Since three or four debates I put the finger on the words and their implictions that YOU were using, Steve. If you do not mean what you said, then maybe try to say more precsiely what you mean. The same wobbly precision you use when "interpreting" what I should have meant, in your opion, not realising that I base on a fundament of that it makes little sense to just differ between "all freedom" or "no freedom at all". As a matter of fact our societies are most most free places on Earth today, and ever been known in all history. And that is why we already have accepted to nevertheless limit the individual freedom for the sake of freedom in general. In parts you now have started to accept that, which makes your extremist concept of total freedom nevertheless even more self-contradicting and confusing. If your logic would be true, then we would need to admit that we live in a slavery any tyranny due to the minor limitations that everyone of us accepts every day. And that would hardly be a balanced assessment.

Thank you, dear enemy. You see, that extremist, polarising thinking of yours by which you know only total freedom or no freedom with regard to the issue being debated here, is no typical American thing due to "American freedom" or your history, it is present in the europe of lately, too, and in some fields it even may be more present over here than in America. It has already done a tremendous ammount of damage, having allowed Islam to fundamentally influence the legislation of the EU in certain references to legal codes that are binding for the european nations to implement. In many countries, the problems linked to Islam are growing and already have started to cause serious friction and conflict in many places, and still growing. The cultural climate, the climate of communication already is being poisened, brandmarking any opposition to Islam, any critical question, and analytical confrontation as an offence, as racism and hate-speech. All this is being encouraged and even actively assisted in the name of "freedom", and that we must allow Islam to continue if we want to describe ourselves as a free society, and that we must tolerate it when Islam teaches the destruction of our freedom, and that we must live with mosques and "culture centres" engaging in hate-preaching and supporting terrorism or home-grown stealth-jihad, for allowing them to work on our destruction would be the price of freedom, etc etc. And islam does not only tlak, it acts, it actively pushes and supports the goals it is planning for and motivated by. The gagging of public criticism, it'S brandmarking as hate-speech, the creation of a self-censoring cultural climate that fears to not obey Islamic demands in word and deed, for that would be "racist" - all that is last but not least the result of "Gutmenschen", and nation-hating self-deconstructors who time and again argue the same way like you did: that we must want to be a totally free society, and that thus we must allow islam to spread even more and eroding the fundaments of our culture and society in the hidden, and sometimes even in the open. That our freedom, inclduing the freedom of free speech and free press, already is limited by this brandmarking of opposition to islam as "racism", escapes the very same people'S minds.

He who wants to defend everything, will lose everything. If the price for still the highest ammount of freedom a human society has every enjoyed is that said freedom is in parts withheld from those who want to destroy that freedom, then this is a price not too high, and a rasonable price. It simply is a clever thing to do. It is a hopelessly dualistic, extremist, polarised concept of freedom you have, and that is the reason why it does not work as intended and produces right the opposite of what it claims to defend.

And stop talking as if I said to take away "freedom itself", all of it, in its complete entity, from you and others and all of us. All I say is that if somebody tries to kill me, then freedom does not include the demand that I must even hand him the knife by which he will do it. Maybe it is a more clever thing not to give him the knife and not to tell him that it is there. maybe it even is clever to use the knife and keep him in check until he is being taken away.

That moment he is not free anymore, yes. - BIG DEAL.

I have not thought of you as an enemy so far, but maybe you are: if considering that this your way of thinking already has done a very high ammount of damage that will by kind of a self-dynamic create even more damage in the future, and taking into account that the influence of this way of self-damaging thinking and practicing must be stopped and it's defenders must be rendered powerless so that they cannot continue with their self-deconstruction that destroys all others as well, and when I think that this must be assured at all cost, else our children'S children will be seriously screwed - well then maybe you are what could be labelled an enemy indeed. It's just that I do not feel for you that way. For some reason I still like oyu, although you drive me crazy and although you have some extremely dangerous bees in your bonnet, heading for a solid wall at max speed with your head first. But sympathy yes or no, I am convinced that you do not realise a dangerous self-contradiction in your arguments, and that if this mislead concept of extreme freedom - that simply does nothign else but creating the opportunity for our enemies to destroy freedom - is not brought to a full stop and overcome, that then we all can pack our things and leave, since we will loose all and everything.

Including our freedom.

For preventing that - by withholding some parts of freedom from our enemies whose declared intention it is to destroy our freedom - is a price so small that it even is not worth to have such a long debate about it. I would even say it is the most logical, reasonable, natural and clever thing to do.

One clould even point at that in the field of crime that is what the police already doing day in, day out. and nobody would accuse them to be lowering themselves to the level of the gangsters they catch, when they chase them.

that is one pof the points. The organisers HAVE connections of highly dubious nature, to radical jihadi groups and ultra-orthodox brotherhoods that in other parts of the world do not hide at all their jihadist intention. Links to that have been proivided by me5 or 6 times by now. They got ignored by all of you, since it was not what you wnated to learn. One or two other guys provided their own links to news that mentioned the same names, the same connections to the same groups - and again you ignored, incapable to comment on it since there wa snothing to say indeed.

Some of you guys remind me of a deer in a searchlight. And some of you will not move the small finger in order to defend what you claim to be so precious to you. "Risking conflict? What - me...?"

Very true but in this world of touchy feely political correctness it would seem any of that notion is thrown out the window concerning this mosque. Obama did not want to comment on the wisdom of building this mosque in this location. Rightly so because I do not believe this is any wisdom to building this mosque at this location. IMO it is insensative.

Disclaimer : This opinion is soley my own and I'm not speaking for anyone but myself.

No he doesent it is a state matter.

He was foolish to even opine on the matter. It is a no win situation. Why his advisors told him to do so is beyound me. Then again remember who is running the show.

He should have followed Bush's example and refrain from comment.

I think someone asked him the question about the mosque. Constitutionally he has to support it however he did not have to answer the question. But, if he kept silent he would have been damned. If he says anything he would be damned. He was damned if he did and damned if I didn't. It was his comment on the lack of commenting concerning the wisdom to build at that site that is key to me. There is no wisdom to build this mosque there.

I don't think anyone argues the constitutionality at all. The question is one of propriety. The mosque builders claim it is to foster understanding, to show a good face of Islam, etc. If so, they are making a PR mistake.

There's nothing to do, really. The reality is that even "moderate" Islam is immoderate by normal, Western standards. Translations of Arabic language interviews with people involved show them to be less moderate than their english press conferences lead you to believe.

Again, the solution is unbending separation of church and state. No tax breaks for religions. No religious schools (that includes so-called "arabic schools" that are in fact government paid madrassas). No special zoning for churches, nothing. Church groups that support foreign militaries (terrorist organizations, like Hamas) should be dealt with as any crime ring would be.

What happens is this: Someone says something. Rather than discuss it you immediately jump on that and launch into a huge lecture about how that person doesn't know what they're talking about, and an even bigger lecture about how you're right and they're wrong and that's the fact. If anyone tries to argue with you, you attempt to shout them down with even more lecturing. Your problem is that there is no room in your world for debate - you're right and everyone else had better listen.

It's all a matter of attitude. I've tried to show that for me the absolute is just a starting point. If you believe that freedom is an absolute you can start from there and work on it. If you don't, then you start believing that you can tame the beast and have it both ways.

In the one case you run the risk of, as you say, allowing the bad guys to misuse and abuse it against you. But in the other you run the risk of, as I've said, becoming the very thing you hate. It's a fine line - so fine sometimes that it is invisible, and too far on either side of it is a danger to everyone.

You say I'm absolute in my thinking. I say the same about you. For me the "absolute" is a starting point - the defining idea to be worked from. I don't know about your "absolute" because you never discuss it - you just jump on people and try to lecture them into submission.

In this discussion I only ever said that these people have the legal right to build a building, nothing more. You took that and jumped on my "absolutism" to prove a point. Your point seems to be that this must be stopped at any cost. It's what that cost may turn out to be that scares me, and your absolute insistence on it that makes me stand against you.

As I see it, you think your motives and goals are better than theirs, but yet again the bottom line is the same: you both are enemies of freedom.

Quatsch. You exposed yourself with a defintion of total freedom that ignored a vital inner contradiction, whzich I pointed out in my onw words as well as the descritpion of that same porblem in Popper's work entitled "The Free Society". That contradiction that you are unable to solve, is vital, and most important. But now you accuse me of lecturing - while you time and again have fallen back to that dogma of yours "if you take away the smallest ammount of freedom away from freedom for those who seek to destroy it, then you are not free yourself anymore". Not before yesterday you managed to get yourself moving at least a little bit, very slightly away from that dead end of thinking.

you overlook one thing. Popper in his formulation refers to the the mnaifestation of the inention to destroy freedom, the intention to destroy it is real in his formulation. I also do not refer to just a potentially dangerous thing, or to just a suspicion that there might be a potential chance of the other (Islamic ideology and radcial Islamic organisations)
possibly trying to destroy freedom - I made it clear time and againt uhat it already is proving this intention by acting according to it. I am neither the total destroyer of a free society that you try to label me as, nor am I easymindedly want to act in preemptive action. both Popper and me base in our advise that the attekpt of the other to abuse freedom in order to destroy it, is a proven fact. maybe that is what you have not understood so far. If it only would be an irrational fear of eventually, maybe, possibly, damage might be done if freedom for the opposiunf side is not limited, then I would agree with you in so far that I would say: a suspicion alone is not enough, it needs to be proven before we act against them in order to defend ourselves. But in Popper's formulation of the tolerance-dilemma and freedom-dilemma as well as in my argument agaisnt islam and especially the initiators of the Cordoba initiave you should see that the agenda of destryiung freedom is a give, proven fact, that must no longer just be assumed to be like that.

