kuSportsPA (anonymous) says...

I think that "a(n)" should be properly used in the question above.

September 8, 2010 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

marko (anonymous) says...

happy that this sensationalist religious nut is from somewhere besides Kansas

September 8, 2010 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

We've lost precious lives in two wars against muslim extremists, and now this nut case is going to the same kind of extreme to prove some kind of similar idiotic point.

Inasmuch as they risk American lives on two battlefronts, these church nuts are committing treason and should be arrested for that crime.

September 8, 2010 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I don't agree with burning the Koran at all, but to compare the burning of a book to flying planes into buildings killing thousands of people is asinine. But it doesn't surprise me that they would be seen as the same thing by those that want to "arrested" "church nuts".

September 8, 2010 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ironmanjdm (anonymous) says...

Makes me sick to think someone actually believes burning the Koran will accomplish ANYTHING besides negativity. I kind of hope this joker is just doing this for attention. Its hard to imagine anyone could really think that is what should be done to our fellow man.

September 8, 2010 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

allintogether (anonymous) says...

Burning copies of the Koran, the American flag and pictures of leaders in effigy is free speech in the United States. It is no more provocative, insensitive and appalling as building a mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero where 2,752 people were murdered. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in Florida but where is the widespread outrage when a Danish cartoonist is murdered in cold blood and the creators of South Park are threatened with their lives for drawing pictures of Mohamed?

That said, framing an entire faith with its fringe element is just like saying that all Baptists are exactly like Fred Phelps and his gaggle of idiots. Phelps can't go 5 seconds without perverting verses of the bible to promote his message of hatred in God's name. The difference is that Fred hasn't killed anyone that we know of and he has been effectively marginalized by Christians and a large majority of level headed, good people. So as extremist fringes go, I think Muslims have a lot of work to do.

September 8, 2010 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

genxer (anonymous) says...

Well said allintogether.

Normally the progressive left would be taking the lead in the burning of the Koran and the Mohamed cartoons but they are too busy with their war on christianity to be troubled with the true religious zealots of the world.

Plus, the crazies in the Muslim world will actually kill you if you go doing something like that. Not what the progressive left signed up for. They prefer their enemies to be more docile, you know, the kind that turn the other cheek.

September 8, 2010 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I certainly hope this fool's actions don't cost the life of any additional servicemen. As for him and his followers.....when you play with fire you may well get burned. Or as the bible says, "reap what you sow".

Aside from that he has every right to do his stupid little thing. Let's just hope he ends up being held accountable for any ramifications of his lunacy.

September 8, 2010 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

genxer

I am what you call a progressive lefty. I have never engaged an a war with Muslims, Christians, Jews, or any other religious group for that matter. Only with people that paint everybody that disagrees with them in broad negative stereotypes.

Those type people are a much greater threat to me and my country than anyone of any faith just practicing their beliefs.

September 8, 2010 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Now you all know why I am not too keen on religion or churches !

How would this nut feel if someone decided to burn the book of his " FAITH " or religious beliefs ?

September 8, 2010 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

More importantly methusla....how loud would he howl if some mosque decided to burn Bibles. It's wrong no matter what idiot does it. But it is still free speech. I just hope he doesn't expect sympathy from me when the retaliation comes.

September 8, 2010 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

TexasGirl (anonymous) says...

This man has every right under the U.S. constitution to burn the Koran. That being said, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is the wise or responsible thing to do. This so-called "evangelical priest" sounds like he is more interested in his 15 minutes of fame than in proclaiming the gospel, which is the definition of "evangelical."

And since biscuitboy brought up the Bible, let me just mention this: "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor."

I Corinthians 10:23-24

September 8, 2010 at 2:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuit,

Exactly !

September 8, 2010 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ToxicPink (anonymous) says...

So, from the article I just read on Yahoo, the fire department has denied his permit for the bonfire, so technically what he's doing is illegal seeing how he said he was doing it anyway.

But, I wouldn't expect much from a preacher who in 2008 was kicked out of his other church for taking from the till to pay for personal expenses.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/...

September 8, 2010 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

Silly religious kooks. lol I think someone should sneak a case of Bibles into the pile! Burn 'em all! Can you imagine if the church found out someone had went through the pews and burned all their Bibles? That'd be funny stuff!

I don't care if they burn the Koran because I see no evidence that there is a god that would care. Likewise, I think it's silly the Christians believe their little storybook (the Bible) is "better" than someone else's storybook. They're all a bunch of crazies for believing in fairytales.

We should be able to burn fictional books or show imaginary characters on TV without any fear of retaliation. If we take away our rights to free speech out of fear, then the terrorists win. If they get the results they want by threatening violence, we're only encouraging them to continue their violent ways.

Why don't we just not worry about it and let these alleged "gods" sort it all out? If I'm doing something "god" doesn't like, I'm sure he can tell me himself.
'enry

September 8, 2010 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

We wouldn't have to worry so much about our troops safety, if they weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Or Somalia.

September 8, 2010 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

"Do you think this is free speech or do you think he is endangering United States soldiers?'

Yes.

Yes, it is "free speech"
Yes, it is endangering lives of Americans, both civilians and soldiers.

Remember that old adage, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."
That applies to most cases these days where "free speech" is touted.

I hope that he is prevented by many fire and other safety codes and he fails to follow through, but it made the news and whether he does it or not, he has already fueled the extremist fires on the opposing side.

September 8, 2010 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Good thing he isn't burning porn. The ACLU would be all over him in an instant.

I agree with most of the comments here. I hope the Muslims that are outraged by this but pro-GZ mosque (and there are many that are against it) take a good hard long look in the mirror and apply the same kind of reasoning to building the mosque so close to Ground Zero. Having the right to do a thing doesn't always make it the right thing to do.

September 8, 2010 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ToxicPink (anonymous) says...

Oh well, the difference with what you're talking about the burning is that its not a mosque, its a community center with prayer rooms for other religions as well.

I don't think mosque's usually have those. Or a cooking school, or a swimming area...

So I can look in the mirror, but I don't think it will tell me much other then my hair looks like crap today.

September 8, 2010 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yes, it does include all of those things - including a mosque. And they never stated that it would include prayer rooms for other religions until just recently to my knowledge - after the outcry. If that's the case, then hopefully things will settle down.
But I still stand by what I said. Just because your hair looks like crap to you doesn't mean it does to anyone else. ;-)

September 8, 2010 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Besides, ToxicPink - not to worry. Since the imam is so in favor of Sharia law, if that comes to pass nobody will ever see your hair outside of your house, crappy or otherwise. Unless you want to be stoned to death.......

September 8, 2010 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ToxicPink (anonymous) says...

Even so, it still called its a community center and it always said everyone was welcome.

I need a haircut. =(

September 8, 2010 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ToxicPink (anonymous) says...

Oh, you're so silly.

September 8, 2010 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I Googled Ground Zero Mosque Imam and found about an equal number of articles describing him as a very moderate western oriented cleric as those that saw him as a Sharia driven extremist. I guess we just pick the view that best suits our agenda and act like the other views don't exist.

Hi open-eyes...I'm back.

September 8, 2010 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ToxicPink (anonymous) says...

I thought his wife was Christian?

;.;

September 8, 2010 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hometownkid (anonymous) says...

I say burn all the koran's we can find! Extemeist' burn our flags and bomb our cities, and murder our citizens. Fight fire with fire I say....but maybe we are and we just don't know it.

September 8, 2010 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ToxicPink (anonymous) says...

Omg, I can't believe it...with your lowering us to the level of those we consider terriorists you've just solved all the worlds problems!

OH GLORIOUS DAY!

September 8, 2010 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

If the 'news' media didn't plaster this story all over the papers and run the storie 24 hours a day on the TV, who would even know about this nut job?

If the media would stop trying to manufacture controversy and ignored these types of people, there wouldn't be a problem at all.

September 8, 2010 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I'd say the expenditure of untold trillions of dollars, the loss of thousands of lives and the injury of tens of thousands more of of our youngest and finest, sounds to me like we have been fighting fire with fire in spades. The damage we have already inflicted on them is many times over what they did to us and we are not done yet.

So why do we need the help of this stupid fruitcake and his childish little act?
Seems to me like we have been handling the retribution part fairly well despite the high cost we have paid.

Tell this loony tune to go back to pilfering the collection plate and leave the real work to the professionals.

September 8, 2010 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I very much agree with you Mister O. Not just this fruitcake but many others who use outrageous statements and actions to glean their fifteen minutes of fame.

Just because somebody says something outrageous doesn't mean the media has to give it twenty four hour coverage.

September 8, 2010 at 5:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

booker5m (anonymous) says...

BB we did leave the real work to the professionals and look where it got us lol

September 8, 2010 at 7:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

empgazfan (anonymous) says...

I JUST READ THAT GLEN BECK AND HIS BECKERHEADS SUPPORT THE GRAND KORAN BURNING!!
Burn the Koran! Burn the Bible! Burn the Torah! Burn the flag! Burn the good reverend's aess! Burn Glen Beck's aess! Burn baby burn!

September 8, 2010 at 7:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ToxicPink (anonymous) says...

Lol, "Beckerheads" XD

September 8, 2010 at 7:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were Christians. Are we to to blame all of Christianity for the Oklahoma City Bombing?
I say they were murderous criminals and it was a good thing that they stuck a needle in McVeigh's arm and put Nichols away for life. I believe there were more accomplices and feel they should be brought to justice too.

The overwhelming population of Muslims are peaceful law abiding people who love their children as much as Christians love theirs.

The murderous criminals who planned and executed the attacks on 911 were just that. Murderous criminals. They should be rounded up and brought to justice. Dead or Alive. jmo

September 8, 2010 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Hi and welcome back, biscuitboy. I would venture that each of the articles you read picked the view that best suited the agenda they were trying to portray, as well.....

Toxic, in my area alone there are several extremely large Baptist churches that have gymnasiums (basketball courts) inside. One is a converted Sports arena that has an indoor soccer field. Some, in addition to the basketball courts, have weight rooms, an indoor walking/running track, aerobic rooms, coffee/snack bars, child care, offices, study areas, and who knows what else - in addition to a chapel tucked away in there somewhere.
Yet NOBODY refers to them as community centers. They are churches, plain and simple, no matter how many add-on facilities they boast. And I suppose they could take a few of their many rooms and designate this one as a Jewish prayer area, this one as a Muslim prayer area, and so on - and I'm sure Jews and Muslims will be leaving their own places of worship in droves to flock down to the Baptist Church (oops, sorry, community center) - to use the room specifically set aside for them to pray in. Gee, I wonder how many people of other faiths will be traveling from their own places of worship to go down to the GZ mosque (sorry again, "community center") - just to use the room set aside for them? Get real..... that's an appeasement thrown out that means really nothing. Now if they open chapels & synagogues inside and start having regular meetings there, then that would lend more credence to their claim.

But for the record, I think the book-burning is not only stupid, but will put our troops in danger and should be and is being condemned by pretty much everyone, including the Christian community. Its not even Christian:
1 Corinthians 8:13:
"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."
Which is saying there is nothing wrong with eating meat but if it offends another then you should consider their feelings over your own.....
Or Titus 3:2: "to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men."
Some things the "rev" should consider, during his prayer and Bible study on this matter.....

I wonder where the ACLU stands on this? I mean they defend Fred Phelps.....

September 8, 2010 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Hey, biscuitboy, question: Sarah Palin & anyone else both say the same "outrageous" thing.
Who gets 24 hour news coverage and who gets ignored? LOL ;-)

You know, I can't for the life of me, in any logic or reasonable, sensible stretch of the imagination, comprehend why Muslims worldwide (not just extremists) are so offended by pictures of Mohammed. I'm not talking about disgraceful caricatures, just plain pictures. Other than it is banned in the Koran. So even though it makes absolutely no reasonable sense whatsoever to me, out of respect (and a healthy dose of death threats thrown in there) - it seems our media steers clear of offending Muslims in this way (South Park being one noted recent example).
So since we live in The Land Of Many Double Standards, it seems that among some in the Muslim community, it works like this: If it is offensive to us, it doesn't matter if you have the legal right to do it - you should not (and will probably be killed if you do). If it is offensive to you..... our legal rights take precedence and you should respect our legal rights.

And my thoughts are that it is this type of reasoning that the rev is trying to highlight with his book-burning. I oppose it and think it is the wrong way to go about it, but that's my feeling as to what his aim is.

So even if a strip-club, for instance, has a legal right (no zoning law otherwise) to build right next to a church or school, I do not think that it is the "right" thing to do, even if they have the legal right. Same way for the GZ mosque and the book-burning. Even if you think those opposed to the mosque have no reason that you can comprehend in any way that holds water in your view, if the builders truly wanted to "build bridges" as they claim, it is obvious to everyone but them apparently that they would come much closer to promoting those goals by moving a few blocks further away. There have been many, many Muslims and muslim organizations come out publicly against building the mosque so close, so it isn't just plain anti-muslim sentiment.

After all, EVERYONE knows you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar ;-)

September 8, 2010 at 7:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Hey REWBA - you say we shouldn't blame all of Christianity for McVeigh and Nichols.

Gosh, thanks for standing up and defending the Tea Party even though they have a few McVeighs and Nichols in their ranks, unfortunately ;-) (which the Tea Party pretty much kick out on their own when they find them)...

