Ron Paul Defends NYC Mosque

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church used to stand just south of the WTC site; the South Tower fell on it and crushed it on 9/11.

They want to rebuild their church on nearby land that is owned by the Port Authority of NY and NJ. There was supposed to be a land swap between St. Nick's and the PA, but it got bogged down in details about design of a security area and financial details.

Here's a couple of links about the St. Nick's issue:

Port Authority, St. Nicholas Church Reach Ground Zero Deal
Church Destroyed at Ground Zero Is Still at Square One

reply to post by something wicked


The Republican Party is a fractured mess, because Conservatives of the Libertarian view have been shunned and embarrassed by the Republicans of the neo-Fascist view.. Ron Paul is a leader, he's the leader of the Libertarian Conservatives, as an icon of what a statesman should be. The fact that so many Republicans hate him with a passion is proof enough that what I say is true.. his campaign last election awoke a huge portion of the Republican Party to what was going on.. many Republicans are not hyped up Christians out to dominate other people ideologies, or Corporatist to see Corporations as Humans worthy of special treatment, nor are they war-hungry antagonist.

Yet that's exactly what people think when they hear "Republican" .. Crazy white trash Christians demanding a Crusade against Muslims while supporting lower taxes for the Rich, Corporations and the power of the all mighty Dollar all the while draping themselves in an American Flag and demanding the rights of non-Christians, gays, liberals, and anyone else not of their persuasions be stopped out.


Certainly doesn't sound like the Conservative I am.. or the Conservative that would support Ron Paul.. so yeah, he is a leader, whether that's "official" doesn't matter .. he leads the opposition Conservatives against our Fascist neo-cons who stole our party.

reply to post by americandingbat


The difference?

Mosque is being built on PRIVATE property..

Greek Church wants to build on PUBLIC property........

reply to post by americandingbat


Thanks. I updated my previous post. The mosque is being built with private funds. The church wants millions in public funds.

FYI, the projects -- and the problems -- are utterly unrelated. Park51, formerly known as Cordoba House, wants to build an Islamic community center, open to everyone, on private property in the Tribeca neighborhood several blocks north of Ground Zero.

They have nothing to do with each other and are very different projects. They are not comparable. The Christian church is wanting millions of dollars in public funds for construction.

In contrast, St. Nicholas, a Greek Orthodox church with only a few dozen regular worshipers before 9/11, has been mired in Ground Zero-specific bureaucracy for years, trying to hammer out a deal with the Port Authority to swap its tiny piece of land for a bigger plot and receive millions of dollars in public funds for the construction and security requirements.

Many links at the Source

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I saw your update after I replied

I'm not sure if I was clear in my post; I was agreeing with what you and rockpuck have both said.

It's an entirely separate issue. The players are different, the demands are different.

Originally posted by Smack

Every Human is born a property owner. We each OWN our bodies. This is where our rights come from.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Smack]

I disagree. I don't own my body. I AM my body. This is me and any part you remove is removing a part of who I am. For example, losing a leg changes your identity drastically, wouldn't you agree?

Our rights come from the Bill of Rights

reply to post by Vitchilo


Actually I don't think so. If this were true why hasn't the government granted the right of the Orthodox church to rebuild their church that was destroyed by the 911 attack?

This is the case of the government favoring or establishing one religion over an other in violation of the first amendment. Moreover the funding for the muslim victory mosque is coming from overseas, and the imam has been exposed as being a terrorist sympathizer and America hater.

Moreover the imam is being funded at taxpayer expense to travel with the state department on a mideast jaunt, where he will be seeking funds for the mosques from terrorist states like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Since New York already has 100 mosques or so, this is not an issue of banning a certain religion, but rather it's an issue of civics and city planning. It makes no sense to raise up a mosque that will become a flashpoint of hatred and controversy.

It clearly is being done on purpose as part of a general scheme to create conflict between muslims and christians. (Something the muslims love to do anyway.) It's Alinsky's 4th rule and it's the elites plan for the extermination of opposing religions. Good thing I know who wins in the end. It takes some of the stress out of this stupidity.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by pjslug
I don't think there should be a Mosque, Church, Synagogue, Temple or any house of worship built anywhere in this country because ....

So are you a communist or something?

How do you make the connection between communism and the idea that organized religion shouldn't exist? Why didn't you quote my whole post? You conveniently cut it off where you wanted to.

But for the record, I'd much prefer a true communistic society to what we have now, you bet.

reply to post by SevenThunders
"Since New York already has 100 mosques or so, this is not an issue of banning a certain religion, but rather it's an issue of civics and city planning. It makes no sense to raise up a mosque that will become a flashpoint of hatred and controversy.

It clearly is being done on purpose as part of a general scheme to create conflict between muslims and christians. (Something the muslims love to do anyway.) It's Alinsky's 4th rule and it's the elites plan for the extermination of opposing religions. Good thing I know who wins in the end. It takes some of the stress out of this stupidity."

I don't see how to equate those two last paragraphs at all. "Not an issue of banning a certain certain religion", "City planning issue",

Last paragraph," it's the elites plan for the extermination of opposing religions." So my question is, "who wins in the end"?

Just to add, good for Ron Paul, so often the voice of reason, a gentleman.




[edit on 24-8-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by SeventhSeal


Is it that the mosque can't go anywhere else in NYC and that's why they want/need to build it there? Are they trying to make a point? Celebrate a victory? Why does it have to be right there?

Now to the story. I'm glad to see that he stands up for this. It's either cool across the board or it isn't; there is no middle ground when it comes to our rights...

reply to post by guyopitz

"Our rights come from the Bill of Rights "

Wrong.
Natural inalienable rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights as further restrictions on the power of government. Every Human Being is born with these rights. Rights are derived from personhood or our Humanity. No outside authority can give or take away those rights which are inherent.

Read the Bill of rights and tell me: is it government bestowing upon you permissions that they can take away at will, or does it list rights, which the government may not violate or take away?

The government has no right except what the people allow to anything... the government is not to enforce anything against the people's wishes or they cease to be government and are tyrants.... our leaders work for us and are not mandatory for us to follow.... the constitution is a "gotdamn piece of paper" which is a blueprint for a peaceful, functional and free society; not some political ten commandments for citizens to be dogmatic, patriotic, toward... the constitution can be subject to change if lets say a technology replaces a way of life that the constitution infers a God given right too, like a clone's rights which is up for debate, and can only be altered with the approval of the people or the lack of initiative too uphold their responsibility to their society; which then makes it a policy to our "leaders".... Our government is sylvester the cat and the people are tweety bird like in looney toons; what happens when no one is watching the cat? yellow feathers everywhere lol

reply to post by americandingbat


This is the point, the mosque is shrine to islamic extremists through out the world. It is being built to shame America. This message of "tolerence" is coming from the worlds most intolerent religon. This mosque will show how weak we are as a country. People will say "this is just a community center", it is not, it is a symbol to those around the world who seek our demise that victory is achievable. It will be celebrated.

Building the mosque is perfectly legal, that is not the question, but as a nation we should not sit by and watch a shrine being built to honor those who commited the worst attack on American soil. It should sicken every American to their core. I do not ask much from my government, nor do I want much, but I do want someone at some level to stop this, and I do not care how. Does this mean that religous structures all over America will be subject to rule by the governement? No. Nor would I want that, just those that are built to celebrate those who killed thousands of Americans.

I believe we as a society can use a little common sense and figure this one out. Like I said I do not expect much from my government, and I expect to get "pissed on" by them, I expect that, but do I really need other countries to piss on me as well?

reply to post by pyramid head


I guess I'm confused by your stance.

You say that building the community center is perfectly legal, but then you seem to say that the government should act to prevent it.

You say that it will be a shrine to those who committed the crimes of 9/11, but the people building it have condemned those acts, and it will include a memorial to the victims of 9/11 (including the members of the imam's congregation who perished as workers and first responders in the WTC).

Guys, can't you realize something?

Every time we fuss over some dumb # Congress passes some bullcrap like the Federal Reserves Act, Glass Steagall, Patriot Act, Universal Healthcare, or some $4 trillion dollar bailout.

reply to post by pyramid head


I am very confused about how a building being built could possibly make the worlds most powerful nation look weak. We will have exactly the same amount of might whether there is a cultural center or not.

This is absolutely another distraction for the american citizen. what happens is the liberal environmentalist free thinkers will argue with the hillbilly reborn christian republicans, and ultimately ignore the issues they agree upon and remain ignorant to what is really going on.

Rule of thumb: If they (media,talking heads) want us to obsess about something, whatever it is, it's horse manure. Don't fall for it.
Anything that gets this much play on the radio and tv is almost certainly manufactured for the purpose of promoting a hidden agenda.
As has been pointed out by other astute posters, this is most likely a distraction - a slight of hand, meant to divert our attention from whatever deceitful wickedness tptb have in store for us.

After 45 years on this planet, I've developed a rather keen sense of smell in regards to politics.

Just fyi.

reply to post by smurfy


Why equate two paragraphs? Isn't the purpose of a paragraph to start a new idea? I suppose I could have created a new chapter heading, but this is just a silly forum after all.

The point of the first paragraph is that it is not an issue of religious freedom, since that is already established for muslims here. They can build mosques all over new york and they are. It's a city planning issue as to whether or not we should have religous establishments near the site of a heinous attack on innocent Americans. Apparently the Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed at 911, was not permitted to rebuild. There has been no public outcry over that.

The second paragraph is an unrelated comment on what the real motivations of the idiots who are allowing this is. That is to create discord, confusion and demoralization in the ranks of their enemies, the American people.

I just wanted to post something I found interesting, and perhaps SOMEWHAT related to the discussion at hand:

Did you know that Morocco was the first foreign state to recognise the USA?

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed November 4, 1796 by John Adams
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

Thomas Jefferson
"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."

Okay, since it has been shown conclusively that the resistance to the building of the Park51 (not really a mosque, but a community centre with a muslim prayer area) is NOT based in any constitutional or legal matter, then what is the problem, and more interestingly, what are those who resist it WANTING?
Do they want the government to step in and PREVENT the building? Because that would be ILLEGAL.
Are they expecting those who are involved in building to suddenly stop because of all the protests? Because that is unlikely to happen.

Some people say "Yeah, but why are they building one THERE, when they could build it anywhere else?"

Well, why shouldn't they? It is already being used for prayer, because the al-Farah mosque doesn't have the space to handle the people who come to pray there! What good will building a centre in a completely different place (where it may not really be needed), do?

Some people even say "They are using it to rub the victory they scored in 9/11 in our face", which is patently absurd. The centre's planners say that "they want the center to stand as a statement against terrorism"!


EDIT:
And to lighten the mood a bit, let me link you this here comedic article:
3 Reasons the "Ground Zero Mosque" Debate Makes No Sense


[edit on 25-8-2010 by babloyi]