Ron Paul on the Islamic Center near Ground Zero

cajunkiwi

cincybearcat wrote:

I disagree with him in that "This is all about hate and Islamaphobia"...And man do I hate "Islamaphobia" and I can see becoming a very overused term, like a few others we have. Playing the Islamaphobia card.

Anyhow, I believe he is mostly right, so maybe I'm nitpicking. I do believe that it has a lot to do with an anti-lslam movement and some politicians are tapping into that for their personal gain. That said, I don't believe there would be this kind of uproar for a new mosque being built somewhere else, so it can't all just be "Islamaphobia".

Once again though, those that are truly 100% anti-Islam and all those other idiots crying "Islamaphobia" for most everything are the real problem because they keep us from having an important discussion in a rational manner.

Do they have a right to build it? Absolutely.

Should they build it there? That's a good discussion just to understand the motives of all involved.

So an arsonist burning down a mosque in Tennessee that people have been protesting against the building of doesn't amount to an uproar to you? What about the people in Wisconsin and California who are protesting against mosques being built in their communities?

I'm curious as to why so many people are questioning the Cordoba Initiative's "motives" - as if they're only building a mosque near Ground Zero to rub 9/11 into people's faces. There are a lot of people who think the Imam is some sinister bad guy who is building a mosque from scratch to preach intolerance... and they're completely oblivious to the fact that all he's doing is taking a building with a Muslim prayer room already in it and turning it into a community center that will CONTINUE to have a Muslim prayer room in it (along with newly-built prayer rooms for Christians and Jews).

unsung

If we could get rid of religion and liberals the world would be a much better place.

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

If we could get rid of religion and liberals the world would be a much better place.

...
But... if that was true... if there was no religion... there would not be a Christianity... and without a Christianity... there would not be Christian Values. Without Christian Values... there would be no Conservatives.
So... who would be left?
Answer: Aetheists.

FiveB247x

And when you got rid of religion, conservatives would disappear... so what does that leave you with...

Conservatives in America are a funny group, they're all for smaller government and hands off policy, except for when it something they like and want, then they jam it down the throats of everyone in the world.

unsung wrote:

If we could get rid of religion and liberals the world would be a much better place.

unsung

Isn't almost every war started because of religion? Damn near.

I'm all for getting rid of conservatives too, except those that will obey the Constitution. I think the line between liberals and conservatives becomes almost non-existant if religion is out of the mix.

FiveB247x

The Constitution is a great idea on paper, but in reality and practice it is merely an elastic point of reference to use as a guise or agenda. Whether it was economic, political or religious, the Constitution is nothing more than a reference point or scape-goat in order to get across whatever "your view" on an issue or how society should be. There's no such thing as "obey the constitution" because in most instances, it is not discussed, written or commented upon because we're referring to a document written 200+ yrs ago and very little still applies to every day life now. A few basic things which could also be taken out of context due to the time it was written, but other than that, the document represents now what we want it too, not some grand intention or guide.

unsung wrote:

Isn't almost every war started because of religion? Damn near.

I'm all for getting rid of conservatives too, except those that will obey the Constitution. I think the line between liberals and conservatives becomes almost non-existant if religion is out of the mix.

unsung

This nation is based upon the Constitution. I think you need to value it a bit more.

FiveB247x

Value it more?? Do me a favor and look through our history and show me where we have done so. Or how about we mention how important it is but we left our minorities right to freedom and voting (women too)? I took a class in college all about Constitutional law and one of the major themes of it was how the document was used as a reference point to pass through laws and agendas which had zero to do with anything remotely to with it (whether it was the interstate commerce act or the elastic clause). No one person's idea of what the Constitution actually means in practice is the same as another, same as many other historical documents (religious or political). You can believe it to enforce it to the exact word, or as a loose meaning and representation of it. By the way, if you or anyone else is such a valued Constitutionalist, do me a favor and break up our nation bank or lobbying or the million other things we've created and had in our system (corrupted or not), which have been in practice for a long, long time and have zero reference point in our Constitution. When we do that, I'll be more than happy to "value" the Constitution.

unsung wrote:

This nation is based upon the Constitution. I think you need to value it a bit more.

Jason P

metsfan wrote:

_outlaw wrote:

Jason P wrote:

The attack was part of a fatwā. To say the attacks were not tied to religion is absurd.

Lol! Do you even know what a fatwa is?

i would guess no lol

I'm glad I could amuse you.

A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى‎; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى‎) in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81

I'm aware that the fuckheads that planned the attacks and hi-jacked the plane are fanatics, but to say religion was not involved is absurd.

fuck

unsung wrote:

Isn't almost every war started because of religion? Damn near.

nope. every war is started mainly due to a combination of politics and economics, sometimes social factors as well. sometimes religion can fall into the social issue, but it is not a major force for war -- nationalism is much larger, for example.

fuck

Jason P wrote:

_outlaw wrote:

Jason P wrote:

The attack was part of a fatwā. To say the attacks were not tied to religion is absurd.

Lol! Do you even know what a fatwa is?

A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى‎; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى‎) in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81

I'm aware that the fuckheads that planned the attacks and hi-jacked the plane are fanatics, but to say religion was not involved is absurd.

thanks for the wikipedia definition, but again, do you know what a fatwa is? yes, it is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law, but do you have any idea what purpose it serves?

Commy

Jason P wrote:

I'm aware that the fuckheads that planned the attacks and hi-jacked the plane are fanatics, but to say religion was not involved is absurd.

nobody said religion wasnt' involved.


why were the twin towers hit? out of all the targets in NYC? and why the pentagon?


Ron Paul has another good point. since all of the hijackers liked soccer, do we ban the construction [edit] of soccer fields as well?


it makes as much sense as banning the construction of a mosque, given the targets hit that day.

Boxes&Books

Sorry haven't been following this thread (not sure if this has been posted), but I just read an interesting Article Related to Islamic Center

9/11 Widow: “How Did ‘9/11 Victim’ Become Shorthand For ‘White Christian’?”



-Alissa Torres, who lost her husband on 9/11, is not too happy about how there has been a calculated attempt to portray all 9/11 families the same way by the media.

The first time I heard about the Park51 Islamic community center was on May 6, 2010, when I received the following e-mail from a New York TV reporter:

“I’m doing story today about the proposed mosque project at the WTC site. I am interviewing the developers but I am also trying to look for family members who think building a mosque at the site is a bad idea.”

“Bad idea” — that was a bit leading, wasn’t it? I always thought journalists were supposed to be objective, and yet, here we were, the “victims of 9/11,” being prodded for our outrage. An hour later, another e-mail arrived, this time from CNN. The language was more measured: “As a family member of someone who was killed in the attacks on 9/11, what do you think about the decision to construct a mosque this close to Ground Zero?”

…

What did I think about the decision to construct a “mosque” this close to ground zero? I thought it was a no-brainer. Of course it should be built there. I sometimes wonder if those people fighting so passionately against Park51 can fathom the diversity of those who died at ground zero. Do we think no Muslims died in the towers? My husband, Eddie Torres, killed on his second day of work at Cantor Fitzgerald while I was pregnant with our first child, was a dark-skinned Latino, often mistaken for Pakistani, who came here illegally from Colombia. How did “9/11 victim” become sloppy shorthand for “white Christian”? I wish someone would put out a list of all the ethnicities and religions and countries and economic levels of the victims. For all the talk of “remembering 9/11,” I wonder if we’ve missed the patriotic message entirely. So, in short: No, I did not think it was “a bad idea.”

Alissa says she’s just a mom trying to raise her kid. She’s not an expert. She’s a victim, trying to get on with her life; someone who once wrote an open letter to President Bush saying, “Don’t use my husband as your mascot.”

But here is what’s been lost in this Park51 controversy: We are not experts, we are victims. We deserve to speak up, we need to speak up to acknowledge the pain and suffering, but we were never meant to be leaders in a national debate. Because the only thing we really know intimately is grief. The only thing we really know is what it feels like to lose a loved one in 9/11.

http://www.alan.com/2010/09/08/911-wido ... christian/

Jason P

Commy wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I'm aware that the fuckheads that planned the attacks and hi-jacked the plane are fanatics, but to say religion was not involved is absurd.

nobody said religion wasnt' involved.


why were the twin towers hit? out of all the targets in NYC? and why the pentagon?

Ron Paul has another good point. since all of the hijackers liked soccer, do we ban the construction [edit] of soccer fields as well?

it makes as much sense as banning the construction of a mosque, given the targets hit that day.

First off, I'm not an opponent of the mosque. I just saw your comment on the first page that stated the attacks were political and not religious and I disagree with that statement.

In regards to the targets they hit, they chose high profile targets and obviously did their planning. If anybody put together a top ten list of high priority targets in the US, the twin towers and the pentagon would be listed by anyone that is remotely capable of pulling an attack like this off. I'm sure the 4th plane was heading for either the capital building or the white house.

If it was a political statement, mission failed. It turned the whole region into chaos. It's one thing to be upset with American policy. But it pales in comparison to actually having America show up in full military force . . . unless your goal was to engage in direct combat in the first place.

In regards to a soccer field ban, perhaps that is something I could get behind of and support 8-)

Jason P

_outlaw wrote:

thanks for the wikipedia definition, but again, do you know what a fatwa is? yes, it is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law, but do you have any idea what purpose it serves?

If it like any other religious creed, then its purpose is to control the weak-minded and ignorant. This is a very powerful tool in areas that don't have access to current standards of education. Hell, it's a powerful tool in areas that do have access to education.

cincybearcat

Commy wrote:

Ron Paul has another good point. since all of the hijackers liked soccer, do we ban the construction [edit] of soccer fields as well?

I could support that 100%.

But last I checked they didn't fly planes into a building in the name of Pele.

Commy

cincybearcat wrote:

Commy wrote:

Ron Paul has another good point. since all of the hijackers liked soccer, do we ban the construction [edit] of soccer fields as well?

I could support that 100%.

But last I checked they didn't fly planes into a building in the name of Pele.

that's my main point. that religion wasn't the primary reason for the attacks. that's like a soldier in uniform fighting to get medals....its not the reason he's their but it might motivate him.

if they were trying to kill infidels why not fly those planes into the a sports stadium full of people? if religion was why they attacked, why not kill as many infidels as possible? why did they instead choose the twin towers, a symbol of american imperialism? yes they are motivated by god, and their extreme form of religion allowed them to do what they did, but at its core it was a strike against american imperialism. read any list of bin laden's grievances, he admitted as much.


as to soccer. if the US brought home a world cup every now people would get behind it more. as it is, aww we're not best in the world at something so i hate it. cry babies.

buze81123

Too expensive in my opinion.

fife

Commy wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Commy wrote:

Ron Paul has another good point. since all of the hijackers liked soccer, do we ban the construction [edit] of soccer fields as well?

I could support that 100%.

But last I checked they didn't fly planes into a building in the name of Pele.

that's my main point. that religion wasn't the primary reason for the attacks. that's like a soldier in uniform fighting to get medals....its not the reason he's their but it might motivate him.

if they were trying to kill infidels why not fly those planes into the a sports stadium full of people? if religion was why they attacked, why not kill as many infidels as possible? why did they instead choose the twin towers, a symbol of american imperialism? yes they are motivated by god, and their extreme form of religion allowed them to do what they did, but at its core it was a strike against american imperialism. read any list of bin laden's grievances, he admitted as much.


as to soccer. if the US brought home a world cup every now people would get behind it more. as it is, aww we're not best in the world at something so i hate it. cry babies.

I think both of you could be right. Bin Laden might have plan the attack due to a higher political stance while the people who flew the planes might have dome it because of religious beliefs.

cincybearcat

Commy wrote:

that's my main point. that religion wasn't the primary reason for the attacks. that's like a soldier in uniform fighting to get medals....its not the reason he's their but it might motivate him.

if they were trying to kill infidels why not fly those planes into the a sports stadium full of people? if religion was why they attacked, why not kill as many infidels as possible? why did they instead choose the twin towers, a symbol of american imperialism? yes they are motivated by god, and their extreme form of religion allowed them to do what they did, but at its core it was a strike against american imperialism. read any list of bin laden's grievances, he admitted as much.


as to soccer. if the US brought home a world cup every now people would get behind it more. as it is, aww we're not best in the world at something so i hate it. cry babies.

It was a joke.

AS for soccer, never liked it. It's not because the US isn't good...it's because it's boring. 0-0???? Seriously, what is that, not even a sport if so many can end without a winner.