and again you demosntrate that you only know total, absolute freedom, or no freedom at all: you say I take away freedom in general. The implication of that would be that i mean to make them as well as us total slaves, totally unfree. As a matter of fact I lined out just this all the time, and will you finally, finally after this long time please please please understand this: Your absolute, total freedom that you intend to give even to those who try to use that freedom in order to indeed destroy all freedom means that you necessarily accept in your conception of freedom that oyu must be overwhöemened by them, and freedom taken away from you. And i did not suggest more than to maybe withhold these others those freedoms that they need to crush our all very freedom and replace it with their ideology that knbows no freedom at all. nowehere I said that I want to take away all freedom. Nowehere i said that I want to keep freedom away from you or us. I talk about withholding some freedom for some people - those freedoms that aloow them to become successful, and those people who run the project of destroying freedom. If you only argue in absolutes, in all-or-nothing-at-all, and cannot differ between "us" and "them", then I understand that it might be impossible for you to understand me. But I would insist on that this would be a problem deriving from your thinking, not mine. As I pointed out: I am in conformity with principles of our own constitution, principles of law enforcement and police's moral basis of work, and I strongly, l very strongly must assume that if I would examine american laws and constitutional texts carefully, then I would find similiar pendants there as well. Becasue your nation uses to protect itself and defend itself agaimnst extremnists trying to destroy it or to limit the rule of law or federal government as well, and you cannot tell me that all this is running on a basis of illegality since two hundred years! ;)

You need to get a grip on reality You know what I want and it isn't a patronising pat on the back. I asked you politely in the other topic to change your portrayal of your views on this subject.
Yet you went and did it again in this one.

Fine, so you will no longer comment on the mosque then.
After all as its all about the people involved and their sensitivities you ain't got nothing to say have you?

So much better.

No you asked me politely to STFU because for some reason you think I'm speaking for people who were there and I do not see eye to eye with you. You like to bait and push people. Your brow beat. Then you spend the rest of your time posting that others in the thread are some sort of lunatic who sniffs glue for fun. I said in my opinion I find it insensative. What part of 'my opinion' is befuddling you?

Nope.

well well look what yubba found
 

In the end, the 1st Amendment not only prevents the establishment of a national religion, but it also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit. So what is the State Department doing.

Lets keep the first amendment in perspective as it pertains to individuals. Which after all the US Constitution was meant to protect.

As Mr. Obama has stated the Consitution is a list of negative rights for the government. Let us forget for a moment that is not what they were meant to be. Rights are not absolute in any case. Most negate congress from making a law.

Denying a mosque be built in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks, neither establishes a law respecting a religion, nor denies the worship of those who expose that religion. It does place limits on the establishment of a place of worship. That is not prohibited under the law or constitution.

It also prohbits government aid to any religion. So why is taxpayer money going to this emome. :hmmm: hmmmm Islam let's see oh I know it's a religion and a mosque is like a church and the emome is like a priest. If it looks like a duck ,quackes like a duck
EDITORIAL: Tax dollars to build mosques

U.S. underwrites fundraising tour for Islamic shrine at Ground Zero

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
-
The Washington Times
7:46 p.m., Tuesday, August 10, 2010


http://media.washtimes.com/media/ima...94ec205af188fdImam Feisal Abdul Rauf, executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, addresses a gathering as groups planning a proposed mosque and cultural center near Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan to be named Cordoba House showed and spoke about their plans for the center at a community board meeting in New York Tuesday, May 25, 2010. Community members both for and against the plan spoke during the meeting. (AP Photo/Craig Ruttle)



The State Department is sending Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf - the mastermind of the Ground Zero Mosque - on a trip through the Middle East to foster "greater understanding" about Islam and Muslim communities in the United States. However, important questions are being raised about whether this is simply a taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt to underwrite his reviled project, which is moving ahead in Lower Manhattan.
Mr. Rauf is scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Qatar, the usual stops for Gulf-based fundraising. The State Department defends the five-country tour saying that Mr. Rauf is "a distinguished Muslim cleric," but surely the government could find another such figure in the United States who is not seeking millions of dollars to fund a construction project that has so strongly divided America.
By funding the trip so soon after New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission gave the go-ahead to demolish the building. Let's see isn't the State Department part of Government?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_mark.svg.png
This article includes
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly said as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

Might I suggest you try looking at he Shinto shrines around the Pearl Harbour area and the cases brought when attempts were made to prevent them as that limit and denial on the establishment of places of religion was deemed to be prohibited under law as it was unconstitutional:hmmm:

It is unconstitutional for government too aid said religion.:damn:

Wonder if they'd deny a billboard across the street that said "muhammad ****** little girls" across the street.

Or just this image and caption:

http://i35.tinypic.com/2cz8ro5.jpg
Muhammad, why don't you take a seat over there.

Wonder if I could get a permit to build a BBQ restaurant right beside this mosque. Hopefully the mosque would be downwind, ya know, to really get the swines aroma swirling around this proposed center for Islam.

I would have specials going everyday on around the time the muslims were praying.:yeah:

This whole thing (and this entire week on GT) reminds me of a cartoon posted on this forum a few years ago by, I believe, bradclark1 (I could be wrong, it could be someone else). In it, political discourse was depicted as two mountain goats on two different peaks; separated by a chasm large enough to prevent the settlement of whatever issue they had with each other, but vainly bleating away none-the-less.