• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kennesaw City Council rejects mosque proposal

WCH said:
So you don't know if it's based on religion or simply security concerns?
Click to expand...
Give me a basis for security concerns not ultimately based on scary Muslims then as you have yet to do that in this thread
 
WCH said:
Is that a list of the things you hold dear to your heart?
Click to expand...

Somerville said:
Yep, defending the right of one group to gather in worship must mean I really really hate some other group. What's that old saying about making assumptions?

The funny part for those of us on the outside is the similarity of positions held by fundamentalists of Muslim and Christian stripe, yet the two claim they are so different.

Anti-womens rights: Check

Anti "sodomy": Check

Anti abortion: Check

Patriarchal dominance: Check

Anti pornography: Check

I'm sure there are more that others can add to the list
Click to expand...

WCH said:
If you're sure what my question was then answer it .
Click to expand...

Funny. Why should I? You apparently made a mistake and now wish for me to create something for you. As I cannot read minds, I will not make the attempt to answer an unasked question. I can only answer the ones that are readily understandable.
 
tacomancer said:
Give me a basis for security concerns not ultimately based on scary Muslims then as you have yet to do that in this thread
Click to expand...

How about the current and ongoing history of the radical factions of Islam?


You going to guarantee the safety of that town if they allow the mosque?
 
WCH said:
How about the current and ongoing history of the radical factions of Islam?


You going to guarantee the safety of that town if they allow the mosque?
Click to expand...
That's based on scary Muslims and runs afoul of the first amendment.

Try again?
 
Somerville said:
Funny. Why should I? You apparently made a mistake and now wish for me to create something for you. As I cannot read minds, I will not make the attempt to answer an unasked question. I can only answer the ones that are readily understandable.
Click to expand...

I knew the answer before I asked it. Nice dance though..
 
tacomancer said:
That's based on scary Muslims and runs afoul of the first amendment.

Try again?
Click to expand...

That's based on your silly insistence that Islam is the religion of peace.

How about it...gonna guarantee that town's security?
 
WCH said:
That's based on your silly insistence that Islam is the religion of peace.

How about it...gonna guarantee that town's security?
Click to expand...
I never used the phrase religion of peace, its a religion and that is sufficient for the constitution

The local police mainly as responsible for the towns safety, ask them what their plan would be
 
1. A locality has the legal right to do this.

2. Which doesn't mean that they should in this case.


Kennesaw is also the part of Georgia that requires every homeowner to be armed. I'm betting they are probably among our best-suited neighborhoods to weather any "security concerns". :)
 
1. A locality has the legal right to do this.

2. Which doesn't mean that they should in this case.


Kennesaw is also the part of Georgia that requires every homeowner to be armed. I'm betting they are probably among our best-suited neighborhoods to weather any "security concerns". :)
 
cpwill said:
1. A locality has the legal right to do this.

2. Which doesn't mean that they should in this case.


Kennesaw is also the part of Georgia that requires every homeowner to be armed. I'm betting they are probably among our best-suited neighborhoods to weather any "security concerns". :)
Click to expand...
Its stupid anyway, terrorists tend to go for high value symbols, I've been to Kennesaw many times and the best they got is a medium sized civic center
 
WCH said:
As they have found in other countries, some of these mosques are nothing but breeding ground for terrorists.

If the people thought that was a possiblity, why let them in?
Click to expand...

This is the town that has an ordinance mandating gun ownership. Obviously mosques aren't popping up like Starbucks in GA so with the building of a mosque naturally I am going to conclude that it would draw more muslims in from the surrounding areas to live closer to it. These muslims who migrate there would then under municipal code be demanded to own a gun. It would essentially be a government enforced arming of would be terrorists...
 
WCH said:
One word: Sharia

Which would you rather live under?
Click to expand...

It is much more likely that Christian fundamentalists will take control over the USA than Muslims. Muslims are a very small portion of the population. Christian Fundamentalists have control of many towns and a few states, have representatives and senators in DC, and got two Presidents elected. There is very little difference in the social order fundamentalist Christian fundamentalists would impose if they were not limited by the constitution and political opposition from the fundamentalist Muslim model.
 
Papa bull said:
That's what the courts are for. If they did anything wrong, the courts can sort them out on that. :)
Click to expand...

The tax payers will end up paying for a settlement/penalty to compensate the Muslim group for the illegal discrimination (assuming that is the case) because of the actions of the local officials. The local officials will not suffer any consequences except as taxpayers. In my view, politicians who knowingly vote to violate the constitutional rights of citizens should have to compensate the government for the legal costs and settlements/penalty.
 
cpwill said:
1. A locality has the legal right to do this.

2. Which doesn't mean that they should in this case.


Kennesaw is also the part of Georgia that requires every homeowner to be armed. I'm betting they are probably among our best-suited neighborhoods to weather any "security concerns". :)
Click to expand...

1. If the decision was based on the particular religion of the facility users, they do not have that right per the first amendment.
 
tech30528 said:
It's fun to watch self proclaimed atheists who spend their time trolling Christians defend Islam in today's climate as though freedom of religion really means anything to them to begin with.
Click to expand...
It is the great irony. So wrapped up in hatred of Christianity that they go out of their way to show contempt, scorn, and ridicule, and so committed that they rush to side with people that oppress women, homosexuals, infidels...and those are the NON-fundamentalists....

Thats being said...If it is true that the city council recently approved a Christian Church group in a similar setting, then legally, I dont think they have any basis or foundation to deny the Mosque.

I WOULD suggest that perhaps along the them of winning the hearts and minds of people the Muslim group in Kennesaw should aggressively engage in community activity and volunteerism. Best way to assuage fear is to not start by kicking in a door.
 
Paleocon said:
Using analogy to show the ordering of words. An change a phrase's meaning. Thus saying that "X is true" is not the same as saying that "X is truly Y".



"X is a false Y" is equivalent to "X is a Y that is false", not "X is not really Y".
Click to expand...

How is Islam not a real religion IE a false religion?
 
WCH said:
The good people of that community have a right to security and peace in their own neighborhood. If not having a mosque there made them feel better, who are we to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

They have no right deny one religious group the ability to build their church while allowing other religious groups the right to build their church based on retarded ride on the short bus idiotic anti-Muslim paranoia. A handful of Muslims flying committing terrorist acts in this country is not justification for pissing and ****ting all over someone's religious rights just as a handful of losers shooting up a place is not justification for ****ting all over someone's 2nd amendment rights.
 
Hard Truth said:
The tax payers will end up paying for a settlement/penalty to compensate the Muslim group for the illegal discrimination (assuming that is the case) because of the actions of the local officials. The local officials will not suffer any consequences except as taxpayers. In my view, politicians who knowingly vote to violate the constitutional rights of citizens should have to compensate the government for the legal costs and settlements/penalty.
Click to expand...

Yes, assuming that the discrimination is illegal and that the muslims actually bring the suit and actually win a settlement. But that's a lot of assuming.
 
Paleocon said:
How are you this dumb?
Click to expand...

I have asked multiple times how is Islam a false or fake religion. Instead of posting evidence how you insult me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom