Pages

August 18, 2010

When Rights are Wrong and Wrongs are a Right

So, timJ commented in response to my post re: Obama's channeling John Kerry with his backtracking and double-speaking -- in true post-modern fashion -- after his statements in favor of the "Victory Mosque."

Now, let's break down Tim's argument:

Tim: "As a conservative, which of Obama's two statements are you opposed to? His statement that we have freedom of religion in the US, or his statement that the the mosque maybe shouldn't be built because it offends some people? It seems to me that these are both ideas that conservatives hold dearly, so you are really just opposed to Obama stealing your own apparent hypocrisy."

DC: Tim, I'm opposed to his usage of both statements because both were utilized by Obama to obfuscate his true message. In the first instance, Obama claimed that this whole episode has anything at all to do with freedom religion (it doesn't) to argue that the mosque should be placed right next to a hallowed ground where 3,000 American were murdered by Muslim jihadis. The right to worship is different than the right to build a building ... and in any place. The "constitutional scholar" Obama knows this. In the second instance, Obama argued that, well, maybe it wasn't such a good idea (even though it's a "right") to build the mosque. But this obfuscated his true purpose -- he wants the mosque there, for reasons that he has a hard time fully explaining to us. His problem is that most Americans oppose the idea, and most strongly, and thus he now must obfuscate his true belief. In other words, his true beliefs are bad politics, so he backtracked. I have a problem with all that he said.

Tim: "Or maybe I'm mistaken on the first part-- maybe conservatives are NOT in favor of freedom of religion, there certainly have been a lot of anti-Muslim statements from conservatives. If you want to give the government the right to stop this mosque, then you are giving the government the right to stop churches and temples of all kinds. If you are just anti-Muslim then come out and say it, and petition the government to remove all Muslims from US soil, but make to claims to being in favor of religious freedom."

DC: Tim, Tim, Tim ... Conservatives invented freedom of religion, if you will, not just in America, but in the world. It's a God-given right, but our forebears secured it by their blood and their sacred honor. Again, though, rather than being a matter of legal "rights" this is a matter of what is right.

But to be clear, yes, I do have a problem with Islam. Actually, I have several, really more than that. I have a problem that virtually all the terrorists in the world claim to be Muslims. I have a problem with child brides, which Mohammed had and some of his modern-day followers (i.e., Zarqawi) have. I have a problem that no major Muslim cleric has ever denounced armed jihad. I have a problem with the way Muslims treat women. I have a problem with the way that Muslims treat people who disagree with them. Although I believe homosexuality is wrong, I have a problem with the way that Muslims treat homosexuals. I have a problem with how Muslims tolerate and encourage anti-Semitism, and also I have a problem with any religion that says "convert or die." I have a problem that Islam makes democracy difficult. I have a problem with Sharia law.

I have a problem seeing all these "moderate" Muslims and I am coming to believe that maybe "moderate" means that they really don't believe in Islam. I have a problem when the jihadis quote Mohammed and the Koran to make their case while the "moderates" either do cricket imitations or talk about how Islam promotes "peace."

I have a problem in that Islam itself is internally inconsistent in recognizing Jesus as a prophet when Jesus said that He is much more ... indeed, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. John 14:6.

I have a real problem with Muslims and their useful idiots in the media and elsewhere utilizing the Judeo-Christian ethic and American freedoms to enslave America. Yes, I have a problem with Islam.

Two more things: 1) I have no problem at all with any one here (or anywhere) believing in any religion they want. That is their God-given right. I have a problem when they use their religion to try to enslave me or kill me; and 2) Speaking of 1) I have a problem that Muslims' best tactical weapon is the sneak attack upon innocent civilians. What more evidence do you need than this that the god of the jihadis is a false god?

Tim: "Ultimately this all moot, because conservatives aren't going to actually do anything about the mosque other than complain from now until November. There's already another mosque in lower Manhattan that predates the WTC. And even if Mayor Bloomberg tried to stop the mosque it would go all the way to the Supreme Court, where even the conservatives would agree: the government has no right to interfere in religious matters of any kind."

Truth, Justice, and the American Way: You make the point that there's another mosque in lower Manahattan. Great. So, why the need for new one ... except to utilize it to foster Muslim propaganda at Ground Zero? This is as appropriate as a Japanese cultural center would be at Pearl Harbor. And again, this is about doing what is right, rather than what is a right. I agree that, if local authorities okay the mosque per zoning ordinances that it can go there just like Gutfeld's gay bar next door. Rights have nothing to do with this. (By the way, you are absolutely incorrect on how the Supremes would rule. Houses of worship always lose battles with local authorities in court over where they can be located. Trust me. I'm a lawyer.)

Tim, what we are going to do is use this as another example of how misinformed and disrespectful to American culture and sensibilities that the Left is. Thank you for the opportunity.

41 comments:

Opus #6 said...

DC, you shredded Tim like Khalid Sheik Mohammed did to Daniel Pearl.

Rhod said...

malum in se.

Hoping the Blind Will See said...

Great post DC!! Very well articulated! I wonder if you'll get a response from Tim. I doubt it, in the face of a good argument, they either stay silent or call you a name. If he does respond he'll probably fall abck on the old - "You tea party extremists are all alike" lol!!

Anyway, here's a couple of other points for timJ to ponder:


Tim: "Or maybe I'm mistaken on the first part-- maybe conservatives are NOT in favor of freedom of religion, there certainly have been a lot of anti-Muslim statements from conservatives. If you want to give the government the right to stop this mosque, then you are giving the government the right to stop churches and temples of all kinds. If you are just anti-Muslim then come out and say it, and petition the government to remove all Muslims from US soil, but make to claims to being in favor of religious freedom."

HTBWS: Did you know that a NYC Greek Orthodox Church was denied permit to rebuild their church which was destroyed in the 9/11 attack...

St. Nicholas Greek Othodox Church, NYC destroyed during 9/11 attack. It was located across the street from the 9/11 site. The Church applied for permits, etc. from NYC Port Authority to rebuild (the) church. NYC Port Authority DENIED them permits to rebuild. But NYC Port Authority APPROVED permits to renovate the building purchased by Muslims for a Mosque to exist there. I contacted NYC Greek Othodox Diocese and spoke with Father Alex about this matterl. Father Alex told me that they have communicated with NYC Port Authority requesting a meeting to discuss this matter of DENIAL for permits to rebuild St. Nicholas Greek Othodox Church across the street from 9/11 site that was destroyed during 9/11 attack. To-date, NYC Port Authority has not agreed to meet with them and discuss this matter. What the heck is going on? A mosque obviously represented by a radical Imam gets APPROVAL but a Chuch is DENIED rebuilding their church after being destroyed by terrorists during the 9/11 attack! - Comcast.net Forums

Islam is less a religion than a culture and a political ideology. If the KKK claimed that they were a religion, would we be forced to "tolerate" a building with a symbol of a burning cross on it in ANY town? Think maybe the people would have something to say about that? And yet that is EXACTLY what you are asking Americans all across the country - but specifically NYC Americans - to accept! Open your eyes, man. Islam is hate cloaked in the mantle of religion. Hmmmm, sounds a little like the story of the wolf dressed up in sheeps clothing...

Don't be taken in!

Lawyer said...

Excellent post! Mind if I qoute and link to it?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

That's a great point, Hoping, re: the church denied a permit.

Lawyer, do with it what you wish. Being a good lawyer, you would know that you can quote anything with proper attribution ... and some things without. But hey ...

Opie, I am thinking that was a softball pitch by ol' Tim. Seriously ... but the left is hot to trot about this. Olbermann is fuming, i.e..

It's just very amusing when the politics of their antics are so bad that the verbal gymnastics olympic begin.

The country is still right-of-center and it is not buying what Obama and Co. are selling.

Starsplash said...

Great Post! Every thing is right. The mayor can do nothing legally to shtop or move it forward. In fact Boom'berg once becoming Mayor actually lost some of his personal ringts to say for or against. The people however can shoot their mouths off all they want to... but we shan't get the government to do anything about it lest we wist the same upon ourselves. Which might be what we are getting in other ares as it is. However we can correct those mistakes and return ourselves and our nation to a more correct constitutional behavior pattern.

timJ said...

First of all, calling Cordoba House/51 Park a "mosque" is like saying someone eating a chocolate cake is "eating a plate of frosting"-- it's a 13 story building with a mosque on the top 2 floors, most of it is a cooking school and arts center. But I will play along.

Re: Obama "...he wants the mosque there, for reasons that he has a hard time fully explaining to us." I don't know how you know what he really wants, but ultimately neither of us really know what he thinks, so it is all just speculation.

"Conservatives invented freedom of religion", perhaps you should look up the definition of "conservative." If you are referring to America's founding fathers, weren't they revolutionaries? Did the British and loyalists in the colonies consider them conservatives? Freedom of religion was a new concept at the time, hardly the definition of "conservative" (a synonym of "traditional.")

I have problems with Islam too. That said, freedom of religion means you get to worship whatever silly god you like: Scientology, Rastafarianism, Raelians, Wiccans, go nuts as long as you're not hurting anybody. Excluding one religion isn't freedom of religion, anymore than an election in a dictatorship, where the ruling party chooses who you can vote for, is a real election.

DC: "maybe "moderate" means that they really don't believe in Islam." So who gets to decide what is "real" Islam? You? Christianity itself is hardly a monolith; how many Protestant groups still consider the Pope the Antichrist? I get the impression that conservatives don't want there to be any moderates-- it's easier for them to just hate all Muslims and not think about it. Imam Rauf was considered a benign moderate by the Bush administration, suddenly he is a radical. He has stated that this center is there to repudiate the intolerance of 9/11, to show that American Muslims are NOT Al Quaeda. But I suppose if you distrust all Muslims it doesn't matter what Rauf says, in which case there is no way for us to have any rational conversation regarding him.

I suspect part of the problem is that most conservatives don't actually know any Muslims on a personal level. I grew up with a couple Muslim kids. One was a good friend, and he drank bourbon, and I said to him "you drink alcohol, so you're not a real Muslim", he pointed out that all the Christians he know took the name of the Lord in vain, had pre-marital sex, did not keep the sabbath holy. . . . He considered himself a Muslim even if he did not follow strict sharia law. There are a billion Muslims in the world, they do not all follow strict sharia law. Every branch of every religion claims it's the one true faith. Who is a "real" Jew: orthodox or reformed? Who is a "real" Christian: Catholic or Protestant or Eastern Orthodox or Mormon? Isn't this why we have freedom of religion, so that we aren't fighting over theological uncertainties, or enforcing our views on our neighbors? The fear that the US will be under sharia law is a ridiculous argument; as long as the First Amendment says "congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion" we are safe.

The only analog I can think of for this situation is the Nazis marching in Skokie, IL back in the 70's. As offensive as it was they had the right to do it, and though I do not consider this mosque offensive (and I lost two friends on 9/11), nor do I equate all Muslims with Nazis (though it is an apt comparison for Al Quaeda), and even if it is offensive to a majority of Americans, they still have the right to build it. When you take away their rights, you are making it possible to take away mine and your own. The laws exist to protect us all.

Right Wing Extreme said...

DC,
I loved your arguments. They were well thought out,cogent and right to the point. However you said, "Trust me. I'm a lawyer." isn't that a major contradiction?

timJ said...

BTW "Hoping the blind will see"

As far as I can gather the NY Port Authority has no jurisdiction over the 51 Park address, it's private property, whereas St. Nicholas' Cathedral sold their plot of land to the Port Authority under the agreement that the Port Authority would grant them land to rebuild and then that deal went sour, like so much of the WTC rebuilding has gone sour. That has nothing to do with the 51 Park mosque, the Port Authority has neither denied nor approved 51 Park, as they have no control over private property.

Which reminds me-- I thought conservatives were defenders of private property. Are you suddenly changing positions, do you want the government stepping in and telling us what we can do on our own private property?

sig94 said...

Local planning ordnances in any community can shred any proposed development. It happens to Walmart Superstores all the time. So it can happen to a mosque. No big deal.

Local taxpayers do have a say in what they will allow within their community and it has nothing to do with religion, sexual orientation or whatever preference you might have. It is their community and they control it, not some imam or other special interest group. That's how cities get rid of titty bars and brothels - by zoning them out or passing local ordnances proscribing certain kinds of activity.

If the community says, "Hell No," then start looking for other parcels.

NYC residents overwhelmingly have said no to the carpet lickers. Too bad. Look for another site where you don't piss off a coupla million people. Or let us build a Baptist church in Mecca.

Anonymous said...

Right Wing, yes, that was humor. Or an attempt at it. Star, thank you. And Sig, you are spot on and your comment re: the Baptist church in Mecca is funny but also strikes at the heart of why this rubs Americans so wrong.

Muslims have little respect, as a whole, for American culture. Sure, there are exceptions, but the expectation is that we are to bow to their demands while they completely shut out any appreciation for toleration or those who see the world from a non-Muslim prism.

And Tim ...

Anonymous said...

Tim,

We know Obama wants the mosque there because he said so. That was his first statement, before he realized that it was bad, no, very bad politics and starting going Kerry on the subject.

Put down the textbook in defining "conservative." As I stated in the post, the founders are the forebears of modern conservatives. Their view on religion, freedom, and yes, property would be to the right of today's conservatives, for certain. Being a conservative and a "revolutionary" are by no means contraditions, in my view.

Does any one other than a public school myrmidon define conservative as "opposing change" and liberal as "promoting change?" Come on, Tim.

Re: moderates and truth ... Christianity has been and can be reformed by looking to Jesus Himself and the Bible. (Looking at individual Christians leads predictably to finding sinners ... that's the point of grace, you know.)

However, the problem with Islam is that the jihadis quote the Koran and cite Mohammed's example to make their points and the so-called "moderates" are either silent or quote sources outside of Islam ... or in the case of your friend, they carve out portions of the faith they don't like. What does this tell you about the structural problems with Islam?

Finally, Tim, regarding your comment "The fear that the US will be under sharia law is a ridiculous argument; as long as the First Amendment says 'congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion' we are safe," is breathtaking both its naivete and trust in government.

As we have seen in the past 18 months, this government is capable of all manner of things that Americans a very short time ago thought impossible.

timj said...

Obama's original quote: "As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country, that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

No where does he say it SHOULD be build, as he later clarified. Sure it's politics, the GOP plays similar word games too. I mean, you guys are calling it a "mosque" when it's only partially a mosque. The YMCA has a chapel, that doesn't make it a church. Again, just word games to score political points.

I know modern conservatives think they are the heirs to the founding fathers, but when the founding fathers came up with freedom of religion it was not considered conservative, our modern idea of conservative and liberal in politics did not exist then, so your claim that "conservatives invented freedom of religion" is just self-serving fluff. Does the modern day GOP see itself as heirs to the Federalists, or Jefferson's Democratic-Republican (Whig) party-- neither platforms really match up with the modern GOP platform. The textbook definitions of conservative and liberal all we have in that case.

Sure jihadis quote the Koran, but similarly the Westboro Baptist Church quotes the Bible, and the white supremacist "World Church of the Creator" quotes the Bible, in no case does that prove the religion itself is evil. "Ye shall know them by their acts." My Muslim neighbor is a nice guy, he's not killing people in the name of God.

And in fact moderate Muslims HAVE quoted passages of the Koran to argue against jihadis, like this one: "As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: [9] for, verily, God loves those who act equitably. "

Sharia law can come from Christians too, and I know there are Christians who would like to enact their own version of sharia law in the US. "When fascism come to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

Anonymous said...

Tim, your faith in Obama is religious. His quote was understood by people in plain terms ... in English. He was arguing that our respect of freedom of religion and private property rights dictates that the mosque ... or "place of worship", as he described in very PC ... can be build and thus, it would be wrong to prohibit it. If he wasn't saying this, then what was he saying? He was saying nothing. That's what his second statement argued, which is laughable.

Now, Pelosi wants to investigate the opposition to the GZ Mosque. Very American of her.

Tim, you can find all sorts of examples of "Christians Gone Wild." It only makes God's grace that much greater. Note this, however: The fact that some one says they means, well, nothing on its face. Second, you cite the extremes and exceptions to prove a rule. Long ago, Christians rejected what is rampant in Islam. Still, abuses, human rights violations, anti-Semitism, are the NORM in Muslim countries. And, oh yes, democracy fares pretty poorly there, too, we have learned.

As for your Koran quote, read it closely again ...

Anonymous said...

Tim, I've spent my life here in supposedly "Christian" America (it's not; it's post-modern America now) defending my faith and conservative beliefs. Those are distinct from any political party, by the way.

So, when I see weak arguments like yours, I honestly first think that you are a stooge or maybe even Goomba writing this stuff to give me some cuts at meatballs to entertain the readers. But I guess you are serious, so I'll take it that way.

I bet you have no idea what it's like to have your faith and beliefs under siege at a university for about 7 years. I know, that's a long time, but it took me that long to get out there.

You apparently are a victim of the U.S. education system, but a simple reading of what you wrote would seem to suffice. I mean, do they still teach English? Let's take a look at that quote from the Koran of yours:

"As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: [9] for, verily, God loves those who act equitably."

So, the Koran does not PROHIBIT a Muslim from being kind to an infidel as long as said infidel ir refraining from running them out of the country. How nice. But the Koran permits, even encourages the opposite result, as well. In fact, it incites jihad against infidels. These are the passages that the jihadis cite, and to which the "moderates" chirp like crickets. The Koran also recounts three times that Allah transformed disobedient Jews into apes and pigs.

And note who God loves in the passage you quote ... the MUSLIM who behaves equitably. So, you can be kind to the passive infidel b/c God will love you if you do "equity."

By contrast, Jesus said (and lived) to love your enemies. And the God of the Bible ... "so loved the WORLD."

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhod said...

Great exchange, DC.

Now can we figure out why - according to Hillary's State Dept -Imam Feisal is on a tax-payer funded "outreach" trip in American embassies in the Middle East?

Seems the info on these stops in Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE is unavailable from State.

Since this is The One's State Department, maybe the legal and "wisdon" issues in re the mosque are in the shade of Barack's administrative approval.

This entire affair is rotten beyond the rhetorical, but then, so is everything that issues from this filthy administration and its media/congressional bootlickers.

Rhod said...

Just an afterthought. Free societies cohere, prevail, simply survive, or fall apart for extra-legal reasons. The Law can do nothing except oppress, or be seen as oppressive, when a regime or social arrangement is widely seen as illegitimate. The mosque controversy adds to this growing perception.

Liberalism is collapsing everywhere because its bizarre rationalism and lunatic pragmatism is aimed at sustaining itself and its propositions rather than addressing human problems that fall outside its orthodoxy.

That anyone would find the Westboro Baptist Church or some grotesque "Christian" organizations as equivalent to the anti-modern grievances and global meddling of many Muslim movements (especially Wahabbism) is slightly mad.

TS/WS said...

Seems that more than a few Bloggers are entertaining guest commenters.
Is this a result of a focus group findings-- almost like a Hollywood script.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Rhod. That was some righteous Lovecraft, I might add. Slightly mad ... that made me chuckle. You are so very right.

The difference between the lunatic "Christian" fringe and the lunatic Muslim fringe is that one is handling snakes and harming itself. The other is in charge of governments and seeking more real estate ... and harming others.

They Say ... well, I think I've outgrown the "guest" label. I live here now, I guess. I would like to hear more from our elder statesmen around here, though, and I can go back to chortling at my own childish jokes.

The only "focus" groups we have around here are eyewear consultants to fix our glasses prescriptions.

Kid said...

After watching the liberals hop the fence between the Bush White House and the obama White House, it is obvious they have no moral or intellectual center. They blow with the wind just like dust bunnies.

With Bush, listening to cell calls to and from Pakistan was sacrilege- Sacre Bleu! - with obama and his statement that ALL cell calls might be listened to and a no problemo from the lobotomized libs.

300 bln deficit was a Huge problem with Bush.
1.3 Trillion a year for the forseable future for obama and no problemo for the libs. While NOTHING gets improved. Economy, Jobs, The Mortgage/Housing situation which is going to get worse not better, the oil gushing into the Gulf, and virtually every other challenge faced by the obama administration met with supreme failure and incompetence. No problemo for the libs.

hillary screaming "I'm an American and I have the right to disagree with this administration yada-yada-belch is Ok, but pelosi and 'We need to investigate those opposed to the islamic celebration center/the state's position and no problemo for the libs.

obama continuing to make statements about the islamic celebration center trying to find one that isn't absurd and no problemo for the libs. Everything the emperor with no clothes does, or more accurately fails to do, and no problemo for the libs.

I could go on for weeks...

How can anyone support this buffoonery and have an ounce of self respect?

And yea, building and development gets refused all the time for the whim of some 'city council' collection of wankers all the time.

It is time to Dis-Recognize CAIR.
It is time to let the islamics know that is is their responsibility to assimilate into American society not the other way around, if they want to enjoy the freedom and opportunity that America offers. It is time for them to give up their dream of sharia oppression in any free country in the world. It is time we tell them that with absolute certainty and resolve.

Anonymous said...

Bravo, Kid. You see it. Many millions more do, too. Soon Pelosi, Reid, Obama and Co. may see how we feel on Nov. 2.

Kid said...

Thanks DC. and God, I hope so, otherwise.....

timJ said...

In fact I do not have great faith in Obama, he's just another politician. Like most Americans I figured he was a lesser of two evils (and really, if McCain and Palin were in office now, how would things be different? No health care bill of course, but at the same time the deficit would still be huge, unemployment would be high, we'd still be in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or maybe you think they'd magically fix things overnight-- THAT'S faith!) I just read Obama's quote verbatim, you read into it what you wanted to see.

Sure, that Koran quote does not prohibit attacks against unbelievers if they are not attacking you, but it does say that God loves those who act equitably, so if you are a Muslim and you want God's love, you better act equitably i.e. don't hurt them. We all know about "jihad", fighting back against unbelievers who are attacking you, I make no apologies for that, but the Bible isn't much better. Deuteronomy 20 has God instructing the Israelites to offer peaceful terms to a city, and if they accept to enslave them, and if they do not accept to attack and kill them all, including women and children. That doesn't sound very much better than jihad; cities of unbelievers are to be annihilated.

You criticize a Muslim who picks and chooses what parts of sharia law he follows, and yet I bet you do the same for the Bible. Do you eat pork and shellfish, wear cloth made from two fibers, stone your disobedient daughter? How about the so-called "Laws of Justice and Mercy" from Exodus, like Exodus 23:9 "Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Do you oppress strangers DC? Your thoughts on Muslims sure sound like it to me.

Perhaps you discount those parts of the Old Testament with "they apply to Jews and not Christians." Fair enough. Christ asked us to love our neighbor as ourselves. If you are not willing to do that with Muslims, then His words are essentially meaningless to you.

Finally I ask: what do you think should be done about American Muslims? If the "9/11 mosque" is moved uptown would that be acceptable, or are you part of the crowd that doesn't want any more mosques built in the USA? If we are going to treat Muslims like second class citizens, shouldn't we just cut to the chase and have them wear green crescents on their sleeves? I say that because a lot of the rhetoric I hear coming from the right about Muslims sounds like the stuff that used to be said about Jews 60 years ago.

I don't want to hog your comments space, nor do I really want to be arguing with you on every topic, too much of modern political discourse (on both sides) is just people "rooting for their team" with lots of emotion but very little thought, repeating talking points, playing statistics to their best advantage, and willfully distorting things to favor their side. I just want a reasonable way forward, and I'm willing to entertain conservative ideas, but I don't see anything reasonable in what you offer.

Kid said...

but I don't see anything reasonable in what you offer.

I know you're talking to DC, but:
Forget McCain, he's a liberal. The only thing different between him and obama is McCain is not a racist and McCain knows American history and appreciates the effort of our military. And yea, the HC bill Might not have seen the light of day, but I wouldn't have bet on it.

Since you don't find anything reasonable in what DC offers, I gotta ask what you find reasonable in Anything the democrats have not only offered but shoved down America's throat the last 1.5 years That being every liberal pipe dream since LBJ was in office.

Or in short, what has obama and the democrat congress done that you find reasonable or appreciate or that you think is good for America ?

Anonymous said...

That's a good point, Kid. The Demos have the keys to everything. What have they done, other than create a wreck?

To answer your question, Tim, if Muslims were putting a mosque somewhere other than Ground Zero, it would be no concern to me. See, I truly believe in freedom of religion.

Many Muslims don't, though. That's the real problem. It's illegal to have a Bible in Saudi Arabia. People are put to death or imprisoned in the Middle East for talking about Christ. Wherever Muslims obtain influence, freedom decreases. These are facts, Tim.

So, I support their rights to worship here. But once they try to start changing our society to look more like Saudi Arabia and Iran, well, they will have a problem with me.

And that's not "oppressing" strangers. It's rather about good stewardship and defending those in my charge.

TS/WS said...

DC, Glad to see you more active here; but that isn't what I said.
You and Rhod always replay different than what I've said. I usually let it go; but this time I need to explane my self I guess.
The Kid had a visit commenter that took up all the commenting space---on and on. Same with Trestin.
Now it looks like they have hit Goomba and articilars-...
This one calls himself timJ, and that looks like a little tim with a big J.
And that's not all. Corndog was hit also.
They try and take up all the commenting space. They ramble on and on...
Not Like The Kid who really has something to say that is worth reading; and present resident writers and regulars- I really enjoy reading Rhod's come backs and your's as well and ovecourse Nickies.
It looks like we are being hit with seminar commenters with a script out of the latest group think tank for little minds of course.

Rhod said...

TSWS, I can't recall replaying your comments. We disagreed only once, on Robert Byrd. I'm glad you're here.

Maybe Tim is a seminar commenter. I don't know. He seems more like a self-important cafe philosopher to me, with a little tactical knowledge to reinforce his position and attack yours.

His mind is encrusted with prejudices and fallacies that are dressed up like broad-mindedness. Arguing with him is futile.

This is a secondary infection of liberalism. It effects the brain, conscience, and understanding.

Anonymous said...

I missed the point, TSWS. Agree with Rhod with what Rhod said re: having your point of view here.

As for tim, I guess i wondered that, too. His points seem so basic. Hard to know what the motivation is, but my own view is that it's worthwhile to address the arguments ... people are watching.

Thanks for your comments on this.

timj said...

"So, I support their rights to worship here. But once they try to start changing our society to look more like Saudi Arabia and Iran, well, they will have a problem with me. "

Fine, when they start changing America to look like Saudi Arabia I will be right there with you in the protest line. So far they haven't done anything remotely close to that. They are a tiny minority (3% of the US population tops), so how exactly are they going to force sharia law on the US? Terrorism? If suicide bombers start appearing in malls across America, do you think anyone, liberal or conservative, will suddenly say "OK, lets enact sharia law"?

You guys really live in your own paranoid fantasy world.

sig94 said...

Tiny Tim titters that when the moooslimbs try to make the US look like Saudia Arabia he will join us in the protest line.

There is a recent rape case in NJ where the judge has already ruled in line with Sharia Law for an Islamic couple.

http://volokh.com/2010/07/23/cultural-defense-accepted-as-to-nonconsensual-sex-in-new-jersey-trial-court-rejected-on-appeal/

Said the judge, "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

The judge then refused to issue a restraining order against the man, leaving the woman vulnerable to repeated rape attempts with no legal protection of any kind.

Once you dig your head out of your ass you will note that the line forms to the rear Little Timmy.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Yes, that's a good example, Sig. Tim, you might have noticed that the folks around here keep citing facts ... imagine that.

What happens, and will happen, Tim, is that the loss of our freedom will come gradually over time, as a frog being boiled. I want no part of it, even in small increments.

We've already had terrorist attacks since Obama was elected, ie.., at Ft. Hood and the thwarted NY subway plot. So, they are here and are coming. I wonder when it will matter enough to you to criticize jihadis more than you criticize Christians.

I predict never. The irony is that your Muslim friends will cheer you all the way up until they cut your throat. And know that they will, in fact, do just that if and when they are given the opportunity. But your conservative friends will be here holed up in our hovels, weapons and sharp objects at the ready, ready to come and rescue you ... so you can tell us how narrow-minded we are, etc., etc., all over again.

timJ said...

Well guys I guess if you buy gas at a Muslim-owned gas station, if you buy food from a grocery that employs Muslims, if you go to a Muslim doctor, you are tacitly supporting someone who is planning on slitting your throat. Think about that next time you are buying a Snickers bar at the 7-11 and an Arab-looking guy named Adil hands you your change. So maybe stop pretending that you are in favor of freedom of religion and just come out and say it-- they are evil and should not be allowed in the US. Isn't that how you really feel?

Here's what George Washington said in 1790 to the Jewish congregation in Newport RI:

"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." (italics mine)

(DC, also note how used the word "liberal"-- citing facts is a bitch, ain't it?)

As for that rape case in NJ, that's quite a reach to go from that to nationwide sharia law. Liberals wouldn't stand for sharia law either, you know, it would mean an end to all their homosexual drug-fueled orgies and cerebral free jazz concerts.

Yes, loss of liberty comes gradually, in increments, like for example stopping a minority group from exercising their freedom of religion.

Rhod said...

Tim, that's not worthy of you...or is it?

You have, essentially, two intellectual fetishes, which you bury in a heap of straw men:

A) Conservatives are unreasonable, intolerant, dangerous, unconvincing, ignorant of history and indifferent to unusual forms of Christianity and now, paranoid, but Islam is simply misunderstood.

B) Americans who object to Cordoba House are to be feared more than hugely influential, populous and powerful strains of Islam that "object" to Western civilization.

That's it. Your axe is so small it doesn't make sparks when you grind it.

sig94 said...

The problem is that Little Timmy just can't get a grip on what has happened historically with the advance of Islam and what is happening right now throughout Europe and even this country. The first Sharia Council in England was established in 1982. Now there are many more, five alone in the London metro area alone in 2008. The English gov't has sanctioned these courts and nade them "enforceable with the full power of the judicial system." Prior to this, "the [sharia] rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims." These cases dealt with sharia civil code, i.e., Muslim divorce and inheritance. In one inheritance case, the sons received twice as much as the daughters because men are favored over women in sharia law.

There are just under 2.5 million mooslimbs in the UK today, a million more than in 2001. As mooslimbs can have more than one wife, the Brits are paying the tab for multiple mooslimb wives on welfare - all married to the same guy. They reproduce like cockroaches. Hell, I'd have had more kids too if someone else was paying for them.

And guess what Timy Tim; according to the UK 2001 census, mooslimbs ceomprised only 3% of the population in England and Wales.

Really Tim - are you out of the eighth grade yet?

sig94 said...

It's your arguments Timmy. They reek of childishness, lack of preparation and lack of perspective. Like an 8th grader.

Can't help you there.

Anonymous said...

To be clear, Tim, I was talking re: "your Muslim friends" as those such as Zarqawi and his ilk, rather than your neighbor. You may recall that Muslims have, in fact, been seen (on film, I understand) slitting throats and even sawing off heads. How's that for a snake-handling service?

Rather than participating in the dastardly act, the "moderates" stand by and watch, typically, and/or blame the U.S. for inciting such hatred with our policy toward Israel, et al..

I called them "your Muslim friends" because you repeatedly defend Muslims and attack Christians. This is what they do. Are you thus behaving "equitably?". Your post above equates laws made by Pat Robertson (of which there are none) with those of Bin Laden. To you, a serial murderer jihadi is just as dangerous as a televangelist. Bravo.

You are more than slightly mad (Rhod, that was a great pithy post about the axe, too, btw).

And to be clear ... the jihadis, should they ever come for you, will most definitely slit your throat while you are droning on about your Muslim friends, tolerance, how Pat Robertson and GWB are the source of all evil in the world, etc..

timJ said...

Well sig, I see your arguments as irrational, your fear of Muslims is like somebody afraid of flying because they saw a plane crash on TV; you're more likely to get struck by lightning or win the Powerball jackpot than be attacked by an American Muslim. I don't deny terrorists are a serious threat, but it's shameful to treat a portion of our populace like potential criminals based on the actions of foreigners who hate us. It plays right into Al Quaeda's hands, they can point at the US and say "see-- they hate all Muslims, even their own Muslim citizens, America is not the land of the free!"

Anyway. . .I mentioned earlier that I did not want to hog the comment space here, and yet I've done just that. Sorry. You guys can have the last word.

"Shalom/Salaam"

TS/WS said...

Sorry folks, I just can't let that one go.
Notice how these seminar think tank script readers use the founders in an attempt for a argument or debate amongst any opposition?
Washington or the other founders used words in the correct context.
Liberal is a word hijacked by the Marxist in the late 19th, and early 20th century. Today it is only meant as a excuse to rob the rich by parading the down trodden as a reason to rip off the successful, and when things go a rye, they sluff off their good intended actions-with a--it was unintended consequences.
Just like taking this subject out of context.
This is the 1st Mosque in NY? NO.
Is this the first Mosque in a commercial district? YES.
Do the Muslim build Mosque in areas other than residential areas? NO NO NO NO!
Then why in this commercial districe? This Grave Yard of the Infidel?
Oh, to parade this Victor Mosque in front of the Muslim world---see these dumb cowboys don't have it in them to fight for the long haul!