Crisis at the Corner of 1st and 14th

Lately we have seen conservatives remind us at every opportunity of the Constitution’s role in limiting federal government. When it comes to the Constitution’s role in defining us as a decent and fair people, not so much. Two issues brewing in our country right now bring into focus our Constitution and what it says about us as citizens of the world. In one case, the proper conclusion seems to me as obvious as the nose on one’s face. In the other, I am surprised to find some ambiguity.

First, let’s look at the case of the mosque/community center being renovated in downtown New York City. I say renovated, as opposed to the usual media jargon of “built” because the Muslim organization in question already owns a building on the controversial site. The uproar is that this mosque is being “built” in too close a proximity to the ruins of the World Trade Center which was destroyed by Muslim terrorists in September of 2001. Let’s start by pointing out the facts that make the argument absurd:

  • As already stated, Muslims have been at this site for over 20 years already.
  • You cannot see Ground Zero from the site.
  • You cannot see the site from Ground Zero. Hence the site does not “overlook” Ground Zero.
  • Ground Zero, supposedly “sacred”, has been left neglected for almost ten years. Where is the uproar over that?

Let’s go back to the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Case closed, nothing to see here, time to move on. But no, some still want to debate. Well, let’s look at a debate that makes the matter even clearer. On MSNBC’s Hardball Dan Senor, a foreign affairs “expert” and Scott Stringer, Manhattan Borough President, debated the mosque issue. The host, Chris Matthews remained more or less neutral and let the two gentlemen hash it out.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

For me, the most striking part of the debate was this statement by Dan Senor, who opposes the mosque:

I think there‘s an opportunity for national political figures and city and state political figures—Mayor Bloomberg, Attorney Cuomo, Mr. Stringer—to step forward and approach the imam and say, look, we understand your objectives. We understand what you are trying to do. You‘re objectives are good. Your motives are good.

We just think you are going to undermine them. You are—you are provoking something that could wind up being more divisive. And this is going to be a step backwards for New York.

via Tuesday, August 3rd – msnbc tv – Hardball with Chris Matthews – msnbc.com.

This reminded me of the scene in Lorraine Hansberry’s “A Raisin in the Sun” where a black family planning to move into a white neighborhood is approached by a member of the neighborhood association and is offered a payment not to move in. Mr. Lindner from the association says:

It’s a matter of the people of Clybourne Park believing… ..rightly or wrongly, as I say… …that for the happiness of all concerned…that our Negro families are happier……when they live in their own communities. — A Raisin in the Sun

When he doesn’t get the reaction from the black Younger family that he expected, he says,

I don’t understand why you people are reacting this way! What do you think you’ll gain……by moving to a neighborhood where you aren’t wanted…and where some elements…People get worked up when their way of life…and all they’ve worked for is threatened.

This is basically what Dan Senor wants to say to the imam. “It’s in your best interest to appease the folks who are uncomfortable with you.” In “A Raisin in the Sun”, Walter Lee Younger throws Mr. Lindner out on his ass. They move into the white neighborhood. That is exactly the same approach that the imam has taken and good for him! Of course, the amazing thing is that these Muslims have already been a part of this community for almost 30 years. Did 9/11 suddenly make them evil?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated the case quite eloquently:

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, ‘What God do you pray to?’ (Bloomberg’s voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) ‘What beliefs do you hold?”

The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

via Michael Bloomberg delivers stirring defense of mosque – War Room – Salon.com.

Bloomberg makes this case so clearly that I am amazed that there is still room for debate.

The Fourteenth Amendment has also come under attack as Senators Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell call for its reevaluation in light of our broken immigration system. It is Section 1 that currently raises concern: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As a result of this amendment virtually everyone (except children of diplomats) born in the United States becomes a citizen automatically.

The liberal media is having a collective aneurysm over how we could even think of tinkering with this amendment. To the surprise of my liberal friends, I don’t understand the outrage. The 14th Amendment’s original intent was to protect the citizenship of former slaves whose legitimacy had been challenged based on their African heritage. News flash: anyone who was ever a slave in this country is long since dead. The citizenship of blacks, with the exception of Barack Obama, is no longer an issue. The citizenship part of the amendment has served its purpose. Obviously the piece about due process applying to citizens needs to remain untouched but why on Earth should anyone born here automatically be a citizen? I believe it is completely appropriate that the birthright of American citizenship should apply to anyone who has at least one parent who is a citizen. I also believe that children of legal immigrants should become citizens automatically when their parents do. To put it simply, children born in the United States should inherit the highest level of citizenship status attained by either one of their parents.

It is a legitimate question to ask what problem would actually be solved by changing our citizenship standards. I honestly don’t know but I don’t see what is sacrosanct about the status quo. Furthermore, we do need to send a message to those who are here illegally that they will not enjoy the benefits of those who are abiding by the law. Those benefits include any that might be enjoyed by their children. Under the surface of this debate is the whole question of national sovereignty and the right of any country to dictate who may or may not reside there.  On my more 1960’s free-love days, I favor a borderless world where we all live together in harmony. Human nature makes that an impossibility.

As a post script, and probably deserving of a full article on its own, a Federal judge struck down California’s Proposition 8 which denied gay couples the right to marry. History shows that this is a tolerant country. Those that try to restrict the freedom of others always end up on the wrong side of history. With any luck this federal ruling will lead to a Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right of all loving people to marry whom they please throughout the land.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

203 thoughts on “Crisis at the Corner of 1st and 14th

  1. I had a huge comment working and then I realized that in this post that combines multiple issues that Rutherford does a complete 180 from start to finish.

    In the first portion he is a staunch defender of the constitution, (regardless of the fact that many conservatives are not in favor of government intervention at any level regarding the mosque, and instead wanted it to be a willing decision by the mosque organizers.)

    Then in the next portion he is willing to rewrite the Constitution as it applies to citizenship, and as it applies to equal protection to any on American soil.

    If only he has brought up the Constitution in his final segment. Then he’d have done a complete 360.

  2. So anyway, as I mentioned before I have no personal problems with the mosque proximity to Ground Zero, but I recognize that many do, and I respect their feelings. I agree that no level of government intervention is the answer. I only wish the mosque organizers would have come to an agreement with those who simply wanted it moved to a different location. If this was truely about peace and re-engagement, I think a concensus by all could have been reached.

    I am against repealing or amending the 14th Amendment. I am fine with any person born in this country being an American citizen, including those born to illegal immigrants. If mommy and daddy get popped by ICE, mommy and daddy can make the decision to take their child with them or not. It will be them who decides to break up a family, not the government. Children who stay can be put into The System like any other American child without parents.

    I am against gay marriage in principle, but I voted against Prop 8 and knew it would be overturned the day after it was passed. We can’t have laws in this country that say a group of people cannot do something while another group can. That’s a slippery slope I am not willing to create, and don’t care that it had the support of 7,000,000 voters. It was an act that was designed to exclude. And that’s just not cool.

  3. “We just think you are going to undermine them. You are—you are provoking something that could wind up being more divisive. And this is going to be a step backwards for New York.”

    You know what this reminds me of?…..

    The NAACP that spends all of its time “provoking something that could wind up being more divisive” by declaring things like Black Holes to be racist and basing claims of racism on baseless allegations by congressmen.

    The New Black Panthers who spend their time on streetcorners “provoking something that could wind up being more divisive” by calling for the murder of white people.

    And the black guy who was caught stealing from his company and then wasted 8 of his co-workers because he claims they were racists. (which you still have yet to make a single comment on). His relatives are defending him by saying he simply just got more racism than he could take.

  4. Hucking, you nailed it. I didn’t see anyone here saying the mosque isn’t Constitutionally valid. What a lame post.

    Weak.

    He is all over the map in order to support the talking points given to him.

    I said from the start I just think it sucks such a massive mosque is going up 200 yards from WTC.

    Rutherford? Where is the money coming from? Is it Wahhabist? Should I care?

    Does it bother you that the Imam of the mosque claims there is not enough evidence to blame Muslims for 9/11?

    Does it bother you that the former Imam said “only Jews” were capable of 9/11?

    What if the mosque will serve as a rallying point for radicals?

    Nah…continue to pull the blanket over your head.

  5. Huck one need look no further than Rutherford’s initial thoughts:

    “When it comes to the Constitution’s role in defining us as a decent and fair people, not so much.”

    All logic flowing from that is necessarily circular.

    Rutherford, what are you defending here, the right or the “rightness” of building the mosque. It troubles me that you pretend not to understand the reaction and outrage, then mask it some kind of constitutional platitudes.

    Let’s say your child had been struck and killed by a car through no fault of your child or the driver. The driver even apologized and attended the funeral. What would be your reaction if the driver moved then decided to move in next door so you had to see him taking out his trash, mowing his lawn, peering over the fence etc., his presence being a daily reminder of his hand in you child’s death. Would his “right” to live next door to you “make it right?”

  6. Rutherford believes himself the defender of “rights” and the Constitution. Those rights disappear for the unborn and Christians to worship publicallly.

    The question Rutherford is not if Muslims can build the mosque in lower Manhattan, but if they should. And on that latter point is where you are always invariably wrong because your mindset is both perverted and wicked.

    The Japanese would legally be within their rights to purchase land and build a temple dedicated to the Emperor Hirohito and Tojo, with respect to the Shinto religion, within a few blocks of the U.S.S. Arizona and Pearl Harbor. It may not overlook the memorial. Should they? They wouldn’t, namely because 70 years ago, before the slime of liberalism had taken hold in America, this would have been considered an affront to Americans. The stench of your wrong-headed and muddled philosophy has so damaged clear thinking, that to this day we are still paying a price for its lack of beauty and truth.

    Muslim tradition demonstrates that after a victory in battle, a “victory” mosque was built as testimony to a hail to the victors. This is the exact reason that the Dome of the Rock sits upon what is clearly the Jewish Temple Mount. The mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is no different. It is Islam giving America the bird.

    What Rutherford fails to mention is (1) who is funding the mosque, (2) the story of the Imam himself, who refuses to admit that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations, (3) the refutation that this will represent in the Imam’s words (a) a multi-cultural center for tolerance and peace, (b) a place for worship. If so, why build the mosque if it really is an interfaith alliance, or better yet include a synagogue and church sanctuary.

    Like trying KSM in NYC where you were clearly wrong, I don’t think this will happen either because I don’t think there is one construction crew in NYC that will dare to build it.

  7. In jumbled order I found R’s outlook on the 14th confused but overall good if I’ve read it right. It seems to me he’d like to see the sovereignty of citizenship protected.Children of illegals SHOULD indeed be tossed onto the buh bye plane when found.

    I’m missing anything that shows how the Cordoba Inst. has been on site for 20 years.In fact I’ve seen that Cordoba is actually located up around Colombia. Hell they’re almost in Harlem! Anyone that has been on the Island of Man(hatten) you know that’s a bit more than a skip and a jump. More like two trains and wheeze. I also don’t know how you take 2 addresses,(45-47)pretty much demolish them and build a single building(51 Park) and have that called a renovation. I’m quirky like that.
    Although the ASMA has every right to build I think it shows hypocrisy to the max on their behalf and I shed no tears for when they reap what they sow. I’ve long felt that as controversial as ASMA is they do stir controversy on both sides. So much so I am surprised there isn’t some warped fatwa out on Daisy Khans life.
    Its a bad idea. Sends a very bad message to more people than a good one. Head in the clouds often leads to oxygen starvation so I’m not surprised.
    As for the gay marriage thing. Well states rights is the issue not civil rights and when it gets to SCOTUS that is how it will be framed. Homosexuals are humans but not a singular sub species. The Left is very keen on dictating church state issues to their agenda but are absolute pussies when it comes to doing the RIGHT thing and declaring that GOVT recognizes civil unions as described in law as…. and ya know actually right a law.
    So Cali defined marriage. They did not revoke a civil right. A judge who by some accounts could very well have a penis in one of his orifices refused to recuse himself. As is being talked many other judges have done the right thing previously. Muslim judge,cuban exile judge etc. Anyway regardless if Kagan is gay her neice is a carpetbagger who married here in MA under publicized circumstances. Will she step down? Or will she stay true to her previous statement that gays DO NOT have a Constitutional right to marriage????
    Curious times. Lets see who blinks first.

  8. Rutherford,

    You are also wrong about the Prop 8 being overturned.

    This is not an issue of “rights.” The gay marriage issue is about formally compelling others to accept homosexual relationships as marriages with the force of law. The gay marriage debate is about compulsory public acceptance.

    Marriage is a privilege, not a right. If marriage is a right, so is healthcare, housing, automobile ownership, employment, sustenance, golf, and wealth. None of these are Constitutional rights.

    Prop 8 did not deny rights to any individual. Any man may marry any woman of his choice; any woman may marry any man of his choice. What Prop 8 did was to deny the use of the term marriage. It is easy to forget this when no one actually mentions that after Prop 8 was overturned, and sent back to the voters for a second time, it did not deny gays to equal adoption rights, benefit rights, hospital rights, etc. The fight was for the word Marriage.

    Marriage was a religious institution before it was co-opted by the government. What drives this reasoning is your intense hatred of Christianity and nothing more because once again that is your real foe. You fail to mention that we have an openly practicing homosexual for judge overriding the will of the people – it’s clearly unconstitutional because there are no “right” of marriage in either the U.S. or California Constitution.

    I do find it somewhat ironic that you fight so hard for the “minority” at the constitutional expense of the majority.

  9. My humble public apologies…I had crossed stories regards niece and marriage. I am so sorry.
    That’s a real apology btw as opposed to a Obamaish one like…I am sorry if you are offended by my inaccuracy…

  10. A shallow and superficial analysis.

    You can, and have done better, R.

    I have been mulling over the mosque and the Federal Judiciary’s newest discoveries in the Consitution, and though I am officially on vacation (he typed, without a trace of the irony the statement represents), I suppose I will post on this either later today or sometime tomorrow. The mosque is easy…a question of what is right, and what is legal. The Prop 8 ruling is far more complex than just about anyone I have heard or read seems to understand.

  11. If only he has brought up the Constitution in his final segment. Then he’d have done a complete 360.

    Good point … I guess the last one (gay marriage) was more a Declaration of Independence thing (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

    Actually, it wasn’t a 180 at all. It is simply the ability to take different positions based on the facts on the ground. It’s practicality vs ideology. 😉

  12. Jose and Carlos are both beggars. They beg in different areas of town.

    Carlos begs for the same amount of time as Jose, but only collects about eight or nine dollars a day.

    Every day, Jose brings home a suitcase full of ten dollar bills. He drives a Mercedes, lives in a mortgage-free house, and has lots of cash to spend.

    “Hey, amigo,” Carlos says to Jose, “I work just as long and hard as you do, so how come you bring home a suitcase full of ten dollar bills every day?”

    Jose says, “Look at your sign, what does it say?”

    Carlos’ sign reads;

    I have no work, a wife and six kids to support.

    “What’s wrong with that?” Carlos asks him.

    “No wonder you only get eight or nine dollars a day!”

    Carlos says, “Alright, so what does your sign say?”



    Jose’s sign reads:

    I only need ten dollars to get back to Mexico

  13. And the black guy who was caught stealing from his company and then wasted 8 of his co-workers because he claims they were racists. (which you still have yet to make a single comment on). His relatives are defending him by saying he simply just got more racism than he could take.

    Haven’t commented cos I’m not up on it yet. Funny thing is when the news first broke I asked my wife “was he black?” hoping against hope the answer was no. Since the news was still fresh, my wife didn’t know.

    I’ll give you something Huck … and a bonus item. No amount of racism is justification for shooting up your co-workers. Now the bonus …. folks who say that black congressmen are being targeted for ethics violations (Rangel, Waters) based on race are full of sh*t. If you’re crooked, you deserve to be busted … even if you’re polka-dotted. Doesn’t matter. (I don’t know enough about the Maxine Waters case to have an opinion other than that it has nothing to do with her being black.)

  14. Where is the money coming from? Is it Wahhabist? Should I care?

    No you shouldn’t care. Not until you ask every multi-million dollar mega-church to open their books to public scrutiny. Sorry I ain’t buying it.

    This brouhaha is misplaced anger because the Bush admin was too incompetent to nail Osama bin Laden when they had the chance and give New Yorkers the justice they deserved. Now every Muslim is the enemy because New Yorkers never got their pound of flesh. I understand the anger somewhat … but its our lowest instinct. It’s unAmerican and we need to get our heads together. Bloomberg said all that really needed to be said on this.

  15. The driver even apologized and attended the funeral.

    Tigre, you’ve painted quite the picture here … and yes the way you’ve painted it, the driver and I might actually become friends because we share a tragedy that has impacted both our lives. Now remember … you said he was not at fault.

    As Bloomberg said, Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attacks. American Muslims (most … not all…. but most) share the grief of non-Muslims. Why we should make them the enemy shows our low instinct. They were already in this neighborhood … almost 30 years. And now they have to lay low because 19 lunatics did an horrific act?

  16. No you shouldn’t care. Not until you ask every multi-million dollar mega-church to open their books to public scrutiny.

    They do…their books are a matter of public record which is provided to every parishioner and member. Most of the gifts and expense totals are listed with the attendance from last week right in the halls or parishes leading to the sanctuary that I’ve attended.

    If you’re talking about books that are authored by the pastors and priests, that is a private matter. But I’m sure they would be happy to when you are willing to open all of your records to public scrutiny. 😉

    I think you forget that CAIR, the very first defense of this mosque, has already been busted in the Holyland Alliance in Dallas. Or have you forgot that fact?

    Amazing to me that you’ll defend radical Islam which killed 3,000 people on 9/11, yet never spare criticism or insult of the Christian Churches of which you have been a huge benefactor, whether you realize it or not.

  17. Good point … I guess the last one (gay marriage) was more a Declaration of Independence thing (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

    I see. Take God’s goodies, but reject his law. Not suprised here.

    Take the charter in its entirety or not at all.

    (Besides, I thought our new Supreme Court Justice has said that the DoI is of no legal consequence?)

  18. No you shouldn’t care. Not until you ask every multi-million dollar mega-church to open their books to public scrutiny. Sorry I ain’t buying it.

    Members of Mega-Churches don’t fly jetliners into skyscrapers full of people to please their God.

    Members of Mega-Churches don’t cut the heads off of people of different faiths and celebrate their barbarity to please their God.

    Members of Mega-Churches don’t strap bombs on themselves and wander into crowds of civilians and detonate themselves in order to kill as many civilians as possible for their God.

    Members of Mega-Churches don’t kill members of their own family for leaving the faith or their female family members for the horendous crimes of being with a member of the opposite sex who isn’t their husband or for being raped.

    Members of Mega-Churches don’t actively work for the downfall of this country.

    Members of Mega-Churches don’t have a tenant of faith that allows them to lie to members of other faiths without a shread of guilt or accountablilty in any fashion that allows them to do what ever they need to do to bring them into submission to their faith, or kill them without remorse if they will not submit.

  19. I’ve got a solution for all of you regarding the marriage question. How about the government get out of marriage altogether? How about everyone gets a civil union and if they want the marriage thing then they go to church/temple/mosque, etc.?

    You see, believe it or not gentlemen, I think religions have every right to define marriage as they see fit. If you’re a Christian and your church won’t marry you to the person you want, then you’re in the wrong church.

    But as long as government is in the business of granting marriage licenses, it must be done equitably. Sorry, guys but from a purely secular point of view, gay marriage does not threaten your marriage and it’s none of your goddam business.

  20. Members of Mega-Churches don’t fly jetliners into skyscrapers full of people to please their God.

    Members of Mega-Churches don’t cut the heads off of people of different faiths and celebrate their barbarity to please their God.

    etc etc etc

    Ah but members of mega-churches do kill abortion doctors … at their place of worship no less. As I’ve said before, religion in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing.

    HELL I’ll go one better! I say to really rub Osama’s face in the dirt … to show him that he cannot break us no matter how hard he tries, we should build a friggin skyscraper mosque smack dab at Ground Zero It’s a Christian turn-the- other-cheek of the first order. I guarantee you it would piss Osama off and not be viewed at all as some victory sign.

  21. “Dick thanks for making me your token. The honors just never end.”

    I figured you’d get a chuckle outta that.
    And do yourself a favor. Read the money quote one more time.

    “The White House says that as a policy, official trips by the first family are paid by the government but all personal elements paid are personally. Since this is a private trip, the White House seems to be suggesting that the Obamas are personally paying all costs associated with the vacation. “

    The key word there is ‘suggesting’.

    And if the Chosen One’s wife is paying for it, I’ll be the very first one to pour myself a nice hot steaming cup of shut the fuck up.

  22. HELL I’ll go one better! I say to really rub Osama’s face in the dirt … to show him that he cannot break us no matter how hard he tries, we should build a friggin skyscraper mosque smack dab at Ground Zero It’s a Christian turn-the- other-cheek of the first order. I guarantee you it would piss Osama off and not be viewed at all as some victory sign.

    Yeah! Let’s give murderous thugs a trophy! And we’ll really piss them off by placing it on the remains of 3000 of their most triumphant victims! That’ll learn ’em!

    /sarc off/

  23. “Dick you actually proved my point. The article says all personal expenses are being paid by the First Lady.”

    Wait R, you said: “I doubt the family junket to Spain touched a penny of Huck’s, DR’s and Tex’s wife’s hard earned salary.”

    Hmmmm. Seems Dick countered your point.

  24. Tex, who defended radical Islam? I defended good old fashioned American Islam

    Your Imam seems to be a party member of Hamas and Hezbollah, as are CAIR. You may think yourself clever, but you are defending those that would impose a way of life on you.

    But after debating you for two years now, and realizing your utter level of ignorance, your insults about the supposed theocracy of Chriistianity, your snide comments about my God, your moral relativity, yada yada yada, there’s a small part of me that would like you to really experience real tyranny. 😉

    The thought of you crawling to Mecca or losing your head kind of tickles me. 😉

  25. I’ve got a solution for all of you regarding the marriage question. How about the government get out of marriage altogether? How about everyone gets a civil union and if they want the marriage thing then they go to church/temple/mosque, etc.?

    Not a bad suggestion. Anything that gets gov’t out of my life, I can’t argue.

  26. By the way “R”, black racists shoot eight white people. Should I then condemn all of black America as racist murders?

    George Tiller the Baby Killer now resides in hell where he belongs. 😉

  27. By a margin of 61 to 26 percent, New Yorkers oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House, a multi-story Muslim Cultural Center in lower Manhattan two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center according to a new survey released today from the Siena College Research Institute (SRI).
    ……..

    “Large majorities of all New Yorkers, every party, region and age give a thumbs-down to the Cordoba House Mosque being built near the Ground Zero site,” according to Dr. Don Levy, SRI’s Director. “But only just over half of all New Yorkers, even city residents say they have been following the news about the proposed mosque closely.”

    And I am absolutely sure somewhere, somehow, Rutherford will revert back to the Constitutional minority argument, never observing the Constitutional majority argument of NO… 😉

  28. Both at Rutherford:

    It’s unAmerican…

    Actually R I think you’ll find wanting a pound of flesh especially in the immediate aftermath of a worthy incident is absolutely American.

    As for the whimsical joke of pissing off OBl and Co. by actually building a super mosque as opposed to say Freedom Tower I’m amazed by you lack of connection to reality. if we built it,one they would come and two it would be seen as a major win for them. just like the Islamists will take the 2 blks away one as.

  29. Alfie,

    Don’t be so sure. Rutherford has that “Muslim” look. Kind of swing between Yasser, Gary Coleman, and Superfly. 🙂

  30. “Anyone that has been on the Island of Man(hatten) you know that’s a bit more than a skip and a jump.”

    That’s about 125 blocks if memory serves me.

    “Wow Huck …. from your response to this post, I’d almost think you were a liberal.”

    I’ve told you before. I am not a social conservative. 😉

  31. “This brouhaha is misplaced anger because the Bush Clinton admin was too incompetent to nail Osama bin Laden when they had the chance…”

    Editted for historical accuracy.

  32. Yahoo just busted her ass wide open, and that’s one huge ass.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100805/pl_yblog_upshot/first-lady-under-fire-for-her-glitzy-spanish-vacation

    “Either way, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that the first lady will pay her personal expenses — as will the friends who are traveling with her. But that only covers a small part of the ultimate expense, given that she has full-time Secret Service protection and has to travel with an entourage of staff. That cost, as well as her travel on board an official Air Force charter plane, is covered by taxpayers.”

  33. Warm up the gallows!

    You figure Bongo had to tie a 2×4 to that skinny ass to keep from falling in when Michelle Antoinette went into heat? That is a major league booty.

    And a real man would step forward first to take the noose. But then again, Obama ain’t much of a man. 🙂

  34. Good Lawd! Somehow I missed this beauty:

    This reminded me of the scene in Lorraine Hansberry’s “A Raisin in the Sun” where a black family planning to move into a white neighborhood is approached by a member of the neighborhood association and is offered a payment not to move in. Mr. Lindner from the association says

    Rutherford, you’ve really jumped the shark over the defense of the indefensible.

    There’s over a hundred mosques in Manhattan alone. You’re as wrong about his one as well you are about anything of importance. But KSM being tried in NYC immediately comes to mind.

  35. “I’ve got a solution for all of you regarding the marriage question. How about the government get out of marriage altogether?”-R

    That’s actually an awesome idea. Problem solved.

    ________________________________________________

    I would love to see Rutherford live under Shariah Law for a year or two.

    Rutherford would notice this particularly mean Taliban enforcer with an odd reddish beard, suspicious beer breath and white trash tattoos.

    This guy would seem to really take delight in spanking Rutherford in the town square for listening to his Ipod.

    This Taliban guy, of course, would be the pathetic opportunist Dead Rabbit, the fake Muslim Ulema.

    As-Salamu ‘Alaykum.

  36. What happened to your tweets, R?

    I tweet irregularly BiW, kinda like I crap. 😉

    Speaking of crap, I’ve had three days in a row of DSL problems. Phone company is coming out tomorrow to see what could be wrong. I go to the TV to soothe my surfing wounds and what do I see, a story about the end to net neutrality.

    First citizens united …. corps controlling elections …. and now corporations will decide what i can see on the Internet or how fast I can see it.

    Why don’t we just get it over with and rename our country “The United States of America, Brought to You by Campbell Soups, mmm mmm good.”

  37. You folks disappoint me a bit. I snuck in a nice little slam at birthers in this article at not a one of you called me out on it. And I did it especially to entertain you too! 😐

  38. “Tex, who defended radical Islam? I defended good old fashioned American Islam.” — R

    Like Anwar Aulaqi?

    The question has been asked, who is putting the money forward for this mosque? What are their beliefs and what is their intent?

    I find these important questions. If local Muslims were out gathering donations for this, that’d be one thing, but I’ve a sinking feeling that it is coming from a powerful source overseas hat doesn’t necessarily bear us good will. Should that matter? I think so.

    What they think is important too. Backers of Shariah law are not what we, or the Umma in general, need right now- especially in down town New York.

    So what is their intent? Does having a radical mosque in down town New York bear good fortune? This administration isn’t likely to monitor who or what goes in or comes out- and any one who knows about Islamic warfare knows that mosques are as much castles as they are churches.

    I think you don’t know what you you don’t know- and that is dangerous.

    P.S. The waters here are breathtaking and relaxing… Another Mai Tai please….. 😉

  39. Rutherford I guess we could charge for naming rights,close the deficit. win win.All good since we are far from United,States have zero sovereignty and America is a memory.

  40. The mark of a true nerd … Gorilla couldn’t travel without a computing device (be it laptop, iPad, smartphone, whatever.)

    Where exactly are you G?

    While we’re on geography … isn’t one of you currently in Washington (the state, not the capital)? For some reason, I think it’s BiW. Well, I’m pretty sure I saw the other day that Washington is by population one of the most lib states in the country. Interesting. One of you is not too influential. 😉

  41. For some reason, I think it’s BiW. Well, I’m pretty sure I saw the other day that Washington is by population one of the most lib states in the country. Interesting. One of you is not too influential.

    Not exactly true. Seattle is about as far left as can be, but if you eliminate the dead and those who voted multiple times in the last election, the left isn’t as powerful as it is often given credit for.

    The next election will be very interesting too, as the legislature cannot seem to get spending under control and has maintained billion dollar deficits, despite having made “Bone-deep” cuts…to things government should actually BE doing, while continuing extravangant spending on state employee wages, including some dramatic increases, and overtime to make up for “labor shortages” due to furlough days.

    Its gonna be fun in November.

  42. I just talked to two liberal buddies of mine who live in New York. One was in the towers when they were attacked.

    They are PISSED!!!!!!

    Rutherford, make no mistake about it. You are complicit. What you gonna do when Jihad runs wild on you BROTHERRRRRRR!

    You are going to have some serious explaining to do over the next year as the truth comes out on those behind this mosque.

    Fucking Bloomberg. Afraid of a fucking fatwa.

  43. Twice this week, I can’t type my email address right.

    You know what BIC? It’s a shame that Rutherford can’t open his eyes a little and recognize he’s being used. Open his eyes and recognize there is real truth above simple opinion and that the progressive party is not the answer to problems, but the instigator of problems. You see it in virtually every major city.

    Rutherford is a pawn in the game, yet he is just as capable as the men and women who stood up in that video and made their pleas to cut the B.S.. We don’t disdain Obama because he’s black – personally, I could care less what he looks like. I care what Obama believes and what he does.

    But unlike the black speakers in that video, Rutherford’s heart is not in the right place, always leading to the wrong conclusion. A waste of real talent, if you ask me.

  44. My friend Nice Deb had a nice glimpse of the future for you today:

    BiW, I found the ten minutes of that video well spent. That is until I saw that crazy-ass-fool Alan Keyes was among the folks up on the stage. Never a crazier brother has walked the Earth and that includes Flavor Flav and Mike Tyson. 🙂

    However, my appetite has been whetted and I shall seek out more video excerpts from that presser. I could say that those poor folks are just tools of the Tea Party or the GOP (getting harder and harder these days to tell the difference), but the counter accusation is that blacks have been liberal tools for decades now.

    I actually like what the last dude said. Keep race off forms. Stop defining people. Not a bad idea. Morgan Freeman said as much in my one of my fav vids of him talking to Mike Wallace on an old 60 Minutes.

    Oh finally, dontcha just love how the brothers just can’t take their damn hat off when they are indoors? My mom taught me that was rude. 🙂 (Then again, none of them could match the huge ass hat one of the sista’s was wearing. At the very least, the video was visually entertaining.) 😀

  45. I’m stunned how anyone who calls themselves a patriot could reduce Bloomberg’s most patriotic speech to fear of a fatwa. Of all the words spewed forth in this article, the only thing I would refuse to cut out would be the Bloomberg excerpt.

    But don’t think I haven’t viewed Bloomberg’s words through your eyes. I know what some of you are thinking. If any of the first responders had known that Muslims were behind the attack, they might very well have asked about religion before pulling anyone out of the building. They might very well have let the Muslims caught in that building fry.

    Ooooo, don’t like that idea do you? Don’t like the true consequence of your bigotry … that if the first responders had your vengeful attitude, and they knew who was behind the catastrophe, they might not have been so heroic. Then again, you guys don’t think it’s heroic to rescue Muslims from the tower. You’d prefer they burn for what their religion brought down on NYC. Am I right, or am I right?

    Understand what your attitudes teach our children gentlemen. Understand that intolerance passes from generation to generation. We know it’s true with more Muslims than we’d like to admit. So we’ll play the same game of poisoning our children. Right?

    Hell, why don’t we just carpet bomb all of A-stan? The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim … right?

  46. Rutherford, you exaggerate almost to the degree Hippie does anymore. If we were half as bigoted as you’d like to make us out, there wouldn’t be a mosque standing in America and certainly not in NYC.

    Our country showed our real ‘bigotry’ immediately after 9/11. To the best of my knowledge, there wasn’t one Muslim beaten to death in the street. I believe one Sikh mistakenly got a beat down someplace if memory serves, but I challenge any country on earth to beat that record of tolerance after watching two towers crumble, our own Pentagon attacked, and an airplane brought down.

    Besides, you don’t seem to have a big problem with thousands of female Muslims being beat, having their noses lopped, being stoned for adultery, or not allowing to attend schools. Because that is exactly what will happen if we leave Afghanistan.

  47. Rutherford, nobody here is buying Bloomberg’s bullshit because nobody here has used the argument that the government should have intervened.

    As far as we are concerned, he, and you, are doing nothing but tossing out a red herring.

    What we have all argued is that for this mosque to do what its builders claim is its purpose, it would be better if it did so at a location that is not as close to the site as this is, and that more effort to come to an agreement should have been made.

    Some maybe still have to answer how far is far enough. I can’t answer for them, as I don’t have issue with the proximity other than the fact that many others do.

  48. Huck, that is the crux of the problem. How far is far enough? I’m guessing that some of the folks on this board think there are already enough mosques in Manhattan already so don’t build any more of them.

    Seriously, if this thing were next door to Ground Zero, clearly visible to any mourners who might visit there, then I too would expect the imam and his crew to be more considerate. But that is simply not the case. Someone with an agenda decided this mosque was too close for comfort … spread the word that the site “overlooked” Ground Zero and started a sh*tstorm. I bet dollars to donuts there is an instigator who got this started and has disappeared into the night to sit back and enjoy the controversy he sparked.

    I don’t argue with Tex that our reaction to 9/11 so far at least domestically has been quite restrained. I assure you, if most Americans carried the attitudes evidenced on this board (mostly hot air, I suspect) we would not have seen that restraint.

  49. Why carpet bomb any-stan when we have nukes?

    Dick, you know me better than you think. For many years now I’ve had an ongoing joke (only told to family members … and you guys are “family” so what the heck) that whenever some crazy-ass country acts like a crazy-ass country, we should just fly over and drop one. Usually, the way I put it is I say “I’ve got the solution …. mushroom cloud”. and then I sorta spread my hands in the air simulating the shape of a mushroom cloud.

    Afghanistan is sadly a perfect example. A stone age country with virtually no hope of modernizing, with a population brainwashed into behaving like savages. Sometimes I do think it would be more expedient to level the place and start over.

    I still favor the more humane solution of colonization. We remove Karzai … have Newt Gringrich be the new Governor of the Afghanistan Commonwealth and there you go. 🙂

  50. Rutherford I’ve rarely seen you more holier than thou than in #65. Sorry bunkie but I laughed and cried a tad.
    I saw

    We know it’s true with more Muslims than we’d like to admit.

    I assume it is a typo and you meant
    We know it’s true more with Muslims than we’d like to admit.
    First the part you likely meant.
    Yes indeed bias and bigotry towards Muslims have likely increased due to the heightened awareness of Islam et al post 9/11. My best friend who is from Costa Rica was accosted by two chunks of white trash late Sept. ’01. He gave as good as he got and for his troubles of defending himself got a fine and a court ordered anger management class .

    As for your slip.

    Muslims themselves, it is sad so many have had to face a different America than they dreamed of. Likewise far too many Muslims have used the events of that day and the aftermath to tear apart things and empower hate.This is as true for an American born Muslim in say Jersey as it is for a kid on the streets of Yemens capital Sanaa.
    So you see either way your comment is written it holds some nugget of truth.

    On a side note…by the second planes impact Rutherford, I’m pretty sure most people had concluded ala OKC that it was Muslims that had done it.

  51. Love to see the real Rutherford side of:

    Afghanistan is sadly a perfect example. A stone age country with virtually no hope of modernizing, with a population brainwashed into behaving like savages.

    Aisha (noseless girl) follow up story at BBC

  52. Oh please Rutherford, your Holey Prophet. The people’s attitudes on this board are representative of America you ditz.

    I just gave you a statistic that said 61% of New Yorkers are against this. And New Yorkers tend to be a hellavu lot more liberal than most of us.

    This is a jab in the eye of America under the guise “religion of peace.” – more like religion of pieces. For once, would you quit covering just to play devil’s advocate to spite Conservatism.

    I swear, I sometimes think you would prefer to have your head lopped off than to admit either liberalism has failed, or there is a God and that God is the Judeo-Christian God. 😐

  53. We know it’s true more with Muslims than we’d like to admit.

    Alfie, actually I did mean your revision and not what you thought I was saying. I didn’t modify nouns properly.

    I was saying more Muslims than I would like to think pass hatred onto their children and we should not follow suit.

    With my limited knowledge, I do believe the Koran can be more easily mangled in an ignorant mind than let’s say the Christian Bible. It means decent Muslims must work that much harder take only the good from their faith and discard the bad.

  54. Hey Tex …. watch the video. The Manhattan borough president says that most of the people in the effected neighborhood did not have a problem and that influenced the decision.

  55. “Understand what your attitudes teach our children gentlemen.”-R

    Rutherford, we get it.

    You already told us.

    You don’t give a damn if that mosque will be run by jihadists or not.

    You don’t even want to know.

    Who cares if it might be a citadel of hatred, espousing Sharia Law and a global caliphate.

    You don’t give a damn if the sole purpose of that mosque is to mock the victims of 9/11.

    How dare we question the aims of an Imam who claims there is no proof Al Queda attacked us that Tuesday morning.

    Bigots. All of us.

    You don’t give a damn about a movement enslaving women. Murdering homosexuals.

    Go ahead, sit down and explain that one to your daughter.

    Teach her your world view. Teach her what you willing to accept.

    It’s OK to be part of a world wide movement, funded by oil money, hell bent on enslaving women and destroying even the semblance of freedom.

    Just a week or two ago, a 13 year old girl was stoned to death in Somalia by Al-shabaab because she was gang raped. Maybe that could be a great talking point to start off your lesson on multi-cultured acceptance?

    Al-shabaab is here, you know. In America.

    Read the news lately? Did you see the chicks arrested yesterday?

    You are nothing but an Al Queda proxy. An Al-shabaab shmuck.

    But don’t worry.

    It will be the sons of the Rabbit that will keep the daughters of Rutherford safe.

    Because I plan on teaching him about evil and how one needs to stand up to it.

    Get your drool cup out. Sit amongst your East Coast Maples and Elms. It’s cool man. The matrix feels nice, doesn’t it?

  56. Somehow, I don’t find the borough President (probably a militant queer from Greenwich also ready for the lopping block) nearly as convincing as this, which you conveniently skipped, so I’ll repeat it.

    By a margin of 61 to 26 percent, New Yorkers oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House, a multi-story Muslim Cultural Center in lower Manhattan two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center according to a new survey released today from the Siena College Research Institute (SRI).
    ……..

    “Large majorities of all New Yorkers, every party, region and age give a thumbs-down to the Cordoba House Mosque being built near the Ground Zero site,” according to Dr. Don Levy, SRI’s Director. “But only just over half of all New Yorkers, even city residents say they have been following the news about the proposed mosque closely.”

  57. One other thing Rutherford – 9/11 was not a Manhattan local issue. It’s a national issue and one every American has a vested interest in.

    If I’m wrong, tell the borough Mohammad appeasing President not to bother advertising for help next time if he’s attacked.

  58. Ooooo, don’t like that idea do you? Don’t like the true consequence of your bigotry … that if the first responders had your vengeful attitude, and they knew who was behind the catastrophe, they might not have been so heroic. Then again, you guys don’t think it’s heroic to rescue Muslims from the tower. You’d prefer they burn for what their religion brought down on NYC. Am I right, or am I right?

    No depth too low for you to stoop, is there R?

    You ascribe a blood-earned suspicion and distain to bigotry, and then you tar a group of people who’s entire careers are built around rendering aid and assistance with an unproven bigotry that you allege us to have.

    Very classy. Perhaps you would like to follow it up by accusing us ripping babies apart and eating their entrails raw, while you’re at it.

  59. One other thing Rutherford – 9/11 was not a Manhattan local issue. It’s a national issue and one every American has a vested interest in.

    If I’m wrong, tell the borough Mohammad appeasing President not to bother advertising for help next time if he’s attacked.

    You know Tex, I was thinking about this myself yesterday, and while I initially had the same conclusion, I reflected on it, and thought that it would go against character to be so punative against Americans who had elected someone who was an idiot or corrupt. Afterall, it isn’t like that hasn’t ever happened. Besides, once more, it could be the people who actually grow the food, and build things coming to the rescue of coastal elites who live in their sophisticated cities, and look pretty while they look down their noses at the people clinging to their Bibles and their guns while making society work.

  60. “Seriously, if this thing were next door to Ground Zero, clearly visible to any mourners who might visit there, then I too would expect the imam and his crew to be more considerate. But that is simply not the case.

    And you know this, how? Because you read it somewhere?

    Why don’t you fire up Google maps and type in “46 Park Place NYC.” Zoom the map in as far as you can while seeing any part of both sites. You can max out the zoom and still see both in the same screen. My estimates based off the distance meter at the bottom of the page puts it at about 600′ away.

    600 feet.

    I’ll bet there were body parts that were farther away from the site than that mosque will be.

    Maybe that is a good answer to how far is far enough.

  61. Google Earth really shows how close it is. Close enough that I might retract my original position on its proximity.

    Rutherford, I think you would be surprised.

    Don’t someone else’s word for it. See for yourself.

  62. “R”,

    Did you screw up the format of your blog. It comes across a basically text. I checked Alfie’s blog to make sure it wasn’t WordPress, and his blog looks fine.

    Guess it could be me, but I don’t think so.

    😉

  63. Finally saw a good article on the Mosque.
    1. It seems 45 PP has only been a prayer place for a year.
    2.The building was actually struck by landing gear on September 11th 2001

  64. I know Rutherford is aware that at it’s core Islam is not just a religion, but also a very explicit political ideology.

    Rutherford, if you concede that Islam is a political ideology, how can we be bigots if we oppose it?

    They can’t have their cake and eat it too.

    There is a reason so called “moderate” Muslims are not outspoken against radicalism. When it comes down to it, they can’t come up with much of a theological argument against it, no matter how wrong they see it.

    That would be like a snake eating it’s own tail. A distinct political system = Islam and Islam = a distinct political system.

    Rutherford is asking us to forgo the very point of his own damn blog.

  65. Huck thanks for the tip on Google Earth. A very good idea. Last time I used it, it was browser based. Looks like they’ve now made it its own desktop app.

    In any case, the mosque will be in the old Burlington Coat factory building which is labeled in Google Earth. It is indeed two blocks away and depending on the height of the surrounding buildings, it probably cannot be seen from Ground Zero … as has been maintained by its defenders.

    It is damn close. I will grant you that. Examining the aerial photos still does not resolve how far is far enough?

    Here is what is really outrageous and I’m a bit surprised you haven’t seized on this yet. Supposedly the mosque is scheduled to open on September 11, 2011. That might be going a bit far.

  66. Look, I certainly don’t want to end the week with an accusation of bigotry hanging in the air against all of you. I know full well you’re not bigots. But I think we all have to figure out what limits we think are appropriate on the practice of Islam in this country, The law is very clear about it. And admittedly, all of you have agreed there is no legal remedy to the mosque issue.

    If we take Rabbit’s premise that Islam is a political ideology and not just a religion, then what do we do about that? Again, what limits and what cautions are appropriate? I think you guys have easy answers when the answer is not so easy.

    There are a good number of folks who want to mix Christianity and politics in this country and I don’t see that bothering any of you. You rationalize it by saying Christianity is a truly loving religion and Islam is not. I don’t think it’s that simple.

    My defense of the “Ground Zero mosque” is totally based on my belief in the ideals of this country. And if we get back to the article I wrote, I am beginning to understand that all the brouhaha over re-examining the 14th amendment is based on this same notion …. that citizenship as a birthright is viewed as an American ideal by many. That’s why they’d be outraged by my assessment.

    We live in murky ethical times gentlemen. Perhaps the answers come to you easier than they come to me?

  67. “There are a good number of folks who want to mix Christianity and politics in this country and I don’t see that bothering any of you.”-R

    There are a good number of people who mix all kinds of things with politics. Who cares. Mix is the key word.

    You dodged my point.

    Islam IS politics. Repeat. Islam IS a closed political system. This makes it very unique from most religions.

    We have EVERY right to stand fast against the political ideology that is radical Islam. To think a self-professed liberal doesn’t feel this need is mind blowing. And considering our experience with jihad over the last decade, we have every reason to be outraged and skeptical over that mosque’s location and size. We are not bigots.

    Rutherford, you can try to muzzle us as much as you want, we’re used to the taste of your go to punch: racism.

    But, we have every right to bitch up a storm. And if the city planners don’t use the power that they wield to stop that mosque from going up, we not only have every right to bitch up a storm, we have the evidence or the unanswered questions about the specifics to make our bitching more then valid.

    I’m not one bit surprised that the mosque officially opens on 9/11.

    Let’s review.

    1. You claim our outrage stems from an artificial construct created by some sort of lone gadfly.

    2. You had bad info on where the mosque was even located in the first place.

    3. You said we shouldn’t care where the money comes from and if the mosque is Wahhabi backed.

    Kind of reminds me of your early Tea Party analysis. Artificial……morphs into Racist….etc.

    Check. We can move on now.

  68. It’s very easy to explain the difference Rutherford between why Christianity is compatible with America and its Constiitution and Islam is not.

    It’s called render into Caesar what is Caesar’s. Sharia permits no such leniency.

    I continue to be amazed a man of your education apparently denies the Christian heritage of this country. It’s not even arguable. I am not saying America is a Christian nation – I am saying it was founded by most people calling themselves Christian – which contrary to secular opinion, still holds.

    The reason America is secular and not a theocracy is because our Christian father’s understood two basic precepts: (1) Free Will, (2) the danger of King George and a ruling class declaring themselves an object of worship in a perversion of Christianity.

    One other thing Rutherford that has come to my attention over the years. You call us Christians intolerant. But if you were to truly measure the real definition of the word tolerant, we are the most tolerant people on earth even with all of our personal shortcomings.

    What most of you liberals are looking for, gay marriage being a perfect example, is not our tolerance but our acceptance as homosexual marriage being equal to the given definition of historical marriage – one man and one woman.

  69. When you think about it, the only political ideology that Rutherford doesn’t feel we have any right to oppose is the one that calls for the beheading of homosexuals.

    The guy who is always arguing for gay marriage calls us bigots becuase we fight a political ideology that calls for chopping their fucking heads off!

    That being said, I don’t think I follow conservative logic on gay marriage.

    Tex, I don’t understand how you can endow the Federal government with even the remotest amount of authority when it comes to what God wants.

    Unless the Feds started forcing your church to marry gay people, homosexual marriage can never be equal to the marriage vows that go down in your church. Who cares if the government calls it marriage? People get married outside of Christianity all the time. Are not those marriages no more valid then homosexual ones?

  70. There are a good number of folks who want to mix Christianity and politics in this country and I don’t see that bothering any of you.

    There are good reasons for that.

    1. I understand that the people responsible for there being a country didn’t have a problem with such a mix…whether it was a “Creator”, “Nature’s God”, or “Divine Providence”, it all was rooted in a common religious basis, and it wasn’t a belief that our rights came from Allah.

    2. At critical times in the history of the fledgling nation, that sovereign was called upon and HIS authority and power recognized by those men.
    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm

    3. Even Jefferson, who clearly had issues with the divinity of Jesus, recognized the God of Abraham and HIS role in human affairs:

    I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

    Hmmm. A request from the Executive for prayers…and in an official speech, too! Quick! Someone call the ACLU! I’m sure that they will protect us from this gross violation of the Establishment Clause…

    …or maybe, just maybe, that stalwart guardian of the Constitution, making us all safe from the influence of the eeevvvvviiiiilllll Chrisitianists gets it wrong.

  71. Unless the Feds started forcing your church to marry gay people, homosexual marriage can never be equal to the marriage vows that go down in your church. Who cares if the government calls it marriage? People get married outside of Christianity all the time. Are not those marriages no more valid then homosexual ones?

    The same Feds (and state authorities) who will ascribe motive to a crime based on nothing more than the identity of the alleged victim? Naw….that’s crazy talk!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

    Marriage has a specific legal definition. It has had that definition for centuries. Google Lord Blackstone…Yale has all four of his “Commentaries of the Laws of England” online. Those laws are something we imported and retained, even when we rejected the crown. And it made no bones about what defined marriage. You will see that clearly in the subheading :Husband and Wife in the first volume.

    And now, because people in California, a state which has a civil union type law on the books would not rest until that term was redefined to include something which marriage is not, we find ourselves in a unique place.
    One of the better analyses that I read of Perry Decision was at RedState…http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2010/08/05/the-prop-8-decision-having-it-both-ways/
    The author shows the double-mindedness of the Judge’s decision very plainly, but the money quote of the article was this:

    This analysis also reveals why this is not, as some would have it, a libertarian, live-and-let-live decision at all. No liberty is at stake here, in the sense of preserving some activity from government sanction, and indeed few if any of the rights of property and contract are denied to domestic partners in California. Instead, what the plaintiffs in Perry seek is the government to help them obtain the affirmative social and cultural approval of their neighbors.

    And that is it in a nutshell. Laws are a codification of the morals of the society they govern. The reason the redefinition of marriage matters to them so damn much is because they want the law, and thereby society, to approve and endorse their lifestyle. I have a right to not have to be compelled to accept their choices as normal, proper, or beneficial to society, and yet if this battle is lost, I can guarantee you that in 10 or 15 years, it will absolutely be about government attempting to define what the church does or does not grant its sanction to, because withholding it, or even speaking aloud the Bible’s condemnations of homosexuality will be hate crimes/civil rights violations/illegal thoughtspeak.

    As a citizen of a nation that recognized God as a sovereign in its charter, and who has predicated my life and my family’s life upon that understanding, I have the right to not have my morality and my law redefined by an unelected member of the Federal Judiciary. My nation recognized a sovereign, and in so doing, honored HIM and HIS law in its own law.

    If we as a nation are going to reject that law, then we who keep the same traditions and fundamental beliefs of the Founders and the Framers have a right to participate in that decision. The Judge in Perry denied that right to all of society.

    This is not a civil rights issue…in the absence of ANY concrete scientific evidence that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic in which the person has no choice, like skin color or gender, it is nothing more than a small, vocal minority seeking to compel society’s approval of what they want for themselves. As such, it is the latest in a long running cultural battle not to determine if our laws will have a moral basis, but instead, WHOSE morals will provide that basis, and it is important enough to allow everyone who will be governed by the law to determine what it will be when it amounts to such a marked departure from what we have had.

    That’s why it matters, DR.

  72. Tex, I don’t understand how you can endow the Federal government with even the remotest amount of authority when it comes to what God wants.

    Tex doesn’t have to. Others already did, long ago.

    That would be why we have a Congressional Chaplin.

    That would be why “In God We Trust” is stamped on our currency.

    That would be why you find so many references to God on the architecture all over the Nation’s Capitol in D.C.

    We don’t have to elect preachers and pastors, DR. I am a believer, and I don’t want that. That isn’t their role. What I do want is to have their hands untied. I want them to be able to be an influence in society again, not simply shoved off to these little boxes marked “Sunday Only”, and “Keep Inside The Church Walls”, and if you care about society, you want that too.

    We aren’t better as a society because kids can’t pray before eating their school lunch, or before they take diploma in hand at their high school graduation, or before their football games.

    We aren’t better as a society because we have had several generations “educated” with little or no reference to Christianity, and the role it had in bringing people to these shores, or its influence on the pivotal events that formed a new nation, and the first true cradle of liberty that man has lived under.

    We aren’t better as a society because we belittle a traditional morality that served our forefathers as they built this country into a magnet for people from all over the world, warts, imperfections, and all. We aren’t better as a society because we took away shame, and embraced all manner of sin, and the human degredation that is the inevitable result.

    We don’t have to be puritans, and I don’t know anyone who wants that, but the fiction that man can make his own destiny, without the recognition and guidance of HE whose providence guided the first hands here is not serving anyone, and it is no accident that for the first time in our nation’s history, there is a real potential for our kids to not live as well as we have. Doing what we have been doing isn’t getting it done, and sadly, our leadership reflects what we have become (No, that isn’t a good thing, R.).

    We have the blueprint. We always have. But if we are not going to follow it, then we may as well not have it at all.

  73. I understand that the people responsible for there being a country didn’t have a problem with such a mix…whether it was a “Creator”, “Nature’s God”, or “Divine Providence”, it all was rooted in a common religious basis, and it wasn’t a belief that our rights came from Allah.

    Makes absolutely no sense. Nature’s God, Creator, and Divine Providence are Allah to Muslims. What are you talking about? It’s still rights granted by the creator.

    Even Jefferson, who clearly had issues with the divinity of Jesus, recognized the God of Abraham and HIS role in human affairs:

    Muslims worship the God of Abraham. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic religions. Again, you’ve lost me.

  74. We aren’t better as a society because kids can’t pray before eating their school lunch

    I beg to differ. As long as my tax dollars fund both your kids and my kids schooling, I don’t need prayer going on. You want your kid to pray at lunch time, put him in Catholic school or some other private sectarian institution.

  75. but the fiction that man can make his own destiny, without the recognition and guidance of HE whose providence guided the first hands here is not serving anyone

    I’m sorry BiW but a good number of people believe that outside of “acts of God” (ironic!) such as earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. that man does control his destiny, and that there is no He.

    You see this is where you go way off the reservation. Our government has NO business being guided by Christianity, any more than it should be guided by any other religious construct. A government wedded to Christian theology is just a kinder gentler form of Sharia law. That’s not what America is about.

  76. Rabbit is absolutely right on the gay marriage thing. Government has no place dictating to various religions how they should define marriage. That is completely within the prerogative of the particular religion. There are Christian churches willing to marry gay people … interesting, don’t you think?

    When it comes to civil marriage, allowing it between a man and a man has zero impact on the legitimacy of hetero marriage. And let’s be careful about legal definitions BiW. There was a time in this country when in a number of states a black man could not marry a white woman. That time was not long ago by the way … 1967 if I’m not mistaken. In our enlightened age, we deemed that immoral. I submit that enlightenment is leading us to the conclusion that same sex couples can love each other as deeply as any hetero couple and deserve legal recognition of that commitment.

    No one is asking for a re-write of the Bible. Your church doesn’t want to marry gays? They should not be compelled to.

  77. Oh, and for the record, BiW, when Obama called on prayer to help us with the Gulf crisis I almost lost my lunch. Reverend Wright or no Rev Wright … Obama is one of yours my friend. He is a Christian and in fact it is that very fact that has prevented him from taking a proper stand on DADT.

  78. He is a Christian and in fact it is that very fact that has prevented him from taking a proper stand on DADT.

    Give me a fucking break. He’s first and foremost a politician, which means that no good son of a bitch will be whatever he thinks will move him further along the food chain.

    Christian my ass… It’s all a matter of convenience to assholes like Chavez.

  79. BiW, Tex,

    Do you hear that buzzing sound? That drone? That is the sound of the flies that would exist if we put all of yesterday’s abortions in one dumpster. Sure, you could use a grain shovel to move the fingers and hands and heads to a more bug proof vessel, if only you could stomach moving the bodies in the same fashion the Nazis did.

    Is there anything more vile, more sinful then the murder of defenseless human beings?

    Abortion is not only endorsed by our government, but subsidized!

    Laws are a codification of the morals of the society they govern?

    I hope not!

    However, if so, your thirst for a governmental hand in upholding expressions of your faith do nothing but endow the government with more street cred when it comes to the most depraved act a human being can take part in, infanticide.

    Law should strive to reflect the collective morals of society. Leave it to the states to decide. Not judges. I agree with you there. I also think you make a good case with common law.

    However, considering our government essentially eats babies, i can’t believe you can stomach it’s bad breath panting on your church.

  80. Rutherford,

    Muslims worship the God of Abraham. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic religions. Again, you’ve lost me.

    You are clueless about the world’s three great religions…the God of Abraham and the little god of Mohammad are as diametrically opposed as it gets. Mohammad, “the greatest prophet” didn’t even appear on the scene for 2,700 years after Abraham as the word “Allah” was simply adopted from one of 360 “gods” that the Mohammad’s pagan ancestors worshiped. If I am wrong Rutherford, why have Jews and the descendants of Ishmael been fighting for the better part of 4,000 years? Which by the way, was prophesied about Ishmael’s descendants all the way back while Abraham still alive.

    Go ask a practicing Muslim who Jesus is Rutherford and then tell them after you’ve heard the word “prophet”, explain to them you that consider Jesus being equivalent to Allah. See what kind of a reaction you get – I dare you. 😈

    ——————

    Rabbit, I lend absolutely no authority to the Federal Government when it comes to the issue of marriage. The government has no authority. Marriage will always be between one man and one woman.

    What the instigators of gay marriage are doing is not asking for equal rights. The issue is not rights, because we already have equal rights. Any man may marry any woman in this country as long as she is not already married.

    What gays are asking for is our compulsory acceptance of a redefinition of marriage between between same sex couples as equal. Since I believe holiness of marriage can only be ordained only by our Creator, I refuse to recognize the authority of our gov’t, for the federal gov’t is under the authority of God whether people like Rutherford like to admit it or not.

    He’ll discover that the hard way one day.

    And unless you

  81. Rutherford,

    I do hope you recognize that sitting in a church pew each Sunday no more makes you Christian that sitting in your living room makes you a TV.

    Obama’s faith is political opportunism. You’ve made a statement hear that rings true, yet you don’t seem to realize it applies to Obama. No atheist would stand a chance of holding a higher office in America – and at least at this moment, I agree with that opinion.

    For Obama to get elected, it was necessary to play church. But virtually everything he stands for is opposed to the instruction in the Word of God. If he truly was a man of God, you and millions of others of your ilk would hate Obama.

  82. “What’s your plan this August Alfie? Doing anything exciting?”

    At his blog he said work. Which I assume is not exciting.

    “There are a good number of folks who want to mix Christianity and politics in this country and I don’t see that bothering any of you.”

    I don’t want anyone’s religion telling me what to do.

    “As long as my tax dollars fund both your kids and my kids schooling, ”

    Nice try there, fella.

    Your tax dollars don’t fund the school BIC’s kids go to unless you both live in the same city or state. Because the taxes that fund schools come from property taxes. Other funding comes from the state.

    What goes on in a school should be the decision of the local board that runs it. If people don’t like what the board decides, there are a couple of options:

    1) Vote with a ballot
    2) Vote with your feet

  83. “You are clueless about the world’s three great religions”

    No he’s not. You are. About 1 of them, anyway.

    We’ve already covered this elsewhere. Religion is all about perspective. It doesn’t matter if you or any other Christian believe that Allah is the same diety as Jehovah. Muslims do believe it. The perspective of a non-Muslim does not matter.

    “the word “Allah” was simply adopted from one of 360 “gods” that the Mohammad’s pagan ancestors worshiped.”

    The word Allah is Arabic for The God. Al Illah.

    “If I am wrong Rutherford, why have Jews and the descendants of Ishmael been fighting for the better part of 4,000 years?”

    What kind of proof is that? Shiites and Sunnis all pray to Allah, and then they go slaughter each other. Catholics and Protestants all prayed to God, and then they went and slaughtered each other.

    “Go ask a practicing Muslim who Jesus is Rutherford and then tell them after you’ve heard the word “prophet”, explain to them you that consider Jesus being equivalent to Allah. See what kind of a reaction you get – I dare you.”

    This is another bogus argument. Jesus and God are only 1 in Trinitarian Christianity. Go tell a Jew that you consider Jesus to be the equivalent of god. When they say you are wrong, does that then mean they don’t pray to your god, either?

    Go ask your Muslim neighbor if he thinks the 2 of you pray to the same god. He’ll tell you “yes” just like he did the last time you asked him.

  84. Qur’an 4:163-165
    Lo! We inspire thee (Muhammad) as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as we imparted unto David the Psalms; And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allah spake directly unto Moses; Messengers of good cheer and off warning, in order that mankind might have no argument against Allah after the messengers. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

    Qur’an 6:84-86
    And We bestowed upon him Isaac and Jacob; each of them We guided; and Noah did We guide aforetime; and of his seed (We guided) David and Solomon and Job and Joseph and Moses and Aaron. Thus do We reward the good. And Zachariah and John and Jesus and Elias. Each one (of them) was of the righteous. And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot. Each one of them did We prefer above (Our) creatures….

  85. I beg to differ. As long as my tax dollars fund both your kids and my kids schooling, I don’t need prayer going on. You want your kid to pray at lunch time, put him in Catholic school or some other private sectarian institution.

    I see. Freedom of religion except if you are somewhere where the law compells you to be.

    Nope. No irony here.

  86. Makes absolutely no sense. Nature’s God, Creator, and Divine Providence are Allah to Muslims. What are you talking about? It’s still rights granted by the creator.

    But it wasn’t to the men who signed that document and took the steps that came after. That’s the point. Each and every signatory hailed from a state that officially subscribed to a sect of Christian belief. “Allah”, ancestors, and who ever the hell the Zoroastrians followed did not figure in to their thinking in the slightest.

    Muslims worship the God of Abraham. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic religions. Again, you’ve lost me.

    No, muslims pay lip service to the God of Abraham. Their doctrine of lying to “unbelievers”…not a feature of the God of Abraham, BTW, means that their “people of the book” spiel is nothing more than saying “Nice doggie” until they can find a big enough rock, or their nubers are sufficient to have that whole “Submit or die” conversation that they so love to have.

    You’re right about one thing, R. You ARE lost, but I’m not the one who lost you.

    You see this is where you go way off the reservation. Our government has NO business being guided by Christianity, any more than it should be guided by any other religious construct. A government wedded to Christian theology is just a kinder gentler form of Sharia law. That’s not what America is about.

    Do you have any idea how much you sound like a six year old stamping his foot and screaming that the sky is red, merely because you wish it so? Rutherford, the history is there. It is unmistakable. You and the ones you sympathize with can stomp your feet and deny it until the tops of your heads are in danger of being blown off by your elevated blood pressure, but it cannot change history. As for the “no different than Sharia law” nonsense, such ignorance is really atmospheres below your intellect.

    There are Christian churches willing to marry gay people … interesting, don’t you think?

    You mean the “christian” churches that stick their fingers in their ears and say “Lalalalalalala I can’t hear you!” when you ask them point blank how they reconcile such a position with the explicit prohibions and condemnations of homosexuality found in both the Old and New Testaments? The churches that are one their way to becoming or already are nothing more than glorifies social clubs, preaching the gospel of “I’m OK, you’re OK” to congregations of itching ears? The “christian” churches which try very hard to avoid any mention of anything difficult, like God, because they might offend a parishioner and lose that member of the flock’s dollars?

    When it comes to civil marriage, allowing it between a man and a man has zero impact on the legitimacy of hetero marriage.

    Yes, it does. Giving it society’s imprimatur is no different than giving it mine, or Tex’s. If you had read the article I linked on Perry, or had read the Perry decision yourself, you would know that, and you would know that the judge in the Perry case knows that.

    And let’s be careful about legal definitions BiW.

    Yes, let’s. Afterall, we weren’t careful with the legal defintion of “privacy”, and as a result, it now means the right of a mother to kill her child.

    There was a time in this country when in a number of states a black man could not marry a white woman. That time was not long ago by the way … 1967 if I’m not mistaken.

    Sooooooo not the same thing and you should be ashamed of yourself for equating race with sexual preference, as it cheapens the sacrifice of everyone who fought to for the recognition of their rights regardless of race. Loving v Virgina was still about a right that we can all agree that we have…the right of a man to marry a woman, and vice versa.

    In our enlightened age, we deemed that immoral. I submit that enlightenment is leading us to the conclusion that same sex couples can love each other as deeply as any hetero couple and deserve legal recognition of that commitment.

    You can submit whatever you like, but the fact remains, if we allow one unelected man or a small group of unelected people to decide that we are going to declare that all choices are equal, and that they are equal to unalienable rights on which our liberty is predicated, in the midst of legal decisions that by their own words clearly indicate that they are NOT, then you need to prepare yourself for what that means. I don’t think you have given that nearly enough thought.

  87. Abortion is not only endorsed by our government, but subsidized!

    Laws are a codification of the morals of the society they govern?

    And how did we end up with that law, DR?

    It was a group of unelected judges, rallying around one unelected judge’s opinion which also discovered a “right” that was not plainly stated, and had no historical precedent, but was devined from penubras which even in the eyes of liberal legal scholars was nothing more than making shit up.

    I hate that law, DR. I hate it with the heat of a thousand suns, and I speak against it at every opportunity. It is nothing less than a bigger injustice than slavery, and slavery, denies the victim of one of the most basic rights that our nation was founded upon. And it still is not worth throwing my government away. Governments, like people, make mistakes. And governments, like people, can see the errors of their ways. Sometimes they require conflicts to solve, like slavery. But it can happen. And in the case of abortion, is happening. The approval numbers for the practice are turning, and the single biggest group that is looking at that madness, and seeing it for the insanity that it is? Young people! The generation that embraced the eating of its young is reaping that reward, DR, and I fully expect that within another generation, that practice will have been fully recognized by society for what it is, and it will have been appropriately dealt with.

    And DR? It wasn’t the secular voices who have been condemning the practice…it was the Christians.

    However, considering our government essentially eats babies, i can’t believe you can stomach it’s bad breath panting on your church.

    I don’t, but I do the heavy lifting that I can, and I expect God to do the rest…that is the essence of faith, and if it worked for Moses, it will work for me.

  88. R says: “Ooooo, don’t like that idea do you? Don’t like the true consequence of your bigotry …

    What’s amazing to me is that you pretend not to understand the slap to the victims that live in NY (my older brother being one of them) yet have the tamarity to call us bigots for not embracing the insult.

    The religious freedoms you so recklessly invoke are not the issue. If they were, I better hear the exact same defense for those dipshits from the Westboro Baptist Church and their so-called religious rights. Oh, but they’re rural, white, Americans, right?

    “We live in murky ethical times gentlemen. Perhaps the answers come to you easier than they come to me?”

    Sure you do. The answer is to smuggly accuse others of racism and bigotry.

    It’s like when Graychin said something to the effect of “what are is that SCARY blackman the concerns you.” Yeah, the fact that the scary blackman comprises approximately 80% of my neighborhood doesn’t stop the accusation from being made by your kind. Is the need for a sense of moral superiority require such corrput rationalizations?

    And fuck you for calling people that oppose the mosque bigots. Really. They’re victims Rutherford.

  89. Huck, you’re as dumb about Judaism and Christianity as Rutherford is. No, make that dumber because Rutherford generally has the good sense to let it go.

    Now, would you like me to humiliate the atheist with his lack of knowledge? Or would you like to retract that last statement mofo?

    Better yet, I’ve grown a little weary of these conversations with your arrogant ass. Why don’t we bet about a hundred bucks before I expose you as a another irreligious, overeducated, underachieving schmuck and prove to you that your on the road to the same irrelevancy in academia that Hippie Professor is?

    If you’d like to bet more, be my guest. I get tired of beating a dead horse…

  90. Better yet, I’ve grown a little weary of these conversations with your arrogant ass.

    Tex, why all the sturm und drang? Huck who usually thinks I’m full of crap came to my defense because I made a very elementary statement of fact that even a religious ignoramus like myself is capable of getting right.

    Allah is to Islam as “God” is to Christianity. Fact. How can you dispute it?

    Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is an Abrahamic religion. Fact. How can you dispute it?

    And bless his conservative heart, Huck went a step further that I didn’t go because I knew you’d accuse me of getting out of my depth. Comparing Jesus to Allah makes no sense because to a Muslim, or a Jew, Jesus is not God (i.e, they don’t recognize the trinity) so the only valid comparison is comparing God to Allah and keeping Jesus out of it.

    None of this is the least bit controversial. It is as far as I understand basic tenets of the religions. So why it’s cause for you to go off on Huck is beyond me.

  91. And now Huck … your school district distinction was a little silly. Yes I know that I don’t pay taxes into BiW’s public school system but someone with my political views does and someone with BiW’s perspective pays into mine.

    Bottom line, if the only place a child had to pray was the public classroom, I’d think it an unfair restriction to not let him do so. But that is not the case. There is no reason why prayer (an expression of one’s private relationship with God) needs to go on in a publicly funded extension of the government. I’m already not tickled with the degree to which religion is present in our government functions (prayers in Congress, words from a minister at inaugurations) but I can live with it. That’s adults who can make their decisions. Kids are different.

    The fact BiW is that when a public school sets aside time for prayer they are promoting the establishment of a religion (or set of religions) over no religion at all. That is in violation of the first amendment. Period. Time to move on.

  92. Giving it society’s imprimatur is no different than giving it mine, or Tex’s.

    Ah so you and Tex are the arbiters of society’s views? Capital punishment is legal in many states in this country. It represents the views of society. I happen not to agree with it. Because someone lives in a state where capital punishment is legal, we are to assume that individual favors capital punishment? People could “gay-marry’ all over the place and I assure you, I would never assume you and Tex were in favor of it.

    if we allow one unelected man or a small group of unelected people to decide that we are going to declare that all choices are equal,

    What do you think happened with Prop 8? We allowed morality by popular vote … a very slippery slope indeed. We allowed a bunch of unelected people (many ignorant in my estimation) to restrict the freedom of another group of people for no earthly sensible reason.

    While I’m on the topic …. what is this nonsense about a gay judge needing to recuse himself from this case? Why would a straight judge not be assumed to come to the case with his or her own biases? This is a case in which everyone has an affinity with one side or the other … straight or gay. No one can be assumed to be neutral or to put it differently, everyone has an equal chance in this case to be neutral. The judge’s orientation is irrelevant.

  93. Huck is an arrogant asshole without the credential to back it up. You’re too fucking stupid to understand why it’s offensive. I’ve had it on autopilot for months because frankly this place bores me. Well, I just got “unbored.”

    I’ve let this Red Pill/Fucking Hypocrite Huck asshole slide with his little witticisms about the so-called equality and derivation of “religions”, have attempted to be cordial, but I’m tired of his stupidity and superficial intellect. Starting this week, we’ll have a little “discussion” of the religion of pieces and cut through the Fucking Huck Hypocrite Pill’s bullshit double speak, mealy-mouthed defense, and lack of literacy. For you, I’ve been on “good behavior” too long and you mistook it as weakness. That was your mistake.

    Though I must admit, I get so tired of your idiocy concerning this subject anymore, I’m just about to the point of putting out the welcoming mat for Mo and his boys so you can get a real idea of theocratic tyranny. Maybe I’ll assist them in strapping you with a suicide vest just for grins so I can say, “Gee Rutherford, I guess you were right – all religions are the same” Assuming you survive that, maybe I’ll park your ass in a mosque so you can wail five times a day in the air while Mo kicks your ass to Mecca. We’ll see if you can differentiate the difference then asshole in “religions.”

    I spent all afternoon at Habitat for Humanity working on someone’s home who I wouldn’t know from Adam, an organization started by a real Christian by the way, and then I come back and read this shit. You know what? After working in a hundred degree heat on a stranger’s house, and believe me I’ve got a lot better things to be doing with my own time, I had a personal epiphany. Why am I trying to do the right thing without even so much as gratitude from millions of leeches and maggots like you, who then take in one step further and mock the very essence of what I believe while they sit on their ass and blog?

    Capiche?

    Your snide comments about Christianity are wearing real thin. I’m now praying you learn a lesson the hard way. 😉

  94. What does your very commendable charitable work have to do with the price of tea in China? I think you’re angry because in your haste to jump on me, you slammed me on the basics and then Huck called you on it.

    I can’t find in your most recent tirade an answer to the question. At least BiW attempted an answer … claiming, if I understand him correctly, that Islam nods at Abraham conveniently and then goes its own way. That at least provides a biased answer.

    I don’t think either of you acknowledged whether Allah = God. Mind you … not that Allah is your God … but that to a Muslim Allah is God.

    Again Tex, putting aside the fact that you’ve obviously had a lousy day, why are you not at least acknowledging the basics? The basics don’t weaken your overall argument that Islam has a tyrannical streak. So again, why do these very simple statements make you go ballistic? These basics don’t even mock your religion.

  95. “Now, would you like me to humiliate the atheist with his lack of knowledge?”

    Give it your best shot. Educate the savage on a religion you know nothing about.

    “Better yet, I’ve grown a little weary of these conversations with your arrogant ass.”

    I’m sure you have. Probably because they continue to show your ignorance on the topic. But rest assured. If you continue to talk about it, I will continue to correct you when you are wrong. That’s what we do here, remember?

    And on this topic, you are wrong.

    I’ve said this more than once. In a discussion about the Muslim god, there is no place for Christian belief. Even if that discussion is about their gods being the same. It doesn’t matter in a discussion about the Muslim god that you think that god is different than yours. All that matters in a discussion about the Muslim god is what Muslims believe. You basing who their god is on your Christian beliefs makes about as much sense as you claiming an apple isn’t a fruit because it doesn’t taste like the orange you ate yesterday.

    Jews don’t believe Christ and God share the same essence. Does that mean Christians and Jews don’t pray to the same god? Of course it doesn’t.

    The Moon God theory is debated by historians. If we go ahead and accept it as fact, that doesn’t change anything. Again, religion is about perspective. If Muhammad held up an idol of the Mood God Allah and said “this is the one and only god. It’s the god of Abraham, and he speaks to me” then that’s all that matters. It’s their god, they can define him how they want.

    I know you get all bent out of shape over this, Tex. But the facts remain. Muslims believe they pray to the same god that you pray to.

    Get over it.

    “And now Huck … your school district distinction was a little silly.”

    No. It was your comment that was silly.

  96. Ah so you and Tex are the arbiters of society’s views?

    DID YOU READ THE DECISION?

    DID YOU READ THE JUDGE’S OWN WORDS?

    DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE I LINKED FOR YOU??

    Because if you did, you need to reread them, until you get it. And if you did not, then you really should quit sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “Lalalalalallalalalala…I can’t hear you!” if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you are indistinguishable from all the other children on the Left who “know” so many things that simply aren’t so.

  97. You basing who their god is on your Christian beliefs makes about as much sense as you claiming an apple isn’t a fruit because it doesn’t taste like the orange you ate yesterday.

    LOL that was good.

  98. What do you think happened with Prop 8? We allowed morality by popular vote … a very slippery slope indeed. We allowed a bunch of unelected people (many ignorant in my estimation) to restrict the freedom of another group of people for no earthly sensible reason.

    We the people corrected an activist court…that is perfectly in keeping with the concept of the consent of the governed. Your calling the electorate ignorant threatens to kill us all from irony poinsoning.

  99. Questions for Tex and BiW:

    The Dead Rabbit is not using the Socratic Method, here. These are real questions. I’m not narrowing in on a point, per say.

    I don’t understand how you dudes can consider a Buddhist couple to be legitimately married.

    I don’t understand why you don’t request government involvement in other sacraments. For instance, if you feel it’s important for the government to define marriage or reinforce your definition, why don’t you also desire the government to define/reinforce proper baptism or first communion?

    Although I arrived at my pro-life stance without Christianity (as far as I’m aware) I agree if society hadn’t turned it’s back on the teachings found in Christianity we wouldn’t have had the 3,700 abortions that took place today.

    If gay marriage passed on a ballot, would you accept it?

    Is the death penalty Christian?

    I’m against the death penalty on paper. However, anyone ever hurts my family I will be the executioner. This makes me a complete hypocrite on the subject. (And maybe even a hypocrite when it comes to abortion)

    Considering your take on gay marriage, why are you not pushing for laws that reflect one of the most important doctrines of Christianity in it’s entirety: The 10 Commandments? Why aren’t you guys also pushing for a law barring disrespect of one’s parents or coveting your neighbor’s wife?

    Look fellas, I’m a confused man who struggles with his faith. I’m not trying to be trite, nor am I trying to poke holes in Christianity. I’m not even capable of these things. Jesus’ teachings seem perfect to me. If only I could reach the guy consistently. Or even 10% of the time.

    I still don’t completely understand your thinking on gay marriage.

    It’s not that I don’t see where you are coming from, its that I don’t see you uniformly applying the same argument to other facets of life and law.

  100. I don’t understand how you dudes can consider a Buddhist couple to be legitimately married.

    A friend of mine is a Vietnamese Buddhist who happens to be a Chiropractor. He married a Jewish girl in a Buddhist ceremony, in Houston. They have a pair of kids, nice home, and a thriving practice. I’d kill for them, no questions asked. Now, what was the question?

    You have no problems with the way you think. Enjoy life and don’t sweat the minor details.

  101. And the gay marriage thing? Honestly, who gives a shit? It’s like Homer Simpson once said, “Hey, if they want to be as miserable as the rest of us, let ’em.”

  102. Scratch my questions on the sacraments. That question was a little too Catholic. I forgot that most of the sacraments are not recognized by Protestants. At least I think that is the case.

  103. I went deep into the country to a one ring circus (from Oklahoma), yesterday.

    Felt like I was transported in time to the 1930’s.

    Shit made me nervous as hell.

    Nothing but a little guard rail between me, my 11 month old and 3 fucking war elephants. Camels were going at a full trot just feet from where we were sitting in the front row.

    Tigers looked pissed off. A few didn’t want to participate.

    It’s was cool and little man was mesmerized. I spent the whole time looking for escape routes.

    Weirdest thing was that in the middle of nowhere, and hour and half outside of the city, I coincidentally found myself sitting right next to a guy from my neighborhood. We both agreed we should be packing in case one of these animals got loose from the circus gypsies.

  104. I don’t think either of you acknowledged whether Allah = God. Mind you … not that Allah is your God … but that to a Muslim Allah is God.

    That’s not the question dummy. You and the woefully ignorant Red Pill masquerading as Fucking Hypocrite are claiming they are one in the same. And I’m going to prove you both wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt for a price when Pill put’s his money where his mouth is. I can’t believe this peacock now thinks he’s some brilliant tactician because he scores a History Degree in his 40s. 🙄

    ———————-

    Here Rutherford – next time you hint at Christianity’s evils and use some infant murdering bastard as George Tiller and your personal hero (I’m glad the evil SOB is gone) as evidence of Christianity’s shortcomings, try to set groups like this to memory who do things like this every day without fanfare, but criticism from scum like you and peacock Huck:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/07/afghanistan.americans.killed/index.html?hpt=T2

  105. I don’t understand why you don’t request government involvement in other sacraments. For instance, if you feel it’s important for the government to define marriage or reinforce your definition, why don’t you also desire the government to define/reinforce proper baptism or first communion?

    I think you’re addressing this or asking your question ass backwards Rabbit. You should be addressing your questions to Rutherford.

    I am not asking government to define marriage. I’m asking government to butt out and let society define marriage – there was a vote, was there not? And there has been one vote after another, and still our bullying government and hacks like Rutherford, who don’t like the outcomes of the vote, continue to demand our compulsory acceptance of gay “marriage.” So now they’re going to do it by judicial fiat.

    As far as enforcement of the 10 Commandments by our government? How many times have I said to have government enforce the 10 Commandments would be equivalent to the Taliban? The matter is an issue of the heart and not obedience to a government, but to God.

    Unlike Rutherford’s stupid assertions, there is no Christian worth his salt asking for a theocracy. Rutherford should be glad he’s not right. If he were, his time in America would be very short lived.

    And I should add that Rutherford is as cowardly in his assertions as the gays are in attacking the Mormon Church about Prop 8, but leaving Compton and Oakland well enough alone. Notice that his application only extends to those where he feels “safe.”

    Even Rutherford knows he is lying.

  106. “I am not asking government to define marriage. I’m asking government to butt out and let society define marriage – there was a vote, was there not?”-Tex

    It clicked!

    I’m not the smartest man, at times.

    I get it now.

    I still maintain that gay marriage is pretty low on my priority list. But at least I get where you guys are coming from.

    I agree. Let the people decide what marriage is.

    One last question and I’m done with this stuff.

    You would be OK with a state approving gay marriage via ballot?

  107. This does bring me back to Rutherford’s original point. Would it be cool if the government didn’t acknowledge marriage at all? People would sign a legal contract in civil union. But, the “marriage” part would be only with the church.

  108. And the gay marriage thing? Honestly, who gives a shit? It’s like Homer Simpson once said, “Hey, if they want to be as miserable as the rest of us, let ’em.”

    That is friggin’ classic.

  109. Ehhh Tex, why do you keep throwing charitable works in my face? It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The dude that killed Tiller is a cold blooded murderer. It doesn’t matter how much you hated the victim. The victim’s killer was still a killer. The extent to which he was influenced by his Christian beliefs parallels the dementia of the radical Muslim.

    Put on a blanket or something, your hypocrisy is showing.

    Furthermore Rabbit’s questions are right on the money. Your answer is lame in several ways. First, the public voted on Prop 8. You think that vote just sprang up out of no where? It was facilitated by the government. Voting in this country is a government sanctioned right (thank goodness). So the notion you can separate the prop 8 vote from government is absurd. The only way people effect legislation in this country is through government. Some states allow for a referendum. It’s a direct exercise of government by the people. It is NOT the government keeping its nose out of marriage.

    Second you have no understanding of the role of the judicial. Ever heard of checks and balances? The judicial is there to make sure the legislature (or the people in the case of a referendum vote) do not enact unconstitutional laws. That’s what the judge is there for. In 2008, the “people spoke” and they spoke in a discriminatory way. That was corrected this week.

    Finally, the blacks who overwhelmingly supported prop 8 were influenced by their Christian upbringing. It is one of the rare cases where the Christian religion can be used to unnecessarily hurt another human being. It’s a shame.

  110. Today on the internet radio show, I brought up this question to which you and BiW have no answer.

    The conservatives yell and scream about patriotism and family values yet in the two biggest gay rights issues, conservatives contradict themselves. They want to prevent homosexuals from forming stable families. They want to prevent homosexuals from openly expressing their patriotism by serving in the armed forces without lying about themselves.

    It’s called rank hypocrisy.

  111. I get it now.

    F*ck! No Rabbit you don’t get it. You’re letting Tex bamboozle you with f*cking foolishness. See my comment above. The will of the people of CA was expressed by a vote. Voting is an exercise of people interacting with the government. Tex does not want the gov out of marriage. He’s full of sh*t. He wants gay marriage outlawed across the land.

    C’mon man … don’t be such an easy mark! 😦

  112. “You and the woefully ignorant Red Pill masquerading as Fucking Hypocrite are claiming they are one in the same. ”

    No, that is not what I am claiming. Get it right.

    I am claiming that Muslims believe they are the same.

    Not what I believe. Not what Rutherford believes. Not what you believe.

    What Muslims believe.

    Was that slow enough?

