
Rand Paul -- whose belief in the absolute preeminence of private property rights has put him in hot water before -- appears to be attempting to thread the needle when it comes to the Cordoba House project in lower Manhattan. He says the project is a local issue that should be left to local authorities to handle -- but he also says that the Islamic community center shouldn't be built in the controversial lower Manhattan site.
What's more, he says, if Muslims really want to do right by the 9/11 families who Republicans say are offended by the Cordoba House project, they should do something else with their money besides building a cultural center.
[TPM SLIDESHOW: Welcome To The Neighborhood: A Look At The Area Around The 'Ground Zero Mosque']
"While this is a local matter that should be decided by the people of New York, Dr. Paul does not support a mosque being built two blocks from Ground Zero," Paul spokesperson Gary Howard told TPMDC. "In Dr. Paul's opinion, the Muslim community would better serve the healing process by making a donation to the memorial fund for the victims of September 11th."
Until now, Paul's official stance on the Cordoba House project was a bit confusing. Yesterday, a Kentucky blogger quoted Howard as saying Paul wasn't taking a stance on the project.
"We don't want New York intervening in our local Kentucky issues, and we don't look to interfere with New York's local issues," Howard told the blogger.
Later, though, Paul seemed to go a different direction. He reportedly told WBKO-TV that he didn't support "a mosque being built near 'Ground Zero' in New York," and he called for Muslims to scrap the whole controversy and give money to the 9/11 memorial fund instead.
Howard did not respond to followup questions about the discrepancies between his statement yesterday and Paul's today. Today, it seems, Paul's official take on the project is an amalgam of the two -- Paul thinks the project is a local issue, shouldn't be built and he thinks Muslims should give to the 9/11 victims memorial fund instead.
The campaign of his Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, declined to offer a take on the Cordoba House project when I asked about it yesterday.
FreeRider
August 17, 2010 6:46 PM
I'm confused.
Why should Muslims give to the 9/11 victims fund?
Did Christians give to the OKC bombing victims fund to wipe away the sins of radical Christian Timothy McVeigh?
Should anyone who's Catholic have to give to victims of priest sexual abuse?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sailingaway
August 17, 2010 8:10 PM in reply to FreeRider
The question was presented to him in terms of 'do you think this is a good way to start the healing process' which supposedly was the 'reason' the mosque was being built there. So he said he thought a better way to 'start a healing process' would be through donations, and he doesn't support this as a way to start that process. But he also doesn't think he has any reason to be involved in the topic, at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
August 18, 2010 12:29 AM in reply to sailingaway
"But he also doesn't think he has any reason to be involved in the topic, at all."
Well that's all well in good, but if he doesn't think that he should be involved, then he should shut up. Obtuse Angle does that very well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 18, 2010 3:37 AM in reply to sailingaway
Man, your Rant Paul apologia knows no bounds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
August 18, 2010 9:12 AM in reply to FreeRider
FreeRider
It seems you are almost always confused. Let me help out a little, if I can.
You ask:
"Why should Muslims give to the 9/11 victims fund?"
I guess Muslims have no obligation to give to a victims fund. But...unlike McViegh and priest-abusers (mostly homosexual pedofiles), the 9/11 jihadists committed their acts in the name of Allah and there is an element in Islam that promotes holy war against "infidels" (including killing them), and there was (and still is, to my knowledge) a notable lack of public condemnation by Muslims and Muslim leaders of the 9/11 attackers and terrorism in general. It WOULD be a nice gesture, but don't hold your breath.
"Did Christians give to the OKC bombing victims fund to wipe away the sins of radical Christian Timothy McVeigh?"
You assume and contend that McVeigh was a radical Christian. His Christian faith is CERTAINLY not apparent in his actions. There is at least some question about whether McVeigh was a Christian in any way other than nominally, if that. Consider this:
"Was Tim McVeigh a Christian? No, he was not. And, as I say, even the most basic research would have exposed this big lie.
For example, there is the book “American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing” (ReganBooks, 2001) written by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, who are staff reporters for the “Buffalo News” in New York. In this book, Michel and Herbeck tell how McVeigh committed adultery, was a thief and used illegal drugs, acts that are, to put it mildly, not fruits of the Christian Spirit. Ditto, his mass murders, incidentally.
Michel and Herbeck also tell how during the Gulf War McVeigh lied about attending church: “On Sunday mornings, the recruits were required to either attend church services or spend an hour cleaning the barracks. McVeigh, an agnostic, chose to clean the barracks until he found out that nobody took attendance at church. One Sunday, he signed up for church and just slipped away from the rest of his platoon. He found a field of tall grass and lay there, a little worried about snakes, but enjoying the opportunity to relax in solitude. The following Sunday, McVeigh signed up for church again. This time, he sneaked into an old abandoned barracks to kill time.”
Another story. Michel and Herbeck tell how McVeigh once “paid a visit to the local Seventh Day Adventist Church, but he found that service bored him … McVeigh had never been inclined to criticize people for their religious views, but he concluded that organized religion wasn’t really for him. He believed that the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside of them.”
But the smoking gun is a quote by McVeigh himself regarding what he believed. Michel and Herbeck say that McVeigh would tell friends, “Science is my religion.” To worship at the altar of science is, of course, idolatry and not Christianity.
Finally, in an interview, Lou Michel told me: No, Tim McVeigh was not a Christian-“though he acknowledged the possibility of a higher power. But, he didn’t accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, so far as I know.” http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1189
Did any Christian group claim McVeigh and his actions as representative of Christianity? Or did they CONDEMN his actions? Compare to Muslim reaction/lack of reaction to 9/11.
"Should anyone who's Catholic have to give to victims of priest sexual abuse?"
Did priests commit abuse in the name of God or as something for which God would be pleased (as the 9/11 attackers did)? Is abuse something that is in any way remotely spoken of in Catholicism as part of the faith or is it the antithesis of the true faith?
I do note, however, that the Catholic Church (i.e. its members)HAS paid tons of money to alleged victims who did not register complaints until many years after the alleged abuse, most of which (but not all)I would guess falls far short of anything resembling rape. Probably was mostly standard homosexual practices (not that there is anything wrong with that, of course, as Seinfeld would say).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 18, 2010 9:26 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
I'm confused.
Why would you waste your time writing this book when I stopped reading your self-important, irrational wingnut drivel after the first post made it clear that you were a self-important, irrational wingnut?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
August 18, 2010 10:47 AM in reply to FreeRider
acriticalth = signal to scroll
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 18, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to expat46
You've got that right!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
August 18, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to FreeRider
FreeRider
I don't reply for YOUR benefit. Too many words, too many sylables, too much sense. You are a lost cause. However, others here might be interested in reading a rational response to your......posts. No one has to read my comments or replies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
August 18, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Nope. No one's interested. Sorry.
But thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
August 18, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to FlownOver
The thing I LOVE about liberals is that they just HATE facts and logic. FreeRider charged that McVeigh was a "radical Christian" (he may have been a "radical" but he was no Christian of any sort that other Christians would recognize).
I, a purported "non critical thinker", post a reply that contradicts Free Rider's wild charge, and no one is interested. Facts and opposing views are unwelcome, and too disturbing. It is sooo much better to remain "comfortably numb" as one wallows in what passes for liberal thought.
Now, who are the REAL "non critical thinkers"? I know....you're not interested. Rely on Free Rider and most other libs here to confirm your biases and what you "know" to be true. As Dean Wormer said "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
August 18, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Then post your right-wing drivel elsewhere (like on the walls of the bathroom stall you frequent for toe-tapping) and stop cluttering up my dashboard by replying directly to me, noncriticalthinker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jack2011
August 20, 2010 8:03 AM in reply to FreeRider
also include Hitler. Extermination of the Jews could be done in good conscience "since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 17, 2010 7:06 PM
Better yet, Muslims should instead contribute to "Rand Paul for U.S. Senate", right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sailingaway
August 17, 2010 8:11 PM in reply to Matthew
Yes they should, since he opposes the Patriot Act, for example, which his opponent has been very flexible about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
August 17, 2010 8:27 PM in reply to sailingaway
He opposes a lot of things, most of them are good though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaycal
August 17, 2010 7:40 PM
So, an Evangelical Christian believes in going back to the practice of Catholic Dispensations for Muslims? Oi!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaycal
August 17, 2010 7:43 PM
Hmmmmmm... I wonder if anyone out there who's familiar with Rand's financial background has seen any recorded donations to 9/11 victims funds? Anyone? Anyone?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brianm0122
August 17, 2010 7:56 PM
He wants his cake, and to eat it too.
He can be "against it" and "for it" and not have to answer to either side.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
August 17, 2010 7:58 PM
There have already been donations by several Muslim organizations to 9-11 Victims Funds.
Lord, I hate what the GOP has become.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sailingaway
August 17, 2010 8:07 PM
He didn't 'call for Muslims to scrap' the idea, you are quoting sloppy reporting. He doesn't 'support it'. It was being described as building the mosque IN ORDER to start 'the healing process' which is laughable, it may be a good place for it, but who would think this would 'start the healing process'? and he responded to THAT by saying donating to a fund would better further that end were it the end actually sought. But he neither supports nor opposes it, he just has an opinion on whether it in fact 'starts a healing process.'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
August 18, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to sailingaway
Paul Spox:
Dr. Paul does not support a mosque being built two blocks from Ground Zero.
You:
But he neither supports nor opposes it...
Reading is fundamental.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Misty Knight
August 17, 2010 8:11 PM
What? Why should they pay for something they didn't cause? What would get out of it? They still don't have a center.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
August 17, 2010 8:23 PM
Paul is sooooo lucky that angle is running against Reid. There is so much crazy stuff coming out of angle that it totally drowns out paul's insanity. If angle wasn't running, paul would be getting all the attention and trailing by 20 points. It's a shame the media can't handle more than one crazy pol.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aacme
August 17, 2010 8:56 PM in reply to Michael A
That is a shame because there are going to be lots this time around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Morbo
August 17, 2010 8:52 PM
Shorter right-wing bigot: Muslims are free to sit in the front of the bus, but should have the common decency to sit in the back so that no bigots get their precious feelings hurt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
August 18, 2010 8:20 AM in reply to Morbo
+1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
August 18, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to Morbo
+2
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aacme
August 17, 2010 8:54 PM
Great. Then they wouldn't have a mosque OR the money to build one. Maybe they'd become Christian and we'd all live happily ever after in Lalaland.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
August 17, 2010 8:55 PM
Why doesn't Rand Paul protest the Amish Market which is next door to the 41 Park Place Community Center (it's not a Mosque).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
August 18, 2010 10:04 AM in reply to John M
What? Are the Amish now driving their buggies loaded with jet fuel into buildings?! Why haven't these acts of terrorism been reported? Are right wing extremists keeping the Amish terrorists under cover?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Captain Crunch
August 17, 2010 9:18 PM
He's Looney in the Tooney!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
August 17, 2010 9:44 PM
"The campaign of his Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, declined to offer a take on the Cordoba House project when I asked about it yesterday."
I guess it is better to take the safe road.
So the Republicans have set up all Muslims as terrorist targets, and they demagogue against them. The Democrats are afraid to take an opposing view.
The lingering problem is that the Republicans are not known for showing restraint.
The question becomes: where do we stop in pursuing a minority? and the Republican's answer is: we don't stop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
August 17, 2010 10:30 PM
This whole thing just pisses me off! Rand, and the Rs and many Ds including Reid and the ADL are all just being dickish cowards. This is a fundamental constitutional issue; politicians across the board should be standing up and loudly and unequivocally saying 1) the community center and mosque are permitted under local zoning laws AND 2) WE AS AMERICANS DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY RELIGION, and 3) the head of this program is someone the Bush and Obama administrations have recognized as a positive, moderating, pro-American voice in Islam, and 4) ANYONE WHO SPEAKS AGAINST MUSLIMS LEGALLY BUILDING A MOSQUE WHEREVER THE HELL THEY WANT TO ARE BEING UNAMERICAN AND BIGOTS.
PERIOD. END OF STORY.
Here we live in a country with one of the greatest founding documents ever written, yet we tolerated slavery, we slaughtered Native Americans, we have a history of persecuting and denying civil rights to blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, and gays. We forced Native Americans onto reservations. We locked up loyal American citizens in internment camps simply because they were of Japanese descent. People fought and killed to prevent blacks from getting equal rights.
McCarthyism only stopped when people finally stood up and challenged McCarthy directly.
