• 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!

President Obama comes out in support of Ground Zero mosque

No I did not, he clearly said that he supports Sharia and his only problem is with the penal code.



A) Yes I saw it and I don't give a **** what Jon Stewart says and even less what Glenn Beck says.

B) Glenn Beck did not say that the U.S. was an accessory to 9-11. Glenn Beck did not say that OBL was made in the USA, Glenn Beck does not call for a Sharia compliant U.S., and Glenn Beck does not refuse to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Again, you misread. Like a Christian who thinks we should follow the word of God in making our decisisons, he feels the same about his religion. But his point was that doing so is not radical any more than when a Christian feels that way. You completely misunderstand his conversation, playing the nonthinking radical misrepresenting role of a Beck.

And Becks comments are exactly the same, with exactly the same meaning. Again, it takes a certain willingness to misrepresent to read it otherwise.

I repeat, you simply have it completely wrong.
 
Question to liberals:

* Why support Islam when it is anti-feminist, anti-gay, homophobia, anti-transgendered and anti-Semitic?

We hate America, of course. :roll:

Why do you automatically assume that liberals support Islam?
 
Question to liberals:

* Why support Islam when it is anti-feminist, anti-gay, homophobia, anti-transgendered and anti-Semitic?

Not sure anyoneis supporting Islam. Your question really sidesteps the real issue. Christianity has suffered much of the same criticism, and yet I wouldn't deny a church being built.
 
Question to liberals:

* Why support Islam when it is anti-feminist, anti-gay, homophobia, anti-transgendered and anti-Semitic?

Because A) freedom of religion and B) They can't enact any of those things into actual law in our country.

Why would you act against the rights and liberties of the individual if said individual has not infringed upon the rights of anyone else?
 
Not sure anyoneis supporting Islam. Your question really sidesteps the real issue. Christianity has suffered much of the same criticism, and yet I wouldn't deny a church being built.


So far, I see many are just plain missing the point, and trying to continually make arguments for what is not said.

Look, you claim to have watched Beck speak on this, then you would know fully well that Beck, as well as many of those in here are not arguing that the church can not be built, that these people are not within their rights to build it. They are. But the real question is, always has been, and should continue to be, should they?

Constantly we hear in this country how Christianity are full of nutjobs, and fights constantly go on up to and including trying to remove the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Now all of the sudden those same individuals that are constantly saying that Christian symbols, and prayer should be kept from the public square, are seriously arguing for a Mosque of Conquest to be built even though it offends the majority of people there. You can't say 'merry Christmas' according to these people because someone may be offended by hearing the word "Christ" but by all means defend the gosh, and purely political statement of placing this Mosque 600 feet from ground zero, oh and let an Imam that labels America as an accessory to that crime be the pastor there. Those in defense of this are duplicitous in nature.

To be crystal clear, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD!!!!!! BUT SHOULD THEY?


j-mac
 
Constantly we hear in this country how Christianity are full of nutjobs, and fights constantly go on up to and including trying to remove the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Now all of the sudden those same individuals that are constantly saying that Christian symbols, and prayer should be kept from the public square, are seriously arguing for a Mosque of Conquest to be built even though it offends the majority of people there. You can't say 'merry Christmas' according to these people because someone may be offended by hearing the word "Christ" but by all means defend the gosh, and purely political statement of placing this Mosque 600 feet from ground zero, oh and let an Imam that labels America as an accessory to that crime be the pastor there. Those in defense of this are duplicitous in nature.
Who here is taking such a position?
 
So far, I see many are just plain missing the point, and trying to continually make arguments for what is not said.

Look, you claim to have watched Beck speak on this, then you would know fully well that Beck, as well as many of those in here are not arguing that the church can not be built, that these people are not within their rights to build it. They are. But the real question is, always has been, and should continue to be, should they?

Constantly we hear in this country how Christianity are full of nutjobs, and fights constantly go on up to and including trying to remove the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Now all of the sudden those same individuals that are constantly saying that Christian symbols, and prayer should be kept from the public square, are seriously arguing for a Mosque of Conquest to be built even though it offends the majority of people there. You can't say 'merry Christmas' according to these people because someone may be offended by hearing the word "Christ" but by all means defend the gosh, and purely political statement of placing this Mosque 600 feet from ground zero, oh and let an Imam that labels America as an accessory to that crime be the pastor there. Those in defense of this are duplicitous in nature.

