It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Violent Anti-Mosque crowd turns on Black Carpenter

page: 20
53
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by KittyKat666
 


Then you will no doubt be relieved to know that they're not building on the WTC site at all.

The proposed community center and Mosque is two blocks north of the northernmost part of the WTC site, and about six blocks from where the 9/11 memorial will be.




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by ollncasino
That's actually quite sensible for you. An acknowledgement (by implication) that the majority's rights need protected also.


How are the majority's rights being threatened by this project?


I wasn't planning on taking that rhetorical bait...But the more relevant question is..

What specific right is violated by the Mosque being built?

We know what rights would be violated if the Gov told them they couldn't...Property rights, freedom of religion etc.

But what rights of the opposition would be violated if the mosque is built? A right to be offended? A right to be intolerant? A right to misrepresent the religion? A right to an given opinion? A right to practice christianity or other religions?

All of those rights are wholely intact and being loudly excercized via the protests and news outlets.

Everybodys rights are intact thus far...once we take one groups rights away, the sky is the limit...see the video on the last page to see where this thinking has lead in the past.

What this poster is doing is fear mongering and suggesting we need to start editing our constitution to reel in civil liberties...lest sharia law be instituted...just the most idiotic, hateful, trash in my opinion.



[edit on 24-8-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Turkey has a big problem with that. The army has had to stage a coup 4 times since WWII to stop Muslim extremists taking over the country by democratic means.


Only one of those Coup De Tats had religious overtones and even the motivations for that are still being debated.

You sure do BS alot.

Turkey..
1960 Coup... en.wikipedia.org...

1971 Coup ... en.wikipedia.org...

1980 Coup.... en.wikipedia.org...

1997 Coup... en.wikipedia.org...(Turkey)



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by reevesdomain

I don't call it a first amendment issue because it is legally being challenged or because this particular religious group is being denied practice or infringed upon by the goverment. In fact they are not. I think of it as a first amendment issue because, from what I see is that the first amendment is being upheld and yet the American public seems to be painfully aggrieved by it. The debate I believe is whether or not that grievance is justifiable. Not in emotions, but rather in fact and rational. I personally do not see it as so. The first amendment is working here and doing what it is meant to do.


I see. Your assessment is correct in that the First Amendment is being held up as justification by one side, and the other seems to be attempting to avoid the issue altogether. I'm mystified as to why that is occurring, but I believe it to be rooted in a pre-programmed misapprehension on the part of the public in understanding the scope and limitations inherent in the Constitution. This misapprehension has been fostered for years now, so it's understandable on the one hand that it exists, but on the other hand, a little digging on the part of the public would go a long way in dispelling it.

You see, the public labors under the assumption that the Constitution, and in this case the First Amendment in particular, confers some sort of "right" on them. It does not. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are pre-existent to the Constitution, and are in no way granted by it. They simply ARE. What the purpose of the Constitution in this matter IS, is to deny governmental entities the ability to interfere with those pre-existent rights, potentially negating them altogether.

As far as I've been able to determine, Congress has not passed any law in this matter, and indeed has not even weighed in on it at all. No Constitutional provisions are as yet endangered, so it really isn't a Constitutional question at all. The subject has NO proper place in this debate to begin with.



I'am trying to see both sides and empathise with the other viewpoint, but I'am not hearing any rational reasons on why this community center should not be built at it's current location. Muslims did not orchestrate 911. So what is the rationale?


My objections are based largely on the supreme lack of common sense displayed in the matter. This muslim group, knowing full well that problems would ensue if they follow this course of action, went ahead and initiated it any how.

They've bearded a lion in it's den, and now comes the counter-mobs to claim some sort of "Constitutional" right to do so in an attempt at defending the actions. They can no more justify it in that way than I can take a lawn mower to a public park, start mowing, and defend my actions when stopped by saying "that makes me happy, and the Constitution says I'm allowed to be happy, so it's Constitutional". That instrument wouldn't be applicable there at all, and neither is it applicable here.

People do stupid things, that's a fact of life. I take exception when people do stupid, provocative things, and then expect a 200 year old document to fix what they themselves have willfully broken, by trying to misapply it's provisions.

If they want to do stupid, provocative things, by all means go ahead and do it. That is their right to do so. All I ask is that they own the consequences of their actions, rather than trying to hide behind law that does not apply.

Is it their right to do what they are attempting? Of course it is. Is it a smart move? I'll leave that to others to decide. Will there be consequences? Of course. They've already begun.

In my example above from Greensboro NC, both sides exercised their right of assembly. That was their right to do so, but it wasn't very bright, and consequences ensued. As I said, sometimes people will do stupid things, and the universe in general doesn't really care if the consequences of those actions are deadly to the participants or not.

It just delivers the consequences all the same, and the participants have to live with them. Or not, as sometimes turns out to be the case. I'm not hoping for violence in this situation, but I can nearly guarantee it's eventual arrival.

The universe at large seems not to really care what I personally prefer.

Edit: on account of my pitiful spelling.

[edit on 2010/8/24 by nenothtu]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Democracy without equal protections for the minority is tyranny...Dictatorship.

Here...I will use language you might understand.

The "Majority" voted to give Democrats a Majority in Congress and put a Democrat in the white house.

If after that election the "Minority" GOP was deprived of thier rights to assemble, protest, free speech etc...by the "Majority" Democrats, then all the mechanisms that allow them to regain a majority have been nullified. Result? Tyranny.

Majority rule absent equal Minority rights equals dictatorship...not democracy.



"Democracy" means "Rule of the People". By definition, that means majority rule.

Unless, of course, you mean to imply that the majority is something other than people?

Guarding against tyranny is precisely why we were delivered a Republic, rather than a Democracy, because you are correct in your assessment that majority rule leads to eventual tyranny.

That's why we don't HAVE a Democracy.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

What this poster is doing is fear mongering and suggesting we need to start editing our constitution to reel in civil liberties...lest sharia law be instituted...just the most idiotic, hateful, trash in my opinion.



On the subject of "Civil Liberties", you can have my share, I don't want them.

Fair enough?

The rights I already have supercede "Civil Liberties", and I have no desire for any sort of a downgrade.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Foppezao
 


I didn't ask for your opinion. I asked for a source that backs up the claim that it's


The Cordoba house and Cordoba initiative is a direct reference to the Cordoba mezquita



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I saw this on, i think, Colbert last night (i don't really watch TV...it is just on in the background so i don't hear the noise outside while i am trying to read). I had the same reaction many of you did, being shocked at what I saw American's doing.

I am as sickened by what our nation is becoming as any of you are. I see the parallels to the Nazi's, and have been stating frequently how i believe that 9/11 equates to America's "Reichstag Fire", with the Muslims playing the role of the Jews.

If you are sick of seeing this speak out about it. Tell people. Let your viewpoints be heard.

I have a friend who lives in Arizona. Today he went to vote in the primaries, and was disgusted to see only 4 people in there voting. Now, I agree that it is a pathetic shame that American's will take to the message boards while ignoring the polls (it equates to farting the wind). However, I reminded him that having the polls full of people would likely only indicate that ACORN like groups had been all too effective at mobilizing the most ignorant people in America to follow instructions on who to vote for.

The only answer is to not allow ill informed people to vote. Since we can not and will not stifle the right to vote, that leaves the only option being that the people who ARE informed start to exert some influence. Take the message out to the people.

But I have little faith that many of you care to do much other than just respond to the shock factor you see in this thread. For example:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread is being completely ignored, yet has a video that (arguably) should be required viewing in every school.

If you care, then care all the time. Not just when you see a "shock" video come out. Take your freedom and liberty seriously. Don't just give it lip service when you are guided in that direction by someone else. Stand up and lead yourself. Demand change. And turn off your damned TV's...Garbage In, Garbage Out.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

The rights I already have supercede "Civil Liberties", and I have no desire for any sort of a downgrade.


Confused on your point.

Our "rights" are "endowed by our creator"...they are "natural" or as some would say "God Given"...this is what the authors of the constitution/our founding fathers believed.

The constitution does not grant us these rights, but recognizes them.

At the time of it's writing, it was a literally a revolutionary idea to recognize these rights for all people of a nation.

If you don't think that recognition is important, perhaps spend a year in Iran or Cuba and see if you change your mind?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

"Democracy" means "Rule of the People". By definition, that means majority rule.

Unless, of course, you mean to imply that the majority is something other than people?

Guarding against tyranny is precisely why we were delivered a Republic, rather than a Democracy, because you are correct in your assessment that majority rule leads to eventual tyranny.

That's why we don't HAVE a Democracy.


Confusing bit there.

I don't get the whole "Democracy leads to Tyranny" thing???

Agree Democracy means "Rule of the People"

Democracies and Republics overlap.

2 kinds of Democracy...Direct Democracy and Representitive Democracy.

Direct Democracy...everyone votes on everything

Representitive Democracy...where representitives are elected to vote for us on laws etc.

The USA is a "Representitive Democracy"...which is a form of "Republic" often referred to as a "Democratic Republic"



[edit on 24-8-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
This is further proof of the violent, militarization of the extreme right at work and in clear and in living colour.

The Neo Nazi Movement's American wing clearly displayed for all to see.

I do not feel comfortable living in America while these "people" live here too.


Indeed




[edit on 24-8-2010 by ollncasino]


You did not see what I had meant, anyone who would willingly work with TPTB to incite violence at an otherwise peaceful demonstation is not someone I'd want living next door to me.

TPTB were caught trying to incite violence at the recent G20 in Ottawa and have planted someone here, all in an attempt to discredit peaceful, decent people with a clean agenda.

The person who tried to incite violence is a TPTB plant and nothing more.

No one is buried at The WTC so that claim is baseless.

I'm for The Cultural Centre as religious freedoms is guaranteed in The Constitution and will forever defend anyone's right to defend anyone's right to worship in the manner of thier own choosing.

If this was a Jewish Synagouge, Catholic Church we would not be having this debate today as all the MSM wants to say when it does pertain to Arabs is that all are evil for which the MSM is dead wrong on that. That is why they are in a state of collapse as no one is taking them seriously anymore which is a good thing. MSM and TPTB both are the true enemies of Freedom, Democracy and AMERICA!

Arab Muslims are somehow the new "Boggyman". Got a problem with energy, blame Islam, Got a problem with your inability to get a job, blame Islam. The blame game is being tossed around way too much as it's much easier to blame someone else then it actually is to really look inside yourself and find out what the issue is.

19 Arabs may've flew planes into NYC, Pa and Alexandria, VA but they were only the strike force. No one pays attention to the financiers, the higher ups who could've expedited a passport or two and made someone look the other way when their guy was red flagged on the now infamous then, CIA and now TSA-DHS's "No Fly List" and the DHS "Terrorist Watch List".



[edit on 24-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


My point is that "civil liberties" have no place in a discussion of "rights". Civil liberties are not rights at all, they are liberties granted by a civil authority (hence "CIVIL liberties) and can be taken away just as quickly by that same civil authority.

You can have my share, since my rights supercede them. They are unnecessary in extremis.

Not sure about the whole "natural" rights vs. "God-given" rights thing. I didn't get a memo from either nature or God on the subject, granting them. They just ARE.

The Constitution doesn't recognize our rights, it insures that the government recognizes them. Rights don't stand in need of recognition until and unless someone cares to challenge them.

I exercise my rights whether they are recognized by a "higher authority" or not. It makes no difference to me whether they recognize them. I'm unwilling to give them that sort of power, since, if I require them to recognize my rights, then by implication they can just as easily be un-recognized.

Then they aren't "rights" any more.

I love the way you swung to the right at the end there, though. "My country, see it my way or GTFO. Go to Cuba or something".



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by nenothtu

"Democracy" means "Rule of the People". By definition, that means majority rule.

Unless, of course, you mean to imply that the majority is something other than people?

Guarding against tyranny is precisely why we were delivered a Republic, rather than a Democracy, because you are correct in your assessment that majority rule leads to eventual tyranny.

That's why we don't HAVE a Democracy.


Confusing bit there.

I don't get the whole "Democracy leads to Tyranny" thing???