  113. But you see Huck that Tex and BiW would have no problem if Muslims believed in Tex’s God and the divinity of Jesus Christ. In short, Muslims would be ok if they were just … Christians. 🙂

  114. Hurry, hurry hurry. Step right up and see the new brand of patriot who restricts liberty and freedom of religion. It’s the latest attraction at the conservative 3 ring circus.

  115. “…but criticism from scum like you and peacock Huck”

    You mean like when I insist we should stay in Afghanistan to protect it, and ourselves, from those types of people?

    Pull your head out of your ass, Tex. You’re obviously not getting enough oxygen.

    “But you see Huck that Tex and BiW would have no problem if Muslims believed in Tex’s God and the divinity of Jesus Christ. In short, Muslims would be ok if they were just … Christians.”

    I’m not prepared to go that far, Rutherford. There’s a ton of differences between Islam and Christianity other than the issue of the divinity of Christ. Maybe even 2 tons.

    “Hurry, hurry hurry. Step right up and see the new brand of patriot who restricts liberty and freedom of religion. It’s the latest attraction at the conservative 3 ring circus.”

    You’re about as hard-headed as Tex is, aren’t you? Repeating something over and over while you scream and hollar and jump up and down isn’t going to change what has and hasn’t been said.

    Nobody here has advocated restricting the freedom of religion. We’ve told you that about a dozen times now.

    What we wanted was the effort made to reach a concensus where there have yet been none attempted.

    Why do you refuse to comprehend it?

    Again…. WE DON’T WANT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH THE MOSQUE. WE DON’T WANT TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF RELIGION. WE WANT PEOPLE TO REALIZE THERE ARE OPPOSING VIEWS AND TO TAKE THEM INTO MORE CONSIDERATION THAN THEY HAVE.

    Braille is the next step, Rutherford.

  116. Ehhh Tex, why do you keep throwing charitable works in my face? It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The dude that killed Tiller is a cold blooded murderer. It doesn’t matter how much you hated the victim.

    I noticed you failed to make mention those evil Christian missionaries murdered on the road by your moderate Muslim clan. How easy it is to ignore the obvious when it doesn’t fit the coward’s narrative that you display here daily and on that joke of an internet radio thing you do. Do you honestly think anybody listens to that bleeding, stinking hole of a program? What a fucking waste of the EM spectrum.

    I throw your works at you because it’s the clearest indicator you’re a smooth talking phony – Rev. Jesse Love Child phony. And because you’re a fucking coward – a benefactor of Christianity which you mock. You’re worse than a traitor – you’re a maggot. I really, really do hope you experience Islam Rutherford. I want you so fucked up in the worst way, that you beg for mercy before they cut your tongue out.

    But I know full well you’re not near as brave as you like us to believe. A gutless turd like you will “get religion” real quick when really threatened, and the only thing my type will be hearing will be “HELP ME, HELP ME.” You’ll bend over crawl to Mecca so fast the day that happens, you’re ass will smoke. You’re nothing but a messenger boy and will be the day you die.

    ———————

    The conservatives yell and scream about patriotism and family values yet in the two biggest gay rights issues, conservatives contradict themselves. They want to prevent homosexuals from forming stable families. They want to prevent homosexuals from openly expressing their patriotism by serving in the armed forces without lying about themselves.

    Still ramming that round pecker up the old mustard road stable, hey? Homosexuals don’t form stable families any more than hippie communes form stable families – two mentally ill parents don’t make a stable family numb nuts. What liberal drivel.

    But serving in the Armed Forces? You kidding? Here’s my don’t ask, don’t tell policy. I’ll put you up with the peaceniks to double your chances of eliminationdisplaying your patriotism. Oh, I’m a big believer in giving your ilk the opportunity to display bravery and patriotism. That sends a tingle up my leg.

  117. OK, I have to part company with Tex here.

    I don’t hope R gets a taste of Life with Islam™, or that other wacky reality show, Sharia My Life™.

    I wouldn’t wish either on my worst enemy, and I certainly wouldn’t wish it on a leftie. I simply couldn’t say “I told you so” loud enough and long enough to drown out the screams of “It isn’t fair!!!!!! right before the stoning started or scimitars started falling.

    Braille is the next step, Rutherford.

    Well, drawing it in crayon certainly isn’t working. Still, on the topics at hand, I suspect that his fingers are as blind as his eyes.

    I hope you get to have a long and safe life, R. I hope the laughter that you share with your equally blind liberal freinds isn’t stopped by a band of humorless moon god worshiping savages.

  118. Huck, here is the problem. What evidence do you have that the imam didn’t take sensitivities into consideration and came to the same conclusion that he did? The conclusion he came to does not dictate what thought process he went through to get there.

    The only satisfactory conclusion he could have come to was to not build on the site. That’s the only conclusion that would convince you that he weighed his options.

    Forget about the new construction. Since we now know that for at least a year neighborhood Muslims have already been praying at the site, should the imam ask them to stop and pray further away from Ground Zero?

    And yes …. I get it … nobody here is advocating government intervention to stop the mosque. But then why is everyone here so pissed at Bloomberg? Why are negative motives immediately ascribed to the Manhattan borough President? Government is not exactly getting an A+ from you guys on this.

    P.S. Yeah you’re right … I’m as hard-headed as Tex. If anything good can be gleaned from Tex’s tirades it’s his passion. That’s commendable.

  119. Rutherford, do you feel polygamy should be legal?

    Wow, damn good question. As you might guess, I’m torn on that one. My perspective of human nature tells me that multiple wives don’t work. Somebody gets the short stick. But that is really none of my business. So I’m not sure why polygamy (involving only adults) shouldn’t be legal. One of the problems with many of the cases of polygamous communities that we’ve heard about is that minors are involved. That’s a problem.

  120. Homosexuals don’t form stable families any more than hippie communes form stable families – two mentally ill parents don’t make a stable family numb nuts. What liberal drivel.

    That comment was the only thing understandable I could glean from your latest contribution.The rest was sound and fury signifying nothing.

    So, I assume you support Sharron Angle’s supposition that gay adoption be prohibited? Now she won’t commit to the next step which is to remove children from currently gay homes. Mind you, she didn’t say no … she just didn’t say yes. How are you on that one Tex? Wanna keep those kids from being raised by perverts?

    I’m curious Tex what success level you’re comparing gay relationships to. Is it the 50% divorce rate among hetero’s?

    Of course, I’m forgetting that over a year ago when I gave you first hand testimony that a former college roommate of mine had formed a loving relationship with another man and they had two children that were thriving, you completely discounted it.

  121. I hope the laughter that you share with your equally blind liberal freinds isn’t stopped by a band of humorless moon god worshiping savages.

    Thank you BiW. How will I know these savages? By their dress or by which holy book they carry with them?

    You know I really need to watch the old original version of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” because my understanding is it was a huge poke at the communist paranoia of the age. I see that paranoia now too. After reading lots over the past couple of years, much of it supplied by you guys, I readily admit that Islam is a religion in crisis. There needs to be serious house cleaning there. But I’m not ready to de-legitimize a centuries old religion because a scary number of them act like lunatics. Indeed the very religion that you and Tex would be happy for me to embrace has had it’s share of loons over the years. But you want me to disregard that. Very selective if you ask me.

  122. I have a question … aimed primarily at Huck because I believe he has a better handle on the study of comparative religion than anyone else here at the moment.

    If we look at the centuries that various religions have existed, can it be empirically proven that any one of them suffered more persecution than any of the others?

    I’m asking this for a simple reason. When we look at a dysfunctional human being very often we can trace that dysfunction to trauma they received growing up. If I extrapolate that to groups of people, I think the same notion might apply. Hence might the violence and anti-social behavior of a particular religion be the end result of a greater degree of being persecuted over the years than other religions?

    I’m just asking.

  123. Uh…the Imam doesn’t even believe there is enough evidence to blame Al Queda for the attacks. Sensitive?

  124. DR, I haven’t read much on the imam beyond what some of you guys have reported. Let’s say he’s a first class jerk. That means the neighborhood Muslims are out of luck?

    After all this hoopla, I wouldn’t be surprised if the activities at this mosque receive considerable scrutiny once it is built. If it turns out to be a terrorist training school, then we’ll need to intervene. That’s the price of living in a free country. You can’t intervene until there is good evidence of a major f*ck up in the making.

    That’s where we went wrong on the Fort Hood dude. He was a major f*ck up in the making and we ignored it until it was too late.

  125. “Huck, here is the problem. What evidence do you have that the imam didn’t take sensitivities into consideration and came to the same conclusion that he did?”

    I think a meeting of the minds could have found a resolution to this that would suit the sensibilities of more people. That’s all. I don’t see why it has to be that specific site. What’s wrong with a few more blocks north? Midtown is nice and still in walking distance. Hell, I read an article today that was saying that they really don’t own the whole building after all. Some of it belongs to an NYC utility company or something like that. If I see it again I’ll post a link.

    What irritates me more is your insistance that we want to start regulating religion. Argue against us, fine. But argue against our actual positions, not ones you make up.

    “If we look at the centuries that various religions have existed, can it be empirically proven that any one of them suffered more persecution than any of the others?”

    I don’t see why it couldn’t as long as there was an accepted way to measure such a thing.

    “Hence might the violence and anti-social behavior of a particular religion be the end result of a greater degree of being persecuted over the years than other religions?”

    If you were asking in a general sense, I’d say its possible. Mainly because I don’t like the word “impossible.”

    But there are many reasons why it would be a mistake to equate that to what we are seeing with Islam, if that is why you are asking.

  126. “Christians being attacked with Molotov cocktails in Malaysia becuase they use the word Allah as the word for God in the bible.”

    I don’t know about the word “Allah” being a Muslim-only term, but I’d say it is definately an Arabic-only term. As such, I don’t see any reason why Malaysian Christians would want to use it, or in what context it would be appropriate for them to do so. The CIA Factbook doesn’t list Arabic as a language for Malaysia, which means it’s probably only spoken there by Muslims, and probably only for religious purposes.

    Of course none of that excuses burning things.

  127. LOL Rabbit how many permutations are you going to throw at me? “Rutherford, would you be ok with a man marrying two other men, one woman, one horse and a duckbill platypus?” ROTFL

    This is the question we need to ponder in a modern society. Which social constructs lead to a stronger society and which lead to a weaker society? Truth is as long as we’re talking marriage, the sexuality is irrelevant since some married couples don’t have sex. So the question is do poly-amorous relationships deserve the legal protection of marriage?

    Tough call. We need to think about ramifications. If a commune of people all claim to be inter-married than how does inheritance work? How does sharing of benefits such as health care work?

    I’m a live-and-let-live social liberal. I do recognize however that certain constructs strain our legal system. A single gay couple (i.e. two men or two women) does not strain our legal system one bit.

  128. “As such, I don’t see any reason why Malaysian Christians would want to use it”-Red Pill

    If it’s a cultural norm for most people in Malaysia to refer to God as Allah, you don’t think it would make at least some sense that Christians would also use this word?

  129. “As such, I don’t see any reason why Malaysian Christians would want to use it”-Red Pill

    If it’s a cultural norm for most people in Malaysia to refer to God as Allah, you don’t think it would make at least some sense that Christians would also use this word?

    If Huck’s hypothesis is correct, it would mark them as apostates (muslims who saw the light and left the fatih) which of course, that tollerant and peaceful religion marks for death.

  130. Oh well BiW, maybe this Con-Ed fly in the ointment will get you your wish and the mosque will be a no go.

    As for waiter one day, developer the next … you’re acting like you need 10 years of “developer school” to be a developer.

    You obviously don’t know too many Indians. They can be computer programmer one year and own a hotel the next. I submit the dude was a “waiter with other plans” back in 2002.

    LOL “waiter with other plans” … boy did I step into that one. I can’t wait for that to be pounced upon! 😀

  131. But there are many reasons why it would be a mistake to equate that to what we are seeing with Islam, if that is why you are asking.

    That’s exactly why I am asking. So you would say (and I don’t challenge this … I honestly don’t know) that historically, Islam cannot point to a history of oppression any worse than any other religion?

    If that is the case, then I think we still need to dig deeper into the roots of the radicalism. I find it very hard to stomach that the Koran is an inherently evil book.

  132. “…historically, Islam cannot point to a history of oppression any worse than any other religion?”

    Correct. In fact, most invaders that entered the region of the Middle East ended up converting to Islam, rather than oppressing it. The European Crusaders are the only expection I can think of off the top of my head. And they didn’t stay long in the scheme of things. The Turks and Mongols all converted.

    Most oppression against Muslims that I can think of took place in small pockets of time and space, which would not account for the widespread actions we are seeing.

    ” I find it very hard to stomach that the Koran is an inherently evil book.”

    To simplify it…it basically says “don’t take no shit” instead of “turn the other cheeck.” A big part of the problem is that it doesn’t always define “shit” very well, and doesn’t always define what should be done about it. And when it does, it is often not a pleasant deed for those recieving it.

    That’s because it was created in a relatively violent time by a relatively violent people who lived in a relatively violent region. Lots of clan raiding and revenge killings and things like that.

    I think the root of the problem is that too many 21st-Century Muslims are still reading their 7th-Century book from a 7th-Century perspective. And that they see nothing wrong with that.

    “If it’s a cultural norm for most people in Malaysia to refer to God as Allah, you don’t think it would make at least some sense that Christians would also use this word?”

    I suppose. But since they don’t speak Arabic except for Muslim settings, the only reason I can see for a non-Muslim to use it would be to appeal to Muslims.

    But I’m not going to go as far as they did and say it is to confuse Muslims into Christianity, or that the issue should be addressed with government bans or Molotov Cocktails.

    “As for waiter one day, developer the next … you’re acting like you need 10 years of “developer school” to be a developer.”

    And your acting like a waiter can afford the millions this guy is pouring into the project. That’s the point.

    When a certain black congressional candidate recently won his primary, and it was discovered that he was broke and unemployed (and wierd), the question of where he got the money to file campaign papers was used to question if he was a GOP plant.

