Hypocrites

[Gern Blanstien]

So....Prez Obama told the US he backs the freedom of the Muslim religious right to build a mosque at Ground Zero. He said it's their right as Americans to express their freedom of religion, no matter where. So, when that Southern Baptist minister wanted to burn the Koran to show their (odd, yes) freedom of religious expression, the Prez and other government officials freaked because it would incite violence. Didn't they think that building the mosque in NY would incite violence? Why is one more volitile than the other? Does this sound hypocritical to you??

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So....Prez Obama told the US he backs the freedom of the Muslim religious right to build a mosque at Ground Zero. He said it's their right as Americans to express their freedom of religion, no matter where. So, when that Southern Baptist minister wanted to burn the Koran to show their (odd, yes) freedom of religious expression, the Prez and other government officials freaked because it would incite violence. Didn't they think that building the mosque in NY would incite violence? Why is one more volitile than the other? Does this sound hypocritical to you??

Because most liberals are chickenshit bastards.
When we get pissed 99% of Americans violence consist of proprety damage maybe an ass kicking. (in dealing with thinbgs like mosques.)

When muslims are incite to violence 80% of the time someone dies, the rest of the time when no one has died it's because the muslims fucked up.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So....Prez Obama told the US he backs the freedom of the Muslim religious right to build a mosque at Ground Zero.

There'll be no mosque at Ground Zero.



(Ya' gotta quit listening to Porky Limbaugh. He lies.....A LOT!!)​

 

[Gern Blanstien]

I would just like to see the rules are the same for all of us....not favoring those who may 'potentially' cause problems.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I would just like to see the rules are the same for all of us....not favoring those who may 'potentially' cause problems.

It's a little-late, for that.......

​

 

[Intense]

Moved Thread to Religion and Ethics.

 

[goldcatt]

I would just like to see the rules are the same for all of us....not favoring those who may 'potentially' cause problems.

The rules are the same for all. The fact that you neither comprehend them nor have the ability to distinguish fact from law from opinion is nobody's problem but yours.

You may want to figure out how to use the "Search" function and peruse the pages and pages of threads we had on these topics back when they were fresh. Just a suggestion.

 

[Freeman]

So....Prez Obama told the US he backs the freedom of the Muslim religious right to build a mosque at Ground Zero. He said it's their right as Americans to express their freedom of religion, no matter where. So, when that Southern Baptist minister wanted to burn the Koran to show their (odd, yes) freedom of religious expression, the Prez and other government officials freaked because it would incite violence. Didn't they think that building the mosque in NY would incite violence? Why is one more volitile than the other? Does this sound hypocritical to you??

Why building mosque would incite violence?
It's like you said that building a church will incite violence of KKK and army of god

 

[Marc39]

So....Prez Obama told the US he backs the freedom of the Muslim religious right to build a mosque at Ground Zero. He said it's their right as Americans to express their freedom of religion, no matter where. So, when that Southern Baptist minister wanted to burn the Koran to show their (odd, yes) freedom of religious expression, the Prez and other government officials freaked because it would incite violence. Didn't they think that building the mosque in NY would incite violence? Why is one more volitile than the other? Does this sound hypocritical to you??

Why building mosque would incite violence?
It's like you said that building a church will incite violence of KKK and army of god

A mosque that pays tribute to the pedophle Mahomet who was a child molester? Islamisn't a religion, it's a perverted sex cult.

allahu fucku

Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad...

Muhammad married ‘A’isha in Mecca when she was a child of six and lived with her in Medina when she was nine or ten. She was the only virgin that he married. Her father, Abu Bakr, married her to him and the apostle gave her four hundred dirhams.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Life-Muhammad-I-Ishaq/dp/0196360331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291389534&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: The Life of Muhammad (9780196360331): I. Ishaq, A. Guillaume: Books[/ame]

 

[Gern Blanstien]

I would just like to see the rules are the same for all of us....not favoring those who may 'potentially' cause problems.

The rules are the same for all. The fact that you neither comprehend them nor have the ability to distinguish fact from law from opinion is nobody's problem but yours.

You may want to figure out how to use the "Search" function and peruse the pages and pages of threads we had on these topics back when they were fresh. Just a suggestion.

Hmmm. Your argument holds no substance. No one MADE you read or respond to this.
You can't say the rules are the same for all. They're manipulated to satisfy specific needs and results. Government officials supporting Muslims and not supporting Baptists is hypocritical. That's the point of the discussion...who cares how old the topic is.
Judge and Jury decisions can be swayed by bias and emotions....like your next response will be to what I just wrote.

 

[goldcatt]

I would just like to see the rules are the same for all of us....not favoring those who may 'potentially' cause problems.

The rules are the same for all. The fact that you neither comprehend them nor have the ability to distinguish fact from law from opinion is nobody's problem but yours.

You may want to figure out how to use the "Search" function and peruse the pages and pages of threads we had on these topics back when they were fresh. Just a suggestion.

Hmmm. Your argument holds no substance. No one MADE you read or respond to this.
You can't say the rules are the same for all. They're manipulated to satisfy specific needs and results. Government officials supporting Muslims and not supporting Baptists is hypocritical. That's the point of the discussion...who cares how old the topic is.
Judge and Jury decisions can be swayed by bias and emotions....like your next response will be to what I just wrote.

All right then, I see your bait and feel like playing. But first you're going to have to give your little rant enough substance to make sense.

To what precisely are you referring when you use the term "The Rules"?

To whom precisely are you referring when you use the term "government officials"?

Please describe the "support" you see being given to one group and not the other, and explain how you believe this reflects on "The Rules" being different from one group to the next.

And while you're at it, a brief recitation of the facts to which you are referring would help to place your spew in context. Feel free to go back to those reams of information I referred to in my previous post, since this has already been debated ad nauseum on this board for weeks on end and whatever it is you're ranting about has probably already been said many times before by folks far more organized and articulate than you appear to be.

I'll eagerly await your thesis so we have a starting point for substantive debate.

 

[mudwhistle]

So....Prez Obama told the US he backs the freedom of the Muslim religious right to build a mosque at Ground Zero.

There'll be no mosque at Ground Zero.



(Ya' gotta quit listening to Porky Limbaugh. He lies.....A LOT!!)​

They've been praying there for months so it's officially a mosque.

 

[mudwhistle]

The rules are the same for all. The fact that you neither comprehend them nor have the ability to distinguish fact from law from opinion is nobody's problem but yours.

You may want to figure out how to use the "Search" function and peruse the pages and pages of threads we had on these topics back when they were fresh. Just a suggestion.

Hmmm. Your argument holds no substance. No one MADE you read or respond to this.
You can't say the rules are the same for all. They're manipulated to satisfy specific needs and results. Government officials supporting Muslims and not supporting Baptists is hypocritical. That's the point of the discussion...who cares how old the topic is.
Judge and Jury decisions can be swayed by bias and emotions....like your next response will be to what I just wrote.

All right then, I see your bait and feel like playing. But first you're going to have to give your little rant enough substance to make sense.

To what precisely are you referring when you use the term "The Rules"?

To whom precisely are you referring when you use the term "government officials"?

Please describe the "support" you see being given to one group and not the other, and explain how you believe this reflects on "The Rules" being different from one group to the next.

And while you're at it, a brief recitation of the facts to which you are referring would help to place your spew in context. Feel free to go back to those reams of information I referred to in my previous post, since this has already been debated ad nauseum on this board for weeks on end and whatever it is you're ranting about has probably already been said many times before by folks far more organized and articulate than you appear to be.

I'll eagerly await your thesis so we have a starting point for substantive debate.

He has a point. The rules are the same but the way they are applied is dependent on who is in a position to apply them where you live.

For example: Why is Islam allowed a free reign in this country by our government and the left yet municipalities sensor free expression come Christmas time? Why is a player punished for pointing to God after scoring a touchdown? Why is the Christmas parade renamed Holiday parade?

The answer is because a double-standard exists in this country when it comes to free expression of religion. We have to cater to Muslims to prevent them from being offended. We have to cater to Atheists to prevent them from being offended....but we don't have to cater to Christians to prevent them from being offended.