To be crystal clear, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD!!!!!! BUT SHOULD THEY?


j-mac

Odd you should start by claiming peopelare arguing against something not argued, and then you do exactly what you claim others are doing. Never have I argued that Christianity is full of nutjobs. And as the pledge was not written with God in it, it would be more accurate to suggest that you side argues it should be added, but again, not anything to do with me.

In the issue of shold, that has to be discussed in factual terms and understandings. The Iman is not a terrorist or even a proven radical. It is not even being built at ground zero. There is really no controvesy here of any merit at all, but more a wild overreaction by some, a very few some.

So, stay away from your strawmen arguments and come back to the factual argument. ;)
 
Constantly we hear in this country how Christianity are full of nutjobs,

But they are. I'm not saying they're gonna blow something up...not yet (those Jesus Camp folk though...who the hell knows); but you guys got some serious crazies. The libertarian party ain't got anything on Christian crazies. Crazies in all groups though.

and fights constantly go on up to and including trying to remove the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

It was inserted in the 50's for propaganda reasoning. Though I don't really care if it's there. I think the whole of the Pledge is propaganda.

Now all of the sudden those same individuals that are constantly saying that Christian symbols, and prayer should be kept from the public square,

I have always argued that public displays of religion are fine. I even argue that it's ok to discriminate, a community need not put up symbols of all religions if they don't want. I think that is still true as well. If the community wants to put a manger scene by the courthouse to celebrate Christmas and nothing more, that's their right to do so. I even think displays of the 10 Commandments are ok at court houses. So long as the court rules by the laws of man and not the laws of gods, no rights are violated.

are seriously arguing for a Mosque of Conquest to be built even though it offends the majority of people there.

And it should be allowed to be build even if it offends the majority of the people there. Ain't no right against being offended.

You can't say 'merry Christmas' according to these people because someone may be offended by hearing the word "Christ" but by all means defend the gosh, and purely political statement of placing this Mosque 600 feet from ground zero, oh and let an Imam that labels America as an accessory to that crime be the pastor there. Those in defense of this are duplicitous in nature.

I think that this is a bit of an overstatement. There may be some who are offended by "merry Christmas", but A) it's their problem and B) You don't have to stop. Ain't nothing illegal.

To be crystal clear, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD!!!!!! BUT SHOULD THEY?

Of course they shouldn't. They should be more respectful, but they don't have to be. And because I can't do anything about it, it's not worth getting my undies in a twist over it. Just ignore it. It's a free country.
 
Odd you should start by claiming peopelare arguing against something not argued, and then you do exactly what you claim others are doing. Never have I argued that Christianity is full of nutjobs. And as the pledge was not written with God in it, it would be more accurate to suggest that you side argues it should be added, but again, not anything to do with me.

In the issue of shold, that has to be discussed in factual terms and understandings. The Iman is not a terrorist or even a proven radical. It is not even being built at ground zero. There is really no controvesy here of any merit at all, but more a wild overreaction by some, a very few some.

So, stay away from your strawmen arguments and come back to the factual argument. ;)


Not so odd Joe that you would obfuscate the argument in order to attack me for even posing the question.

The issue I take is that this Imam is indeed radical. Unless ofcourse you agree that American law needs to become Shria compliant.


j-mac
 
Not so odd Joe that you would obfuscate the argument in order to attack me for even posing the question.

The issue I take is that this Imam is indeed radical. Unless ofcourse you agree that American law needs to become Shria compliant.


j-mac

No, he has not proposed that. he's having a dicussion concerning how we vote on laws. How we support or object to laws. Like the christian who objects to homosexual rights because he believes homosexuality is a sin, so to does the Muslim. Again, like the AF, you misread him.

But it was you who threw out tat strawman argument and not me. If you don't want to be called on it, don't throw such silliness out there.
 
The issue I take is that this Imam is indeed radical. Unless ofcourse you agree that American law needs to become Shria compliant.


j-mac

Could you please provide a direct quote in which the Imam said America should use Sharia law. I'd love to see it.

Jet-Mac.
 
Of course they shouldn't. They should be more respectful, but they don't have to be. And because I can't do anything about it, it's not worth getting my undies in a twist over it. Just ignore it. It's a free country.

I will agree with you this far, whether they should or not is a useless argument. It is a free country, and as you say, there is protection from being offended.
 
But they are. I'm not saying they're gonna blow something up...not yet (those Jesus Camp folk though...who the hell knows); but you guys got some serious crazies. The libertarian party ain't got anything on Christian crazies. Crazies in all groups though.

Lyndon La Rouche is a moderate isn't he? As well as Chomsky?


It was inserted in the 50's for propaganda reasoning. Though I don't really care if it's there. I think the whole of the Pledge is propaganda.

Propaganda? In what way? As to the words "Under God":

Louis A. Bowman (1872-1959) was the first to initiate the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea.[8][9] He spent his adult life in the Chicago area and was Chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. At a meeting on February 12, 1948,[citation needed] Lincoln's Birthday, he led the Society in swearing the Pledge with two words added, "under God." He stated that the words came from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Though not all manuscript versions of the Gettysburg Address contain the words "under God", all the reporters' transcripts of the speech as delivered do, as perhaps Lincoln may have deviated from his prepared text and inserted the phrase when he said "that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom." Bowman repeated his revised version of the Pledge at other meetings.[8]

Pledge of Allegiance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Lincoln was wrong?


I have always argued that public displays of religion are fine. I even argue that it's ok to discriminate, a community need not put up symbols of all religions if they don't want. I think that is still true as well. If the community wants to put a manger scene by the courthouse to celebrate Christmas and nothing more, that's their right to do so. I even think displays of the 10 Commandments are ok at court houses. So long as the court rules by the laws of man and not the laws of gods, no rights are violated.

Fine, we agree on this point.


And it should be allowed to be build even if it offends the majority of the people there. Ain't no right against being offended.

But surely not the 'concerned outreach' the Imam Rauf speaks of is it?


I think that this is a bit of an overstatement. There may be some who are offended by "merry Christmas", but A) it's their problem and B) You don't have to stop. Ain't nothing illegal.

Do you deny that fights to make it so have gone on?


Of course they shouldn't. They should be more respectful, but they don't have to be. And because I can't do anything about it, it's not worth getting my undies in a twist over it. Just ignore it. It's a free country.

So you say.


j-mac
 
Could you please provide a direct quote in which the Imam said America should use Sharia law. I'd love to see it.

Jet-Mac.

When I asked, this is what I got:

But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." The Declaration says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

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.

Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.

Home Page | Cordoba

There is no call here to change American law.
 
No, he has not proposed that. he's having a dicussion concerning how we vote on laws. How we support or object to laws. Like the christian who objects to homosexual rights because he believes homosexuality is a sin, so to does the Muslim. Again, like the AF, you misread him.

But it was you who threw out tat strawman argument and not me. If you don't want to be called on it, don't throw such silliness out there.


Ah BS! I didn't throw out any straw argument, I put forth what the guy has said in his own words, and according to liberals like you though we aren't supposed to believe that, we are supposed to go on the narrative you set up.....Nope, sorry, not going to do that.


j-mac
 
When I asked, this is what I got:

But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." The Declaration says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

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.

Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.

Home Page | Cordoba

There is no call here to change American law.


You have got to be kidding here!!!!! :shock: No difference?

According to the Sharia, despite declarations of the equality of the sexes before God, women are considered inferior to men, and have fewer rights and responsibilities. A woman counts as half a man in giving evidence in a court of law, or in matters of inheritance. Her position is less advantageous than a man’s with regard to marriage and divorce. A husband has the moral and religious right and duty to beat his wives for disobedience or for perceived misconduct. A woman does not have the right to choose her husband, or her place of residence, to travel freely or have freedom in her choice of clothing. Women have little or no autonomy and are deemed to need the protection of their fathers, husbands or other male relatives throughout their lives. Any conduct that undermines the idea of male supremacy will fall foul of the Sharia.

Women's Rights and the Sharia

And that is just a start!:roll:


j-mac
 
You have got to be kidding here!!!!! :shock: No difference?



And that is just a start!:roll:


j-mac

J, you're leaving the text and intent of his his article. And I remind you, Christians have been quility of abusing God's law as well. The Bible has been used to excuse abuse to women and slavery. So, leaving his text and intent to go offon yet another strawman doesn't win the argument for you. He did not call for the US to change any laws.
 
J, you're leaving the text and intent of his his article. And I remind you, Christians have been quility of abusing God's law as well. The Bible has been used to excuse abuse to women and slavery. So, leaving his text and intent to go offon yet another strawman doesn't win the argument for you. He did not call for the US to change any laws.


We are talking the here and now Joe, not some perceived PC grievance you liberals have from times past damnit! He DID say that laws in the US should be Shria compliant, and I don't know about you, but I don't try and shroud the man's words like you do.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom