• 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 On The Move?

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Crunch said:
Nothing you can do will satisfy me except leave..... will you defend my right to be there? Encourage me?
Click to expand...

No, because now you've gone beyond the issue at hand, i.e., a dog that's become a danger to society. Your entire reason for assembling outside my door is because of the threat the dog posses to the neighborhood. As a property owner you have no right to compel me to leave my home or my neighborhood. But by law I must do something to separate the danger to society - the dog - from society. It is my duty as a member of society to help protect it. As such, getting rid of the danger - the dog - IS enough! If you remain after the threat is removed YOU are now violating the law. For you no longer have a reason to assemble in front of my home.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

You sir, need to learn a little more about politics

As a liberal-progressive you have chosen to vote for a liberal-Marxist, anti-Semitic bigot, who chose to back the Temple of Hate in lower Manhattan. Not Newt Gingrich. Not Rush Limbaugh. Not Glen Beck. Barack Hussein Obama chose to.

It is not our fault that Imam Obama continues to combust since 2009.

It is not our fault you voted for Imam Obama because of your internalized liberal racism.

It is not my fault that my "tribe" (GLBT) chose to back this bigoted, racist homophobe ... who is, against gay marriage.

It is not my fault liberal-progressives are ... fools.

As a hard-working American (who tea-bags liberals in the privacy of my apartment), I have the right to use my free speech in any way I see fit, as long as it lawful and consistent with free speech guidelines.

I need no lecture from you, liberal-progressives or those who are anti-Semitic, homophobic cynics.

Stick to what you know: banging indy chicks, drinking haute joe and burning the American flag.

I'll stick to banging liberals in the cornhole and tea-bagging them in my apartment! :)
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Even though it wasn't directed at me, I want to answer the questions posed here:

Crunch said:
I have the Constitutional Right to stand outside your home, on the public sidewalk and call you every name in the book, protest your very existence night and day......... would that be right?
Click to expand...

It depends. Did I do something to trigger that reaction from you? You might be totally right to have those opinions.


Would you defend my right to do that?
Click to expand...

Absolutley. Just because I'm the target doesn't mean I'd want to steal your rights.

Would you encourage me?
Click to expand...

Probably not. But that'sa a different matter altogether from fighting for your right to do it.





But I'd say the following is a far better analogy of what is actually occuring here:

Let's say I have the exrtremely tragic situation where a person of a certain religious denomination rapes and murders my child based on their distorted beliefs about their religion.

Now lets say the house 6 doors down from my house goes on the market and someone of that same religion decides they want to buy that house.

Would I be right to tell them that they are completely out of line for wanting to buy a house so close to mine after such a tragedy befell me?

What if it is a church for that denomination 2 blocks from my house? Would I be right to tell them that they are rubbing my nose in it for building there?

Or would I be irrationally (albeit understandably) blaming an entire religion for the actions of the nut-job that raped and murdered my child.
 
Last edited:
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

GayLibertarian said:
You sir, need to learn a little more about politics

As a liberal-progressive you have chosen to vote for a liberal-Marxist, anti-Semitic bigot, who chose to back the Temple of Hate in lower Manhattan. Not Newt Gingrich. Not Rush Limbaugh. Not Glen Beck. Barack Hussein Obama chose to.

It is not our fault that Imam Obama continues to combust since 2009.

It is not our fault you voted for Imam Obama because of your internalized liberal racism.

It is not my fault that my "tribe" (GLBT) chose to back this bigoted, racist homophobe ... who is, against gay marriage.

It is not my fault liberal-progressives are ... fools.

As a hard-working American (who tea-bags liberals in the privacy of my apartment), I have the right to use my free speech in any way I see fit, as long as it lawful and consistent with free speech guidelines.

I need no lecture from you, liberal-progressives or those who are anti-Semitic, homophobic cynics.

Stick to what you know: banging indy chicks, drinking haute joe and burning the American flag.

I'll stick to banging liberals in the cornhole and tea-bagging them in my apartment! :)
Click to expand...

Oh ok I get it. The Steven Colbert of the forum. I like it. "As a hard-working American (who tea-bags liberals in the privacy of my apartment)" THis made me laugh out loud.
 
MrVicchio said:
Abe Lincoln, Republican.
Click to expand...

Obviously you didn't read my post because I said "liberals" and "conservatives" not "Democrats" or "Republicans", and obviously you don't know anything about the history of the Democratic and Republican parties, and I don't want to take the time to explain it to you.

But at least you knew better not to comment on any other of the civil issues I mentioned besides slavery, because you know that conservatives tried prevent all of those changes.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Objective Voice said:
No, because now you've gone beyond the issue at hand, i.e., a dog that's become a danger to society. Your entire reason for assembling outside my door is because of the threat the dog posses to the neighborhood. As a property owner you have no right to compel me to leave my home or my neighborhood. But by law I must do something to separate the danger to society - the dog - from society. It is my duty as a member of society to help protect it. As such, getting rid of the danger - the dog - IS enough! If you remain after the threat is removed YOU are now violating the law. For you no longer have a reason to assemble in front of my home.
Click to expand...

Then you don't support my right to freedom of speech and my right to assemble....... you want to deprive me of my Constitutional rights under the 1st amendment.

Get my point?

Edit: Exactly how would I be violating the law?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Agent Ferris said:
I won't apologize because the only reason why they would have decided to move it is because we spoke out, brought attention to the subject, and brought the heat down on them.
Click to expand...

And thus, they moved because people asked them to. People said that they were building the mosque to spite the people who were asking them to leave, which is why they were refusing to leaves -- specifically to spite people who wanted them to go, which was the only possible reason they would refuse free state land. Therefore, it wouldn't be out of place to hear an apology or two.

I might even make a thread for the occassion, if it comes.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Johnny DooWop said:
Those on this forum who oppose the mosque try to play a game of semantics. "They have the right, but that doesn't mean they should do it." Having the right to do something one wants to do means they should do it, because if they really shouldn't be doing it, then they shouldn't have the right to do it. Saying someone shouldn't do it, means that deep down inside you really believe they shouldn't have the right to do so, but you just don't want to say it.
Click to expand...

You're not serious are you?

Are you literally saying ANYTHING that someone has a right to do is unquestionably and universally then something they SHOULD do?

I have a right to walk around with a Billboard that says Obama = Hitler...do you think I should do that?

People have a right to think whatever they want as long as they don't act, so people have the right to fantasy continuously about doing a 5 year old while flogging themselves with a prostetic shaped like a dogs ass. Does that mean you think people should be doing it?

Or hell, lets take this at a better example that's more relevant.

I have the right to disagree with this Mosque, suggest that its a testimont to extremist muslims victories over the U.S. in their minds, and a purposeful insult to everyone affected by 9/11 and to speak that all over the internet and to everyone I know. I guess you think I should do that.

Though your words in this thread seems to be that you're suggesting that people SHOULDN'T do that, which I gues is you really saying you think free speech should be revoked but you just don't want to say it...by your logic.
 
johnnydoowop,

Please understand something sir: You *cannot* nor will you *ever* change my opinion.

I am a gay separatist, *RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN* who is a gun owner while socially liberal.

Your "progressive slime" ideology is really a trumped up Marxist cant that has been re-packaged and sold to the American people on the coat-tails of a corrupt Senator from Illinois who is bigoted racist. Read again: bigoted, racist. The internalized racism of Democrats could finally be efficasized through this extremely good looking (gay?) gentlemen who was voted to the Presidency.

He is your President. Not mine. I stand against bigotry, hatred, racism and homophobia.

Mr. Obama is a race-hating, anti-Semitic effiminate bigot.

Your movement is racist, bigoted and hateful.

Your movement backs homophobic Islam.

You chose your political beliefs.

No you must live with your choice.

Racism, hatred, bigotry, homophobia, anti-Semitism.

Ms. Pelosi is a bigoted racist. She will be voted out of the Speaker's Seat in November.

The Democractic Party chose a racist-bigoted platform. They will face the voters in November.

Your party, your leader and your ideology are about to get "tea bagged".

Get ready to swallow some testicles my friend.

It's gonna be salty!
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Crunch said:
Then you don't support my right to freedom of speech and my right to assemble....... you want to deprive me of my Constitutional rights under the 1st amendment.

Get my point?

Edit: Exactly how would I be violating the law?
Click to expand...

No, I haven't. You've had your say. You don't get to camp out in front of my home creating problems for me after I've rid the neighborhood of the problem. I am not the problem; my dog was. And since the dog is gone you don't have a reason to be in front of my home anymore. Your freedom of assembly was granted for two very specific reasons:

1) to alert the public that a home owner in the neighborhood possessed a domestic animal that was vicious and doing harm to the public; and,

2) to compel me as the dog's owner to do something to protect the public from this vicious animal, towit, remove it or secure it.

I choose to remove it. Therefore, you have no reason to remain camped out in front of my house.

BE GONE!!! Now YOU have become the menace to society because you're disturing the peace. See how that works?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Zyphlin said:
Y
Though your words in this thread seems to be that you're suggesting that people SHOULDN'T do that, which I gues is you really saying you think free speech should be revoked but you just don't want to say it...by your logic.
Click to expand...

My point was that someone who says "You shouldn't do that" is really saying "You shouldn't have the right to do that". They just don't want to admit it. For example, hypothetically, lets say some politician drafted a bill to tweak the first amendment so that this mosque couldn't be built, by saying something like "Any religious institution or religious entities who are affiliated with a religious institution that is currently backing, supporting or participating in a war against the United States is prohibited from building monuments or places of worship on American soil as a matter of national security." Lets again, VERY hypothetically, say there was a federal referendum for it and every citizen in the United States could vote on this. You, as well as most others on this forum who oppose the mosque, would vote yes on that bill. That is because you don't think they should have the right to do so. But since you are trying to be politically correct and trying to pretend like you actually believe in our constitution, you give the bulls**t responses of "I think they should have the right, but that they shouldn't do it." HAHA! What sense does that make?
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Obviously you didn't read my post because I said "liberals" and "conservatives" not "Democrats" or "Republicans", and obviously you don't know anything about the history of the Democratic and Republican parties, and I don't want to take the time to explain it to you.

But at least you knew better not to comment on any other of the civil issues I mentioned besides slavery, because you know that conservatives tried prevent all of those changes.
Click to expand...

Wow, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Conservatives widely supported abolishing slavery and other inequalities. Liberals - especially today - have supported institutionalized racism in the name of equality, such as Affirmative Action and incentivized welfare, in order to gain voting leverage.

Conservatives are for what is logically the right thing to do. Liberals are for what will create governmental power and dependence among the citizenry.

The fight to abolish slavery had nothing to do with conservative and liberal thought; it had to do with northern and southern economies. The conscious to do so was thick, as it was in all societies who made that transition over history.

Every power in the history of the world was built by free labor. Go pick up that history book you were bragging about.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Zyphlin said:
You're not serious are you?

Are you literally saying ANYTHING that someone has a right to do is unquestionably and universally then something they SHOULD do?

I have a right to walk around with a Billboard that says Obama = Hitler...do you think I should do that?

People have a right to think whatever they want as long as they don't act, so people have the right to fantasy continuously about doing a 5 year old while flogging themselves with a prostetic shaped like a dogs ass. Does that mean you think people should be doing it?

Or hell, lets take this at a better example that's more relevant.

I have the right to disagree with this Mosque, suggest that its a testimont to extremist muslims victories over the U.S. in their minds, and a purposeful insult to everyone affected by 9/11 and to speak that all over the internet and to everyone I know. I guess you think I should do that.

Though your words in this thread seems to be that you're suggesting that people SHOULDN'T do that, which I gues is you really saying you think free speech should be revoked but you just don't want to say it...by your logic.
Click to expand...

Difference between moral rights and legal rights.

Ideally, there is a way of conduct which is superior to any of the alternatives; one that incorporates all the best possible values and practices of human existence. No person or group embodies this standard entirely, but different qualities and actions bring them more or less closer to it.

Nobody has any moral right to do anything that is not moral, and there are no rights above moral rights (unless they are speicifically given by God). However, morally, there is also a duty to abide -- to let people do as they will provided they are respecting the will and freedom of other people to the minimum extent necessary to maintain peaceful discourse within society.

Legal rights are created so that the collective can observe that duty -- even though what a person does isn't always moral, it usually isn't quite immoral enough to merit employing force to prevent them.

Thus, when we protest against a person doing something, we are protesting against their moral right; in the deepest sense of the word, we don't believe they have the right to perform the action they have undertaken, but force cannot be employed to prevent them because of the legal rights which compel us to uphold our duty to abide. Morally or legally, duties are always more of an imperative than rights.

Since each side perceives (falsely or truly) that the other is out of their moral bounds, deep down each does believe the other doesn't really have the right to do what they are doing, even if it is just speaking (you don't have any moral right to say anything which is not virtuous).
 
Last edited:
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Objective Voice said:
No, I haven't. You've had your say. You don't get to camp out in front of my home creating problems for me after I've rid the neighborhood of the problem. I am not the problem; my dog was. And since the dog is gone you don't have a reason to be in front of my home anymore. Your freedom of assembly was granted for two very specific reasons:

1) to alert the public that a home owner in the neighborhood possessed a domestic animal that was vicious and doing harm to the public; and,

2) to compel me as the dog's owner to do something to protect the public from this vicious animal, towit, remove it or secure it.

I choose to remove it. Therefore, you have no reason to remain camped out in front of my house.

BE GONE!!! Now YOU have become the menace to society because you're disturing the peace. See how that works?
Click to expand...

I have the right to protest on public property in front of your house for as long as I want to even if it disturbs you.... that is my 1st amendment right, and it appears to me that you want to take that right from me..... Why?

I have the right but you don't support me. The Imam has the right and you do support him. Totally illogical.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Johnny DooWop said:
My point was that someone who says "You shouldn't do that" is really saying "You shouldn't have the right to do that".
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with that. I personally think that there are many things that shouldn't be done, but that it should legal to do them.

You, as well as most others on this forum who oppose the mosque, would vote yes on that bill.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that Zyph (as well as a good proportion of the opponents to this mosque) would support that bill. I'm sure that some people would, but I don't see people like Zyph or MrVicchio supporting that kind of legislation.
 
Erod said:
Wow, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Conservatives widely supported abolishing slavery and other inequalities.
Click to expand...

Why don't you pick up that history book I was bragging about and give me some sources. What staunch conservatives supported the civil rights movement? And remember, not "Republicans" but conservatives. Before the 1960s southern democrats had the most conservative ideologies out of anyone in America. When the northern dems became increasingly liberal and started backing the civil rights movement, the southern dems jumped ship and infiltrated the Republican party, which is why you have this ironic and contradictory ideologies of social conservatism and economic liberalism in the Republican party.

America was built on liberalism. The idea that everyone is equal was not a traditional conservative value in Europe. Conservatives, who were originally British Loyalist who opposed the American Revolution, have been trying to resist the changes of equality ever since, but true liberals, like Abe Lincoln and JFK have pushed through that resistance to bring true equality to all Americans.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Why don't you pick up that history book I was bragging about and give me some sources. What staunch conservatives supported the civil rights movement? And remember, not "Republicans" but conservatives. Before the 1960s southern democrats had the most conservative ideologies out of anyone in America. When the northern dems became increasingly liberal and started backing the civil rights movement, the southern dems jumped ship and infiltrated the Republican party, which is why you have this ironic and contradictory ideologies of social conservatism and economic liberalism in the Republican party.

America was built on liberalism. The idea that everyone is equal was not a traditional conservative value in Europe. Conservatives, who were originally British Loyalist who opposed the American Revolution, have been trying to resist the changes of equality ever since, but true liberals, like Abe Lincoln and JFK have pushed through that resistance to bring true equality to all Americans.
Click to expand...

You are obviously a product of today's wonderful public education system....:roll:
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Why don't you pick up that history book I was bragging about and give me some sources. What staunch conservatives supported the civil rights movement? And remember, not "Republicans" but conservatives. Before the 1960s southern democrats had the most conservative ideologies out of anyone in America. When the northern dems became increasingly liberal and started backing the civil rights movement, the southern dems jumped ship and infiltrated the Republican party, which is why you have this ironic and contradictory ideologies of social conservatism and economic liberalism in the Republican party.

America was built on liberalism. The idea that everyone is equal was not a traditional conservative value in Europe. Conservatives, who were originally British Loyalist who opposed the American Revolution, have been trying to resist the changes of equality ever since, but true liberals, like Abe Lincoln and JFK have pushed through that resistance to bring true equality to all Americans.
Click to expand...

How about Martin Luther King, Jr.

He was no liberal, I'm afraid to tell you.

There's a difference in supporting equal rights, and supporting swinging the pendulum so far the other way that you've ultimately created the same situation, only backward. The policies that these "liberals" you favor so much have created a society where minorities are talked down to and made so many excuses for, that they are viewed by liberals as inferior in context.

Conservatives believe in equality. Not welfare, or governmental assistance, but true, stand-on-your-own-two-feet equality, where you are the product of your own decisions and must deal with the consequences of those decisions. Liberals provide excuses and coddling...."it's not your fault, it's the white man's fault. Vote for us, and we'll fix it." That is by definition the truest form of racism.

You see, in your narrow mind, "conservative" is just a synonym for "racist". Until you can wedge yourself out of your Olbermann-like trance, you aren't going to get it.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Johnny DooWop said:
Those on this forum who oppose the mosque try to play a game of semantics. "They have the right, but that doesn't mean they should do it." Having the right to do something one wants to do means they should do it, because if they really shouldn't be doing it, then they shouldn't have the right to do it. Saying someone shouldn't do it, means that deep down inside you really believe they shouldn't have the right to do so, but you just don't want to say it.
Click to expand...

Like grandpappy used to say...why thats just horsehit, son...

I have never said they cant. I have never opposed their 'right'. But just because you CAN do something doesnt mean you SHOULD do something. I dont think anyone that has a pulse and a measurable IQ should ever vote democrat...but I still acknowledge all the crippled dependent little pets their RIGHT to do so.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
My point was that someone who says "You shouldn't do that" is really saying "You shouldn't have the right to do that". They just don't want to admit it.
Click to expand...

Wonderful, so you don't believe people should have the right to free speech and assembly to speak out agaisnt this mosque. Thanks for showing us what your true intent is based on your logic then.

For example, hypothetically, lets say some politician drafted a bill to tweak the first amendment so that this mosque couldn't be built, by saying something like "Any religious institution or religious entities who are affiliated with a religious institution that is currently backing, supporting or participating in a war against the United States is prohibited from building monuments or places of worship on American soil as a matter of national security." Lets again, VERY hypothetically, say there was a federal referendum for it and every citizen in the United States could vote on this. You, as well as most others on this forum who oppose the mosque, would vote yes on that bill.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, you should really read a good deal of my posts before you want to start telling me how or why I'd vote for something.

I would vote no on that bill. In my mind that's against the spirit of the constitution and what this country was founded on and that the government has no business adding such a thing to the constitution. To me the constitution is to restrict the government and to proteect the rights of Americans, not to restrict those rights or give further power to the government.

That is because you don't think they should have the right to do so.
Click to expand...

No, that is because you ignorantly assume you can read my mind based off a couple of posts and thus made a ridiculous accusations as if it was fact.

But since you are trying to be politically correct and trying to pretend like you actually believe in our constitution, you give the bulls**t responses of "I think they should have the right, but that they shouldn't do it." HAHA! What sense does that make?
Click to expand...

LOL, you're accusing me of being politically correct and not believing in the constitution...this gets funnier by the minute.

See, last I checked, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly were just as much part of the constitution as freedom of religion. That means I absolutely think the individuals should not be impeeded or intimidated by the government to create their mosque, and I also absolutely think the individuals speaking out against it should not be forcibly silenced or intimidated into silence by the government either.

Personally, I think they shouldn't build the mosque there. It doesn't serve the purpose they supposedly are stating is the goal of the Mosque. It is interjecting a highly controversial situation into a location where frankly I think should be as free from such things as possible. I think they are completely acting insensitively to the thoughts and emotions of tens of thousands of people, wrongfully or not, who are being negatively effected emotionally with regards to this. I see no, legitimate, GOOD reason to have it there. And frankly I see nothing worse about suggesting that they SHOULDN'T build there even though they CAN build there than yours and others suggestions that people who feel that way are bigoted racists who SHOULD be silent.
 
PeteEU said:
Not what he said and you know it. What he in fact said is 100% correct, that the US was complicit in the attack by its policies
Click to expand...

That's exactly what he he said that the U.S. was an accessory to the crime and that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after 9-11. That's blaming the U.S. for the attack any way you slice it.

around the world. Anyone denying this fact is either blind, stupid or has not been following what is going on in the world for the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

Really what did the U.S. do in order to become an accessory to the crime of the 9-11 attacks. I understand that you hate the United States as well and share the blame the victim propaganda of the Islamists, but it it is no less disgusting coming from you than it is from them.

He said the following
Click to expand...

Exactly he blamed the US in partial for 9-11.

and he is right. Guess who else said the above (or approximately)... Glenn Beck, half of Fox News and a tons of right wing talking heads including Ron Paul. Go figure!
Click to expand...

A) I don't give a **** what the nutter Beck has to say.

B) Beck never said that the US was an accessory to 9-11 nor did he say that OBL was made in the USA, called for a Sharia compliant US, or refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization.

And you have this from what?
Click to expand...

Exact quotes from his radio appearance, the audio is available as well:


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.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabL#ixzz0rJTKPGE6
Click to expand...

Here's the podcast of the WABC interview in question it starts about 13 minutes in.


A right wing email? And it is his right under free speech to not comment on Hamas.
Click to expand...

And it is my right to condemn him as the Islamist that he is.

And lets not forget, Hamas does also a lot of good (relatively speaking), by feeding, housing and giving medical care to the people of Gaza.... something no one else does or have attempted to do.
Click to expand...

Hamas intentionally kills babies any good that they do for propaganda purposes is outweighed by that fact alone.

You might not like their political policies (I dont for sure), but they are filling a void on the humanitarian level that no one else is willing to fill.
Click to expand...

Yippy.

Even for non Muslims?.. I doubt that very very very much. Do you have any evidence that he was a sharia compliant US?
Click to expand...

I don't care bottom line is he wants a Sharia Compliant US.

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
Click to expand...

He wants Sharia albeit with a less stringent penal code. But he is an Islamist not a secularist Muslim.
 
Last edited:
Robert "KKK" Byrd was one of many "Democrats" who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and even filibustered against it.

He was laid to rest by Mr. Obama.

When you talk about your "liberal love" we will continue to remind you of the Klansmen in your ranks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom