• 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!

Ground zero mosque wins key vote

independent_thinker2002 said:
Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read article 11.
Click to expand...

For many years the United States had maintained peace with the Barbary States by "buying" treaties thats right buying freaking treaties....and paying tributes to the Pasha. The states of Algiers, Morocco, and Tunis remained reasonably complacent under this system, though Tripoli continued to demand larger payments and make threats against the United States.

I am 100% opposed to Islam in every way, shape or form. Forget religious opposition. From a purely secular, political perspective, Islam is a clear and present danger to this country and to the American way of life. Islam is even more insidious than limp dick communism. Until the day arises that we finally decide to eradicate it, we must resist it at every point. It should not be protected under the first amendment because of the threat it presents to the US.
 
Jetboogieman said:
So. Once again you have nothing of value to say. Except personal attacks and senseless accusations.

I must say, your debating skills are somewhat lacking.

I just watched the clip and had a look through, and it is troubling he wouldn't admit to Hamas being a terrorist organization. Does it change my opinion on the mosque... No. If funding came from Hamas, yes. Is that likely. No.

As i said before, if REAL evidence is provided, I will respond positively. This is the first time you've provided me with something solid.
Click to expand...

Islam is even a threat to those who are Muslims. If you want to know how, just read the works of Naipaul. He documents how Islam actually destroys and reduces civilizations, and cripples their ability to progress in any area (especially science).
 
ric27 said:
I am 100% opposed to Islam in every way, shape or form.
Click to expand...

And to anybody who said that bigotry wasn't the reason for the backlash to the mosque, I say to you Q.E.D.
 
Harshaw said:
None of this would mean squat if there weren't still a frickin' hole in the ground NINE YEARS after the towers were knocked down.
Click to expand...

You know I wondered that myself. I am sure for someone living in NYC, and for the people of NYC it is a touchy issue, but I think the majority of Americans would like there to be one giant tower. I propose we make a tower that beats the hell out of anything Hong Kong or Mumbai is building, with a giant 1 acre American flag ont he top and a giant 50ft bald eagle on the top of that, with eyes that can shoot laser beams at on coming aircrafts if they so choose to fly into it. Also no, I am not joking we seriously should make something badass like that.
 
Guy Incognito said:
And to anybody who said that bigotry wasn't the reason for the backlash to the mosque, I say to you Q.E.D.
Click to expand...

Regretfully though, I have to say that our founders never contemplated the problem of Islamic expansion. Immigration by Muslims to Europe was unheard of.

It is my position that Islam is incompatible with Western values. If we are both to survive, then there must be separation. If it were in my power, I'd deport every Muslim in Europe and the Americas. Either back to their country of origin or to their Islamic nation of choice. And I would prohibit citizenship or permanent residency to any Muslim. I would still trade with them, but I'd keep them in their own lands. If their culture ever experiences a renaissance and they grow out of their intolerance, then isolation might no longer be necessary. Until that time however, I consider them to be a threat to our very existence.
 
JohnWOlin said:
You know I wondered that myself. I am sure for someone living in NYC, and for the people of NYC it is a touchy issue, but I think the majority of Americans would like there to be one giant tower. I propose we make a tower that beats the hell out of anything Hong Kong or Mumbai is building, with a giant 1 acre American flag ont he top and a giant 50ft bald eagle on the top of that, with eyes that can shoot laser beams at on coming aircrafts if they so choose to fly into it. Also no, I am not joking we seriously should make something badass like that.
Click to expand...

If there were such a thing -- two towers, one tower, whatever -- standing there, and it's baffling to me that there isn't, no little nearby mosque would mean a thing to anyone.
 
Harshaw said:
If there were such a thing -- two towers, one tower, whatever -- standing there, and it's baffling to me that there isn't, no little nearby mosque would mean a thing to anyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah especially a bald eagle with laser beam eyes. Is there a comission people can send WTC2 ideas too?
 
ric27 said:
Regretfully though, I have to say that our founders never contemplated the problem of Islamic expansion. Immigration by Muslims to Europe was unheard of.
Click to expand...
There were already Muslims who emigrated to Europe well before America was even a British colony.
ric27 said:
It is my position that Islam is incompatible with Western values. If we are both to survive, then there must be separation. If it were in my power, I'd deport every Muslim in Europe and the Americas. Either back to their country of origin or to their Islamic nation of choice. And I would prohibit citizenship or permanent residency to any Muslim. I would still trade with them, but I'd keep them in their own lands. If their culture ever experiences a renaissance and they grow out of their intolerance, then isolation might no longer be necessary. Until that time however, I consider them to be a threat to our very existence.
Click to expand...
Lucky for us, you are in no position to act on your flawed beliefs. You are the opposite of what America stands for. In fact, your reasoning is in direct opposition of the US Constitution. The only one who has shown intolerance here is you. The only threat to our existence is you. Xenophobia is not very becoming.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I wasn't aware freedom of religion and private property rights was pro-Islamist. Have you lost your mind?
Click to expand...

You aren't defending this mans properties you are defending this man, huge ****ing difference. I on the other recognize the mans property rights while admitting that he is an Islamist POS, something which you seem incapable of doing.
 
Deuce said:
Massive problems with conservatives:
1) The belief that Islam = Terrorist
2) The belief that saying anything at all sympathetic to Palestinians or Islam = Support of Terrorism

I could say "Man, a palestinian child was killed in a rocket strike by Israel. Collateral damage can be so tragic."

WHY DO YOU SUPPORT TERRORISM, DEUCE? YOU DAMN LIBERALS!
Click to expand...

If you refuse to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization then you are not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination but rather an Islamist.

People who defend this man which himself supports Sharia, can in no way be termed liberal, but of course ideological consistency has never been a necessity for the modern left.
 
.

Does seem a little puzzling. Don't think there is any question that they have the legal right to build the mosque on that site.

But with all that we continue to read about how the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving. And all the statements we hear about the Muslim community decrying their outrage about the 9/11 attack by extremist Islamic fundamentalists......


.....Shouldn't we expect some compassionate voices coming out from the US Muslim leadership acknowledging that the proposed location of the mosque is a questionable/inflammatory decision??

The structure could be built anywhere. Am wondering why the broader Muslim community is not engaged in suggesting/supporting a less provocative location.....:confused:



.
 
I think if they are compassionate towards us or not is a non-issue. btw did any of you know there is a strip club closer to the site of ground zero than this mosque will be?
 
ric27 said:
Regretfully though, I have to say that our founders never contemplated the problem of Islamic expansion. Immigration by Muslims to Europe was unheard of.
Click to expand...

There have been demographic shifts all over the world, and yes many Muslims did emigrate to Europe before the Revolution.

ric27 said:
It is my position that Islam is incompatible with Western values.
Click to expand...

Some interpretations of it are, but to the vast majority of Muslims it is.

ric27 said:
If we are both to survive, then there must be separation. If it were in my power, I'd deport every Muslim in Europe and the Americas. Either back to their country of origin or to their Islamic nation of choice. And I would prohibit citizenship or permanent residency to any Muslim. I would still trade with them, but I'd keep them in their own lands. If their culture ever experiences a renaissance and they grow out of their intolerance, then isolation might no longer be necessary. Until that time however, I consider them to be a threat to our very existence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's so exemplary of the values you came to uphold. The Muslims aren't taking over ric, less than 1 in 200 Americans are Muslim, and the notion that anymore than a handful are terrorists is based on nothing less than paranoia. You've shown zero evidence that most Muslims are Jihadists besides a few out of context quotes that most Muslims will tell you they interpret differently. Your geopolitical views are based on childish paranoia and bigotry.
 
Degreez said:
Lucky for us, you are in no position to act on your flawed beliefs. You are the opposite of what America stands for. In fact, your reasoning is in direct opposition of the US Constitution. The only one who has shown intolerance here is you. The only threat to our existence is you. Xenophobia is not very becoming.
Click to expand...

The key is that the foundation of this country has religious freedom are, the Judeo Christian values represented in our founding documents. The reason we have freedom and RELIGIOUS FREEDOM here that allows everyone, including the Godless to live here.

I'm not a hardcore Christian, but the religious cultural foundations of this country are unmistakable. Like it or not, the basis on how 90+ percent of the US conducts their lives has some basis in some form of faith, and mostly from the Christian traditions. Denying the Judeo-Christian tradition is folly.
 
ric27 said:
The key is that the foundation of this country has religious freedom are, the Judeo Christian values represented in our founding documents. The reason we have freedom and RELIGIOUS FREEDOM here that allows everyone, including the Godless to live here.

I'm not a hardcore Christian, but the religious cultural foundations of this country are unmistakable. Like it or not, the basis on how 90+ percent of the US conducts their lives has some basis in some form of faith, and mostly from the Christian traditions. Denying the Judeo-Christian tradition is folly.
Click to expand...

Do I need to go find some George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson quotes (again) to show you how horribly wrong you are? I don't recall you actually responding to the fact that Jefferson and Franklin specifically were agnostic and atheist. Also your signature is ridiculous. The koran, bible, and torrah all use the old testament (or parts of) and from there they split off into their own books made specifically for the religion. I always get a crack out of people talking about religion when they don't know anything about it themselves.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Also your signature is ridiculous. The koran, bible, and torrah all use the old testament (or parts of) and from there they split off into their own books made specifically for the religion. I always get a crack out of people talking about religion when they don't know anything about it themselves.
Click to expand...

The New Testament does not support forced conversions and fails to offer any Old Testament justification.

This is an essential difference between Judaism and Christianity, and Islam. A Jew or a Christian can get all uppity and say he's doing it for God. But there is no scriptural basis for doing it and the argument has always failed when confronted with the source documents. Not so for Islam.
 
ric27 said:
The key is that the foundation of this country has religious freedom are, the Judeo Christian values represented in our founding documents. The reason we have freedom and RELIGIOUS FREEDOM here that allows everyone, including the Godless to live here.

I'm not a hardcore Christian, but the religious cultural foundations of this country are unmistakable. Like it or not, the basis on how 90+ percent of the US conducts their lives has some basis in some form of faith, and mostly from the Christian traditions. Denying the Judeo-Christian tradition is folly.
Click to expand...

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "obtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.

Toward Islam itself the Founding generation held differing views. An evangelical Baptist spokesman denounced "Mahomet" as a "hateful" figure who, unlike the meek and gentle Jesus, spread his religion at the point of a sword. A Presbyterian preacher in rural South Carolina dusted off Grotius' 17th century reproach that the "religion of Mahomet originated in arms, breathes nothing but arms, is propagated by arms." Other, more influential observers had a different view of Muslims. In 1783, the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, cited a study showing that "Mohammadan" morals were "far superior to the Christian." Another New Englander believed that the "moral principles that were inculcated by their teachers had a happy tendency to render them good members of society." The reference here, as other commentators made clear, was to Islam's belief, which it shared with Christianity, in a "future state of rewards and punishments," a system of celestial carrots and sticks which the Founding generation considered necessary to guarantee good social conduct.
Click to expand...

Nice try though.
 
ric27 said:
The New Testament does not support forced conversions and fails to offer any Old Testament justification.

This is an essential difference between Judaism and Christianity, and Islam. A Jew or a Christian can get all uppity and say he's doing it for God. But there is no scriptural basis for doing it and the argument has always failed when confronted with the source documents. Not so for Islam.
Click to expand...

How is the New Testament a "source" document? It wasn't compiled into what it is today until the First Council. A large portion of its work is to credited to a man who never even met Jesus. It is so far from a source document.
 
Degreez said:
Nice try though.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.....Lets get some logic injected in this...

America (North) was settled predominantly by Europeans, ok? and I believe, there was no other religion in Europe throughout that time. So, we have either Protestant denominations, Catholic, Jewish, or agnostic/atheist.

Breaking it down a little further, the majority ethnic European groups were English, Scots, Irish, German, Dutch, French and Spanish. Most of the Irish and all of the Spanish were Catholic. English were mixed, but primarily Protestant. Germans were mixed, Catholic and Lutheran. Dutch were mostly Protestant. French were a small part, but it depended on whether they came down from Canada (Canada) or France-England (Huguenot). Scots were mixed and again, it depended on when they came over and where. Quite a few Catholic Scots came over after Culloden in 1743 and settled in the Carolinas. Jews were a small minority. Atheists and Agnostics were more likely to be in the "intellectual" crowd, but they were still a product of a Christian society (their mama and papa, grandmother, grandpa, etc, etc

So, how in the world is it NOT to say that our foundations were not Judeo-Christian when that was the only culture known to most of the 13 Colonies????
 
ric27 said:
Hmmmm.....Lets get some logic injected in this...

America (North) was settled predominantly by Europeans, ok? and I believe, there was no other religion in Europe throughout that time. So, we have either Protestant denominations, Catholic, Jewish, or agnostic/atheist.

Breaking it down a little further, the majority ethnic European groups were English, Scots, Irish, German, Dutch, French and Spanish. Most of the Irish and all of the Spanish were Catholic. English were mixed, but primarily Protestant. Germans were mixed, Catholic and Lutheran. Dutch were mostly Protestant. French were a small part, but it depended on whether they came down from Canada (Canada) or France-England (Huguenot). Scots were mixed and again, it depended on when they came over and where. Quite a few Catholic Scots came over after Culloden in 1743 and settled in the Carolinas. Jews were a small minority. Atheists and Agnostics were more likely to be in the "intellectual" crowd, but they were still a product of a Christian society (their mama and papa, grandmother, grandpa, etc, etc

So, how in the world is it NOT to say that our foundations were not Judeo-Christian when that was the only culture known to most of the 13 Colonies????
Click to expand...

Nice straw man, but that was not in anyway the mindset of our forefathers, who came to America to escape religious persecution, not to create it. Take Thomas Jefferson, for instance:

Thomas Jefferson said:
“[T]he insertion [of the word “Jesus Christ”] was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the Infidel of every denomination.
Click to expand...

From this article, which complete debunks the straw man that you are attempting to build.

On the other hand, fairy tales are very nice. I like the one where Chewbacca rides a squirrel into battle, and defeats the Nazis during WWII.

7GC27.jpg
 
Agent Ferris said:
If you refuse to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization then you are not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination but rather an Islamist.

People who defend this man which himself supports Sharia, can in no way be termed liberal, but of course ideological consistency has never been a necessity for the modern left.
Click to expand...

You do realize there are several schools of Sharia, some more liberal than others, that sharia has been used for feminist purposes. You do realize a grand portion of the muslim world supports sharia for its LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT POWER and other useful aspects.
 
ric27 said:
Hmmmm.....Lets get some logic injected in this...

America (North) was settled predominantly by Europeans, ok? and I believe, there was no other religion in Europe throughout that time. So, we have either Protestant denominations, Catholic, Jewish, or agnostic/atheist.
Click to expand...

Except for those pagan indians that we slaughtered by the thousands. Forgot about them, didn't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom