, because I seriously doubt she would say it's a good idea and if she did then she's a hypocrite and needs to be taken to task.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 08-23-10 at 12:44 AM.

  10. #70
    Sage
    The Giant Noodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Last Seen
    11-03-14 @ 05:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,333

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    The man is a bold faced liar. If a Sharia supporting Islamist who says that America is an accessory to 9-11 and that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after the attacks, and refuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, is moderate then what's a radical?

    Hey Ferris.....
    Last edited by The Giant Noodle; 08-23-10 at 02:26 AM.
    CORPORATE GREED AND UNION GREED
    DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
    DESTROYING THE BEST OF AMERICA ONE DAY AT A TIME

    This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against ME! ~ Bender

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •