Who's Funding the Mosque?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I am unaware of any such contradiction. It’s theoretically possible — say, for example, Obama gets his national socialist regime cooking, and starts extermination camps based on national origin. This would violate the Torah and Jewish people could not, in good concience, participate.

Other than extreme examples like that, no.

42

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion …[/quote]

I agree with you post. It’s just that most people today don’t understand that first part of your statement. Separation of church and state now means “religion and politics must be legally separated and anyone that mixes the 2 is wrong to do so”.

The first amendment is really just, no institution of religion, laws can still have a basis in religious belief. For example, I believe god granted humans inalienable rights and I can be for laws meant to achieve that without violating the first amendment.

43

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion …[/quote]

I agree with you post. It’s just that most people today don’t understand that first part of your statement. Separation of church and state now means “religion and politics must be legally separated and anyone that mixes the 2 is wrong to do so”.

The first amendment is really just, no institution of religion, laws can still have a basis in religious belief. For example, I believe god granted humans inalienable rights and I can be for laws meant to achieve that without violating the first amendment.[/quote]

But in doing so you shouldn’t do anything that infringes my rights to for instance buy beer or work any day of the week, right?

44

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion …[/quote]

I agree with you post. It’s just that most people today don’t understand that first part of your statement. Separation of church and state now means “religion and politics must be legally separated and anyone that mixes the 2 is wrong to do so”.

The first amendment is really just, no institution of religion, laws can still have a basis in religious belief. For example, I believe god granted humans inalienable rights and I can be for laws meant to achieve that without violating the first amendment.[/quote]

But in doing so you shouldn’t do anything that infringes my rights to for instance buy beer or work any day of the week, right?[/quote]

I’m sure I hate blue laws as much as you do. I can at least buy beer here whenever. I’m also entirely against the idea of sin taxes or victimless crimes. I see writing into law “keep the sabbath holy” as an institution of a religion. One which violates my “drink beer on Sundays” sect of Diesm.

45

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion …[/quote]

I agree with you post. It’s just that most people today don’t understand that first part of your statement. Separation of church and state now means “religion and politics must be legally separated and anyone that mixes the 2 is wrong to do so”.

The first amendment is really just, no institution of religion, laws can still have a basis in religious belief. For example, I believe god granted humans inalienable rights and I can be for laws meant to achieve that without violating the first amendment.[/quote]

But in doing so you shouldn’t do anything that infringes my rights to for instance buy beer or work any day of the week, right?[/quote]

I’m sure I hate blue laws as much as you do. I can at least buy beer here whenever. I’m also entirely against the idea of sin taxes or victimless crimes. I see writing into law “keep the sabbath holy” as an institution of a religion. One which violates my “drink beer on Sundays” sect of Diesm.[/quote]

They just changed the law in my state here in Mexico to allow us to buy beer all day on Sunday. Used to really piss me off (even though you could always find a store that flouted the law). Here though the law was not about religion it was about ensuring the factory workers were not hungover on Monday morning.

46

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion …[/quote]

I agree with you post. It’s just that most people today don’t understand that first part of your statement. Separation of church and state now means “religion and politics must be legally separated and anyone that mixes the 2 is wrong to do so”.

The first amendment is really just, no institution of religion, laws can still have a basis in religious belief. For example, I believe god granted humans inalienable rights and I can be for laws meant to achieve that without violating the first amendment.[/quote]

But in doing so you shouldn’t do anything that infringes my rights to for instance buy beer or work any day of the week, right?[/quote]

You are confusing the concept of religion inspiring civil law with a religion trumping civil law.

Almost all American civil law is inspired by the Torah or the Bible.

Laws against murder, for example come direct from Mt. Sinai. One of the top 10.

Bankruptcy law is straight from Leviticus.

The issue is a religion (Islam) that teaches its laws or edicits trump civil law, regardless of of what the civil law says.

For example, muslim converts to another religion (typically Christianity) are frequently murdered in the USA because the koran commands death for apostates, regardless of the freedom of religion promised by the US Constitution.

Honor killings of daughters or sisters for dating outside the “faith” are likewise growing.

Rapes of women for daring to dress “provacatively” etc.

It’s a fundamental theological difference and incompatable with Western Democratic society.

47
48

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion …[/quote]

I agree with you post. It’s just that most people today don’t understand that first part of your statement. Separation of church and state now means “religion and politics must be legally separated and anyone that mixes the 2 is wrong to do so”.

The first amendment is really just, no institution of religion, laws can still have a basis in religious belief. For example, I believe god granted humans inalienable rights and I can be for laws meant to achieve that without violating the first amendment.[/quote]

But in doing so you shouldn’t do anything that infringes my rights to for instance buy beer or work any day of the week, right?[/quote]

You are confusing the concept of religion inspiring civil law with a religion trumping civil law.

Almost all American civil law is inspired by the Torah or the Bible.

Laws against murder, for example come direct from Mt. Sinai. One of the top 10.

Bankruptcy law is straight from Leviticus.

The issue is a religion (Islam) that teaches its laws or edicits trump civil law, regardless of of what the civil law says.

For example, muslim converts to another religion (typically Christianity) are frequently murdered in the USA because the koran commands death for apostates, regardless of the freedom of religion promised by the US Constitution.

Honor killings of daughters or sisters for dating outside the “faith” are likewise growing.

Rapes of women for daring to dress “provacatively” etc.

It’s a fundamental theological difference and incompatable with Western Democratic society.
[/quote]

The laws that you refer to date back before Judaism for the most part but your point is taken.

The problems you point out with Islam are definitely real problems however in the same way that Christians would say that horrific things carried out in the name of Christianity are actually not Christian because they were not truly following Gods will, rationale Muslims will tell you that the kind of horrors listed above go totally against the religion of peace.

49

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
FWIW, it’s a sign of conquest in the Islamic world to place a mosque on the site of some great triumph.

Examples: pretty much any former church in the ME is now a mosque.

Witness the gold domed pagan structure (al aska mosque) on top of the Temple Mount.

This is basic we’ve-got-you-beat chest-beating Islam 101 and will be taken as a sign of weakness and submission to Islam.

Religious issues aside, its existance will be used by radical islamists as “proof” that America is weak and ripe for attack.

(Sorry for the bad news; I’ve lived surrounded by muslims my entire life. It’s how they think.)[/quote]

Yes. If they could, they’d build it right on the spot where the towers stood.

That’ll probably happen someday. Then there will be the call to prayer being spewed out on PA systems throughout the country. Watch for when this happens.

50

Guys,

Aren’t you suspicious of Muslims moving to the West? Would anyone here move to a radically different country, with totally different laws and rules? They’re doing it by the millions.

It may be economics. But to move freedom-loving liberal republics unlike anything you’ve ever experienced. I am suspicious.

51

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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)[/quote]

The Christian religion is unencumbered

52

I’d like to know why there is no outcry about the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and people that say America deserved 9/11, funding this mosque.

Protesting the building is a half measure. Protesting (and arresting?) those who fund such abominations should be the focal issue.

54

The government should not fund the mosque, churches, or other religious buildings. If private organizations wants to fund it, they should be free to. Or they could just do away with this religion stuff.

55

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[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.)[/quote]

Ok so by your argument, we have no right to tell someone who worships bael and needs to sacrifice virgins as well as animals to stop them from building a place of worship in which they can plan this out or pursue it. I mean suppose these are consenting virgins will to die for their beliefs.

What about the bubble law in chicago, a man can’t even pray outside a planned parenthood, does this not fall under the same category.

56

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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)[/quote]

The Christian religion is unencumbered [/quote]

You only say that because you aren’t christian.

57

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

What about the bubble law in chicago, a man can’t even pray outside a planned parenthood, does this not fall under the same category.

[/quote]

WTF?

58

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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)[/quote]

The Christian religion is unencumbered [/quote]

You only say that because you aren’t christian. [/quote]

How do you know what I am ?

59

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

The problems you point out with Islam are definitely real problems however in the same way that Christians would say that horrific things carried out in the name of Christianity are actually not Christian because they were not truly following Gods will, rationale Muslims will tell you that the kind of horrors listed above go totally against the religion of peace.[/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t the 4 major schools of Sunni jurisprudence condone death for aposty?[/quote]

Correct. I am no expert on Christianity, but I have read the primary source materials (e.g., the Christian Bible).

I am very acutely aware of the abuses of Christiandom, no small amount done to my tribe.

A distinction can be made between Islam and Christianity in that the abuses of Christiandom, done in its name, CONFLICT with its source material. The moral teaching of Christianity are very sound, and, indeed come directly from the Hillel school of thought. (Rabbi Hillel authored the Golden Rule, repeated to much effect by Jesus.)

In contrast, the abuses of Islam (e.g., spreading Islam by terror) come directly from the source material and are fully consistent with the koran.

A Jewish person can read the Christian Bible and have serious theological disputes, but the moral teachings are wonderful.

The koran, in contrast, is shocking.

60

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
headhunter: tell us when you have a “final solution” to the “muslim problem” [/quote]

I’m not surprised that a clueless European (especially one from Scandinavia) would want to bully people by using such terms. The irony is that islam and national socialism are very similar ideologies with very similar history.

You Scandinavians are like babes in the woods. You have lived your entire lives in very homogeneous societies where the concept of a community that has been divided along ethnic or religious lines is completely foreign to you. But your ignorance doesn’t stop you from dissing those who have grown up with it like we have in the US.

It is only in recent years that you Norwegians have had mass immigration into your country of muslims and have only recently had to deal with the consequences. ie The skyrocketing incidences of rape in Oslo. Yet even now as the results become apparent leftists like you wnat to stifle open debate.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1754

“The number of rapes in the Norwegian capital Oslo is six times as high as in New York City.”

According to Aftenposten, the clinic (voldtektsmottak) at the emergency hospital known as Legevakt has never had so many rape victims to treat. Its ability to care for them all is being severely tested. The number of reported rapes has skyrocketed this year.

Two out of three charged with rape in Norwayâ??s capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily. Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, in 2001 said that â??Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapesâ?? because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative.

The professorâ??s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: â??Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.â??[/quote]

the ideology/religion that islam is closest to is judaisme. its the same god ( the god of abraham/ibrahim ), its very similar rules ( think food, cutting of foreskin etc ) and they both originated among semittic people. So its not nazisme that is closest to islam.

about the rapings in oslo. yes there are non-western people who rape in oslo, but non-western is not per definition muslim. there are also ethnic norwegians who rape. the take home point is this: if a muslim man rapes a woman, does that meen that all muslims are rapists? answer: offcourse not! so to sum up, the logic you anti-muslims follow are flawed. its classic group-judging. the same flawed logic the nazis used to legitimate their killings of jews, gypsis, homosexuals, communists etc.

So all I am saying is thats a dangerous logic to follow. it will end with a new holocaust.