Who's Funding the Mosque?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I have a final solution to the muslim problem . . . all muslims have to move back to muslim lands until they sort out their internal dispute over the true nature and teachings of Islam. Once they have that sorted out and settled on the peaceful version - they can join the rest of humanity . . . if they settle on the violent version - at least they are all in the same place . . . LMAO - I kill me. . . .[/quote]

How about all believers in an Abrahamic God move back to the promised land and sort out their disputes?

22

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I have a final solution to the muslim problem . . . all muslims have to move back to muslim lands until they sort out their internal dispute over the true nature and teachings of Islam. Once they have that sorted out and settled on the peaceful version - they can join the rest of humanity . . . if they settle on the violent version - at least they are all in the same place . . . LMAO - I kill me. . . .[/quote]

How about all believers in an Abrahamic God move back to the promised land and sort out their disputes?[/quote]

It will happen in the end of time. Just you wait.

23

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

It is. But it is increasingly apparent that Islam is not a religion, but rather a violent political movement that calls itself a religion.[/quote]

I am starting to think that this is truth.

24

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.

25

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Just because they build it does not mean we can not picket outside of the building, and scream at the people that are going in there. Maybe that Baptist church can show up and do it for us.

26

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Just because they build it does not mean we can not picket outside of the building, and scream at the people that are going in there. Maybe that Baptist church can show up and do it for us.[/quote]

This is also very true.

27

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

That only works when the religion does not demand superiority to the secular government.

Islam, by its religious tenants, demands the secular government submit (that’s what “Islam” means, BTW “submit”) to its authority. Fundamental Islam (that is muslims that actually believe and follow the koran) is incompatable with a secular government.

Now, I’ve met and known many a muslim that was a great guy. But they kinda grazed over the top of the koran and got the “good stuff.”[/quote]

Now I know there are a number of contradictions on this in the Bible but Christianity and Judaism demand superiority to the secular government as well.

28

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

That only works when the religion does not demand superiority to the secular government.

Islam, by its religious tenants, demands the secular government submit (that’s what “Islam” means, BTW “submit”) to its authority. Fundamental Islam (that is muslims that actually believe and follow the koran) is incompatable with a secular government.

Now, I’ve met and known many a muslim that was a great guy. But they kinda grazed over the top of the koran and got the “good stuff.”[/quote]

Now I know there are a number of contradictions on this in the Bible but Christianity and Judaism demand superiority to the secular government as well.[/quote]

I beg to differ on this. The Bible is the one that set up the separation of Chruch and State. There was the King and there was the cheif priest. Both were separate, but both were under God. When either one stepped over into the others domain there was God ready to make it right. God killed kings for doing the holy things, and God killed priests for doing the state things. You might want to revisit this.

29

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?

30

HH, should we say freedom of religion unless you are Muslim ?

31

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

That only works when the religion does not demand superiority to the secular government.

Islam, by its religious tenants, demands the secular government submit (that’s what “Islam” means, BTW “submit”) to its authority. Fundamental Islam (that is muslims that actually believe and follow the koran) is incompatable with a secular government.

Now, I’ve met and known many a muslim that was a great guy. But they kinda grazed over the top of the koran and got the “good stuff.”[/quote]

Now I know there are a number of contradictions on this in the Bible but Christianity and Judaism demand superiority to the secular government as well.[/quote]

I don’t know about Christianity, but a fundamental tenant of Judaism is submission to the law of the land in which you find yourself. In effect, following the secular law becomes a religious duty.

So, no, you are completely wrong, at least as to Judaism.

32

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
HH, should we say freedom of religion unless you are Muslim ?[/quote]

And the ACLU would say freedom of religion unless your christian. (I know that was off topic, just felt the need to say it)

33

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

How do you get, “politics and religion have to be separate?” Congress can’t make a state religion, but politicians can absolutely be religious and let religious beliefs influence them.

34

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

If you look at the history of why this was done, The King in England was also the head of the Chruch. Using Religion to control the masses IMO is wrong.

Separation of church and state is not there to give you freedom from religion. I am a Christian as most of us know. If I became President, I would still pray everyday for the Lord to give me wisdom. Does this mean the chruch is over my decistions? No. Will I make the USA bow down to the Pope, or force the Country to give 10% of the tax revenue to the Catholic Church or any other religious organization? No. Your idea of Separation of Church and State is rather distorted. It is what secular people would think, but that was not the intent of that part of the Constitution.

35

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

If you look at the history of why this was done, The King in England was also the head of the Chruch. Using Religion to control the masses IMO is wrong.

Separation of church and state is not there to give you freedom from religion. I am a Christian as most of us know. If I became President, I would still pray everyday for the Lord to give me wisdom. Does this mean the chruch is over my decistions? No. Will I make the USA bow down to the Pope, or force the Country to give 10% of the tax revenue to the Catholic Church or any other religious organization? No. Your idea of Separation of Church and State is rather distorted. It is what secular people would think, but that was not the intent of that part of the Constitution. [/quote]

The first amendment was about protecting religions from the state, NOT protecting the state from religion.

36

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

That only works when the religion does not demand superiority to the secular government.

Islam, by its religious tenants, demands the secular government submit (that’s what “Islam” means, BTW “submit”) to its authority. Fundamental Islam (that is muslims that actually believe and follow the koran) is incompatable with a secular government.

Now, I’ve met and known many a muslim that was a great guy. But they kinda grazed over the top of the koran and got the “good stuff.”[/quote]

Now I know there are a number of contradictions on this in the Bible but Christianity and Judaism demand superiority to the secular government as well.[/quote]

I don’t know about Christianity, but a fundamental tenant of Judaism is submission to the law of the land in which you find yourself. In effect, following the secular law becomes a religious duty.

So, no, you are completely wrong, at least as to Judaism.[/quote]

That is why I referred to the contradictions (I should of course have mentioned the Torah alongside the Bible) Whilst there are passages that state that people should abide by the secular laws, there are also religious laws that conflict with secular laws and the Religious laws take precedence.

37

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

That only works when the religion does not demand superiority to the secular government.

Islam, by its religious tenants, demands the secular government submit (that’s what “Islam” means, BTW “submit”) to its authority. Fundamental Islam (that is muslims that actually believe and follow the koran) is incompatable with a secular government.

Now, I’ve met and known many a muslim that was a great guy. But they kinda grazed over the top of the koran and got the “good stuff.”[/quote]

Now I know there are a number of contradictions on this in the Bible but Christianity and Judaism demand superiority to the secular government as well.[/quote]

I don’t know about Christianity, but a fundamental tenant of Judaism is submission to the law of the land in which you find yourself. In effect, following the secular law becomes a religious duty.

So, no, you are completely wrong, at least as to Judaism.[/quote]

Christianity is on the same lines.

38

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

How do you get, “politics and religion have to be separate?” Congress can’t make a state religion, but politicians can absolutely be religious and let religious beliefs influence them.[/quote]

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion however he cannot pass a law that impinges on someone else’s religion such as stopping someone building a place of worship just because they don’t like the particular religion (which is what we are referring to in the first place.)

39

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

If you look at the history of why this was done, The King in England was also the head of the Chruch. Using Religion to control the masses IMO is wrong.

Separation of church and state is not there to give you freedom from religion. I am a Christian as most of us know. If I became President, I would still pray everyday for the Lord to give me wisdom. Does this mean the chruch is over my decistions? No. Will I make the USA bow down to the Pope, or force the Country to give 10% of the tax revenue to the Catholic Church or any other religious organization? No. Your idea of Separation of Church and State is rather distorted. It is what secular people would think, but that was not the intent of that part of the Constitution. [/quote]

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their “legislature” should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

40

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

If you look at the history of why this was done, The King in England was also the head of the Chruch. Using Religion to control the masses IMO is wrong.

Separation of church and state is not there to give you freedom from religion. I am a Christian as most of us know. If I became President, I would still pray everyday for the Lord to give me wisdom. Does this mean the chruch is over my decistions? No. Will I make the USA bow down to the Pope, or force the Country to give 10% of the tax revenue to the Catholic Church or any other religious organization? No. Your idea of Separation of Church and State is rather distorted. It is what secular people would think, but that was not the intent of that part of the Constitution. [/quote]

The first amendment was about protecting religions from the state, NOT protecting the state from religion.[/quote]

It was about protecting people from having their freedom to believe whatever they want to believe impinged by the state.