Now is the time for every politician to act like a leader, not a rabble-rouser and stand up and say, "No more nonsense!" If a few did that this whole dispute would disappear and the rest of the country might start seeing those making bigoted statements as pariahs, in the same light as Michael Richards or Mel Gibson or Don Imus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
August 18, 2010 2:43 PM in reply to Mr.E.
"This is a fundamental constitutional issue; politicians across the board should be standing up and loudly and unequivocally saying 1) the community center and mosque are permitted under local zoning laws AND 2) WE AS AMERICANS DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY RELIGION, and 3) the head of this program is someone the Bush and Obama administrations have recognized as a positive, moderating, pro-American voice in Islam, and 4) ANYONE WHO SPEAKS AGAINST MUSLIMS LEGALLY BUILDING A MOSQUE WHEREVER THE HELL THEY WANT TO ARE BEING UNAMERICAN AND BIGOTS."
OK, it is clear that you support the first amendment constitutional rights of Muslims (so do I).
How about this? Glenn Beck plans to hold a rally (for which he obtained a permit) at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 2010. Now, granted Beck is a despised figure (as much despised by the left as the left loves Muslims, communists, and anyone who hates America), but he is an American citizen and he does have a constitutional first amendment right to speak and hold a rally there doesn't he? The left has taught us in recent days that the first amendment is sacred (it is) and Obama told us last week that we should "welcome" and "respect" those of other faiths (wouldn't that also apply to different political viewpoints?)
So, wouldn't one expect the left to be the FIRST to stand up and defend the rally on August 28?
Well......no. Uber-liberal commentator Bill Press says: "Sometimes you have to stand up and say, this is wrong--the wrong place. . . . It's a slap to the American people. . . . There are some places where cheap political tricks should not be allowed." Press was not talking about the "park 51" project. Press was referring to Beck's plan to hold a Tea Party rally at the Lincoln Memorial on Aug. 28, the anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech, which Martin Luther King delivered at the same spot. That's not all. Press also criticized the Park Service for granting Beck a permit to exercise his first amendment rights (why is that not surprising?) http://politisite.com/2010/06/26/liberal-press-glenn-beck-rally-at-lincoln-memorial-like-granting-al-qaeda-permission-to-hold-a-rally-on-sept-11-at-ground-zero/
Well, maybe Press is a far left outlier (or is that "liar"?) Not exactly. As the Washington Post reports, "social activists and civil rights leaders, among them the Rev. Al Sharpton, are planning marches and demonstrations" in protest.
So much for liberal "tolerance" of "diverse" opinions and making despised groups feel "welcome" and "respected". This is just another example of liberal hypocrisy and selective endorsement of constitutional principles.
You are free to practice your religion and freely express your
political opinions.....as long as they are consistent with the liberal "faith" and political views which view America as the problem and socialism as the cure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nonnymouse
August 17, 2010 10:35 PM
I must be missing something. Isn't this the same position as Harry Reid? And me. The Muslims have as much "right" to build where they want as anybody else, but just because you can do something doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. That said, I can't see where it's our (non NY'ers) business one way or the other.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
August 17, 2010 11:02 PM in reply to nonnymouse
I think you're missing the underlying theme in what Paul was saying. He was saying that they should be allowed to build the mosque, but also that they should make contributions to the 9/11 Victims Fund...because their muslim. Which is quite stupid to be honest with you, but in the wing-nut world, all muslims commit Jihad, Atheists want to kill religion, blacks all look alike, and Christians do no wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
August 17, 2010 11:47 PM in reply to nonnymouse
okay... so please explain to me why building a community center in an old burlington coat factory somewhere in lower manhattan wouldn't be 'the best thing to do'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
August 17, 2010 11:00 PM
My single question is this; how can Rand Paul still be ahead in the polls in KY? I understand that ignorance is strong in this country right now, but KY cannot be THIS stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
August 17, 2010 11:12 PM in reply to Hobbes83
Oh, they can be. He is replacing bat sh*t crazy Jim Bunning and the other senator from kentucky is mitch mcconnell. Must be all the chemical runoff from the mountain top strip mining that is getting into the water supply or something. Kentucky voters have totally lost it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
August 17, 2010 11:30 PM
Just to let you know there is a pretty strong coalition here in KY to keep this whack job far away from our government. The latest poll has Paul with a 4 point lead with a margin of error of 4%. Among registered voters it is tied at 40. You should visit our facebook page http://www.facebook.com/kentuckiansagainstrandpaul?ref=ts.
