toldailytopic: How do you feel about building a mosque at ground zero?

[Nick_A]

That's exactly what you are doing. You want to take advantage of people's emotions to serve your aims.



I could care less about Emanuel. Why bring him up? Getting desperate to make a valid point not grounded in emotional appeal?



How far must they move to appease you and the whims of the mob?

I stand by my comment. It is more and more evident that Muslim is the new black as far as ignorance and discrimination is concerned.

That's exactly what you are doing. You want to take advantage of people's emotions to serve your aims.

They must be putting something in the water. How is being sensitive to the needs of others having suffered 911 equate to taking advantage of them?

I could care less about Emanuel. Why bring him up? Getting desperate to make a valid point not grounded in emotional appeal?

He represents the height of callous political manipulation that would justify furthering Sharia law at Ground Zero by a symbol of its victory.

How far must they move to appease you and the whims of the mob?

It depends on what is available. But the first step, which you deny, is admitting the desirability of moving the mosque.

I stand by my comment. It is more and more evident that Muslim is the new black as far as ignorance and discrimination is concerned.

No, the new black is the Caucasian long nosed Aries male.

 

[WizardofOz]

It appears nonsensical to you for the same reason you don't understand why peace is overrated. You are not open to appreciating the dynamics of social force so how can I explain it?

It was nonsensical because your statement was awkward and lacked the proper punctuation. You must be all ego, you cannot even admit a grammatical error and clarify your point.

Regarding peace: is peace between American citizens overrated? And if peace is indeed overrated, then why should this imam or the developer care about your emotional pleas?

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. They should move to make peace, yet peace is overrated.

Again, the first step is admitting the human value of moving the mosque. Then location can become meaningful.

Your underestimating the value of keeping the center right where it is. There is "human value" in staying put.

That is our difference. you are influenced by speeches and I am influenced by practical realities.

:duh:
You were the one influenced by a speech. You cut and pasted it into your post, I did not.

 

[WizardofOz]

You win! You have proven me wrong at every turn. Your choice of words is quite inflammatory. I have not asked him to move to the back of the bus. I cannot marginalize anyone, nor do I wish to. I view this as asking a favor from a neighbor. His answer will have consequences, either way. I have nothing more to say.

I apologize for any offense I have cause you, but I am fighting back on this topic.

 

[bybee]

Well

Well

I apologize for any offense I have cause you, but I am fighting back on this topic.

Because I like you and respect you I did not take offense. But thank you for the apology. Curiously, I have not regarded this as a fight.
I'm glad I'm so danged old! In days of yore you'd have had a rip-roaring, rootin-tootin fight on your hands!
Now, doggone it, I need a nap!
Peace to the peace-makers.

 

[Nick_A]

It was nonsensical because your statement was awkward and lacked the proper punctuation. You must be all ego, you cannot even admit a grammatical error and clarify your point.

Regarding peace: is peace between American citizens overrated? And if peace is indeed overrated, then why should this imam or the developer care about your emotional pleas?

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. They should move to make peace, yet peace is overrated.



Your underestimating the value of keeping the center right where it is. There is "human value" in staying put.


:duh:
You were the one influenced by a speech. You cut and pasted it into your post, I did not.

It was nonsensical because your statement was awkward and lacked the proper punctuation. You must be all ego, you cannot even admit a grammatical error and clarify your point.

Regarding peace: is peace between American citizens overrated? And if peace is indeed overrated, then why should this imam or the developer care about your emotional pleas?

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. They should move to make peace, yet peace is overrated.

I am part of the Great Unwashed so am guilty of some grammatical errors. However, the meaning was clear.

A person doesn't follow the Golden Rule to make peace but because it is the right thing to do for people whose hearts have not become calloused. You are overrating peace by equating it with acting in accordance with the Golden Rule.

Peace is a nice word for speeches and brings a tear to the eye. Following the golden Rule means acting in accordance with a quality of sensitivity not all that satisfying to ones ego.

Your underestimating the value of keeping the center right where it is. There is "human value" in staying put.

Yes. it is a token of victory. Some people call that a human value.

You were the one influenced by a speech. You cut and pasted it into your post, I did not.

Yes. I was invited to get on my soapbox and respond. So I did.

 

[WizardofOz]

They must be putting something in the water. How is being sensitive to the needs of others having suffered 911 equate to taking advantage of them?

No Muslims were killed on 911? You must be wearing glasses as well, but your lenses are causing blindness. No Muslims live in New York?

Well, it's obvious that you don't anyway.

He represents the height of callous political manipulation that would justify furthering Sharia law at Ground Zero by a symbol of its victory.

Oh, what a paranoid and terribly naive person you are. This center is not going to further Sharia law at ground zero. The center is not even at ground zero, but rather it is two blocks away and not even in view of ground zero.

What the hell are you even talking about, sharia law? Do you check under your bed for Muslims at night?

It depends on what is available. But the first step, which you deny, is admitting the desirability of moving the mosque.

There was something available; the abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building. Moving the mosque is desirable for some and less than desirable for others. Whose whims should we let influence us?

It's always back to mob rule with you, isn't it?

No, the new black is the Caucasian long nosed Aries male.

Give me a break.

 

[WizardofOz]

I am part of the Great Unwashed so am guilty of some grammatical errors. However, the meaning was clear.

5+ posts later....no, it wasn't. I was not just giving you a hard time. I really had no idea what you meant.

A person doesn't follow the Golden Rule to make peace but because it is the right thing to do for people whose hearts have not become calloused. You are overrating peace by equating it with acting in accordance with the Golden Rule.

Why is it the right thing to do, because of an opinion poll? Tell me why they should move. Be specific.

Peace is a nice word for speeches and brings a tear to the eye. Following the golden Rule means acting in accordance with a quality of sensitivity not all that satisfying to ones ego.

Why are we not called to act in accordance with a quality of sensitivity toward the people that want this mosque built? You value the whims of one mob over the whims of another and that isn't how things work, nor should it be.

Yes. it is a token of victory. Some people call that a human value.

You think this Sufi Imam wants this mosque built as a token of victory? Look into his past. He is a critique of Islamic extremists and a voice of moderate Islam.

You hear the word Muslim and think terrorist. That much is clear. You couldn't be more wrong in my opinion. These are the Muslims we want speaking; loud and often.

Yes. I was invited to get on my soapbox and respond. So I did.

Irrelevant. You claim I am influenced by speeches, yet the only one citing speeches was you. Who was quoting Tawfik Hamid again?

 

[Nick_A]

No Muslims were killed on 911? You must be wearing glasses as well, but your lenses are causing blindness. No Muslims live in New York?

Well, it's obvious that you don't anyway.

People were killed. it was a classic example of random Interfaith destruction.

Oh, what a paranoid and terribly naive person you are. This center is not going to further Sharia law at ground zero. The center is not even at ground zero, but rather it is two blocks away and not even in view of ground zero.

What the hell are you even talking about, sharia law? Do you check under your bed for Muslims at night?

Are you suggesting it is not a means for furthering Sharia law? Ground Zero is defined by what the planes destroyed.

There was something available; the abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building. Moving the mosque is desirable for some and less than desirable for others. Whose whims should we let influence us?

It's always back to mob rule with you, isn't it?

Yes, that is the question. Do we further the whims of some at the expense of others?

Give me a break.

Soon long nosed Caucasian Aries males will become part of a minority group and then what you've just said will be considered hate speech.

 

[MrRadish]

Soon long nosed Caucasian Aries males will become part of a minority group and then what you've just said will be considered hate speech.

I don't see what astrology has to do with it... :think:

 

[Nick_A]

5+ posts later....no, it wasn't. I was not just giving you a hard time. I really had no idea what you meant.



Why is it the right thing to do, because of an opinion poll? Tell me why they should move. Be specific.



Why are we not called to act in accordance with a quality of sensitivity toward the people that want this mosque built? You value the whims of one mob over the whims of another and that isn't how things work, nor should it be.



You think this Sufi Imam wants this mosque built as a token of victory? Look into his past. He is a critique of Islamic extremists and a voice of moderate Islam.

You hear the word Muslim and think terrorist. That much is clear. You couldn't be more wrong in my opinion. These are the Muslims we want speaking; loud and often.



Irrelevant. You claim I am influenced by speeches, yet the only one citing speeches was you. Who was quoting Tawfik Hamid again?

Why is it the right thing to do, because of an opinion poll? Tell me why they should move. Be specific.

Why are we not called to act in accordance with a quality of sensitivity toward the people that want this mosque built? You value the whims of one mob over the whims of another and that isn't how things work, nor should it be.

It is hard to explain. If you see someone has fallen, by what standards would you help them? Would age, color, gender clothing, or anything else become a factor? Would you help in the cause of peace or because for some reason, regardless of opinion polls, you would feel it as the right thing to do?

That is the issue here. People are guided by opinion polls rather than the Golden rule which is why there will be dueling demonstrations at the site on 911. I cannot explain this. You either "feel" it or you don't. You either feel that certain places should be above politics or you don't. It isn't a matter of catering to a mob but rather that the site is representative of something above politics.

You think this Sufi Imam wants this mosque built as a token of victory? Look into his past. He is a critique of Islamic extremists and a voice of moderate Islam.

Of course. It is Sharia evangelism. The intent is to spread their version of the Word in a more moderate fashion. But when it is rejected it is still the same old story.

Why do you think Rauf said that not allowing the mosque could cause riots in the world. It is because they consider it a battleground.

Irrelevant. You claim I am influenced by speeches, yet the only one citing speeches was you. Who was quoting Tawfik Hamid again?

You said:

"Thanks for sharing zoo. Mr. Rauf is laying out a very acceptable and even applaudable vision for this center. I have supported this center from day 1, but now more than ever. Sure beats an abandoned building or even high-rise condos for that matter."

IMO, you admitted being influenced by a speech.

 

[Nick_A]

I don't see what astrology has to do with it... :think:

Long nosed Caucasion Aries males are veerrrry suspicious. We all look alike. As we become an official minority group, we will be protected by laws against hate speech. Then what will the mainstream media do?

 

[WizardofOz]

How is being sensitive to the needs of others having suffered 911 equate to taking advantage of them?

No Muslims were killed on 911? You must be wearing glasses as well, but your lenses are causing blindness. No Muslims live in New York?

Well, it's obvious that you don't anyway.

People were killed. it was a classic example of random Interfaith destruction.

You're not following along. You brought up being "sensitive to the needs of others having suffered 911" as if this is some collective voice. Muslims died that day too. Muslims live in New York too. What about their needs? Are we going by majority vote here or what?

Are you suggesting it is not a means for furthering Sharia law?

Among Muslims? Perhaps. Among non-Muslims? No.

Sharia law will not become American law if that's what you're paranoid about.

Ground Zero is defined by what the planes destroyed.

Ground Zero refers to the World Trade Center site. Not a building hit by debris two blocks away.

Yes, that is the question. Do we further the whims of some at the expense of others?

Ask yourself that question.

Soon long nosed Caucasian Aries males will become part of a minority group and then what you've just said will be considered hate speech.

I don't see what astrology has to do with it... :think:

:dunce:

It is hard to explain. If you see someone has fallen, by what standards would you help them? Would age, color, gender clothing, or anything else become a factor? Would you help in the cause of peace or because for some reason, regardless of opinion polls, you would feel it as the right thing to do?

There is no connection between pressuring these people to abandon their lawful right to develop this abandoned building and helping a fallen stranger.

That is the issue here. People are guided by opinion polls rather than the Golden rule which is why there will be dueling demonstrations at the site on 911. I cannot explain this. You either "feel" it or you don't. You either feel that certain places should be above politics or you don't. It isn't a matter of catering to a mob but rather that the site is representative of something above politics.

The golden rule? If others would want their right to private ownership protected then they should treat these developers the same way they would want to be treated.

Your side is the one politicizing this. The site would have been developed and no one would have been the wiser had someone not spoken up to make it a political issue.

It IS a matter of catering to the mob. You feel mob A should have their wishes granted and that mob B should bow to those wishes, regardless of what the law says.

I prefer the rule of the law while your prefer emotion appeal and mob rule.

Of course. It is Sharia evangelism. The intent is to spread their version of the Word in a more moderate fashion. But when it is rejected it is still the same old story.

More :noid:

It's going to take a whole heck of a lot more than one neatly placed mosque to supersede our Constitutional Law. But, that's what it's all about for you, isn't it? You whine about the location, but even if it's 100 miles away, it's all about your irrational fear of being forced under Sharia Law.

Those statements makes you awfully transparent.

Why do you think Rauf said that not allowing the mosque could cause riots in the world. It is because they consider it a battleground.

Because it would show "moderate Islam" that the ignorant such as yourself fear and loathe Islam as a whole, not just the fundamentalist and extremist terrorist types.

What do you think we are doing in Afghanistan? We are befriending Muslims. We cannot win without their support.

IMO, you admitted being influenced by a speech.

It's better to get the info directly from the source than to assume and speculate what his stance is. I think he laid his position out quite well and we now have him at his word that he means to follow through on the goals he wishes to accomplish.

I was influenced in that I was informed. There is knowledge and logic and then there is ignorance and fear. Which do you prefer?

 

[WizardofOz]

Long nosed Caucasion Aries males are veerrrry suspicious. We all look alike. As we become an official minority group, we will be protected by laws against hate speech. Then what will the mainstream media do?

Astrological signs do not have noses nor skin. What do you think an "Aries" is, anyway?

 

[MrRadish]

If not an astrological indication, then presumably an Aries male would be a goat-man. Which the Bible notably discriminates against... :devil:

 

[Nick_A]

If not an astrological indication, then presumably an Aries male would be a goat-man. Which the Bible notably discriminates against... :devil:

Since you are an agnostic, you are excused from this anti-ram slur. The official Ram society has pondered your remark and have decided not to press charges. They have asked me to remind you of what the Ram is really symbolic of:

http://www.catholic-saints.info/catholic-symbols/ram-christian-symbol.htm

The Meaning of the Ram as a Catholic Christian Symbol
Catholic Christian symbolism in art provides a clear graphic illustration which represents people or items of religious significance. What is the definition and the meaning of the Ram? The Ram is a male of the sheep and allied animals. The Ram Christian Symbol represents protection as the ram protected the herd and also symbolises sacrifice as the ram was one of the first animals to be sacrificed on alters, hence their Latin name Aries which comes from aris meaning "alters".. It is a symbol for Christ taken from the Old Testament.

Reference to the Ram Christian Symbol in the Bible
The following reference to the ram in the Bible:

Gen. 22:13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided."

The son of Hezron, and one of the ancestors of the royal line (Ruth 4:19). The margin of 1 Chr. 2:9, also Matt. 1:3, 4 and Luke 3:33, have "Aram."

One of the sons of Jerahmeel (1 Chr. 2:25, 27).

A person mentioned in Job 32:2 as founder of a clan to which Elihu belonged. The same as Aram of Gen. 22:21.

A noble beast.

 

[Nick_A]

You're not following along. You brought up being "sensitive to the needs of others having suffered 911" as if this is some collective voice. Muslims died that day too. Muslims live in New York too. What about their needs? Are we going by majority vote here or what?



Among Muslims? Perhaps. Among non-Muslims? No.

Sharia law will not become American law if that's what you're paranoid about.



Ground Zero refers to the World Trade Center site. Not a building hit by debris two blocks away.



Ask yourself that question.

:dunce:



There is no connection between pressuring these people to abandon their lawful right to develop this abandoned building and helping a fallen stranger.



The golden rule? If others would want their right to private ownership protected then they should treat these developers the same way they would want to be treated.

Your side is the one politicizing this. The site would have been developed and no one would have been the wiser had someone not spoken up to make it a political issue.

It IS a matter of catering to the mob. You feel mob A should have their wishes granted and that mob B should bow to those wishes, regardless of what the law says.

I prefer the rule of the law while your prefer emotion appeal and mob rule.



More :noid:

It's going to take a whole heck of a lot more than one neatly placed mosque to supersede our Constitutional Law. But, that's what it's all about for you, isn't it? You whine about the location, but even if it's 100 miles away, it's all about your irrational fear of being forced under Sharia Law.

Those statements makes you awfully transparent.



Because it would show "moderate Islam" that the ignorant such as yourself fear and loathe Islam as a whole, not just the fundamentalist and extremist terrorist types.

What do you think we are doing in Afghanistan? We are befriending Muslims. We cannot win without their support.



It's better to get the info directly from the source than to assume and speculate what his stance is. I think he laid his position out quite well and we now have him at his word that he means to follow through on the goals he wishes to accomplish.

I was influenced in that I was informed. There is knowledge and logic and then there is ignorance and fear. Which do you prefer?

You're not following along. You brought up being "sensitive to the needs of others having suffered 911" as if this is some collective voice. Muslims died that day too. Muslims live in New York too. What about their needs? Are we going by majority vote here or what?

They are included in this ritual of random Interfaith destruction within which we are as ONE.

Among Muslims? Perhaps. Among non-Muslims? No.

Sharia law will not become American law if that's what you're paranoid about.

It may not, but what will be the results of its rejection?

Ground Zero refers to the World Trade Center site. Not a building hit by debris two blocks away.

It is also defined by what was destroyed which makes more sense.

Ask yourself that question.

I did and decided that the Ground Zero should be above politics.

The golden rule? If others would want their right to private ownership protected then they should treat these developers the same way they would want to be treated.

Your side is the one politicizing this. The site would have been developed and no one would have been the wiser had someone not spoken up to make it a political issue.

It IS a matter of catering to the mob. You feel mob A should have their wishes granted and that mob B should bow to those wishes, regardless of what the law says.

I prefer the rule of the law while your prefer emotion appeal and mob rule.

This is typical of Jesus' dispute with the Pharisees. They insisted on the letter of the law and Jesus spoke of mercy or the law in context of the "good" which is the goal of the law. You seem to favor the Pharisees argument.

The legal right to build is all that is important for you. For others like me, respect for the sufferings of others will be more important than asserting rights. We have chosen our ways.

It's going to take a whole heck of a lot more than one neatly placed mosque to supersede our Constitutional Law. But, that's what it's all about for you, isn't it? You whine about the location, but even if it's 100 miles away, it's all about your irrational fear of being forced under Sharia Law.

You cannot accept that some people are motivated more by consideration than politics. You worry about Constitutional law and others are concerned with something beyond rights which you've chosen to ignore:

"One cannot imagine St. Francis of Assisi talking about rights." Simone Weil

This is absurd to you since what is more important than "rights?"

Because it would show "moderate Islam" that the ignorant such as yourself fear and loathe Islam as a whole, not just the fundamentalist and extremist terrorist types.

No. It is you that fear and loathe those with a mindset that believe there is more to life than "rights."

It's better to get the info directly from the source than to assume and speculate what his stance is. I think he laid his position out quite well and we now have him at his word that he means to follow through on the goals he wishes to accomplish.

I was influenced in that I was informed. There is knowledge and logic and then there is ignorance and fear. Which do you prefer?

You were informed by Imam Rauf and I was informed by Tawfik Hamid. You blindly believe and I know the political animal for what it is and always has been. I prefer unpleasant reality to feel good platitudes

 

[WizardofOz]

They are included in this ritual of random Interfaith destruction within which we are as ONE.

That doesn't address my questions. There were Muslims killed on 911. There are plenty of Muslims living in and around lower Manhattan. What about their "needs"? Are they unimportant when the majority wishes clash with theirs?

You're not considering them, it seems.

It may not, but what will be the results of its rejection?

The rejection of Sharia Law was preempted with The Constitution. The result is precedent and rule by law not by the wishes of any group.

It is also defined by what was destroyed which makes more sense.

Well the Burlington Coat Factory building was only damaged, not destroyed so I guess we can rule it out.

I did and decided that the Ground Zero should be above politics.

As well as redevelopment it seems.

This is typical of Jesus' dispute with the Pharisees. They insisted on the letter of the law and Jesus spoke of mercy or the law in context of the "good" which is the goal of the law. You seem to favor the Pharisees argument.

Your analogies are terrible. You seem to favor the whims of the mob, like when the mob wanted to crucify Jesus rather than Barabbas. You would be in the mob saying "well, if that's what the people want we should let them have it". Way to go. You favor the death of Jesus.

Sounds pretty stupid when I bring up such silly analogies too, doesn't it?

The legal right to build is all that is important for you. For others like me, respect for the sufferings of others will be more important than asserting rights. We have chosen our ways.

Legal right is the only way to decide which mob to support. You want to pressure and manipulate the developer from creating what he wants to create with his private property. You feel the wishes of those opposed to this development should trump the wishes of those who want it to happen as planned.

This is absurd to you since what is more important than "rights?"

The same "rights" I support are what prevents your worst nightmare from coming true.

No. It is you that fear and loathe those with a mindset that believe there is more to life than "rights."

Your response is totally unrelated to my statement. You just keep falling back to your rhetoric rather than following the conversation.

You were informed by Imam Rauf and I was informed by Tawfik Hamid. You blindly believe and I know the political animal for what it is and always has been. I prefer unpleasant reality to feel good platitudes

Mr. Rauf was speaking specifically about the topic. It was relevant. Also, I do not blindly believe, but he has now made statements on the record about his intent and about his beliefs. He can now expect us to hold him to them.

Mr. Hamid spoke in generalizations that have little to do with the specific topic we are discussing, but you thought his speech helped your argument so you cut and pasted it for some odd reason as if it had something to do with the conversation.

You prefer the misery and hopelessness of people like Simone Weil. You are obviously too weak-minded to steer your own course and are easily influenced by her and others who say exactly what you want to hear.

I can tell you're young. You may yet grow up and begin to think for yourself. It's quite liberating.

 

[Nick_A]

That doesn't address my questions. There were Muslims killed on 911. There are plenty of Muslims living in and around lower Manhattan. What about their "needs"? Are they unimportant when the majority wishes clash with theirs?

You're not considering them, it seems.


The rejection of Sharia Law was preempted with The Constitution. The result is precedent and rule by law not by the wishes of any group.



Well the Burlington Coat Factory building was only damaged, not destroyed so I guess we can rule it out.



As well as redevelopment it seems.



Your analogies are terrible. You seem to favor the whims of the mob, like when the mob wanted to crucify Jesus rather than Barabbas. You would be in the mob saying "well, if that's what the people want we should let them have it". Way to go. You favor the death of Jesus.

Sounds pretty stupid when I bring up such silly analogies too, doesn't it?



Legal right is the only way to decide which mob to support. You want to pressure and manipulate the developer from creating what he wants to create with his private property. You feel the wishes of those opposed to this development should trump the wishes of those who want it to happen as planned.



The same "rights" I support are what prevents your worst nightmare from coming true.



Your response is totally unrelated to my statement. You just keep falling back to your rhetoric rather than following the conversation.



Mr. Rauf was speaking specifically about the topic. It was relevant. Also, I do not blindly believe, but he has now made statements on the record about his intent and about his beliefs. He can now expect us to hold him to them.

Mr. Hamid spoke in generalizations that have little to do with the specific topic we are discussing, but you thought his speech helped your argument so you cut and pasted it for some odd reason as if it had something to do with the conversation.

You prefer the misery and hopelessness of people like Simone Weil. You are obviously too weak-minded to steer your own course and are easily influenced by her and others who say exactly what you want to hear.

I can tell you're young. You may yet grow up and begin to think for yourself. It's quite liberating.

That doesn't address my questions. There were Muslims killed on 911. There are plenty of Muslims living in and around lower Manhattan. What about their "needs"? Are they unimportant when the majority wishes clash with theirs?

You're not considering them, it seems.

You insist on dividing people into groups and I speak of the people suffering the results as ONE and in respect to them, to keep politics away from Ground Zero. There is no reason for me to single out Muslims.

The rejection of Sharia Law was preempted with The Constitution. The result is precedent and rule by law not by the wishes of any group.

This has nothing to do with it. The developers now have staked their claim and as Rauf said, any attempt to move the mosque could result in retaliation.

Well the Burlington Coat Factory building was only damaged, not destroyed so I guess we can rule it out.

That is like saying a woman was just raped and beaten but not killed.

As well as redevelopment it seems.

Can you conceive of any non-political form of development?

Your analogies are terrible. You seem to favor the whims of the mob, like when the mob wanted to crucify Jesus rather than Barabbas. You would be in the mob saying "well, if that's what the people want we should let them have it". Way to go. You favor the death of Jesus.

How you can label those suffering the results of 911 and protesting the Sharia mosque, as a mob? There is no way to respond to something so callous.

Legal right is the only way to decide which mob to support. You want to pressure and manipulate the developer from creating what he wants to create with his private property. You feel the wishes of those opposed to this development should trump the wishes of those who want it to happen as planned.

It is the only way for YOU to know which mob to report because to you they are all mobs. You must be a regular riot at a funeral. You will ask what this mob is doing here.

What people should do is one thing, but as you suggest, we are incapable of it and need to lose freedom in preference to being governed by increasing laws.

The same "rights" I support are what prevents your worst nightmare from coming true.

No. The only thing that can prevent the coming nightmare is the voluntary recognition of the balance between OBLIGATIONS and rights. Increasing secularism has deprived us of this awareness so societyjust demands "rights."

Your response is totally unrelated to my statement. You just keep falling back to your rhetoric rather than following the conversation.

What is more important than "rights" for you?

Mr. Rauf was speaking specifically about the topic. It was relevant. Also, I do not blindly believe, but he has now made statements on the record about his intent and about his beliefs. He can now expect us to hold him to them.

And what will you do when it is proven that it is not the case? You are a blind believer so prefer wonderful platitudes to reality. How will you handle reality?

Mr. Hamid spoke in generalizations that have little to do with the specific topic we are discussing, but you thought his speech helped your argument so you cut and pasted it for some odd reason as if it had something to do with the conversation.

Hamid understands the Sharia agenda. Anyone understanding the agenda can understand the intent of the Ground Zero mosque.

You prefer the misery and hopelessness of people like Simone Weil. You are obviously too weak-minded to steer your own course and are easily influenced by her and others who say exactly what you want to hear

People like Simone invite us to take off our rose colored glasses if our hearts are called to the experience of "meaning." Simone invites us to experience real hope and to inwardly profit from coming to grips with our misery. They have need and courage that you cannot appreciate.

I can tell you're young. You may yet grow up and begin to think for yourself. It's quite liberating.

Oh no! Another advocate of New Age critical thinking. One is bad enough but now it is spreading.

 

[MrRadish]

(Abridged. MR)

http://www.catholic-saints.info/catholic-symbols/ram-christian-symbol.htm
Reference to the Ram Christian Symbol in the Bible
The following reference to the ram in the Bible:

Gen. 22:13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided."

The son of Hezron, and one of the ancestors of the royal line (Ruth 4:19). The margin of 1 Chr. 2:9, also Matt. 1:3, 4 and Luke 3:33, have "Aram."

One of the sons of Jerahmeel (1 Chr. 2:25, 27).

A person mentioned in Job 32:2 as founder of a clan to which Elihu belonged. The same as Aram of Gen. 22:21.[/B]

A noble beast.

Aha! Illuminating stuff. So is it long-nosed Caucasian sons of Hezron that will soon be a minority? Or of Jerahmeel? Or members of Elihu's clan? Which one did you mean?

 

[Nick_A]

Aha! Illuminating stuff. So is it long-nosed Caucasian sons of Hezron that will soon be a minority? Or of Jerahmeel? Or members of Elihu's clan? Which one did you mean?

It is hard to say since Ancestry.com traces our lineage back only so far. However, our minority status will be assured since people will soon say: "they all look alike." As soon as they say that, you know you're in a minority.