What the Mega-Mosque at Ground Zero Means to Worldwide Islam

[jokersarewild]

This area being part of ground zero is based on how you perceive it.

Picture from September 2001...

Notice the sign on the top left. Sure looks like part of Ground Zero to me.

To both:

That's my point. Technically "Ground Zero" is where the towers stood. Technically' date=' this mosque thingy isn't being built there.

Wagers and bets need to be clear or someone is gonna get pissed when they have to pay up. lol

[/quote']

According to Times, a 5 year old could understand what he meant.

Also, you're illogical for saying "Well, if you're going to bet, come up with agreed upon definitions."

Thank God I'd never make a real bet with this guy. He'd end up going "Well, I'm always right, so whatever."

Oh look:

Your both wrong eddo, ground zero can technically be considered all of America, because damage from that attack covered our entire Nation. But being more specific, the attack caused damage to that building too so it is included in any rational consideration as part of the attack so part of ground zero.

So he wins the bet, according to him, if a mosque is built in the US. I think I might lose this one somewhere down the line.

 

[wez]

And part of our freedoms is to stand up for moral possitions Joker. We are supposed to be creating a society to be proud of. We are not robots Joker, we are human being and the things that give us the greatest pleasures in life are directly connected to our enotional side. Even beautiful music can generate an emotional reaction so this is what it really means to be human.

Ya see TJ.. There's a difference between standing up for your own moral position when someone is trying to impose theirs on you and trying to shove them down the throat of others.. or else..

You do the latter .. not freedom.. far from it.. ya want Muslims or anyone else imposing their morality on you, or else? Course not..

What is ok for me to do to another human being is not ok for ANY other human being to do to me, or else ~ Times Joke

Stinkin' hypocrite.. wake up

 

[wez]

Your both wrong eddo, ground zero can technically be considered all of America, because damage from that attack covered our entire Nation.

What a f*cking idiot.. so what's the plan? You and your 15 friends gonna ban all Muslims from doing anything around the nation because you're a small minded moron of epic proportions filled to the brim with hate?

Yep.. let's burn the constitution cuz you have a bruised ego.. sounds about right.

 

[hugo]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Builder]

Your both wrong eddo, ground zero can technically be considered all of America, because damage from that attack covered our entire Nation.

What a f*cking idiot.. so what's the plan? You and your 15 friends gonna ban all Muslims from doing anything around the nation because you're a small minded moron of epic proportions filled to the brim with hate?

Yep.. let's burn the constitution cuz you have a bruised ego.. sounds about right.

That's a ten. He's got a pretty tall order if you read the stats below. Interesting that they are mainly repub voters.

http://www.ghazali.net/amp/html/mosques_in_us.html

Mosques played an important role in mobilizing the Muslims to register as voters and cast vote during the last presidential election since 89 percent of mosques' leaders believe that Muslims should be more involved in the political process, according to the study. Seventy percent of the Muslim population is eligible for vote and about 65% (or 3.2 million) of Muslim voters turned out in the 2000 election, according to reliable estimates. Muslims voted en bloc for George W. Bush. According to the former Congressman, Paul Findley, bloc voting marks the arrival of Muslims as a new national political power.

The study, entitled ?The Mosques in America: A National Portrait,? was conducted by the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) a major Muslim organization. Four other major Muslim organizations - Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Society of North America and Muslim American Society ? were co-sponsors of the project. This is the first study of its kind that covered 1200 mosques.

Muslims have been in the United States for generations. Muslim immigrants from the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. arrived in North America in 1893. They were mainly Turks, Kurds, Albanians, and Arabs. However, the Muslims have grown rapidly in the last two or three decades mainly because of immigration from South Asia and the Middle East and converts from the African-American community.

The first mosque in America was probably build by Albanian Muslims in 1915 in Maine. By 1919, they had established another mosque in Connecticut. Polish-speaking Tatars build a mosque in Brooklyn, NY in 1926, which is still in use. African American Muslims established the first Mosque in Pittsburgh, PA in 1930. The Lebanese Community of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, opened its first mosque in 1935. The State Street Mosque in New York City was established by Sheikh Dawood Ahmed Faisal in 1955. This mosque represents a special point in the development of the American Muslim community. The Dar-ul-Islam movement began from there.

Although the first mosque was established in America in 1915 but only few mosques were built till 1960. Greater growth of mosques began in the 1970s and the tempo of growth continues unabated. The vast majority of mosques (87%) were found since 1970. Thirty percent of all mosques were established in the 1990s and 32% were started in 1980s. There are 1,209 mosques in America. The mosques participating in the study were founded between 1925-2000.

 

[IWS]

Your both wrong eddo, ground zero can technically be considered all of America, because damage from that attack covered our entire Nation. But being more specific, the attack caused damage to that building too so it is included in any rational consideration as part of the attack so part of ground zero.

That could possibly be the dumbest sh!t I've ever heard anyone try to argue.

 

[Times]

Your both wrong eddo, ground zero can technically be considered all of America, because damage from that attack covered our entire Nation. But being more specific, the attack caused damage to that building too so it is included in any rational consideration as part of the attack so part of ground zero.

That could possibly be the dumbest sh!t I've ever heard anyone try to argue.

And that was the most stupid thing you ever said.

Your last post said you did see this as ground zero based on your picture, now why would you say that? Because you see some trash on the ground? Did the planes target and crash directly into this building in question or not? Did the attackers intend to attack this building or was it's being struck by parts just an accident?

What is the point of a terrorist attack IWS?

Do you think the attack was only intended to destroy the two buildings?

The intent was to instill fear, not just destroy a couple buildings. As an example let me offer you something you might better understand. You as a cop are ordered to disperse a crowd of angry demonstrators, so you deploy a pepper gas grenade into the crowd. Is the canister or the gas the agent your wanting to use as a tool to get the desired effect of dispersing the crowd?

The Muslims involved did not want to knock down two buildings, only an idiot would think that was their true objective. The Islamic terrorists wanted to strike at the heart of America, to cause us fear, to bring their fight to the land of the enemy. Their intent to spread fear was like the gas and the buildings are the canister.

That "gas" has spread well and now most of our leadership are scared to death. Before 9/11 we did not have muslim prayer in public schools, but we do today, and not one word against it from the ACLU. Today, we can't even admit the attacks at Fort Hood were related to his faith even thought that guy was screaming to Allah the entire time he was killing people. Normally liberals are very vocal and hostile to things like unfair treatments of women and such but when comes to Muslims, they are silent. It is inconceivable to them to put up any resistence to things so called "moderate" Muslims do even if it is obviously designed as a provacative act like building a mosque at ground zero.

So my point that you claim to not understand is that the terrorists were not just attacking New York, their "gas" of fear was intended for all of America. In fact, you do remember that there was more than one target....right? Do you belieeve those targets were selected for their individual importance alone or do you believe their overall effect on "all of America" was also a part of their attack?

************************

Joker, I am going to just wave you off on this topic, you only want to see the bad done by America but you completely ignore the greater good such as the millions we have saved by helping Afganistan fight off the Russians. If you tryly believe that America shoudl not get greater credit for the greater good then there is nothing I can say to sway you. At this point your arguing like a child, very similar to the way Wez just keeps pouring out hate and attacks while refusing to admit America is the sole reason freedom exists in the world. Sure there were other players, but America is and has always been the biggest player.

You don't believe Americans should feel a direct connection to the attacks of 9/11 and I respect your opinion, but you refuse to respect the opinions of those of us who do feel it is reasonable to feel that connection.

You keep telling lies about me in saying I believe "ALL" Muslims are directly terrorists or even bad, I have never believed or said this even one time. You point is if I claim some are playing behind the sceenes, then I must also be saying all are and that is not the case.

------"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke ------

This is my point, I believe more than 80% of all Muslims are not evil, are not terrorists, and are not directly helping the radical elements of their faith. But, at the same time their not directly standing up against those radical elements and "doing nothing" is helping evil.

*************************

Now, about the wager, I bet you $100.00 that the "currently planned" location of this mosque/center, whatever title you want to call it will either not be built, or they will take out the mosque portion of the building. You willing to take me up on that wager? No word games, no childish attempts to squirm away from the intent of this wager, man up and either agree to the bet or not.

 

[IWS]

Your both wrong eddo, ground zero can technically be considered all of America, because damage from that attack covered our entire Nation. But being more specific, the attack caused damage to that building too so it is included in any rational consideration as part of the attack so part of ground zero.

That could possibly be the dumbest sh!t I've ever heard anyone try to argue.

And that was the most stupid thing you ever said.

Your last post said you did see this as ground zero based on your picture, now why would you say that? Because you see some trash on the ground? Did the planes target and crash directly into this building in question or not? Did the attackers intend to attack this building or was it's being struck by parts just an accident?

What is the point of a terrorist attack IWS?

Do you think the attack was only intended to destroy the two buildings?

The intent was to instill fear, not just destroy a couple buildings. As an example let me offer you something you might better understand. You as a cop are ordered to disperse a crowd of angry demonstrators, so you deploy a pepper gas grenade into the crowd. Is the canister or the gas the agent your wanting to use as a tool to get the desired effect of dispersing the crowd?

The Muslims involved did not want to knock down two buildings, only an idiot would think that was their true objective. The Islamic terrorists wanted to strike at the heart of America, to cause us fear, to bring their fight to the land of the enemy. Their intent to spread fear was like the gas and the buildings are the canister.

That "gas" has spread well and now most of our leadership are scared to death. Before 9/11 we did not have muslim prayer in public schools, but we do today, and not one word against it from the ACLU. Today, we can't even admit the attacks at Fort Hood were related to his faith even thought that guy was screaming to Allah the entire time he was killing people. Normally liberals are very vocal and hostile to things like unfair treatments of women and such but when comes to Muslims, they are silent. It is inconceivable to them to put up any resistence to things so called "moderate" Muslims do even if it is obviously designed as a provacative act like building a mosque at ground zero.

So my point that you claim to not understand is that the terrorists were not just attacking New York, their "gas" of fear was intended for all of America. In fact, you do remember that there was more than one target....right? Do you belieeve those targets were selected for their individual importance alone or do you believe their overall effect on "all of America" was also a part of their attack?

The intent of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was to end a world war. By your logic the fact that the "effect" of that action did end a world war, the entire world could be called, "ground zero" of those atomic bombs.

Dumbass.

 

[Times]

The intent of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was to end a world war. By your logic the fact that the "effect" of that action did end a world war, the entire world could be called, "ground zero" of those atomic bombs.

Dumbass.

So you know I just proved my point in my last example and instead of admitting you now understand my point was a good one, you completely ignore this example and desperately try to go back to my first example to salvage some dignity?

Okay, let's go back to that one, it is a good example too, I just used the 'gas' example because I figured you could better understand that the attack and damage caused was more than just the two buildings hit with planes.

So IWS, we did not drop one bomb right? We dropped that first bomb and still Japan refused to surrender, only after we dropped the second bomb did Japan surrender and the actual damage was not the reason, it was the "fear of more bombs" that forced the surrender.

Terror.

Wez long ago claimed America was also guilty of terrorist actions and even then I admitted he was right but the reaons and motivations were completely different. It is always intent that defines an action, if I kill someone for calling me a bad name I go to jail for murder, if I kill the same man to save the life of another person I am hailed as a hero......same dead body, but the difference is intent. Wez is incapable of seeing intent, neither is Joker, all they see is the negative when it comes to their own Country.

So the real intent for dropping the two nuclear bombs was not just to cause damage, but to instill fear and terror into the enemy and force them to react to that fear by surrendering. There is also the years of radiation and such that was also part of the nuclear attacks and that did also hurt more than just the blast zones.

So back to 9/11.

Was the intent of the 9/11 attacks only to destroy a couple buildings? I feel pretty sure it was not. The intent was to spread fear or "terror" (hence the label terrorist) so did their attack work? The liberals certainly act pretty scared to me..........

But all that is still irrelivent because part of a plane hit this building in question so it is obviously a direct part of the attack and as such part of ground zero, my other point about it actually directly hurting all of America was just a expanded point of how more than just New Yorkers were harmed and why more than just New Yorkers are voicing their opinions on this.

 

[hugo]

Since all of America is part of Ground Zero. Since TJ has already claimed to have built a mosque. I suspect he is just peeved because he did not get the contract.

 

[IWS]

Since all of America is part of Ground Zero. Since TJ has already claimed to have built a mosque. I suspect he is just peeved because he did not get the contract.

So what you're saying here is, TJ built a Ground Zero mosque, by his own claims and definitions.

Why then would he care about the one in Manhattan?

 

[wez]

What is the point of a terrorist attack IWS?Do you think the attack was only intended to destroy the two buildings?

The intent was to instill fear, not just destroy a couple buildings.

So the real intent for dropping the two nuclear bombs was not just to cause damage, but to instill fear and terror..

hahahaha.. yeah.. I don't understand intent.. which was apparently the EXACT SAME according to you..

Guess you're saying they should have nuked us.. twice..

What a f*cking genius..

What is ok for me to do to another human being is not ok for ANY other human being to do to me, or else ~ Times Joke

Stinkin' hypocrite.. wake up before you and your ilk destroy the entire world..

 

[wez]

Since all of America is part of Ground Zero. Since TJ has already claimed to have built a mosque. I suspect he is just peeved because he did not get the contract.

So what you're saying here is, TJ built a Ground Zero mosque, by his own claims and definitions.

Why then would he care about the one in Manhattan?

What he's saying is it's ok for TJ to build mosques like they're going out of style on "ground zero".. but not ok for anyone else to build them anywhere in the nation.. aka.. "ground zero".. according to TJ of course..

 

[jokersarewild]

Your both wrong eddo, ground zero can technically be considered all of America, because damage from that attack covered our entire Nation. But being more specific, the attack caused damage to that building too so it is included in any rational consideration as part of the attack so part of ground zero.

That could possibly be the dumbest sh!t I've ever heard anyone try to argue.

And that was the most stupid thing you ever said.

Lol.

The Muslims involved did not want to knock down two buildings, only an idiot would think that was their true objective. The Islamic terrorists wanted to strike at the heart of America, to cause us fear, to bring their fight to the land of the enemy. Their intent to spread fear was like the gas and the buildings are the canister.

Pretty sure they succeeded. Look at the response to the Quran Burning in the media and such.

That "gas" has spread well and now most of our leadership are scared to death. Before 9/11 we did not have muslim prayer in public schools, but we do today, and not one word against it from the ACLU.

What in the flying f*** do you think the ACLU does? Limit speech? Attempt to crush religious freedom?

Joker, I am going to just wave you off on this topic, you only want to see the bad done by America but you completely ignore the greater good such as the millions we have saved by helping Afganistan fight off the Russians.

You truly are a moron. You didn't read what I said, did you? I said we helped the people of Afghan fight off the Russians. I never said we didn't. You keep thinking I did, I want to see the quote where I said we didn't help at all. Seriously. What I was saying is that Bin Laden wasn't actually part of the group we trained to help fight them off. He had his own independent group, doing their own thing, which eventually became Al-Queda. Nothing diminishing the US there.

If you tryly believe that America shoudl not get greater credit for the greater good then there is nothing I can say to sway you.

Yep, that's exactly what I was saying. America never did anything good.

At this point your arguing like a child, very similar to the way Wez just keeps pouring out hate and attacks while refusing to admit America is the sole reason freedom exists in the world. Sure there were other players, but America is and has always been the biggest player.

Wait, America is the sole reason freedom exists in the world? Ok, that's just taking it way, way too far. You seriously need to stop thinking America is the best thing in the world, buddy. Sure, we helped. And yes, we have freedom now. But there were quite a few years where we had slaves and such. True freedom has only been a fairly recent phenomenon. And yes, our help in world war 2 ensured that there would be free peoples throughout the world (where freedom does exist), but to say that freedom only came about because of the US is so absurd that I don't even know where to start.

And how are we currently the biggest player? By invading other countries that have nothing to do with anything? *cough*IRAQ*cough*. By attempting to start a war in Iraq? Sure, they don't have Saddam anymore, and he was an butt hole. But now they have many, many other issues. They still aren't really "free".

You don't believe Americans should feel a direct connection to the attacks of 9/11 and I respect your opinion, but you refuse to respect the opinions of those of us who do feel it is reasonable to feel that connection.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that you're so deeply connected that you blame people for something that they had no part in. It's like if a group of black people killed your family, and forever after you think all black people are evil. It's not true.

I respect that you felt more for the 9/11 attacks then I did. Fact: I was in 7th grade when that went down. I actually mentioned it to my stepdad the other day, and he was like "Yeah, you weren't old enough to fully realize what was happening." And he's right. Maybe I was too young for it to affect me as it did older people. I remember the whole thing as "3000 people died because some assholes hijacked some planes. That kinda sucks." Our Social Studies teacher explained to us what happened, but to be honest, we still didn't know. And our day-to-day lives didn't really change, besides more people spouting anti-Islam rhetoric, and the moments of silence for those who died. But really, I think my detachment has allowed me a more objective view of it than you have. You're basing your opinion off of emotion, not logic and fact. You're constantly trying to look up reasons that Muslims are bad. More power to you. But no matter how much you still keep saying Muslims are bad, or that they're constantly deceptive, or whatnot, that doesn't mean they are, and means that you're still applying sweeping generalizations to a group of people based on an emotional connection you feel to something that happened almost 9 years ago. Never forget, Times. But don't obsess.

You keep telling lies about me in saying I believe "ALL" Muslims are directly terrorists or even bad, I have never believed or said this even one time. You point is if I claim some are playing behind the sceenes, then I must also be saying all are and that is not the case.

No, asking me if I know what Taqiyya is, then saying Muslims practice it, seems to be saying "HA! They're all liars! Told you so!"

------"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke ------

Indeed.

This is my point, I believe more than 80% of all Muslims are not evil, are not terrorists, and are not directly helping the radical elements of their faith. But, at the same time their not directly standing up against those radical elements and "doing nothing" is helping evil.

You don't seem to understand how these terrorist groups work. Someone says something against them, they go "THEY'RE TRYING TO GO AGAINST US! THEY ARE INFIDELS!" The mosque doesn't get built? "THE US IS ATTACKING ISLAM! INFIDELS!" So honestly, it's probably better not to give them firepower. Don't say "God, those guys suck." Say "You know, Allah says peace is a good thing to do. Let us pray."

Now, about the wager, I bet you $100.00 that the "currently planned" location of this mosque/center, whatever title you want to call it will either not be built, or they will take out the mosque portion of the building. You willing to take me up on that wager? No word games, no childish attempts to squirm away from the intent of this wager, man up and either agree to the bet or not.

I couldn't afford that bet anyway. I'll bet $20 that it will be built there. You seem to forget: CASHIER AT WAL-MART. I can afford to lose 20, but if I lose 100 (assuming you win), then I don't eat this month. Also, in order to get said 20 (however we're storing the money until the point the bet ends), you'd have to wait until like the 28th, as this is a three paycheck month, and I can afford to get the money out of that.

 

[jokersarewild]

Actually, I just realized that I can't even afford that this month. I apologize, but must retract my wager.

 

[IWS]

Thousands for, against mosque march on tragic dayBy JOE WALKER, DOUGLAS MONTERO, AMBER SUTHERLAND and KATHIANNE BONIELLO

Last Updated: 6:57 PM, September 11, 2010

Posted: 1:17 PM, September 11, 2010

Thousands of rowdy protestors with dueling agendas converged on Lower Manhattan today, using the spotlight of 9/11 as a showcase for the Ground Zero mosque debate.

Both sides drew large, boisterous, with about 3,000 pro-mosque demonstrators marching from City Hall to the Federal Building and 2,500 anti-mosque protestors rallying near the controversial Park Place site of the Islamic Center.

No arrests have been reported, though things got heated when several college kids agitated a group of anti-mosque demonstrators.

Anti-mosque rally leader Pam Geller opened the demonstration with a moment of silence ? but it was loud and rowdy from there on.

A trumpet player played TAPS, the crowd sang the Star Spangled Banner, waved American flags and chanted U-S-A.

"Every year it?s bad," Nelly Braginsky, who lost her 38-year old son Alex in the towers, told the crowd. "Nobody can bring me back my son. ... It?s not about freedom of religion. This is about geography."

Geert Wilders, politician from Holland and keynote speaker asked the crowd: "Did New York deserve this? Did America deserve this? Did the West deserve this?"

The crowd answered with shouts of "NO!"

"We do not deserve a mosque at Ground Zero either," he told them. "We are here today because we have not forgotten. ... When the faces of Jihad attacked New York, they attacked the world."

Jackie Drew, 45, of Staten Island, who works as a clerical staff for NYPD, said the anti-mosque protest was her first, but that she felt it was important.

"I don?t trust this isn?t terrorist-related," she said. "Muslims build where they had a victory. We shouldn?t have to bow down to other groups. I?m tired of Americans bowing down."

An angry anti-mosque protestor was allegedly ready to clock one of the young students before cops swooped in and separated the two groups.

Natalie Sowinski, 19, and her friends Andressa Leite, 20 and Dennis Grabowski, 20, were watching the protest ? Sowinski with a scarf wrapped around her head like a hijab and Leite, blowing a notoriously loud vuvuzela at the anti-mosque demonstrators.

The demonstrators set upon the three, ripping the scarf off Sowinski?s head, grabbing the horn and screaming in their faces: "Did you lose someone on 9/11?"

"There was a moment when I got scared for my life," Sowinski told The Post.

Another college student, Cat Glenn, 22, tried to intervene, grabbing at the demonstrators who were snatching at Sowinski?s head.

"I?m very intolerant of injustice when it?s physical and in front of my face," Glenn said.

Glenn said she was about to get socked by the man she grabbed when police pushed the college students away.

A crowd 15 to 20 deep listening to speakers including former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark before marching from City Hall to the Federal Building on Worth Street in an orderly fashion, with a heavy police presence on hand.

They were noisy, but not violent.

Beating drums and ringing bells, the crowd chanted: "Bigots go home."

The demonstrators also carried signs reading: "Tea Party Bigots funded by Corporate $"; and "Our Grief is No excuse for bigotry and racism."

In another earlier display, a solitary, wild card protestor walked up to the intersection of Murray and Church streets and started tearing out the pages of a green Koran he was holding, eventually burning a few of the pages.

The man said nothing as he was escorted to safety by the police and left the scene via the Path Train. He later told The Post his protest was about freedom of speech.

"People have the right to build that mosque," the bizarrely calm man said, refusing to identify himself. "They own that property. I wanted to show that I have the right to free speech. Rights are a two way street."

The fiery political statement recalled the condemnations of Florida Pastor Terry Jones, who for days said he planned to burn the Koran on 9/11 but today recanted that.

Earlier in the day, a firefighter, in full uniform, was livid, getting into a shouting match with pro-mosque demonstrators.

"They are giving them a platform on the same block I?m being excluded from walking down the street in an FDNY uniform," he said, refusing to give his name.

A retired firefighter lieutenant from Brooklyn?s Engine 226 angrily flipped the bird to a pro-mosque demonstrator wearing a Mao cap. He was there on 9/11, in the North Tower, he said.

"I don?t care if they build a mosque, but I don?t want to hear their Islamic prayers wafting over the grave site," he fumed.

The irony wasn?t lost on some anti-mosque people who responded to cat-callers that Kamal was on their side.

Then there was pony-tailed man in his 60s, sporting a shirt that exhorted: "Let?s all come together and unite."

Yet his sign carried a decidedly anti-mosque message: "Christ turned the other cheek; Muhammad Never Did; He Beheaded Instead."

Not everyone was willing to pick a side. A pair of college kids were so disgusted by what they saw in Lower Manhattan today, they bought poster boards and a marker and held their own protest.

Timothy Breuer, 18, marked along with the phrase "I have a sign" on his poster, while friend Eric Ohrt, declared: "I?m tired" on another.

"I know none of these people were here on 9/11, and I don?t think they should be here today," Breuer said.

http://www.nypost.co...L#ixzz0zG4tziDRNotice anything missing from the Pro Mosque demonstrators?

Bongo drums? Check.

Bells to ring? Check.

Mass produced signs provided by the Commie-Socialist-Labor complex? Check.

Trite, yet catchy chants? Check.

American flags? [sound of crickets chirping]

 

[Builder]

American flags? [sound of crickets chirping]

That would be because this is a religious issue, rather than a state or national issue.

Where are the bible-thumpers on the nay side of the fence, would be a better question, IWS.

 

[IWS]

American flags? [sound of crickets chirping]

That would be because this is a religious issue, rather than a state or national issue.

Where are the bible-thumpers on the nay side of the fence, would be a better question, IWS.

No. It's hardly a religious issue.

Everyone concedes that they have the right to do so, under the 1A, religious protection, so it's less than a religious issue than a sensitivity/patriotic issue.

As for "Bible thumpers" as you call them, there are many against this, but most are far right, radical, sorts, like the douchebag in Gainsville, FL.

I'd actually argue there are more people wanting the government to force the Pastor in Florida not to burn the koran, than want the government to stop the building of the mosque.

 

[Builder]

As for "Bible thumpers" as you call them, there are many against this, but most are far right, radical, sorts, like the douchebag in Gainsville, FL.

I'd actually argue there are more people wanting the government to force the Pastor in Florida not to burn the koran, than want the government to stop the building of the mosque.

Last I heard, the pinheaded pastor has called it off. He's had his ten seconds in the limelight, and most of his flock have deserted him.

There's two sides to radicalism in any religion. Not pretty whichever way you look at it.

 

[IWS]