It's painfully obvious that you don't "get it", which is all the more disconcerting since you are the one who initially brought up the fact that democracy leads to tyranny.



The USA is a "Representitive Democracy"...which is a form of "Republic" often referred to as a "Democratic Republic"


So was East Germany, North Korea, North Vietnam (and later ALL of Vietnam), etc., etc.

I don't think that's something I'd want to own up to, much less brag about.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I'm just reposting this from another 'mosque' thread because it is in reference to the above discourse.

... the whim of the majority cannot userp the constitutional rights of the minority (noting that it still happens all the time).


Ochlocracy (Greek: οχλοκρατία or okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of constitutional authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s. en.wikipedia.org...



The phrase tyranny of the majority (also: tyranny of the masses), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots en.wikipedia.org...
(em)

Either all religions/faiths have the right to build where they wish and in accordance of local zoning laws, or none do.

We as a nation cannot and should not pick and choose who gets to build what according to the religion which is subject of the mass vilification du jour.

Constitutional rights are the same regardless of who's in the majority minority ... this stands to reason or else we'd have different rights applicable depending on which legislative ideologies are in power.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

I love the way you swung to the right at the end there, though. "My country, see it my way or GTFO. Go to Cuba or something".


Well that was less confusing, but still not consistent in my opinion.

My statement about Cuba or Iran was not meant to be GTFO or "my country" yada yada.

I was simply pointing out that your declaration that you could care less whether a government recognizes your rights or not...

is an easy thing to state when you live someplace that does in fact recognize those rights

and you might feel differently if you lived someplace that didn't

Is that confusing?

You seem interested in a fight...not discusssion...so that will be it from me on the issue. Feel free to carry on.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

I don't see why any tolerant person would be against this mosque.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]


Are you kidding me? Maybe we should adopt some of the tolerant Saudi Arabian practices such as execution for infidels who convert to the wrong religion. By the way are there any churches or synagogues in Mecca or Medina? Are the ayatollahs tolerant of christian house churches in Iran?

You need to pull your head out of your arse and take a close look at what Islam teaches and what they practice. Their book codifies death and enslavement to non-believers. Is that the kind of tolerance you were looking for?

I can't believe how suicidally insane liberals are. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder. The folks whom you are so eager to tolerate are quite eager to slice your head off with their scimitars and to stone to death your cultural heroes; adulterers, prostitutes, homosexuals and drug addicts. Liberals will be the first to go when our governments are all bowing down towards mecca 5 times a day.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
[


The USA is a "Representitive Democracy"...which is a form of "Republic" often referred to as a "Democratic Republic"


So was East Germany, North Korea, North Vietnam (and later ALL of Vietnam), etc., etc.

I don't think that's something I'd want to own up to, much less brag about.


Wrong on all counts. Where do you get this stuff?

Ever hear of the Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran???? Geez since the USA is a republic according to you, we must be like Iran!!!

What jibber-jabber BS, Seriously..

I am not going to spend time debating dishonest folks.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Edited post....not completed, please remove, wrong button.






[edit on 24-8-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


I've already stated that they have a right to build there, same as anyone else. I question the wisdom of doing so, but that's really another issue I suppose.

Again, the Constitution is brought into the discussion where it isn't applicable. No government has denied or questioned their right to build there, much less the federal government or even just congress as specified in the oft quoted, but misapplied, First Amendment.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The above is true but somewhat misleading imho.

Namely because the 'movement' against this project is mainly political and in great part aimed at government officials to intervene. Politicians have weighed in on it, undoubtably will make it part of their upcoming platform/campaign, and it is somewhat insular to think that this is just a few folks that want to file their grievance/protest and go on with their lives. Situations as the one portrayed in the OP video clearly indicate that they are intent to force their will/opinion on others..

It is not as simple as what you say ... thus, though I agree that no constitutional breach has occurred, what I posted above must be noted and reminded lest we risk approaching the moment when it is breached.

Vigilance commands this for it is much more logical and reasonable to clarify such constitutional issues before the fact rather than trying to remedy them after said fact.

[edit on 24 Aug 2010 by schrodingers dog]



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join