Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second Mosque Near Ground Zero (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

that argument fails at the point you realize the penalty for homosexuality under Islamic law is death.

tommyboy, what do you suppose the penalty for homosexuality is under Judeo-Christian law, according to Leviticus?

and your point is?

THat you have no understanding whatsoever of what Sharia law means. You think that all Muslims who say they believe in Sharia take all of it's instructions literally. But the actual truth is that only a very small, fanatic minority do. If you had ever studied Talmudic law (which can be just as extreme) you would know this. But since Christianity is a religion without as many strict laws written into it, it is easy for Christians to make this mistake. The sect that Imam Rauf belongs to, the Sufi, have a very liberal interpretation of the Sharia- the analogy I would give you is that the Sufi are like Reformed Jews, while you seem to want to group them in with Hasidic Jews.The error you are making is quite similar to the one made by the anti-Semites who wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the 19th Century. That book took the most extreme language of the Talmud, gave it literal intepretations and attempted to apply it to all Jews who practiced their belief in "The Law." It is an error which leads to great prejudice. You are too smart a guy to make it.

the problem you have is that entire nations currently practice Sharia law, large swaths of Islamic areas in the world practice Sharia law today, in all its barbaric glory. There are very few places on this planet where old Judaic law is practiced. An observer would conclude today that until all of Islam reforms to expel the "old" mindset, as it is practiced today it is incompatible with modern western democratic values.

There is currently only one country in the world which claims to practice fundamentalist Sharia law, and that is Iran. Even they don't really practice it, instead a sort of Shia version of it that has been corrupted over the years. The Taliban practiced an even stricter form of it, but they no longer govern a country. Other Muslim nations, like Saudi Arabia, practice certain aspects of Sharia law, possibly. I say possibly because this is open to interpretation.But here is the main point: there is no Muslim country in the world which is currently governed by Sufis. If there were, it would be MUCH more liberal than any of the Muslim countries currently. Sufis believe in Sharia, but in the most moderate, liberal terms, in the same way as reformed Jews believe in Judiasm. There is a reason that George W. Bush chose a Sufi Imam to speak after 9/11. Sufis are exactly the sort of Muslims we need to encourage! Yet here you are, attempting to group them in with the most extreme radicals. You and those like you who have spoken out on this couldn't do this nation's interest more harm if you tried.

 

[McJose]

i think you guys are outlawyering each other here. Americans see Muslims flying airplanes, not Osama bin Laden. Therefore it would follow that Americans of our generation, having suffered a shock, would have a negative image of Muslims/Islam. Gallup backs that up http://www.gallup.com/poll/125312/Religiou...st-Muslims.aspx

Doesn't mean it's right.

itd be like telling Americans they needed to put up a Shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor around Dec of 1951.

No, not really. Nobody is telling Americans to put up a mosque.

 

[ScottyFargo]

that argument fails at the point you realize the penalty for homosexuality under Islamic law is death.

tommyboy, what do you suppose the penalty for homosexuality is under Judeo-Christian law, according to Leviticus?

and your point is?

THat you have no understanding whatsoever of what Sharia law means. You think that all Muslims who say they believe in Sharia take all of it's instructions literally. But the actual truth is that only a very small, fanatic minority do. If you had ever studied Talmudic law (which can be just as extreme) you would know this. But since Christianity is a religion without as many strict laws written into it, it is easy for Christians to make this mistake. The sect that Imam Rauf belongs to, the Sufi, have a very liberal interpretation of the Sharia- the analogy I would give you is that the Sufi are like Reformed Jews, while you seem to want to group them in with Hasidic Jews.The error you are making is quite similar to the one made by the anti-Semites who wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the 19th Century. That book took the most extreme language of the Talmud, gave it literal intepretations and attempted to apply it to all Jews who practiced their belief in "The Law." It is an error which leads to great prejudice. You are too smart a guy to make it.

the problem you have is that entire nations currently practice Sharia law, large swaths of Islamic areas in the world practice Sharia law today, in all its barbaric glory. There are very few places on this planet where old Judaic law is practiced. An observer would conclude today that until all of Islam reforms to expel the "old" mindset, as it is practiced today it is incompatible with modern western democratic values.

You guys are really worried about phantom Islamic law taking over the U.S. constitution. Fear has got you . None of that matters here in America. None of it should impact how we operate in America. To deviate from the precedent of freedom of religion is to walk backwards.

 

[Desert_Power]

Looks like we have gotten to the argument that letting them build a community center next to some porno shops a couple of blocks from Ground Zero will allow Sharia law to replace the Constitution? Really, some of you guys need to get a grip.

 

[Bogeys]

Looks like we have gotten to the argument that letting them build a community center next to some porno shops a couple of blocks from Ground Zero will allow Sharia law to replace the Constitution? Really, some of you guys need to get a grip.

Yeah, because that is what people have said. Never mind, I knew better than to get into this conversation. Hyperbole is running rampant on both sides in here...carry on.

 

[timschochet]

Is this guy a radical?1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.3) says America is Sharia compliant state.4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

1. He was asked to explain why many Muslims around the world felt the attack was justfied (which this Imam did not.) He was trying to explain their POV, not his own.2. He points out, as many others have done, that Osama Bin Laden was aided by Americans during the Russian/Afghan conflict and came to prominence at that time. This is the truth, not a radical position.3. As I have explained above, his version of Sharia is extremely liberal. In arguing that America is Sharia compliant, he is arguing AGAINST radical fundamentalist Muslims- he is trying to point out that individual liberty and freedom of thought and religion are accepted elements within the Muslim religion despite what the radicals think. 4. I don't know the details of this, but I don't think it's relevant to the issue at hand.We have been over and over this. No this guy is not a radical. He is the exact opposite- the sort of Muslim we need to encourage.

 

[perry147]

tommyboy, what do you suppose the penalty for homosexuality is under Judeo-Christian law, according to Leviticus?

and your point is?

THat you have no understanding whatsoever of what Sharia law means. You think that all Muslims who say they believe in Sharia take all of it's instructions literally. But the actual truth is that only a very small, fanatic minority do. If you had ever studied Talmudic law (which can be just as extreme) you would know this. But since Christianity is a religion without as many strict laws written into it, it is easy for Christians to make this mistake. The sect that Imam Rauf belongs to, the Sufi, have a very liberal interpretation of the Sharia- the analogy I would give you is that the Sufi are like Reformed Jews, while you seem to want to group them in with Hasidic Jews.The error you are making is quite similar to the one made by the anti-Semites who wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the 19th Century. That book took the most extreme language of the Talmud, gave it literal intepretations and attempted to apply it to all Jews who practiced their belief in "The Law." It is an error which leads to great prejudice. You are too smart a guy to make it.

the problem you have is that entire nations currently practice Sharia law, large swaths of Islamic areas in the world practice Sharia law today, in all its barbaric glory. There are very few places on this planet where old Judaic law is practiced. An observer would conclude today that until all of Islam reforms to expel the "old" mindset, as it is practiced today it is incompatible with modern western democratic values.

You guys are really worried about phantom Islamic law taking over the U.S. constitution. Fear has got you . None of that matters here in America. None of it should impact how we operate in America. To deviate from the precedent of freedom of religion is to walk backwards.

They are not worried about Islamic law taking over here in the US, just like DEATH PANELS in the health care debate.

 

[EasyMorningRebel]

Is this guy a radical?1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.3) says America is Sharia compliant state.4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

1. He was asked to explain why many Muslims around the world felt the attack was justfied (which this Imam did not.) He was trying to explain their POV, not his own.2. He points out, as many others have done, that Osama Bin Laden was aided by Americans during the Russian/Afghan conflict and came to prominence at that time. This is the truth, not a radical position.3. As I have explained above, his version of Sharia is extremely liberal. In arguing that America is Sharia compliant, he is arguing AGAINST radical fundamentalist Muslims- he is trying to point out that individual liberty and freedom of thought and religion are accepted elements within the Muslim religion despite what the radicals think. 4. I don't know the details of this, but I don't think it's relevant to the issue at hand.We have been over and over this. No this guy is not a radical. He is the exact opposite- the sort of Muslim we need to encourage.

What if you're wrong? Then what?

 

[badmojo1006]

Is this guy a radical?1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.3) says America is Sharia compliant state.4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

4. You do you that Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the supposed main backing behind the mosque, is the second largest shareholder of NewsCorp (Parent company of FOX news)? And you wonder why they demonize him as a terrorist, but never mention his name?

 

[timschochet]

Is this guy a radical?1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.3) says America is Sharia compliant state.4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

1. He was asked to explain why many Muslims around the world felt the attack was justfied (which this Imam did not.) He was trying to explain their POV, not his own.2. He points out, as many others have done, that Osama Bin Laden was aided by Americans during the Russian/Afghan conflict and came to prominence at that time. This is the truth, not a radical position.3. As I have explained above, his version of Sharia is extremely liberal. In arguing that America is Sharia compliant, he is arguing AGAINST radical fundamentalist Muslims- he is trying to point out that individual liberty and freedom of thought and religion are accepted elements within the Muslim religion despite what the radicals think. 4. I don't know the details of this, but I don't think it's relevant to the issue at hand.We have been over and over this. No this guy is not a radical. He is the exact opposite- the sort of Muslim we need to encourage.

What if you're wrong? Then what?

You mean what if this guy who has been a Sufi his entire life, who has given hundreds of lectures about Sufism and hundreds of sermons, who has written many books on the subject, turns out to be a total fraud about his beliefs and is really a fanatical Muslim bent on the destruction of the United States? I suppose anything's possible, but it seems pretty far-fetched.

 

[perry147]

Is this guy a radical?1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.3) says America is Sharia compliant state.4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

4. You do you that Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the supposed main backing behind the mosque, is the second largest shareholder of NewsCorp (Parent company of FOX news)? And you wonder why they demonize him as a terrorist, but never mention his name?

 

[the moops]

What if you're wrong? Then what?

Wrong about what?

 

[timschochet]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

 

[EasyMorningRebel]

Is this guy a radical?1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.3) says America is Sharia compliant state.4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

1. He was asked to explain why many Muslims around the world felt the attack was justfied (which this Imam did not.) He was trying to explain their POV, not his own.2. He points out, as many others have done, that Osama Bin Laden was aided by Americans during the Russian/Afghan conflict and came to prominence at that time. This is the truth, not a radical position.3. As I have explained above, his version of Sharia is extremely liberal. In arguing that America is Sharia compliant, he is arguing AGAINST radical fundamentalist Muslims- he is trying to point out that individual liberty and freedom of thought and religion are accepted elements within the Muslim religion despite what the radicals think. 4. I don't know the details of this, but I don't think it's relevant to the issue at hand.We have been over and over this. No this guy is not a radical. He is the exact opposite- the sort of Muslim we need to encourage.

What if you're wrong? Then what?

You mean what if this guy who has been a Sufi his entire life, who has given hundreds of lectures about Sufism and hundreds of sermons, who has written many books on the subject, turns out to be a total fraud about his beliefs and is really a fanatical Muslim bent on the destruction of the United States? I suppose anything's possible, but it seems pretty far-fetched.

I agree with you. But I don't fault the speculation.

 

[badmojo1006]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

He is playing the current Republican line. Can you imagine the outrage from the right if Bush stood up and spoke the truth?He would become the Jimmy Carter of the right

 

[Christo]

Is this guy a radical?1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.3) says America is Sharia compliant state.4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

I'm not on the left. It does raise at least one eyebrow. He may be a radical. But I still fail to see how it's enough to legally stop this project from going forward.

 

[ScottyFargo]

And frankly, I didn't read all that much of the article. I giggled when I saw bigot, then noticed there was another link at the bottom that used the same word and never really bothered to read much on our pastor. I figured the person writing it wasn't worth reading by that point.

This was all so obvious you didn't need to say it, of course. But despite your willful ignorance, sometimes calling a person a bigot is for more than just shock value. It actually applies to individuals that are "intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on religion, politics, or race." Or "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." So you figuring that someone isn't worth reading because they are accurately describing someone says more about you than the subject at hand.

 

[Christo]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

He has no more responsibility to speak out than I do.

 

[ScottyFargo]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

He has no more responsibility to speak out than I do.

That's why it's weak.

 

[EasyMorningRebel]

Is this guy a radical?

1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).

2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.

3) says America is Sharia compliant state.

4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?

Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

I'm not on the left. It does raise at least one eyebrow. He may be a radical. But I still fail to see how it's enough to legally stop this project from going forward.

I think it's disingenuous of folks who claim otherwise. I'd rather be true to our freedoms and laws and to our constitution and have to give the Mosque group the benefit of the doubt - regardless of the risk - than the alternative.

 

[flufhed]

Is this guy a radical?1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.3) says America is Sharia compliant state.4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

1. He was asked to explain why many Muslims around the world felt the attack was justfied (which this Imam did not.) He was trying to explain their POV, not his own.2. He points out, as many others have done, that Osama Bin Laden was aided by Americans during the Russian/Afghan conflict and came to prominence at that time. This is the truth, not a radical position.3. As I have explained above, his version of Sharia is extremely liberal. In arguing that America is Sharia compliant, he is arguing AGAINST radical fundamentalist Muslims- he is trying to point out that individual liberty and freedom of thought and religion are accepted elements within the Muslim religion despite what the radicals think. 4. I don't know the details of this, but I don't think it's relevant to the issue at hand.We have been over and over this. No this guy is not a radical. He is the exact opposite- the sort of Muslim we need to encourage.

What if you're wrong? Then what?

Then we'll end up with a muslim building with a prayer room 2 blocks or so from the World Trade Center?

 

[flufhed]

Is this guy a radical?1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.3) says America is Sharia compliant state.4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

I'm not on the left. It does raise at least one eyebrow. He may be a radical. But I still fail to see how it's enough to legally stop this project from going forward.

:X

 

[Radio Free Homer]

Is this guy a radical?

1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).

2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.

3) says America is Sharia compliant state.

4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?

Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

Link?