September 8, 2010 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, time to set the liberals here straight again.... (sigh).....

From The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Glenn Beck joins U.S. officials, religious leaders in condemning Koran burning

"Conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck added his voice Wednesday to the chorus of critics condemning the plan by a tiny Florida church group to burn Korans on Sept. 11, comparing it to "burning the flag or the Bible."

"You can do it," he wrote on his Web site, "but whose heart will you change by doing it?"

Sounds alot to me like "they have the right to build the mosque so close to GZ, but how many bridges will they build by doing so?"...............

September 8, 2010 at 8:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

truthornot (anonymous) says...

This is what the Koran teaches.
Islam both allows and forbids murder and violence, depending on who is the recipient of the act.

Allowed:

* "Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme." (Koran 8:37)
* The Koran instructs not to make friendship with Jews and Christians (Koran 5:51) but to war against them: "When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way (Koran 4:5). "Fight against those who believe not in God nor in the Last Day, who... refuse allegiance to the True Faith from among those who have received the Book, until they humbly pay tribute out of hand." (Koran 9:29) Note: These verses distinguish between warfare against pagans, and against Jews and Christians.[17]
* "...kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191); "fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (Koran 9:5); "murder them and treat them harshly" (Koran 9:123).
* "Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin." (Koran 69:30-37)
* "Strike off the heads of the disbelievers"; and after making a "wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" (Koran 47:4).
* "Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers"; "smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them" (Koran 8:12; cp. 8:60).
* "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern against them. Their abode is Hell - an evil refuge indeed" (Koran 9:73).
* "slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace..." (Koran 5:34).
* "for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods" (Koran 22:19-22)

September 8, 2010 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

truthornot (anonymous) says...

This is what the Word of God teaches
On Murder:

Forbidden:

* "Thou shalt not kill (murder)." (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17)
* "...murders... they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:21)
* "...no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 3:15)
* "...murderers... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)
* "For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters..." (Revelation 22:15)

Jesus and Paul both reiterated the Old Testament prohibition against murder:

* "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment." (Matthew 5:21)
* "...Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill...." (Romans 13:9)

Murder is listed right alongside sins like sorcery, fornication, robbery.

* "Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings..." (Galatians 5:21)
* "Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts." (Revelation 9:21)
* "...murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars..." (Revelation 21:8)

On Violence:

God destroyed the earth with a flood because of the extent violence had spread:

* "...the earth was filled with violence... Then God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence... behold, I am about to destroy them...'" (Genesis 6:13).

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven..." (Matthew 5:43, 45)

September 8, 2010 at 9:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

Yeah, like the Christians have never used a sword on a heretic.

You can pervert any idea you desire by opening a thick book and pulling a sentence out of context.

Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."

September 8, 2010 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And after seeing all that has been done in the name of religion, how it is routinely skewed and perverted....

John 11:35: "Jesus Wept"........

September 8, 2010 at 10:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Sorry, explanation: The verse above was not for the reason stated preceding it........

I just think nowadays that's pretty much how He feels when he sees what's going on in the name of religion..... Fred Phelps, the book burning, the intolerance preached by Islam across much the world, as REWBA says, perverting ideas by pulling sentences out of context, etc. Sorry, just read the last few posts and the first thing that came to my mind.........

September 8, 2010 at 10:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

geoffreym (anonymous) says...

Rewba, I don't think the Jews practice stoning anymore. Muslims do||||

Here though is the crux of the issue based on what i have read from each of you.

Question 1....In this new Community center, will the Knicks get to practice there?

Question2.....If this guy burns muslims holly grail and a couple of the muslim faithful take out a few American innocents can we expect that some American nut jobs might just take out a few Muslims?

Question3.....I do believe that when this Mosque comes to fruition and comes to the point that construction begins that "we"as americans need to make sure that when the room for the Jews to pray in is actually a prayer room and not a gas chamber or an oven. Muslims do hate jews.

September 9, 2010 at midnight ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

Hi geoffreym! What if a west bank rabbi says it is alright to kill gentiles? Would that make you believe that Christians and Muslims don't have a monopoly on stupid?

http://coteret.com/2009/12/15/us-tax-...

September 9, 2010 at 12:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

geoffreym (anonymous) says...

Rewba, Shame on me.Thanks for the web site.

September 9, 2010 at 1:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

empgazfan (anonymous) says...

He's burns a Koran and conservatives cheer. If he burned the NY Times, conservatives would cheer. If he burned porno, conservatives would cheer. If burned books banned by many libraries, conservatives would cheer. If he burned Obama's writings, conservatives would cheer. If he were to burn the flag, conservatives would holler, "Hang him!" That is why our rights are not up for voting. This Koran burning is the price we pay for being able to publish our opinions.

September 9, 2010 at 4:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

A few disconnected thoughts after reading through the above posts.

---I never said I didn't also choose to accept articles that support my mindset...we all do. But just because we choose to accept them doesn't necessarily mean the others views are all wrong, or don't even exist. The difference open eyes is that I acknowledged that there were opposing views..... you presented your view as absolute fact. jmo

---Based on their past record, I would guess the ACLU is in full support of this fruitcake's right to do what he is doing. I have disagreed with a lot of their stands on different issues, but can't recall any time they ever opposed a free speech issue.

---maybe you see more of Sarah Palin because she says and does outrageous things so well and so often. :-)

---Shariaphobia: Considering the minuscule percentage of people in this country that are practicing conservative or fundamentalist Muslims, I would think we all stand a better chance of getting struck by lightning twice than falling under Sharia law in the foreseeable future.

September 9, 2010 at 4:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Good post empgazfan!

I do recognize the hypocritical nature of so many things nowadays. It is absurd to me that radical fundamentalist Islam teaches the necessity of killing people who create an image of Mohammed or burn the Koran....and yet offers virgins to those Muslims who die killing others for having beliefs different from theirs.

But the difference between that hypocrisy and the one presented above by empgazfan is only one of degrees. It's still the same hypocrisy. "What we believe is right...What you believe is wrong....so to hell with you" seems to be the marching order of the day.

There has been a lot of Bible versus thrown around here. I'm not sure if this is a Bible versus but it is certainly a Christians admonition....Two wrongs don't make a right.

September 9, 2010 at 5:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Should have been...I'm not sure if this is a Bible verse,,,,not Bible versus.

Sorry

September 9, 2010 at 5:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

genxer (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy,

If you are part of the card carrying progressive left you must have not gotten the memo on the war on christianity. Last I heard they were bastardizing the first amendment of the US Constitution in regards to the freedom of religion. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...";

The progressive left has twisted this to the often heard "seperation of church and state" phrase you have probably heard at your meetings. They have done this so they can forcibly deny government funding for private Christian schools and push students toward the public schools system where christianity has been scrubbed clean so that they can preach their religions of big bang and man made global warming, etc.

September 9, 2010 at 6:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

geoffreym (anonymous) says...

empgazfan..I agree with everything you say.Conservative this, conservative that.

Do progressives have nothing to cheer about? I don't know, I can't think of anything either. LOL

September 9, 2010 at 6:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

geoffreym (anonymous) says...

genxer, you must have watched Glen Beck last night. Well good for you. I watched also. The funny thing is that I wondered out loud to myself....self I said, If we have a separation of Church and State, then explain to me why our Federal Government allows tax exempt status for churches. Is this not a back door way of funding some of the wealthier Religions. Maybe the Pres needs to tax those wealthy churches and redistribute that wealth to the other less prosperous churches much as he wants to do with my income to the less fortunate in the world.

Many Churches are extremely wealthy. They can afford to pay taxes as well as capital gains on their investments.

September 9, 2010 at 6:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

genxer (anonymous) says...

geoff,

I don't watch Glen Beck, I've tried but he comes across as a moron to me. Probably the reason he said something similar to me is because it is the truth.

The point I was trying to get across with separation of church and state is that it is a progressive lie that there is any such thing dictated by the US Constitution.

Probably the reason churches are tax exempt is because they are not for profit organizations and more than likely put the largest percentage of their donations toward charitable causes than any other organization out there.

In my opinion they are much more deserving than other organizations like ACORN whose main purpose, aside from helping pimps open up a brothel, is political.

September 9, 2010 at 8:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

genxer (anonymous) says...

Bonfire of the Insanities

http://www.anncoulter.com/

September 9, 2010 at 8:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

genxer (anonymous) says...

By the way, if you don't like to read opinion pieces based on logic and fact don't go to that previous link. The material there won't make any since to you. You'd be better off sticking with Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

September 9, 2010 at 8:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

"He's burns a Koran and conservatives cheer."

Which conservatives are cheering? I'm a conservative and you can read my opinion of the matter above. Open_eyes proved your groundless statement about that Beck guy wrong. So who is cheering it? Links, please. I don't have cable and I don't look at the national news pages much, but I haven't seen any hard evidence of conservatives cheering...only accusations of it by anti-Christians/conservatives.

September 9, 2010 at 8:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

And the religious/religion war rages on, as it has for several millenia !

Religion, Churches .... " Bah Humbug " !

Religion is nothing more than an organized struggle for the " Mind of Man " and " Churches are only interested in receiving the "Money of Man . "

September 9, 2010 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

So let me try to get this straight genexer.

In your world, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.....", doesn't imply separation of church and state. Please explain.

Would not government funding of private [read religious] schools constitute an establishment of religion? And if those schools received public funding would they not then be obliged to follow government rules and regulations just like the public schools do? But then the governments rules would be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part which the First Amendment prohibits. Consequently the government is prohibited from funding private [read religious] schools by the First Amendment. But then I agree with geoffrym that tax exemptions to churches is also a violation of the first amendment.

But what does any of this have to do with some nut job wanting to burn the Koran?

September 9, 2010 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

While we are so far off topic, what ever happened to Joe the Plumber? He was a big fan of Ann Coulter

September 9, 2010 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

Look at the EU and the problems they are having with muslims, this is our future.Humanity im afraid could have just had its zenith. I wonder if our grandchildren will live under a cloud of muslim doctrine?Living in a PC community has consequences.

September 9, 2010 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

genxer

The term "separation of church and state" was first used by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 and was first cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1878. That hardly sounds like a modern day perversion by the dirty old progressive lefties.

But I guess if you are ok with government funding of private schools with no government control of curriculum , you are also ok with the same deal for private Sharia schools. They have the same First Amendment protection

September 9, 2010 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

Make no mistake, I think this is a bad idea for many reasons. But let's get real for a minute. If this was an atheist group burning Bibles, it wouldn't be any big deal. The ACLU would come down squarely on their side, everyone would say it was covered under the Constitution, millions of Christians would be offended, and constantly reminded in the media how intolerant Christianity is, and posters on websites around the world would talk about how Christians are just getting a little of what they deserve.

But, they aren't Bibles, are they? So, we have to worry ourselves to death over it. If the media wasn't hyping this so much, it really wouldn't be big deal at all, just a backward church burning books.

September 9, 2010 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ZaneRokklyn (anonymous) says...

I agree with MisterO: the problem here is not the people who want to practice their right to free speech in the US, nor is it the people in the Middle East who are offended. The problem is the news media who feel the perverse need to report a story which should not get from point A to point B. Without that link in the chain there would be no problem.

Of course, these days the folks at point A would probably post videos to YouTube and Twitter themselves, so the story might reach point B without the media's help. But it doesn't need or benefit from their help.

September 9, 2010 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

If this were an atheist group burning bibles I guarantee the howl would be every bit as loud. The ACLU would defend both of their rights to do so, and both groups would be just as stupid and childish for having done so.

September 9, 2010 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

Nope biscuit, no way. I just read the British PM has condemned it. You surely know if a small group of atheists were going to burn Bibles in the USA(or, a small group of Muslims were going to burn Bibles) there wouldn't be any concern by the British PM, and more than likely none by the President. You can't pretend it is the same as burning Bibles.

September 9, 2010 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Just found this and thought you'd be interested, particularly in the threats being made. Yes, yes, I know, I'm just passing on this media frenzy, but since it is the current elephant in the room...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39074573/...

September 9, 2010 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

genxer (anonymous) says...

Okay, I'll make it simple. Freedom of religion allows for the free excercise of religion and guarantees that any religion can be practiced without persecution.

In other words, the US Government cannot inact a law which says "Atheist's shall be burned at the stake".

Separation of church and state as it is used supersedes the first amendment as it makes the jump that showing any preference toward the existence of a god is violating the first amendment because it could offend those who do not believe in said god. The First Amendment does not guarantee your right to not be offended.

Separation of church and state does not violate the first amendment but it does violate the will of the majority of Americans who would like to have god acknowledged as playing a role in their lives.

And yes, atheism is a religion.

September 9, 2010 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

In Dearborn, Michigan, which is heavily Muslim, (and so-called "moderates"), the largest current concentrated population of Muslims in America, Christians were arrested OUTSIDE an Arab festival this year for trying to hand out Bibles. "Proselytizing" other religions to Muslims is forbidden under Sharia law.

But of course, this is America, so things like this will never happen here. You can google Sharia law Dearborn and see videos, read all about it. A few excerpts from a site at random:

"The festival organizers had declared that Christians could not distribute materials on the public sidewalks or street, and, when the matter was brought before the courts, the judge agreed that Christians could not freely distribute information during the festival. (Note: This decision has been defended in the media by claiming that the “no-distributing-materials” rule applied to everyone, and therefore wasn’t unfair to Christians. However, anyone who was at the festival knows that this is not true. People were walking up and down the sidewalks distributing pamphlets and brochures, right in front of security. The rule was only enforced against Christians, and therefore only the rights of Christians were violated.)

Muslim security guards (one of whom had “Hezbollah” tattooed down his forearm) took things a step further and wouldn’t even allow Christians to talk about their beliefs openly. Security guards also repeatedly entrapped Christians in an attempt to get us to violate the court order."

The previous year there were videos taken of Muslim security "roughing up" Christians, so this time the first thing the police tried to do was confiscate all videos.

The video shows them standing OUTSIDE the festival, peacefully handing out pamphlets, for 3 minutes before a swarm of police descended on them. Nothing violating the Constitution there, is there? Apparently Sharia law trumps the Constitution and First Amendment, and our police help enforce that.....

I googled some more, and saw videos of people not preaching, not handing out anything, simply going to a booth that said "Have Questions - We Have Answers" - and asking questions - and security came and escorted them out - apparently just for being Christian.

Here's one link from a non-religious site (the Portland Examiner - actually a anti-religious article) - but I was just looking for one that wasn't put out by a Christian site....... just to be fair....

http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-p...

Now THERE's some REAL tolerance by "moderates" for ya.............

September 9, 2010 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

But I think you are mixing apples and oranges alfalfa. The difference is in the reason for the condemnations.

The reason the British PM, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, President Obama, and pretty much all the rest of the civilized world is condemning this has little or nothing to do with burning the Koran or the slap in the face that it is to the world's Muslims. The condemnations have everything to do with the potential fallout from what is at best a senseless and childish act, and the potential ramifications the act might have on all of us.

The fallout from atheist burning the Bible however, even with all the news coverage this has been given, would have few real time dangers--except maybe for the atheist. And all the outrage would have everything to do with the slap in the face and senseless insult the act was to all the country's Christians. And that aspect of this act has been given virtually no credence with the burning of the Koran

It would be a different type of outrage, for different reasons, and different potential for harm, but it would be just as real

September 9, 2010 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

So the moral of the story is, apparently, if you want to get your way, all you have to do is threaten violence, and everyone will cower to you? Ah, now THAT's the way society should operate.......

September 9, 2010 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

The separation of church and state does not forbid you from acknowledging that God plays a role in your life....it only says your acknowledgement can not be paid for with government monies. For that would be tantamount to the establishment of a religion.

And I certainly agree that atheism is a religion.

September 9, 2010 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

No open_eyes....The moral of the story is if you want to yell fire in a crowded theatre don't be surprised when you get trampled by the mob headed for the exits.

September 9, 2010 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Can anybody tell me one single thing this book burning is going to do to change any body's mind about anything....or to make the world a safer place?

Many are using it to go off on all sorts of other agenda's. But what I would like to know is what good can possibly come of this silly act? But if no good can come from it......why are we doing it, or even trying to make excuses for it?

September 9, 2010 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

But it apparently depends on which theater you are in whether or not you need to be worried about getting trampled by the mob.....

September 9, 2010 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

This just in!!!! Biscuitboy quotes Glenn Beck!!!!

""You can do it," he wrote on his Web site, "but whose heart will you change by doing it?"

LOL ;-) (*wink*)

September 9, 2010 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Yeh open_eyes......who would have ever thunk old biscuit would quote Glen Beck. There is something very strange about that. :-)

September 9, 2010 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blulitespecial (anonymous) says...

I don't care-I'll send matches.I'd suggest they don't try this in downtown Minneapolis(unarmed,anyway!)

September 9, 2010 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

NOW I'm worried......lol ;-)

September 9, 2010 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

OPEN EYES,nice post on Michigan.It is surprising to me how little most people know about islam.Keep educating us on sharia law.

September 9, 2010 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Maybe the Fred Phelps church should announce the same gimmick. That might take care of Topeka's problem of cult groups. ;>)

September 9, 2010 at 10:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, they've already had Sharia courts in Britain for 2 years now....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comm...

And of course, a couple of years before that, they were warning that was coming...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew...

So how long before we start saying here that it is "unavoidable", as the Archbishop of Canterbury in the UK admitted some time ago?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/72...

I still remember some years ago when I was in a foreign country, the warnings given me by someone there about what happens as the local Muslim population increases.....

Can you say "Trojan Horse"?

September 9, 2010 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And it appears well on its way in Germany as well..... which is expected to be over 50% Muslim (along with France) in roughly 40 years.

http://tribes.tribe.net/58e5076b-0672...

September 9, 2010 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

genxer (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy, you are correct. That is what separation of church and state says. Not what the 1st Amendment says. The goverment funding a Muslim school who adhere to state guidlines on education but also teach some religous subjects is NOT breaking the 1st Amendment so long as EVERY religion is afforded the same opportunity.

However, having "In God We Trust" written on our currency is also not breaking the 1st Amendment because it isn't forcing anyone to practice any sort of religion, even assuming that the "God" is the god of christians.

Getting back closer to the topic. I know several muslims who are close friends and they'll be the first to tell you that there are some people who have hijacked the religion through misinterpretation or out and out lies. Those people are no more mainstream than Fred Phelps is to christianity.

My opinion on the book burning is that while the guys motives are definitely in question and it is very disrespectful to muslims he has a right to do it. And threats of violence are definitely no reason to stop it if you live in a democracy.

What is odd to me is that some in leadership positions and the media are showing more concern with this as a safety hazard to our troops than they did with the release of 1000's of highly sensitive documents released to the public.

September 9, 2010 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

genxer - excellent points.

On a totally unrelated note, did anyone happen to catch the recent interview with Fidel Castro where he admits Communism is a failure in Cuba?

When asked if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore,"

Gosh, guess Michael Moore might have to do some more editing to his documentaries - LOL

Sorry for the off-topic..... back to book-burning....

It seems to me there are quite a few parallels to be drawn between the GZ mosque and the book burning. Both are absolutely legal and the right to do so are guaranteed under out Constitution. Both have large percentages of the population who, while they agree with the legality of it, do not believe it is the right thing to do, and believe (as I do) that doing so will only incite more bad feelings/hatred/violence. Those against both may not have reasons that we think of as logical, or based on what many of us consider rational reasons, but they are what they are.

So which will they both choose?

September 9, 2010 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blulitespecial (anonymous) says...

open_eyes,good post on Michigan.I have relatives in East Michigan heavily involved in politics.I've heard of this muslim "tolerance" there.Many of you have already seen this,but here's some info on why I really don't care what the guy in Florida does.
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/09/...

September 9, 2010 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Good point, blulitespecial. Even though the action is being almost universally condemned across America, and by all our politicians (our "representatives" - and I use the term VERY loosely these days) - what is their retaliation? Burn the American Flag. Is it because they don't agree with a country that allows such a thing? That free speech should only be protected when it is pro-Muslim?

September 9, 2010 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

The 1 and only reason for burning ANY book !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T26WnJ...

September 9, 2010 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

The very article that you linked for your sharia law in Great Britain claim stated that the power came from a law allowing arbitration panels, and could only be applied in civil matters and then only if agreed to by both parties. That hardly sounds like the women of merry old England are about to be forced under the veil to me. At least not unless they want to be.

Just trying to keep you honest buddy.

September 9, 2010 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

genxer

I substantially agree with your 11:16 post....several good points. As for the media as a whole, I can't speak for their actions, and am angered and disappointed with much of what passes as news coverage these days.

That is one of a couple of major reasons why I got out of the business several years ago.

September 9, 2010 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I just heard on the news that many Muslim countries have asked Obama to ban the book burning.

In other words, they want the First Amendment overridden - when it offends THEM........ I'm not seeing alot of tolerance on display here.....

September 9, 2010 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Ah, but you didn't read CLOSELY enough, biscuitboy.

"Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts ARE ENFORCEABLE WITH THE FULL POWER OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, through the county courts or High Court.

Here's the word you missed:

PREVIOUSLY, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford, etc....

....The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."

That doesn't mean they both agree on the ruling - they both agree to let the court rule, and abide by whatever it decides.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts....

But most telling of all, is what we don't consider. When "both parties agree".... that means that the MEN in both parties agree....

"There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations."

Gee, wonder why they withdrew their complaints? Ya THINK?

Just keepin' ya honest, biscuitboy ;-)

September 9, 2010 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

It's our First Amendment not the Muslim countries. Stepping into that trap would be the worst thing the President could do. But protecting the First Amendment is his responsibility......not that of Muslim countries on the other side of the planet.

September 9, 2010 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

But those Sharia court rulings would only be enforced by the courts of Britain if the Sharia court process was accepted up front by both parties. In other words they still can't enforce Sharia law on any Brit that doesn't agree to abide by it. That is an important distinction.

September 9, 2010 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Read between the lines. They can't enforce it on any MAN that doesn't agree to abide by it. That, too, is an important distinction. No, none of the "women of Merry Olde England" are going to go anywhere near a Sharia court..... but the MUSLIM women probably have no choice but to agree.

Do you see the natural progression of this? First there was only British law, voted on by a democracy. Then there was completely voluntary Sharia law, couldn't even be enforced unless voluntary. Now there are courts being set up througout the country where it CAN be enforced, as long as both parties (the MEN in both parties, we know how it works) - agree beforehand. What's next? Care to take a guess what laws get changed if/when UK/Germany/France have the majority of the population Muslim? I have a pretty good idea...... just by looking at history.... and learning from it....

September 9, 2010 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blulitespecial (anonymous) says...

I'm reading that Obama may weigh in on this.too.
Also-US troops aren't allowed bibles in Iraq as far as I know.The US burned bibles,too.
"..Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday..."
So,heck, everyday is hate the West.They don' need no steenkeeng badges.Or an excuse.Our very existence is their excuse.

September 9, 2010 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

What's ironic is that apparently .005 percent of Tea Partiers that are bonafide nuts paint the majority as being racists but it appears apparently at least a quarter and probably more of Muslims across the world (I base that on looking at how many Muslim countries hate us - and sometimes I honestly think my numbers are way too low) hating us for whatever reason is convenient at the moment, practicing the most extreme forms of intolerance on the planet constitute a tiny minority......

Saudi Arabia also burns all Bibles and Christian paraphernalia that is confiscates. Haven't seen alot of rioting and killing in retaliation for that lately..... or burning of Saudi Arabian flags....

September 9, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

When the population of all those European countries becomes predominantly Muslim then Sharia law may well be the democratically selected form of law. But all of this is based on may be's and could be's and a wink and a nod and a we know how it works. And even if it does it doesn't necessarily follow that we will go down the same road.

It also has nothing to do with the more immediate concern about a nut case who is hell bent to make his meaningless statement....that nobody can identify where any good will come from it....just because he has the right to do so.

But when his actions cause reactions that cost us more lives and more of our national treasury we will all smugly set back and claim it was all the Muslims fault for starting it. The reality is it will be nut-jobs fault for inciting a reaction to his attack on them much as we reacted to their attack on us following 9/11.

And don't forget, the First Amendment is our ideal....not theirs.

September 9, 2010 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

First you admit that the practices and laws of Islamic republics are more repressive and brutal than ours....something I readily agree with....then you seem to resent the fact that they don't play by our rules. It's their country, they don't have to play by our rules.

We have to play by our rules and that is where our efforts should be concentrated. By allowing ourselves to be lowered to their level does not make us winners,,,it makes us losers. It's not our problem if they burn Bibles in Saudi Arabia. That is the Saudis problem and their loss. It is our problem when we burn Korans in the United States...and even though we have the right to do so.... stooping to their level is our loss.

September 9, 2010 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Well, I have been reading and following this interesting " Theological " debate and have decided to add another of my two cents worth, for what ever it is worth.

First of all, the idea of the seperation of church and state is an " oxymoron " at best and a complete lie or misconception at best.

Secondly, How can there be such a thing as seperation of church and state, when almost every elected government official or leader professes their alegiance to some sort of religion, belief or faith and how do you keep said religious, beliefs or faith from influencing the policies or law making of the " State/Government " .

Thirdly, Religious organizations, Churches and those who subscribe to such Religioous organizations and Churches have a much more profound influence on the " State/Governments " than most of you debaters on here would care to admit !

There for the term " Seperation of Church an State " is an " OXYMORON " and an impossibility !

Of course this is Just My Opinion !

LOL

September 9, 2010 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I agree with that to a large extent meth. I view the separation as more of an unachievable ideal. But just because we can't ever really achieve it we must keep trying, for once we quit trying we become a theocracy. That's what England was when our founding fathers came here to escape the repressive Church of England. And that's what the Islamic Republics are today.

September 9, 2010 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I don't know anybody who doesn't have beliefs that influence them and their decision making. People who's beliefs don't influence their decision making are fictitious. Certain people want to use "the separation of church and state" to say the if your beliefs are religious you can't(or at least shouldn't) let your beliefs influence your decision making. They however surely will let their beliefs influence their political decision making after all there is no "separation of crap I just made up and state" or "separation of my personal feelings and state". People use the separation of church and state as a trick to try to get people to choose between their right to vote their conscience and their right to choose and practice their religious beliefs. If they have to choose between the two then they don't have the same rights as everyone else.

September 9, 2010 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

But, biscuit, since religion, religious beliefs and faith have such an influence on so many ... How can there ever be an absolute " Seperation of Church and State " ?

I agree, giving up on the idea/ideal of the concept of " Seperation of Church and State " would not be prudent. However you said it yourself " it is an unacheivable ideal " at best and a " War " causing ideal at worst ! And it has caused " Wars " and is still causing " Wars " !

September 9, 2010 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks,

According to what you just stated.

Let, me pose a hypothetical situation to you, if I may.

Say, the President of the United States and both Houses of the Congress of the U.S. were a majorty devout " Religious Muslims " or " Hindu " or " Catholic " or whatever and their religion, Church/temple and beliefs influenced all or most of their policy and lawmaking decisions ! Would you be okay with the non-seperation of Church/Religion and State, in that instance ?

I firmly believe that a persons Religious beliefs or Church should have little or no influence in the decisions of State/Government .

Because, you see, I believe that is the problem with much of the world today.
Religions and Churches are dictating too many government/state decisions.

September 9, 2010 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

genxer (anonymous) says...

Meth,

I agree with your statement on separation of church and state being impossible except for the fact that activist courts are forcing it upon us. The 1st Amendment was not intended to imply a separation of church and state, only the freedom of religion.

I don't believe separation of church and state is something to strive toward so long as the 1st Amendment is upheld.

September 9, 2010 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

All very true points, biscuit. But there also comes a point when a prudent person should not bury their head in the sand. For example..... people have every right to go into a flight school and claim that they only want to learn how to steer a plane while in the air, not interested in learning how to take off or land. But someone should be wary, somewhere. Same thing with all your may be's and could be's. Sure, its all conjecture - but there are democratic countries in Europe who are seeing it happen as we speak. And I'm sure it all started out innocently enough. The notion that "it can't or won't happen to us" has been outdated since Sept 10, 2001.

September 9, 2010 at 2:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Meth,

Supposedly in the United States people can vote for who they want and I don't see your scenario happening. Secular humanists who supposedly are not influenced by any kind of belief like you and biscuitboy can vote for people who are supposedly not influenced by any kind of belief and I can vote for people who share similar beliefs as I have and others can do the same and we all get represented equally and the government that is supposed to reflect us can actually look like us. I don't mind if you disagree with me and seek to be represented in a way that reflects that difference. You and others apparently however do mind if I seek representation that disagrees with you.

If a person can't be influenced by his/her beliefs in government, what should influence them? What should be their compass? Where are we going here? What issues do you care about that are not influenced by your beliefs? How does that work?

September 9, 2010 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

Fear and paranoia have certainly proven to be the legacy of 9/11. And the saddest part of that is that legacy will probably be more costly to us in the long run than the 9/11 attack itself.

We see a threat around every corner and have turned inwards to a greater extent than we have seen since the isolationist days before WWI. We have already seen a willingness to allow our basic rights and freedoms to be eroded and many are clamoring for more of our freedoms to be curtailed.

We are becoming a hollow shell of the free country we once were and we have done it all in the name of preserving something that is quickly disappearing. How can we maintain our position as leader of the free world from an inward looking bunker mentality that trust nobody and accepts nothing but lives on fear and paranoia?

We are losing the America that we are all claiming to protect and have no chance of leading the charge into the future while cowering behind the sandbags of fear. Of course there are risk. There are always risk and dangers. But I would rather lose this country while fighting to keep it the free and open America that I know and love, than lose it because I turned it into something I didn't recognize in a misguided attempt to always keep it safe.

The world is not safe and it never has been but there are ideals and goals much loftier than bunker mentality safety....at least to me there are.

One more thing to think about. Are all of these people that are urging us to give up more and more of our freedoms to stay safe more worried about our safety or about maintaining their hold over us?
Just a thought.

September 9, 2010 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Or we could just look the other way and wake up one day with a few nukes going off in cities that were smuggled in from our southern border. But at least we'd still have our pride and lofty ideas.

Sorry, I'll walk the middle line. I don't look for the boogeyman in every corner but I'm not such a lofty idealist that I can't understand there are plenty of people out there who will do whatever it takes to destroy me, and I won't just lay down and roll over. There are sacrifices I will and do make to keep breathing. Or else all those lofty ideas mean nothing if nobody is left to continue them.
I don't think we're becoming a hollow shell of the free country we once were because of any "bunker mentality". I think we're becoming a hollow shell of our former selves because our government wants to fundamentally change much of what America was founded on and damn what the people think, (because if they don't agree then they're just all uneducated racists).

September 9, 2010 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

seriously....

I don't know how to make it any more clear. But I also don't mind if you disagree with me and seek representation that reflects your views as long as neither one of us uses our representation to deny it to those that don't agree with us. Please continue to value and trust your beliefs and allow me to do the same with mine and we will get along just fine.

September 9, 2010 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blulitespecial (anonymous) says...

Supposedly this is resolved.No mosque at GZ - No koran burning.

September 9, 2010 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Or if they don't agree they are all just leftist pinko idealist with no real grasp of the real world.

Man...this is just like the old days but having you to argue with keeps the old mind sharp. Thank You for that anyway.:-)

September 9, 2010 at 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

I'm watching it on CNN now. An announcement by the pastor in Florida and a local Florida imam that the burning of the Qurans will stop providing the mosque at GZ is moved. They will go to New York to get this done and have a promise that it will be done.

I'll wait and see. I don't believe anything until I see it for myself. I don't believe promises by radicals.

September 9, 2010 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blulitespecial (anonymous) says...

create- I'll believe when I see it,too!

September 9, 2010 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blulitespecial (anonymous) says...

wow- Now Fred in Topeka is going to burn korans ! (again)
OK,folks,this is where the plot thickens! Might be time to keep your eye on Congress.They might be thinking we're looking the other way!

September 9, 2010 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Who on here is not influenced by your beliefs?
Who on here doesn't vote according to your beliefs?
How do you go contrary to your beliefs when making decisions?
If you think it's better to go contrary to your beliefs, why do you continue believe it?
This whole concept of not being influenced by one's own beliefs has me very curious. I eagerly await any and all responses. Thank you.

Also if you could answer the questions in my 2:45
post that would be great too.
Thanks again.

September 9, 2010 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I'm still wondering what happened to Joe the Plumber. Does anybody know?

He was like the poster child of the McCain--Palin ticket then he just disappeared. Did he finally really get his plumbers license and get a real job or what?

September 9, 2010 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks,
I vote for what I believe is best for the people. NOT what is best for some imaginary being in the clouds.

You see, Muslims are upset about this because they think their god will be angered by the burning of the books. The Christians think burning the books will make their god happy. Who's right? Neither. Maybe they should think about what is best for their fellow man for a change instead of acting how their imaginary friend tells them to. If people didn't take these fairy tale books so seriously, then we wouldn't have all these problems.
'enry

September 9, 2010 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

How do you know what is best for your fellow man? Why do you value what is best for your fellow man? What difference does it make if what is best for your fellow man happens or not?

September 9, 2010 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

What bothers me most about this entire situation is that now it opens wide the door for more whackos to get worldwide attention by doing this kind of stupid trick, be they regular whackos or religious whackos. A whacko is a whacko is a whacko no matter what belief system drives them.

September 9, 2010 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Henry, just so you know, making God happy IS thinking about what's best for everyone. Those who think that hateful acts will make the God of the Bible happy either aren't reading it or don't actually worship that God.

Matt 5:
"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

1 Thessalonians 5:15
See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.

Titus 3:8
This is a trustworthy saying, and I want you to insist on these teachings so that all who trust in God will devote themselves to doing good. These teachings are good and beneficial for everyone.

September 9, 2010 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

I know what I consider is "best for my fellow man" based my analysis of my own observations and experiences. If I get punched, I know it hurts and therefore, I don't punch others because I know it isn't best for them. I don't trust some 2000+ year old storybook to base my judgment calls on.

I suppose I value what is best for my fellow man because I would want someone to help me if I needed it. That's how a civil society works.

The difference it makes is that our society and, indeed, our species will hopefully make advances to ultimately understanding the purpose of life. We can't figure any of that out if we're too busy fighting over the "truthiness" of different storybooks.
'enry

September 9, 2010 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

You need to experience something and analyze it before you can have an opinion whether it is good for your fellow man or not. If something comes from an old book you disregard it. You believe there is a purpose of life and are 100% convinced that none of the theories up to this point are correct because you disagree with them. You think we should throw out all current truth claims in order to find out the real truth. Sound about right?

September 9, 2010 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

I think Henry should read FM 21-76. Now that is a good book. I would hate to see people burning that bible.

I bet the Muslim publishers of the Koran don't mind the boost to sales brought on by the idiot in Fla who don't like Muslims.

September 9, 2010 at 7:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Thank God ( and the constitution ) for freedom of speech. Otherwise there would not be 147 posts on this thread.

September 9, 2010 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

geoffreym (anonymous) says...

two days ago this idiot imam in new york said that if the koran was burned in florida, that american lives would be lost. That sounds like a treat to me. Today the same idiot imam says that if has to move his mosque in new york that american lives will be lost. That sounds like a treat to me.

this muslim religion is the most violent in the world. Does this imam think americans are cowards. Does this idiot imam think that americans will stand back and let other americans die. I got to tell you, I can't believe that there are not other americans that are getting tired of the BS just like me.

If you don't like this country then take your cheap ass religion back to where it came from.

September 9, 2010 at 8:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blulitespecial (anonymous) says...

I'm thinking the same-burn the koran,be attacked.Move the mosque,smoke will become fire.Nothing appeases these people but blood.We are at war,and they will not stop.Burn the korans,or burn the bulldozers used to build the new mosque-it makes no difference.Our leader needs to go on vacation again.I suggest going mining for brass,and keep the first 2 pounds.

September 9, 2010 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wirewatt (Ken Bazil) says...

The goofy preacher in Florida showed the country where our president of the USA stands when it comes to muslin building the mosque at GZ, but has different policies on our his speech.

September 9, 2010 at 9:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Hahaha! Typos that are still real words can be VERY funny!

September 9, 2010 at 10:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

geoffreym (anonymous) says...

it was not supposed to be funny. But I can see your point. The funnier thing is that I was just watching some TV in between watching the game and learned that in Afganistan(sic), these idiot muslims can't even read. They don't even know what a Koran(sic) is. now that I know each day shall be a spelling test I will ID the words i'm not sure of(sic). Your such a silly boy Jeff.

September 9, 2010 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

It wasn't just you, geoffrey. Muslin is a fabric and I don't think it has a mosque but it may be used in one ☺

I'm not sure that it's their fault that they can't read and that doesn't make them idiots, but no teaching the commoners to read is a timeless tool of many dishonest religions so the leaders can control the people.

September 9, 2010 at 10:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Dang! I got interrupted and rushed and dropped a 't'.
My typo just looks ignorant instead of being funny.
Oh, well. I still got a good chuckle out of the others.

September 9, 2010 at 10:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mslater (Matt Slater) says...

On December 18th, in honor of the day New Jersey's constitution was ratified, I will be burning DVD's of Jersey Shore, because that show is everything that is wrong with America.

Jersey Shore must BURN IN HELL! Who's with me?

Matt

September 10, 2010 at 12:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I'm with you 100 percent on that Matt.

oh4theluvof

Have gotten quite a chuckle out of your recent observations on this and another post about spellcheckers who don't proof read. But as we have all learned before.....once we call out some body's mistake, it will almost invariably come right back to bite us on the keister.

Steve.....before I returned to the forum I was told the old days of threads going on and on seemed to be over. But this one has sure grown legs. Of course fully half of the comments are probably mine.

Ummmm....you don't suppose......naw, couldn't be....:-)

September 10, 2010 at 4:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Not counting this post, open_eyes and I have 25 and 30 post respectively' That's not half but it is not far off.

Sorry about that. :-(

September 10, 2010 at 4:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

Wonder if the burning comes down to money?Im sure a million $ in the plate would change his mind.Wonder if this is the plan all along?.........

September 10, 2010 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Here's a Kansas City article that states Fred Phelps and his group of whackos has already burned the Quran. I guess they want equal time. He's busy picketing Jews in Chicago right now.

http://www.centredaily.com/2010/09/09...

September 10, 2010 at 8:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

That kindof reminds me of the fact that years ago, South Park depicted Mohammed on an early show..... and nobody noticed. I think it might have even been pre-9/11, not sure. But then recently when they did the episode where they "might" have, it had all the publicity, they got the death threats, etc.....

Well, sail, Trump offered to buy part of the GZ Mosque site at a profit and they turned him down....... I tell ya, if they are "bridge builders", I'm not driving across any bridges they build...... which should tell them something about how they are going about it right there. I mean, if I walk into a room half full of Christians and half full of Muslims and proclaim myself as someone who wants to build bridges and bring everyone together, and I'm wearing red sneakers, and for some obscure reason the Muslim half finds that very offensive, (whether or not their reasons make sense to me) then the obvious sensible thing to do (if I truly want to build bridges between the 2 groups) - is to change to something that doesn't offend them. Which of course most people in this country and government fall all over themselves scrambling to do. Of course, if it was the Christian half that was offended by my sneaker color, apparently I say to he$$ with what they want, they'd better accept it, and warn that if I change sneaker colors, there will be violence........... build bridges my a$$.....

September 10, 2010 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I heard on the radio this morning that this pastor has said he isn't going to do it, but that this has revealed a lot more about the kind of thing we're up against. I'm wondering how naive is he and who did he think we were dealing with? Did he ever look up the adjective "extremist?" I mean, these extremists already displayed who they are for us when they flew planes full of people (and themselves) into buildings full of people. What more doe this pastor need to let him know that they don't follow the same rules we do? And if he's read his Bible at all, this shouldn't surprise him. The history here goes WAY back.

September 10, 2010 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Not long ago, I read an article that discussed how bartering is in the Arab man's blood and how one should never trust their word because they say one thing and do another. This is in their character. This same trait was discussed in the fictional work, The Kite Runner, written by an Afghan. Yeah, so see? This is what we're up against, constantly shifting sands. Look at Karzai. Now he is pandering to the Taliban. Again.

You're right, oh4, the history does go WAYYYY back.

I'm watching the history channel today, all about the Knights Templar speaking of terrorists.

September 10, 2010 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

create, nowhere in the Bible or any other religion that I know of does it say that it is okay to lie. Quite the opposite, they all exhort the truth.

However, the Koran teaches the practice of Al-taqiyya, which means lying to infidels. In Islam, lying to infidels is ok if it furthers the cause of Islam. I think this link (among many) explains it fairly clearly:

http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2010/04...

Al Taqiyya, Islamic Art of Deception; The Essay

Qur’anic verse 3:28 is often seen as the primary verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims: “Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of a standard and authoritative Qur’an commentary, explains verse 3:28 as follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”

Qur'an (9:3) - “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (2:225) - “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”

Qur'an (66:2) - “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”

Qur'an (3:54) - “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.

------------
So forgive me if I have my doubts when I hear certain imans say one thing to one group and another thing to another.

September 10, 2010 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

There are two very different versions of this deal or no deal story. I'm not quite as willing as some of you to automatically accept one version over another until I get more information. Especially since that version has seemed to have changed with every telling. It also has the Imam supposedly agreeing to a move that he had consistently refused to make prior to the appearance of Jones. Are we really expected to believe the Imam buckled under the persuasive powers of the part time preacher when he had resisted some of the most powerful people in the country.

I'm also bothered that to believe Jone's version is to push the Imam not only into the unlikely position of accepting an agreement he had always said was off the table and then be painted as a person who reneged on a good faith deal with out any explanation. Why would the Imam enter into a deal he had no intention of even acknowledging a few hours later.

But of course this is exactly the picture of the Imam and Islam that Jones has been pushing from the start.

I don't know for sure what happened but I would want a lot of questions answered before I was willing to accept anything as absolute fact. Many of the same people that were so disgusted with Jones' antics yesterday seem very quick to accept everything he says today as true.

September 10, 2010 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I read back thru all the posts in the last day and didn't see one single poster who "seemed very quick to accept everything he says today as true". Quite the opposite, all I read was a pretty universal "I'll believe it when I see it", and everyone still pretty much refers to him as an idiot. Did you accidentally post on the wrong thread? ;-)

September 10, 2010 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I don't really see what you're seeing either, biscuitboy. My only observations have been that we are dealing with a very naive man who must have been living in a bubble for the past decade at least and a media who are idiots on many levels for calling any attention to this. They are also naive, thinking that they are scoring points with and earning protection from an enemy, not realizing they are still perceived as enemies by the enemy.
Note: by "enemy" I am referring to those who perceive the US as their enemy for any reason, religious or otherwise. I am not including those who see us as friends, no matter what their religion is. Open_eyes' post does give a good caution about knowing who that potentially is and is not, though.

September 10, 2010 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Oh excuse me open_eyes. I misread all of your recent post as being anti-Islamic when I now see they were all really intended as calls for understanding....NOT!

That is especially apparent in your 3:56 p.m. dissertation on the way the "Qur'an" justifies lying while pointing out that the Bible never once approves of it. Some how I failed to see that as a call for moderation.

Did you accidentally forget to read what you posted? :-)

September 10, 2010 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof

I pretty much understood that part of your post. What is eating at me is this entire deal, then they reneged on the deal scenario--one that was actually only ever supposedly witnessed by Jones and a couple of his lackeys--reeks of a set-up to me.

Furthermore, call me blind if you must, but for some people (not you) to rail on for hours about every negative thing they can find to write about Islam....and then tell me they are just seeking a reasonable compromise and understanding...leaves me a little cold. And that applies to both sides of the debate equally.

September 10, 2010 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

An anonymous man walks through the city adding quarters to expired parking meters. A florist sends roses to thousands of hospital patients. A humanitarian team builds a new school in war-torn Afghanistan.

These seemingly random acts of kindness are linked by a common thread. Each occurred on last year's Sept. 11, and they are examples of how a day of horrific tragedy nine years ago has taken on new meaning in America.

https://www.usaa.com/inet/ent_blogs/B...

With all the good things happening on Patriot Day, why focus on nuts? The 1st Amendment protects the mosque builder and the Koran burner equally.

September 10, 2010 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Now you're really lost me, biscuitboy. You were referring to people suddenly believeing everything Jones says today after calling him an idiot the day before. I didn't see anyone believing him. Actually I saw quite the opposite. "I'll believe it when I see it"...... and people were still referring to him as an idiot. And suddenly because that was confusing, and nobody else could apparently see where anyone was taking him for the truth, I'm suddenly attacked? Did you not notice the smiley face when I poked you and asked if you got the wrong thread?

But thank you for making my point for me in a way. I'm saying I look everywhere around me and I see this country and our government bending over backwards to seek compromise and understanding. People have worked with the imam to find an alternative site. The developers have been offered money for the site at a good profit. For someone who wants to build bridges and bring folks together, I think it's pretty clear that he could make huge progress in that direction by some compromising. But he refuses to. Why? Where's the compromise from their side? Oh right.... we'll set aside a room somewhere for others to pray. Gee I'd like to have a counter on that room to see how often its used by infidels.

Maybe you and I think it's far enough from GZ but I don't presume to speak for those who lost loved ones there. After all, the wheel of one of the planes crashed thru the roof of that very building so I wouldn't say its all that far away from "where the action was"......

But you want something positive from me about Islam? Here you go. Last night I was listening to a talk show while driving and the callers were a Christian man married to a Muslim woman. Happily married 7 years, 2 kids. They decided they would teach their children both faiths and let them decide on their own. The woman ALSO stated (her words, not anyone elses) - that the radical part of Islam was, sad as it made her, a much bigger percentage than people know and like to admit. Not necessarily the nuts planning on suicide bombings and terrorist attacks but those who believe strongly, as Islam teaches, in no separation of church and state, the eventual takeover by Islam & its Sharia law. And she also said that it saddened her that moderate Muslims like her don't speak out often enough and loud enough about it, whether out of fear or something else I don't know. Classy lady - I would be proud to be a friend and acquaintance of a Muslim like her, and indeed I do know Muslims like her.

September 10, 2010 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And I have also seen quite a few leaders of Muslim organizations on TV in the last couple of weeks saying they don't believe the mosque should be built that close, they said it was sticking a thumb into America's eye. Why are these Muslims so willing - actually think its a bad idea in the first place - to compromise when imam Rauf isn't? Is it because they're radicals? (As the imam characterizes everyone opposed to it..... 70% of Americans). Or are they just Muslim haters? Full of self-loathing?

Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah of the Canadian Muslim Congress write:

We Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran….

....If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to….

Let’s not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain….

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America’s Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.....

------
(And these next 2 paragraphs are the point I try to make often - which I am branded "intolerant" for doing so.... especially the last paragraph....)
------

"As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill. Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Speaking truthfully about Islamic doctrine is not Islamophobia, however uncomfortable it may make Muslims — including Muslim reformers who, it should go without saying, are “reformers” precisely because there is reform to be done....."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/...

September 10, 2010 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes...

A compromise is not a compromise when it is presented with threats as an alternative. It makes little difference weather those threats are to burn the others Holy Book--(highly offensive to them), or to attack and kill the other's people and destroy their infrastructure--(highly offensive to both sides).

I have heard threats to do all of the above things made by both sides. To some, that is interpreted to mean that the threats represent the thoughts of most all of the people of one side (Muslims) therefore making them evil for threatening people. At the same time it is interpreted by the same people to mean that the threats made by the other people (our people) are first, only done by a radical few, and second aren't really threats at all but calls for fairness and compromise and understanding.

Reality is all of the above is done by a relatively small few on both sides, not representative of the whole.And both groups are wrong for doing so. But constantly dwelling on the fears and prejudices of either (or both) sides actually does nothing to foster fairness, compromise, or understanding. Another reality in this current crises is that both sides have the right to do exactly what they are threatening to do (build mosque and burn holy books). But that doesn't mean either act if helpful to the promotion of world peace. A third reality is we are a couple of months away from an important election. Yet, all the important discussion about the real important issues for us at present (things like the economy, education, health care reform, and energy have been pushed off the stage while we focus all of our attention on what can best be described as a pi@@ing contest. Why am I not surprised?

Because of that I have no intention of continuing to provide you the straight man so you can keep playing your fear mongering off me....:-)

September 11, 2010 at 4:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

open eyes, I will have to agree with you on trusting any imam. They all practice duplicity.

Thanks for the reference to Al-taqiyya. That's the word I was reaching for and couldn't remember. You're such a smart guy.

Nonetheless, I have always wondered how, in view of this practice, we continue to use non-muslims to conduct "diplomacy" in that area of the world. Perhaps we should have a muslim diplomat do all those dealings.

Thanks for all your quotes. One in particular stands out to me: “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”

That is the sort of double-dealing deceitfulness that allowed those demon bastards to run planes into our buildings and murder thousands of our people.

biscuit says "Reality is ... done by a relatively small few on both sides, not representative of the whole." Yeah, those were a relatively "small few" in those cockpits.

Never forget 9-11.

September 11, 2010 at 6:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Biscuit, I realize and respect your desire to be fair and to promote compromise, but I did not see open-eyes post as being fear mongering, but thought provoking.

Let me take the middle road for a moment. I suppose we could all quote from holy books of all kinds from now until the end of time. It seems to me that this sort of thing has kept man and his fellows apart since the beginning.

So let me quote Confucious. "He who keeps danger in mind will rest safely in his seat; he who keeps ruin in mind will preserve his interests secure; he who sets dangers of disorder before himself will maintain state of order. Therefore, the superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security, he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved."

September 11, 2010 at 7:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

create

I realize that much of this is a matter of interpretation on both sides. What is thought-provoking to one is fear-mongering to another. Much of it depends on your personal perspective.

My personal perspective is that there are roughly the same number of Christians and Muslims in this world, and together we make up a size able portion of the worlds people. We can try and live together...or we can die apart. We have extracted at least as much suffering and death from them as they have from us. Perhaps it's time for all of us to turn the page.

You yourself said "I suppose we could all quote from holy books of all kind from now until the end of time. It seems to me that this sort of thing has kept man and his fellows apart since the beginning." I agree completely and it seems to me as if that is exactly what is going on here by both sides. Rather than trying so hard to point out all that separates us, I would like to see us put more effort into what draws us together, things like home and family and a desire for a better future.

The path we are on know can only lead to more death and despair for both sides. Of course be wary and watchful but don't let due diligence be replaced by blind hatred and paranoia. And that is what I see as happening in this constant barrage of every thing negative that can be be drug up about what after all are living breathing humans just like us.....not some band of evil demons.

The World Trade Center attack was a terrible thing and will never get full closure in the hearts and minds of those people who lost loved ones that day, But most of us, and that includes most if not all of us posting on this forum, did not suffer a personal loss that day, only the loss of our feeling of invincibility. It's time for us to lay it down and look for a way to move on. To do any less is to allow the people that perpetrated the attack on us to win.

September 11, 2010 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Create and biscuit, thank you both for your thoughful comments and responses.

I just saw on the news a Muslim festival to celebrate the end of Ramadan - not sure where, maybe Chicago? Anyway, it got so big this year they rented a stadium. AND.... invited leaders of other faiths to speak at the podium. And speak about their faiths as well. And in Fresno, since the end of Ramadan coincided with the anniversary of 9/11, they cancelled the festival so as to not appear to be celebrating 9/11. Instead of the carnival, they held a community gathering last night, inviting faith leaders in various religions to talk about religious freedom that is free of intimidation.

Now THERE'S the tolerance and respect for the feelings of others I'm talking about. None of this no-Christian-literature-allowed-if-you-do-you'll-be-arrested stuff or we're-building-it-to-hell-with-your-sentiments. We need to see more of things like this, and the Muslims who attend and organize such things condemning those who do things like the Michigan festival.

Again, I completely disagree with the book-burning, and I don't agree with trying to use it to strike a "compromise" of any sort.

But I have seen plenty of suggested compromises for the GZ mosque - and I have yet to see 1 tiny bit of it reciprocated.

September 11, 2010 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Yes open_eyes. Those are the kinds of gestures and statements from both sides that I believe we should concentrate more on rather than those negative things that drag us apart. Thank you for sharing those positive things with us.

We both have so much to gain from working together......and so much more to lose by tearing each other apart.

As to the GZ mosque compromise offers, I can't speak for the mosque supporters as to why they are showing such total reluctance to even discuss compromise. Their reasons are beyond
my ability to understand or change. But most everybody agrees they do have the legal right to build there so why can't we be bigger than them and respect their legal rights even if they don't necessarily respect our sensitivities.

It used to be taught...at least where I grew up....that taking the high road was always preferable to joining with your adversary in the ditch. I always thought that was a pretty good idea, even when I didn't always live by it.

September 11, 2010 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

Sept 11,......still remember seeing those pics of the people jumping from the towers.Saying that there are two kinds of muslims is like saying there are two kinds of nazies.Remember seeing the joy of all the crowds in the middle east sept 11.If I offend you with my commente .I DONT GIVE A RATS ASS TODAY.

September 11, 2010 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

You don't offend me at all, sail.

I firmly believe that developers of the GZ mosque are locating that thing there deliberately to grind their disrespect for our culture into our faces. No one will ever convince me otherwise. Their shifting-sands rhetoric proves their deceitful intent.

I too remember those images of people jumping and falling from the towers. They are seared into our collective unconcious. And even though I did not personally lose anyone that day, then again, I did.

If this makes me obstinate and uncompromising with regard to that mosque, then fine, I'll wear that tag with pride, To repeat sail, I DONT GIVE A RATS ASS TODAY.

September 11, 2010 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Biscuitboy, I think that is one of the problems that people don't really seem to grasp. You always claim it is just a small minority. Yet moderate Muslims and former Muslims who have left the faith (not permitted under Islam, they are now basically outcasts) admit that it is a much larger percentage then people realize or like to admit. Such as the woman caller above who was married to a Christian. Or the Somali woman who was a victim of FGC that we spoke about often a few years back. We have all these former Muslims coming out warning us that Islam desperately needs reformation from within and the element that is not conciliatory is much larger than we realize or admit.

And I consider them to be much more experts on Islam and Muslims than you or me.

You may call if fear-mongering. I look at it as pushing for reforms, pushing people to open their eyes and not brush it aside until they end up like the UK, with Sharia law courts springing up superceding federal laws. We've seen the same thing for 10 years now in politics. One side says open your eyes - the other side calls it fear-mongering. What is the alternative? Keep your mouth shut and do nothing? What does that usually lead to as we look at world history?

As to the GZ mosque builders refusal to compromise, their total reluctance shows their reasons to me plainly and clearly. I understand it perfectly. They are not like those in Fresno. I didn't even see (maybe there was, but it wasn't stated) that there was any pressure on them to move the date or offend anyone. As far as I know, they looked around, had compassion that it could possibly be misconstrued by some, and in the interest of building bridges and not wishing to offend anyone moved the date up, and invited other faiths to participate.

Contrast that with the GZ builders. They threaten if they move it there will be violence. Was there any violence in Fresno? Any muslims there or around the world rioting because they moved the date up a day out of consideration for others?

Their reasons may not be plain to you, but the longer they thumb their nose at any offered compromises and beat their violence in retaliation drum the plainer it becomes to most of the rest of the world - including many moderate muslims. If you can't fathom their reasons then go back and get it straight from another Muslim's mouth - paragraphs 3, 8 & 9 from my post at September 10, 2010 at 7:54 p.m. Their words, not mine. And I think they know and understand Islam and what is happening inside much of the Muslim community a whole lot better than you and I do.

September 11, 2010 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010...

September 11, 2010 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

One other thing to consider - extremists around the world will celebrate that a mosque is built as close as possible to GZ. Do we want to give them that victory? Do moderate muslims want to give the radical elements within that satisfaction?
The very name of the project - "Cordoba House" - and his organization "The Cordoba Initiative"...... look into that history a little. When the Muslims conquered the Spanish city of Cordoba, they tore down the largest church and built a mosque on its ruins - the "Cordoba House". The phrase is recognized by Muslims across the world as an Islamic symbol of conquest.

Koran 18:21: 'Build a building over them, their Lord knows best about them;' and those who prevailed in their affair said, 'We will surely make a mosque over them.'

Or maybe Koran 5:51 - is more appropriate:

O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide people who are unjust...

From http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.p...

“Cordoba,” in Islamic symbolic terms, means Islamic rule in the West. It does not mean “coexistence,” unless coexistence is interpreted as referring to Islamic rule. Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs cites the article (original in Arabic) published by Iraqi-American Khudhayr Taher on 18 May, in which Taher explains the following:
We must note that a hostile and provocative name [Cordoba] has been chosen for this mosque…Choosing the name ‘Cordoba House’ for the mosque to be constructed in New York was not coincidental or random and innocent. It bears within it significance and dreams of expansion and invasion [into the territory] of the other, [while] striving to change his religion and to subjugate him…

Now that's an Iraqi-American talking. Again, I think he has valuable insights - that you and I do not......

September 11, 2010 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Good article sail. I hope everyone reads it. And I hope people pay attention to the last lines:

""And this question is not only a French question. You will all have to face this challenge. "

Nah, it can't ever happen HERE. I know so because alot of people who are not Muslims tell me that the moderate Muslims who are warning us about it are wrong.

September 11, 2010 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

buiscuitboy, as usual, after talking around the point we usually find we agree pretty closely. And I will say I do agree with your point that we can't lower ourselves to their level - we can't have such a bunker mentality that we sacrifice our lofty aims and goals. But I think where we differ is our view on protecting and maintaining those high ideals. I don't see a boogeyman behind every tree. But when I look around the world, and I see nearly every single Islamic country being among the most brutul oppressors of human and women's rights, freedoms, and liberties, I notice. And when I see democratic countries that I thought were just as "safe" as us - UK, Germany, France, Denmark - starting to see here and there other laws take precedence over their own democratic laws and freedoms - when I see the warnings - especially from muslims themselves who cry for reform from within - well, (I'm not directing this at you, as I know you are not completely blind) - but only a damn fool buries their head in the sand.

The freedoms and liberties we enjoy today did not come about because a group of people got together, held hands, sang kumbaya, and decided so - it came at a very steep price, paid for in blood and lives. And there are times where the cost to preserve it will also be as steep. It's one thing to guarantee and stand up for rights and freedoms of those we don't agree with - but when the goals of those are to eventually destroy and take away our rights and freedoms, are we really protecting liberty, or aiding and abetting its downfall? When the threat is obvious, and the warnings many, and we see it happen elsewhere where we previously believed it never could, are we being paranoid or just using common sense?
I feel the same way about Phelps - yeah, he has the right to make an a$$ of himself, but like the Florida guy, he has about 50 followers. If 1/3 or more of Christians agreed with those idiots, and/or if I saw it happening in multiple countries around the world, then I'd be beating the same drum against them too.

Speaking of drums, I hear one beating that says I have things to do the rest of the weekend ;-). All have a good one - and.... on this day... 9/11 - never forget.

September 11, 2010 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

I don't know how many of the world's Muslims are radical and how many are not any more that I know how many Americans are real radicals and how many are just talking tough. I am sure there are more than a handful in both camps. But I am equally sure there are more than a few moderate Muslims, and you admit they do exist. I have known a few personally that are good thoughtful caring people. My brother worked for years in Dearborn when he was with Ford. He and his Jewish wife had many good Muslim friends there and they still do today. Knowing all of this doesn't make me blind to the threat the radicals pose. My belief however is we can affect more change within Islam by supporting the moderate Muslims who also wants reform, than we can by alienating those moderates through our harsh stereotyping of them in with the radicals. Like somebody said the other day...."You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."

As I said earlier, I can not speak to the motives of the GZ mosque developers. I, like you, don't feel good about their seeming unwillingness to compromise. Unlike you however, I am not yet ready to say their motives are all sinister. Don't forget that this Imam that many are now so quick to paint as a radical. Was considered a friend and confidant of President Bush in those days after 9/11.

But even if you are right about the mosque being viewed by many as a victory for the terrorist, it will also be viewed by many moderate Muslims (as well as others around the world) that America really is a land of laws and freedoms where unpopular minorities receive the same rights and protections as the majority.

To me that is a more important message to get out to the world. Hell the radicals are not going to like us any better weather the mosque is built or not. Nor or they going to be any less likely to try and attack us again. To me the more important message to get out is the first one because it has the possibility of swaying some people away from terrorism . The second option.....sinking to their level in forbidding or even destroying the mosque only breeds more of the same.

This doesn't address all the issues you brought up but it is a start. You are always able to raise issues faster than I can address them....:-) How is that?

September 11, 2010 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Clarification

My last post spent some time in production. As a result I posted it before I read open_eyes last post. That wouldn't have changed the thought but would have changed the wording somewhat.

September 11, 2010 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy, I do agree with many of your principles as outlined above. I don't know how many of the worlds Muslims fall in one category or the othe but I look at foreign countries and its pretty easy to see that those who are in one category pretty much have control of the governments. And I listen to moderate Muslims who tell us it is larger than we think. I also agree that we can affect more change by supporting moderates who call for reform. And many of those moderates are saying the mosque should not be built there. So do we listen to them and give their words any weight also? I'm not so sure that if built it will be viewed around the world the way you think - I think many moderates will say the radicals have made yet another inroad - and we stood aside and let them do it. As the folks from the Canadian Muslim council put it, (and has been echoed in much of the propaganda distributed by Bin Laden & Co.) "using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within." There comes a point, no matter how much we cherish and fight for those rights, that we have to recognize that they can and are at times used to subvert the very things they stand for.

September 11, 2010 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I am aware of what they say and what they proclaim as goals right now. But I am reminded of the old Soviet Union and the rising global threat of communism. I remember Nikita pounding his shoe on the podium and promising to bury us, We fought how many wars and near wars to keep the rising tide off our shores. In the end, the rising standard of living in the Soviet Union as much as anything caused them to decide their national treasury (what was left of it) would be better spent helping themselves than destroying us. China's communism has morphed into a capitalist hybrid that is knocking on the door of our economic leadership. Hell, even Fidel Castro was recently quoted as saying the communist system had failed in Cuba. After all the duck and cover...all the fear....all the trillions of dollars spent....the threat of communism imploded from within.

The unaltered march of civilization throughout history has been a slow plodding move towards justice and equality. There have been delays and set backs but the march has always continued. I believe it always will. But even if I am wrong I guess I would rather err on the side of hope than on the side of mutual destruction.

All this of course is just my opinion. And I realize it is not even a very popular opinion. But I am just enough idealist, and enough stubborn old goat, to keep putting it out there weather or not it is popular.

And open_eyes, as testy as our debates sometimes become, I value the opportunity to have them. In fact they are one of the major reasons I returned to the forum. Weather or not we are friends, I certainly consider you a worthy adversary. And no.....I am not going to give you a hug!

September 11, 2010 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Good find, sail. I read that article with great interest and even printed it off. I have a friend in Berlin who has been speaking of this same thing for quite some time now. In Berlin, as in Paris, there have been similar experiences. In Berlin, however, it is with the Turks who are also muslim.

You think it isn't here? My friend in Maryland would argue otherwise. I have no news article to post about it, only personal anecdote for now. Keep your eyes open, everyone.

Well, biscuit, many good points, especially with Fidel's recent statement. But during the Cold War, Communists were not here in the large numbers that muslims are now. Maybe in the eyes of those involved in the Red Scare of the 50's, but we know different now.

We shall see, my friend. Only Time will tell.

September 11, 2010 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Good points, biscuit, but for a slightly different slant on them, where would they be now if there had not been the resistance to them at the time? You say all those trillions of dollars were spent and all those lives lost, only to watch communism implode from within. But what would be the face of the globe had not all that been spent? Would we all be better off, worse off, or the same? Many people say that it was Reagan's arm race that broke the Soviet Union...... one also can look at Neville Chamberlain. What would Europe and the world look like today if everyone had followed his lead? Would we have all been conquered, and then eventually, watched the Empire implode from within and ended up where we are today? Would it have been worth it? Was it? Lots of lives lost to have the outcome we do today. We can only speculate what might have been throughout history but there are points we can look back and and pretty much say..... this decision, or that decision, was wrong/misguided. And I think Chamberlain is a prime example of someone who underestimated a threat, and in that case, appeasement was the wrong choice. Perhaps, if less people had listened to him, and stood up sooner against a growing threat, it would have been "nipped in the bud" in time before it became too late - and much of the death and destruction of WWII could have been avoided. Maybe things would have started sooner, but overall, much less lost...... who knows, but I think those are reasonable assumptions.

I guess my take is more along these lines: If, 50 years from now, the world looks the same - we're free, Muslim countries have morphed into tolerant democratic societies, etc..... I would rather live the next 50 years, free, and my children free, then to live under the yoke of rules imposed by some group who at their core are intolerant to pretty much anyone/anything other than their own agenda.

Speaking of tolerant democracies in Muslim countries..... if things finally take root and grow and flourish in Iraq, oppressed Muslims in other countries may look at them and finally rise up and shake off their Wahabi tyrant masters. who knows. BIG IF, I know. But better than no hope at all. Fifty years from now, they may posthumously award the Nobel Peace Prize to..... Bush...... ;-) I'm still waiting to see what Obama has done to deserve his.....

September 11, 2010 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Yes create, there were differences between then and now. And the implosion of communism was spurred along to a great degree by us making the price of our destruction higher than they were willing to spend. That tactic came to be known as mutually assured destruction. But even mutually assured destruction was never intended by us (not openly anyway) to call for our unilateral destruction of them. It only sought to maintain a peaceful co-existence through the threat of mutually assured destruction. All the time however it held open channels of negotiation and compromise. Therefore the Cuban Missile Crises did not turn into Armageddon as many feared that it would.

Which leads me to one of the most disturbing differences I see between then and now. That is the large number of people on both sides that seems to have no desire for communication and compromise. Instead only seem to be wanting the total destruction of the other. And that view is present in large numbers of people on both sides.

Rather than trying to divert destruction they seem to be actually seeking it. It's like they are wanting to start Armageddon not avoid it. That is very bothersome to me.

Its like people on both sides are trying to help God along with his plan. I however would caution them that the Bible tells us that no one can know the will of the Lord. That includes preachers in Florida and Imams in New York.

September 11, 2010 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Oh, and by the way, biscuit - thx for no hug, a simple handshake will do. The respect is mutual ;-)

September 11, 2010 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And that's pretty much the plan of that little nut in Iran - they are quite open about their goal of hastening/bringing about "the end", and the "return of the prophet".

So, do we resist him..... or sit idly by?

I'm not for his destruction, nor his people, and I don't think hardly anyone in America is, either. We just want him to get a lobotomy and live the rest of his life quietly in some convalescent home somewhere, and let the Iranian people actually have the leaders in place that they voted for ;-)

September 11, 2010 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I agree we do not set idly by. But while we watch and protect and strike when necessary, we also need to always hold open the door for face saving compromise. Our terms can not be so tunnel visioned that they demand something more akin to capitulation from them. For that paints them in a corner with no acceptable way out.

Unless you are prepared to totally annihilate your enemy.....man, woman, and child....you must always allow them a path of retreat or honorable surrender.

September 11, 2010 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

geoffreym (anonymous) says...

BisquitBoy, I have had to work all day so I am just now reading all your postings. I may have stumbled on to something yesterday that makes since to me. When I was listening to Donald Trump yesterday talk about his 5 million dollar offer that was rejected to a counter offer of 20 million.

So here you have on the one hand the statement that if the Imam has to move the Mosque that it could lead to American blood being spilled somewhere in the world. On the other hand there is no mention of blood being spilled if the "Price is Right". Where is good old Bob Barker when you need him the most.

Now that I made my points, here is my real thought. WE, meaning everyone in America needs to stop talking at this time about this Mosque. This guy is trying to extort money. He has not got a pot to piss in. That should be very apparent to everyone at this point in time.

Lets look at a couple of very important points.
1. How many millions of Dollars will it cost just to do the engineering work just to get a permit to tear the building down?

2. This building will have to be torn down
brick by brick. Lets remember that it sits flush with two other buildings. How many millions will that cost?

This guy is like the yahoo in florida. If you stop talking about him he will go away.

September 12, 2010 at 1:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I agree we all need to stop talking about it geoffreym.. We should have never started. And I full well recognize the irony in that, because I have been posting on it pretty much non-stop for two days now.

But I would much rather we be putting all this time and national dialogue into talking about the real serious, immediate, problems facing this country right now. And taking a serious look at which politicians are offering us the best and most realistic answers in light of the election two months from now.

But it seems to me that every time we need serious dialogue, some hot button issue comes along to divert and divide our attention. Forgive me for not believing the diversion is always an accident.

September 12, 2010 at 4:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sail (anonymous) says...

Biscuitboy, I too live by the creede '"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".......It would be interesting if our film industry would do a film based on 50 years in the future with the changing demographics showing the USA under sharia law in areas of the country where muslims have become the majority.

September 12, 2010 at 8:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Well sail, it would make for an interesting movie, and I'm sure a popular one among people like yourself who believe that is the direction we are moving. Another futuristic movie that could be made along those lines would be one suggested by open_eyes yesterday. In that one, Iraq and its successful move towards democracy, will have led the rest of the Muslim world out of the dark ages and into a peaceful coexistence with us. And, President Bush would be awarded his posthumous Nobel Peace Prize. Believe it or not, that is the one that would make me the happiest. Or we could even see one similar to the recent Independence Day movie where an invasion from outer space had drawn us all together in an effort to throw off an even greater threat from aliens.

But I don't believe anything about the future is written in stone. In fact what will happen in the future is being written by what we do in the present. I am reasonably certain you agree with that. We both want the same outcome, our argument is how to proceed from here.

One more thing about movies based in the future. Many have been made, War of the Worlds--1984--2001 A Space Odyssey--to name just a few. And none of them have come close to being true. Let's hope that yours doesn't come true either.

September 12, 2010 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Did anyone happen to catch Fareed Zakaria's panel discussion this morning on his GPS program on CNN. I thought it was an excellent, calm, non-sensational discussion of America and our dealings with the Muslim world since 9/11. The panel was well balanced from moderate left to moderate right. Many thoughtful points were brought up. For anybody that is interested I hope you can catch a re-run of it. I would provide you with a site address but that is an area in which reddog and I share a lot in common. :-(

September 12, 2010 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

It will be on again today. I'll tune in to be sure. I usually like to watch his program and missed it this morning. ( I was busy cleaning my apartment after a tenant moved out -- my God, how can people live like such pigs. I am sick, so sick).

Last week, Fareed Zakaria's program was very good also when he got into it with an unbending muslim cleric. The man would not even listen to Fareed. All he wanted to do was spew his hatred. I should not have been so astounded, but I was.

September 12, 2010 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I saw that program. That guy was a classic a@@hole. By the time he was off the air I wanted to shoot my TV...or better yet shoot him. No....the tone of today's show is much different. Today, Fareed and the panel are doing a much better job of discussing some of the ponts that I have been trying to make the past couple of days. But the best part of it was that there was no hyperbole, no ranting and raving, just calm intelligent discussion. It may make for bad television but it makes a lot more sense.

I really like this program and watch it as often as I can.

September 12, 2010 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Guess who is funding the Mosque near ground zero 9/11? None other than the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford Foundations.

September 12, 2010 at 7:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

If you have time, google Mosque Rockefeller Foundation.

September 12, 2010 at 7:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

If you have more time go to New York Observer Mosque CIA Front

September 12, 2010 at 8:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

At least with an a$$hole you know where they stand. And with those who truly do show compassion, tolerance, and compromise, you also figure you know where they stand. Its the ones that are described as a saint in one article (because it ignores or spins all the bad stuff) and look like an a$$hole in another (because it ignores or spins any good stuff) that we need to be wariest of. I'd rather deal with a wolf face to face than a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Cordoba House - Cordoba Initiative - now what prompted them to pick those names? Well, according to many moderate Muslims..... THEY know.... even if many among us refuse to listen to them.

September 12, 2010 at 10:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

No one has a right to builda church anyone they want even in Emporia, Kansas. for example, the businessman's Baptist Church on 12th avenue is going for new zoning on Sept. 28.

September 13, 2010 at 12:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...

Nuff said!!!

September 13, 2010 at 12:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

I thought this was an interesting report on the "cordoba" name given to that mosque at GZ. Looks like they've adopted a new name, albeit temporary. Did they not think people were akamai (astute) enough to figure this out?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-r-...

September 13, 2010 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Its interesting that this article was written by an expert on Jewish civilization, and I presume, a non-Muslim. So he's saying to the Muslims who say this has a deeper meaning that they don't know what they're talking about? Hmph.

Bin Laden has announced he wants Muslims to retake Cordoba, Spain, and re-establish new Islamic rule there. To some Muslims, Cordoba has a much deeper meaning than what the writer of this article ascribes to it.

From http://communities.washingtontimes.co...

Beneath the picture of the banner that displays Raufs statement "Terrorism will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims", it reads:

"A 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document obtained by the FBI outlined the group's strategy: "[Members] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

One of Abdul Rauf's partners in the Cordoba Initiative is Jamal Barzinji, a co-founder of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood in America. Barzinji founded the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va., which is alleged to have incubated numerous terrorist plots, including the 9/11 attacks and the Fort Hood murders."

And if you browse around you'll probably find an equal number of articles painting Barzinji as either a terrorist in disguise or a near-saint. I did happen to notice this while looking up Rauf's stance on Sharia Law. When a Muslim leaves the faith, they are branded an "apostate". There is a group called Former Muslims United who's pledge is "The Former Muslims United civil rights campaign is reaching out to Muslim leaders. We are asking them to repudiate the Shariah legal doctrine that requires the punishment – and in most cases, the execution – of former Muslims who choose to exercise their rights to religious freedom and freedom of speech."

"Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan in 2009 both refused to sign a Freedom Pledge to protect former Muslims from the death sentence sought by most sharia interpretations for Muslim apostates. On Oct. 20, 2009, Former Muslims United asked ASMA's executives (Rauf's org) to pledge to
“renounce, repudiate and oppose any physical intimidation, or worldly and corporal punishment, of apostates ..., [however] that punishment may be determined or carried out by myself or any other Muslim including the [apostate's] family, community, Mosque leaders, Shariah court or judge, and Muslim government or regime.”

September 13, 2010 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Thank you so much for that link create. That is much closer to my long held understanding of life in Cordoba (and Spain) under Islamic rule than the much more hostile perspective presented by others now.

In fact when I first heard the proposed name of Cordoba House I assumed it to be a reference to the bridge between cultures that Cordoba and Spain was supposed to have had under Islamic rule at the time.

Thanks again for a good alternate perspective to the debate.

September 13, 2010 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Cordoba under Islamic rule has historically been consider the Zenith of Islamic culture as well as power. It was also one of the bright spots in all of Europe at the time. Historical scholars widely agree the most religious and cultural writings of western civilization would have been lost through the Dark Ages had it not been for the protection those writings were given by by the Islamic Rule of Cordoba. Again....two widely different stories......Which one is true?

September 13, 2010 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I notice everyone seems to gloss over the point that Jews and Christians there were not the equal of Muslims, and lived in peace so long as they were subjugated "paying a protection tax, and excercising humility before their Muslim rulers". Doesn't sound all that tolerant & equal to me - not the way we view the word today.

September 13, 2010 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

It just seems really strange to me that someone who is supposed to be so tolerant and compassionate refuses to sign a declaration saying that Muslims won't abuse or even kill other former Muslims who have left the faith. Because, of course, to do so would be to violate Sharia law.

When someone is truly honest, sincere, and compassionate - its pretty hard to dig up anything on them that shows otherwise that isn't just obvious hateful spin. When someone only shows that face 1/2 the time, and the other half, to another audience, is quite different, well, it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence or a dogs keen sense of smell to tell that something is rotten in Denmark.

September 13, 2010 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Open_eyes....We are talking about almost two thousand years ago. During the Christian occupation of the Holy Lands during the Crusades neither Muslims nor Jews were exactly given Carte Blanc treatment by the Christians either. In fact Islamic treatment of Christians and Jews in Cordoba at the time was markedly better than Christian treatment of Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem. This was especially true of the last Crusades.

So are we supposed to continue now to attribute those same short comings to the world's Christians today. I think not. Many of the worlds radical Muslims however still do hold it against us, just like the most radical Christians still blame them. And this is the whole crux of the matter.

September 13, 2010 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

That is true, biscuitboy. I am just pointing out that historically, the term has a much different meaning among most Muslims. Based on, as you point out, its history almost 2,000 years ago. (Actually half of that - 10th Century). And to borrow some other comments on the subject:

"To begin with, the occupying Muslims in the tenth century might have been relatively benign, but they were still occupiers. Cordoba was a city in which the native Christians had been conquered by Muslims and robbed of control of their homeland. Benign or not, it was still an occupation, a conquest.

Moreover, Rauf’s belief that the Islamic Cordoba era should be celebrated is an odd position for a Muslim activist to take, because he’s essentially stating that there is and can be such a thing as a “good occupation,” just as long as the occupiers are more advanced, enlightened, and tolerant than the people they’ve conquered."

Its a very odd choice of names. I don't think it would have been that hard to come up with another name for their initiative - one that doesn't mean one thing to half the world and something else to the other half. I can come up with hundreds of other less-chance-of-being-found-offensive names in less time than it took to write this.

September 13, 2010 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

You are right about the time frame.....my error.

As to your other points, the crusades were of course also an occupation. And the benevolence and enlightenment of any occupation often depends on weather you are the occupied or the occupier.

Having said that, I realize that the average Muslim fares better in today's America than the average Christian does in an Islamic Republic. But at least they are up front about that....they don't hide the fact that they are Islamic Republics ruled by their religion. We are the ones that live in the Democracy.

I just don't want us to become like the worst of them as we struggle to protect ourselves from some of them.

September 13, 2010 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

True, I agree. But I also don't want us to become like the worst of them by NOT struggling to protect ourselves from some of them.

It's a fine line to walk, I know. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt where there is no reason or signs to think otherwise. But when you can't be forthcoming and it seems there are as many reasons to doubt you as to believe you then I can't, in good conscience, say I have reason to trust anyone that only seems to be trustworthy 50% of the time.

September 13, 2010 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I do understand!

September 13, 2010 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Not the same exact topic, but along the same lines of tolerance and history.

I watched Lord of the Rings, the entire trilogy, yesterday. (What an indulgence I allowed myself after cleaning that filthy dirty apartment.) I could see that all of the antagonists were darkly painted, a literary device, certainly. But is it me, or did anyone else notice that some of those bad guys looked exactly like Mujahedeen, black headgear and all. Sign of the times?

September 13, 2010 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yeah, but Gollam kinda looks like my retired neighbor down the street.

September 13, 2010 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Such stereotyping occurs all through literature and culture. Look at WWII propaganda from our side"s perspective. The dreaded Hun, and later the Japanese were always depicted as unshaven, wild-eyed, maniacal looking creatures, while our boys were always clean shaven red blooded American. boys. The portrayals weren't done that way because they were accurate but because they defined us as good and them as bad. Such distorted imagery is found every where including the totally absurd depiction of pot smokers in that early film designed to scare the wits out of people about the alleged dangers of marijuana. Reefer Madness was a classic propaganda piece that still shapes many peoples views about marijuana. usage today. The two examples I cited above are overt propaganda done openly and with out shame.

But it is actually more prevalent in its covert form. In our culture that frequently then is shown as good being white and bad being black...remember white and black hats in the old cowboy movies. So I have no doubt that the similarity that you observed was real and purposeful create. If you look for it you can find examples of it all the time.

September 13, 2010 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Oh I'll agree with that to a point, such as the white hats-black hats. But when I think back to all the villians I've seen in movies I've seen plenty of blonde, blue-eyed, clean-shaven, caucasians. Probably moreso than other depictions. If we added up all the bad guys & gals in all movies in the last so long and assigned a ranking to them, I'd bet white males would come across as being the most "stereotyped" as criminals out there....

Problem is nowadays our society is so overly PC you almost HAVE to make the villian a white male, if you don't, somebody starts hollering stereotyping.

If you look for a boogeyman behind every tree you will usually find one. Gee, that sounds awfully similar to thoughts expressed elsewhere within this thread.

September 13, 2010 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Oh yes, I'm sure there are tons of examples everywhere. As an English teacher, I've always been quite aware of character stereotypes, but this mujahedeen one leapt at me right off the screen. I'd never seen Lord of the Ring on the screen before, just read the book.

I can't think of this actor's name, but he often plays contemporary villain parts as a blonde. Remember the whole PC ruckus over the Frito Bandito?

But in real life, I saw video on some drug kingpin arrested in Mexico today. He had a Spanish nickname, but he is an American, white from Texas.

September 13, 2010 at 7:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And now we find out one of Rauf's associates, someone who co-founded his organization with him, and preached at gatherings at the Burlington Coat Factory (the proposed GZ site) as recently as last year, is an avowed Muslim "truther" - who teaches and believes that radical Islam had nothing to do with 9/11 and is just being used as a scapegoat, that it was all an inside job.

Yeah, that's the kind of folks I want "building bridges" in a building the landing gear from one of the "inside job" planes crashed thru. Of course, Rauf claims that is preposterous that that area is "hallowed ground" - as there are strip clubs and betting parlors on that block - which I may in part agree with him, But when we find out a bunch of radical strippers and bettors were also behind 9/11, then I'll rail against them having their places of business there, too. Gee, radical strippers-turned-terrorist - I'm sure there have been a few "B" movies made along those themes.... ;-)

September 13, 2010 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

In recent years there have been a number of memorable blue eyed, blond haired villains in movies. Remember the boxer in one of the Rocky movies....and that may have much to do with political correctness. The white male is the always the safest bet.

Of course the boxer I just mentioned was also a nasty old Russian. So that's kind of a trade off.

September 14, 2010 at 3:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Boogeymen......Yes, we all look for them in our own way. Some are relatively harmless cultural stereotypes....others have the potential of raining down more death and destruction.....but all are boogeymen

September 14, 2010 at 3:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Of course there have also been many more white (read blond haired , blue eyed) people depicted in movies all together in this country than any other racial type. So using your example open-eyes, there has also been many more blue eyed blond haired depictions of good guys in our movies. The point is we generally depict people that looks and act like us better than we depict those that don't look and act like us. That is pretty common across all cultures and is relatively benign I suppose. But it speaks to the observation made by create....its nothing personal. :-)

September 14, 2010 at 3:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I still say Gollum looks like my retired neighbor down the street. I'm going to hide my rings.... my precious..... ;-)

September 14, 2010 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Well, you know, if so many parents weren't so locked into stereotypes, maybe we wouldn't have so many white-skinned, blond-haired, blue-eyed, babies that grow up to be white-skinned, blond-haired, blue-eyed adults. I say we start educating people to repress those genetic codes when they're going to have babies!

On a side note, I personally have been traumatized by the Lord of the Rings. Too many people who like it, like it WAY too much. open_eyes

September 14, 2010 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

It removed my coughing cover when I said "open_eyes." I really wish the preview code format matched the composing and posted comment ones.

September 14, 2010 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

oh4

I was a blond haired-blue eyed baby. Just about the cutest little thing you ever saw.

Where did it all go wrong?....:-)

September 14, 2010 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, don't worry, oh4theluvof, demographics in this country are changing fast.....

Reading back thru these posts I feel I must also correct something I said earlier - my scenario where Bush posthumously wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

Since in view of recent years I have absolutely no idea what the Nobel Peace Prize stand for or is supposed to represent, it is just as reasonable to assume in that scenario he might get the Nobel Prize for chemistry or poetry. Or, most likely, yet another singling out as Olbermann's "World's Worst Person". Which, if anyone notices, happens to be heavily tilted toward Caucasian males as the villians? Racism!!!!! ;-)

September 14, 2010 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Yea....I keep meaning to speak to Keith about that (we're fellow travelers you know). He's been giving far too many "world's worst" awards to white Republican women of late....:-)

September 14, 2010 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Speaking of using imagery to sway peoples opinions of others in the media, I noticed several years ago that every picture of G.W. Bush in the msm was horrible. His mouth was open because he was in mid sentence or he was making a weird face(maybe he was passing gas .... who knows?). For a while I thought he was just a goofy lookin' fella until I went through a "read everything on wikipedia" phase(some of you may remember when I was reading on existentialism and other liberal philosophies, it was a very dark time for seriously) ..... Anyhoo I decided to read about Bush and other politicians and when I went to the G.W. Bush page I was some what surprised to see a really good picture of him. Now I know that one could take good pictures of him if they chose to. Perhaps there are just a bunch of crappy photo taking people or whatever you call them working for the major media outlets. They must have all got replaced because every picture I see of President Obama is excellent. Bias in the media perhaps?

September 14, 2010 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Maybe that's what infuriates the left so much about Palin. She's attractive enough its hard to make her look bad in photographs.

Plus, it would be a slap at Tina Fey as well..... LOL

September 14, 2010 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Nobel Peace Prizes, Olbermann's "World's Worst"....... nobody has been able to figure out the meaning or criteria behind either of them..... other than they are both extremely politically motivated, which makes them pretty much moot..... ;-)

September 14, 2010 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

REWBA (anonymous) says...

CNN, FOX News and MSNBC always attempt to portray the happenings of the world as being either left or right. I understood that during election campaigns but when they started politicizing terrorist attacks and hurricanes, that was the final straw. I tuned them out and now catch up on national and international news with the comedy channel. I seem to smile more often now too.

September 14, 2010 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

In reality I agree to a large extent....but no more so than the rantings that pass for news every day at Fox, or at untold numbers of websites across the Internet. Real, accurate, unbiased, information is becoming as rare as money in my wallet. That explains why I often take the revelations put forth on most websites with a grain of salt.

And that includes many sites that you frequently refer to my friend....:-)

seriously....Every photo you see of President Obama is excellent? I can only assume you forgot to look at the ones that show up frequently a tea party gatherings. :-)

Actually I always thought George W. Bush bore an uncanny resemblance to Alfred E. Neuman....and I am serious about that.

September 14, 2010 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I agree REWBA. The best news coverage available on most any given day comes from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.

September 14, 2010 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And the Daily Show is also far from being unbiased.

I also have yet to see any hardly any pics of Obama at any Tea Party gatherings that could hold a candle to what we say at protests during the Bush years. Nor on the news OR comedy channels. Still waiting for Obama to show up on the TV with the words "Sniper Wanted" below, like Bush had...... yeah, funny....... or not....

And as I've said before, even more telling at times than the news that any media outlet DOES report....... is the news that they DON'T report......

September 14, 2010 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

But I'm getting off track again....... so I see where in various places around the world, Muslims held protests and burned flags AHEAD of the planned Koran burning. Even though he didn't go thru with it, they "pre-emptively" burned flags. So since their culture is so based on revenge and retaliation, does that mean it would be ok now for them to go ahead and burn the Koran, and they won't protest, since they already did? ;-) Apparently some of the protests went ahead and took place on 9/11, even after the Koran burning had been cancelled. So what does that say to people to believe in trying to "appease" these idiots?

September 14, 2010 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Nor have I ever seen a picture of Bush in the cross-hairs while wearing black-face. I have often seen tea party signs of Obama in white-face or eating a watermelon......yea funny....or not..... Give me a break open_eyes.

September 14, 2010 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I've seen plenty of Bush in cross-hairs, not wearing blackface though, but sporting a Hitler mustache, and/or horns. And I doubt you have "often" seen those at tea parties, I'm sure the ones that have shown up have gotten plenty of replay. After all... the NAACP is "closely monitoring" them for racism..... and they don't have much of anything to report yet......

So anyway, how about all those flag-burnings?

September 14, 2010 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Again....for the umpteenth time....I am much more concerned about the foolish actions committed in the name of me and America than I am about every foolish action that occurs around the world in some place I can't even pronounce.

As long as me and my house are in order I can't waste my time having a fit every time some body across town says something I find offensive.

September 14, 2010 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

True that ;-)

Unfortunately, those things happening across the world ARE affecting me and my house. I wonder how many of the Muslims who burned flags are even aware that the Koran burning was not carried out? I doubt it would have made any difference to them if they had known.... for people who hate regardless, no excuse is needed. Sadly.

September 14, 2010 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

As to the offensive banners depicting President Obama. I saw a lot of them in the early gatherings. Yes they have slowed down since the tea party started catching negative publicity about them proving that at least some of the party leaders do have some sense.

But I haven't seen any offensive banners or depictions of President Bush for some time.... so get over it......please!

September 14, 2010 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

for people who hate regardless, no excuse is needed

I agree.....

September 14, 2010 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Maybe President Obama is the one you need to beg to "get over it... please!". The next time he goes on another "its not my fault, it takes a long time to straighten out Bush's mess" rants, I'd like to see him fess up that he was all for the bad loans the government forced banks to make, which played a major part in the economic collapse, and against Bush's plan to add oversight to Fannie/Freddie way back when. Not to mention firmly against the surge in Iraq.
There were a lot of players responsible for the mess, and they had plenty of representation from BOTH sides. I really wish he'd get over it........ please! ;-)

I also think had people been a little more concerned with "foolish actions" taking place elsewhere in the world.... the Twin Towers might still be standing. After all, the first attempt to bring them down in 1993 wasn't really in someplace nobody can pronounce..... I can undestand anyone being caught "with their pants down" at first, but I think there's no longer any excuse for that. So when I see these movements gathering strength and numbers across the world....... I pay attention.

September 14, 2010 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I'm glad they've started policing their ranks better, they certainly needed to. Even 5 our of 5,000 is 5 too many, IMO. But I'm sorry.... but I just have honestly not seen anything to compare to this, either in volume or ferocity. Not even close.

http://www.google.com/images?q=anti-b...

But I'm over it!!!! ;-) Unfortunately.... I have a good memory.....so I often wonder where all the reporting was during this, and I look at the reporting now....... and I shake my head.....

But bringing it back to the current topic, in some ways it is similar. We are so politically correct we don't dare even use the term Islamic terrorist, even thought that is exactly what we are up against. And I think, in terms of the GZ mosque, in the face of moderate Muslims saying they think it is a provocation, etc.... it seems once again, PC has taken hold of the majority of our media, and blinded them to even where asking prudent questions is not allowed.......

September 14, 2010 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Neither side will probably get any awards for unbiased self analysis as far as that goes. Yes, Obama was in favor of some of those things he now blames for bringing down the economy before he ever took office. But so were a lot of Republicans that are now blaming the whole mess on Obama and the Dems. Once again that street runs both ways.

You make a good point about what effect a little more awareness of the world might have had in preventing the twin tower attack. And though that attack happened on the Republicans watch...I will be fair and balanced enough to state that both parties had some culpability in the matter. But unless we want to go to war with the entire world we must put maximum effort into policing our own house and not try to correct and control everything that is said and done elsewhere. JMO

September 14, 2010 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And though the first attack in 1993 happened on the Democrats watch....I will be fair and balanced enough to state that both parties had some culpability in the matter, too ;-) (Since you pointed that out, thought I would do the same ;-)

And that's what scares me. Political correctness run amok is preventing us from policing our own house, whether it be protecting our own borders and citizens, or opening our eyes to those who, as has been stated by those who are much more "in the know", than us, are "using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within."

Again, you're not really protecting anything if the ones you protect are using that to destroy you from within.

September 14, 2010 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )