Mosque at Ground Zero

[das]

The problem is that it's not a giant mosque, it's a community center. The problem is other mosques are in the area, no one cared.

 

strip clubs are nearby it's not a classy district.

[Satenza]

Lol. The problem isn't the Community Centre, it is the fact it is being built in such a classless district!

[Saru Inc]

 

 

This is a false dichotomy in your assumptions that if not a then it must be b.

 

Now I admit, that was a good bit of trolling. You're getting better. :D

 

 

Oh good grief. This is where this whole forum suffers terribly at the hands of the close minded. THe majority of this forum takes their open mindedness so pridefully and yet they all maintain the same belief. IF WE CANNOT COMPREHEND IT IT CANNOT EXIST. And this foolishness is prevalent in any post you make, you can preach your open mindedness all the way down to your go green gathering Zierro, but your posts say otherwise. He MUST be trolling, because he has a differing opinion.

 

 

Trolling everywhere else in the world is a malicious spiteful attack on users usually masked by ignorance; in Soviet Tip.It, trolling is having differing opinions. Say no all you want, but you just proved it.

[stevepole]

I wasn't planning on posting in this topic because I think it's ridiculous how some people are reacting to the mosque (I'm not directing this towards people here as I haven't had much time to read more then the first page of this topic). As much as I understand people's anger towards the community center I believe they have the right to build it much like any one else of any other religion would of had the rights to build a place of worth ship for any other religion in that same location. Saying they can't build the mosque because their muslim is basically saying that we think ever person that is muslim is a terrorist, which they aren't. Only a very small minority of muslims are extremist just like there is a very small percentage of christian extremist but we don't stereotype all christians as extremest do we? There is a very huge double standard.

 

The one thing that really gets me though are the people who blame Obama for supporting the mosque. I was unaware the president wasn't suppose to support every American's constitutional freedoms.

[l0rd]

Saruman, he is the one trolling you. He is trying to mock you by downplaying your argument in such a way that gets you riled up. It worked, so I applaud him.

 

Anyways, Saruman, as a conservative (sorry if you're against labels, but that is what you are) who probably supports the right to bear arms, do you not also uphold the first amendment? It just seems rather inconsistent to me.

Also, in your ideal world, would saying "heil hitler" be illegal on the grounds that it is distasteful?

[Saru Inc]

Saruman, he is the one trolling you. He is trying to mock you by downplaying your argument in such a way that gets you riled up. It worked, so I applaud him.

 

Anyways, Saruman, as a conservative (sorry if you're against labels, but that is what you are) who probably supports the right to bear arms, do you not also uphold the first amendment? It just seems rather inconsistent to me.

Also, in your ideal world, would saying "heil hitler" be illegal on the grounds that it is distasteful?

 

 

He wasn't quoting my post.

 

 

Also, I'm not a conservative, which is the funny part. In fact, I'm quite liberal. This forum hardly knows anything about my *true* beliefs, I just find it intriguing to see what people will say. I learned a long time ago it's treacherous to reveal your true feelings about any subject. Anyways. read the following item of literature:

 

 

I wasn't planning on posting in this topic because I think it's ridiculous how some people are reacting to the mosque (I'm not directing this towards people here as I haven't had much time to read more then the first page of this topic). As much as I understand people's anger towards the community center I believe they have the right to build it much like any one else of any other religion would of had the rights to build a place of worth ship for any other religion in that same location. Saying they can't build the mosque because their muslim is basically saying that we think ever person that is muslim is a terrorist, which they aren't. Only a very small minority of muslims are extremist just like there is a very small percentage of christian extremist but we don't stereotype all christians as extremest do we? There is a very huge double standard.

 

The one thing that really gets me though are the people who blame Obama for supporting the mosque. I was unaware the president wasn't suppose to support every American's constitutional freedoms.

 

 

I never said they couldn't, in fact in one of my first posts I said if I were to vote for it I'd vote yes. But I still don't like it.

[Zierro]

He MUST be trolling, because he has a differing opinion.

 

Pssst... I was trolling him. ;-)

 

Do go on about how you think this entire forum is "mentally [developmentally delayed]ed" though. Pretty amusing stuff coming from you:

 

Becareful of the terminology you are* using Godofjoy. He actually is thinking, he's merely disagreeing with your point of view. Don't call the opposing team fools for simply not being on the same team as them.

 

This thread proves this forum is [developmentally delayed]ed. (excluding no one)

 

Maybe if you didn't let your emotions post for you, Saruwoman...

[magekillr]

Yeah, I'm done here. Clearly this is somewhere where we're never going to agree, you'll complain about reverse racism, affirmative action, oppression of white/straight/males, etc etc.

 

Anyway, some quick reading of Wikipedia might be in order:

 

In 1863, the Morrill Act provided for land grant colleges in each state. Some educational institutions in the North or West, were open to blacks since the Civil War. However, 17 Southern states generally excluded blacks from their land grant colleges. In response, the second Morrill Act of 1890 was passed to require states to establish a separate land grant college for blacks if blacks were being excluded from the then existing land grant college. Many of the HBCUs were founded in response to the Second Morrill Act. These land grant schools continue to receive annual federal funding for their research, extension and outreach activities.

 

A lot of what you're saying comes straight from Pat Buchanan's hand book, echoed by Ross Douthat last July:

 

In March of 2000, Pat Buchanan came to speak at Harvard Universitys Institute of Politics. Harvard being Harvard, the audience hissed and sneered and made wisecracks. Buchanan being Buchanan, he gave as good as he got. While the assembled Ivy Leaguers accused him of homophobia and racism and anti-Semitism, he accused Harvard and by extension, the entire American elite of discriminating against white Christians.

 

A decade later, the note of white grievance that Buchanan struck that night is part of the conservative melody. You can hear it when Glenn Beck accuses Barack Obama of racism, or when Rush Limbaugh casts liberal policies as an exercise in reparations. It was sounded last year during the backlash against Sonia Sotomayors suggestion that a wise Latina jurist might have advantages over a white male judge, and again last week when conservatives attacked the Justice Department for supposedly going easy on members of the New Black Panther Party accused of voter intimidation.

~Link.

 

To which someone like Adam Serwer notes the real issue:

 

Douthat never actually suggests that the admissions process relies too much on factors that favor the wealthy -- he merely suggests that minorities are getting too many of the scraps and that lower-class whites are therefore correct to fight with people of color for the gristle being tossed under the table. Douthat never questions -- and these days few do -- the implicit size of the pie retained by the wealthy, as though being born into the type of family that can afford to send you to Andover is a matter of individual merit. It's possible to argue that both African Americans and lower-class whites are underrepresented on elite college campuses -- not exactly hotbeds of racial diversity either -- but Douthat doesn't make that argument.

 

More frustrating is the way Douthat uses this single study to conclude that Buchanan -- and by extension the conservative grievance mongers arguing that there's an "advantage" to being a Latino jurist given Sonia Sotomayor's rise to the Supreme Court (percentage of Supreme Court Justices who have been Latino, .009 percent, percentage who have been white, 98 percent), that there's some truth about the idea that the Obama Justice Department won't protect white voters (false) and the idea that the Affordable Care Act was "reparations" (47 percent of the uninsured are white) are actually onto something about white Christians being discriminated against. It seems a little odd to extrapolate from this single study on affirmative action in college admissions that white Christians as a whole are having a harder time in life than everyone else, given that a white guy just getting out of prison has an easier time finding a job than a black man who has never been. If you're white and lower class, by the time you get out of college you've picked up enough to know how to fake the requisite social markers -- if you're black, you're still black.

 

When you get down to it, Douthat's right that being a white Christian is actually easier if you have oodles of money, but when has being broke in America, regardless of race, ever been easy? Douthat's implicit conclusion isn't really that we should expand the share of the pie at elite institutions to the underrepresented as a whole; it's to wave his foam finger for one group of underrepresented people over another.

 

Link.

 

Call it hypocritical, but I frankly don't care. Spare me the feelings of the straight white males like Pat Buchanan who are being oppressed by the organizations like the NAACP, this straight, white male isn't feeling so oppressed.

 

Read or watch some Tim Wise and you'd realize what you're saying is pretty ridiculous:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc

[Saru Inc]

He MUST be trolling, because he has a differing opinion.

 

Pssst... I was trolling him. ;-)

 

Do go on about how you think this entire forum is "mentally [developmentally delayed]ed" though. Pretty amusing stuff coming from you:

 

Becareful of the terminology you are* using Godofjoy. He actually is thinking, he's merely disagreeing with your point of view. Don't call the opposing team fools for simply not being on the same team as them.

 

This thread proves this forum is [developmentally delayed]ed. (excluding no one)

 

Maybe if you didn't let your emotions post for you, Saruwoman...

 

o rly

 

How so? This I must know.

 

 

Edit: I applaud your trolling, bravo. However, my feelings still stay the same for all the people who aren't being sarcastic.

 

 

And I still strongly believe that the majority of the Music forum leave a bit more to be desired in their skull cavity. They try to turn subjective things into objective things which is just astonishing. Also that first quote you pulled just supports the way I currently feel; not what you were aiming for.

[stevepole]

@Saruman44, I'm a bit confused then.. You support the building of the mosque but you disagree with it?

 

Also I'm going to give a general warning to stop harassing other users. Personally attacking other users is against forum rules and is not the way to have a debate. ~Stevepole

[Zierro]

Call it hypocritical, but I frankly don't care.

 

Yes, this seems to be the case. You specifically don't like when blacks, females, or gays are discriminated against. I don't like when anyone is discriminated against. "It's okay to oppress whites because..." Is there even a point to read past that? Those arguments for white oppression are just ridiculous wastes of time. You're literally better off saying you have this belief for no reason.

 

PS: Why do you start your post with saying, "I'm done," but then you finish the post with a bunch of points about how ridiculous I am for wanting true equality? I was just posting to commend you for ending the debate on a good note, but then I saw the rest of your post.

[Saru Inc]

@Saruman44, I'm a bit confused then.. You support the building of the mosque but you disagree with it?

 

Also I'm going to give a general warning to stop harassing other users. Personally attacking other users is against forum rules and is not the way to have a debate. ~Stevepole

 

 

It's the same approach I take on almost all issues, I may hate what you are saying, but I will die defending you're right to say it. I find it disrespectful, because despite what anyone else thinks, I personally find it disrespectful, for my own reasons. (None of it includes hating Muslims >.> )However it's not up to me to decide what constitutional laws we should follow. So I'll just grit my teeth and bear it.

[Zierro]

I actually see Saru's point there (I think).

 

It's the difference between legality and morality. I think it's pretty messed up to buy up all the turkeys at the grocery store the day before Thanksgiving, but should there be legal action taken against it? Of course not. The government should not interfere unless absolutely necessary. When they barge into our everyday lives, it becomes a habit, and soon they end up dictating everything we do. It's about having as many freedoms as we can, legally.

[Flyingjj]

I wonder what people have to say about this, as this is the real issue:

 

 

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.

 

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

 

In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.

 

Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition

 

Sorry for being late in replying to this, the topic is moving relatively fast for me, who happens to check it every couple hours or so.

 

Anyway, this is what scares me, seeing signs and protests like that. To me, it's only one step from that to the KKK. And boy howdy, does that scare me to no end. I think I really just need to become an ex-pat and head to Canada. I've never been one for patriotism anyhow. Or nationalism, for that matter.

[Saru Inc]

Well I just find (as I know all of you know ) that my growing up gay in a very homophobic town (I found out last week my best friend is a closested homophobe, she said "well i think you're a good smart person, so I don't mind you choose to disobey god, I think thats between you and him. After all, you don't judge me for sleeping around." Comparing being gay to sleeping around....?) I think expressing/being yourself/communication in general is vital to the survival of our species. And too many times I see people shut other people down, simply for thinking different. A coworker once asked if I wanted Westboro church shut down, I replied no. Because if that gets shut down due to me not wanting it to exist, wouldn't it be fair for some straight ass conservative from hicksville shutting down all gay suicide support centers/gay central centers/ even my church. (Though I never go, 7am service is too damn early. And they're all douchebags there). Because I gave in and shut down an (imo) awful institution, there is nothing stopping people like my mom from shutting down things I hold dear, simply because she finds them awful. I honestly do believe in live and let live.

[stevepole]

@Saruman44, I'm a bit confused then.. You support the building of the mosque but you disagree with it?

 

Also I'm going to give a general warning to stop harassing other users. Personally attacking other users is against forum rules and is not the way to have a debate. ~Stevepole

 

 

It's the same approach I take on almost all issues, I may hate what you are saying, but I will die defending you're right to say it. I find it disrespectful, because despite what anyone else thinks, I personally find it disrespectful, for my own reasons. (None of it includes hating Muslims >.> )However it's not up to me to decide what constitutional laws we should follow. So I'll just grit my teeth and bear it.

 

That's respectable.

[Hamtaro]

More examples of this being widespread:

 

Almost two decades ago, Tashima Crudup left her grandmother's home and entered the city's foster care system, where she learned firsthand what makes a good mother.

 

As she shuffled from family to family beginning at age 8, Crudup encountered some attentive and loving foster parents, while others were unsupportive and constraining.

 

"I always wanted to be a foster parent," said the 26-year-old mother of five.

 

In July, Crudup a practicing Muslim contacted Contemporary Family Services, a private company authorized by the state to place foster children with families. She cleared an initial screening process and completed 50 hours of training classes for prospective parents. But after a home visit, her application was denied.

 

The main reason: She doesn't allow pork in her house.

 

Shocked, Crudup contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, which filed a complaint Wednesday with the Baltimore City Community Relations Commission, claiming religious discrimination.

 

"I have a hard time believing [the company] denies every vegetarian or Orthodox Jewish person a foster care license," said Ajmel Quereshi, an attorney with the ACLU. "But I do believe Mrs. Crudup was picked out here and it has led us to believe an anti-Muslim bias is playing a role in the decision."

 

The ACLU doing what they do best: fighting discrimination.

I see the ACLU as the epitome of hypocrisy. They claim to be against religious discrimination yet they themselves are the largest discriminators in the country (if not, the world). Attempting to ban "Merry Christmas" is a step too far for me. If you claim to be offended by hearing the word "Christmas," than you're just a pro-troll in real life.

 

And going around telling little kids that Santa isn't real is the biggest [bleep] move ever. It's not about believing in some myth, it's about childhood innocence and happiness. Finding out you got a gift "from Santa" is so much nicer than from your parents (as a kid, of course). If you take that away because you seem to think it has actual religious connotations to it, you're worse than a common racist.

 

Also, I find it extremely ironic that they attempt to defend the First Amendment to no end, yet they force religious objects (e.g. a Crucifix or Star of David) to be taken down in public areas (even your desk at work). If that's not impeding on the first amendment, than I don't know what is. It's hilariously hypocritical to boast religious tolerance yet if anyone disagrees with the far Left politically, they go ape[cabbage].

 

But it's okay. You obviously have it all figured out. Different opinions are just myths too :thumbup:.

[fakeitormakeit2]

More examples of this being widespread:

 

Almost two decades ago, Tashima Crudup left her grandmother's home and entered the city's foster care system, where she learned firsthand what makes a good mother.

 

As she shuffled from family to family beginning at age 8, Crudup encountered some attentive and loving foster parents, while others were unsupportive and constraining.

 

"I always wanted to be a foster parent," said the 26-year-old mother of five.

 

In July, Crudup — a practicing Muslim — contacted Contemporary Family Services, a private company authorized by the state to place foster children with families. She cleared an initial screening process and completed 50 hours of training classes for prospective parents. But after a home visit, her application was denied.

 

The main reason: She doesn't allow pork in her house.

 

Shocked, Crudup contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, which filed a complaint Wednesday with the Baltimore City Community Relations Commission, claiming religious discrimination.

 

"I have a hard time believing [the company] denies every vegetarian or Orthodox Jewish person a foster care license," said Ajmel Quereshi, an attorney with the ACLU. "But I do believe Mrs. Crudup was picked out here … and it has led us to believe an anti-Muslim bias is playing a role in the decision."

 

The ACLU doing what they do best: fighting discrimination.

I see the ACLU as the epitome of hypocrisy. They claim to be against religious discrimination yet they themselves are the largest discriminators in the country (if not, the world). Attempting to ban "Merry Christmas" is a step too far for me. If you claim to be offended by hearing the word "Christmas," than you're just a pro-troll in real life.

 

And going around telling little kids that Santa isn't real is the biggest [bleep] move ever. It's not about believing in some myth, it's about childhood innocence and happiness. Finding out you got a gift "from Santa" is so much nicer than from your parents (as a kid, of course). If you take that away because you seem to think it has actual religious connotations to it, you're worse than a common racist.

 

Also, I find it extremely ironic that they attempt to defend the First Amendment to no end, yet they force religious objects (e.g. a Crucifix or Star of David) to be taken down in public areas (even your desk at work). If that's not impeding on the first amendment, than I don't know what is. It's hilariously hypocritical to boast religious tolerance yet if anyone disagrees with the far Left politically, they go ape[cabbage].

 

But it's okay. You obviously have it all figured out. Different opinions are just myths too :thumbup:.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Yesssssss I love you. Finally someone who understands! I despise the ACLU! I believe last time I said something along the lines of "I hate the ACLU because... *insert reasoning similar to yours*"on this forum I was hit with self-righteous rapid fire.

[magekillr]

Also, I find it extremely ironic that they attempt to defend the First Amendment to no end, yet they force religious objects (e.g. a Crucifix or Star of David) to be taken down in public areas (even your desk at work). If that's not impeding on the first amendment, than I don't know what is. It's hilariously hypocritical to boast religious tolerance yet if anyone disagrees with the far Left politically, they go ape[cabbage].

 

Uh, that's because using public property to promote your religion is a violation of the first amendment. So, actually, they're defending the first amendment. Do you think public schools should allow teachers to lead children in prayer? If not, why not? It's the same principle. Sorry that you don't like that, but that's what defending freedom is all about, no matter how unpopular the position is. The ACLU is one of the last organizations standing between a lot of government tyranny and discrimination, and I'll be damned to see them smeared like that. If you want to post your nativity scenes in front of a public school, that's illegal; go put it on your church's lawn two miles down the road.

 

Urban Legend: ACLU and their "War on Christmas"

 

Is it OK to say "Merry Christmas"?

 

Endless examples of the ACLU defending religious freedom

[Hamtaro]

Also, I find it extremely ironic that they attempt to defend the First Amendment to no end, yet they force religious objects (e.g. a Crucifix or Star of David) to be taken down in public areas (even your desk at work). If that's not impeding on the first amendment, than I don't know what is. It's hilariously hypocritical to boast religious tolerance yet if anyone disagrees with the far Left politically, they go ape[cabbage].

 

Uh, that's because using public property to promote your religion is a violation of the first amendment. So, actually, they're defending the first amendment. Do you think public schools should allow teachers to lead children in prayer? If not, why not? It's the same principle. Sorry that you don't like that, but that's what defending freedom is all about, no matter how unpopular the position is. The ACLU is one of the last organizations standing between a lot of government tyranny and discrimination, and I'll be damned to see them smeared like that. If you want to post your nativity scenes in front of a public school, that's illegal; go put it on your church's lawn two miles down the road.

 

Urban Legend: ACLU and their "War on Christmas"

 

Is it OK to say "Merry Christmas"?

 

Endless examples of the ACLU defending religious freedom

I understand not having prayer in public schools or not having religious objects on PUBLIC property, and I'm fine with that. However, if you're merely offended by seeing an object (excluding "inappropriate" objects), then shut yourself inside and don't leave your home. I'm sure your "non-biased" sources are 100% accurate considering an agnostic neighbor of ours was supposedly offended by a (rather large) nativity scene on PRIVATE PROPERTY next door to us. They contacted the home owners association of our neighborhood and they did nothing. Guess who our neighbor called after that? Guess who threatened a lawsuit if the nativity scene on PRIVATE property was not removed? I hate that organization and everything about it. Not to mention that despite reporting it to the Detroit News (wow a liberal newspaper, who would have guessed), it was "pushed back by more prominent articles" such as the article on some new toys for the season. The sad part is that they have a website where they could have easily posted it.

 

Or how about the lady with an Obama 08 sticker still plastered onto her Japanese deathtrap hippy-mobile (it ran horribly in the snow :razz: ) in December 2009. My brother (who knows literally nothing about politics and told me) was ringing bells for the Salvation Army outside a grocery store and this lady was about to donate. My brother said Merry Christmas to a young father and his son who had just donated. Immediately she stopped, pulled out her ACLU membership card and "ordered" him to say Happy Holidays instead of "...that offensive phrase." If you're offended by the words Merry Christmas, but not crushing a human fetus' skull, then you have some messed up ideas on what's offensive and what's not.

 

I honestly thought you were trolling when you first mentioned them. They're the most anti-religious organization in the country by far. I understand if they maybe have a distaste for crazy fundamentalists from the South, but they pushed it too far intruding on private property and the member telling (basically threatening) my brother to not say Merry Christmas on CHRISTMAS Eve. If I was there I would have told her Merry Christmas to see what she would have done. Their war on Christmas is very real. Too bad everyone is too afraid of their powerful lawyers to dare "slander" them by telling the truth. More irony - a hardcore liberal believing everything they hear. I thought only Republics did that with Fox News :roll:. This is getting good.

[magekillr]

Also, I find it extremely ironic that they attempt to defend the First Amendment to no end, yet they force religious objects (e.g. a Crucifix or Star of David) to be taken down in public areas (even your desk at work). If that's not impeding on the first amendment, than I don't know what is. It's hilariously hypocritical to boast religious tolerance yet if anyone disagrees with the far Left politically, they go ape[cabbage].

 

Uh, that's because using public property to promote your religion is a violation of the first amendment. So, actually, they're defending the first amendment. Do you think public schools should allow teachers to lead children in prayer? If not, why not? It's the same principle. Sorry that you don't like that, but that's what defending freedom is all about, no matter how unpopular the position is. The ACLU is one of the last organizations standing between a lot of government tyranny and discrimination, and I'll be damned to see them smeared like that. If you want to post your nativity scenes in front of a public school, that's illegal; go put it on your church's lawn two miles down the road.

 

Urban Legend: ACLU and their "War on Christmas"

 

Is it OK to say "Merry Christmas"?

 

Endless examples of the ACLU defending religious freedom

I understand not having prayer in public schools or not having religious objects on PUBLIC property, and I'm fine with that. However, if you're merely offended by seeing an object (excluding "inappropriate" objects), then shut yourself inside and don't leave your home. I'm sure your "non-biased" sources are 100% accurate considering an agnostic neighbor of ours was supposedly offended by a (rather large) nativity scene on PRIVATE PROPERTY next door to us. They contacted the home owners association of our neighborhood and they did nothing. Guess who our neighbor called after that? Guess who threatened a lawsuit if the nativity scene on PRIVATE property was not removed? I hate that organization and everything about it. Not to mention that despite reporting it to the Detroit News (wow a liberal newspaper, who would have guessed), it was "pushed back by more prominent articles" such as the article on some new toys for the season. The sad part is that they have a website where they could have easily posted it.

 

Proof or it didn't happen. They don't have endless resources, guy, they would not waste them on private property. I call shenanigans.

 

Or how about the lady with an Obama 08 sticker still plastered onto her Japanese deathtrap hippy-mobile (it ran horribly in the snow :razz: ) in December 2009. My brother (who knows literally nothing about politics and told me) was ringing bells for the Salvation Army outside a grocery store and this lady was about to donate. My brother said Merry Christmas to a young father and his son who had just donated. Immediately she stopped, pulled out her ACLU membership card and "ordered" him to say Happy Holidays instead of "...that offensive phrase." If you're offended by the words Merry Christmas, but not crushing a human fetus' skull, then you have some messed up ideas on what's offensive and what's not.

 

Ok, so that's some random member, not the ACLU's lawyers. I can find plenty of [wagon] who belong to any organization, friend. Hey, isn't it a little ironic that you picked one member out and chose to lambaste the entire organization over it in this very thread? A little too ironic.

 

These are all nice little anecdotes, but the one where they threatened a lawsuit against private property--which they wouldn't do because they don't have infinite resources and would not go after a case they know would be found to be frivolous--is thus far lacking in any evidence or circumstances of said case, and the latter is some [wagon] member with no legal action provided.

 

Moreover, saying Merry Christmas isn't even a problem for the actual organization, nor even for me, who is an atheist who's quite hostile to religion. Christmas is actually quite secular nowadays, and has been accepted as a secular holiday. However, the religious connotations still present a problem--things like nativity scenes. Trees, wreaths, ribbons, etc do not. This is why even if something can be seen as religious, the ACLU will not go after it per se because it can also be seen as historical. See the Supreme Court cases of County of Allegheny v. ACLU and Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette to examine this stark difference that the SCOTUS and ACLU have recognized.

 

They're the most anti-religious organization in the country by far.

 

Lol, I guess you didn't see the endless examples of them standing up for religion that were from this decade alone, then?

 

More irony - a hardcore liberal believing everything they hear.

 

Lol, more equating the two "extremes," I see. Once again, I have evidence, you don't. Your little anecdotes are more or less [cabbage] compared with my concrete linking. If you want to come into a debate with me, as some people on here know, you damn better be well-sourced, because I don't come empty-handed. If you have a problem with those endless examples, which I will cite once more, then go through each case and tell me why it's biased or factually untrue. They're all documented on the government's websites or any major law school such as Cornell. If you'd like to say that "well they have defended religion, but they go after it more so obviously they're anti-religion," they may or may not do that, I don't have the numbers of cases in front of me. However, if it were true, it would be obvious why: religious people constantly want their cake and they want to eat it, too. Thus their opposition to gay marriage, which is so clearly unconstitutional.

 

Also, the Salvation Army is a piece of [cabbage] organization full of bigots and xenophobes while receiving tax-dollars despite their active discrimination. (1, 2, 3). Faith-based initiatives must end, they are unconstitutional.

 

Going back to the general topic at hand, I want opponents to watch this video and tell me with a straight face that this is anything but hatred of Muslims, and racism:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4

 

And read GG's post on it:

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/23/park51/index.html

 

edit: and going back with one of OldJoe's comments to me, just so this doesn't get misconstrued, read this line of GG's article:

 

Obviously, not all opponents of Park51 are as overtly hateful as those in that video -- and not all opponents are themselves bigots -- but the position they've adopted is inherently bigoted, as it seeks to impose guilt and blame on a large demographic group for the aberrational acts of a small number of individual members.

[Harakiri]

I watched Fox News last night and was pissed off. I see a stupid redneck at a podium declaring that because Muslims didn't sign the declaration of independence that makes them worthless. We are a Christian nation, thus the fact that we are well known for our acceptance of others and our "anyone can go from a nobody to a somebody" policy is worthless. Despite the fact Muslims didn't found the country, despite the fact we are a Christian nation, we still accept others. But because we are fighting the crazies of Islam, that means the doctors, the lawyers, the ones who aren't harming this country are bad. It shows everyone that America is racist and it's ideals are stupid facades for the fact we are intolerant of others.

 

The mosque is two blocks away. People think it's being built right over Ground Zero and will have statues of Osama Bin Laden on it's grounds. It won't. And you know what I personally think? All this hate that is being spouted, all the stupidity of people who are self declared patriots (If you are then why don't you complain that there is no memorial of any sort at Ground Zero after nine [bleep]ing years?) is going to come back and bite America in the ass. This will be in the history books when America is nothing anymore. It will go down showing that we were a land of false ideals. But, even closer term problems I am sure will arise. Let's tell the Muslim's we hate them! Let's burn the Koran as some people in Florida I saw on the news are going to do September 11. Let's suddenly stand in front of the local mosque with picket signs. Let's show the fact that we love the country so much we want the terrorists to know we want a repeat of 9/11.

 

Because that's what I think the effect of this is going to be. Another 9/11, something worse even. Because I am sure Osama and Al Queda are watching.

[Zygimantas]

This whole ideal is really stupid. Religions always seem to butt heads with each other. People are killed in the name of god all the time and religion causes discrimination and prejudice. If not religions fighting against each other then religion begins to look down upon non-believers. Nothing can really be done about any of these issues, but really, what can be done when people all over the world are told that what they worship and what they read is the only truth? Conflict with religion is inevitable.

[Alg]

This whole ideal is really stupid. Religions always seem to butt heads with each other. People are killed in the name of god all the time and religion causes discrimination and prejudice. If not religions fighting against each other then religion begins to look down upon non-believers. Nothing can really be done about any of these issues, but really, what can be done when people all over the world are told that what they worship and what they read is the only truth? Conflict with religion is inevitable.

Though we do get nonbelievers looking down on religion equally, so it's not like there's any side that's fully innocent in all of this.

[Zygimantas]

This whole ideal is really stupid. Religions always seem to butt heads with each other. People are killed in the name of god all the time and religion causes discrimination and prejudice. If not religions fighting against each other then religion begins to look down upon non-believers. Nothing can really be done about any of these issues, but really, what can be done when people all over the world are told that what they worship and what they read is the only truth? Conflict with religion is inevitable.

Though we do get nonbelievers looking down on religion equally, so it's not like there's any side that's fully innocent in all of this.

Yep. There will always be some sort of religion based conflict. Even if everyone believed in the same religion there would be conflict between the sub-categories of the religion. This is all endless.