Ron Paul Defends NYC Mosque

reply to post by TailoredVagabond


Wait a second, I did say that when Obama chimed in on this issue.

Don't lump me in with everyone else man.

proof

reply to post by tungus


Actually, if you're inplying Christianity is the tolerable, charitable and level-headed cousin of Islam, you're desperately wrong.

I hate all religion - before I start.

But burnign pewople at the stake, supressing a global paedophile scandal with payoffs, banning books, burnign wmoen at teh stakem igniting the crusades against Islam, and even other sects of Christianity, almost 800 years of religious war throughout europe and mass media designed to propogate the "goodness" of our lord and saviour by demonising Islam..... says otherwise.

oh and the KKK - which is a Christian organisation (founded by its members in the name of Christianity) - and the death of countless ethnic minority individuals adds to that.

Islam didn't dictate the agenda for, or indeed plan and execute 9/11 - as if it was an "Islamic thing" - which is the basis of your argument.

So, while you're still - clearly - very angry over 9/11 and ignorantly arguing that Islam does not indeed mean "peace" (or might even BE peaceful religion), you, sir, are so, so wrong.

You need to do your history about Christianity before you begin this "Islam isn't a peaceful religion" rubbish.

Ron Paul is right. This shouldn't be an arguement about all of islam. The real question is why are they trying to paint this picture. One that demonizing all of islam.

When I look at an issue I try to see the root of the arguement. It seems they are trying to say all of islam is evil, Islam is trying to offend the USA by doing this, We will teach islam a lesson.

I think of iran when this comes up. Another islamic country that is offending the USA policy. Public perception is always swayed before an action that requires public backing. Everything from the 911 attacks to the TARP program. Has anyone seen any other issues that would support the attacks on iran, sway public opinion or are more to come.

I think it is a complete side show. It's being drummed up by both sides. Thats when I worry the most.

reply to post by TailoredVagabond


In reality both Ron Paul and President Obama are more or less speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

Both defend it on constitutional grounds, both question it to a degree regarding the wisdom in selecting the proposed sight.

So in other words both are taking a 'Correct' but also 'Conciliatory' stance to more or less appease as many as they can, on both sides of what is always a two sided coin and issue.

Some people worship gods, some people worship politicians as Demagogues.

Interestingly enough what you illustrate is mirrored in religion itself.

Christian, Muslims and Jews all worship the same God, just according to their own prophets and demagogues as they interpret them.

So while some support this because Obama appears too and Ron Paul appears to, or take comfort in the fact that Obama or Paul appear to agree with them in supporting religious freedom in the nation...

Some don't support this because Reid and Palin are against it.

Once again two opposite personalities from opposite sides of the aisle validating people who believe it shouldn't be built and religious freedom is a potentially dangerous thing to them.

The founders of the nation in their private letters to one another discussing their ideas and positions seemed to have reached a consensus of some sorts that the state and religion should be seperate because religion tends to corrupt politicians with it's influence, and politicians tend to corrupt religion with their influence.

So I think if you cast aside your own reverance for a politician, and looked at the other politicians involved, Paul, Reid, Palin et al, you might see, and in fact even agree with what the founders were debating and the conclusion they were reaching way back when, when erecting that wall between religion and state.

That wall has always been tenuous, with pressure on it from both politicians and the religious, because they do see in one another additional power.

Politicians see the power in being able to evoke God in justifying legislation that favors the political establishment and them.

The religious see a power in being able to influence legislation for the religious establisment and them.

Both are constantly trying to make inroads and cross that boundry, with more or less the only thing completely stopping them is that piece of paper that fore fathers and founders left behind to try to prevent it from happening.

Two hundred years later that is still being challenged by politicians who want more power, and by the religious who want more power and see that in one an other.

The truth is in my humble opinion is that the founders were right, state corrupts religion and religion corrupts state.

The Government has at times during the civil war and some would argue in Irag and Afghanistan managed to get Christians to do some very un-Christian like things and support them whole heartedly by making them feel 'special' and 'intrinsic' to the success of the cause.

Religion has managed to get politicians in return to pay lip service and more to them in exchange.

This remains an important issue as long as superstition and dogma drives most of the world, and far too many in this country.

It's a bigger issue than the political and media personalities that wade into it.

PERIOD

[edit on 24/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

And yet again Ron Paul shows us what it is to be a true conservative who adheres to the constitution...not the spiteful,war mongering bigoted faux conservatives that are sadly the majority imo. It has been really great to sit and watch this whole story unfold though, it's pretty fascinating to see how easily people can be riled up, shaped and molded by the media, useful and all so easily controlled puppets...

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Solomons]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Firstly, I didn't doubt that those responsible for the mosque should have more sense - and sensibilities about the locality and those of the "indigenous" *scoffs* citizens of NYC and the surrounding area.

I was pointing out a classic example of someone claiming to have "done their history" smacks of hypocrisy (in that Islam is inherently hateful, when this isn't the case - HISTORICALLY).

BUT, all thigns said......how you can just throw Palin in there, as if she were some sort of coherent or reasoned person in the debate of religion within the constitution, is nothing short of scary.

To then also align her (presumed intelligence) with the authors of one of the most brilliant documents ever written by man (the US constitution, which isn't a religious document!)- is also (to me) quite insulting.

And I'm not even American.

reply to post by bowlbyville


Oh noooo yet another person with half a brain is moving back into the no brain town. Give m a break, I bet that story was false and made up, like most people say SOURCE OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN. I hate when people come on here and say " My brother's wifes friend saw some guy who was related to someone and knew the guy that did this" Oh yeah because we can rely on that type of information. Almost guaranteed either he made up that story your YOU made it up. Either way I could care less.

Originally posted by Ben81
Ron Paul for Prez and its ASAP

why do i always agree with the guy ... !?!?!?

because he is always right



Edited for S&F

[edit on 8/24/2010 by Ben81]

You agree with him because common sense still exists in your mind but sadly most Americans traded common sense for a more primitive form called "Always listen to the tribe leader and attack on command!"

When will the people stop to listen all that what politicians talking about. They never did what they promised, so what will be different with RON? Nothing, same sh*t different colour.

reply to post by darkl0rd


Well, he will never be President sadly...and you may be right in regards to him just continuing the status-quo if he somehow did win, but imo he is the best chance America has, and on that note i will say i absolutely detest rand paul. Plus Ron actually talks about policies and important matters, no tacky catch phrases and shiny shiny needed....although sadly that is what most people look for these days.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by Solomons]

Originally posted by TailoredVagabond
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Firstly, I didn't doubt that those responsible for the mosque should have more sense - and sensibilities about the locality and those of the "indigenous" *scoffs* citizens of NYC and the surrounding area.

I was pointing out a classic example of someone claiming to have "done their history" smacks of hypocrisy (in that Islam is inherently hateful, when this isn't the case - HISTORICALLY).

BUT, all thigns said......how you can just throw Palin in there, as if she were some sort of coherent or reasoned person in the debate of religion within the constitution, is nothing short of scary.

To then also align her (presumed intelligence) with the authors of one of the most brilliant documents ever written by man (the US constitution, which isn't a religious document!)- is also (to me) quite insulting.

And I'm not even American.

I think you missed the point. That being that water seeks it's own level as people who seek out politicians do too, politicians that mirror their sentiments.

I don't see Islam as being any different than any other religion. That was also part of the point.

That politicians of all stripes tend to manipulate and interpret religion to justify ends and means, just as the religious often tend to try to manipulate politicians to help with the means to an end.

People seem no more inclined to see uniformly what is good in a religion as they are no more inclined to see uniformly what is good in a politician.

Palin like Obama like Paul, like Reid, like you or me, are all entitled to opinions.

I tend to though arrive at my opinions through careful observation, consideration and reflection of all the pertinent data and salient facts I can get my hands on, not because a political, popular, or religious figure tells me that should be my opinion.

What I was trying to point out is it seems as petty to me, to decry someone accepting a message from one politician and rejecting or not giving another politician the credit for the very same opinion.

That I find that very similiar to the debate regarding religion amongst the religious sects.

Too often we are more inclined to be critical of others instead of just engaging in critical thought.

That their are inherent divisive dangers in how people worship through religion and inherent divisive dangers in how people worship politicians too.