 

[goldcatt]

Hmmm. Your argument holds no substance. No one MADE you read or respond to this.
You can't say the rules are the same for all. They're manipulated to satisfy specific needs and results. Government officials supporting Muslims and not supporting Baptists is hypocritical. That's the point of the discussion...who cares how old the topic is.
Judge and Jury decisions can be swayed by bias and emotions....like your next response will be to what I just wrote.

All right then, I see your bait and feel like playing. But first you're going to have to give your little rant enough substance to make sense.

To what precisely are you referring when you use the term "The Rules"?

To whom precisely are you referring when you use the term "government officials"?

Please describe the "support" you see being given to one group and not the other, and explain how you believe this reflects on "The Rules" being different from one group to the next.

And while you're at it, a brief recitation of the facts to which you are referring would help to place your spew in context. Feel free to go back to those reams of information I referred to in my previous post, since this has already been debated ad nauseum on this board for weeks on end and whatever it is you're ranting about has probably already been said many times before by folks far more organized and articulate than you appear to be.

I'll eagerly await your thesis so we have a starting point for substantive debate.

He has a point. The rules are the same but the way they are applied is dependent on who is in a position to apply them where you live.

For example: Why is Islam allowed a free reign in this country by our government and the left yet municipalities sensor free expression come Christmas time? Why is a player punished for pointing to God after scoring a touchdown? Why is the Christmas parade renamed Holiday parade?

The answer is because a double-standard exists in this country when it comes to free expression of religion. We have to cater to Muslims to prevent them from being offended. We have to cater to Atheists to prevent them from being offended....but we don't have to cater to Christians to prevent them from being offended.

No fair batting for newbtroll, mud.

When and if I ever get his affirmative thesis for the substantive debate he so craves I'll show you in two posts how you're both wrong, because you're both making the exact same mistake.

But he made an ass of himself, let him dig himself out on his own.

 

[amrchaos]

[SARCASM!]

It is because Christians are a bunch of pushed-over whiners!!

You can slap one REALLY REALLY hard, and all they would do is present the other cheek. It is like something bad is going to happen if they fight back! What is going to happen? Are they going to drop to hell the moment they throw a punch back? Fight back, or get beating to a bloody pulp like Jesus! You don't want to get cruxified by a bunch of pagans, do you? Better to nail them to a cross and seize your salvation than to emulate Christ yourself, right?

 

[mudwhistle]

All right then, I see your bait and feel like playing. But first you're going to have to give your little rant enough substance to make sense.

To what precisely are you referring when you use the term "The Rules"?

To whom precisely are you referring when you use the term "government officials"?

Please describe the "support" you see being given to one group and not the other, and explain how you believe this reflects on "The Rules" being different from one group to the next.

And while you're at it, a brief recitation of the facts to which you are referring would help to place your spew in context. Feel free to go back to those reams of information I referred to in my previous post, since this has already been debated ad nauseum on this board for weeks on end and whatever it is you're ranting about has probably already been said many times before by folks far more organized and articulate than you appear to be.

I'll eagerly await your thesis so we have a starting point for substantive debate.

He has a point. The rules are the same but the way they are applied is dependent on who is in a position to apply them where you live.

For example: Why is Islam allowed a free reign in this country by our government and the left yet municipalities sensor free expression come Christmas time? Why is a player punished for pointing to God after scoring a touchdown? Why is the Christmas parade renamed Holiday parade?

The answer is because a double-standard exists in this country when it comes to free expression of religion. We have to cater to Muslims to prevent them from being offended. We have to cater to Atheists to prevent them from being offended....but we don't have to cater to Christians to prevent them from being offended.

No fair batting for newbtroll, mud.

When and if I ever get his affirmative thesis for the substantive debate he so craves I'll show you in two posts how you're both wrong, because you're both making the exact same mistake.

But he made an ass of himself, let him dig himself out on his own.

Maybe you can show me where I'm wrong while you're waiting on him.

It may be a long wait.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't have a problem with them building a mosque on their own property. I believe in religious freedom. The political motives are questionable. But I completely understand why people object as well. But luckily we have the freedom to believe as we choose regardless of the objections of others.

As for the the quran burner. He certainly had the right to do as he wishes. But I am very glad he didn't. I wasnt worried about violence. I just found it very rude, disgusting, and totally uncalled for by anyone who claims to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.

I suppose I simply see the difference between building a house of worship and destroying property.

 

[The Infidel]

All right then, I see your bait and feel like playing. But first you're going to have to give your little rant enough substance to make sense.

To what precisely are you referring when you use the term "The Rules"?

To whom precisely are you referring when you use the term "government officials"?

Please describe the "support" you see being given to one group and not the other, and explain how you believe this reflects on "The Rules" being different from one group to the next.

And while you're at it, a brief recitation of the facts to which you are referring would help to place your spew in context. Feel free to go back to those reams of information I referred to in my previous post, since this has already been debated ad nauseum on this board for weeks on end and whatever it is you're ranting about has probably already been said many times before by folks far more organized and articulate than you appear to be.

I'll eagerly await your thesis so we have a starting point for substantive debate.

He has a point. The rules are the same but the way they are applied is dependent on who is in a position to apply them where you live.

For example: Why is Islam allowed a free reign in this country by our government and the left yet municipalities sensor free expression come Christmas time? Why is a player punished for pointing to God after scoring a touchdown? Why is the Christmas parade renamed Holiday parade?

The answer is because a double-standard exists in this country when it comes to free expression of religion. We have to cater to Muslims to prevent them from being offended. We have to cater to Atheists to prevent them from being offended....but we don't have to cater to Christians to prevent them from being offended.

No fair batting for newbtroll, mud.

When and if I ever get his affirmative thesis for the substantive debate he so craves I'll show you in two posts how you're both wrong, because you're both making the exact same mistake.

But he made an ass of himself, let him dig himself out on his own.

Wow... talk about arrogance

You libs always think you are right.

Im just going to sit back and let Mr Mudwistle deal with you for now.

 

[ceelo waaa why?]

here was your question... 'So....Prez Obama told the US he backs the freedom of the Muslim religious right to build a mosque at Ground Zero. He said it's their right as Americans to express their freedom of religion, no matter where. So, when that Southern Baptist minister wanted to burn the Koran to show their (odd, yes) freedom of religious expression, the Prez and other government officials freaked because it would incite violence. Didn't they think that building the mosque in NY would incite violence? Why is one more volitile than the other? Does this sound hypocritical to you??'

based on the assumption of the following being true...
A)what the prez said
B)the freedom of religion being true
C)The right of freedom of expression being true and fairly given and recieved to all
D)the right of liberty being true and given to all
E)some ways of conducting expression being asserted as offensive towards anothers liberty, emotionally, physically without judgement of doing so to any individual (this would deny their liberty) but only in principles.
F)hypocrisy being the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more laudable beliefs than is the case. - a hypocrite being a person who prtends to have virtues, moral principles that they do not possess and whos actions belie stated beliefs

ask yourselves this....

Did the baptist minister wish to express a principle of equality (albeit in a badly communicated manner), or a distasteful way which harms anothers rights to liberty, expression? if so he may or may not be a hyporite

Would the prez equally morally and honestly give equal presidence to a ministry being built. if so then no he is not being hypocrite

Does building a mosque provide a symbol of unity and provide a blessing to the surrounded area as an unbiased area not worthy as being a target for biased fanatics? And would it be good to bless a place in this way?

would the judgement of one religions cause of infringement of liberty, be more worthy than another groups infringement of liberty (aforementioned incitement)

Was it because one doesnt see the prez and co expressing freaking out to the fact that many americans may be incited at it being built... have any sway on the arguement? If they did freak, then its not hypocrasy!

 

[The Infidel]

I don't have a problem with them building a mosque on their own property. I believe in religious freedom. The political motives are questionable. But I completely understand why people object as well. But luckily we have the freedom to believe as we choose regardless of the objections of others.

As for the the quran burner. He certainly had the right to do as he wishes. But I am very glad he didn't. I wasnt worried about violence. I just found it very rude, disgusting, and totally uncalled for by anyone who claims to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.

I suppose I simply see the difference between building a house of worship and destroying property.

I tend to agree with you. They have the right, but it would show a little "good will" on their part to build it somewhere else. Beings it is such a sacred site to us....

But then again, when have they shown they really give a rats ass?