The Constitution is the Constitution, anti-Muslims please read

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There are people who are actively trying to get the government to forbid them from building the mosque.

So his rant is justified.

Oh, that pesky COTUS also gives us the right to petition the government to address our grievances. Dammit non Muslims have rights to?

So what's wrong with complaining about the complainers and pointing out that what they're asking for violates the Constitution?

That is also your first ammendment right, to complain about those who are complaining about the mosque's name, location, and the man who is running it.

What is wrong is telling people that they can't complain about it because of the freedom of religion granted by the first ammendment. By saying "since we have freedom of religion under the first ammendment you can't speak out against this location" you are being a hypocrite as that same first ammendment gives the people the right to voice said opinion.

Do you understand what i'm saying now?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There are people who are actively trying to get the government to forbid them from building the mosque.

So his rant is justified.

Also with in the rights of the people. They can petition the local Zoning board to rezone. Or have you never heard of Democracy?

great, they can use rezoning as a cover for their obvious religious bigotry, you monkeys don't get, they're not rejecting the mosque for "zoning" reasons, its because of religious bigotry, have a pair of balls and have some honesty.

Dude the hypocracy meter is off the charts with you Bass.

You call people who dont want the Cordoba center built that close to ground zero "monkeys" then go on to complain about "religious bigotry" OMG that is classic You make yourself look bad when you post with anger Bass, try logic instead it will make your arguments stronger.

Just so you know my position is the following "if they are truly building this building in the spirit of respect and reconciliation then the center should be multi-faith and have a mosque, church, and temple contained within so that the major religions are truly being tolerant of each other."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Islime is NOT a 'religion', but rather a totalatarian movement which uses the cloak of 'faith' to infiltrate and paralyze other socities it plans to destroy.

Is that not what Christanity did when it came to the New World...after it destroyed the pagans in the Old World.

Indeed it did which is why we all now realize just how wrong, unnacceptable, and abhorrent such behavior is. Thank Allah that the christians have stopped this behavior. Now if we can only get our fellow muslim citizens to do the same. Maybe if our muslim citizens would come out condeming such behavior in a loud and public way it would be helpful.

For example(in case you missed it):
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmKYd74nulk]YouTube - ‪O'Reilly Factor: Raheel Raza Speaks Out Against 9/11 Mosque‬‎[/ame]


Yes i know she is a canadian politician.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Christianity had nothing to do with it you stupid monkey and I challenge you to provide proof otherwise.


By the way that's a nice self portait.

The early Europeans who came to America forced Christianity onto Native Americans by the sword, they did the same to may African-American ancestors as well, stop chimping out and accept the truth King Kong.

Prove it.

So Africans came to the New World already as Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecoastals and or willingly converted right?

 

[Kalam]

They have the right to build it there under the first ammendment.

The people of the country also have a right to criticize the building of it in that location under the first ammendment.

In other words, stop being a hypocrite and let people use their free speech to voice their opinions.

Have a nice day.

There are people who are actively trying to get the government to forbid them from building the mosque.

So his rant is justified.

And that is their right, under the first ammendment's promise of free speech, so his hypocracy is noted.

Here is a true moderate muslim's opinion:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmKYd74nulk]YouTube - ‪O'Reilly Factor: Raheel Raza Speaks Out Against 9/11 Mosque‬‎[/ame]

If this lady wants to build a mosque I'll donate money to help and support it. The "Cordoba" center is not a respectful proposition. Google "muslim cordoba" if you dont understand how the mosque being built in that location and being called the cordoba center is an issue.

I guess Fox has expanded its repertoire of Uncle Toms to include Muslims. I should have seen this coming.

 

[ConHog]

The early Europeans who came to America forced Christianity onto Native Americans by the sword, they did the same to may African-American ancestors as well, stop chimping out and accept the truth King Kong.

Prove it.

So Africans came to the New World already as Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecoastals and or willingly converted right?

Actually ignoramus, many African Americans as you call them did willingly convert to Christianity as they used it to foster both a sense of self worth despite their terrible living conditions AND as a means of expressing themselves within the parameters allowed by "whitey". IE they could sing and dance and be joyful to the Lord without displeasing the assholes who owned them.

BUT there is NO evidence that slaves were killed for not converting. Sure there were many slaves killed, for a variety of reasons, hell some assholes considered killing slaves to be just good sport. But there was no concerted effort to kill slaves if they didn't convert.

By the way, I'll remind you, that slaves were sold to those Christian dudes, by other black people.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The early Europeans who came to America forced Christianity onto Native Americans by the sword, they did the same to may African-American ancestors as well, stop chimping out and accept the truth King Kong.

Prove it.

So Africans came to the New World already as Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecoastals and or willingly converted right?

I didn't say that. I simply ask you to prove your claim that early Europeans forced Christianity on Native Americans and slaves "by the sword". Which I assume means if they didn't convert to Christianity they were put to death.

So either provide evidence of your claim or admit you're a liar.