    Same concept. Except the Imam is coming up with A LOT more money.

  133. How do you know “the kids” are thriving with two daddies Rutherford? You don’t anymore know that than I know they aren’t. What a joke…

    Kids thrive in the inner city too. But the odds are significantly stacked against them without a role model – especially males.

    This is how I feel about gay adoption. What a tangled web we weave. What’s worse? Two parents of the same sex or abuse and neglect? I’ll choose the same sex couples, though that would be the absolute least preferred relationship.

    It amazes me that you can discount anything good of religions (you’re a fool as the good far outweighs the bad), never noting most of the mass killers of the 20th century and history for that matter were basically godless and pagan, always revert to your evolutionary standards (which you know little about), then when religion or natural evolution of humans says one male, one female to create and care for a child – take your pick, suddenly you revert to option ‘C’ and discount your natural law theory that you live the rest of your life by. And you accuse me of hypocrisy and a being wishy washy?

    That’s comedy gold.

  134. Tex, it’s good to see that a gay couple raising a kid is better than abuse and neglect. You had me worried there for a bit.

    Now let’s try to weave our way through this tangled web:

    It amazes me that you can discount anything good of religions (you’re a fool as the good far outweighs the bad), never noting most of the mass killers of the 20th century and history for that matter were basically godless and pagan, always revert to your evolutionary standards (which you know little about), then when religion or natural evolution of humans says one male, one female to create and care for a child – take your pick, suddenly you revert to option ‘C’ and discount your natural law theory that you live the rest of your life by.

    1. I’ve always agreed that particularly in the area of charitable works, religion is worthwhile. On the other hand many who practice religion are often guilty of rank hypocrisy.
    2. Can you point to any studies that say most mass murderers of the 20th century were atheists (or pagans)? If not, you just pulled that one out of your ass.
    3. Your conflating evolution and homosexuality is a whopper. I think homosexuality is quite natural. It is found in nature, not just among homo sapiens but among many species. As you well know a good number of hetero couples engage in sodomy. So the primary “act” of gays that so disgusts you is not even limited to gays … and again, is quite natural.

    I can easily put a lot of stock in evolution and still support gay rights. No conflict there whatsoever. You see I have no paranoid worries regarding the supply of men and women eager to f*ck and therefore maintain the species.

  135. “Wow, damn good question. As you might guess, I’m torn on that one. My perspective of human nature tells me that multiple wives don’t work. Somebody gets the short stick.” — R

    And homosexuality does?

    Take religion out of it and apply some common sense, or Natural law. Marriage is about, mostly, procreation. That doesn’t happen with gays- ever. Tab A pounded into slot C doesn’t work.

    SO tell us, why should we allow for the destruction of the family unit and basic procreational structure for healthly adults so that we can satisfy the life choices of those who chose to be different?

    As for the military, we seperate men and women predominently for sexual privacy. How is my sexual privacy respected when someone is introduced into my environment who specifically (for lack of a better term) targets my gender? It’s all or nothing- we seperate men and women for those reasons or we coed all living spaces and learn to get comfortable with one another.

  136. On the other hand many who practice religion are often guilty of rank hypocrisy.

    So? Many pagans, you included, are guilty of rank hypocrisy. Who hasn’t been guilty of hypocrisy at some time in their lives? It’s hard for me to believe you demonize Christianity after we just watched ten of them murdered while providing health care to needy Afghans. There are literally millions of people doing the same thing in the name of Christ around the world. And yet, who do we invariably get from you as example? Some loon that murdered a butcher. You want to talk about double standards and hypocrisy Rutherford. It’s you in spades.

    Can you point to any studies that say most mass murderers of the 20th century were atheists (or pagans)? If not, you just pulled that one out of your ass.

    Either Harvard is vastly overrated which I’ve always believed except possibly their hard sciences, you slept through school, or you’re a dunce because I’ve pointed this out at least five times on this blog alone to you which you still aren’t setting to memory.

    Do the names Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, Nicolae Ceausescu, or Mussolini mean anything dummy. Now about pulling that out my ass, add them up and I think you’ll find over 100MM murdered at their hands. Can you round me up a Christian or Jew that did as much Rutherford? And don’t give me the Nietzsche/Mein Kampf disciple Hitler either because he was persecuting the Catholic Church and Protestant churches during WWII either and Mein Kampf is as godless as it gets.

    I think homosexuality is quite natural. It is found in nature, not just among homo sapiens but among many species. As you well know a good number of hetero couples engage in sodomy.

    Undoubtedly, you don’t read many of my responses anymore. I’ve told you that were wrong about this too as your science really, really bad and your spin boilerplated.. I want to see these homosexual animals you’re talking about? I’ve seen one male dog hump another for dominance – I’ve seen my female lab do it to my male lab to when he was sick. Was that penis envy?

    Where are all these liberal do gooders over in Afghanistan helping out for free at great danger Rutherford. You’re so big on the “loving nature” of liberals, can you point me in the general direction of their great works? Can I don’t see liberals doing a hell of a lot of anything voluntarily, unless Uncle Sammy is paying for it or some Hollywood elect is marketing themselves. Where’s all of these do gooder liberals you talk about?

    Tell me phony, if you would.

  137. Here Rutherford. I think I’m going to adopt your style of judgment from here on out. It’s so much easier to find one or two bad examples and then broad brush it across the spectrum. So speaking of gays…

    Here’s a “typical” well adjusted sodomite. I’ve found this type of behavior generally pretty typical of the gay lifestyle. 😆

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Airline-Steward-at-JFK-Pulls-Emergency-Chute-Flies-Coop-100286494.html

    Look what’s found in nature, right “R”?

  138. Gorilla, I already asked Rutherford about that one. You see, gay dudes aren’t turned on by other random men in the shower. Apparently naked sailors don’t turn on gays.

  139. lol….I can kind of respect the way that pole smoker quit. Snagged a few beers, told everyone to fuck off on the 1MC and said “there goes 28 years” before jumping down the slide.

  140. Police sources said that when authorities found Slater he seemed to be in the midst having sexual relations.

    Tex, this from the article you presented. I’m sorry … I missed the sodomy reference. How exactly did you infer that?

    As for homosexuality in the animal kingdom, look up the bonobo monkey (I’ve mentioned these horndogs before). They screw everyone within an arms length of them. Lesbo, homo, incest, you name it … they do it.

    OK ,,,, you bring up the workers killed in Afghanistan. Let me try again …. I’ve already agreed that churches do good things from a charity perspective. How many different ways do you want to hear it?

    Last but not least, are you really so thick as to believe that all liberals are atheists?

    Here’s one interesting article:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2010/05/a_liberal_religious_renaissanc.html

    Let’s look at some numbers from what I think was the 2000 census.

    76.5% self identified Christians
    31% Democrat
    13.2% non religious
    0.4% atheists

    Those numbers tell me you’ve got some liberal Christians out there. Or to put it differently, there are way too few atheists and non-religious people around for liberals not to have a sizable number of Christians.

  141. You see, gay dudes aren’t turned on by other random men in the shower.

    That’s exactly right. Any hetero who is turned on by any random naked woman is pretty f*cked up or desperate as far as I’m concerned. Does EVERY woman turn you on Rabbit?

    Why do we assume that gay soldiers are going to behave like frat boys instead of taking their mission seriously? Any gay soldier who takes the mission seriously is not thinking about humping his bunk mate.

    Or maybe there is some strange vanity at play here that every hetero thinks he’s attractive to a gay guy? LOL 😀

  142. I can kind of respect the way that pole smoker quit.

    Seriously …. what did I miss here? Where in Tex’s article did it say the guy was gay?

    As an aside …. Rabbit, if for no other reason, I respect you for your musical eclecticism. You never fail to amaze me.

  143. Marriage is about, mostly, procreation.

    Gorilla …. WRONG

    Heterosexual intercourse is about, mostly, procreation. Marriage is about companionship and the sharing of a life. There are loads of satisfying hetero childless marriages out there.

    SO tell us, why should we allow for the destruction of the family unit

    How does Tom and Dick getting married destroy your family unit? It has nothing-the-f*ck to do with you. Mind your own damned business.

    As for your sexual privacy argument, see my answer to Rabbit.

  144. Following up on 180, if the urge to poke a dude in the bum is so overpowering, how do you explain the current behavior of closeted gays in the military? I don’t hear news reports of our military men getting propositioned on a regular basis. When my Dad was in Germany during the Korean War he said that they had a pretty good idea of who was gay. And they didn’t make a big deal out of it.

  145. Dude. Put me in a shower with a random chick under 50 and I probably got a boner.

    Just becuase you have the libido of a Chinese Panda Bear doesn’t mean we all do.

    What world do you live on. Gay men invented the glory hole.

    Again, in your world, gay dudes, the very people who are famous for rest stop sex with strangers, all of sudden don’t get turned on by naked sailors.

    The Matrix of Rutherford. Defying reality at every turn.

  146. “As for homosexuality in the animal kingdom, look up the bonobo monkey (I’ve mentioned these horndogs before). They screw everyone within an arms length of them. Lesbo, homo, incest, you name it … they do it.”

    Bonobos are the only animal other than man that we know of that has sex for purposes other than procreation.

  147. Rabbit, let’s try a Venn diagram. First the set of gay men who would die for their country. Next the set of gay men who like glory holes.

    I submit the intersection of the two sets is damn near zero.

  148. Bonobos are the only animal other than man that we know of that has sex for purposes other than procreation.

    Well Huck, Tex was talking about what went on in nature so I supplied an example.

    Also, let’s look at your comment for two secs. I’m not sure I buy the idea of having sex for procreation. Animals are satisfying a base instinct that is pre-wired in them in order to multiply the species. They have no idea why they’re f*cking. They just enjoy doing it because they’ve been wired to do it for the sake of procreation. A dog will hump your leg. Not a damn thing to do with procreation … he likes the way it feels on an instinctual level.

    Truth is all animals have sex to satisfy a base instinct. That instinct may be tied up in biological imperatives but it certainly is not on a conscious level any desire to procreate.

  149. “Well Huck, Tex was talking about what went on in nature so I supplied an example.”

    I was simply expanding on your bonobo comment. And I knew I should have gone with my original wording…

    Bonobos are the only animal other than man that we know of that has sex for what seems to be purely entertainment purposes.

    Better?

  150. Hey “Rutherford”,

    It talked about ‘the sodomite’ was caught in a intimate sexual embrace with his “partner.” I’ll bet that intimate sexual embrace was taking it up the bum…

    Pole smoker… 😆 I love that term. Rabbit and I have similar adjectives we think appropriate.

    Hey Rutherford, you want to normalize romping the stink star with a set of hairy nuts staring back at you, who am I to argue? 😐

  151. That 30 Billion they are going to pass is a sham. My school district and local union did the right thing and took major concessions on our new contract. 10% pay cut across the board. Paying more for benefits. The pensions took a hit. We did this to save jobs. But…shzaaam! Government will reward the other districts that did not do what we did. Got to love it.

    Actually, I don’t even know how this money saves one job. Who actually gets the cash? How does it even work? I don’t get it.

    The last “stimulus” took this total moron, pulled her out of the classroom, and now she gives us boring power points all year on reading. In her place will be a permanent sub for the year. There is your one job. Real productive for society.

  152. Tex, your link has since been updated but still no mention of Slater being gay. Either you’ve got another link or one of us has a serious reading comprehension problem.

    Slater was later arrested at his home in Belle Harbor by Port Authority officials. Police sources said that when authorities found Slater he seemed to be in the midst having sexual relations.

    Or are you operating off the assumption that all male flight attendants are gay?

    P.S. I’m planning a tribute post for later in the day! 🙂

  153. Rutherford,

    I guess the ‘sodomite link’ has been updated – it has obviously been updated since yesterday afternoon. They’ve changed the wording from partner and sexual embrace – code words for pole smoker caught in the act of taking it up the ying yang. 😆

    But at least now I can understand one small piece of your confusion.

    Like BIC, I can hardly wait on your defense – where it will join an endless list of meaningless topics where Rabbit and I can share our slang.

  154. However, in Mr. Gomorrah’s defense, like the Rabbit, I really like this NYC guy’s sense of style.

    I actually witnessed another guy one time early in my career go in and do a handstand on his supervisor’s desk before telling him to G. F… H……

    Of course, the handstand guy committed suicide a few years later – but I had to commend him for leaving Corporate America like so many of would dream.

  155. R, the sexual privacy is for me- not the fag. It’s not about whether or not I get wood, it is about my sense of privacy. Based on this, then you clearly do not object to women bathing and sleeping with men. You can’t. You cannot argue for their sexual privacy and not respect mine at the same time.

    Marriage is about a family structure. Married couples without children are the exception- not the rule. And besides, it is a fairly new phenomenom anyway. And if you think marriage has no impact on the family structure and the development of children into productive adults, then I invite you to reexamine the black community. A better argument could never be made…

  156. And if you think marriage has no impact on the family structure and the development of children into productive adults, then I invite you to reexamine the black community.

    Too funny. G, you’ve backed yourself into a corner here. Gays want the family structure you are championing. Why deny it to them?

  157. So a guy from the show Red Eye has proposed setting up a gay bar next to the Ground Zero mosque since we’re all about cultural outreach.

    And here is the Twitter response from the 51 Park people…

    “.@greggutfeld You’re free to open whatever you like. If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog”

  158. Huck, I’m not sure exactly where, but there is a tittie bar within a few blocks of Ground Zero. Clearly there is a lot of concern over what should surround this holy shrine. 😐

  159. R, Are they a family? Because they choose to call themselves that, does it make it so? The best they can hope for is to be a surrogate family that is and will forever be incomplete. Women are women for a reason. Men are men for a reason. Pretending to be one or the other doesn’t make it so, regardless of how hard one tries.

    And besides, you’ve not answered my questions specifically- how do their life style choices outweigh my rights?

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s