Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

[pjdude1219]

Al-Waleed bin Talal doesn't appear to have any links to terrorism though he does have a history of chartible donations into the states. yes their are branches of the house of Saud that does have ties to terrorism Al-Waleed bin Talal doesn't appear to be one of them.

 

[Michael]

Where is your evidence that liberals are pushing for it? Liberals are merely supporting the rights of those wishing to construct the Islamic center. In other words, they are defending our constitutional rights...minor detail.

As a Liberal I just assumed it was us


If the center is truly multifaith, and as the founder is Sufi I expect if very well could be, then I personally think it would be a great center IF it addresses those concerns we in the non-Muslim community have. If the Sufi play their cards right they can leap-frog over the Catholics and show that newer forms of Islam can be modern, do accept other belief systems as equal, condemn religious supremacy, identify with homosexuals, and support female religious equality.

If they are able to do that then I'd say THIS is the Islam of the future in America.

 

[joepistole]

As a Liberal I just assumed it was us

If the center is truly multifaith, and as the founder is Sufi I expect if very well could be, then I personally think it would be a great center IF it addresses those concerns we in the non-Muslim community have. If the Sufi play their cards right they can leap-frog over the Catholics and show that newer forms of Islam can be modern, do accept other belief systems as equal, condemn religious supremacy, identify with homosexuals, and support female religious equality.

If they are able to do that then I'd say THIS is the Islam of the future in America.

I would not count on the m being that liberal. But they appear to be a step in the right direction. And again, it is not about their theology. It is about our Constitution.

 

[Big Chiller]

As a Liberal I just assumed it was us


If the center is truly multifaith, and as the founder is Sufi I expect if very well could be, then I personally think it would be a great center IF it addresses those concerns we in the non-Muslim community have. If the Sufi play their cards right they can leap-frog over the Catholics and show that newer forms of Islam can be modern, do accept other belief systems as equal, condemn religious supremacy, identify with homosexuals, and support female religious equality.

If they are able to do that then I'd say THIS is the Islam of the future in America.

It escapes me what all these can have anything to do with a mosque or even Islam.

 

[Michael]

It escapes me what all these can have anything to do with a mosque or even Islam.

Americans want to know the Islamic perspective on these topics. Liberal and Conservative Americans alike. THAT is the WHOLE point in having a multi-faith center isn't it - To education the public about Islam.

- China has female Imam's.
- New York has female Imam's and mixed congregations.
OK, so we'd like to see these Imam's invited to this center and given support by the Muslim community.

- There are homosexual churches.
- There are homosexual Muslims.
OK, so we'd like to see these clergy invited to this center and given support by the Muslim community. Especially given that homosexuals are murdered in Iran for being gay (or have to have their penis cut off). So, let's make sure Americans understand that this center is open minded in that regards.

- New York has a lot of Buddhist and polytheists.
OK, so as this is a true MULTI-faith center we'd like to see polytheists invited to this center and given support by the Muslim community.

- The land was originally Native American.
OK, so we'd like to see this MULTI-faith center support the original Americans faiths.


In short, IF this center is about educating people on Islam so that faiths are being integrated, supported and people walk away being tolerant on MULTI-faiths (AKA a multi-faith center) THEN YES I wholeheartedly support it being built. If it's going to be about typical Islamic Supremest Ideology - then NO I don't support it being built in New York or anywhere in the USA. As a Citizen I will vote YES if it progresses society and I will vote NO if it retards society. It's really that simple. I'm a US Citizen I get to have my say via my vote. That's how things work here in the USA.

 

[Michael]

I would not count on the m being that liberal. But they appear to be a step in the right direction. And again, it is not about their theology. It is about our Constitution.

The Constitution is only as good as the People it protects. We practiced Slavery under the US Constitution. We killed Native American's under the US Constitution.

I support the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I do not support building a KKK building anywhere. Even if it IS part of some people's religion. I just will not support it. I can not support going BACKWARDS to Slavery. I just can't. We've made some progress. We now think Racial Supremacy is wrong - well, most people (I hope). I can not support retarding that progress.

If this MULTI-faith center stands for tolerance and social progress and is about educating Muslims and non-Muslims alike on multiple faiths and teaching tolerant, then yes, I will support it. If it doesn't - then I don't. We're reaching THAT stage in development. Either we go forward with tolerance - or you can expect shit will hit the fan one way or another.




Let me put it another way.
I support Muslims building a Mosque ANYWHERE in the USA.
I support the KKK building a Christian Klan's Lodge ANYWHERE in the USA.
I certainly don't support some of the the ideologies taught in these buildings - and so in a sense, some of these ideologies will have to change.


I'm not sure what else I can say :shrug:

 

[Bells]

Then you agree that the mosque is in the centre, not the centre in the mosque.

I don't think it's a mosque personally.

Then bravo! You have just learned of a new and interesting way to threaten a woman. You know for a fact that she did not go to the police?

As an athiest, I shall remember to promptly go to the police anytime someone says 'God Bless You'.

The story does not report that she went to the police, which I find strange.

Suspicion no longer.

Which I had provided to you earlier in the thread and which you ignored in your trolling.

Now, $300,000 to him is apparently funding from extremism. But millions donated to Murdoch and the GOP is what? What about the billions he owns in shares in News Corp?

I'd suggest you actually read that article Geoff. It does not paint 'your side' in a good light.

The Islamic conservative racists will focus on the mosque, and forget the centre, as the uncritical supporter focuses on the centre, and forgets the mosque.

Not to mention that there's such a thing as da'wa.

And the protesters against this "mosque", the ones who are all about peace and all that will attack a black man walking down the street because they suspect he's a Muslim. Now, one we know is true, because it actually happened. And the other we have no proof of because not only has it not happened, but nothing has been shown to prove that he is being funded by extremists. He received a small donation from one individual who donates millions to the GOP and conservative media.

Och, I don't know: she sounds like a Catholic, Bells. I can't be reading the works of those evil people - I know it would upset you. I admit that I did glance at it, and even she seems to have put together two and two about the cross a bunch of assholes tried to erect at Auschwitz, for fuck's sake. So she gets it, but not that much of it.

Please don't troll.

Wrong. (Why do I bother?) You asked about strippers. I answered you. There's nothing twisted about it: radical strippers did not attack the WTC. If they had, I would consider a new stripper club more than tacky and veering to "inappropriate". I would consider it suspicious if they refused to say who was funding their new stripper centre, even if it had pools and child care and a theatre (probably a giveaway) and a gym.

If it had a library, I'd know something was wrong.

And you can prove that all Muslims who will pray there will be radicals or extremists? Yes? No? Or are we going to go on mere suspicion again? Are your spider senses tinkling?

Yes. A Saudi Arabian. Done and done, as they say.

And as has been pointed out, you still have no proof that your suspicions that the centre will be a place for extremists or being funded by extremists.

That Saudi Arabian gives millions to the Republicans and to the media, from which you are suckling from. He also owns billions in shares in that media. I say we shut them all down because they are being funded by extremists..

At this point, and due largely to your inaccurate citing, I have almost no idea what this is meant to refer to. I assume it has to do with your question about whether or not I support the Patriot Act - a response that you then twisted to fit your own prejudices - but you forget that it was you who asked me first about that.

And you have trolled and dodged your way around answering it.

And? I am going to put this bluntly: I saw the OP and chimed in. Your comment about the first surfacing of this issue looks much like paranoia. Usual question: do you have a link?

I have provided countless of links about the timing. You can either read them or stop trolling and asking for them. As you have claimed in another thread, you don't bother reading sources supplied to you. So this basically makes you a troll.

Not in the slightest. I've already discussed this: of course there are bomb threats. Lots of organizations get bomb threats. There's nothing to derail except a child's choo-choo.

So you condone such threats?

Ignore them?

Not suspicious about threats to bomb buildings? Why? Considering the ultra-right's tacit support for bombing abortion clinics, one would think you would be taking this a tad more seriously.

Sheer supposition on your part. You have no idea at all what she did and didn't do, and your defense of every aspect of this cherished idea of yours borders on the fanatical: it is far more likely that it was he who called, unless, again, he gives out regular access to his phone lines and her number and her philosophical bent.

My defense of this borders on the fanatical? Your posts in this thread have amounted to simple trolling. You have admitted you don't bother reading links provided to you at your request, where you then repeat the requests over and over again. You support a side that has taken to attacking black people walking down the street because they suspect he is a Muslim. And you accuse me of being fanatical?

It may very well have been he who called. So why did she not report him to the police? Why has he not been investigated by the police for threatening to kill someone?

Hard to believe. Sorry.

You know what? Fuck you, you dishonest and lying troll.

More hysteria. We've discussed all the aspects of this: moving on.

No. You have added something new. Where the dust fell. So is that the Islam exclusion zone?

A lie.

Where do I say I support Sharia Law troll?

That is precisely how it was meant: an unqualified attack on me, and on the opinion of at least one group who doesn't fit into your narrow definition of who is allowed to have a legitimate opinion on the subject. And you know it.

That is what you deserve after your behaviour in this thread. It was not a personal attack at all. But you don't deserve to be taken seriously at all. You have consistently trolled, not bothered to read any links provided to you or read any evidence provided to you and then went on to repeatedly request proof. Which makes you a dishonest troll.

Then partisan politics has uncovered an issue that is genuinely an issue, as illustrated by Saudi support of the mosque.

$300,000 for a $100 million project is Saudi support? He also donates to a range of charities (a hell of a lot more money actually), the GOP and News Corp. Should we shut all those institutions down, disband the GOP and barr them from holding office for taking millions upon millions from the Saudi?

No, your point is simplistic: why is Geller biting the hand that feeds her?

Because she is a racist bigot who does not care who funds her as long as she can spout her racism and bigotry?

I see my interest as inherently humanitarian, because I am a humanitarian. I tried to have some kind of a conversation with you about this - balancing the greater of the two evils - but you threw a tantrum at every turn. Your claim that you want no man to dictate what a woman wears wore a little thin when you turned a blind eye to the issue of forcible compliance.

If you are a humanitarian, then I am the Queen of England. You couldn't even figure out that the Rwandan Genocide was a genocide. It had to be proven to you. You support denying people their constitutional rights based on mere suspicion without any proof. You support Governments dictating what women wear and how she and others are to display their religious beliefs. Those are not the actions of a humanitarian.

Repeat away: it is of no relevance now.

Troll.

You have done almost literally nothing of the kind. Every comment of yours is loaded, every question an accusation, every honest and fair response twisted by you into something unseemly.

I have been very open with you and have asked my questions openly. It is all there Geoff. You have dodged and trolled throughout this thread.

You have been consistently dishonest and have even admitted to not bothering to read anything provided in this thread.

Well, as they say: garbage in, garbage out. You seem to be trying to delve into my 'conspiratorial ways', which simply don't exist. "Why didn't you see it then, Geoff?! Why not?! It was front-page news, Geoff!? Except that it was reported on really quietly and slipped by everyone?!" I've no idea when such reports even occurred, yet you seem to think I've been following this since then with my sekrit decoder ring. So I treat you appropriately; your behavior, as they say, is "unfit". This is not my fault.

My point, is that this issue is so important that it was ignored for 6 months. Does not exactly make sense. After 6 months it was turned into a political issue and sheep like you lap it up and repeat the same things that have been fed to you. You completely disregard that it was ignored for 6 whole months. But apparently making hatred a Muslims a political issue is the kind of fodder you like to feed on.

Also wrong. Heck, now that I bother to glance at one of your links, you've provided it yourself.

And you are a dishonest troll.

 

[IamJoseph]

Let me put it another way.
I support Muslims building a Mosque ANYWHERE in the USA.
I support the KKK building a Christian Klan's Lodge ANYWHERE in the USA.
I certainly don't support some of the the ideologies taught in these buildings - and so in a sense, some of these ideologies will have to change.


I'm not sure what else I can say :shrug:

How about - 'RECIPROCITY' from the Islamic world - in kind?

 

[IamJoseph]

There is one point in this article I fully agree with: America is guilty for following the European history of supporting terror regimes. The notion of making these regimes as allies and calling them America's national interests - does have the blood of many innocent folk. The only correct answer, and the saving of muslim lives - is to negate the Regimes and the regime appointed clerics and media. This is only possible by first negating the crimes of Europe's creation of these regimes.

August 24, 2010

A ‘moderate Muslim’ exposed

By Steven Emerson





The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has of non-Muslims, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the effort to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York, told an Australian audience in July 2005.

In a taped speech, Rauf made a number of comments that would make anyone who is not concerned about the mosque at the Ground Zero site rethink their support for the man tasked with heading the "bridge-building" center. Among them [click on the play button to hear each one]:

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it."


(IPT fact check: A report by the British government said at most only 50,000 deaths could be attributed to the sanctions, which were brought on by the actions by former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.)

The United States has supported authoritarian regimes, Rauf said, and it's understandable that people in those nations would take action into their own hands. "Collateral damage is a nice thing to put on a paper but when the collateral damage is your own uncle or cousin, what passions do these arouse? How do you negotiate? How do you tell people whose homes have been destroyed, whose lives have been destroyed, that this does not justify your actions of terrorism. It's hard. Yes, it is true that it does not justify the acts of bombing innocent civilians, that does not solve the problem, but after 50 years of, in many cases, oppression, of US support of authoritarian regimes that have violated human rights in the most heinous of ways, how else do people get attention?"


(IPT fact check: This is justifying acts of terrorism by blaming the United States for the oppression of Islamic regimes of their own citizens. This also ignores U.S. aid of Muslim citizens in nations such as Kosovo and Kuwait).

Asked why Muslims commit suicide bombings, Rauf belittled the fanatical religious motivation of such attacks and said: "But what makes people, in my opinion, commit suicide for political reasons have their origins in politics and political objectives and worldly objectives rather than other worldly objectives. But the psychology of human beings and the brittleness of the human condition and how many of us have thought about taking our own lives, we may be jilted, had a bad relationship, you know, didn't get tenure at the university, failed an important course, there's a host of reason why people feel so depressed with themselves that they are willing to contemplate ending their own lives. And if you can access those individuals and deploy them for your own worldly objectives, this is exactly what has happened in much of the Muslim world. "


(IPT fact check: Here Rauf tries to negate that suicide bombings are driven by Islamic religious beliefs and trying to equate terrorist activity to someone who doesn't get tenure.)

On Israel, Rauf said he does not favor the plan to establish a Palestinian state along with Israel. Instead, "The differences, perhaps, may lie on whether the solution lies in the two-state solution or in a one-state solution. I believe that you had someone here recently who spoke about having a one land and two people's solution to Israel. And I personally - my own personal analysis tells me that a one-state solution is a more coherent one than a two-state solution. So if we address the underlying issue, if we figure out a way to create condominiums, to condominiamise Israel and Palestine so you have two peoples co-existing on one state, then we have a different paradigm which will allow us to move forward."


(IPT fact check: A one-state solution is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel, because Palestinian Muslims will quickly outnumber the Jewish resident of Israel. Such a position is advocated by radical groups, such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.)

"And when we observe terrorism," he said, "whether it was done by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or by al Qaida or whoever is behind the bombings in London or those in Madrid, we can see that they were target political objectives.


(IPT fact check: Rauf again seems to justify terrorist acts by equating hitting civilians with political objectives.)

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0810/emerson082410.php3

 

[GeoffP]

Raufhousing

I don't think it's a mosque personally.

Then you appear to be incorrect.

As an athiest, I shall remember to promptly go to the police anytime someone says 'God Bless You'.

The story does not report that she went to the police, which I find strange.

It is very difficult to say what goes through the mind of a person threatened with violence; and I can speak from personal experience. I find it strange that you think the story should have reported this explicitly. But tell me: do you suspect the Muslim Canadian Congress of being a front group for Fox News?

Which I had provided to you earlier in the thread and which you ignored in your trolling.

How can one "ignore something in trolling"?

Now, $300,000 to him is apparently funding from extremism. But millions donated to Murdoch and the GOP is what? What about the billions he owns in shares in News Corp?

Actually what I said was that it demonstrates that he's receiving funding from Saudi sources; I expect that if you find one you'll find others. As for what he owns in NewsCorp and has given to Murdoch: alarming indeed. What do you think it means?

And the other we have no proof of because not only has it not happened

Er, sorry? Which has not happened?

, but nothing has been shown to prove that he is being funded by extremists. He received a small donation from one individual who donates millions to the GOP and conservative media.

And this doesn't alarm you either? You must possess remarkable sang-froid,

Please don't troll.

Define how that was trolling, please. Thanks.

And you can prove that all Muslims who will pray there will be radicals or extremists? Yes? No? Or are we going to go on mere suspicion again? Are your spider senses tinkling?

Well, at least we've left the stripper analogy behind. As for all Muslims that pray there: is that the demarcation of societal interest? If the centre turned out to be a source of hate speech and religious intolerance, it wouldn't matter if some or all or none of the Muslims attending it were extremists; the board of directors and the organizers would have to be dealt with via laws related to hate speech. But what are you implying here? That I would want all the attendees arrested?

That Saudi Arabian gives millions to the Republicans and to the media, from which you are suckling from. He also owns billions in shares in that media. I say we shut them all down because they are being funded by extremists..

I assume you mean Fox? That's fine. I'll continue to rely on AP and the Telegraph and so forth.

And you have trolled and dodged your way around answering it.

A lie. :shrug: I explained the point to which I could support it. In parallel I raised the issue of Sharia law. I'm sorry you see this as trolling.

I have provided countless of links about the timing. You can either read them or stop trolling and asking for them. As you have claimed in another thread, you don't bother reading sources supplied to you. So this basically makes you a troll.

I think I asked for them once and once only. The bolded text is false. Your supposition is therefore incorrect.

So you condone such threats?

Not suspicious about threats to bomb buildings? Why? Considering the ultra-right's tacit support for bombing abortion clinics, one would think you would be taking this a tad more seriously.

Given that every political organization recieves death and bombing threats, I don't think my response unrealistic. You do dismiss a personal threat to a woman, however, which is reprehensible IMHO.

My defense of this borders on the fanatical? Your posts in this thread have amounted to simple trolling. You have admitted you don't bother reading links provided to you at your request, where you then repeat the requests over and over again. You support a side that has taken to attacking black people walking down the street because they suspect he is a Muslim. And you accuse me of being fanatical?

Fanatical or hysterical; you claim this storied history of involvement in women's issues, but hide your head in the sand when a woman is threatened by the owner of the site for her 'nosiness'. Or do you suppose the head of the MCC is some kind of plant? This is absurd, Bells.

It may very well have been he who called. So why did she not report him to the police? Why has he not been investigated by the police for threatening to kill someone?

You don't know either of those things.

You know what? Fuck you, you dishonest and lying troll.

Sorry, Bells: you go ages and ages and suddenly pull a personal trump card out of your rear end. I don't believe you. You can live with that, or not live with that. I would be happy to give a full apology if you can produce any post or comment about this individual prior to this point. However, a personal link to this tragedy does not produce emotional points in the debate. And personal attacks are pointless.

No. You have added something new. Where the dust fell. So is that the Islam exclusion zone?

Converse: where is the inclusion zone? How close is close enough?

Where do I say I support Sharia Law troll?

Again:

Sharia Law? Like any law, it can have its faults. Like any law, if applied fairly, it would work for those who choose to live in that jurisdiction. Like any law, it can be fair as it can be unfair. What is your point?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2607855&postcount=472

This is equivalance. I would expect more of a refusal of an implicitly misogynist system.

That is what you deserve after your behaviour in this thread. It was not a personal attack at all.

So you assume that dismissing my opinions because of my race should be taken as - what?

$300,000 for a $100 million project is Saudi support? He also donates to a range of charities (a hell of a lot more money actually), the GOP and News Corp. Should we shut all those institutions down, disband the GOP and barr them from holding office for taking millions upon millions from the Saudi?

Sounds like a good start.

Because she is a racist bigot who does not care who funds her as long as she can spout her racism and bigotry?

?? Okaaaay: well, let's demonstrate her racism to start with.

If you are a humanitarian, then I am the Queen of England. You couldn't even figure out that the Rwandan Genocide was a genocide.

Heh. I was leaning more towards "Rwandan Holocaust", frankly, given it's size. I wasn't sure there was much genetic difference between them; sort of a moot point, I suppose. Is it a Holocaust or Genocide? Is a Holocaust meant to be smaller or larger than a Genocide? It's not a malicious question, Bells.

It had to be proven to you.

Ahhhh - now I see what your hysteria was about. You thought I considered it neither? Although I'm fairly sure I pointed out what my considerations actually were in the process, so I'm not sure why this is still confusing to you. We can discuss in more detail if you like.

You support denying people their constitutional rights based on mere suspicion without any proof.

The old falsehood again: false, as if that needed to be said.

You support Governments dictating what women wear and how she and others are to display their religious beliefs.

Actually I saw it as possibly the lesser of two evils. I think you're jumping to conclusions here again.

Those are not the actions of a humanitarian.

Words actually. Is it more humanitarian to prevent social and familial pressure to conform, or to allow free choice that is heavily affected by social and familial pressure to conform? This isn't a trivial issue, Bells.

Troll.

Not at all: your links illustrated that Saudi money does indeed go to Rauf's organization. Talal may or may not be a "clean character"; most of his actions seem humanitarian, but then again some of his support ended up paying off families of shaheeds. Perhaps he wasn't aware. But it's difficult to argue now that Rauf didn't lie about receiving external funds for the build. I think my point has been accidentally demonstrated. The question is now where the rest of it is coming from.

And you are a dishonest troll.

To make this claim, you would have to prove it. If you really believe that, Bells, I highly recommend you report me to the admins and the owners of the site. The "Report" button is right there. Best of luck.

 

[phlogistician]

http://blog.buzzflash.com/alerts/792

Suspicion no longer.

Oh, a link to a Blog where unsubstantiated claims are made. Hardly concrete proof. In fact, it just sounds like a smear campaign.

You really must try harder.

 

[joepistole]

The Constitution is only as good as the People it protects.

A profound statement, and I think you and I agree. The Constitution when it was created, did not forbid slavery. But the Constitution did provide a mechanism for change as its citizens changed.

I too hope that we can become a more peaceful, tolerant, reasoned and prosperpous nation.

 

[joepistole]

The Constitution is only as good as the People it protects.

A profound statement, and I think you and I agree. The Constitution when it was created, did not forbid slavery. But the Constitution did provide a mechanism for change as its citizens changed.

I too hope that we can become a more peaceful, tolerant, reasoned and prosperous nation.

 

[GeoffP]

Oh, a link to a Blog where unsubstantiated claims are made. Hardly concrete proof. In fact, it just sounds like a smear campaign.

You really must try harder.

Hehe. A blog that agrees with the central point of your post. You recall that I was dismissing Bells' linked argument as an irrelevant side-line. Yours dealt with it directly, but gave no link, so I hunted one up. If you don't like the blog, check out its links.

(Incidentally: a smear campaign against conservatives, I'd thought. Are you a conservative? I hadn't thought so.)

So: thanks for the tip. :shrug: A suggestion though:

Consider a bit
Before "Submit"

 

[Photizo]

I too hope that we can become a more peaceful, tolerant, reasoned and prosperous nation.

You're dreaming. Things tend to run down and deteriorate. WRT society, progressives only accelerate the process.

 

[joepistole]

You're dreaming. Things tend to run down and deteriorate. WRT society, progressives only accelerate the process.

LOL, it was a statement of hope. You do understand what a hope is don't you?

 

[Pandaemoni]

Things tend to run down and deteriorate. WRT society, progressives only accelerate the process.

Progressives make conservatives better human beings, by imposing increasingly broad standards of tolerance and inclusion onto society. How many people actually want to return to pre-1960's racial or gender policies in America? Of that number, how many people would admit openly that they want that?

Conservatives do prevent progressives from giving away the store and leaving us broke, so they also have a useful place.

On deterioration generally, while America today isn't in the shape it was in the 1990s, imo, the trend has been upwards. Anyone who wants to return to the America of yore, I suspect, doesn't now much about the America of your save for some romantic fantasies.

 

[joepistole]

Progressives make conservatives better human beings, by imposing increasingly broad standards of tolerance and inclusion onto society. How many people actually want to return to pre-1960's racial or gender policies in America? Of that number, how many people would admit openly that they want that?

Conservatives do prevent progressives from giving away the store and leaving us broke, so they also have a useful place.

On deterioration generally, while America today isn't in the shape it was in the 1990s, imo, the trend has been upwards. Anyone who wants to return to the America of yore, I suspect, doesn't now much about the America of your save for some romantic fantasies.

Agreed.

 

[spidergoat]

"We've Got To Stop The Mosque At Ground Zero"

Youtube video of new anti-mosque song. No, it's not from South Park!

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Americans want to know the Islamic perspective on these topics. Liberal and Conservative Americans alike. THAT is the WHOLE point in having a multi-faith center isn't it - To education the public about Islam.

- China has female Imam's.
- New York has female Imam's and mixed congregations.
OK, so we'd like to see these Imam's invited to this center and given support by the Muslim community.

- There are homosexual churches.
- There are homosexual Muslims.
OK, so we'd like to see these clergy invited to this center and given support by the Muslim community. Especially given that homosexuals are murdered in Iran for being gay (or have to have their penis cut off). So, let's make sure Americans understand that this center is open minded in that regards.

- New York has a lot of Buddhist and polytheists.
OK, so as this is a true MULTI-faith center we'd like to see polytheists invited to this center and given support by the Muslim community.

- The land was originally Native American.
OK, so we'd like to see this MULTI-faith center support the original Americans faiths.

Support? In what way? Further what about the opinions of Conservatives such as myself? Homosexuality is a sin, regardless of whether or not the centre will allow people of other faiths to come and learn, you can't pervert the message of Islam. Yes, there are homosexuals whom are Muslim however this doesn't mean that this behavior and lifestyle that they are engaging in isn't sinful just like I know there are Muslims whom drink and sell alcohol and gamble, that is also sinful. I don't think the centre should advocate or condone what is haram. The message should be that homosexuals are people and deserve respect and tolerance like any other human being however in Islam this behavior is a sin. Just like Christians and Jews can drink alcohol but I don't there should be a bar or mini casino in the centre. I mean, this is an Islamic Centre.