 

[Shogun]

Historically, the English only enslaved non-Christians, and not, in particular, Africans. And the status of slave (Europeans had African slaves prior to the colonization of the Americas) was not one that was life-long. A slave could become free by converting to Christianity. The first Virginia colonists did not even think of themselves as "white" or use that word to describe themselves. They saw themselves as Christians or Englishmen, or in terms of their social class. They were nobility, gentry, artisans, or servants.

Africans in America | Part 1 | Narrative | From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery

 

[ConHog]

The early Europeans who came to America forced Christianity onto Native Americans by the sword, they did the same to may African-American ancestors as well, stop chimping out and accept the truth King Kong.

Prove it.

So Africans came to the New World already as Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecoastals and or willingly converted right?

PS - Catholicism indeed had a foothold in Africa by the late 1600's well before the US started purchasing slaves, so it is indeed possible that some slaves brought over were indeed Christians before coming to the US

In fact there was a catholic kingdom in Africa in 1490.

Sub-Sahara African Christianity: A History of the Christian Church in Sub-Saharan Africa

Fail tard.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Prove it.

So Africans came to the New World already as Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecoastals and or willingly converted right?

Actually ignoramus, many African Americans as you call them did willingly convert to Christianity as they used it to foster both a sense of self worth despite their terrible living conditions AND as a means of expressing themselves within the parameters allowed by "whitey". IE they could sing and dance and be joyful to the Lord without displeasing the assholes who owned them.

BUT there is NO evidence that slaves were killed for not converting. Sure there were many slaves killed, for a variety of reasons, hell some assholes considered killing slaves to be just good sport. But there was no concerted effort to kill slaves if they didn't convert.

By the way, I'll remind you, that slaves were sold to those Christian dudes, by other black people.

You're going to confuse Basshole with facts now huh? I guess he probably didn't know that there was a great number of free blacks that also owned slaves.

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.

Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

 

[ConHog]

So Africans came to the New World already as Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecoastals and or willingly converted right?

Actually ignoramus, many African Americans as you call them did willingly convert to Christianity as they used it to foster both a sense of self worth despite their terrible living conditions AND as a means of expressing themselves within the parameters allowed by "whitey". IE they could sing and dance and be joyful to the Lord without displeasing the assholes who owned them.

BUT there is NO evidence that slaves were killed for not converting. Sure there were many slaves killed, for a variety of reasons, hell some assholes considered killing slaves to be just good sport. But there was no concerted effort to kill slaves if they didn't convert.

By the way, I'll remind you, that slaves were sold to those Christian dudes, by other black people.

You're going to confuse Basshole with facts now huh? I guess he probably didn't know that there was a great number of free blacks that also owned slaves.

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.

Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

That is no fair. What next? Are you going to suggest that some whites were against slavery from the start ? Hell man, why don't you just blow his mind and explain that some whites even helped in the operation of the underground railroad. How some white people even died trying to free slaves (and no I'm not talking about the Civil War, which debateably wasn't even about slavery.)

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Actually ignoramus, many African Americans as you call them did willingly convert to Christianity as they used it to foster both a sense of self worth despite their terrible living conditions AND as a means of expressing themselves within the parameters allowed by "whitey". IE they could sing and dance and be joyful to the Lord without displeasing the assholes who owned them.

BUT there is NO evidence that slaves were killed for not converting. Sure there were many slaves killed, for a variety of reasons, hell some assholes considered killing slaves to be just good sport. But there was no concerted effort to kill slaves if they didn't convert.

By the way, I'll remind you, that slaves were sold to those Christian dudes, by other black people.

You're going to confuse Basshole with facts now huh? I guess he probably didn't know that there was a great number of free blacks that also owned slaves.

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.

Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

That is no fair. What next? Are you going to suggest that some whites were against slavery from the start ? Hell man, why don't you just blow his mind and explain that some whites even helped in the operation of the underground railroad. How some white people even died trying to free slaves (and no I'm not talking about the Civil War, which debateably wasn't even about slavery.)

Personally I doubt the basshole would acknowledge any of the facts presented to him. He's your typical "blame whitey for everything" type of negro.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I refuse to be taken off topic by a pack of wild monkeys, my point stands, it is un-Constitutional to prevent Muslims from building places of worship because it violates the first Amendment, you monkeys can argue off topic all you like.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I refuse to be taken off topic by a pack of wild monkeys, my point stands, it is un-Constitutional to prevent Muslims from building places of worship because it violates the first Amendment, you monkeys can argue off topic all you like.

In other words you can't prove the claims you made, or more like you lied about.

Your concession is duly noted.

One more thing you ape-faced retard, no one that I have seen in this thread is against the muslims building a mosque. What I and other are opposed to is the location of this particular mosque. Now I understand you are too stupid to understand the reasoning for this even though it has been stated many times.

 

[Kalam]

One more thing you ape-faced retard, no one that I have seen in this thread is against the muslims building a mosque.

See my signature.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I refuse to be taken off topic by a pack of wild monkeys, my point stands, it is un-Constitutional to prevent Muslims from building places of worship because it violates the first Amendment, you monkeys can argue off topic all you like.

In other words you can't prove the claims you made, or more like you lied about.

Your concession is duly noted.

One more thing you ape-faced retard, no one that I have seen in this thread is against the muslims building a mosque. What I and other are opposed to is the location of this particular mosque. Now I understand you are too stupid to understand the reasoning for this even though it has been stated many times.

I've back my claims and what are you gorillas going to tell me next, that most slaves didn't like slavery?

There are protests all over the country against building mosques you stupid baboon, not just NYC and I've posted the link, this is not about opposing a mosque near ground zero its about anti-Muslim monkeys spreading their hate playing the insensitive card as a shield.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I refuse to be taken off topic by a pack of wild monkeys, my point stands, it is un-Constitutional to prevent Muslims from building places of worship because it violates the first Amendment, you monkeys can argue off topic all you like.

No one is preventing muslims from building a mosque there. What is happening is that people are using their first ammendment right to free speech to express their disapproval of the location and chosen name for the center.

You dont seem to be grasping what the situation is but are instead trying to use the situation to call people names like monkey and bigot. Some of those protesting it do have an anti-muslim sentiment but to many it is more about respect for the 9/11 tradgedy. Here let me provide you with an example that may help you understand the situation better.

Lets say that in 1952 the japanese wanted to build a pagoda @ pearl harbor. The name they would have chosen for this pagoda would be the Tora Tora Tora Center. That would have been highly offensive not only to those americans who lived through the pearl harbor attack but to the country as a whole.
By building a islamic center named the "Cordoba Center" at ground zero in new york those who wish to build it in said location are showing a lack of respect and a lack of understanding for the very same people whom they share the city with. It is disrespectful and will only serve to hurt muslim/non-muslim relations in the USA.

If you are being honest with yourself about this situation then you already understand this.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I refuse to be taken off topic by a pack of wild monkeys, my point stands, it is un-Constitutional to prevent Muslims from building places of worship because it violates the first Amendment, you monkeys can argue off topic all you like.

No one is preventing muslims from building a mosque there. What is happening is that people are using their first ammendment right to free speech to express their disapproval of the location and chosen name for the center.

You dont seem to be grasping what the situation is but are instead trying to use the situation to call people names like monkey and bigot. Some of those protesting it do have an anti-muslim sentiment but to many it is more about respect for the 9/11 tradgedy. Here let me provide you with an example that may help you understand the situation better.

Lets say that in 1952 the japanese wanted to build a pagoda @ pearl harbor. The name they would have chosen for this pagoda would be the Tora Tora Tora Center. That would have been highly offensive not only to those americans who lived through the pearl harbor attack but to the country as a whole.
By building a islamic center named the "Cordoba Center" at ground zero in new york those who wish to build it in said location are showing a lack of respect and a lack of understanding for the very same people whom they share the city with. It is disrespectful and will only serve to hurt muslim/non-muslim relations in the USA.

If you are being honest with yourself about this situation then you already understand this.

They have the right to protest, but they're not just protesting, they're trying to use intimidation, fear, and hysteria to convince judges to side with them in their frivolous lawsuits they keep filing to block the building of the mosques. God forbid that these Muslims start exercising their free speech to say what they really think about the religious bigots slandering them, the monkeys will then start saying the terrorists are coming to get them.

 

[Father Time]

I ask the question: How would the government be establishing a religion or failing to allow the practice of a religion by not allow a building to be built?

A ban on mosques would certainly abridge on people's right to practice their religion.

No one is asking for a ban on Mosques. Some people are asking for a SPECIFIC Mosque in a SPECIFIC spot not to be built.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/128071-another-islamic-center.html

 

[Father Time]

No one has proposed banning Muslims from worship. No one has proposed banning the building of Mosques across the Country.

Some people have:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2598996-post60.html

To be honest I would support a move to A) ban all Muslims from immigrating to the US. And B) ban all new Muslim structures.

I would do so by having the Government declare that Islam is a threat to non Islamic peoples and religions.

It won't happen any time soon though. It will take some real eye opening and honesty from our Government instead of the namby pamby bullshit that Islam is a religion of Peace.

Ohh and it would not be Unconstitutional

Wow before you were saying no one was proposing a ban on all mosques.

And of course it would be unconstitutional, can you at least be honest once in a while?

since A) the US Constitution is not a death pact and

A cliche phrase said by people who wish to ignore the Constitution

B) any religion that is a threat to law and order, peace and human life is NO religion at all.

There are those who are Muslim who are peaceful, so no the religion is not a threat specific people are.

Or did I miss all the religions we protect that support cannibalism and human sacrifices?

No people still have a right to worship all the old Mayan/Aztec/whatever gods they don't have a right to do human sacrifices though.