An intolerable situation

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

D, agreed with your post last page, but perhaps we disagree on this point: Idiots (defined as anyone who doesn't agree with me 100%, which is everyone else lol) are free to spout whatever nonsense they want, but we neither have to give them a platform nor listen.

Pete

No, we don't disagree on that point. The qualification with my agreement, is that we don't shut people up in a public forum. One other sad fact is that there are plenty of idiots willing to give other idiots a forum. Beck made millions being an idiot.

Regards,

D-Ray

[flacaltenn]

noOneReal:

My comment about security and the mosque locations goes both ways. For the members of the mosque, it's security issues due to being in a place with so many intolerant (and potentially angry folk). From the other side, there are legitimate concerns about security related to potential radical recruitment (which seems to be theme for all those incompetent bombers we are catching) and the advocation of adopting Sharia law.

Now -- like I said, I fully support the freedom to practice Islam openly and proudly in this country. And I'm truly dissappointed in the recent European decisions to "crack down" on Muslim practices in public. But the experience over there that forced the tolerant progressive Europeans to react was due to systematic lobbying for a separate "governance" authority. And this I do not want to debate in this country. Last time we granted internal sovereignty to the Indians, we ruined their chances of surviving well in this country. What part of "separate but equal" is ever a great idea?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

noOneReal:

My comment about security and the mosque locations goes both ways. For the members of the mosque, it's security issues due to being in a place with so many intolerant (and potentially angry folk). From the other side, there are legitimate concerns about security related to potential radical recruitment (which seems to be theme for all those incompetent bombers we are catching) and the advocation of adopting Sharia law.

Now -- like I said, I fully support the freedom to practice Islam openly and proudly in this country. And I'm truly dissappointed in the recent European decisions to "crack down" on Muslim practices in public. But the experience over there that forced the tolerant progressive Europeans to react was due to systematic lobbying for a separate "governance" authority. And this I do not want to debate in this country. Last time we granted internal sovereignty to the Indians, we ruined their chances of surviving well in this country. What part of "separate but equal" is ever a great idea?

Seems like we lefties agree with libertarians on several issues - usually social issues.

I would point out, though, that the same First Amendment that gives all religions the right to worship freely, also prevents the adoption of Sharia law or any other religious rule as governing law. Also, the owner of the building that would become the Muslim community center is a vocal opponent of radical islam.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

My comment about security and the mosque locations goes both ways. For the members of the mosque, it's security issues due to being in a place with so many intolerant (and potentially angry folk). From the other side, there are legitimate concerns about security related to potential radical recruitment (which seems to be theme for all those incompetent bombers we are catching) and the advocation of adopting Sharia law.

For the members of the mosque it is their concern and the polices, not mine nor yours, IMHO anyway. As to "legitimate concerns about security related to potential radical recruitment" what does that have to do with a mosque location????

Now -- like I said, I fully support the freedom to practice Islam openly and proudly in this country. And I'm truly dissappointed in the recent European decisions to "crack down" on Muslim practices in public. But the experience over there that forced the tolerant progressive Europeans to react was due to systematic lobbying for a separate "governance" authority. And this I do not want to debate in this country. Last time we granted internal sovereignty to the Indians, we ruined their chances of surviving well in this country. What part of "separate but equal" is ever a great idea?

I have no such concerns. I don't think many do.
BTW I think this has more to do with America and immigration and assimilation policy (of which there is none and should be)than Moslems building a mosque.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

noOneReal:

My comment about security and the mosque locations goes both ways. For the members of the mosque, it's security issues due to being in a place with so many intolerant (and potentially angry folk). From the other side, there are legitimate concerns about security related to potential radical recruitment (which seems to be theme for all those incompetent bombers we are catching) and the advocation of adopting Sharia law.

Now -- like I said, I fully support the freedom to practice Islam openly and proudly in this country. And I'm truly dissappointed in the recent European decisions to "crack down" on Muslim practices in public. But the experience over there that forced the tolerant progressive Europeans to react was due to systematic lobbying for a separate "governance" authority. And this I do not want to debate in this country. Last time we granted internal sovereignty to the Indians, we ruined their chances of surviving well in this country. What part of "separate but equal" is ever a great idea?

Couple of points; we have a mosque nearby in Columbia, no minarets because the last thing you need is a 500 watt PA system "calling the faithful to prayer" five times a day

We have a woman who wears a bourka and yet obtained a driver's licence, photographed in that garb on religious grounds - she is an accident looking for a place to happe. BTW back home her 'religion' would not even let her out of the house unless accompanied by a male relative, let alone drive a car.

In most muslim countries christian churches are not allowed or if allowed cannot display any 'religious symbols'.

We granted the native people internal soverenity but stole all their arrable land and refused to pay the monies we had agreed to pay. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a disgrace.

[flacaltenn]

D-Ray

I would point out, though, that the same First Amendment that gives all religions the right to worship freely, also prevents the adoption of Sharia law or any other religious rule as governing law. Also, the owner of the building that would become the Muslim community center is a vocal opponent of radical islam.

The way I understand the pressures in Europe, It's not so much about surplanting domestic law with Sharia code, but the lobby is to let it exist in parallel much like a sovereign entity on French or American or Canadian soil.. So it wouldn't be the "creation of (a state recognized) religion" -- more like a treaty. Hence the Indian analog.

It's got to be that the large majority of Muslims just want to pray, follow customs, and associate and NOT have a separate legal system. I don't know how this came to be so contentious in Europe and other places -- but apparently it has..

And MerryLander: We finally agree on something. The Bureau of Indian Affairs IS a huge disgrace. They have LOST MILLIONS of dollars in trust fund monies due to the tribes for leasing timber, oil rights, ect. These white men couldn't manage a bake sale. Nevermind a "trust fund". Any other "trust funds" from the Fed that you want to "invest in"?