Research
Print

TIMELINE: Nine months of the right's anti-Muslim bigotry

September 10, 2010 11:36 pm ET — 222 Comments

Cheered on by Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media, conservative activists spent the past year engaged in an anti-Muslim campaign that included efforts to block the planned Islamic center in lower Manhattan and demonize the imam spearheading the project. The bigotry has culminated in a Florida pastor's now-"suspended" plans to burn Qurans on September 11 -- plans that the pastor has explicitly linked to the controversy over the Islamic center.

December 2009

NY Times first reports on the Islamic cultural center. The New York Times first reported on the plans to build an Islamic cultural center in an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building two blocks away from ground zero in a December 8, 2009, article. The Times emphasized the purpose of the center, which, according to project leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, was "to push back against the extremists." The article partially foreshadowed the controversy, reporting that Joan Brown Campbell, the director of the Chautauqua Institution religion department and "a supporter of Imam Feisal," "acknowledged the possibility of a backlash from those opposed to a Muslim presence at ground zero."

Geller writes first Atlas Shrugs post on the center. That same day in an Atlas Shrugs post, Pamela Geller reacted to the Times' article, writing: "I don't know what is more grotesque...jihad or the NY Times preening of it. The New York Times yet again misrepresents, obfuscates, and confuses infidels and kaffirs about Islam." In her post, Geller mostly discussed Sufism, the branch of Islam that Rauf and his followers belong to.

Ingraham tells Daisy Khan, "I like what you're trying to do." As noted by Salon.com's Justin Elliot, who created a timeline of the Islamic Center controversy in mid-August, the first known appearance of the story on Fox News  occurred on December 21, 2009, when Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham, while filling in for Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor, hosted Daisy Khan, Rauf's wife and executive director of the project. During the interview, Ingraham criticized Rauf's statement that "it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima." She later added: "But I like what you're trying to do, and Ms. Khan, we appreciate it." Ingraham also stated during the interview, "I can't find many people who really have a problem" with the Islamic center, and told Kahn it's "fantastic" that "your group takes a moderate approach to Americanizing people, assimilating people, which I applaud."

Geller attacks Islamic center as "Islamic domination and expansionism." In a December 21, 2009, post titled, "Mosque at Ground Zero: Adding Insult to Agony," Geller called the center a "giant victory lap" and wrote: "Any decent American, Muslim or otherwise, wouldn't dream of such an insult. It's a stab in eye of America. What's wrong with these people? Have they no heart? No soul?" Geller also claimed of the project: "This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is no accident."

January 2010-April 2010

The story goes into hiding. Following Geller's December 21, 2009, post, the story fell from public view. Even Geller did not post on the subject again until May 6, 2010. During this period, Fox News continued its long-standing campaign of anti-Muslim rhetoric, smearing individual Muslims as "terrorists," calling for racial profiling, and fearmongering about Islam in general.

May 2010

Geller resumes attack on Islamic center. Following a unanimous resolution by the New York Community Board 1 to express support for the project, Geller brought the story back into public view with a post titled, "Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction." In the post, Geller framed the issue as one of "sensitivity" and claimed the project is a "victory lap," an "insult," and a "stab in the eye of America":

One might think that the Muslim community might be capable of some sensitivity, considering what a manically sensitive bunch they are about everything. Every time there is a jihad attack (which is happening with increasing frequency), they start wailing on us infidels about Muslim sensitivities and anticipatory and imaginary affronts and insults.

What could be more insulting and humiliating than a monster mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center buildings brought down by Islamic attack?

Worse still, the design is a mockery of the World Trade Center building design. Islamic jihad took down those buildings when they attacked, destroyed and murdered 3,000 people in an act of conquest and Islamic supremacism. What better way to mark your territory than to plant a giant mosque on the still-barren land of the World Trade Center? Sort of a giant victory lap. Any decent American, Muslim or otherwise, wouldn't dream of such an insult. It's a stab in eye of America. What's wrong with these people? Have they no heart? No soul?

As of September 10, Geller has written 205 blog posts categorized as "Mosque at Ground Zero: Takbir!"

New York Post: "Mosque Madness at Ground Zero." As Elliott noted in the Salon.com timeline, the New York Post ran a May 6 article referring to the Islamic center as the "'WTC' mosque." The Post's Andrea Peyser also wrote a column in May titled, "Mosque Madness at Ground Zero," quoting Geller. Elliott stated:

Lots of opinion makers on the right read the Post, so it's not surprising that, starting that very day, the mosque story spread through the conservative -- and then mainstream -- media like fire through dry grass. Geller appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show. The Washington Examiner ran an outraged column about honoring the 9/11 dead. So did Investor's Business Daily. Smelling blood, the Post assigned news reporters to cover the ins and outs of the Cordoba House development daily. Fox News, the Post's television sibling, went all out.

Islamic Center of Northeast Florida was firebombed. Jacksonville, Florida's, First Coast News reported that on May 10, a man attempted to firebomb the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida "shortly before evening prayers." The Florida Times-Union later reported that "[a]uthorities found remnants of a crude pipe bomb in the explosion" and that "at the time of the blast about 60 people were inside." The article quoted FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Jim Casey as discussing the potential destruction and death the blast could have caused were it not for "the strength of the mosque building." The article also reported that "law enforcement officials" were surprised that "they had not gotten nearly as many calls as they expected" regarding the identity of the bomber after they released security video of the man. 

Fox & Friends runs first of many segments on the center, hosting Rauf and 9-11 firefighter. On May 11, Fox & Friends ran the first Fox news segment following Ingraham's December 2009 interview with Khan. Doocy introduced the story by asking if the plans to build the center were a "great insult." The following segment featured guests Imam Rauf and Tim Brown, a firefighter who responded to the attacks on 9-11. Brown said he didn't "understand the need to put it there," but also said he and Rauf had a "nice relationship," were "learning from each other," and that Rauf was an example of a "wonderful Muslim." Rauf said: "First of all, this is not a mosque; this is a community center ... for the whole community" and said he would "absolutely" allow members of other faiths. Rauf also said he understood Brown's sentiments.

Geller focuses attacks on Rauf. In a May 15 post, Geller began the attacks on the project's leader, Imam Rauf, quoting from a Pajamas Media post by Alyssa Lappen on "[e]verything there is to know about Faisal Abdul Rauf, the wolf in sheep's clothing behind the planned lower Manhattan mega-mosque."

Geller appears on Fox News' Huckabee. On the May 15 edition of his Fox News show, Mike Huckabee hosted Geller to discuss the Islamic community center project. Geller called the Islamic center an "outrage and an insult," and said it was "humiliating to the families and to all Americans."

Geller appears on Fox & Friends. Fox News hosted Geller on the May 27 edition of Fox & Friends, during which Geller defended her billboard advertisements, which provide information on how to "Leav[e] Islam." She said they represented religious freedom and again criticized the Park51 project as "stab[bing] Americans in the eye."

Radio host Michael Berry: "I hope the mosque isn't built, and if it is, I hope it's blown up." On the May 28 edition of his radio show, Michael Berry said that "you can't build a mosque at the site of 9/11." After a caller asked Berry why you couldn't build a mosque at the site of 9-11, Berry responded: "No, you can't. And I'll tell you this: If you do build a mosque, I hope somebody blows it up. ... I hope the mosque isn't built, and if it is, I hope it's blown up. And I mean that." Berry subsequently apologized for the remarks. 

June 2010

Geller holds June 6 protest against Islamic center. On June 6, Geller and her organization, Stop Islamization of America, held a rally to protest the Islamic center. While news reports put crowd estimates of the protest between 350 and "more than 1,000," Geller herself claimed that "some estimates ranged as high as 10,000."

Mark Davis compares Islamic center to a "Japanese plan to build a cultural center at Pearl Harbor." Filling in for Rush Limbaugh on the June 9 edition of his syndicated radio show, Texas radio host Mark Davis said that even with "the noblest of intent," building the center would be like a "Japanese plan to build a cultural center at Pearl Harbor."

Geller appears on CNN to call Islamic center a "kick in the head" to Americans. During the June 6 edition of CNN Newsroom, Geller said that for Muslims to "pray next to" ground zero is "repugnant" and a "kick in the head" to Americans.

Geller: "Islamic supremacists want to build a monster mosque ... on the cherished site of land they think they conquered." In a June 23 post, Geller wrote: "We are still finding bodies of Americans murdered by Muslim terrorists on September 11th. Still. And the Islamic supremacists want to build a monster mosque on that sacred burial ground, a giant symbol of Islamic supremacism on the cherished site of land they think they conquered?"

July 2010 

Palin asks Muslims to "refudiate" the Islamic center. On July 18, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin tweeted: "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate." Following criticism of her use of the made-up word "refudiate," Palin deleted the post from her Twitter account and replaced it with the following message: Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real."

Florida church announces plans to burn Quran on 9/11 anniversary. Religion News Service reported on July 21 that the Dove World Outreach Center, a Florida church, "plans to host an 'International Burn A Quran Day' on the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks this year." The group promoted the event on Facebook.  

Gingrich: "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." On July 21, Fox News contributor Gingrich posted a message on his website stating, "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over." He also falsely claimed that the site for the Islamic center would be "overlooking the World Trade Center site."

Geller continues anti-Islam media tour. During the month of July, numerous mainstream media outlets hosted right-wing blogger Pamela Geller to discuss the controversy surrounding a proposed Islamic community center and her group's campaign to stop it, despite Geller's history of outrageous, inflammatory and false claims, particularly when it comes to issues related to Islam. For example: MSNBC News hosted Geller on July 14, NBC Nightly News gave Geller platform to discuss the community center controversy on July 13, CNN Geller hosted on the July 14 edition of American Morning, and Geller appeared on the July 27 edition of Hannity.

Anti-Defamation League released statement opposing Islamic center. On July 28, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a statement opposing the Islamic cultural center: "The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found." The statement also stated "that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values."

National Republican Trust makes anti-mosque TV ad; NBC and CBS refuse to air it. On July 15, Media Matters' Joe Strupp reported that an ad sponsored by the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee, created a controversial ad that "begins with a Muslim call to prayer, then images of terrorism. The narrator then proclaims mosque supporters rejoice in the 9/11 murder." The networks reportedly refused the ad because it "confuses moderate Islam with violent Jihad."

Anti-Islam graffiti found at Texas mosque, and is reportedly thought to be related to Park51 protests. According to a local WFAA News 8 report, vandals spray-painted "[s]tick-figure graffiti ... depicting Uncle Sam sexually assaulting Allah" on the parking lot of a mosque in Arlington, Texas. The report also noted that a playground behind the mosque was set on fire, and quoted the mosque's president, Jamal Qaddura, as saying that "whoever did this might also have tried to burn the mosque itself by pulling apart old gas lines." Qaddura also said "that he believes the damage may be linked to resentment over a planned Islamic community center near Ground Zero in Manhattan."

August 2010

Fox News guests opposing Islamic center outnumber supporters 35 to 11. An August 13 Media Matters for America review of Fox News' evening coverage of the planned building of an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero found that, since May, the shows have hosted at least 47 guests to discuss the project, nearly 75 percent of whom opposed the center.

Ingraham flip-flops on Park51. Eight months after her interview in which she told Daisy Khan, "I like what you're trying to do," Laura Ingraham went on the offensive, appearing on ABC's Good Morning America to claim, "I say the terrorists have won with the way this has gone down. Six hundred feet from where thousands of our fellow Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam, and we're supposed to be -- we're supposed to be considered intolerant if we're not cheering this?" She added that "it's a finger in the eye, I think, of New York. ... This is sacred ground, OK? And I don't think people across the country are protesting" mosques. Ingraham continued: "I think the question we have to ask, George [Stephanopoulos], is why? Why do they want to build a $100 million, 15-story mosque, Islamic center?"

Kuhner smears Rauf as an "unrepentant militant Muslim." In an August 5 Washington Times column, Jeffrey Kuhner baselessly smeared Rauf as an "unrepentant militant Muslim."

Right-wing media attack Rauf over State Department trip. In an August 6 Forbes column, Claudia Rosett reported on Rauf's State Department-funded trip to the Middle East and said, "All this comes at a moment when Rauf and his partners in New York are preparing to raise $100 million to build a 13-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero." Right-wing media subsequently attacked Rauf over the trip -- during which he went to the Middle East to "discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance" -- by baselessly claiming he would use it as a "taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt" to finance construction of Park51. In fact, the State Department had made clear that fundraising of any kind was prohibited during the trip, and Rauf had previously participated in this program under President Bush.

AP: "Foes of proposed mosques have deployed dogs to intimidate Muslims holding prayer." On August 8, The Associated Press reported on incidents of anti-Muslim vandalism in Tennessee and California, noting that "[f]oes of proposed mosques have deployed dogs to intimidate Muslims holding prayer services and spray painted 'Not Welcome' on a construction sign, then later ripped it apart."

Geller falsely claims Rauf made comment blaming "the Jews" for 9-11. In an August 11 post, Geller falsely claimed that Rauf once blamed "the Jews" for 9-11 and said, "If Americans only know it was the Jews' fault, they would have done to the Jews what Hitler did." But those comments had been widely attributed to Sheik Muhammed Gemeaha, a one-time imam at the Islamic Cultural Center in New York City who reportedly made those inflammatory remarks after resigning and returning to Egypt in 2001. Center officials roundly condemned the comments.

Fox, NY Post invent controversy over Rauf's 9-11 comments. Right-wing media, including Fox News' Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, repeatedly attacked Rauf for his remark that "the United States' policies were an accessory" to the 9-11 attacks. However, Rauf's comments were not outside the mainstream; indeed, the former chairman and vice chairman of the 9-11 Commission have stated that U.S. "actions have contributed" to "a rising tide of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world." Beck himself had previously said that while the U.S. did not "deserve 9-11," the U.S. was "in bed with dictators" and "that causes problems."

Right-wing media blast Obama for supporting freedom of religion. Right-wing media attacked President Obama over his August 13 statement that he "believe[s] that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country" and are entitled to build a mosque in lower Manhattan. Frank Gaffney asserted that Obama "stands with shariah," and Geller said Obama "has, in effect, sided with the Islamic jihadists."

Gingrich compares Islamic center to "Nazis" putting a "sign next to the Holocaust museum." On the August 16 edition of Fox & Friends, Newt Gingrich said: "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center."

Morris: Park51 would be a "command center for terrorism." On the August 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, during a discussion of Park51, Fox News contributor Dick Morris claimed "these Sharia mosques ... have become the command centers for terrorists," adding, "so this one would be, too."

Wash. Times: "If the mosque is constructed, the terrorists win." In an August 19 editorial, The Washington Times stated of Park51: "The Ground Zero Mosque is not healing a rift but deepening a wound. If the mosque is constructed, the terrorists win."

Anti-Park51 protests full of right-wing hate. Following relentless right-wing media opposition to Park51 that included inflammatory, anti-Muslim rhetoric, and comparisons of Muslims to Nazis, anti-Park51 protests, including one on August 22, echoed the right-wing media's rhetoric and imagery, invoking Nazis and anti-Muslim smears.

Beck responds to "good Muslim" Rauf interview with mockery and lies. On August 23, Media Matters posted video of a 2006 Good Morning America segment with Beck and Rauf in which Beck agreed with Rauf's position that violent radical Islam is not representative of all Islam and appeared to call Rauf a "good Muslim." On his radio show that day, Beck and his co-hosts mocked the idea that Beck ever "endorsed" Rauf, and said instead that Beck endorsed the idea that "it's not all Islam, it's a small minority of Muslims" that commit violence.

Beck falsely claims Rauf's wife said "all Americans hate Muslims." On the August 24 edition of his Fox News show, Beck falsely claimed that Daisy Khan said that "all Americans hate Muslims." In fact, while discussing the strident opposition to the center, Khan said that hatred for Muslims in America is a cause for concern.

Vandalism at California mosque reportedly investigated as a hate crime; vandalism made reference to "Temple for the God of terrorism at Ground Zero." An August 25 Fresno Bee article reported that "[v]andalism to a Madera Islamic center and signs found on the property are being investigated as a hate crime." The article stated that a brick was thrown through a window and that signs reading, "No Temple for the God of terrorism at Ground Zero. ANB"; "Wake up America, the Enemy is here. ANB"; and "American Nationalist Brotherhood" were found at the mosque.

Vandals set fire to site of future mosque in Tennessee. ABC reported on August 29, "A fire early Saturday morning at the construction site of a new Islamic Center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives" and "One construction vehicle was significantly damaged, while several others were doused with an accelerant but not set ablaze." The Associated Press later reported that federal investigators said the fire "was arson and offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to an arrest."

September 2010

Right-wing media criticize Petraeus' condemnation of pastor's plan to burn Qurans. After General David Petraeus released a statement on September 7 condemning Florida pastor Terry Jones' plan to burn Qurans on September 11, right-wing figures Pam Geller, Robert Spencer and Frank Gaffney - who oppose Quran burning -- declared Petraeus' statements to be "deeply troubling" and a "recipe for surrender." Petraeus opposed the burning on the ground that "it could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan" and that it is "precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems."

Right-wing equates burning Qurans with building Park51. Led by Fox News' Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, the right-wing media compared Pastor Jones' plan to burn Qurans on September 11 to plans to build the Park51 community center, stating that both groups have the right to go through with their plans but shouldn't do so. Palin wrote in a September 8 Facebook post that "[p]eople have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation -- much like building a mosque at Ground Zero." Beck said that burning Qurans is "just like the Ground Zero mosque plan."

Geller calls Imam Rauf quote "disgusting" and claims that "anti-semitism is a basic tenet of Islam." In a September 8 blog post, Pamela Geller quoted Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's statement that "[t]he very word 'islam' comes from a word cognate to shalom, which means peace in Hebrew." Geller wrote: "Considering that Islamic anti-semitism is a basic tenet of Islam. This is particularly disgusting. Talk about giving us the middle finger."

Imam Rauf warns of "the danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security." On the September 8 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, Rauf warned of the dangers of perceived anti-Islam sentiment in the United States, especially pertaining to opposition to his Park51 project. He stated: "If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned about the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim world." He then clarified that he was concerned about "the danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security, to the national security of our troops."

Rauf reportedly told ABC News' Christiane Amanpour on September 9 that "My major concern with moving it is that the headline in the Muslim world will be Islam is under attack in America, this will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment, this will put our people -- our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens -- under attack in the Muslim world and we have expanded and given and fueled terrorism." (Accessed via Nexis)

Media distort Rauf remarks to claim he "threaten[ed] America." After Imam Rauf warned of "danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security," the right-wing media distorted his comments, with Laura Ingraham claiming he had issued a "veiled threat." Michelle Malkin, Gretchen Carlson, Pam Geller, Jim Hoft and the website Fox Nation all made similar claims about Rauf's meaning despite agreement among experts -- including top military and law enforcement officials -- that anti-Muslim protests like those against Park51 are aiding extremists. Responding to Rauf's September 9 comments, Fox & Friends' repeatedly pushed the claim that Rauf made a "threat" against America, with hosts Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade referring to Rauf's comments as a "threat" at least 10 times during the September 10 broadcast.

Obama, Clinton, Gates urge pastor not to go through with Quran burning. President Obama stated of Jones on Good Morning America: "I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan." Obama urged Jones to listen "to those better angels." Secretary of State Hilary Clinton also denounced Jones' plans and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reportedly called Jones on September 9 to ask that he cancel the Quran-burning event.

Pastor agrees to "suspend" Quran burning, which he explicitly links to Park51 controversy. As the Associated Press reported, Jones agreed to suspend his plans to burn the Quran on the September 11, and that he would instead fly to New York and meet with Imam Rauf. Jones initially claimed that he had received a promise from Rauf that the Islamic center would be moved. After Rauf denied that claim, Jones had suggested that he would go ahead with the burning. Later, Jones told NBC's Today show that if he meets with Rauf in New York he won't burn the Quran on 9/11. The AP noted, "It wasn't clear if he meant the burning would be halted indefinitely or just for Saturday."

Others threaten to burn the Quran. Following the announcement that pastor Terry Jones had suspended his plan to burn copies of the Quran on the ninth anniversary of 9-11, figures in Kansas and Wyoming reportedly revealed their own plans to burn the Muslim holy book.

Randall Terry, Tea Party group plans to tear pages out of Quran at White House on 9/11. Andrew Beacham, an Indiana tea party leader announced that "Tea Party and Religious rights activists will gather in front of the White House to tear out egregious passages from the Quran that call for violence against Christians and Jews." According to the press release, Randall Terry, anti-abortion fanatic and "host of daily TV show Randall Terry: The Voice of Resistance," is involved in organizing the event, at which protestors will ask:

"President Obama, do you support the Sharia law, the Quran, and Islamic violence; or do you stand with religious freedom, American liberty, your professed Christianity, and peaceful protest?

"Mr. President, you stand with the 'constitutional freedom' of Muslims to put a Mosque at ground zero. Do you stand with the 'constitutional freedoms' of those who protest against Sharia law, and burn a book that calls for killing infidels?"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by grmce (September 11, 2010 2:31 am ET)
      8  
      Hatred, racial and religious scapegoating, book burnings... where have I heard this before?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Floyd (September 12, 2010 8:50 am ET)
        1 12
        Iran? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Libia? Egypt? Somolia? Indonesia? Turkey? And, the rest of the Muslim nations.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Johaely (September 12, 2010 11:07 am ET)
          8  
          Your source is? Your bigortry?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 7:57 am ET)
              7
            Sorry, joh, my source is history and fact. If you really aren't smart enough to use your own google, just let me know and I'll do it for you. I realize how liberals like others to do the work for them. While I was simply offering an opinion, I can provide sources if you aren't smart enough to find them yourself. Or, you can simply answer this: is there no "religious scapegoating" going on in Iran, Iraq and the rest of the countries I mentioned?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 8:23 am ET)
              5  
              Is there no rleigious scapegoating acurring here in the U.S? You are acting like its an act exclusive to Islam. And i'm not expecting you to do "work for me". When someone levies a serious accusation like yours its their responsability to back it up.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 8:31 am ET)
                  7
                joh-- Is there no rleigious(SIC) scapegoating acurring(SIC) here in the U.S?

                Sure there is. There's no denying that. However, you seem to be able to deny it happens anywhere else. How is that?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 8:39 am ET)
                  7 1
                  I didn't deny it happens anywhere else. You are the bigot that thinks that its exclusive to muslims. Oh and by the way, Turkey is secular.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 9:28 am ET)
                    1 6
                    At what point did I ever say that I believe it is exclusive to muslims? And my use of Turkey proves that.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 9:36 am ET)
                      7  
                      And, the rest of the Muslim nations.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 10:08 am ET)
                          6
                        But I included a secular nation which proves you wrong in your hatred of those who know where the worlds dangers are located.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 10:20 am ET)
                          5 1
                          So all the worlds dangers are located in the middle east with the muslims? the worlds dangers aren't concentrated in one part of the world and religion has nothing to do with it. The middle East is a volatile area with a history of civil wars and political discontent, but so is Africa and South-East Asia.
                          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (September 12, 2010 4:40 pm ET)
          8  
          Wow. Well played, Floyd. Comparing yourself to theocracies. And countries you think are theocracies. Setting the bar kind of low for yourselves there aren't you?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (September 13, 2010 11:43 am ET)
          6  
          I'm not sure why you put Iraq, Indonesia, and Turkey on your list. Indonesia and Turkey are secular countries and aren't "muslim" ones. Indonesia's constitution states. "every person shall be free to choose and to practice the religion of his/her choice" and "guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief". Turkey is the home country of the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church and has gone so far as to ban Islamic head scarves in government buildings. Iraq under Sadam was also tollerant of Christianity. Tariq Aziz, who was the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, was a Christian.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by therick (September 12, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
        5 1
        It's the 60's all over again, only this time in reverse. Peace, Love, and Freedom have been turned into War, Hate, and Impisonment. I can only attribute it to different drugs.

        I wonder... Did this hate movement start to gain steam about 15 years ago--around the same time that Viagra was introduced? If that's true, it would say a lot about conservatives.

        Rick
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 7:59 am ET)
          1 9
          Hmmm, and all this time I thought viagra was a 'free love/no responsibility' liberal thing.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 8:40 am ET)
            6  
            Do you even know what Viagra is for?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 9:29 am ET)
                7
              Ummm, to drive up the number of abortions liberals can claim?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 9:35 am ET)
                6 1
                Last i checked, Viagra is not a fertility drug and abortions can't be used as a birth control method. But well you were the same person that once called the morning after pill an abortion drug, even though there hasn't been implantation and its purpose is to prevent it, not to induce abortion.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 10:10 am ET)
                    6
                  joh-- But well you were the same person that once called the morning after pill an abortion drug,

                  I was? When did I say that? And how does the morning after pill prevent abortions?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 10:34 am ET)
                    6  
                    I confused you. I did not find the post, though your attitude is not very different from that poster's. It prevents abortion by preventing any possible implantation. Not all sex...i'm sorry, i mean coitus (since you can seem to accept laymen's terms without getting all steamy) results in fertilization, but the morning day after pill makes the walls of the uterus line up with a mucus that prevents implantation.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by ScienceBuff (September 13, 2010 9:33 am ET)
              7  
              Maybe he got it from Limbaugh from back when Viagra first became available. I was a regular listener back then and recall that Limbaugh raged on about how terrible it was that Viagra was such a sensation. He said it further demonstrated moral depravity in the U.S. That was one reason I found it so amusing when he was caught with that Viagra prescription in someone else's name.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by iowalib (September 11, 2010 3:03 am ET)
      11 3
      Having just read the first chapter of American Taliban, I feel very down about what these f**ks are doing to our country. I commend MMFA for monitoring this stuff, and I feel the need to do more to educate/enlighten the masses. These are dark times indeed.
      Peace be with you.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eb (September 11, 2010 11:26 am ET)
        12  
        Religious extremism should be an embarrassment for all religious faiths. For Christians to pretend that extremism is not a part of the Christian legacy, which is also dripping in blood, is very convenient. I find it interesting that burning Korans seems justified in the minds of many Christians. Nothing in their faith is stopping them. Instead it is encouraging them. Is it any surprise that we see the same behavior in other faiths?

        Maybe the right wing is teaching us something. Maybe we should view and evaluate all faiths in light of their most extreme element and treat all people of religious faith as potentially radical, violent, intolerant extremists.

        Although this is unfair and irrational stereotyping, I am willing to compromise with conservatives on this as long as we are consistent. Lets apply the same scrutiny and need for sensitivity that the right is placing on Muslims to all religions that have extremist. Christians, Jews, Buddhist, free market fundamentalist, and Scientologist should be assumed to be dangerous and expected to limit their religious rights in the name of sensitivity and humility for the crimes that have been done in their name. Yes lets be consistent.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by smittymatt16 (September 11, 2010 1:55 pm ET)
          3 20
          I think the main point of contention is the Imam's history and his link to terrorist groups such as Hamas. I think this is a matter of national security as well. I want to uphold anyone's right to build, however we must take into consideration their actions and affiliations in the past. I think it's bias and unfair to deny Islam the right to build, however, I think it is also irresponsible to not consider his past.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (September 11, 2010 2:32 pm ET)
            11  
            What's his link to Hamas?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by eb (September 11, 2010 2:53 pm ET)
              11 1
              1. He is Muslim
              2. He does not agree with conservatives on foreign policy.
              3. His finances have not been audited by fox news for approval.

              It seems the Imam needs to pass some kind of general world-view litmus test in order to not be considered a threat. It seems his views are not politically correct according to conservative orthodoxy.

              Lets follow the Right Wing logic: Why not subject all pastors, priests and houses of worship to a questionnaire concerning their views on warfare, equality, science, and patriotism. Furthermore why not scrutinize all donations to the churches.

              I don't know if I want any churches that deny evolution in my neighborhood. Also, some churches promote pacifism. That could be a national security threat. Perhaps some churches get donations from white supremacy group members or militia members. Lets put them all under the magnifying glass.

              By the way, the FBI seems to be able to monitor monetary flows from mosques to terrorist groups. I know they have made arrests and the like. Its not as though there is a complete lack of transparency among Muslim charities.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (September 11, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
                9 2
                I think a lot of conservatives fear anything that's not exactly like them and that's why they go after minorities. It's always the scary black people, the scary Hispanic people, the scary homosexuals, the scary Muslims, etc. It's unfortunate that they can win votes that way.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by eb (September 11, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
                  6  
                  If they looked at themselves without recognizing themselves, i think it would scare them!
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by smittymatt16 (September 13, 2010 12:12 am ET)
                7
              He works closely with members of the Council of American-Islamic Relations. This group was categorized as a terror funding group. And CAIR is Islam's US representative of Hamas.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 8:24 am ET)
                  7
                Liberals?? I don't hear any contradictions of this claim. Is it true that Rauf works closely with CAIR members? And is it true that CAIR is Islam's representative of Hamas?

                Liberals?? Are you going to answer the "proof" you demanded smittymatt16 give? Loonz? You have nothing to say about the proof he brought for the demands you made?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 8:41 am ET)
                  7  
                  CAIR is no representative of Hamas. Did a google search, found no reputable proof of the accusation.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 8:38 am ET)
                7  
                I did i quick Google search and found no reputable web site where the link between CAIR and Hamas is explained.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by smittymatt16 (September 13, 2010 8:47 am ET)
                    8
                  http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6766/pub_detail.asp

                  There mission: "...to inform all Americans, men and women, about the issues surrounding national security; to address their fears about safety and security on a personal, family, community, national and international level; to highlight the connection between individual safety and a strong national defense; to increase civic participation and political responsibility; and to empower all Americans to become proactive defenders of our national security and community safety."

                  Seems to be a fairly neutral web site. That's one site.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by smittymatt16 (September 13, 2010 8:47 am ET)
                      7
                    Excuse me before I get ripped for spelling "there" should be "their".
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 9:02 am ET)
                    8  
                    They are a neo-conservative site with a very anti-islam POV. Its parent company has been funding the protests against Park51, the website has also (irresponsably) posted articles in the past calling for the nuking of Iraq. That's one of the many non-reliable websites i found.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by smittymatt16 (September 13, 2010 9:54 am ET)
                        8
                      I would venture to say that any site that doesn't align with your views is not considered "reputable."
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 10:14 am ET)
                          8
                        Exactly! And, that is why liberals think the way they do. Kind of cute watching them roll over each other like that, isn't it?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 1:16 pm ET)
                        5  
                        I don't call them refutable because they don't align with my views, its because those sites are either blogs, gossip or simply completely biased against muslims. Last place i would trust regarding Muslims would be Jihadwatch, from the same bigot that sparked the "mosque" controversy.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 2:57 pm ET)
                    4  
                    familysecuritymatters.org is NOT a reputable site - it's a biased site full of nonsensical screeds by lunatic rightwingers who are horrifically misinformed on virtually ANY topic they try to address.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 2:54 pm ET)
                4  
                That's a LIE, smittymatt - exactly what we EXPECT from you.

                CAIR was NOT categorized as a terror funding group. That report came from the widely ridiculed NY Sun!

                And CAIR is NOT Islam's US representative of Hamas.

                http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/Dispelling_Rumors_about_CAIR.pdf

                Hamas has two parts - and one part helps run the Gaza Strip and is a legit political group.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by soze169880 (September 11, 2010 2:50 pm ET)
            10  
            I think the main point of contention is a bunch of bullsh!t I heard on Fox

            We know you do.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (September 11, 2010 2:56 pm ET)
            8  
            however we must take into consideration their actions and affiliations in the past. I think it's bias and unfair to deny Islam the right to build, however, I think it is also irresponsible to not consider his past.

            A lot of churches promoted segregation and actively resisted civil rights. A lot of churches still advocate male supremacy. Many religious groups look forward to a violent Armageddon. Lets be consistent and scrutinize them all.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (September 11, 2010 3:05 pm ET)
            9 2
            If you had actually educated YOURSELF, instead of swallowing the Kool-Aid, you'd know that his history is actually impeccable!

            He doesn't have a link to terrorist groups.

            Hamas is both a political group and a group that has terrorist links. He has CONDEMNED their terrorism and supported the right of the political leaders to rule the Gaza Strip.

            Do you REALLY think that the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration didn't vet this guy before they paid for him to go oversees to sell foreign Muslims on the USA? Really?

            I swear, you fools don't think through your baseless smears very well, do you?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (September 12, 2010 8:55 am ET)
              2 13
              sue-- Do you REALLY think that the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration didn't vet this guy before they paid for him to go oversees to sell foreign Muslims on the USA? Really?

              Yes, I really believe that. Why would Obama risk insulting him by actually checking his background? In fact, NO liberal would dare insult a Muslim by questioning him. However, if you aren't Muslim, then liberals will demand that you explain every failure to fully stop at a stop sign and reject you if you didn't stop once.

              You don't think your stupid responses through, do you?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (September 12, 2010 9:52 am ET)
                7  
                That's very unAmerican - to question someone's motives simply because you hate their religion [or their race, nationality, gender, sexuality, etc.]. Liberals try to stay away from that but conservatives will go out of their way to assume things based on those traits.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (September 12, 2010 9:53 am ET)
                4 1
                And I'm a liberal and if I don't see anything coming when approaching a stop sign, I'll go right through it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 8:02 am ET)
                    9
                  floyd-- if you aren't Muslim, then liberals will demand that you explain every failure to fully stop at a stop sign

                  Thank you loonz, for giving proof to my statement.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by eb (September 12, 2010 10:18 am ET)
                8  
                Yes, I really believe that. Why would Obama risk insulting him by actually checking his background? In fact, NO liberal would dare insult a Muslim by questioning him.

                Floyd, you are assuming that Obama and all liberals follow a strict mandate to political correctness: Political correctness is so important that a liberal politician would risk his career to maintain it.

                This interpretation might help you sort out a world that confuses you but when you say such things, you reinforce the negative stereotype of conservatives as lovers and celebrators of ignorance and blind ideology. You also sound like a brainwashed manipulated fool. I hope this is not the case.

                NO liberal would dare insult a Muslim by questioning him. However, if you aren't Muslim, then liberals will demand that you explain every failure to fully stop at a stop sign and reject you if you didn't stop once.

                Floyd, can you accept that Muslims are in our military and praying in our pentagon, or is that too much for you?

                Why are you are so afraid to see people who don't agree with you as they really are. Why are strict and unrealistic caricatures of reality so important to you.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (September 12, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
                7 1
                You don't think your stupid responses through, do you?

                Floyd, seriously, YOU have the nerve to ask THAT question after the dribble YOU posted?

                And one can't help but notice how you totally leave the Bush administration out of your pathetic, insane rant, and ONLY focus on the Obama administration.

                This Imam Rauf was introduced to the country back in 2006, long, long before the Obama administration.

                So the questions is Floyd, did YOU request that Bush and Karen Hughes check out his background, or did the fact that he was involved with Bush and Karen Hughes automatically make him acceptable AT THAT TIME?

                If one were to hearken back to the halcyon days of the Bush Administration, one would remember that, when Bush adviser Karen Hughes was appointed Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, the Bush Administration saw improving America's standing among Muslims abroad as a part of its national security strategy. And, as such, Hughes set up listening tours, attended meetings and worked with interfaith groups that -- shocking, by today's Republican standards -- included actual Muslims.

                One of those people was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

                Contemporary press accounts indicate that Rauf and Hughes were part of the February 2006 U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar. He was part of a delegation that met with her in March 2006 and held a joint press conference. A letter to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November 2007 indicates that contacts with Hughes and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns had continued apace.


                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 8:12 am ET)
                    9
                  And in typical "I love Obama" fashion, you will totally blame Bush for failures of Obama. Did Obama vet this guy after he took office? Did he?!? My opinion is he did NOT. Because he doesn't want to insult Islam or any Muslim by actually checking into their history. Obama would rather appease Islam than defend his country from the extreme element of Islam. Obama would rather argue with Christians about their faults and totally ignore ANY fault of a Muslim. So, that's correct ... BUSH has nothing to do with these current events. He is retired. Obama is president ... not Bush. You voted for change and look what we get ... a continuation of Bush policies so that you liberals can blame anyone else for the failures of your own. Liberals have essentially been in charge since they took over control of the house/senate in 06 (oooh, that's when Rauf became known--what a coincidence) and the economy/military/infrastructure have suffered immensely because of that since then. But, at least you have Bush to blame. You are, after all, a liberal and liberals will blame anyone and everyone to keep themselves from accepting any responsibility for the failures in the present.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 9:55 am ET)
                    6  
                    Did Obama vet this guy after he took office? Did he?!? My opinion is he did NOT.
                    Because he had already been vetted by the Bush Administration. The rest of your post isn't worth a response.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 10:19 am ET)
                        8
                      But, dell (sue) said there IS a possibility that Bush failed to vet him. And she claimed I totally avoided that FACT. So, apparently, are you.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Old_Benjamin (September 13, 2010 12:25 pm ET)
                        6  
                        But, dell (sue) said there IS a possibility that Bush failed to vet him.


                        She did? Hmmm I see her post states...

                        Do you REALLY think that the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration didn't vet this guy before they paid for him to go oversees to sell foreign Muslims on the USA? Really?


                        But I can't find where she thinks Bush DIDN'T vet the imam. You wouldn't by lying would you?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
                          7  
                          I'll give Floyd the benefit of the doubt. He isn't lying, he's just illiterate and can't understand what he tries to read.
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:07 pm ET)
                        4  
                        I said

                        "Do you REALLY think that the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration didn't vet this guy before they paid for him to go oversees to sell foreign Muslims on the USA? Really?"

                        How do you think they FOUND him?

                        By looking for moderate Muslim leaders who want to foster peace and understanding, that's how.

                        And then they vetted him, to ensure that he wasn't a person simply pretending to feel one way to gain the trust of the Bush Administration, while behaving another way in private.

                        That's what the government does - they don't simply take one's word for it.

                        Now, as I have repeatedly had to explain here, since we can't see inside ANYONE's soul, we don't know for SURE that he's not being dishonest, but his reputation is impeccable. His behavior, when accurately and fairly depicted, is not problematic at all!

                        And so people like Floyd have to LIE.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:02 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Of course he got vetted before he went overseas again.

                      And, as part of that vetting process, he was told the rules again! We KNOW this.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (September 13, 2010 9:45 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Liberals have essentially been in charge since they took over control of the house/senate in 06 (oooh, that's when Rauf became known--what a coincidence) and the economy/military/infrastructure have suffered immensely because of that since then.

                    In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office.

                    Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms."

                    It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture.


                    OMG Floyd, that's 2003!

                    Seriously, you sound as nutty as that loon Virginia Foxx! It is ludicrous to claim that the recession which began in January 2008 was 'caused' by a change in political control of Congress that took place in January 2007...

                    The Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, after 12 YEARS OF REPUBLICAN CONTROL!

                    And how much of advantage did those Democrats have in Congress?

                    House of Representatives, Dems 233, Republicans 202. Senate Dems 49, Senate Republicans 49, with 2 Independents, Sanders and Republican Lieberman who caucus with the Democrats.

                    So what did Republicans do then they lost in Nov. 2006?

                    This year's Pig Book breaks a run of seven consecutive years of record dollar amounts of pork, culminating in $29 billion in the 2006 Congressional Pig Book. This lesser barrel of pork can be attributed to the efforts of Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who prevented the enactment of nine appropriations bills in December, 2006.CAGW's "2007 Congressional Pig Book"...

                    Why, you wonder?

                    Simple, Republicans used the unfinished business to try and hurt the Democratic agenda. "Other stuff may get pushed off the table," said GOP lobbyist Hazen Marshall, a former longtime Capitol Hill aide. "It kills (Democrats') message."

                    So Congress convened in January 2007, House and Senate Democratic leaders formulated "a $463 billion spending plan for the remainder of the fiscal year" that was "stripped ... of all earmarks, or narrow, special-interest provisions.

                    AND veterans' health, which will got $23.3 billion, or $3.6 billion more than it got last year. The Defense Department will receive $21.2 billion -- an increase of $1.2 billion -- to treat U.S. troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. The FBI will get $6 billion, an increase of $216.6 million to fully fund 31,359 positions, including those of 12,213 agents and 2,577 intelligence analysts. Democrats Move Leftover Spending Measure...

                    In December 2007, housing markets tanking, foreclosures increasing, sub-prime mortgage meltdown, soring oil prices and a declining dollar, the Bush solution was a $152 BILLION (NOT PAID FOR) "economic STIMULUS package" which included TAX REBATES and provided TAX BREAKS for BUSINESSESS.

                    And it was APPROVED with 165 House Republicans and 33 Republicans, 34 if you include Republican Lieberman.

                    And by the way, IF Bush didn't retire, this country would have fired his sorry a**!

                    Now Floyd, I'm going to stop wasting , my time on you. You're a bad joke who wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the a**!

                    But YOU don't you worry, you're right at home in loony right-wing land where one color, one religion and one thought are all that's required!
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Did you see what Ann Coulter did? She presented this idea that

                  "There have been more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by ... Muslims in Obama's first 18 months in office than in the six years under Bush after he invaded Iraq."

                  But that's ONLY if you greatly restrict the criteria, AND if you ignore that it means NOTHING.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (September 12, 2010 4:59 pm ET)
                6 2
                Doofus, he was simply continuing the work he began under Bush.

                If there was a failure to vet him, the major part of that responsibility falls on the Bush Administration's shoulders, yet you totally avoid that FACT!

                YOU are the one who clearly didn't think through YOUR stupid response!

                This guy HAS been vetted - by both the Bush and the Obama administrations as WELL AS by journalists and the public, and, like I said, he has impeccable credentials.

                This is indisputable, dummy.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by smittymatt16 (September 12, 2010 11:46 pm ET)
                    7
                  Can you please show me where this proof lies?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 7:30 am ET)
                    6 1
                    Do your own damned research.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by smittymatt16 (September 13, 2010 8:11 am ET)
                        8
                      I've read a number of posts on here about "baseless" claims. I'm only asking that you provide where you found the information.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 8:17 am ET)
                          9
                        If you're a liberal you aren't required to back your 'factual statements' with evidence. You only need to provide that kind of proof if you are NOT a liberal. That's the general rule in this type of forum.

                        Sue cannot prove her hypothesis about Bush, because then she would have a lot of egg on her face when Obama failed to vet him also. She is already admitting the guy may not have been vetted, but she will never attribute ANY blame onto Obama. It's not like he has a responsibility to do that. Obama is very well known for laying all/any blame he can on Bush/co.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 9:56 am ET)
                          7 1
                          If you're a liberal you aren't required to back your 'factual statements' with evidence.
                          If you're a right-wingnut, you ignore all the evidence brought forward and provide nothing but insults as refutation.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:16 pm ET)
                          3  
                          I never admitted that he might not have been vetted. I MOCKED the idea that he hadn't been vetted by Bush when he was first recruited, and then said that if he wasn't vetted by the Bush Administration (but of course he was), that the BLAME for that failed vetting would fall on the Bush Administration, amazingly enough!

                          the State Department says its choice of Mr. Rauf to represent the US in a forthcoming trip to Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, reflects the religious leader’s established record of moderation and his past experience in taking Islamic life in America to foreign audiences.

                          “His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

                          Mr. Crowley also noted that the imam’s trip was planned prior to the national controversy over the mosque project slated for a few blocks north of ground zero. The State Department sponsored more than 50 such projects promoting religious tolerance last year, he said, and expects to sponsor about the same number this year.

                          http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0811/Is-ground-zero-mosque-imam-best-choice-for-diplomatic-mission-to-Mideast

                          Hughes set up listening tours, attended meetings and worked with interfaith groups that -- shocking, by today's Republican standards -- included actual Muslims.

                          One of those people was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

                          Contemporary press accounts indicate that Rauf and Hughes were part of the February 2006 U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar. He was part of a delegation that met with her in March 2006 and held a joint press conference. A letter to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November 2007 indicates that contacts with Hughes and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns had continued apace.

                          And, of course, an interview with Foreign Policy in 2007 explored both the depths of his ongoing contact with the Administration and his so-called radical views.

                          I have had meetings with Karen Hughes. However, I would welcome the opportunity to have further, deeper, and more nuanced discussions with other members of the Bush administration on how they need to understand religion and how it intersects with political affairs. To not understand the role of Islam and faith as a motivator is to be incapacitated in shaping a foreign policy that achieves the objectives of the United States.
                          The perception in the Muslim world is that the West wants to impose a secularism upon it, which to them is equivalent to the erasure of religion in society. As an American, I know that is not the intent of the United States at all. But thats the perception. The perception in America is that when people say they want an Islamic state, they want something like the Taliban. And that is not true at all.

                          Rauf added that, during Ramadan, it was important to remember the love that Jews, Muslims and Christians agree that their gods preach, adding, "It also means do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you." Guess that's one thing Rauf's critics forgot.

                          http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/ground_zero_mosque_imam_bush_partner_for_peace.php?ref=fpblg
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by grmce (September 13, 2010 6:15 pm ET)
                        2  
                        You can't prove anything as baseless other than by failing to find said base. the fact that said base cannot be found is proof enough.

                        Third rate sophistry notwithstanding, your smears and innuendo make no useful contribution to public discourse. You and your tag team partner remind me very much of that sad excuse for a human being, Roy Cohn. I just hope you don't suffer his ultimate fate.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by ScienceBuff (September 13, 2010 10:05 am ET)
                    7  
                    I'm not sure exactly what you want to be proved. That Rauf had a relationship with the WPE Bush administration is beyond contention. He met with Karen Hughes and corresponded with Condoleezza Rice in efforts to improve relations with and understanding of Islam. During the WPE Bush administration, Rauf also went to the Middle East to tell what it was like to be a Muslim in America. He told his audiences there about the freedom that exists in America to practice his religion and worked to dispel myths about American treatment of Muslims. His work with the FBI during the WPE Bush administration on their anti-terrorism efforts is also pretty well documented.

                    If you're just challenging the vetting process, that's tough to find documentation on. It's not as though federal security agencies put out master lists of who they've investigated and what the results were. However, it's not unreasonable to presume that Rauf's background and activities were checked out before he started actively working with the WPE Bush administration and before he began working with the FBI. In fact, it's pretty silly to pretend that he wasn't.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Thanks.

                      His reputation is impeccable. A fair review of ALL of his comments, in context, doesn't show ANY questionable behavior.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by smittymatt16 (September 13, 2010 12:17 am ET)
                8
              I consider myself educated. You don't and that's fine. But I can only go by what I hear in the media. And I'm sorry if I interpret information differently than you do, but I certainly wouldn't call it uneducated or baseless. I'm not trying to smear anyone, only trying to debate a very hot topic, and it seems you'd rather hurl insults and call me a "fool."
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 7:31 am ET)
                7  
                I consider myself educated. You don't and that's fine. But I can only go by what I hear in the media.
                So you admit you don't do any independent research, and it appears the "media" you listen to is Fox News.

                A study showed that Fox News watchers thought they were well-informed and educated, and scored the worst in current affairs tests.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by smittymatt16 (September 13, 2010 8:14 am ET)
                    8
                  What study would that be? Where did you find it? And judging by how much time it appears most posters spend on this web site posting, I'm assuming there is little to no "independent research" being done by anyone else.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by ScienceBuff (September 13, 2010 11:58 am ET)
                    8  
                    Pew Research
                    [http://people-press.org/reports/images/319-2.gif]
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by n'est-ce pas (September 13, 2010 5:02 pm ET)
                    4  
                    How exactly would you "judg[e]...how much time...most posters spendon this web site...?" Seriously. I could post thirty or forty times a day on MMfA, but it might take me only an hour to do so. Or it might take me five. Or I might space it out. What kind of metric did you think you'd built up there?

                    You may consider yourself educated, I'm not really going to push that rock uphill. I know you're a bigot, because you've posted bigoted things here. I don't think you're very intelligent, because you've posted fairly stupid things here. As for media studies, man, there are tons. Get yourself familiar with the Google. Don't ask everyone else to do your "independent research."
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (September 12, 2010 3:11 pm ET)
            8  
            I think you're full of it. I think you're a bigot prettying up your ugly prejudice with concern troll platitudes. "The main point of contention" is that you want to pretend that all Americans are white and Christian, and you want to punish any brown, non-Christian people who dare consider themselves something other than conditional citizens. We call you a bigot because you are one.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 8:35 am ET)
                10
              You do a good job of showing how tolerant/peaceful liberals are. Should we stick with 'hypocrite' when we address you?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 9:06 am ET)
                7  
                Tolerance ("conservative" definition) : "Hey you! Shut up while I insult you and everything you believe in."
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 9:33 am ET)
                    9
                  Are you a conservative? You must be, because you just insulted me and everything I believe in by using that description. Thanks again for proving my point.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 9:39 am ET)
                    7  
                    Your density is irritating. Do you ever read into anything or is everything in your life literal?

                    Everytime you come here, you accuse liberals of pretty much everything but being nazis. Then when somebody retaliates against you and your bigotry, somehow they are intolerant for not wanting to tolerate you $#!t any longer.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 10:06 am ET)
                        8
                      You say that as if I cared what YOU think. Your sheeple attitude is really quite disturbing, but you can run your life any way you want. What bigotry have I shown that you haven't shown also? When you call me a bigot, I'll call you a hypocrite because you're just as much a bigot as me. You just have more people (on this site only) who are the same as you and give you complete agreement with anything you say, including bigoted statements about right-wingers.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 10:29 am ET)
                        6 1
                        Why so defensive? I'm calling you a bigot because you are one. A bigot against liberals, against muslims and pretty xenophobic.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by n'est-ce pas (September 13, 2010 12:19 pm ET)
                6 1
                Boy, you're a weird little troll, Floyd. If I'm reading you right, I'm not tolerant because I call a bigot a bigot. So, what you seem to be sayin is, I'm supposed to be tolerant of bigotry.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by TomJoad (September 11, 2010 9:26 am ET)
      12 2
      Gingrich really takes the stupid cake for me here.
      "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."
      A four-year-old in the playground could explain away that logic. 'No, YOU started it!' I thought part of the point of American exceptionalism (which these crackpots all subscribe to) was that the USA sets its own standards, and doesn't take cues from other states. We'd also do well to remember that the first Gulf War, when our Christian army set up camp in Saudi Arabia, is the cause of 9/11 (rational or otherwise) as cited by Osama himself.

      Sam Harris is wrong on this one. It's one thing to acknowledge that Islam is a fundamentally flawed religion (clearly, all religion is fundamentally flawed/wrong - but Christianity doesn't demand that apostates be put to death). It's another thing to say 'the 19 hijackers from 9/11 are equivalent to all Muslims' everywhere, and therefore a place of worship for Muslims is equivalent to a shrine for the 9/11 hijackers'. How absurd, and damaging.

      PS - At least we know Palin's twitter account is actually authored by Sarah Palin, given the use of made-up words and all...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wmjodea3 (September 11, 2010 10:56 am ET)
        14  
        I agree, Mr. Gingrich's comments were quite illogical and very stupid. To suggest that the USA behave like Saudi Arabia when it comes to Religious freedoms. I am wondering if Mr. Gingrich would also like the USA to behave like Saudi Arabia when it comes to Adulterers?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eb (September 11, 2010 11:29 am ET)
          9  
          Conservatives want to lower the bar whenever they think we are emotionally justified to. Yes lets behave like the Saudis since they seem to get away with it.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by sunlander (September 12, 2010 2:19 am ET)
          4  
          "I am wondering if Mr. Gingrich would also like the USA to behave like Saudi Arabia when it comes to adulterers?"

          ... I laughed, I cried ...

          Report Abuse
      • Author by smittymatt16 (September 11, 2010 2:02 pm ET)
        2 17
        I, too, agree that placing all Muslims into the "extremist" category is unfair. However, these extremists are claiming Islamic faith and tradition, therefore, I don't feel it is completely inappropriate to debate the matter. To label them is unfair, but to think that this is a vast minority of the Islamic faith is naive, in my opinion.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (September 11, 2010 2:31 pm ET)
          7 1
          I don't understand your post. Since some people interpret the Quran differently than other we should debate what exactly?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (September 11, 2010 3:06 pm ET)
            11  
            If Muslims are naive because other Muslims are extremists and claim Islamic faith and tradition, then why not apply that logic to other religions because extremist claiming the faith is pretty typical. I think it would be oddly funny to be an extremist and not claim the faith.

            If you haven't noticed a large percentage of Americans deny the theory of evolution, believe in a literal translation of the bible and are expecting a biblical end to the world any day now. People holding these beliefs can be found at high levels of our government, military and corporate leadership... therefore, I don't feel it is completely inappropriate to debate the matter.

            My apologies to people of faith who can keep things in perspective... Thank God not all religious people are extremist!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by TomJoad (September 12, 2010 8:24 am ET)
              5  
              Exactly right. I'd add, not just expecting a biblical end to the world, but 2000 years after Christ, HOPING for a biblical end to the world IN THEIR LIFE TIMES, presumably on the assumption that their own self-analysis indicates a simple conversation with St Peter.

              I like this Hitchens quote: 'How much vanity must be concealed – and not too effectively at that – in order to pretend that one is the personal object of a divine plan?'
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 8:43 am ET)
              1 9
              eb-- If you haven't noticed a large percentage of Americans deny the theory of evolution, believe in a literal translation of the bible and are expecting a biblical end to the world any day now.

              All said without a shred of evidence. But, that's ok, only the liberal sheeple will believe that bologna anyway. Wait, perhaps "large percentage" mean 3%? 5%? 10%? And those "people ... found in high levels of government"? Who of them hold these views that you claim a "large percentage" believe?

              We all like your opinion, but if you want to levy claims like that, there should be some kind of verifiable data. But, if you don't have any, that's fine. That would just be more typical liberalism.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (September 12, 2010 11:19 am ET)
          6  
          What is a vast minority? You make absolutely no sense trying to rationalize your bigotry.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 8:47 am ET)
              8
            It must be the same as "large percentage" that EB used in his/her rant about the evils of Christianity. He/She didn't make any sense in his/her attempt to rationalize his/her bigotry either.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 9:25 am ET)
              7  
              Gallup: Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

              Religious Tolerance (slightly Outdated in reference to Gallup)Results of public opinion polls
              on evolution and creation science


              [http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/WindowsLiveWriter/LatestGallupPollonEvolutionDenial_1017F/080620Evolution_1_jdioodfoppgif_thumb.gif]

              The percentage is far too high (ranging from a 33 to a 44 percent). While not 100% true (no scientific theory or law is 100%) its a very reliable theory based on science (Not sound science, science. There is no such thing as sound or junk science).
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 9:41 am ET)
                  8
                And that proves what?

                This was the statement: "If you haven't noticed a large percentage of Americans deny the theory of evolution, believe in a literal translation of the bible and are expecting a biblical end to the world any day now. People holding these beliefs can be found at high levels of our government, military and corporate leadership."

                What part of that does the graph that someone produced for you prove? The "people holding these beliefs" or the "large percentage". Since you don't have on that graph 'those who believe God has the power to produce anything He wants at whatever age He wants'. Were Adam and Eve created as babies? Or were they already aged when they 'appeared'? Obviously, this question is only valid if you believe in the Biblical Adam and Eve.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 10:28 am ET)
                  6 1
                  Keep pushing the goalposts! Eventually you'll reach the Wall!!
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Old_Benjamin (September 13, 2010 1:00 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Since you don't have on that graph 'those who believe God has the power to produce anything He wants at whatever age He wants'. Were Adam and Eve created as babies? Or were they already aged when they 'appeared'? Obviously, this question is only valid if you believe in the Biblical Adam and Eve.


                  Well it does prove a lot of people in the US don't believ in evolution. Which was one point. As far as literal interpretations of the bible. You can find more information here...

                  LINK
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (September 11, 2010 3:07 pm ET)
        9 2
        Islam doesn't demand that "apostates be put to death". And if you want to read those historical texts that way, then you're wrong for saying that Christianity or Judaism doesn't demand the same thing!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by sunlander (September 12, 2010 2:42 am ET)
          8  
          Sharia Law = Levitical Law,doesn't it. The cult to which Sarah Palin belongs inspired the Ungandan "kill the gays" bill. The god of Abraham is the same god of the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims. A kosher butcher is halal and a halal butcher is kosher (... just don't eat meat of Friday).
          Report Abuse
        • Author by TomJoad (September 12, 2010 8:16 am ET)
          6 1
          I can take your word for it, or that of Richard Dawkins

          I think the mistake you're making here is exactly the point.

          Religion is extreme by it's very nature - lets believe in something with no impirical evidence whatsoever, and then make irrational life choices based on our self-imposed delusion.

          The reality is, rational, normal atheists like me can tolerate and coexist with, love, the vast majority of Christians... Jews...Hindus... Muslims - for the very reason that their own ability to reason prevents them from adopting the extreme aspects of their own faith. For the most part, religious people are predominantly the same as normal people (condescending? yes it is) But liberals sometimes make the mistake of drawing the bow a bit further - we will defend the right of people to practice the religion of Islam, AND we will defend Islam itself. But there is no need to do that. Islam simply doesn't deserve intellectual protection in a factual sense. In fact, we have a moral obligation to criticise the irrational beliefs of people of faith everywhere - there's no room for bigotry here, Christians are just as wrong about metaphysics as Jews are, as Muslims are.

          However, that stance doesn't contradict the right of Muslims to build a place of worship 2 blocks from ground zero. Almost all Muslims are moderate, rational in a day-to-day sense, peaceful and perfect citizens. They have religious rights protected under the constitution and there is simply nothing offensive about this project whatsoever. To equate a multi-faith centre with a shrine to bin Laden is pathetically illogical. That is the point of this debate in my mind. If it was actually AT the sight of ground zero, it would be a different thing... and to me a Christian place of worship would be just as offensive as an Islamic faith of worship.

          Either way, you don't have to feel pressed to defend Islam as a faith as some sort of corollary of defending the right of New York Muslims to build a place of worship. It is a violently unpleasant belief in certain forms. As Hitchens has rightly pointed out:

          The nineteen suicide murderers of New York and Washington and Pennsylvania were beyond any doubt the most sincere believers on those planes. Perhaps we can hear a little less about how ‘people of faith’ possess moral advantages that others can only envy.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (September 12, 2010 9:00 am ET)
          1 12
          sue-- Islam doesn't demand that "apostates be put to death". And if you want to read those historical texts that way, then you're wrong for saying that Christianity or Judaism doesn't demand the same thing!

          You say the most 2-faced things sometimes. You say Islam doesn't demand certain acts, then say even if you read the book the way it's written it doesn't mean it any different than other books mean it. Does your 5 year old help you write this stuff, or do you do it on your own?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (September 12, 2010 10:29 am ET)
            6  
            Floyd, read again the quote from Richard Dawkins in the post above:

            The reality is, rational, normal atheists like me can tolerate and coexist with, love, the vast majority of Christians... Jews...Hindus... Muslims - for the very reason that their own ability to reason prevents them from adopting the extreme aspects of their own faith.

            What is 2 faced is to assume that Islam is more or less prone to irrational violent extremism than any other religion. Fortunately not all religious followers reject reason and rationality.

            In fact, we have a moral obligation to criticise the irrational beliefs of people of faith everywhere - there's no room for bigotry here, Christians are just as wrong about metaphysics as Jews are, as Muslims are.

            I would also include the PR and strict ideologies of the right wing media, which is why this website is so vital. Its ironic that a lot of the troll postings demonstrate how damaging a literal interpretation of right wing beliefs are.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (September 12, 2010 5:03 pm ET)
            6 2
            Islam doesn't demand that apostates be put to death.

            That's a fact.

            But if one wants to DISTORT what the Koran says, if you want to read those historical texts that way, one would have to ALSO claim that the Bible says the same thing!

            It's not really very difficult for anyone with half a brain to figure out, doofus!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by TomJoad (September 13, 2010 5:11 am ET)
              2 2
              The Quran might not... but yes, typically jurisprudence in Islam does. You can parse it if you like - most Muslims do as well. But if you actually looked at my link, you'll acknowledge with me an uncontroversial Muslim laeder in the UK admitting that apostates are technically deserving of death under Islamic law. You can also google 'Islamic apostasy law' and take your pick of references, most of which agree. This is a good example - 'The tomes reference various scholars’ works and state that the Quran does not mandate the death sentence explicitly but traditional Islamic jurisprudence based upon the Sunna and hadith do. '

              Either way, the critical point still stands - religion is irrational and Islam has some particularly dangerous irrationalities within it. Again, that says nothing about the right of the 99.9% of moderate Muslims, nor their right to build this faith centre - which I support.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:28 pm ET)
                2 1
                Nope, you're wrong.

                You need to cite reasonable sites, not junk ones like you did.

                Like religioustolerance.org

                http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos4.htm

                http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos3.htm

                Blaming Islam for the sins of a few extremists is not reasonable.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by TomJoad (September 13, 2010 5:13 am ET)
              4 2
              And I'd add that yes, the Bible is a rather unpleasant demonstration of moral truths (Abraham and Isaac, for example, or the need to kill your children if they talk back to you).

              Sincerely, Doofus.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by sjw (September 13, 2010 11:28 am ET)
              3 1
              "It's not really very difficult for anyone with half a brain to figure out" - well, that eliminates Floyd because he proven that he actually has negative brain capacity.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by wmjodea3 (September 11, 2010 11:15 am ET)
      6  
      Don't most of these folks claim to be Christian; so I am guessing Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media are just doing what Jesus would have done.

      I was raised to believe Christian was a verb. You show your faith by your actions, not your words.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by smittymatt16 (September 11, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
        1 7
        I completely agree that love and christianity is a verb. But that certainly doesn't mean we cannot reason with the minds God gave us. Reason and responsibility do not have to oppose love and christianity.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (September 11, 2010 4:42 pm ET)
          6  
          Ah, but Jesus Christ and his followers did not attack the religions of the people they ministered to; in fact, Paul, spoke of the religiosity of many of the folks with whom he spoke. These attacks on Islam, which shares the same God, isn't Christian.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (September 12, 2010 7:54 am ET)
            4  
            Unfortunately there are many Christians who seem to disagree with you - both today and throughout history.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (September 12, 2010 7:54 am ET)
            5  
            Unfortunately there are many Christians who seem to disagree with you - both today and throughout history.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (September 12, 2010 9:02 am ET)
              12
            bintx-- These attacks on Islam, which shares the same God, isn't Christian.

            No, Christianity and Islam do NOT share the same God. Is that your style of showing others you have no clue?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (September 12, 2010 10:06 am ET)
              8  
              You all share the same sky fairy. In fact, Muslims believe that all the Abrahamic religions are taking different paths to the same imaginary destination.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by eb (September 12, 2010 10:34 am ET)
                8  
                Sorry to break it to you Floyd, but Loonz is correct. Islam worships the God of Abraham and believe that Jesus and the other prophets in the bible are their prophets as well. They have a different interpretation. So do the Mormons, Baptist, Catholics, Orthodox, Jews...

                Why hasn't Fox news pointed this out to you?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by congero6189599 (September 12, 2010 10:51 am ET)
                  5  
                  The ignorance is deep isn't it.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 8:54 am ET)
                    8
                  eb-- Sorry to break it to you Floyd, but Loonz is correct. Islam worships the God of Abraham and believe that Jesus and the other prophets in the bible are their prophets as well.

                  Sorry to break it to YOU, eb. Jesus IS God to Christians, not just a prophet. I haven't seen ONE Muslim pray to Jesus, have you?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 9:27 am ET)
                    5  
                    LEt me correct your statement: Jesus IS God in some branches of Christianity.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by wmjodea3 (September 13, 2010 11:39 am ET)
                    2 1
                    Jesus in the Son of God and following the teaching of Jesus is the path to God.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:30 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Jesus is NOT God.

                    He IS part of the trinity, but he's NOT God.

                    Islam and Christianity share the same God. It's undeniable, yet you dispute it!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 9:25 pm ET)
                         
                      Catholicism teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same.

                      So Jesus IS God to them.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by Johaely (September 12, 2010 10:30 pm ET)
              4  
              Christianity and Islam are both Abrahamic religions along with Judaism. Allah translates to God. Is that your style of showing others you have no clue? No, wait. Your style is to agressively retort with insults hoping that you would win the argument.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 8:57 am ET)
                  8
                Hey joh, does ALLAH translate to JESUS? Jesus IS God in Christianity. Is Jesus God in Judaism or Islam?

                So, you're barking up the wrong tree ... again. But, if you were Christian you would already know that, huh?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 9:11 am ET)
                  6  
                  What branch of Christinaity are you talking about. I grew up with the concept of the holy trinity. Jesus is the son of God not his avatar in Catholicism.

                  Also Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet and martyr.

                  Seriously you sound like a fundie. I wouldn't be surprised if you also rejected evolution.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 9:49 am ET)
                      9
                    If you grew up in catholicism, that would explain your thought pattern. My statement stands as said. Christians believe Jesus is God. If you don't, then you are not a Christian. I don't make the rule, I just follow it. Jesus even tells you that in the Bible. You DO have a Bible, don't you? Have you ever read it?

                    BTW, I don't reject evolution. I just don't think it happened the way YOU think it happened. How old were Adam and Eve when they became?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 9:59 am ET)
                      7  
                      Adam and Eve didn't exist.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by wmjodea3 (September 13, 2010 11:52 am ET)
                      8  
                      Catholics are Christians; so I guess your statement of "Christians believe Jesus in God" needs to be explained a little clearer.

                      If Jesus is God than which son did Jesus send to die for everyones sins?

                      Please show us the Bible reference which states Jesus is God?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Old_Benjamin (September 13, 2010 4:03 pm ET)
                        1  
                        If Jesus is God than which son did Jesus send to die for everyones sins?


                        The one that's pronounced "hey-zues"?
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:35 pm ET)
                      2  
                      No, Christians do NOT think that Jesus = God.

                      If Jesus is God, then ALL humans are God.

                      Much of what Jesus said has to be taken IN CONTEXT, and NOT literally. He taught in parables and spoke in figurative language.

                      Reasonable, intelligent people know this.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 9:27 pm ET)
                           
                        No, Christians do NOT think that Jesus = God.
                        Catholics are Christians. Catholics believe that Jesus is God. Therefore, some Christians believe that Jesus is God.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by wmjodea3 (September 13, 2010 11:00 pm ET)
                             
                          OK i understand now God is Jesus, Jesus is God, Allah is God, Allah is Jesus, Jesus is Allah; so I guess the post stating Christians and Muslims worship the same God was correct after all.

                          Report Abuse
          • Author by smittymatt16 (September 12, 2010 11:51 pm ET)
              9
            Actually, Paul did in fact speak against Judaism and their adherence to the Law which was no longer necessary because of Christ's sacrifice. However, I'm only raising the issue that I don't think it's out of the question to debate the matter. I certainly understand the reluctancy to deny someone freedom of religion. If the Muslim faith were so gracious, sensitive, and loving, as many proclaim, then why don't they recognize that this is offensive to many victims' families and choose another location?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 9:30 pm ET)
                 
              Because the building is not religious, they already went through all the legal hurdles to obtain the terrain and the opposition to the community center is based on lies, hearsay and bigotry aside form the fact that its not on ground zero and nowhere near it.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by aj.physics (September 11, 2010 7:20 pm ET)
          5  
          Very true, but it would be nice to see more people do just that. There are simple things that these people whom call themselves Christian are not doing that would be reasoned responses taken from the Bible. As Christians we are taught to love our neighbor as our selves, we are taught about the good Samaritan, we are taught to turn the other cheek, we are taught not to judge, and maybe most of all in this context, to let the one among us without sin be the first to cast a stone. These are all reasonable ideas that people seem to have forgotten. As a Christian I would hope to not be judged by what many of these people are doing and saying, and I believe that this Imam feels the same about the extremist in his own religion.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by grmce (September 12, 2010 10:11 pm ET)
            4 1
            I recall attending a talk by Imam Feisal some years ago when he gave the most eloquent and elegant exposition of Christianity.

            He explained it in terms of the Two Commandments of the New Testament - to love God and to love your neighbour. The former he described as the liturgy and the latter as the law. I think that there is no better understanding of Christianity than to have a liturgy informed by love of God and a legal system informed by love of your neighbour.

            If you're an atheist, don't bother about the God and liturgy bit and you're still left with a pretty good system - essentially the Renaissance ideal of humanism as described by the likes of Thomas More and Erasmus.

            Maybe all those hate mongers could do with a lesson in theology and moral ethics from the good Imam?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 9:00 am ET)
                10
              grm-- Maybe all those hate mongers could do with a lesson in theology and moral ethics from the good Imam?

              Are you talking about the Muslim extremists who kill innocent people on a daily basis? If you aren't talking about them, who are you talking about?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 10:00 am ET)
                6  
                Are you talking about the Muslim extremists who kill innocent people on a daily basis?
                I guess they call it "Shock and Awe," also?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by grmce (September 13, 2010 6:43 pm ET)
                1  
                Are you talking about the Muslim extremists who kill innocent people on a daily basis? If you aren't talking about them, who are you talking about?
                I was, of course, referring to the only Imam mentioned in my post (basic English usage).

                Your vitriol and eagerness to hate certainly portrays you as pretty unsuccessful at the professed basics of both Christianity and being a U.S. Citizen.

                Your willingness to cite unsubstantiated and defamatory furphies as fact suggests that you are either extremely stupid or irresponsibly malicious.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (September 11, 2010 12:59 pm ET)
      6 1
      Truth: water for the flames

      Unlike the FOX NEWS "expert" guests, Juan Cole is a world-renowned scholar and he has a web sight that should be part of everyone's dailing reading.

      His post today should be enlarged to 300 point font, printed on a long banner and shown to the bigots who'll be out today protesting the cultural center in New York.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by smittymatt16 (September 11, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
      1 15
      Can someone answer why it is vitally pertinent that this Imam place a mosque at Ground Zero? Why wouldn't the Muslim leaders respect the outcry of the people and move it to another location? Is this location absolutely necessary to their cause and practice of Islam?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by draftedin68 (September 11, 2010 2:16 pm ET)
        9  
        Or vice-versa?

        How far?

        How far would you be willing to move because of an "outcry"?

        Maybe "respect" should be shown both ways.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by smittymatt16 (September 11, 2010 2:41 pm ET)
          2 18
          I certainly think we (the USA) have shown much respect to the Islam. Take a look at how many mosques are around. I simply think it's insensitive of the Muslim community to not listen to the outcry and consider a different location.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by draftedin68 (September 11, 2010 2:53 pm ET)
            6  

            So they must move but you wouldn't?

            BTW, WTF is "the Islam"?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by soze169880 (September 11, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
              6  
              I'm gonna look it up on The Google.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by TomJoad (September 12, 2010 8:21 am ET)
                4  
                sillymatt... dude. Pick up any book on 20th century history in the middle east, and then re-read your post. Respect to the Islam? A to the K?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by smittymatt16 (September 12, 2010 10:26 am ET)
                  1 7
                  It's humorous how many times you will attack one's grammar. My apologies. Simply remove "the" from my first post. It's really quite simple. I'm sure you understood what I was writing.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (September 12, 2010 11:16 am ET)
                    8 1
                    Whats humorous is how you've swallowed all of the conservative propaganda. The second largest contributor and supporter of Faux News is a Saudi,should Faux be investigated? this is not a mosque but a community center with basketball courts and swimming pool. It is not at ground zero(btw there is a mosque in the area)and can't be seen from ground zero nor can ground zero be seen from the center. There are strip clubs and fast food joints closer to ground zero than the proposed center,is it your contention that lap dances and fast food joints celebrate the memory of the lives lost(btw Muslims died at this site) better than a community center?

                    Isn't this America land of the FREE and home of the brave? Why are you acting so irrationally and scared.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (September 12, 2010 5:05 pm ET)
                    5 3
                    So, tell us, how MANY sockpuppet screen names do you actually use here, doofus? This is the same exact argument that at least 3 current trolls use.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by smittymatt16 (September 13, 2010 8:21 am ET)
                      1 8
                      Your NAME calling and USE of capital LETTERS is interesting. I USE one screen NAME and your argument is being used BY many OTHERS on this site as well. So does that make my argument invalid based on others agreeing with me? Using that logic, does it make yours invalid also?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:39 pm ET)
                        3 1
                        What an imbecile.

                        And, because you couldn't actually attack a SINGLE thing I said, you dishonestly assert that you can't comprehend why, in written language, it might be necessary and reasonable to emphasize certain words - an emphasis that's EASY to do in verbal conversation to stress certain words and ideas!

                        And I don't USE namecalling. Accurately pointing out stupid behavior and then labelling the person who USED that stupid behavior as someone who USED that stupid behavior isn't namecalling.

                        Just like it's not namecalling to call a convicted killer a murderer!!!

                        This is not rocket science.

                        But thanks for showing us that you're simply another clone of some other troll, making the same bogus arguments that have already been tried and have already failed.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 9:06 am ET)
                        9
                      sue-- So, tell us, how MANY sockpuppet screen names do you actually use here

                      Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black.

                      smittymatt16-- So does that make my argument invalid based on others agreeing with me? Using that logic, does it make yours invalid also?

                      Uhm, that is correct (to your first question). If a liberal doesn't agree with you then you are wrong no matter what proof is brought. As for you latter question, sue (dell... she has many screen names also) is never correct, she merely trolls to threads calling other posters trolls. She never has anything insightful to add to the conversation, she will ONLY capitalize words and call you names when you don't drink the liberal kool-aid. If she doesn't call me a troll during every post of hers, I feel I failed in one way or another.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 1:23 pm ET)
                        4  
                        Could you stop your whining?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:40 pm ET)
                        3 1
                        I post under one name. I've always used this same name. I don't post under multiple names at the same time, trying to rec up and echo other bogus rightwing memes!
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (September 12, 2010 9:06 am ET)
              2 10
              draf-- So they must move but you wouldn't?

              So, what you're saying is that others have to move, but not you? Are you saying there is no possibility for compromise? It sounds and looks like you are saying the Islam doesn't have to move, ONLY the others have to move to appease the Islam.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (September 12, 2010 10:14 am ET)
                8  
                Well, they can learn to co-exist peacefully in the same area.

                Let me ask you a question: If a black person moved into White neighborhood and the White residents didn't want him there should the Black person move?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by smittymatt16 (September 12, 2010 10:25 am ET)
                  1 11
                  Absolutely not. He has that right, I agree. My opinion is that we must at least take into consideration the history of this Imam and his intentions. I don't understand why we are so quick to forget what happened at this site where he wants to build a mosque. You make me and others out to be bigots when we want to have a dialogue about the appropriateness of its location. My main contention is with the Muslim community and their insistence that this mosque be erected at Ground Zero.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (September 12, 2010 10:40 am ET)
                    9  
                    Why shouldn't they able to build a mosque anywhere they want? Is this America or not?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by congero6189599 (September 12, 2010 11:03 am ET)
                      10  
                      It's not a mosque. Muslims died on 9/11 and at this site. The history of this Iman has been one of working with the American government and other religions and this site is not at ground zero. Even if it was what about the strip joints and Burger Kings within the immediate areas surrounding ground zero,closer to ground zero than this proposed center. Lap dances/burgers and fries at ground zero= no protest, community center promoting understanding and compassion for all faiths bad. Besides I thought this was America.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by loonz (September 12, 2010 11:38 am ET)
                        8 1
                        I don't think it matters to the opponents if it's a mosque or a community center or whether it's at ground zero or two blocks away. They simply don't want it built because the hate Islam.

                        What the smitty character is saying in response to my post is that the White residents should know the "history of this [black person] and his intentions"; "have a dialog about the appropriateness of [him moving in]"; and his insistence that he move into a White neighborhood. Who knows? Maybe it's a victory residence for Blacks.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by congero6189599 (September 12, 2010 12:26 pm ET)
                          5  
                          Yes ,I understand the connection you are drawing and it's a good one.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 9:11 am ET)
                          1 9
                          Well, let's ask that question the other way, loonz. If a KKK member moved into a black neighborhood and the black neighbors didn't want him there, should the KKK member move?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:45 pm ET)
                            4 1
                            If the KKK member was actually a KKK member, then he should be treated as a KKK member should be treated. If he committed a crime, then he should be tried and convicted. And it would be fair to suspect that his choice to move into an all-black neighborhood was done as provocation.

                            But there's NO linkage between the Muslims who want to build an Islamic community center 2 1/2 blocks from Ground Zero and those extremists who planned and executed 9/11!

                            Your analogy massively fails!

                            It'd be like if a moderate white person, who has NO history of EVER showing any disrespect for blacks, moved into a neighborhood next to an all black neighborhood, and then the blacks raised a ruckus. And they'd be wrong for doing so!
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by loonz (September 13, 2010 7:11 pm ET)
                            2  
                            The KKK member has every right to move there but why would he/she want to move into a neighborhood full of black people? That doesn't make sense. Did you think this through before you wrote it?
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by smittymatt16 (September 13, 2010 8:22 am ET)
                        1 9
                        It's a community center with a mosque inside. You know what I mean. Stop with the silly semantics.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 8:45 am ET)
                          7 1
                          Somehow one room out of 13 floors is something horrible. It's not a mosque and even if it were it doesn't matter. It's not spitting in the memory of the victims of 9/11. Its not a "declaration of victory" for the terrorrists. The opposition is an insult to the memories of the muslims that died because it was started and its based in bigotry. I find it more insulting that they are planning on building a "freedom tower" ON Ground Zero.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 10:02 am ET)
                          8  
                          By definition, a mosque is a building used solely for prayer. because the community center will only have two floors out of 13 devoted to prayer, it is not a mosque.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 3:57 pm ET)
                              1
                            Nope, that's NOT the definition of a "mosque".

                            A mosque CAN exist inside another building.

                            The building IS an Islamic community center, and it will have a mosque inside of it. The Islamic community overseeing this has changed their website to call it a prayer room, but it's still a mosque that they plan to have in it.

                            They call the two places that are near this site "mosques" although the buildings aren't solely used for prayers.
                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by Johaely (September 12, 2010 11:12 am ET)
                    8  
                    He wants to build at an old burlington coat factory warehouse. Nothing of importance hapened there.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by congero6189599 (September 12, 2010 11:33 am ET)
                      7  
                      I heard the other day a women say she is not against people worshipping as they wish,and not against Islam but this Mosque(it is not)or community center will bring more muslims around the site of ground zero. WTF!
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by eb (September 12, 2010 12:04 pm ET)
                    12  
                    You make me and others out to be bigots when we want to have a dialogue about the appropriateness of its location.

                    1. There was a dialog about the appropriateness of the facility. It was done openly with the City of New York.

                    2. This became a political issue after this decision was made in New York. The discourse around the facility has been demonstratively bigoted, even if not all those who are critical are bigots.

                    3. The Imam was just on TV. He said that had he known this would have cause such an uproar, he would not have done it. Since getting approval did not cause an uproar, he was surprise by the politically motivated backlash from outside local community.

                    He also said that backing down would cause problems in the Muslim world where this issue is very visible. He fears that moving what had been approved would do damage to our foreign policy, our war efforts and image abroad among our Muslim allies.

                    He also said something conservative critics seem to miss, that our words and actions are observed overseas as much as they are here these days. He fears that the real battle, between moderate and extremist Muslims, will be negatively effected by backing down for irrational and false reasons.

                    It seems he believes in an intelligent, fair and tolerant America and wants Muslims around the world to see us as not enemies of Islam. I guess he was wrong.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (September 12, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
                    9 2
                    You make me and others out to be bigots when we want to have a dialogue about the appropriateness of its location. My main contention is with the Muslim community and their insistence that this mosque be erected at Ground Zero.

                    Smittymatt, would you have an objection to a community center built 2 blocks from ground zero?

                    If your answer is no, then what else can one call you but an intolerant bigot, when your only objection is the fact that it's a Muslim community center?

                    Were you aware that there is a Mosque 4 blocks from ground zero, that has been there since 1970, long before the twin towers were ever built?

                    Masjid Manhattan, which is located in the basement floor of a building at 20 Warren Street. And it's four blocks from the World Trade Center.

                    Masjid Manhattan has been a fixture of the Lower Manhattan neighborhood since 1970. According to its website, hundreds gather there daily for five "Congregational Salahs" and more than 1,000 regularly attend Congregational Friday Sermons.


                    Now should they move or is 4 blocks acceptable, but 2 blocks unacceptable?

                    And what about the American Muslims who were also killed by the terrorists? Did you just forget them, when crying about being sensitive to the 9/11 victims and their families?

                    How do YOU think their families feel hearing Americans ranting and raving about the sensitivity to "the victims and their families" while completely ignoring them, as it they too weren't immensely hurt by the tragedy of 9/11?

                    In case you've forgotten, the Japanese interment camps came about because of racial prejudice and hysteria and fear. And this country lived to regret it.

                    We should learn from our past mistakes.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 9:24 am ET)
                        7
                      pearl-- Were you aware that there is a Mosque 4 blocks from ground zero, that has been there since 1970, long before the twin towers were ever built?

                      I'm glad FACTS never get in your way during your rants. The Twin Towers were finished in 1970 also. How long is "long before"? Did it take 4 years to build the mosque you are talking about?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 10:03 am ET)
                        6  
                        I'm glad FACTS never get in your way during your rants.
                        Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

                        Did you know there was am Islamic prayer room exactly as the one that will be in the Community Center in the South Tower of the WTC?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 4:01 pm ET)
                          1  
                          Prayer rooms aren't the same as a mosque that holds 5 prayers a day and a Sabbath prayer service led by an Imam on Fridays.

                          That's what will be happening in the new Islamic community center and what happens right now in the existing building.

                          It'll be a mosque.
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (September 13, 2010 3:33 pm ET)
                        3  
                        I'm glad FACTS never get in your way during your rants. The Twin Towers were finished in 1970 also. How long is "long before"? Did it take 4 years to build the mosque you are talking about?

                        Floyd, you are right, the towers were built before 1970, but only occupied in December 1970 and January 1972.

                        The topping out ceremony of 1 WTC (North Tower) took place on December 23, 1970, while 2 WTC's ceremony (South Tower) occurred later on July 19, 1971. The first tenants moved into the North Tower in December 1970; the South Tower accepted tenants in January 1972.

                        MY point Floyd, is there HAS been a Mosque, with DEEP ROOTS in the COMMUNITY SINCE 1970, only 4 blocks away from the WTC.

                        They have held prayers services WITH NO COMPLAINTS FROM THE COMMUNITY!

                        So once again, I'll ask YOU, WHAT IS THE REQUIRED DISTANCE that will make this COMMUNITY CENTER acceptable?

                        AND while you consider what distance will be acceptable in your sad, pathetic world, you should also consider there were Muslims, INNOCENT Muslims, killed on 9/11. THEY have families who DESERVE the EXACT SAME compassion you express for the OTHER victims of 9/11.


                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (September 12, 2010 5:13 pm ET)
                    7 2
                    We're MORE THAN WILLING to have a dialogue about the appropriateness of the location of this Islamic community center.

                    But it's YOUR side that's not willing to participate in a fair and reasoned debate on the topic! It's not our fault that ALL your side brings to the table is nonsense.

                    Like ---

                    That the Imam has a questionable past.
                    He doesn't.

                    That the Imam has approved of terrorism, or refused to condemn terrorism.
                    He hasn't. He's been very clear on that.

                    That a Muslim prayer area shouldn't be so close to hallowed ground.
                    Except that there's already a place where Muslims pray on the VERY SITE of the impact zone at the Pentagon! If it truly were that issue, then people like you would be protesting outside that building now and would have been for the past 8 years!

                    That this "mosque" (not a mosque) is being constructed at Ground Zero (not at Ground Zero, doofus!)
                    Of course it's not a "mosque". It a community center that will have a mosque (a place where Muslims pray 5 5 times a day and on Friday Sabbath Services with an Imam). And the existing building is ALREADY being used as a prayer space for Muslims!

                    I could go on. There are NO legit reasons to object to this building at this site. We've already DEBUNKED every possible argument against this place, so no, you DO NOT want to have a civil discussion of this topic!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by smittymatt16 (September 13, 2010 8:25 am ET)
                        7
                      "That the Imam has a questionable past. He doesn't."

                      There is obviously something questionable about him if a group he works closely with was declared by the Department of Justice to be a terror funding group. That at least raises some questions. You can't simply repeat whatever you disagree with and write "debunked" after it and call it a day. It's not convincing, nor is it helpful dialogue.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 9:26 am ET)
                        1 7
                        smittymatt16-- You can't simply repeat whatever you disagree with and write "debunked" after it and call it a day. It's not convincing, nor is it helpful dialogue.

                        Ah ha ha ha....yes she can. And, yes she does. It is her only means of discussion. Well, that and name calling.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 9:28 am ET)
                          6  
                          You aren't one to be talking.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 9:59 am ET)
                              7
                            Oh? And what names have I called you this thread? Last thread? the thread before that one? Please try to keep up with the conversation before you stick your foot in your mouth.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Johaely (September 13, 2010 10:27 am ET)
                              6  
                              You just called me a sheeple not half an hour ago. Also, how about everytime you imply something by saying "you liberals". You don't need to call people names to insult them.
                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
                          2  
                          If I DID behave that way, you'd have a point. But you're wrong because I don't behave that way.

                          That's a lie, and you "prove" that it's a lie by not providing a SINGLE example of me behaving that way.
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (September 13, 2010 3:56 pm ET)
                        3  
                        There is obviously something questionable about him if a group he works closely with was declared by the Department of Justice to be a terror funding group. That at least raises some questions. You can't simply repeat whatever you disagree with and write "debunked" after it and call it a day. It's not convincing, nor is it helpful dialogue.

                        WHEN did the Imam Rauf become "questionable"?

                        Was it when he worked with the Bush Administration?..... U.S. State Department?.... how about the FBI? It appears the Imam was A-OK BEFORE.

                        Contemporary press accounts indicate that Rauf and Hughes were part of the February 2006 U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar. He was part of a delegation that met with her in March 2006 and held a joint press conference. A letter to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November 2007 indicates that contacts with Hughes and Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns had continued apace.


                        FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions.
                        Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms."

                        It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture
                        .


                        Feisal Abdul Rauf was dispatched on speaking tours by the past State Department on multiple occasions to help promote tolerance and religious diversity in the Arab and Muslim world. In 2007, he went to Morocco, the UAE, Qatar and Egypt on such missions, a State Department official confirmed to the Huffington Post.


                        In September 2008, the two, along with a number of other foreign policy heavyweights (including Richard Armitage and Dennis Ross) signed a report claiming that the war on terror had been inadequate in actually improving U.S. security. No less a figure than Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, embraced the findings.

                        "The Project's report offers a thoughtful analysis of the current state of America's relations with the Muslim world and constructive recommendations on how we can approach this pressing concern in a bipartisan framework," said the senator.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (September 13, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
                        3  
                        But "a group he works closely with" HAS NOT been "declared by the Department of Justice to be a terror funding group".

                        That's not true, doofus.

                        Like I said, a FAIR viewing of his ACTUAL history shows that his reputation is impeccable.

                        The "unhelpful" dialogue would be YOURS, where you spout debunked talking points and fail to do sufficient research to educate yourself sufficiently enough so that you can actually DEBATE the topic.

                        Like I said above. Thanks for proving me right!!!
                        Report Abuse
          • Author by soze169880 (September 11, 2010 2:57 pm ET)
            9  
            How far do they have to go before they're far enough from the official Zone of Grief-Masturbation to meet with your approval, O Great and Powerful Oz?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (September 11, 2010 3:15 pm ET)
            8  
            I simply think it's insensitive of the Muslim community to not listen to the outcry and consider a different location.

            They went to the city of New York and followed due process and got permission to build. They were not sneaky about it. The local community was OK with the facility, which will be open non-Muslims.

            I wonder when they will ban Muslim prayer in the pentagon? Can't they pray elsewhere?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (September 11, 2010 3:26 pm ET)
            9 2
            Take a look at how many mosques are around.

            Yes, if we ACTUALLY look at how underserved the area is, you'd know that this is NOT an argument AGAINST them building this Islamic community center and mosque at this exact spot!

            They need more space. At one local mosque, for Friday prayers, if you don't get there early, you pray actually IN THE STREET, becuase the building is full!

            The misportrayal by the rightwing media that there's no NEED for the mosque that would be inside this community center is totally bogus.

            And, in addition, the services that the community center will provide to the local community that aren't currently available in that area either!

            You just don't have a clue what you're talking about. Someone as uneducated on the topic as you shouldn't be trying to provide information to anyone else!

            And the Muslim community should NOT be expected to be tolerant of bigots.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by draftedin68 (September 11, 2010 4:22 pm ET)
              5  
              Excellent!

              Remember too, the poster you're referring to began one sentence with "I simply think..."

              Report Abuse
              • Author by grmce (September 11, 2010 11:07 pm ET)
                3 1
                Remember too, the poster you're referring to began one sentence with "I simply think..."
                Maybe that should have been put as "I think simply...".
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (September 12, 2010 9:09 am ET)
                12
              sue-- They need more space. At one local mosque, for Friday prayers, if you don't get there early, you pray actually IN THE STREET, becuase the building is full!

              Well, when they get done with the ever-popular "honor killings" there will be more room in the mosque for everyone. Remember, women go downstairs, only men are allowed in the main hall.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (September 12, 2010 10:33 am ET)
                7  
                Well, when they get done with the ever-popular "honor killings" there will be more room in the mosque for everyone.


                If they're planning to do "honor killings", you may have your very first rational reason to stop the construction of the mosque.

                Remember, women go downstairs, only men are allowed in the main hall.


                The women don't necessarily have to go to a separate room or go downstairs. Men and women can pray together as long as they're separated - men on one side of the room and women on the other. If it's not possible to do that (lack of space) the women will go to a separate room.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (September 13, 2010 10:01 am ET)
                    7
                  Loonz, you've brought so much information that I don't think anyone could believe your excuse (lack of space) for Islam treating women the way they do. But, if it puts your mind at ease, you can believe anything you want about Islam. Bahhhh
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MiniTru (September 13, 2010 10:04 am ET)
                    8  
                    Bahhhh
                    Said the sheep.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (September 13, 2010 7:04 pm ET)
                    1  
                    All I'm saying is that it is not a requirement of Islam that the women go downstairs or to a separate room. Women and men can be in the same room as long as they're not mixing. If there is the slightest chance of mixing, the women will go to a separate room.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by eb (September 12, 2010 10:39 am ET)
                8 1
                Well, when they get done with the ever-popular "honor killings" there will be more room in the mosque for everyone. Remember, women go downstairs, only men are allowed in the main hall.

                How can we take anything Floyd says seriously?

                Floyd, you are making conservatives look like childish, ignorant simpletons when you post like this. You are reinforcing the negative stereotype of conservatives as ignorant and racists. Not only that, you are showing us the results of consuming conservative media and making the case that it needs to be monitored and criticized for its frequent distortions and lies.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by n'est-ce pas (September 12, 2010 3:01 pm ET)
                9 1
                If all Muslims are the honor-killing jihadists, then all Christians are Westboro Baptists.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (September 12, 2010 11:23 am ET)
            8  
            You mean the Muslim american community right? As Americans you are asking them to give up rights as citizens. Which rights are you willing to give up?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (September 11, 2010 3:05 pm ET)
        8 1
        He has a right to put it there and it doesn't matter what his reason is. The bigger problem is the bigotry you and others are displaying.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (September 11, 2010 3:18 pm ET)
        7 3
        Oh, poor bigots - the Imam isn't tolerant of the ignorant bigots who claim that they have legit reasons to oppose the Islamic community center when they really don't.

        Why should he be tolerant of bigots and give in to their baseless bigotry?

        And we've explained this multiple times, doofus.

        There are a ton of underserved Muslims in that area. When they do Friday prayers at the existing mosques in the immediate area, there are people who have to pray in the street because the building is full. There is NO community center in the area, like there are in other areas of Manhattan. There is a ton of new residential building going on in lower Manhattan, as well as a ton of retrofitting of abandoned office buildings! This building was a steal - it had set empty for 7 years until it was bought last year by an investment group, and since that time they have held prayer services in the existing building. Turning this building from an abandoned property into a community center with a pool, daycare, etc, will enliven the whole neighborhood, helping ALL the other local businesses, which will only then further help out the local economy!

        It's NOT "at" Ground Zero. That's a bogus assertion by someone who is so poorly informed on this topic they're just a troll on this topic. One can't be so poorly informed and ALSO be interested in actually participating in a fair and reasonable debate on the topic!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by aj.physics (September 11, 2010 7:28 pm ET)
        8 1
        The biggest reason that I see is because of all the hate speech that has come out against the community center. In the US we don't stand for racism, hate speech, or intolerance. All of those are found in the States, but most people speak out against them. Now that this community center has become the big issue that it has, I think there is even more reason for it to have to be built where it was first proposed, just to show that we do not cave to bigoted people's demands.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (September 11, 2010 11:11 pm ET)
      5  
      The problem with fundamentalists of any belief system is that they rarely understand the fundamentals of that belief system.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jmh (September 12, 2010 3:20 pm ET)
      3 1
      apologies in advance for dual post: posted this in the wrong item before but it belongs here:
      Looking at that group of individuals representing this article: I am astounded, and dumbfounded at this group of... nothing less than cowards. They neither know well, nor practice well, their _own espoused_ Christian and/or American values. This group of individuals is a shameful representation
      (icons, if you will)
      of what is _wrong_ in America.
      They are an embarrassment.
      No doubt they are proud of themselves, ironically.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by yankeefan19252745 (September 13, 2010 12:47 pm ET)
      4  
      Dear Sirs,
      There are Japanese temples at Honolulu!
      There are also mosques, synagogues, Catholic churches, Protestant churches and buildings of many other faiths.
      Following the dastardly attack upon Pearl Harbor, many Nisei were herded into concentration camps.
      The capitol building, for Honolulu, is the Honolulu Hale.
      In front, of that building, is something mighty interesting.
      In memory of 9-11, there is an eternal flame.
      Built within 2 months, of that tragic event, it has been burning for nearly a decade!
      Clifford Spencer
      Report Abuse
      • Author by opopop (September 13, 2010 1:11 pm ET)
        2  
        Seeing as how some people are saying in the Quran theres speech talking about killing infidels or christians and jews or whatever else, basically that Islams holy book is advocating for all these bad things, I'm gonna play along with the accusations, I havent read the Quran so mayeb they're right.

        I found this somewhere else, its an open letter to that Dr. Laura one who was recently involved in that racist incident, she apparantly hates gays too, so this letter aks her about some other Bible talk.

        Its funny and informitive, so here it is

        ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Dear Dr. Laura:

        Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

        1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

        2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

        3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

        4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

        5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath.. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

        6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

        7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

        8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

        9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

        10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

        I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

        Your devoted fan, Jim.
        Report Abuse

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.