CAIR: Tea partiers to ‘harass’ Muslims with dogs at anti-mosque protest

reply to post by cjdny


I said "habit" and I meant it.

First instance: You twisted the bringing dogs to offend Muslims into something about the dogs being "racist" as if I implied they were brought to seek out and harass Muslims.

Second instance: You said that nowhere in the constitution does it say that you can build a Mosque anywhere when you obviously knew what was meant by saying they have the right to build a Mosque. OBVIOUSLY one can't build ANYTHING wherever they want to.

That would be twice which is more than once, if I am correct.

reply to post by mordant1


There is no proof they are trying to overthrow our country! The words of individuals cannot be attributed to the whole. If that were the case then we should get rid of almost every faction in America because they all have some wackos that spout off rubbish about taking over America or some other crap like that.

You can't punish someone for something they MIGHT do if there is nothing substantial to back it up as being a viable threat.

Originally posted by mordant1
reply to post by nunya13

 

A religion is a personal belief, it becomes a government when the followers of the belief force nonbeleivers to follow its rules.

Like Christianity in the states?

reply to post by cjdny


Please explain what assumptions I made and how I am being illogical? You can't just make those claims without explaining yourself. Otherwise, it's not a valid argument. When I have disagreed with you, I have explained why and I think you should do the same.

If I am wasting your time then quit responding to me. The fact of the matter is we are in this thread to debate this issue. You have your opinions and I have mine. You are obviously afraid that this is a real threat. I am not. That is our only difference.

Maybe this can be taken down a notch or two?

reply to post by c g henderson




I actually took out a sentence directly after the one you quoted that alluded to the very same notion you mentioned. I just didn't want to fan the flames.

reply to post by c g henderson


Oh really you get beaten, beheaded banished for not going to mass, or church or prostrating yourself to the east??
There is no govenmenta; requirement to be a christian, in any way shape or form. Fer crissakes, look who runs the legal, governmental, financial, entertainment, distribution etc systems. Total lack of foreskins, not that there's anything wrong with it, but there it is. Deniers of christ presiding far out of proportion to the population so where is this christian bias you suggest?
Youre not trying real hard. Compare and contast 'theocracy" with 'do whatever you can get away with'

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective
Pure insanity. More proof the Tea Party movement is filled with ignorance and idiocy.

I for one think its in poor taste if a Mosque was to be built at the site of the WTC but, I would support their right to, if they owned/leased the real estate. Its what makes (made) our country great! Only problem is, it isn't being constructed at ground zero like teabaggers are making it seem like it is. The location is two damned blocks away! Jesus Christ what madness! Nothing but fear-mongering and hate.

Innocent Muslims died on 9/11/2001 too - on the planes and in the buildings and the field in PA, along with Christians, Jews, Hindus etcetera. I defend Israel in most of my posts and American in all my posts, but to think that all Muslims are worthy of disdain isn't right and isn't true.

You are dead on about the fear mongering and hate, but I doubt it is representative of most Tea Partiers, as Bin Laden is not representative of most Muslims, nor David Dukes is representative of most Christians.

Originally posted by mordant1
reply to post by c g henderson

 

Oh really you get beaten, beheaded banished for not going to mass, or church or prostrating yourself to the east??

Right after you were punished under Sharia law.

There is no govenmenta; requirement to be a christian, in any way shape or form. Fer crissakes, look who runs the legal, governmental, financial, entertainment, distribution etc systems. Total lack of foreskins, not that there's anything wrong with it, but there it is. Deniers of christ presiding far out of proportion to the population so where is this christian bias you suggest?
Youre not trying real hard. Compare and contast 'theocracy" with 'do whatever you can get away with'

Abortion, Gay marriage, adoption, stem cell research, medical research, war, etc. all governed by Christian ideals, pushed by Christian politicians.

“the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.” - John McCain.

"And there's nothing more powerful in helping change the country than the faith -- faith in Dios. " - George Bush

I can go on but that is a whole other thread.

Originally posted by Alien Mind
reply to post by whaaa

 

A recent series of unsigned emails and anonymous Web postings

Have you noticed the "unsigned emails" and "anonymous web postings"? My guess is that this is been done by some democratic group.

Dead on. Anonymous is NOT a hallmark of those people I know who simply want less government and more responsible government, and who see as I do, that we are getting neither.

It is the big government and "Bread and Circuses for the Sheeple" bunch that try to tar the Tea Baggers as a uniform block of racists and right-wing wackos.

Originally posted by cjdny
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

No it does not you are still attempting to pass you lack of understanding off as a fact. Just because you twist things up in YOUR mind does not mean that everyone has to follow you just so you feel good about yourself. Play the word games with your fellow morons. Your complete lack of reading comprehension only proves MY point of you passing your assumptions off as fact.
I never said they or ANYONE does not have the right to have whatever beliefs they choose. Just don't expect everyone to bow and adjust their ways to suite their religion. Then that would be FORCING another religion on me and that we all are protected from. If someone said that a specific religion was to be banned I would be right there with them defending their right to Freedom of Religion.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by cjdny]

First the insult "fellow morons" shows just how IQ challenged you yourself are: insults are the last refuge for those engaged in a battle of wits who find themselves only half-armed.

To wit: you define YOUR idea of "..the free exercise thereof" in the context of freedom of religion, please - this will be fun.

Is not the ability to build your "house of worship" with the same freedom and the same rules as any other religion "the free exercise thereof"?

[edit on 30-7-2010 by mydarkpassenger]

Originally posted by bettermakings
Islamophobia of Americans, or, cynophobia (the fear of dogs) of Muslims?

That's a good question, because evolutionarily-speaking, humans have evolved with dogs. Dog domestication is actually older than modern humanity, which means our hominid ancestors had dogs as pets. Islam is something new & unnatural, and their holy book contains violent, discriminatory, and sexist passages. Islamophobia does not exist because it's not a fear, it's a fact.

I agree about the dogs: man partnered with them probably because both are cursorial hunters - the long stern chase, where a good man or a good dog can run an animal down and exhaust it simply by maintaining the pursuit over long enough a stretch of time; that and that both are communal animals used to living in packs or tribes. It's pretty easy to imagine a baby canid bonding with a curious early human, thus cementing the partnership between dogs and man ever since.

Not sure about what you intended with the passage about Islamophobia though. Islam is only about 600 years younger than Christianity, which itself is far younger than Judaism. Xenophobia is common to most cultures, both Islamic and other. Could you elaborate?

Peace.

reply to post by Mak Manto


I looked at your link.

Notice the CHRISTIAN MAJORITY threw their asses in jail.

I cant say that I frown on some of what they did though.

Abortion clinics are ran by butchers that REGULARLY do not explain to the young girls the psychological ramifications (and physical at times) of the procedure. The REGULARY do not inform parents of underage girls.

"Oh, what about rape?"

The girl should get the cops involved and throw the sorry SOB in the pokie for the blasphemy commited.

I am not totally against abortion. Its not birth control though. It should be the ABSOLUTE last line in "normal" circumstances....and even then in a REAL medical setting.

NOT A BUTCHER SHOP.

If you dont want to get pregnant, their are a thousand different ways NOT to get that way. Most of the stupid people doing it are just lazy and STUPID. Live for today, screw tomorrow! I'll worry about that in a few weeks.

Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

I looked at your link.

Notice the CHRISTIAN MAJORITY threw their asses in jail.

Just like the Muslim Majority condemns the killing of innocent people?

I cant say that I frown on some of what they did though.

So instead of admitting that terrorism can come from any religious nut, you condone it when it does something you like? That is sick to say the least.

Abortion clinics are ran by butchers that REGULARLY do not explain to the young girls the psychological ramifications (and physical at times) of the procedure. The REGULARY do not inform parents of underage girls.

Based on what? How many abortions have you had? Counseled on? Performed? How long did you work for one of these places? How often do you hang out in them and follow the girls around to see how they fair? Or are you perhaps going off stuff you were told?

"Oh, what about rape?"

The girl should get the cops involved and throw the sorry SOB in the pokie for the blasphemy commited.

And that 12 year old girl will undoubtedly do a great job rasing her Uncle's bastard child as long as he is in jail. It is just that simple.

I am not totally against abortion. Its not birth control though. It should be the ABSOLUTE last line in "normal" circumstances....and even then in a REAL medical setting.

Why are you against abortion when you are for the killing of innocent people yourself?

NOT A BUTCHER SHOP.

Bombing a place girls routinely go to get free or cheap healthcare is a great way to make that point.

If you dont want to get pregnant, their are a thousand different ways NOT to get that way.

Spoken like a true man.

Most of the stupid people doing it are just lazy and STUPID. Live for today, screw tomorrow! I'll worry about that in a few weeks.

Wow. If there was any more ignorance put into that post it might have overflowed.

Originally posted by felonius
I cant say that I frown on some of what they did though.

Can I ask which ones made you smile?

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by whaaa
I find this a curious stance coming from the TPM. Supposedly the TPM is a defender of the constitution. I thought the constitution mentioned something about "freedom of religion"

God help us!!

Just from reading the posts from Tea Party supporters on this site, most appear to have either not read the constitution or aren't able to understand it.

Case in point: The recent ruling against AZ immigration law. Most commenters claim the judge acted against the constitution, but the constitution includes a supremacy clause that gives Federal laws authority over state laws. The blocked parts of the AZ immigration law were in breach of the constitution.

The supremacy clause wouldn't apply to the Arizona law. Under the constitution the federal government can use this to protect laws if they try to supersede Federal law. The Arizona mirrors federal law so no worry there. And the other thing is if a state law becomes an obstacle to federal laws execution.Now one could argue this to be true only if you make the assumption the feds decided not to enforce the immigration laws. Which mean congresses power is being diminished since they made the laws and the Obama administration has decided not to enforce them.

So which is it cant have it both ways does it violate the supremacy law if so id be interested in you explaining how? This clause was added to make sure the states didnt create laws nullifying federal law. (interesting case in point the health care bill several states are making laws that the federal government cannot mandate health insurance wonder when thats going to hit the supreme court?)

PS thought id include it in case you want to see the supreme court rulings.

California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressedly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the State action. The Supreme Court further found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000), that even when a State law is not in direct conflict with a Federal law, the State law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives."[3] Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over State laws either, because (the Supreme Court said) Congress may implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution.

As far as a mosque being built near me the only problem i would have would be them waking me up if they decided to broadcast there calls to prayer. The first time i heard it when i was stationed in the Middle east thought it was beautiful.By the thousandth time just went to annoying.

There are over a hundred mosques in New York City alone.

There are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.

The Vatican is nogotiating with the Saudis to build the first church in their country.

reply to post by fred call


Is the US trying to live up to Saudi standards then?

Or is that just your desire.

reply to post by nunya13


You need to go back and read each post carefully. The more you try to debate me the more confused you seem to become. You made the claim that I am not explaining myself. If you don't understand this you have bigger issues. You keep trying to argue moot points. So if you can't get it thru your head stop responding to me. Or maybe ask one of the other members to explain it to you. But you are right we do agree on some of the debate.

reply to post by c g henderson


You dont need a whole other thread, just point out to me where it is written in the new testement, then I'll go away. You are confusing rules in general with rules in the queeeran. Rules are rules man, the discussion is where they originate and where they come from. DO you think sharia law has any nicer provisions for what you claim are christian evils?
There is no provision of changing sharia law, contrary to american law.
SO I'll await your substantive reply just make sure you anwer my question with clear, specific cites before lauching into a diversionary rant.