Paul had a rally in my hometown Monday and 20 people showed up. Now I find that pretty darn funny. So please don't lump us all in together.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
August 17, 2010 11:35 PM
It is also ironic that Paul says that "boorish behavior" against black people should be tolerated, but he draws the line in NY. Very interesting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scheherazade
August 18, 2010 2:26 AM
Okay so Rand's party says the government shouldn't mess in people's personal lives, but Rand himself says that the matter changes when it's the personal lives of Muslims. Hmm...
I'm starting to get confused about what libertarians really think now... Back in the day the idea was freedom to the point of almost becoming anarchy. They didn't believe in the death penalty, were fine with the idea of same-sex marriage and didn't have a problem with abortion. Yes they were all about free markets and such, but they felt that religion wasn't something the government had any right to worry itself with.
Now it seems that with people like this guy and Glenn Beck the word "libertarian" has become a synonym for "Republican" for those who just don't want to admit it.
When did all this happen exactly?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fried Chicken Lover
August 18, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to Scheherazade
Two possible starting points, depending on how deep you want to go into it:
A) The Republican Party brand is toxic waste, their propagandists realized this & noticed that insinuating (falsely) that they are libertarians makes it sound like that have a philosophy other than raging fear at anyone not a white male christian with money.
B) Libertarianism wasn't "to the point of almost being" -- it was and IS anarchy. The term began its life as a euphemism for anarchy in places where calling for anarchy got you arrested, long before either political party here was ever thought of. It was commonly seen as a left-wing concept, until some right-wingers stole the term and reinterpreted it to support corporate capitalism vs what they saw as the encroachment of the New Deal.
You want to know how to differentiate a real libertarian from a fake one? Ask them what they think of the limited liability corporation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jeff Stancheff
August 18, 2010 10:53 AM
Because Christians have 1) threatened abortion clinics 2) bombed abortion clinics 3) killed abortion doctors, should Churches be banned from being bulit too close to abortion clinics?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
August 18, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to Jeff Stancheff
No, but pro-abortion groups and individuals should have the right to "protest" against the gall of building a church near a sacred abortion clinic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
August 18, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
There have been those who you call *liberal* who have protested against building a mosque. Ever heard of Pat Condell? Sorry, just had to get you back on track. This isn't an abortion thing, and it's not a terrorism issue, it's about a group of American citizens who happen to be part of a minority religious group who want to build a mosque. Remember that old rag called the Constitution? And the Establishment Clause? That thing that also allows people to protest AGAINST this mosque? I guess there was some some secret revision to it that made it only applicable to white Christians.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
August 18, 2010 4:50 PM
Hobbes
I had not heard of Pat Condell. After a brief search I found videos in which he appears to be against the building of the mosque (I did not watch the video, I will later)
"This isn't an abortion thing,"
I was responding to a commenter who raised the scenario of building a church near an abortion clinic.
"and it's not a terrorism issue, it's about a group of American citizens who happen to be part of a minority religious group who want to build a mosque. Remember that old rag called the Constitution? And the Establishment Clause? That thing that also allows people to protest AGAINST this mosque? I guess there was some some secret revision to it that made it only applicable to white Christians.
If you are being serious and not facetioius (you sound serious) then I am with you 100%. Who knew? Moi et vous in agreement!
Muslims have the right to build their "mosque" and opponents have the right to protest, but not to prevent the building of the mosque except by force of persuading Muslims to change the location. Sounds uniquely American and constitutional. Everybody's constitutional rights are protected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jack2011
August 20, 2010 7:44 AM
The motive behind the 9/11 attacks was not to fulfill some prophecy in the Koran, it was an act of revenge / retaliation for the bombings of palestinians and lebanese. Yes, Al Queda terrorists are religious extremists. Do we remember Pearl Harbor as an attack by religious extremists? No, but they were as well. In both cases, their leadership used their religion (as well as other factors) to brainwash their "soldiers" into kamikaze / suicide bombers.
Shintoism had as much to do with Pearl Harbor as Islam did with 9/11.
“"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," he said.
"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," - Usama Bin Laden
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
October 28, 2010 1:39 PM
What are the assumptions
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?