He was simply stating that either book can be taken out of context. What he was saying (I think) is that many of the translations of the Koran used to paint Islam as outwardly violent in this thread may have been incorrect/disingenuous translations or taken out of context (which ptown helped explain further with his translated versions).

As to believer: I was speaking in regards to your view on the percentage of Muslims that are radical. You think it's more and I think it is likely less. We probably aren't going to agree on this and it's not like either of us can prove it either way factually.

I do appriciate calling a spade a spade though. Many times this lightfooted mentality just makes saying things tedius. Tip toeing through the tulips takes a lot more effort than the sidewalk. Although sometimes it is legitimately rude to trapse through someones flowers. Hopefully that made sense.

I Wear Pants;465674 wrote:He was simply stating that either book can be taken out of context. What he was saying (I think) is that many of the translations of the Koran used to paint Islam as outwardly violent in this thread may have been incorrect/disingenuous translations or taken out of context (which ptown helped explain further with his translated versions).

Oh he definitely stated that- after being called out for mangling two NT references (and claiming to have many more) and saying, basically, that Jesus endorses his followers practicing violence. Then it became "See how things can be taken out of context." Yet in post #382 above, he's back to saying he proved me "dead wrong" with regard to the NT references, and then urges jmog to

Instead of piddling all over the Bible quotes, why don't you address all the other points that I made?

You're more interested in ad hominem, than you are substance.

This from the guy who, instead of reading an article and debating/arguing ideas, resorts to namecalling and the ad hominemist of ad hominem attacks: Warmongering, chickenhawk, Islamophobe, etc. etc. (I probably forgot a few). It's really difficult to have intelligent back-and-forth under those conditions.

I must have missed that one then. I haven't read the entirety of the thread.

believer;464532 wrote:Bullshit. You - and "open minded" folks like yourself - are simply hacked off that many thinking Americans want the real threat of radical Islam openly challenged and publicly debated....something your leftist media conveniently tries to ignore.

What actually can't be tolerated and just as scary is the idea that real issues like radical Islam, illegal immigration, etc. cannot be openly and honestly challenged without the left crying about bigotry, intolerance, racism, etc. in an effort to silence the opposition. This is not only un-American but the epitome of hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you that radical Islam is a threat to this country. This particular mosque is not a threat to the country though, IMO, as they do not promote or partake in radical Islam.

dwccrew;465816 wrote:I don't think anyone will disagree with you that radical Islam is a threat to this country. This particular mosque is not a threat to the country though, IMO, as they do not promote or partake in radical Islam.

I don't see this mosque as a particular security threat...that's not the issue. The issue is the "in your face" aspect of building a mosque so close to the WTC site. It defies common sense and in that it sends a wrong message. It certainly does NOTHING to help rid the American psyche of the aura of the evils of radical Islam. It only exacerbates it.

I agree that technically this imam should have the right to build his mosque anywhere he chooses within the law. Common sense says build it somewhere else. The fact that he chooses this particular location is clearly designed to agitate.

Jon Stewert has the answers to who is funding the terror mosque

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

believer;465826 wrote:I don't see this mosque as a particular security threat...that's not the issue. The issue is the "in your face" aspect of building a mosque so close to the WTC site. It defies common sense and in that it sends a wrong message. It certainly does NOTHING to help rid the American psyche of the aura of the evils of radical Islam. It only exacerbates it.

I agree that technically this imam should have the right to build his mosque anywhere he chooses within the law. Common sense says build it somewhere else. The fact that he chooses this particular location is clearly designed to agitate.

"I will NOT play the political correct girlie kumbaya bullshit the phony left loves to hide behind. "

And yet these Muslims have to play politically correct so they don't make people angry with where they put their mosque/community center?

It isn't the best idea for the placement of the facility but there are so much more important things to be worried/angry about. If "they're being insensitive" is the worst thing I can say about this thing then I should probably just ignore it since it doesn't affect me in any way.

Bigdogg;465895 wrote:Jon Stewert has the answers to who is funding the terror mosque

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

How about this article to describe whom will be partially funding this abomination:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67Q5BW20100827

That's right...you and me will help provide bonds for them to use. The government at its finest. Don't go posting that it's all legal and above board. I know that. Americans know that. It's just another event showing us where we are.

I'm beginning to wonder if Bin Laden is winning the war against the U.S.A.

So is your problem with bonds then?

I Wear Pants;465986 wrote:So is your problem with bonds then?

Who provides the bonds for the Imam and his friends to use? Is it the World Bank? Is it the French? Is it the Saudi Princes? Is it the PLO? Is it from the Hague? Nope. According to Reuters, Americans are helping to fund this building with American bonds. Who's citizens would stand behind the bonds should they not be repaid? Isn't it ironic that if 70% of the people are against building it so close to Ground Zero that they are also being legally forced to stand behind the financing?

All legal. All open to public scrutiny. Nothing underhanded. But there is more than one funding source than allegedly Rupert Murdoch's partner. Just thought I'd share since the socialists are all twitter-paited about throwing mud at Fox's owner.

So everyone who doesn't think this mosque is the end of the world is a socialist?

My point is, you'd likely have no problem with this facility getting bonds (which they have to pay back and is pretty common for groups to get) if it wasn't Islam related.

I Wear Pants;466024 wrote:So everyone who doesn't think this mosque is the end of the world is a socialist?

My point is, you'd likely have no problem with this facility getting bonds (which they have to pay back and is pretty common for groups to get) if it wasn't Islam related.

Nope, the socialists are just those that abhor Murdoch if you'll read between the lines just a skoosh. By the way, you are very talented at twisting what was written and intended. I thought my wife was the best on the planet at doing it, but I think you get the crown now. Congrats!!

I'm not calling you an Islamaphobe or anything. It's just I get the vibe from your posts that you wouldn't be saying anything about this if it wasn't an Islamic facility. Probably because we wouldn't know about it. But my question is why aren't you decrying the use of bonds to build other things as well?

More people than just socialists abhor Rupert Murdoch. Dude is draconian as it gets when it comes to content policies. He also has no understanding of how media works these days or simply doesn't want to. This is a guy who's tried to get all of News Corps things off of google searches. Seriously.

BGFalcons82;466046 wrote:Nope, the socialists are just those that abhor Murdoch if you'll read between the lines just a skoosh. By the way, you are very talented at twisting what was written and intended. I thought my wife was the best on the planet at doing it, but I think you get the crown now. Congrats!!

Me thinks you should re-take your inductive and deductive logic elective classes again

I Wear Pants;466024 wrote:So everyone who doesn't think this mosque is the end of the world is a socialist?

My point is, you'd likely have no problem with this facility getting bonds (which they have to pay back and is pretty common for groups to get) if it wasn't Islam related.

I bet there is a place that investors can purchase Christian only bonds

I Wear Pants;465961 wrote:And yet these Muslims have to play politically correct so they don't make people angry with where they put their mosque/community center? It isn't the best idea for the placement of the facility but there are so much more important things to be worried/angry about. If "they're being insensitive" is the worst thing I can say about this thing then I should probably just ignore it since it doesn't affect me in any way.

This isn't about political correctness (except for those arguing in favor of the Mosque) -- it's about common sense. If Muslims truly want to work toward bettering relations and showing themselves to be a compassionate religion, they would bow out gracefully and find somewhere else to build this.

That they do not do this raises red flags for me. Despite a lot of public pressure to back down, they push forward and create more friction -- even as they espouse to be in favor of improving relationships between Americans and Islam.

Writerbuckeye;466195 wrote:even as they espouse to be in favor of improving relationships between Americans and Islam.

Is it really about the relationship between Americans and Islam? Aren't the muslims who want to build the mosque just as American as anyone who is opposed to it?

FatHobbit;466212 wrote:Is it really about the relationship between Americans and Islam? Aren't the muslims who want to build the mosque just as American as anyone who is opposed to it?

I think he meant improving America's relationship with Islam worldwide.

I said before I wonder if Imam Rauf anticipated the backlash this would cause, and proceeded anyway to portray Islam as the victim. Other articles posted on this thread contained statements from Muslim students who seemed to say that America's refusal to allow the GZ mosque would create further friction and possibly turn moderate Muslims to radicalism. In other words, America would be responsible to a degree for future radicalism.

Writerbuckeye;466195 wrote:This isn't about political correctness (except for those arguing in favor of the Mosque) -- it's about common sense. If Muslims truly want to work toward bettering relations and showing themselves to be a compassionate religion, they would bow out gracefully and find somewhere else to build this.

That they do not do this raises red flags for me. Despite a lot of public pressure to back down, they push forward and create more friction -- even as they espouse to be in favor of improving relationships between Americans and Islam.

Common sense?!?!?! common sense is this mosque has nothing to do with 9/11 or radical islam and should be able to be built.

It definitely is about political correctness for those arguing against it. Because there are no legitimate reasons for this not to be built. The reasons for it not to be build have to do with people being upset and it being "insensitive" both are PC reasons.

The common sense questions are: is it legal? does it have zoning approval? The answer to both is yes.

I Wear Pants;466152 wrote:I'm not calling you an Islamaphobe or anything. It's just I get the vibe from your posts that you wouldn't be saying anything about this if it wasn't an Islamic facility. Probably because we wouldn't know about it. But my question is why aren't you decrying the use of bonds to build other things as well?

Another point to consider: Since these are public bonds and it is a religious center, should the ACLU and those waving the "separation of church and state" banners now be against the building of a mosque with publicly-backed money?

Isn't the world off it's axis when the liberals are for government-backed religious buildings and the conservatives are for separation of church and state? LOL

Only if they were against all other instances of religious related non-profits using bonds for funding in the past.

I'm not the one switching sides here. I usually say that something isn't as big of a deal as it's being portrayed good or bad. But you're flipping your usual opinion of the ACLU to suit your current cause.

BGFalcons82;466296 wrote:Isn't the world off it's axis when the liberals are for government-backed religious buildings and the conservatives are for separation of church and state? LOL

You read my mind BG. I chuckled at that one!

jhay78;465704 wrote:Oh he definitely stated that- after being called out for mangling two NT references (and claiming to have many more) and saying, basically, that Jesus endorses his followers practicing violence. Then it became "See how things can be taken out of context." Yet in post #382 above, he's back to saying he proved me "dead wrong" with regard to the NT references, and then urges jmog to

Where oh where did I ever say that "Jesus endorses practicing violence"? I never said that...ever. What I said was just the opposite...but that His actions could be interpreted otherwise. Just as you have posted "out of text" nonsense on the Qur'an.

This from the guy who, instead of reading an article and debating/arguing ideas, resorts to namecalling and the ad hominemist of ad hominem attacks: Warmongering, chickenhawk, Islamophobe, etc. etc. (I probably forgot a few). It's really difficult to have intelligent back-and-forth under those conditions.

The statistics clearly show that fundamentalist Christians are in fact twice as likely to be war mongers than other Christian denominations. If you want links...just ask. It is also true that fundamental Christians parade the Islamophobe mantra....at a much higher rate than other Christian denominations. I never singled YOU out for anything...don't act as if I did.

These 2 FACTS are not ad hominem attacks...it is speaking the truth to the numbers. And from the Bible I'm familiar with, neither of these qualities are very Christianlike at all.

believer;464932 wrote:The difference is Christianity promotes peace in the freewill choice of accepting Christ as one's personal savior. Islam promotes "peace" by indicating that world peace will come after all become Muslim....even if that conversion is brought by force.

That is your interpretation. Muslims and Christians from all around the globe view it differently.

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find passages even close to these violent passges from the Qu'ran (all clearly instructing its followers how to deal with non-believers):

That is your interpretation....not shared by many.