 

[EasyMorningRebel]

Is this guy a radical?1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.3) says America is Sharia compliant state.4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

4. You do you that Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the supposed main backing behind the mosque, is the second largest shareholder of NewsCorp (Parent company of FOX news)? And you wonder why they demonize him as a terrorist, but never mention his name?

Link?

 

[Radio Free Homer]

Is this guy a radical?

1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).

2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.

3) says America is Sharia compliant state.

4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?

Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

4. You do you that Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the supposed main backing behind the mosque, is the second largest shareholder of NewsCorp (Parent company of FOX news)? And you wonder why they demonize him as a terrorist, but never mention his name?

Link?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0810...the_mosque.html

 

[tommyboy]

There is currently only one country in the world which claims to practice fundamentalist Sharia law, and that is Iran. Even they don't really practice it, instead a sort of Shia version of it that has been corrupted over the years. The Taliban practiced an even stricter form of it, but they no longer govern a country. Other Muslim nations, like Saudi Arabia, practice certain aspects of Sharia law, possibly. I say possibly because this is open to interpretation.

this is false. Sharia is practiced in many nations including indonesia, turkey, pakistan, iran, saudi arabia, india, sudan, egypt, and even in limited form in Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countrie...Sharia_rule.png heres' a map

But here is the main point: there is no Muslim country in the world which is currently governed by Sufis. If there were, it would be MUCH more liberal than any of the Muslim countries currently. Sufis believe in Sharia, but in the most moderate, liberal terms, in the same way as reformed Jews believe in Judiasm. There is a reason that George W. Bush chose a Sufi Imam to speak after 9/11. Sufis are exactly the sort of Muslims we need to encourage! Yet here you are, attempting to group them in with the most extreme radicals. You and those like you who have spoken out on this couldn't do this nation's interest more harm if you tried.

i can think of a way to do more harm that involves airplanes, boxcutters and innocent people.

 

[timschochet]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

He has no more responsibility to speak out than I do.

Not true. I guess you were never a Spider-man fan.Bush was president of the United States. That gives him great responsibilities for the rest of his life. IMO it is his absolute duty to speak out on issues like this one. Other former presidents have understood this duty and acted upon it, and even risked the ridicule of their own political party by doing so. If this were a minor issue I would agree that he needn't say anything. But the issue of whether or not we as Americans blame Islam in general for 9/11 is central to Bush's presidency and his legacy. He needs to speak out.

 

[bigbottom]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

He has no more responsibility to speak out than I do.

Not true. I guess you were never a Spider-man fan.Bush was president of the United States. That gives him great responsibilities for the rest of his life. IMO it is his absolute duty to speak out on issues like this one. Other former presidents have understood this duty and acted upon it, and even risked the ridicule of their own political party by doing so. If this were a minor issue I would agree that he needn't say anything. But the issue of whether or not we as Americans blame Islam in general for 9/11 is central to Bush's presidency and his legacy. He needs to speak out.

I thought it was understood that past presidents usually stay out of the spotlight on controversial political issues so as not to upstage the current administration.

 

[timschochet]

There is currently only one country in the world which claims to practice fundamentalist Sharia law, and that is Iran. Even they don't really practice it, instead a sort of Shia version of it that has been corrupted over the years. The Taliban practiced an even stricter form of it, but they no longer govern a country. Other Muslim nations, like Saudi Arabia, practice certain aspects of Sharia law, possibly. I say possibly because this is open to interpretation.

this is false. Sharia is practiced in many nations including indonesia, turkey, pakistan, iran, saudi arabia, india, sudan, egypt, and even in limited form in Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countrie...Sharia_rule.png heres' a map

But here is the main point: there is no Muslim country in the world which is currently governed by Sufis. If there were, it would be MUCH more liberal than any of the Muslim countries currently. Sufis believe in Sharia, but in the most moderate, liberal terms, in the same way as reformed Jews believe in Judiasm. There is a reason that George W. Bush chose a Sufi Imam to speak after 9/11. Sufis are exactly the sort of Muslims we need to encourage! Yet here you are, attempting to group them in with the most extreme radicals. You and those like you who have spoken out on this couldn't do this nation's interest more harm if you tried.

i can think of a way to do more harm that involves airplanes, boxcutters and innocent people.

1. Neither you nor the people you're quoting have any idea what Sharia law involves. Your use of the term is so nebulous it harbors on ridiculous. It's like saying John Calvin imposed "Christian Law" on Geneva. He imposed Calvin law, and called it Christian law.2. It is my firm conviction that your view of this situation, and those who share your view, are going to increase the chances of more terrorism to strike at this country. You are making our enemies' job easier, and you are helping to increase their numbers.

 

[Christo]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

He has no more responsibility to speak out than I do.

Not true. I guess you were never a Spider-man fan.Bush was president of the United States. That gives him great responsibilities for the rest of his life. IMO it is his absolute duty to speak out on issues like this one. Other former presidents have understood this duty and acted upon it, and even risked the ridicule of their own political party by doing so. If this were a minor issue I would agree that he needn't say anything. But the issue of whether or not we as Americans blame Islam in general for 9/11 is central to Bush's presidency and his legacy. He needs to speak out.

I know it's surprising, but I once again disagree with everything you have to say on this topic.

 

[timschochet]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

He has no more responsibility to speak out than I do.

Not true. I guess you were never a Spider-man fan.Bush was president of the United States. That gives him great responsibilities for the rest of his life. IMO it is his absolute duty to speak out on issues like this one. Other former presidents have understood this duty and acted upon it, and even risked the ridicule of their own political party by doing so. If this were a minor issue I would agree that he needn't say anything. But the issue of whether or not we as Americans blame Islam in general for 9/11 is central to Bush's presidency and his legacy. He needs to speak out.

I thought it was understood that past presidents usually stay out of the spotlight on controversial political issues so as not to upstage the current administration.

They're not supposed to criticize the current president. But this issue only involves Obama on a peripheral basis. In this case, Bush would be coming to the support of the current president, and that has happened a lot all throughout American history. Examples:Herbert Hoover, a longtime critic of FDR, coming to his support regarding aid to Britain in 1940 and Lend-Lease against the isolationists.Dwight Eisenhower, no friend of LBJ, coming to Johnson's support regarding the Vietnam War against Johnson's critics in Congress.Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and George Bush coming to the support of Bill Clinton on NAFTA.Those are off the top of my head; I could probably look up dozens of other examples.

 

[timschochet]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

He has no more responsibility to speak out than I do.

Not true. I guess you were never a Spider-man fan.Bush was president of the United States. That gives him great responsibilities for the rest of his life. IMO it is his absolute duty to speak out on issues like this one. Other former presidents have understood this duty and acted upon it, and even risked the ridicule of their own political party by doing so. If this were a minor issue I would agree that he needn't say anything. But the issue of whether or not we as Americans blame Islam in general for 9/11 is central to Bush's presidency and his legacy. He needs to speak out.

I know it's surprising, but I once again disagree with everything you have to say on this topic.

That's only relevant if you're able to give a reason for your disagreement. If you do, and I find it convincing, I will certainly consider it. If you refuse to give your reasons, then I really don't care what you think.

 

[Christo]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

He has no more responsibility to speak out than I do.

Not true. I guess you were never a Spider-man fan.Bush was president of the United States. That gives him great responsibilities for the rest of his life. IMO it is his absolute duty to speak out on issues like this one. Other former presidents have understood this duty and acted upon it, and even risked the ridicule of their own political party by doing so. If this were a minor issue I would agree that he needn't say anything. But the issue of whether or not we as Americans blame Islam in general for 9/11 is central to Bush's presidency and his legacy. He needs to speak out.

I know it's surprising, but I once again disagree with everything you have to say on this topic.

That's only relevant if you're able to give a reason for your disagreement. If you do, and I find it convincing, I will certainly consider it. If you refuse to give your reasons, then I really don't care what you think.

I didn't ask you to care. I do find it funny that you believe your opinion is elevated higher than my opinion merely because you went to the trouble of supporting your opinion with more opinion.

 

[timschochet]

I didn't ask you to care. I do find it funny that you believe your opinion is elevated higher than my opinion merely because you went to the trouble of supporting your opinion with more opinion.

No, I supported my opinion with argument and facts. But that's not why my opinion is elevated higher than yours.

 

[Christo]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

He has no more responsibility to speak out than I do.

Not true. I guess you were never a Spider-man fan.Bush was president of the United States. That gives him great responsibilities for the rest of his life. IMO it is his absolute duty to speak out on issues like this one. Other former presidents have understood this duty and acted upon it, and even risked the ridicule of their own political party by doing so. If this were a minor issue I would agree that he needn't say anything. But the issue of whether or not we as Americans blame Islam in general for 9/11 is central to Bush's presidency and his legacy. He needs to speak out.

I thought it was understood that past presidents usually stay out of the spotlight on controversial political issues so as not to upstage the current administration.

They're not supposed to criticize the current president. But this issue only involves Obama on a peripheral basis. In this case, Bush would be coming to the support of the current president, and that has happened a lot all throughout American history. Examples:Herbert Hoover, a longtime critic of FDR, coming to his support regarding aid to Britain in 1940 and Lend-Lease against the isolationists.Dwight Eisenhower, no friend of LBJ, coming to Johnson's support regarding the Vietnam War against Johnson's critics in Congress.Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and George Bush coming to the support of Bill Clinton on NAFTA.Those are off the top of my head; I could probably look up dozens of other examples.

How are those instances relevant to the current situation? You admit this only involves Obama on a peripheral basis. It has nothing to do with policy. Are past presidents now required to back up presidents on every issue they choose to open their mouth about?

 

[Go DC Yourself]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

He has no more responsibility to speak out than I do.

Not true. I guess you were never a Spider-man fan.Bush was president of the United States. That gives him great responsibilities for the rest of his life. IMO it is his absolute duty to speak out on issues like this one. Other former presidents have understood this duty and acted upon it, and even risked the ridicule of their own political party by doing so. If this were a minor issue I would agree that he needn't say anything. But the issue of whether or not we as Americans blame Islam in general for 9/11 is central to Bush's presidency and his legacy. He needs to speak out.

I thought it was understood that past presidents usually stay out of the spotlight on controversial political issues so as not to upstage the current administration.

They're not supposed to criticize the current president. But this issue only involves Obama on a peripheral basis. In this case, Bush would be coming to the support of the current president, and that has happened a lot all throughout American history. Examples:Herbert Hoover, a longtime critic of FDR, coming to his support regarding aid to Britain in 1940 and Lend-Lease against the isolationists.Dwight Eisenhower, no friend of LBJ, coming to Johnson's support regarding the Vietnam War against Johnson's critics in Congress.Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and George Bush coming to the support of Bill Clinton on NAFTA.Those are off the top of my head; I could probably look up dozens of other examples.

The thing is, Bush taking a position on the mosque wouldn't persuade those on the right that oppose it. They moved on from him. Notice the way Rove tried to weasel out of Rauf's participation in government trips?

 

[mad sweeney]

Is this guy a radical?1) he said we are an accesssory to what happened on 9/11 (10 days after the attacks).2) says Bin Laden was made in the USA.3) says America is Sharia compliant state.4) the financer of the Mosque was waiting tables 2 years ago and is now a millionaire and refuses to answer questions about how it happened or about how the mosque is being funded? they refuse to say where the money (what countries - Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example) is coming from?Does any of this raise eye brows from those on the left?

1) the first part of his statement that never gets repeated is "America did not deserve this crime"2) he pretty much was in order to better fight the Soviets while they were in Afghanistan3) open to interpretation. Someone broke down his quote earlier, which shockingly only part of it is used when people make this argument.4) Didn't a part owner of Fox get identified as a financer? Even still, so what? The US gets money from Saudi Arabia and China, does business with Pakistan and Iran. Any business in NY or Chicago or any other big city could be in part or in whole financed by mob money. Agreeing that blind Chevy Truck Commercial Country Song Patriotism is the only way to go her in the US of A is not a requirement of citizenship or the right to do business. He, along with everyone else, has a right to think whatever he wants about our policies here and abroad. He has the right to fight for some Sharia-esque laws that will have to be voted on (and at 0.8% of the population, Muslims aren't exactly a strong voting bloc) and he has the right to help his religion evolve and assimilate into our laws here. If some of his money is dirty... welcome to the club. Dirt is everywhere.Raise eyebrows? Sure, but not enough to get in his way. No matter what, this building and this group will be constantly and carefully scrutinized and watched by civilians as well as by the government (no matter what Right knee-jerkers will claim about the current administration). Quite frankly, the "real American" response to this "victory" mosque is more of a victory to the bad guys as any community center could be. It's bringing the xenophobic beast into the public eye as we watch anti-Islam (ALL Islam, not just the extremists) activities nationwide.

 

[Christo]

I didn't ask you to care. I do find it funny that you believe your opinion is elevated higher than my opinion merely because you went to the trouble of supporting your opinion with more opinion.

No, I supported my opinion with argument and facts. But that's not why my opinion is elevated higher than yours.

I don't think Bush has the duty to speak out because he is no longer the president. That's a fact, jack!

 

[mad sweeney]

Looks like we have gotten to the argument that letting them build a community center next to some porno shops a couple of blocks from Ground Zero will allow Sharia law to replace the Constitution? Really, some of you guys need to get a grip.

Yeah, because that is what people have said. Never mind, I knew better than to get into this conversation. Hyperbole is running rampant on both sides in here...carry on.

That seems to be a major concern for a few posters.

 

[mad sweeney]

The guy that is really being a wimp here is George W. Bush. He knows this Imam personally. He selected this Imam because of his moderation. To his great credit, W made a strong distinction between 9/11 and the religion of Islam. Now this distinction is being eradicated by his fellow Republicans, and W is silent about it. He should be speaking out very firmly right now. Where is he?

I don't see how Bush opening his mouth is going to help anything. He's an ex-President. His influence is gone and bringing up the last administration isn't going to help their cause any.Besides, he's too busy getting ready to release his memoirs and go on tour to try and do some ex post facto spin on why the recession wasn't his fault (ie: blame Clinton in an act so many Righties ##### and moan about whenever Bush's Fault comes up).

 

[Go DC Yourself]

Looks like we have gotten to the argument that letting them build a community center next to some porno shops a couple of blocks from Ground Zero will allow Sharia law to replace the Constitution? Really, some of you guys need to get a grip.

You're not going to notice her whispering "death to the infidels" in your ear over and over while she's grinding you, but it will imbed itself into your subconscious.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I didn't ask you to care. I do find it funny that you believe your opinion is elevated higher than my opinion merely because you went to the trouble of supporting your opinion with more opinion.

No, I supported my opinion with argument and facts. But that's not why my opinion is elevated higher than yours.

I don't think Bush has the duty to speak out because he is no longer the president. That's a fact, jack!

He said it was weak that Bush didn't step up, you replied he didn't have a duty. These aren't mutually exclusive ideas. He doesn't have a duty, so he's taking the easy road by not backing up a guy he's previously backed up when he was useful at the time. It would take some strength to insert himself in this debate and calm things down, just be repeating things he's already said about Rauf.

 

[Christo]

I didn't ask you to care. I do find it funny that you believe your opinion is elevated higher than my opinion merely because you went to the trouble of supporting your opinion with more opinion.

No, I supported my opinion with argument and facts. But that's not why my opinion is elevated higher than yours.

I don't think Bush has the duty to speak out because he is no longer the president. That's a fact, jack!

He said it was weak that Bush didn't step up, you replied he didn't have a duty. These aren't mutually exclusive ideas. He doesn't have a duty, so he's taking the easy road by not backing up a guy he's previously backed up when he was useful at the time. It would take some strength to insert himself in this debate and calm things down, just be repeating things he's already said about Rauf.

It seems you're suffering from a case of selective memory.In his OP, tim said Bush "should be speaking out very firmly." I responded that he had "no more responsibility to speak out than I do." tim then brought duty into the picture:

Bush was president of the United States. That gives him great responsibilities for the rest of his life. IMO it is his absolute duty to speak out on issues like this one. Other former presidents have understood this duty and acted upon it, and even risked the ridicule of their own political party by doing so. If this were a minor issue I would agree that he needn't say anything. But the issue of whether or not we as Americans blame Islam in general for 9/11 is central to Bush's presidency and his legacy. He needs to speak out.

 

[tommyboy]

1. Neither you nor the people you're quoting have any idea what Sharia law involves. Your use of the term is so nebulous it harbors on ridiculous. It's like saying John Calvin imposed "Christian Law" on Geneva. He imposed Calvin law, and called it Christian law.2. It is my firm conviction that your view of this situation, and those who share your view, are going to increase the chances of more terrorism to strike at this country. You are making our enemies' job easier, and you are helping to increase their numbers.

i'm positive i've read 100 times more on the subject of islam and sharia than you have. You are entitled to your view, but if your view condenses to us not allowing a mosque to be built 2 blocks from ground zero = making our enemies jobs easier then so be it. Our enemies didn't have much trouble recruiting without the mosque for the last 25-30 years.

 

[oneohh]

There is currently only one country in the world which claims to practice fundamentalist Sharia law, and that is Iran. Even they don't really practice it, instead a sort of Shia version of it that has been corrupted over the years. The Taliban practiced an even stricter form of it, but they no longer govern a country. Other Muslim nations, like Saudi Arabia, practice certain aspects of Sharia law, possibly. I say possibly because this is open to interpretation.

this is false. Sharia is practiced in many nations including indonesia, turkey, pakistan, iran, saudi arabia, india, sudan, egypt, and even in limited form in Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countrie...Sharia_rule.png heres' a map

But here is the main point: there is no Muslim country in the world which is currently governed by Sufis. If there were, it would be MUCH more liberal than any of the Muslim countries currently. Sufis believe in Sharia, but in the most moderate, liberal terms, in the same way as reformed Jews believe in Judiasm. There is a reason that George W. Bush chose a Sufi Imam to speak after 9/11. Sufis are exactly the sort of Muslims we need to encourage! Yet here you are, attempting to group them in with the most extreme radicals. You and those like you who have spoken out on this couldn't do this nation's interest more harm if you tried.

i can think of a way to do more harm that involves airplanes, boxcutters and innocent people.

1. Neither you nor the people you're quoting have any idea what Sharia law involves. Your use of the term is so nebulous it harbors on ridiculous. It's like saying John Calvin imposed "Christian Law" on Geneva. He imposed Calvin law, and called it Christian law.2. It is my firm conviction that your view of this situation, and those who share your view, are going to increase the chances of more terrorism to strike at this country. You are making our enemies' job easier, and you are helping to increase their numbers.

And they say only the Rs use fear.

 

[timschochet]

1. Neither you nor the people you're quoting have any idea what Sharia law involves. Your use of the term is so nebulous it harbors on ridiculous. It's like saying John Calvin imposed "Christian Law" on Geneva. He imposed Calvin law, and called it Christian law.

2. It is my firm conviction that your view of this situation, and those who share your view, are going to increase the chances of more terrorism to strike at this country. You are making our enemies' job easier, and you are helping to increase their numbers.

i'm positive i've read 100 times more on the subject of islam and sharia than you have. You are entitled to your view, but if your view condenses to us not allowing a mosque to be built 2 blocks from ground zero = making our enemies jobs easier then so be it. Our enemies didn't have much trouble recruiting without the mosque for the last 25-30 years.

I'm positive you have not. That fact that you have continually avoided mentioning that the Imam in question is a Sufi indicates that (1) you are ignorant of this fact, which I highly doubt (2) you are ignorant of what Sufi Islam is, which is more likely or (3) you know what it means but that you are being deliberately dishonest. I choose not to believe the latter, therefore I'm simply going to assume that you know very little about Sufi Islam.

 

[timschochet]

It seems you're suffering from a case of selective memory.

In his OP, tim said Bush "should be speaking out very firmly." I responded that he had "no more responsibility to speak out than I do." tim then brought duty into the picture:

Bush was president of the United States. That gives him great responsibilities for the rest of his life. IMO it is his absolute duty to speak out on issues like this one. Other former presidents have understood this duty and acted upon it, and even risked the ridicule of their own political party by doing so. If this were a minor issue I would agree that he needn't say anything. But the issue of whether or not we as Americans blame Islam in general for 9/11 is central to Bush's presidency and his legacy. He needs to speak out.

Christo is correct. I wrote that Bush has a duty to speak out on this subject, and I stand by that.

 

[DrJ]

Now all of the sudden we need more Bush.

 

[tommyboy]

1. Neither you nor the people you're quoting have any idea what Sharia law involves. Your use of the term is so nebulous it harbors on ridiculous. It's like saying John Calvin imposed "Christian Law" on Geneva. He imposed Calvin law, and called it Christian law.

2. It is my firm conviction that your view of this situation, and those who share your view, are going to increase the chances of more terrorism to strike at this country. You are making our enemies' job easier, and you are helping to increase their numbers.

i'm positive i've read 100 times more on the subject of islam and sharia than you have. You are entitled to your view, but if your view condenses to us not allowing a mosque to be built 2 blocks from ground zero = making our enemies jobs easier then so be it. Our enemies didn't have much trouble recruiting without the mosque for the last 25-30 years.

I'm positive you have not. That fact that you have continually avoided mentioning that the Imam in question is a Sufi indicates that (1) you are ignorant of this fact, which I highly doubt (2) you are ignorant of what Sufi Islam is, which is more likely or (3) you know what it means but that you are being deliberately dishonest. I choose not to believe the latter, therefore I'm simply going to assume that you know very little about Sufi Islam.

you forgot option 4- I don't care what form of Islam he is, its still a stupid idea to build the mosque. He could be the most liberal, flamboyant effusiviely Richard Simmons Gay™ Imam in the world and it would still be a stupid idea.

 

[mad sweeney]

There is currently only one country in the world which claims to practice fundamentalist Sharia law, and that is Iran. Even they don't really practice it, instead a sort of Shia version of it that has been corrupted over the years. The Taliban practiced an even stricter form of it, but they no longer govern a country. Other Muslim nations, like Saudi Arabia, practice certain aspects of Sharia law, possibly. I say possibly because this is open to interpretation.

this is false. Sharia is practiced in many nations including indonesia, turkey, pakistan, iran, saudi arabia, india, sudan, egypt, and even in limited form in Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countrie...Sharia_rule.png heres' a map

But here is the main point: there is no Muslim country in the world which is currently governed by Sufis. If there were, it would be MUCH more liberal than any of the Muslim countries currently. Sufis believe in Sharia, but in the most moderate, liberal terms, in the same way as reformed Jews believe in Judiasm. There is a reason that George W. Bush chose a Sufi Imam to speak after 9/11. Sufis are exactly the sort of Muslims we need to encourage! Yet here you are, attempting to group them in with the most extreme radicals. You and those like you who have spoken out on this couldn't do this nation's interest more harm if you tried.

i can think of a way to do more harm that involves airplanes, boxcutters and innocent people.

1. Neither you nor the people you're quoting have any idea what Sharia law involves. Your use of the term is so nebulous it harbors on ridiculous. It's like saying John Calvin imposed "Christian Law" on Geneva. He imposed Calvin law, and called it Christian law.2. It is my firm conviction that your view of this situation, and those who share your view, are going to increase the chances of more terrorism to strike at this country. You are making our enemies' job easier, and you are helping to increase their numbers.

And they say only the Rs use fear.

Hey Mr One-Liner. Who's they and who said "only"?