That they are very similiar.

reply to post by TailoredVagabond


Take a step back perhaps, you are now guilty too.

I will admit that I call Obama on his BS, but not everything he has done falls into that category. Please, before you throw a hissy fit you should perhaps actually take the time and see who it is that is making the comments.

Is it not possible that on a site with tens of thousands of members that one group of people have an opinion on one topic while an entirely different group have a different opinion on a different topic?

Before you start smearing EVERYONE you had better do some research. It is this type of BS knee-jerk reaction to things that has gotten the US and the world at large into the mess it is now.

People like you need to take a deep breath and look around now and then.



[edit on 24-8-2010 by [davinci]]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Look at every single person protesting the Mosque and you will see what's destroyed the Republican Party.

Ooh! Now that's some good signature material right there! Good job!

As I have said, I support this freedom of religion and expression because I support the Constitution, something every good conservative does. It's not because I support Muslims or religion. If you don't support the basic freedoms for ALL citizens, that are protected by Constitution, then you're not a real conservative. And IMO, you're not a very good American.

Good for Ron Paul.

[edit on 8/24/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

This mosque can be used for positivity.... if the mosque stands for PEACE then its symbolic to what the wrong actions can cause in fanaticism and what to avoid in service to Allah. The vicinity of the mosque is irrelevant and shouldnt be an issue with Americans.... I think a reintroduction to the constitution is in order... a big event recreating the constitution with current ellected officias playing the parts of the people originally involved with drafting the constitution and enforcing it.... maybe then people will remember " a gotdamn piece of paper"

If I were to seek peace in my country between rival religions I would force them to have worship centers side by side each other and leave it up to them to keep the peace.... religion should be tolerated but not religious action which promotes zero tolerance to another religion.... America is tolerant of religion and there is to be freedom to worship as you please... No religion, comprising of American citizens, should infringe on the constitution by displaying anything less than what the constitution allots to them, which is tolerance, and serving as an example of enjoying the freedom promised to them by denying the same right to others. Anyone caught planning against any religion in any way should be deported or imprisoned.... aetheists, for arguments sake, should be considered a philosophy but shouldnt be exempt from this as they do practice a form of dogma, of being against dogma , and should be held accountable for their actions.... words should not be considered as zero tolerance... but congregating in front of a mosque should be considered infringing on rights to freedom of religion....etc

reply to post by [davinci]


Great video!

Originally posted by TailoredVagabond
Obama says THE SAME THING - and he's a "muslimer" whatever that is, and renowned hater of America - a jihadist against her freedoms, spitting on the graves of those killed in 9/11.

Hey, I support Obama's position on this, too! Not everyone is an Obama hater, no matter what he says.

Originally posted by bowlbyville
Ron Paul just lost my vote.

It sucks when the Constitution is inconvenient, doesn't it?

Ron Paul was a statesman when he espoused returning to the Constitution. But now that he wants it to apply to MUSLIMS it's a different story.

I would like to bottle the tears of impotent rage that are being generated by the Tea Party and their ilk. I bet they'd be pretty sweet.

reply to post by SeventhSeal


Ron and his son Rand are the needle in a haystack politicians.The most honerable in my opinion and should be in the oval office instead of Obama.They together could really change the problems of america.

Originally posted by bowlbyville
I still have a copy of that police report - I'll have to make it into a PDF and post it on ATS some day...in the meantime,

No. Nothing "in the meantime."

Either you give us a PDF to back up your claim, or you stop making the claim.

I look forward to seeing it...but something tells me it won't happen.

I'm commenting on this why? This is all a distraction, there's tons of mosques throughout this country and this new mosque is two blocks away. There's a bunch of churches near by, hell, there's one where George Washington went to near by. It's not like that one is being torn down to build this mosque. This is all a shill to get us to be further divided...and it's working for some reason. Oh yeah, it's being pushed through the zombie media. Do I like the mosque going up and being commissioned on 9/11/2011? No. But do I really care? No. There's my $0.02......whatever, let's move on to more important topics like the possible threat of WW3 being started through Israel controlling the USA and the imminent attack on Iran and the hostile takeover of all our countries through the growing global monetary system. The mosque is just a fart in the wind.