Ok then.  So muslims who want Sharia law have that freedom of speech to.  Build the mosque!

Um what?  Where did I 'equate the two'?  The only person equating the two, is---well---you.  So tell us, do you support anti-pornography laws? 

Actually, no DG.  Any person who uses religion to justify hate and bigotry makes my shit list.  This includes Christians, Muslims, whoever.  That's a consistent attitude of mine across the board. 

But why?  Why does believing that somebody has a right to build a church ----however in poor taste --- mean that there's some sort of ideological alignment?  To me, that seems a fundamental right.  I think I read that somewhere. 

Several 'pro family' organizations with the 501c3 designation are or have had hate organization status.  You can go look at the SPLC  on your own.

No.  Not at all.  I'ma  asking why you would advocate that muslim folks can't build a Mosque and deny them their religious freedoms. 

Somebody's durr readin' skillz are slow again. 

No.  I never said that. 

However, your fear of religious laws seems so strange because you support Christian driven values laws but your just trembling in fear of Muslim driven values laws.

Yeah.  It must be totally made up.  There are no Christian zealots out there who would do something like that.  Ever. 

LOL.  DG, you blame Obama every time it rains. 

No.  I'm a common sense catholic.  Not a crazy one. 

So DG, tell us.  If the mosque is built will the whole country start falling apart?  Will their be beheadings in the streets?  Tell us what you're really afraid of. 

Hey lookee here:   It's the totally not racist, rational, anti-mosque crowd harassing some dude for some reason:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37006_Video-_Anti-Mosque_Mob_Turns_On_Black_Union_Carpenter/

I wonder why they assumed he was Muslim.  Any guesses?   

LOL.  I'm still laughing at this.  Now I'm taking religious leanin' from two nuts from West Podunkia. I like how, in the mind of the hardened winger, modern values can't be negotiated against faith. 

DG, do you ever worry that when somebody takes your picture your soul is going to get stolen? 

Not a good old-fashioned beheading, but dead all the same in the name of faith.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/08/honor.killing/index.html

"Neighbor Veronda Luckett said the family had always been "relatively quiet."

"They seemed to be decent, lovely people," she said."

"The United Nations Population Fund estimated in September 2000 that as many as 5,000 women and girls fall victim to such killings each year."

Sharia sanctions killing people. Christianity does not.

And again.  No one said it was acceptable.

Also silly. Those few anti-abortion murders were considered crimes. Even by Christians. What's so hard to understand about that? What church was our Tiller murderer attending that specifically told him to go do that?

You really suck at the "So what you're saying is" game. I didn't say I was okay with it. I said I don't care.  The religious arguments against gay marriage don't convince me.  The slippery slope argument makes (slightly) more sense, but not enough where I'm going to be actively opposed to anything.  If gay people want to get married, I don't care.  If voters decide not to let them, I don't care. I'm not going to take a side, because the people on both sides of this argument are equally as obnoxious, and I'm not going to be a part of it. 

Fair assessment.

Another stupidity!

here was me thinking that writing something just after a quote my comment refereed to would be taken as refering to that comment.

Where did I say or imply they were not able to say this?  Please tell me where I even mentioned ANYTHING to do what they are or unable to say.

The quote was about people in the US trying to impose their religious views on the laws of the US.  I thought that the quote above my comment was enough.  But it seems not.

Let me make it very clear,

There are christians trying to impose their reglious views on the laws of the US.  for example people on this board who want gay marriage banned because of what their relgious tract says. 

I am not, and never have, said they are not able to try.

No one has denied them that.  nor has anyone denied them the freedom of religion.  You seem to think that the protests are against the government doing or not doing something.  You clearly do not understand the right of the protesters to voice their opinion about building the mosque.  They are demonstrating against the building of the mosque to the BUILDERS of the mosque.  To my knowledge, no one is twisting Peterson's, Bloomberg's or Obama's arm.  Yet you cannot seem to understand that simple issue.

Stutter some more while you try to extricate yourself from that dilemma.  Clearly you are saying that either no one can state their opinion without it being coercion, or that they are not allowed to state their opinion period because it disagrees with yours.  Mighty arrogant of you to be "Big Brother" now.

making your shit list I am sure is terrifying to so many.  But you are going beyond making a shit list, you are denying them the same freedoms you are apparently reserving for yourself and those you happen to agree with.

Who is claiming ideological alignment?  Apparently only you.  You would allow them to build the mosque (as you correctly state is their right) yet deny ANYONE from protesting it (which thank god since you are not in charge, is still their right as well).

Backtracking I see.  Before you mentioned specifics, and now you say "several", which is very generic.  And so you take one "hate" group's opinion to basically make a blanket statement about other groups?  I am sure the KKK has a list of hate groups too.  That the groups you listed are on the SPLC's list is not surprising as they do not bend to the basic tenets of welfare and affirmative action advocated by the SPLC.  So what you are saying is "if you disagree with me, you are a hate group".  I see how judgmental you love to be.

You equated the 2.  It is your fault that now you have to backtrack on it.

Why are you asking me?  I am DEFENDING the people who are protesting, but I am not protesting.  Again, you assume facts not in evidence.  I have made my opinion clear.  I think the building at that site is in poor taste, but they have the right to build it (just re-read the comments you apparently have not read in this thread).

Yes, apparently yours.

I see - so the US military is now a bunch of Christian Zealots.  And you have proof of this?  Please produce it.

Again, show me where I have.  Please, weasel out of this statement which is now copied and pasted to another comment so you can no longer remove it to save face.

I see, so every Catholic who believes in the teachings of the Pope and the Church teachings are crazy.  Nice slam at millions of people you do not know, have never met, and will never understand.  I can see why you are trying to be big brother.  Sorry, I am not so arrogant to think I can condemn so many just because I have found situational ethics.

Bu-bu-but those are the people you love!  Or were looking for!  I know, there has never been an Ugly New Yorker, and of course they are EVERYBODY, right?

I have no idea their reasoning, rationale, or "threats".  But unlike you I watched the video.  You apparently did not.

1. The crowd did not assume anything - they saw opposition and confronted it.

2. He was not assaulted - can you imagine someone walking through a liberal rally and doing so peacefully like this one was?  I have never heard of that, and I doubt you have either (unless the opposition was surrounded by police).

3. The few (one or 2) that  thought he was a muslim was because of his support.  Did YOU think it was because he was black?  says a lot about YOU, does it not (especially since most Muslims are not black).

It seems you are the one with the problem.  The only thing that video proved is the rally was peaceful, and they did confront someone in opposition peacefully.  All concepts that are foreign to you I gather.

Even the most liberal catholic theologian would shutter at the stupidity of your statement.  The answer is so simple that even a 2 year old knows the answer.  No.

The Church is not a democracy.  Except in one respect.  You are free to leave it.  I doubt you understand anything about the faith you claim to profess, or you would not have made such a stupid statement. Even Biden is not that stupid.

Apparently you know nothing about Catholicism.

Again, so who is the dictator here?  No, the stupidity is in the fact your comment followed a statement of fact. NO ONE HERE has any power to FORCE you to do ANYTHING under the name of any God, yet you want to silence them?  I merely pointed out that this (until Dan gets control) is a nice place to express one of your constitutional rights and the justification for your position can be anything you want - God, a toad or pond scum.  So again I say why are you so afraid of people expressing their constitutional right?

You asked, I answered.  Do I need to pull more quotes?

And how are they doing that?  Hmmmm, let me see, voting?  So if someone says they believe in God and then votes, that is enough for you?

No, there is no one on this board doing any imposing.  They are expressing opinions (often they start with code words like "I like, I do not like).  Indeed, there is NO ONE in the US that is Christian that is IMPOSING anything.  Of course you will argue that Christians saddled us with the ten commandments codified into law.  But how did they do that?

They got a majority of voters to approve of the "Thou shalt not"s.  OMG!  We are about to be conquered by ethics!

Again, no one imposed.  But a lot of people voted and expressed opinions.  Your bug-a-boo is staring back at you in the mirror.

They are TRYING.  THAT WAS ALL I SAID.  By voting on a law to impose their reglios views on the laws of sociery they are trying to impose their views.  What part of that means I said they ARE imposing?

Laws impose things on people.  That is the whole point of them trying to get laws is trying to impose things, either a requirement or a prohibition.

Then every word uttered by anyone is TRYING.  I fear less the person who is a hot head, for they seldom DO anything.  It is the one that works to rule you that I fear.  And while many hear have expressed views, not a one has tried to get anyone arrested, deported, or killed for not agreeing with them.

Words do mean things.  But they do not mean the person is actively trying to change your life, only expressing support, condemnation, or outrage over mine or your choices.

So did the founders when they created the constitution.  So did Mass when the legislature said it could be done.  It happens all the time, and they are imposing their morality on all of their constituents.  But they do it legally and by the law, which is going to happen regardless of where you live (unless you live on an island with no one else).

But the difference is that these folks here cannot do anything by themselves - except vote - which is their right.  Just as it is your right to vote any way you feel is necessary. or "right".

See?  We agree.  And the law in Mass. imposed something on 100% of the citizens of Mass.  It conforms to your morality (and indeed it does mine as well), so you do not have a problem with it.  But you are as guilty (or not as I claim) of imposing on the ones that are against it as they are of imposing their views on you.

Every group is trying to impose their views in reality.  In our society, everyone has a right to their own view and to voice their own view.  One could make the simple agrument that you're making in this fashion: atheist/pluralist are imposing their views on other people.

Doc, my puppy has gotten me deported!

Not about building mosques, but I suppose this is other example of folks voting their religious views:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html

"Seven in 10 African Americans who went to the polls voted yes on Proposition 8, the ballot measure overruling a state Supreme Court judgment that legalized same-sex marriage and brought 18,000 gay and lesbian couples to Golden State courthouses in the past six months."

http://cbs5.com/local/proposition.8.poll.2.834082.html

"The poll conducted for CBS 5 by SurveyUSA indicates that support for the measure to ban gay marriage has grown among voters in the state over an eleven day period — most especially among young voters."

Will anybody be adding seven out of 10 of black, or the majority of young Californian voters to their shit list? We know what right wing, religious zealots those demographics can be.

Then why do you apologize for one when it's your beloved Christians?  If you know these people have a history of violence, why do you mitigate that when talking about religious violence?  If you agree that no degree is acceptable, then you should also agree that any effort made to keep one from committing acts of violence ought be done to others.  If your premise is "don't let them build a church because they might come after us with their Sheriaz", then you should advocate the same for your Christians. 

-----

You really suck at the "So what you're saying is" game. I didn't say I was okay with it. I said I don't care.  The religious arguments against gay marriage don't convince me.  The slippery slope argument makes (slightly) more sense, but not enough where I'm going to be actively opposed to anything.  If gay people want to get married, I don't care.  If voters decide not to let them, I don't care. I'm not going to take a side, because the people on both sides of this argument are equally as obnoxious, and I'm not going to be a part of it.

------

But you don't consider it an affront to freedom that a group is trying to make laws based on outdated religious values? 

Oh right.  You're just saying they can't build a church----err---not denying them their right to practice their religion at all. 

It's a party platform.  It's something they're intent on advocating for. 

No DG.  Not at all.  I've been advocating for the right of Muslims to build the mosque in the old burlington coat factory.

I never said that. 

You call that peaceful?  Are you derranged? 

Not really, DG.  In all reality---let's be honest here:  the people at that rally were---well---on your level.  And I mean that in the nice way:  they're simple folks with simple and very basic understanding of issues.  the black dude was probably out on a troll---the idea that he just so happened to wear the beanie and the latin american looking flag looks a bit like snark to me.  And they bit.  they bit hard.  Because they are crazy. 

