Ron Paul Defends NYC Mosque

Personally, I support the Right of Muslims to worship as they see fit, according to the 1st Amendment & I also don't like the controversy that's sprung up around it.

I DO look at this issue in two different ways though:
I see the Muslims (specifically, those who push in favor for the mosque) are the people who lack sensitivty for the lives lost in the 911 attacks & for those who died in the rescue attempts. But this is a historical lack of senisitivity that's been evident, because militant Muslims who had conquered other peoples would always build a mosque on the "sacred grounds" of the conquered...A deliberate, open announcement of victory. In short, it's a deliberate slap in the face for the surviving family members of the victims & the heroes.

Also, I don't see how asking them to build a mosque elsewhere would infringe upon their Right to Worship. There are already over 2-dozen mosques in the New York area & there's still plenty of room across all of America for more mosques...Simply not having a mosque in that particular area does nothing to prevent Muslims from worshipping, but it does show favoritism towards a particular particular religion that's forbidden in the 1st Amendment too.

So this is a 1st Amendment issue? Is it a 1st amendment issue when you can't own a Gun Store within 100 yds of a school....or you can't run a Strip Club within a block of a church?

You think any Muslim country would allow this? You say, well it's an example of our freedom & we should embrace it.

I can give you a 100 quotes from Imams fortelling the plan to destroy America from within. Those of you hiding behind excuses ignore both reality & the true threat Islam is to America. In 50 years, Europe WILL be under Sharia law. If people don't stand up and oppose those who wish our demise, we will suffer the same fate.

Being a coward does not make you patriotic. Ron Paul is RIGHT about our foreign policy. He picked the wrong side of the wrong issue to make his point. Period!!!

All this Mosque fiasco has done is created a perfect situation in which true liberty loving American's will break ranks away from patrio-crack faux nooze pseudo libertarian neo cons.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
...militant Muslims who had conquered other peoples would always build a mosque on the "sacred grounds" of the conquered...

Hi MD. This is the first time I've heard of that. Can you link to a source on that?

Also, I don't see how asking them to build a mosque elsewhere would infringe upon their Right to Worship.

Asking them doesn't infringe. Forcing them would. And that's because it would be treating one religion differently than the others. Unless they move ALL places of worship to outside a certain perimeter around ground zero, then it's not equal treatment under the law. As you said, it would be favoring non-Islam religions.

Originally posted by bowlbyville
Ron Paul just lost my vote. His propterty stance is correct but I'm not bending over while these Islamist Jihadists try to stick it to us.

I have a relative in Northern N.J. - at the time of 9/11 he worked in the police department for one of the small towns in Morris county. The police office received a report on 9/11/2001 that there were Palistinians in Palisades N.J. (that overlooks the Hudson & NYC) that were cheering in the streets.

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, the Jihadists can stick their Mosque somewhere else.

You really should post that copy of the police report although It is not what you think it is. Something tells me however, that you'll just discard any evidence that is contrary to your belief system. .

A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves
on 9-11. The men set up cameras by the Hudson River and trained them on the twin towers. Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. "They were like happy, you know ... They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the
World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph
themselves in front of the wreckage.

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the
initial impact. Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on
a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them
celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot.

It was later confirmed that the five detained Israelis were in fact
Mossad agents. They were held in custody for 71 days before being
quietly released. Some of the movers had been kept in solitary
confinement for 40 days.

Several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an
Israeli talk show after their return home.

Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the
morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a
country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the
event."

newsgroups.derkeiler.com...


[edit on 8/24/2010 by clay2 baraka]

reply to post by TailoredVagabond


You misunderstood my post.
I am not arguing that Christianity is a peaceful religion and Islam isn't.

Originally posted by TailoredVagabond
reply to post by tungus

 

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.

I do not know who planned 9/11, and who allowed it to happen but Islam has an active agenda of conquest. From its very inception it has been about conquest, it is you who need to study history.

Random search "Islamic conquests", and you will have a field day:

From the conquest of Persia:

During Muhammad's life
After the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in 628, Muhammad sent many letters to the princes, kings and chiefs of the various tribes and kingdoms of the time inviting them to convert to Islam.

Just like Mohamed, Osama bin Laden sent letters to America to convert to Islam before carrying out the attacks, or taking credit for the attacks, if you prefer.
This fact is lost to all those in the west who say that Islam means peace, but not to the Muslims who follow their "cook book." I don't care what they call it, do you prefer they called Islam "the Convert or Die" religion?
Would you get it then?
Because this is the history of Islam, right up to the present day.

The Chinese call their state "people's republic." Do you buy that too?

There are no such things as "rights" only temporary privileges set by the elite.


I think I know what Ron Paul is thinking.

It's hypocritical for Americans to not allow a mosque to be built while American soldiers are storming the Middle East.

[edit on 8/24/2010 by die_another_day]

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by bowlbyville
Ron Paul just lost my vote. His propterty stance is correct but I'm not bending over while these Islamist Jihadists try to stick it to us.

I have a relative in Northern N.J. - at the time of 9/11 he worked in the police department for one of the small towns in Morris county. The police office received a report on 9/11/2001 that there were Palistinians in Palisades N.J. (that overlooks the Hudson & NYC) that were cheering in the streets.

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, the Jihadists can stick their Mosque somewhere else.

Sad but it's ok. We'll do fine without you

I want these same bigots to go protest a church near a school considering the countless amounts of child rape committed by Priests. Or how about pro lifers who murdered doctors at abortion clinics? What? They don't represent their Religion? Neither did the hijackers on 9/11.

Even though the attacks (well, all religious provoked attacks) were done in the name of a God or Religion, it shouldn't paint a religious institution as a negative one.

Do you realise how offensive that is??? Please point to the fundamentalist religious group that says rape the kids is the new rule? You've just lost an awful lot of respect from me.

"Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is breaking with many of his fellow Republicans - among them his son Rand - to support the creation of the planned Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center that has come to be known as the "ground zero mosque."

That is what I love about Ron Paul. He is not a republican or any other party. At his core, he is a man, and he sticks to his beliefs, knowing what is right in accordance with the constitution, whether or not it is popular at a particular time or not. So it follows, he has no desire to gain fair weather friends.

I can only hope Rand will follow in his fathers footsteps and that his agreeing with the republican stance on the mosque, agreeing with the war on drugs, and other issues, only as a ploy to get him elected by stating the popular views. Hopefully once his foot is in the door he will have a change of heart.

I can see it from both sides
no matter what they should be aloud to have it there.. thats just how it goes

reply to post by [davinci]


No - not at all.

Outing hypocrisy can never be called knee-jerk. That's all I'm doing, and it's very valid - particularly to the lack of common sense of most posters.

The Obama haters are SILENT on this - apologies to anyone who actually said "hey, this ISN'T actually news - Obama said the same thing about two weeks ago." well, to the few of you that did.

My point is - he got CRITICISED for saying the same thing, yet Ron Pal gets a reprieve.

It's disgusting, so I'm calling people out on it (Obama haters or not).

And rightly so.

reply to post by TailoredVagabond


Well, i agree with both Obama and Ron Paul. The only difference is that imo Ron Paul is by far the greater man while Obama is just your usual lying, corrupt sleaze bag of a politician that will say and do whatever he is told to say and do.

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by TailoredVagabond

 

Well, i agree with both Obama and Ron Paul. The only difference is that imo Ron Paul is by far the greater man while Obama is just your usual lying, corrupt sleaze bag of a politician that will say and do whatever he is told to say and do.

Surely the real difference is one of them is in office and actually has to deliver on his promises, the other one isn't, probably never will be so can say what he wants, he'll never have to put his money where his mouth is.

Yeah, yeah, anyone who checks will see I'm a Brit, but actually most if not all countries can show examples of the same thing - easy to promise or preach when you don't have to deliver.

I LOVE Ron Paul. He is the ONLY politician who ever talks about the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. With this issue, he took his ego out of the equation, and focused on PERSONAL/RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. The followers of that Mosque have rejected terrorism, and everything terrorists stand for. They have a right to build where ever they want!! Christians need to take notice of this more closely b/c one day it might be their time when the government tells them where they can/can not build their churches. This only opens the door for more government in our personal lives!

christians and jews , and other psychotic hypocrites participated in the 911 mass murder event, no sensible person anywhere doubts the false flag nature of that crime against humanity


and that should be the end of this f%#king discussion

stop dancing in little s#%t piles of the medias creation and regain your mind

Its interesting to watch the right wing finally completely split into two parties...

one being a rational constitutional approach wanting their freedoms and a rational government intervention limited

and the otherside not giving a rats arse about the constitution if it feels bad for their ideals and soaked in xenophobic racism and fearmongering hatred.

The first part's job is to try and evolve the lizard brains of the second part and get them on board to thinking like an american..or encourage them to leave for a more conservative reactionary fearful place on earth..like Somolia perhaps, or Saudi Arabia.

As much as it pains me to say this, I support the Muslims constitutional right to build that Mosque/Community Center wherever they want.

That being said, It disgusts me at the thought of a Mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center, in a building where parts of the Landing Gear were found.

It is in extemely poor taste and extemely insensitive to New Yorkers, 9/11 victims and their families.

I support their constitutional right to build it, but i dont agree with it or think its right, if that makes any sense.

Similarly, I support the Ku Klux Klans and The Black Panther parties freedom of speech right to spew their hatred and march in the streets, however I dont agree with their messages, and pretty much think they are scum of the earth.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire

I'm not surprised that RP would be supportive as others have mentioned his virtues.

I do not always agree with him (such as on Education) and I'm fairly certain he has some racial hang-ups, but that doesn't necessarily make you a bad person - especially considering society as a whole.

At any rate, he certainly redeems himself in my eyes with most of his opinions and stances on the derisive polemics of our time.

Regarding Islam being or not being a peaceful religion.

Religions are ways of life governed by ideology. Ways of life are community based; and communities are constructed by the sum of their members. As such, a community can have good and bad people; as well as good people that do something bad, and bad people who have some good in them, etc.

Religions and gods can and are always used for conquest because they provide a justification and mental as well as socially cohesive strength.

Islam is neither peaceful nor belligerent. It is an ideology that can be used for whatever purpose the person accessing deems fit.

For anyone who says that Islam is the most violent religion needs to read Fray Bartolome de las Casas - The Destruction of the Indies (La Destruccion de las Yndias) which recounts the Spanish conquest of Hispaniola (Haiti and Domician Rep.) and how in a matter of years the island had been totally depopulated...and we're talking 100s of thousands of people.

You could also consider the Christian beliefs that propped up the Monroe Doctrine and westward expansionism.

The Protestant Reformation

The Crusades

The Holy Inquisition in Portugal and Spain as well as the continued Inquisition in Latin America.

"But," you say, "those are old news...this is modern times."

There is no time involved here. There's no statute of limitations on religion-driven violence.

Also, it would be obvious that if the message of the Holy Inquisition - for example - was to convert or die, then by now everyone's either been converted or dead. So long now that Latin American countries as well as Spain have been over a century accepting Jewish and Muslim immigrants. The violence is over because they won.

Another point from my stats on Christian violence: religious ideology is always ripe for manipulation as Ron Paul pointed out as well.

reply to post by jsmappy


wow you really think the "Imama's" wills succeed in scheming on america's downfall? You really underestimate the american people? Really? I think they are referring to their belief system's superiority over America's and how America will fall on its own, therefore allowing them to infiltrate an already destitute society and rebuild it for Allah's purposes.... I dont think anyone truly believes they can conquer the United States without losing more than they bargained for.... Islam wants peace.... not war.... and to expand meaning war is a flawed plan

reply to post by skull_bones

Similarly, I support the Ku Klux Klans and The Black Panther parties freedom of speech right to spew their hatred and march in the streets, however I dont agree with their messages, and pretty much think they are scum of the earth.

So basically you are likening Muslims to members of the KKK and the Black Panthers?

It is in extemely poor taste and extemely insensitive to New Yorkers, 9/11 victims and their families.

Some 9-11 families and New Yorkers would consider it highly offensive that you are using their tragedy to imagine what they find offensive in order to liken Muslims to the KKK and the Black Panthers.

Muslims happen to also be New Yorkers, and Muslims happened to be working in the World Trade Center on 9-11 too, as Americans and were also victims.

So should we assume that you are only sensitive to the feelings of select New Yorkers and family members and friends of people who lost their lives that day to arrive at your conclusion? But not ALL New Yokers and surviving family members and friends that happen to be Muslim?

I support their constitutional right to build it, but i dont agree with it or think its right, if that makes any sense.

Not at all based on the above.

Would you view Christians or Jews building religious facilities nearby as memorials? Or would you object to them too?





[edit on 24/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]