MSNBC anchor: Building Cordoba would be like burning the flag

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm not in the "Islamic community" when I call you a bigot, Paul. I'm an American, and I call you a bigot because you pretend not to be a bigot and someone has to tell you that you're not fooling anyone. Just the fact that you consider me to be posting "out of the "Islamic community" when I post about constitutional rights correctly overriding raw and irrational emotionalism is a display of your prejudice. If you think I only post as a Muslim when I oppose your position, then should I tell you to come out of the White xenophobic community and put yourself into other people's shoes?

No, I know better.

I don't understand how you fail to see the bigotry in your posts. Let me try to explain. Saudi Arabia says there are plenty of churches in the world. To build one in their country would be a slap in the face of Muslims and a painful reminder of Christian colonialism and oppression in the Middle East. Build them somewhere else.

That's what you sound like. Is that bigoted speech? Or, can you defend it?

You cannot for one minute tell me that your defense had nothing to do with your personal religious beliefs.

You still ignore the main factor which I have pointed out plenty of times.

There is no "constitutional right" to build a mosque/church/whatever. So stop making that argument.

There's freedom to practice whatever religion you choose without the government establishing a national religion, but that's about it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm not the only one defending the mosque. Others who are are not Muslim defend it along side me. What is their motive?

There is indeed a constitutional right to build places of worship, so don't pretend there isn't. The right includes the practice of having a place to worship and has before the Constitution was written. It is an inalienable right endowed by our Creator. Even the walls of the Supreme Court have friezes that acknowledge our religious rights. Our government has to respect that right.

You did not answer my question about Saudi Arabia wanting churches built away from them. Is that ok with you?

You cannot for one minute tell me that your defense had nothing to do with your personal religious beliefs.

You still ignore the main factor which I have pointed out plenty of times.

There is no "constitutional right" to build a mosque/church/whatever. So stop making that argument.

There's freedom to practice whatever religion you choose without the government establishing a national religion, but that's about it.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm not the only one defending the mosque. Others who are are not Muslim defend it along side me. What is their motive?

There is indeed a constitutional right to build places of worship, so don't pretend there isn't. The right includes the practice of having a place to worship and has before the Constitution was written. It is an inalienable right endowed by our Creator. Even the walls Supreme Court have friezes that acknowledge our religious rights. Our government has to respect that right.

You did not answer my question about Saudi Arabia wanting churches built away from them. Is that ok with you?

lol, you can wish all you want, but there's no "right" to build a church wherever you want to. As stated, there's a freedom to be whatever faith you wish to be and practice as such, but a church of any religion, no matter what it is, is not a "right" wherever you wish to place it.

As far as Saudi Arabia goes, that's their prerogative. It's their nation and their feelings, which can be understood if they feel that way.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

PS - There's no such thing as Islamic terrorism or Islamic terrorists. Islam doesn't condone terrorism, so terrorism is not Islamic.

There have been religious leaders who've advocated violence, whether it be Christians, Muslim, Hindus, etc. Even though the basic tenets of most all religions are based on non-violence, historically, followers of one religion or another have rationalized the use of violence in the name of religion. What do you think would be a more accurate description?

Edited August 18, 2010 by El Buscador

[Sofiyya 1,687]

lol, you can wish all you want, but there's no "right" to build a church wherever you want to. As stated, there's a freedom to be whatever faith you wish to be and practice as such, but a church of any religion, no matter what it is, is not a "right" wherever you wish to place it.

As far as Saudi Arabia goes, that's their prerogative. It's their nation and their feelings, which can be understood if they feel that way.

I didn't say that there is a right to build a church or any other placce of worship wherever you want to. There are zoning laws and traffic considerations, etc., but the authorities in NYC have given the project a green light, so far.

So, ok, as long as we understand that you have he same attitude as the Saudis about freedom of religion, that explains a lot. Perhaps you need to understand that in this country, we don't have the same attitude - or, maybe that's changing more toward the Saudi view. That's the scary part.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I didn't say that there is a right to build a church or any other placce of worship wherever you want to. There are zoning laws and traffic considerations, etc., but the authorities in NYC have given the project a green light, so far.

So, ok, as long as we understand that you have he same attitude as the Saudis about freedom of religion, that explains a lot. Perhaps you need to understand that in this country, we don't have the same attitude - or, maybe that's changing more toward the Saudi view. That's the scary part.

No one's talking about stopping the Islamic faith here or stopping a mosque from being built anywhere else.

It's about sensitivity and location. THAT'S ALL.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There have been religious leaders who've advocated violence, whether it be Christians, Muslim, Hindus, etc. Even though the basic tenets of most all religions are based on non-violence, historically, followers of one religion or another have rationalized the use of violence in the name of religion. What do you think would be a more accurate description?

If you twist a few passages of a faith to suit an evil purpose, when does it become something other than the faith the passages derived from? Did Papal directives that began a crusade to murder Muslims in a conflict over Jerusalem redefine the tenets of Catholicism? I think not. Did the enslavement of Africans in the US by church going Protestants using the Biblical curse of Ham and his descendants to justify their oppression redefine the tenets of Protestantism? I think not.

Christians who do bad acts in God's name, sometimes even in masse, are bad people. They are not good Christians, they are not following the path of Christianity. Only the most anti-Christian souls would insist that their acts diminish Christianity itself because what Christianity requires and teaches about good conduct has not changed.

The same is true for Islam. To affix the term "Islamic" as a qualifier to terrorism or radical or terrorist, etc., infers that Islam condones and approves of them. Yet, it is not Islamic to be radical; Islam requires moderation. It is not Islamic to be a terrorist or to promote terrorism or the murder of innocents.

These terms, affixed to "Islamic" have emerged from dialogues between non-Muslims who are not educated in Islam or aware of what it prescribes, but are unwittingly adopting, legitimizing and spreading terrorist propaganda to the benefit of hateful Muslims and hateful non-Muslims. Muslim terrorists are political, not religious, actors. If they were associated with any other faith, they would just be murders, terrorists, radicals, etc..

Like the Ku Klux Klan, people dismiss their claims to be acting in the name of Christianity. They know that not to be true, but even after having 10 years since 9/11 to learn about Islam, most Americans still believe that 1/4 of the world's population follows a faith that preaches murder and cruelty, and that those practices are Islamic.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No one's talking about stopping the Islamic faith here or stopping a mosque from being built anywhere else.

It's about sensitivity and location. THAT'S ALL.

THAT"S ALL, MY AZZ. It's not being at the sacred hole; they're not at the sacred hole. So location is not what it's about. And, if sensitivity is such a big deal, you need to show some sensitivity to the Bill of Rights, or maybe bigots call it the Bullsh!t of Rights now, after trashing it like spoiled brats.

PS - Meet the SIOA (Stop the Islamization of America) network, the leaders of the anti-mosque protest. You may be soul mates.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Obama 2012 1,714]

THAT"S ALL, MY AZZ. It's not being at the sacred hole; they're not at the sacred hole. So location is not what it's about. And, if sensitivity is such a big deal, you need to show some sensitivity to the Bill of Rights, or maybe bigots call it the Bullsh!t of Rights now, after trashing it like spoiled brats.

obviously your own personal bias here because of your direct religious involvement has skewed your ability to debate this issue rationally.

The only other thing I can tell you, is to look beyond your own fear of everyone being against you and step outside the box for a minute. Not everything is bigotry, racism, hatred, etc.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You can't even admit you're a bigot, but you claim I can't debate rationally because I'm Muslim. What you're really saying is that Muslims who defend themselves against bigots are irrational. If your posts had ever risen to some level of intellectual discourse, I could consider your dismissal of my position as credible. But, you are merely dodging now and looking for a way out. At least you're consistent in your attitude that Muslims can't be trusted to know what's good for them. I'll give you that.

obviously your own personal bias here because of your direct religious involvement has skewed your ability to debate this issue rationally.

The only other thing I can tell you, is to look beyond your own fear of everyone being against you and step outside the box for a minute. Not everything is bigotry, racism, hatred, etc.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You can't even admit you're a bigot, but you claim I can't debate rationally because I'm Muslim. What you're really saying is that Muslims who defend themselves against bigots are irrational. If your posts had ever risen to some level of intellectual discourse, I could consider your dismissal of my position as credible. But, you are merely dodging now and looking for a way out. At least you're consistent in your attitude that Muslims can't be trusted to know what's good for them. I'll give you that.

See, all you can do is call me a bigot. It's almost hysterical to be honest. As I said, you have no ability to debate rationally because of your personal beliefs and that's fine. Not once have I said anything against Muslims, not once have I said anything bad about Islam, and not once have I made this about actual beliefs.

I simply have been saying, it's a sensitive issue. It's an issue where a few buildings were brought down several blocks away from people identifying themselves as members of a certain religious group. If these were radical Hindus, Buddhists, or whatever other religious sect out there who had committed the acts that day, then the reaction would be the same. It has nothing to do with Islam/Muslims.

All you can do is see I'm saying it probably isn't the best idea to be built there, so I'm automatically a bigot, but you're ignoring what I'm actually saying.

As I said, step out of your head, step outside the box and peek inside.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

See, all you can do is call me a bigot. It's almost hysterical to be honest. As I said, you have no ability to debate rationally because of your personal beliefs and that's fine. Not once have I said anything against Muslims, not once have I said anything bad about Islam, and not once have I made this about actual beliefs.

I simply have been saying, it's a sensitive issue. It's an issue where a few buildings were brought down several blocks away from people identifying themselves as members of a certain religious group. If these were radical Hindus, Buddhists, or whatever other religious sect out there who had committed the acts that day, then the reaction would be the same. It has nothing to do with Islam/Muslims.

All you can do is see I'm saying it probably isn't the best idea to be built there, so I'm automatically a bigot, but you're ignoring what I'm actually saying.

As I said, step out of your head, step outside the box and peek inside.

Debate what? I understand what you're saying and doing anything but ignoring it. You just aren't self-aware enough for anyone to debate with you. All you do is repeat that the mosque is insensitive and should be moved coz it's a slap in the face to the a bunch of bigots who blame all Muslims for 9/11. You refuse to see how telling private property owners whose government approved building project is not near the sacred hole to move due to false hysteria is and unconstitutional, especially since there are already two overcrowded mosques in the immediate area that bother no one.

You refuse to accept that there are some among us who know that moving the mosque will not allay the irrational fear of those who believe Muslims in America should have no rights, but that acquiescing to them will only empower them to demand the revocation of more rights and recognition from those who do not meet their approval.

People who oppose Muslims interact with Muslim cabbies, shop owners, launderers, maids, caretakers, etc. everyday, and most don't even know it because they have a stereotype of Muslims as The Other that they can't move beyond. You accuse me of being rigid and stuck in place because you refuse to believe that the a Muslim can be rational and still disagree with you. You also refuse to admit that there are a lot of non-Muslims who disagree with you. You refuse to acknowledge the Muslims who were murdered that day and how painful their families' subjugation to bigotry must be.

This issue is not about Hindus or Buddhists, Paul. It's about Muslims, and it's so acceptable in your world to be bigoted about Muslims, smearing them all thru guilt by association, that it shocks you to be called out on it. You don't want to believe you're that guy. But, if you have nothing more to support your position than emotional hype and how the Muslims need to accept marginalization and lesser American status to be acceptable to your ilk, then you're not going to get anywhere with me. I would say that even if it was Hindus, Buddhists, Jews or any other faith group being unfairly attacked for wanting to build a community center. I'm an equal opportunity defender of human rights.

Much, too much, of our mainstream political leadership is pandering to this un-American movement, and that should worry all of us. There is no leader working to bring us together, to build the proper memorial to the dead at the sacred hole. There is no one willing to show the kind of integrity and strength it takes to go against the hysteria and bridge the gap between fear and understanding. There are only idols of clay.

Too many Americans today do not appreciate the rights accorded by our founding fathers. They are willing to negate the first amendment to preserve their prejudices and feel protected from the boogey Muslim. As Benjamin Franklin correctly stated: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. And, that is so true. Until you step out of your narrow-minded box and concede that your side is shredding the Constitution, you haven't anything valuable to offer to a debate.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Debate what? I understand what you're saying and doing anything but ignoring it. You just aren't self-aware enough for anyone to debate with you. All you do is repeat that the mosque is insensitive and should be moved coz it's a slap in the face to the a bunch of bigots who blame all Muslims for 9/11. You refuse to see how telling private property owners whose government approved building project is not near the sacred hole to move due to false hysteria is and unconstitutional, especially since there are already two overcrowded mosques in the immediate area that bother no one.

You refuse to accept that there are some among us who know that moving the mosque will not allay the irrational fear of those who believe Muslims in America should have no rights, but that acquiescing to them will only empower them to demand the revocation of more rights and recognition from those who do not meet their approval.

People who oppose Muslims interact with Muslim cabbies, shop owners, launderers, maids, caretakers, etc. everyday, and most don't even know it because they have a stereotype of Muslims as The Other that they can't move beyond. You accuse me of being rigid and stuck in place because you refuse to believe that the a Muslim can be rational and still disagree with you. You also refuse to admit that there are a lot of non-Muslims who disagree with you. You refuse to acknowledge the Muslims who were murdered that day and how painful their families' subjugation to bigotry must be.

This issue is not about Hindus or Buddhists, Paul. It's about Muslims, and it's so acceptable in your world to be bigoted about Muslims, smearing them all thru guilt by association, that it shocks you to be called out on it. You don't want to believe you're that guy. But, if you have nothing more to support your position than emotional hype and how the Muslims need to accept marginalization and lesser American status to be acceptable to your ilk, then you're not going to get anywhere with me. I would say that even if it was Hindus, Buddhists, Jews or any other faith group being unfairly attacked for wanting to build a community center. I'm an equal opportunity defender of human rights.

Much, too much, of our mainstream political leadership is pandering to this un-American movement, and that should worry all of us. There is no leader working to bring us together, to build the proper memorial to the dead at the sacred hole. There is no one willing to show the kind of integrity and strength it takes to go against the hysteria and bridge the gap between fear and understanding. There are only idols of clay.

Too many Americans today do not appreciate the rights accorded by our founding fathers. They are willing to negate the first amendment to preserve their prejudices and feel protected from the boogey Muslim. As Benjamin Franklin correctly stated: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. And, that is so true. Until you step out of your narrow-minded box and concede that your side is shredding the Constitution, you haven't anything valuable to offer to a debate.

Oh you are funny. I am truly finding it almost sad that you're being so serious.

As I said, I haven't said anything against Muslims/Islam.

No one has said "all Muslims" did this or that. No one had made it about Islam in general here.

It's not a first amendment issue at all. Actually, the first amendment is speaking quite loudly and people are telling the Islamic community in New York that they don't want that mosque there. How's that for the first amendment for you? Oh but I'm sure only when we're talking about "religious freedom" in this case the first amendment applies? Yes, I'm being sarcastic there on purpose to prove a point. You're so busy yelling and screaming that his mosque should be there, when you're ignoring everyone else using their first amendment right telling you no.

It's not a first amendment issue at all though. No one is saying that Muslims should stop bring Muslims. No one is saying Islam is evil and bad. No one is saying that at all. All people are saying is that when someone comes in two blocks away from where Islamic Extremists/Terrorists (because that's what they were) ripped apart a city and even a nation and want a build a huge symbol/center that close by and THEN not only that, have a groundbreaking on September 11, 2011. The 10th Anniversary of those crimes by people making claims under that guise of Islam; no matter how wrong those terrorists were in their interpretation; yeah, you would pretty much take that as a slap in the face as well.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Oh you are funny. I am truly finding it almost sad that you're being so serious.

As I said, I haven't said anything against Muslims/Islam.

No one has said "all Muslims" did this or that. No one had made it about Islam in general here.

It's not a first amendment issue at all. Actually, the first amendment is speaking quite loudly and people are telling the Islamic community in New York that they don't want that mosque there. How's that for the first amendment for you? Oh but I'm sure only when we're talking about "religious freedom" in this case the first amendment applies? Yes, I'm being sarcastic there on purpose to prove a point. You're so busy yelling and screaming that his mosque should be there, when you're ignoring everyone else using their first amendment right telling you no.

It's not a first amendment issue at all though. No one is saying that Muslims should stop bring Muslims. No one is saying Islam is evil and bad. No one is saying that at all. All people are saying is that when someone comes in two blocks away from where Islamic Extremists/Terrorists (because that's what they were) ripped apart a city and even a nation and want a build a huge symbol/center that close by and THEN not only that, have a groundbreaking on September 11, 2011. The 10th Anniversary of those crimes by people making claims under that guise of Islam; no matter how wrong those terrorists were in their interpretation; yeah, you would pretty much take that as a slap in the face as well.

So, Paul, freedom of religion is a popularity contest to you, negated by uninformed opinion? You are more clueless about whose bed you're lying in than I thought. You're clearly out of your league on this issue and operating on fumes. Take the last contradictory word. I know ya wanna. I've got better things to do than participate further in your denial.

Later!

[^_^ 5,021]

Sofiyya,

You may not know this but Emperor Paul sees himself as a constitutional scholar. The basis for his expertise? He reads a lot of ####### online. Seriously.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Legacy member