OT: Should the President defy the Constitution he is sworn to uphold?
MarkA
something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero." Of course,
his comments were completely correct: In America, people can practice
their religion wherever, whenever. If you don't like what the
Constitution says, there are mechanisms to change it. For now, however,
Obama is sworn to uphold it as it is.
It is no surprise that right-wing bigots like Laura Ingrahm have come
out against the mosque (actually, a community center that contains a
mosque). She said that the "terrorists win" if the mosque is built. No,
Laura, the terrorists win if they frighten Americans into giving up the
principles that made our country great, especially religious
freedom, and the right to equal treatment. When you deny the rights of
one religious group, you threaten the rights of everyone.
I am sure the Dems could use this to their advantage in the coming
elections, if they press the idea that opposition to the mosque is an
assault on the Constitution itself. The right-wing troglodytes will never
be swayed, but most people could be convinced that allowing the mosque to
proceed is the American thing to do. Or, am I giving too much credit to
the average voter?
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
DanielSan
> I have been following the recent dust-up about President Obama saying
> something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero." Of course,
> his comments were completely correct: In America, people can practice
> their religion wherever, whenever. If you don't like what the
> Constitution says, there are mechanisms to change it. For now, however,
> Obama is sworn to uphold it as it is.
In answer to your question, "Should the President defy the Constitution
he is sworn to uphold?"
In a word: No.
In two words: HELL NO!
The Constitution is there to protect against the tyranny of the
majority. If Obama bows to the will of the people against the
Constitution, I will be first in line calling for his impeachment and
ejection from office.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
------------------------------
"The Old Testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism,
disbelief-call it what you will-than any book ever written; it has
emptied more churches than all the counterattractions of cinema, motor
bicycle and golf course." -- a.a. milne
Christopher A. Lee
>I have been following the recent dust-up about President Obama saying
>something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero." Of course,
>his comments were completely correct: In America, people can practice
>their religion wherever, whenever. If you don't like what the
>Constitution says, there are mechanisms to change it. For now, however,
>Obama is sworn to uphold it as it is.
>
>It is no surprise that right-wing bigots like Laura Ingrahm have come
>out against the mosque (actually, a community center that contains a
>mosque). She said that the "terrorists win" if the mosque is built. No,
>Laura, the terrorists win if they frighten Americans into giving up the
>principles that made our country great, especially religious
>freedom, and the right to equal treatment. When you deny the rights of
>one religious group, you threaten the rights of everyone.
This reminds me of Larry Flynt's successful argument before Antonin
Scalia in the Supreme Court - that he admitted he was a sleaze but if
you allowed his own freedom of speech you allowed it for everybody
else as well.
Uncle Vic
> I have been following the recent dust-up about President Obama saying
> something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero." Of course,
> his comments were completely correct: In America, people can practice
> their religion wherever, whenever.
I see no problem building a Mosque at Ground Zero. I also don't have
a problem with disgruntled New Yorkers burning it down.
--
Uncle Vic
AA#2011
DanielSan
I personally do. Destruction of private property is a crime.
thomas p.
news:pan.2010.08.17....@nowhere.com...
I hope very much that you are not, but past experience makes me think that
you may be doing just that.
Apostate
Your are giving too much credit to the average voter.
Harry Reid's ploy is transparently instrumental rather than principled. He sees,
correctly, that there is no hay to be made in an election by invoking the Constitution,
when the issue is "how do we treat despised minorities?" It's disappointing, in case
one expects pols to let their moral better angels rule their campaign strategy, that he
felt the need to run that flag up the pole, but even running against a nut nought, he
has to notice the temperature, and the way the wind is blowing, and his own
before-the-GOP-primary standing with the voters, and realize that even a nut with a
sexy one-issue advantage can be a giant-slayer in an election where the a priori
odds-making favors non-Democrats.
They aren't all dopes. They aren't all bigots. But the set of somewhat bigoted, somewhat
dopey voters is large enough to be decisive in any close election, anywhere on Earth, I'm
willing to bet. And it is election season.
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer Trance Gemini Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Being Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
. -- Doc Smartass
"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia
Apostate
>On 8/17/2010 11:25 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 10:50 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> I have been following the recent dust-up about President Obama saying
>>> something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero." Of course,
>>> his comments were completely correct: In America, people can practice
>>> their religion wherever, whenever.
>>
>> I see no problem building a Mosque at Ground Zero. I also don't have
>> a problem with disgruntled New Yorkers burning it down.
>
>I personally do. Destruction of private property is a crime.
This particular case would be a poster crime for Hate Crime special treatment.
Pink Freud
"DanielSan" <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:apadnRVorNwjSffR...@speakeasy.net...
> On 8/17/2010 11:25 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 10:50 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> I have been following the recent dust-up about President Obama saying
>>> something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero." Of course,
>>> his comments were completely correct: In America, people can practice
>>> their religion wherever, whenever.
>>
>> I see no problem building a Mosque at Ground Zero. I also don't have
>> a problem with disgruntled New Yorkers burning it down.
>
> I personally do. Destruction of private property is a crime.
>
I personally do, too. Building a life-size statue of Muhammed just opposite
the Mosque, also on private property, would be far funnier and make the
point far better.
I wonder how many Muslims would see destruction of private property as a
crime, then?
raven1
Unfortunately, you probably are.
DanielSan
Muslim Americans, you mean? I would hope that they would see the
destruction of private property as a crime, too.
Pink Freud
> On 8/17/2010 2:53 PM, Pink Freud wrote:
>>
>> "DanielSan" <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>> news:apadnRVorNwjSffR...@speakeasy.net...
>>> On 8/17/2010 11:25 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>>>> On Aug 17, 10:50 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have been following the recent dust-up about President Obama saying
>>>>> something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero." Of
>>>>> course,
>>>>> his comments were completely correct: In America, people can practice
>>>>> their religion wherever, whenever.
>>>>
>>>> I see no problem building a Mosque at Ground Zero. I also don't have
>>>> a problem with disgruntled New Yorkers burning it down.
>>>
>>> I personally do. Destruction of private property is a crime.
>>>
>>
>> I personally do, too. Building a life-size statue of Muhammed just
>> opposite the Mosque, also on private property, would be far funnier and
>> make the point far better.
>> I wonder how many Muslims would see destruction of private property as a
>> crime, then?
>
> Muslim Americans, you mean? I would hope that they would see the
> destruction of private property as a crime, too.
>
But will we really know until the statue is built? :)
raven1
<vic...@inreach.com> wrote:
>On Aug 17, 10:50 am, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> I have been following the recent dust-up about President Obama saying
>> something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero." Of course,
>> his comments were completely correct: In America, people can practice
>> their religion wherever, whenever.
>
>I see no problem building a Mosque at Ground Zero.
The proposed Mosque in question isn't. It's two blocks away (roughly a
quarter mile by my offhand estimate), and neither site is visible from
the other because of buildings in between.
> I also don't have
>a problem with disgruntled New Yorkers burning it down.
Most New Yorkers support building the Mosque. I work two blocks from
Ground Zero, and I have no problem with it.
Lord Calvert
> MarkA wrote:
> > I am sure the Dems could use this to their advantage in the coming
> > elections, if they press the idea that opposition to the mosque is an
> > assault on the Constitution itself. The right-wing troglodytes will never
> > be swayed, but most people could be convinced that allowing the mosque to
> > proceed is the American thing to do. Or, am I giving too much credit to
> > the average voter?
>
> property, and the GOP has always proclaimed that private property is
> just about the most important thing in the world.
They did until they got control of government. When that happened they
quickly abandoned private property rights in favor of increased
government regulation.
This is the thing that the Democrats really need to hammer home at
every possible opportunity. The GOP is not in any way, shape or form a
party that adheres to the principles that they claim to hold dear.
They are not a conservative party and the Tea Party revival is not a
conservative movement. Since obtaining complete control of the federal
government in 2001 the Republicans have been limited-government
conservatism's greatest enemy. We must all remember that it was a
Republican-dominated Supreme Court that upheld eminent domain.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking
ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to
take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a
religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics
goodbye." - Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)
Budikka666
> MarkA wrote:
> > elections, if they press the idea that opposition to the mosque is an
> > assault on the Constitution itself. The right-wing troglodytes will never
> > be swayed, but most people could be convinced that allowing the mosque to
> > proceed is the American thing to do. Or, am I giving too much credit to
> > the average voter?
>
> property, and the GOP has always proclaimed that private property is
> on it from the angle of the GOP wanting to socialize this piece of land
> in the name of "sacred ground" to scare some of the real lunatics, and
> make saner, more realistic points to sway land owners, business people
> etc.
>
> --
> L. Raymond
It sure would be a novelty if the Dems could actually figure ways to
work on the deviousness of the Repubs, but they don't seem to have
quite the same level of degeneracy as the Repubs do, for some reason.
You can bet your ass that no Republican ever stood up against the
possibility of churches being built in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Budikka
oldvet
Why don't you research the meaning of the name "Cordoba" and its
significance to Muslims. I know you won't as you don't wish to
interfere with your preconceived prejudices. Why would they announce
the opening of the mosque to be 9/11? This mosque is nothing more
than a monument to the first Muslim victory against The Great Satan.
If you have any doubts then look towards the UK or France. These
people state they want to promote understanding and tolerance but how
does onegive tolerance to another who will not tolerate. The Iman
wouldn't even condemn Hamas, a terrorist organization. How would you
view David Duke erecting a KKK headquarters in Alabama? No problem?
Then how about the KKK headquarters being erected right next to the
Martin Luther King jr monument in Washington DC? Or how about a
statue of Hirohito right next to the Pearl Harbor monument?
DanielSan
I looked up Cordoba. What am I looking for?
> I know you won't as you don't wish to
> interfere with your preconceived prejudices. Why would they announce
> the opening of the mosque to be 9/11?
Maybe because it coincides with the end of Ramadan?
> This mosque is nothing more
> than a monument to the first Muslim victory against The Great Satan.
Bullshit!
How dare you, sir?
> How would you
> view David Duke erecting a KKK headquarters in Alabama? No problem?
> Then how about the KKK headquarters being erected right next to the
> Martin Luther King jr monument in Washington DC? Or how about a
> statue of Hirohito right next to the Pearl Harbor monument?
Um. Are you SERIOUSLY equating the community center with the KKK and
Emperor Hirohito?!
Holy fuck, man!
raven1
wrote:
Why don't you tell us?
> I know you won't as you don't wish to
>interfere with your preconceived prejudices. Why would they announce
>the opening of the mosque to be 9/11?
No opening date has been announced. You're either lying, or being lied
to.
Dakota
No one knows what Mohammed looked like. Of course that didn't stop
Christian artists from painting pictures of Jesus and his mom.
>
Dakota
Can you recommend a right wing nutcase-website that could help me learn
the meaning of Cordoba? Perhaps the same right-wing nutcase website
where you learned that they announced the opening of the mosque on 9-11.
The US supported democratic elections in the Palestinian territories.
Hamas won. They are the duly elected government. Another victory for
democracy.
Uncle Vic
> On 8/17/2010 11:25 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 10:50 am, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> I have been following the recent dust-up about President Obama
>>> saying something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero."
>>> Of course, his comments were completely correct: In America, people
>>> can practice their religion wherever, whenever.
>>
>> I see no problem building a Mosque at Ground Zero. I also don't have
>> a problem with disgruntled New Yorkers burning it down.
>
> I personally do. Destruction of private property is a crime.
>
>
Oh, well, none of my business...
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
"There’s no greater argument for the existence of God than the truth of His
existence." --AllSeeing-I 8/1/10
panam...@hotmail.com
> I have been following the recent dust-up about President Obama saying
> something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero." Of course,
> his comments were completely correct: In America, people can practice
> their religion wherever, whenever. If you don't like what the
> Constitution says, there are mechanisms to change it. For now, however,
> Obama is sworn to uphold it as it is.
I agree. I have previously commented upon this issue..but I'll admit
that it was to someone who took the opposing POV.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/3340ec1269cfb806
Must admit, I don't care about the "technical" details ("cultural
center", small Mosque, etc.). IMO, such nonsense just obscures the
"big picture". In the US, *all* religions should be treated equally.
I'm just hoping that when folks witness this kind of garbage ("When
Religions Collide!" New reality series on Faux Network!), they'll
wonder about whether or not *any* of this nonsense is treated
seriously in the first place.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
duke
>I have been following the recent dust-up about President Obama saying
>something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero." Of course,
>his comments were completely correct: In America, people can practice
>their religion wherever, whenever. If you don't like what the
>Constitution says, there are mechanisms to change it. For now, however,
>Obama is sworn to uphold it as it is.
Buckwheat is a Kenyan, not an American. And a muslim to boot.
DanielSan
Buckwheat was an American on the Little Rascals. Obama was born in the
United States and is a Christian.
I thought you never lied?
Lord Calvert
> On 8/18/2010 9:32 AM, duke wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:50:48 -0400, MarkA<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> I have been following the recent dust-up about President Obama saying
> >> something positive about "building a Mosque at Ground Zero." Of course,
> >> his comments were completely correct: In America, people can practice
> >> their religion wherever, whenever. If you don't like what the
> >> Constitution says, there are mechanisms to change it. For now, however,
> >> Obama is sworn to uphold it as it is.
>
> > Buckwheat is a Kenyan, not an American. And a muslim to boot.
>
> Buckwheat was an American on the Little Rascals. Obama was born in the
> United States and is a Christian.
I always wondered why the birthers never claimed that Obama is a
British subject. After all, he was born in 1961 and Kenya didn't
achieve independence until 1963. This would lead one to believe that
a) they don't know when Obama was born, b) they don't know when Kenya
became an independent nation or c) both. Of course, claiming that
Obama is a British subject would require that they be somewhat
knowledgeable of history, international law and geopolitics as well as
being consistent in their ideology. That's going to be difficult to
achieve for people who routinely disdain education. Even two of the
extremist right-wing's most ardent supporters (SCOTUS Justices Alito
and Thomas) just shot down the birther position rather emphatically.
Wexford
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, the Japanese have done a lot of building in Honolulu, and in
Oahu in general, as well as on the other Hawaiian islands. When I
visited the Pearl Harbor monument (which is beginning to fall apart,
by the way), one of the visitors was an old Japanese gentlemen, not
Japanese-American because he spoke with his companion, a much younger
person, solely in Japanese. So what? I think American Moslems could
display their faith in a better way, but what the hell, we either have
private property, freedom of speech and religion, or we don't. The
Constitution doesn't establish classes of people with restricted
rights.
I could very well argue, given your sentiments, that no Episcopalian
Church should ever be erected anywhere in any state that was part of
the original 13 colonies, since the it woud merely be an offshoot of
the Church of England, whose prelates supported the British and the
Tories during the Revolution. The building of the National Cathedral
(Episcopalian) was just a provocation from unrepentant Anglicans,
arrogantly thrusting themselves into the heart of the nation. Tear it
down! The Tories should be taught a lesson.
The Chief Instigator
Too bad he's a native of Honolulu. That 14th Amendment just kicked your
ass, Earl.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@prismnet.com) Houston, TX
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11)
NEXT GAME: The 2010-11 opener vs. TBA, October 8
oldvet
It represents a symbol of Islamic conquest to many faithful Muslims
around the world. Once a land is conquered then it is forever
Islamic.
>
> > I know you won't as you don't wish to
> > interfere with your preconceived prejudices. Why would they announce
> > the opening of the mosque to be 9/11?
>
> Maybe because it coincides with the end of Ramadan?
Ramadan ends 9/9 not 9/11.
>
> > This mosque is nothing more
> > than a monument to the first Muslim victory against The Great Satan.
>
> Bullshit!
>
> How dare you, sir?
How dare I? How dare you suggest the placement of the Mosque is, at
best, nothing short of an insult. I nor most Americans have a problem
with building a mosque but rather the location.
>
> > How would you
> > view David Duke erecting a KKK headquarters in Alabama? No problem?
> > Then how about the KKK headquarters being erected right next to the
> > Martin Luther King jr monument in Washington DC? Or how about a
> > statue of Hirohito right next to the Pearl Harbor monument?
>
> Um. Are you SERIOUSLY equating the community center with the KKK and
> Emperor Hirohito?!
I'm seriously equating the insensitivity and inappropriateness of the
act. You missed the point.
>
> Holy fuck, man!
It's about insensitivity to another culture.
DanielSan
Ah. I could only find the city, not the reference to Islam. Cordoba
was conquered by the Romans in 206BCE then conquered by a Muslim army in
711. That kind of crap was always going on back thaen
>>
>>> I know you won't as you don't wish to
>>> interfere with your preconceived prejudices. Why would they announce
>>> the opening of the mosque to be 9/11?
>>
>> Maybe because it coincides with the end of Ramadan?
>
> Ramadan ends 9/9 not 9/11.
>>
>>> This mosque is nothing more
>>> than a monument to the first Muslim victory against The Great Satan.
>>
>> Bullshit!
>>
>> How dare you, sir?
>
> How dare I? How dare you suggest the placement of the Mosque is, at
> best, nothing short of an insult.
Yes. How dare you. It isn't an insult at all unless you really think
that a group of maniacs represent a billion people. You REALLY think
that a group of law-abiding Americans are going to build a "victory
mosque"?!
How sickening.
> I nor most Americans have a problem
> with building a mosque but rather the location.
Doesn't matter. You don't get a say. But I do get a say on how sick
and depraved it is for anyone to suggest that this community center is
somehow at all connected to the 9/11 hijackers.
Disgusting.
>>
>>> How would you
>>> view David Duke erecting a KKK headquarters in Alabama? No problem?
>>> Then how about the KKK headquarters being erected right next to the
>>> Martin Luther King jr monument in Washington DC? Or how about a
>>> statue of Hirohito right next to the Pearl Harbor monument?
>>
>> Um. Are you SERIOUSLY equating the community center with the KKK and
>> Emperor Hirohito?!
>
> I'm seriously equating the insensitivity and inappropriateness of the
> act. You missed the point.
>>
>> Holy fuck, man!
>
> It's about insensitivity to another culture.
And that's what a lot of Americans are expressing towards these Muslims
doing what they want with their own property.
oldvet
How about:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=534342
The problem with progressives, liberals and other left wingers is
their collective intollertance.
>
> The US supported democratic elections in the Palestinian territories.
> Hamas won. They are the duly elected government. Another victory for
> democracy.
So what's the problem? Democracy won and the Palestinians wanted a
terrorist organization to lead them.
DanielSan
"Then". Boy, that was a bad typo.
>
>>>
>>>> I know you won't as you don't wish to
>>>> interfere with your preconceived prejudices. Why would they announce
>>>> the opening of the mosque to be 9/11?
>>>
>>> Maybe because it coincides with the end of Ramadan?
>>
>> Ramadan ends 9/9 not 9/11.
Ramadan actually ends on the 10th of September. Then they open the next
day?
thomas p.
news:97eb428b-87a4-49d0...@o7g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
thomas p wrote:
Well clearly the Constitution allows mosques to be forbidden if somebody's
feelings are hurt. We must not be mislead by obviously Commie ideas such as
equality before the law.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Aug 17, 4:44 pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On 8/17/2010 4:37 PM, oldvet wrote:
>>
...
>>
>> > Why don't you research the meaning of the name "Cordoba" and its
>> > significance to Muslims.
>>
>> I looked up Cordoba. What am I looking for?
>
>It represents a symbol of Islamic conquest to many faithful Muslims
>around the world. Once a land is conquered then it is forever
>Islamic.
What an interesting twist. Which mindless right-wing bigot did you get
that from Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Some other ignoramus?
>> > I know you won't as you don't wish to
>> > interfere with your preconceived prejudices. Why would they announce
>> > the opening of the mosque to be 9/11?
>>
>> Maybe because it coincides with the end of Ramadan?
>
>Ramadan ends 9/9 not 9/11.
And it changes every year because their lunar calendar does not get
adjusted to tie to the solar calendar.
>> > This mosque is nothing more
>> > than a monument to the first Muslim victory against The Great Satan.
>>
>> Bullshit!
>>
>> How dare you, sir?
>
>How dare I? How dare you suggest the placement of the Mosque is, at
>best, nothing short of an insult.
It's not a mosque. It's comparable to a Y. It has a prayer room in it.
You seem to be going out of your way to take offense at something that
is not at all offensive and you are being offensive to Moslems by
ignoring that Moslems were also victims that day. How closeminded.
>I nor most Americans have a problem
>with building a mosque but rather the location.
It seems that a lot of the folks who imagine offense don't want any
mosques built anywhere. They are just bigots.
>> > How would you
>> > view David Duke erecting a KKK headquarters in Alabama? No problem?
>> > Then how about the KKK headquarters being erected right next to the
>> > Martin Luther King jr monument in Washington DC? Or how about a
>> > statue of Hirohito right next to the Pearl Harbor monument?
>>
>> Um. Are you SERIOUSLY equating the community center with the KKK and
>> Emperor Hirohito?!
>
>I'm seriously equating the insensitivity and inappropriateness of the
>act. You missed the point.
There is no insensitivity. The whole thing is spin by bigots of the
right. Anyway, why don't you explain why it is okay for you to be
insensitive to American Moslems, particularly the ones who had relatives
killed that day.
>> Holy fuck, man!
>
>It's about insensitivity to another culture.
And you have it.
Too bad you have such thin skin when it comes to slights that only right
wing fanatics can see but cannot see how you are being rude to other
Americans.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
...
>Well clearly the Constitution allows mosques to be forbidden if somebody's
>feelings are hurt. We must not be mislead by obviously Commie ideas such as
>equality before the law.
And ten years ago, Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly passed a law
that would have made it impossible for New York to stop a mosque (if it
were actually a mosque and not a community center like a Y), but freedom
of religion isn't hip for the right these days.
DanielSan
Actually, freedom of religion is quite fine with the Right....as long as
it's a religion they agree with....and as long as it's
Christianity....conservative right-wing Christianity (which really isn't
Christian at all).
If you even question it, you're persecuting them.
Meanwhile, they're just fine with saying that an entire religion is to
blame because some maniac distorts it and kills people.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 8/21/2010 6:08 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:55:10 +0200, "thomas p."<gud...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Well clearly the Constitution allows mosques to be forbidden if somebody's
>>> feelings are hurt. We must not be mislead by obviously Commie ideas such as
>>> equality before the law.
>>
>> And ten years ago, Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly passed a law
>> that would have made it impossible for New York to stop a mosque (if it
>> were actually a mosque and not a community center like a Y), but freedom
>> of religion isn't hip for the right these days.
>
>Actually, freedom of religion is quite fine with the Right....as long as
>it's a religion they agree with....and as long as it's
>Christianity....conservative right-wing Christianity (which really isn't
>Christian at all).
>
>If you even question it, you're persecuting them.
>
>Meanwhile, they're just fine with saying that an entire religion is to
>blame because some maniac distorts it and kills people.
Yes, small-minded, bitter people always seem to be reactionary.
High Miles
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:55:10 +0200, "thomas p."<gud...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> feelings are hurt. We must not be mislead by obviously Commie ideas such as
>> equality before the law.
> And ten years ago, Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly passed a law
> that would have made it impossible for New York to stop a mosque (if it
> were actually a mosque and not a community center like a Y), but freedom
> of religion isn't hip for the right these days.
Christopher A. Lee
Even for the religious because it gives them freedom from all the
others so they can practice their own.
The problem is that imposing your religion on others, is part of
evangelical fundamentalism. Part of practicing it.
So when this is prevented they imagine this is violation of their own
freedom of religion.
Don Martin
>On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:55:10 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>Well clearly the Constitution allows mosques to be forbidden if somebody's
>>feelings are hurt. We must not be mislead by obviously Commie ideas such as
>>equality before the law.
>
>And ten years ago, Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly passed a law
>that would have made it impossible for New York to stop a mosque (if it
>were actually a mosque and not a community center like a Y), but freedom
>of religion isn't hip for the right these days.
Certainly not for religions other than their own.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Free Lunch
Oh, I agree, but the hypocrisy of the GOP (and Dems) passing a law that
essentially forces New York to approve this building while complaining
now that New York has approved this building would be shocking to anyone
with a conscience. Luckily for these political panderers, they have no
conscience at all.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 08:08:27 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:55:10 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>Well clearly the Constitution allows mosques to be forbidden if somebody's
>>>feelings are hurt. We must not be mislead by obviously Commie ideas such as
>>>equality before the law.
>>
>>And ten years ago, Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly passed a law
>>that would have made it impossible for New York to stop a mosque (if it
>>were actually a mosque and not a community center like a Y), but freedom
>>of religion isn't hip for the right these days.
>
>Certainly not for religions other than their own.
They weren't planning ahead.
thomas p.
news:4r0076puptthc74gk...@4ax.com...
It wasn't necessary. One of the major requirements of being religious is
the ability to ignore any contradiction in your position.
Mickey
No, he is neither. But you are a bigot, a
racist, a liar and a fool. And, a deliberate
ignoramus. Nothing new, as far as you
are concerned.
Don Martin
You left out "utter shithead."