Republicans to use "NYC mosque" as an election issue - Page 3

Hitler was Catholic - and having lived not too far from his stomping grounds and working in Munich for over five years myself I would say it's impossible to be from there and NOT be Catholic.

And as a side note, the Catholic church never excommunicated Hitler, although it did excommunicate other prominent world leaders as well as any Catholics who supported Communism.
http://bentcorner.com/why-didnt-the-...nicate-hitler/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...atholic_Church

The leadership of the Catholic Church was scared to death of Hitler. They wouldn't openly oppose what he was doing out of the fear that they would be next.

You know, I have an IMO on Hitler and his religion.

I honestly believe that once he was released from prison, he wasn't in a category. He was flying all by himself. I don't think he had any title, religious or otherwise, than "psychopath".

Like I figured, I'm clearly in the minority on this board, but somewhere around 65% of the American public agree with me, so I guess I have plenty of company.

As I previously said, it's a sensitivity issue, not a religious issue or political issue or legal issue. That's my point of view and I'm not ashamed of it and I'm not changing it.

Just remember Dusty, you are only in the minority on this thread. You are in the majority of the American public who are against this issue. I'm with you.

If it's a sensitivity issue, then the entire outcome should rest entirely with the people wanting to build the center, and no one else. It's a bit like carrying guns to political rallies, being completely insensitive to any in attendance that has lost friends and family to gun violence, or who are afraid that right wing radicals may try to shoot the new President that was nearby. Those carrying the weapons did not feel they had to be sensitive. They had the right, so that makes it right.

So what's the difference here?

You know what's interesting. There IS a Saudi flag flying at the UN in NYC. The place with the strongest link to the 9-11 terrorists has more uncontested political representation than our own American Muslims. And don't expect that to change...the oil baron conservative politicians are not about to kick their oil soaked gift horse in the mouth.

Constitutional law in a nutshell. The majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority.

Keep that in mind when you want to do away with the Electoral College because you didn't like the outcome of the 2000 election!

That's just more political grandstanding. Neither side wants to do away with the Electoral College simply because they might need it next time. It's the same thing with "line item veto"...they might talk about it to raise votes and money, but don't expect to ever see it happen.

That is a stupid law. This isn't the 18th Century. The US is one country not a collection of republics. The electoral college gives far to much power to the failed depopulated states. And in the Senate wind swept, deserted North Dakota with a population of only 640,000 people already carries as many votes as California with its' population of 36.5 Million. 70 times as many people.

The entire country is being dragged down by the backward states.

In 2000 we ended up with a president who had lost the vote of the people because of an antiquated methodology.

Wow so apparently 65% of Americans disagree with the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and discriminate against Muslims...
Aren't you so happy you're in the majority???
I mean no offense it's just that, I don't get how what the majority of Americans believe play into this discussion and why it's being brought up at all...
Just because the majority of people hold a certain believe, that doesn't make it any less wrong IMO.

I think the example of Hitler's religion provided by 2dogmom is a much more similar analogy than waving a swastika flag over Auschwitz...
So, maybe having a Catholic church next to Auschwitz would be the same as building a mosque next to ground zero, because Hitler's religion was Catholic just like the terrorists' religion was Islam. But comparing a mosque to a swastika is ridiculous and offensive IMO.

You said it so well!!
And I find it interesting that I haven't heard any of those who oppose the building of the mosque try to refute this argument: how is what you are arguing different than labeling all Christians with the crimes of individual members of the religion??? Let me guess, it's different because the majority of people in this country are in fact Christian Maybe I haven't heard from anyone because it's hard to admit that your logic only applies to the ONE situation that you want it to apply to.

All you have to remember is that slavery, opposition to women suffrage, and armed government resistance to the civil rights movement all were backed by the majority of Americans at the time.

All this uproar is a short term political strategy to raise campaign money from conservatives. They are using several subjects that have a potential to backfire, such as ignoring the 1st Amendment in their treatment of religions they hate, and their willingness to tamper with the 14th; and are doing so in the hopes that they will all be over and forgotten and the money raised before they have to start actually trying to entice moderate, Muslim and Hispanic voters to vote for them. If these subjects are kept alive and not allowed to be forgotten, it will bode ill for them during general elections.

The name of this thread is Republicans to use NYC Mosque as an Election Issue. The building of the mosque where they want to put it is what 65% of Americans are against. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment or discrimination. Don't twist words. The reason what the majority of Americans believe is being brought up is because what happened in NYC did not just affect NYC. It affected all Americans. Therefore what 65 percent of Americans believe can't be considered of no importance.

If it isn't discrimination, then what is it?

Keep in mind that the US government is NOT a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. Big difference. I believe that our founding fathers had it right. We NEED the electoral college just as it was designed and intended. And frankly we should put the election of US senators back the way it once was - voted not by the general populace, but by the legislature of they state they are to represent. And then we can institute term limits too.

Hear hear! Well said...it's that democracy vs. republic thing that confuses a lot of people.

Absolutely. Nothing has changed sine the 18th Century.

Oh Bunny. Thanks for putting this thread back on topic. Where did it go off? Somewhere around the time someone attacked Obama for '57 states' and someone else dragged in The Electoral College?

How did your hero Dubya feel about governing by polls? I remember him being pretty contemptuous of that approach. He never said anything about "the tyranny of the majority", I doubt he cound pronounce tyranny, but should't a constitution worshipper be in favor of 'doing the right thing' as our omniscent Founding Fathers defined it in the Constitution. Maybe there's an Old testement Constitution and a New Testement constitution so you can extract the parts you'd like to follw and the parts you'd like to ignore.

You seem to want the majority to rule when it comes to voting for president. When you find out they disagree with you, then you say they are discriminating. Call it whatever you want. We can satisfy all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but we can't satisfy all of the people all of the time. We still have people trying to immigrate to America, but how many Americans do we see trying to immigrate elsewhere.

Immigrants from 3rd world countries. Americans try to immigrate. But we're limited by other countries language barriers and immigration laws.

The next time you want to scream "U-S-A, U-S-A we're number one" remember to add on another "one". We're the 11th best country in the world to live in.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/14364

"Newsweek also notes that the US has yet to recover from "the serious blows to its stature delivered by nearly a decade of policy debacles." Specifcally, the magazine points out the "mess left behind by George W. Bush", including the diversion of military resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, and a "long period of fiscal, regulatory, and financial recklessness that contributed to the worst-ever downturn since the Great Depression."

Note that the title of the thread is:
Republicans to use "NYC mosque" as an election issue and that 'NYC Mosque' is in quotes. This to me says that OP knows full well that the proposed use of the former Burlington Coat Factory building is not to house a mosque but instead as has been documented over and over, a community center. Calling the proposed renovation project a 'mosque' - even in quotes- does not make it one.

And just to get back into the spirit of the thread title, there are some interesting commentaries out there on why some Republicans have jumped on this bandwagon and what is going to come out of it.
http://www.progressive.org/ap080410.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-..._b_674499.html

Sooner or later someone will catch on that fomenting hatred and religious intolerance is NOT the American way. The Republican party is in shambles. When the most prominent spokespersons are people like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, then good night.

There is also a chronology of how a community center got turned into a political football here. Noteworthy is that Laura Ingraham interviewed Daisy Khan on FOX in late 2009.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...mosque_origins

But evidently some people have a serious problem with the concept of people of the Muslim faith having a place to go to swim a few laps during their lunch hour, shoot hoops after work, or pray without intruding on others' sensibilities, and "credit" for turning the community center into a 'triumph of radical Islam' goes to Pamela Geller, who is at the head of a couple of right-wing hate groups and whose blogs were used by Rupert Murdoch to give her rants the apperance of credibility. If you are not familiar with this woman, take a look at this site. Among other things she has claimed that Obama is the illegitimate son of Malcolm X (I guess this at least makes Obama a natural-born US citizen in her eyes.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/08/pam...-blogger-ever/
She also has a post on her Atlas Shrugs site about how Obama's mother posed nude for pornographic pictures. I think the link is a little too raunchy for here so I won't post it. You guys know how to use google if you want to see the type of thing she promulgates.

There is some good news, namely that mainstream media outlets are starting to shift their focus on what went wrong with the media reports on this community center and in particular how the CNN poll question was misleading.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz0wyXbvDSv

So what a "majority of Americans" think is in fact based on a false assumption. Here is what the Mayor of NYC thinks and personally I value his opinion more than that of people far away who have not bothered to inform themselves of the facts.
""To cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists," Bloomberg said." (same article as above).

Indeed , heaven help us if we allow decisions to be made based on rantings in loonyblogs.

Why did Mr. Obama call it a mosque?

I posted earlier in this thread how the media is twisting the wording in the story to create all sorts of hubbub. There's a reason why I never take anything the media reports/says without a grain of salt. They have their own agendas, too.

What I said about USA was in another thread, not this one. I never said We're number one. You have an amazing ability to read words that simply are not there. What a gift.

Actually, majority votes for President and majority oppression of minorities are two entirely different things. For one thing, one is completely constitutional, the other is not.

I already know I call it discrimination. I'm asking what you call it?

And in your mind we can only reference what someone posts in a given thread. Who wrote those rules?