One of the thing that the ODS infected right can't deal with is race.  The fact that there's some very latent racism amongst them kind of comes out of their pours.  It's very predictable.  So predictable, that we've seen the left be able to beat them over the head with their own actions how many times?  Didn't they claim a head teabagger not too long ago? 

Oh my god. You're out of your mind.  the ultimate mark of a wingnut:  the most respect national organization for the designation and tracking of hate organizations is apparently part of the wellfare state and thus is not credible. 

Holy.  Shit.  I've now heard it all.  Now you're just bad crazy. 

DG:  again.  You're from Ohio.  You're really not very sophisticated.  The vast majority of my education - save for grad school - was spent in Catholic institutions.  You don't have an education - or maybe just much of one. 

Don't get me wrong:  maybe in your region of the world the Catholic church is still in the stone age, but that's just not how it is in the more sophisticated areas of the country.   

More bad crazy. 

Really bad crazy. 

This is really fascinating though.  The double standard, the willfull self delusion.  Very sad.  But very interesting. 

You suck at propaganda too.  NO ONE has denied them ANYTHING.  Many have vocally said they do not like the idea of the mosque being built so close to ground zero.

Which party?  the Democrats and harry Reid?

So who is denying them the right?  I'll give you a clue - NO ONE.

You implied it.  Go back and read your response to the issue of the LGF non-issue.

I know, talk is violent.  No punches were exchanged.  No one was hurt or even touched!  I can see where that would be violent to you since it was not some loony lefty Luddite punching some one.  But the truth is in the video.   And it shows me correct and you wrong.

What level would that be?  A person speaking their opinion in a peaceful manner?  If that is "my level" you are correct.  And I can see how that would be an anathema to you.  Since it violated your freedom of speech by not kow towing to your infinite wisdom and point of view,

Better a simple understanding than no understanding.

Not sure what ODS is, but the right deals with race just fine.  It is the left that cannot seem to live up to MLK's ideals.  Everything they do and say is couched in racist terms.  They cannot get PAST the color of ones skin.  That is all they see.  And unfortunately all they will ever see because they were born of the racist and never left home.

You have to dig to china to find it on the right.  Oh, there is some.  As long as man is not stepford, there will always be some.  But it does not dictate their lives, nor the outlook as it does on the left.  The left lives, eats, sleeps, and breathes it.  They can do nothing else because it is their last hold on power.  Divide with fake bug-a-boos so they can scare people into voting for them as they have no other reason for existence.

As for the beating over the head, if you repeat a lie enough times, many will start to believe you.  The lie is in your words.  But when you have the MSM to back you up, it gains traction.  Brietbart still has that million dollars he offered for proof of the slurs at the rally.  The MSM reported the hell out of the allegations, but never offered any proof. Because there was none.

No, it has been subverted by the race hucksters.  They are in the business of finding what is not there to perpetuate their own existence.  The wingnut is you.  The proof is in the emptiness and shallowness of their proclamations.  Do you recall the time they condemned Byrd for using the N word?  No?  Really?  I am not surprised.  They  never did.

I am not from Ohio.  I went to school there (UD).  It was not the start or the end of my education.  Indeed, I was schooled under one of the most liberal bishops in North America (a very liberal area for the Catholic Church) and he would roll over in his grave to hear you spout that kind of stupidity.  If that is not enough, ,my cousin is in charge of youth Christian Formation for the Arch Diocese of DC.  He says you are also full of it. 

I know, you next retort is going to be a "oh yeah?".  But sadly, you do suffer from the liberal malady of "know-it-all" syndrome.  Which does make you very stupid for you do not know what you know not.  And another clue for you - the whole world is not wrong because you think you are right.

Yes, I know. WHen you are clueless and have no leg to stand on, just dismiss the opposition with stupid labels that have no meaning or justification.  I cannot say you are crazy.  Insane perhaps, but delusional is more the word.  You have created a fantasy world that does not exist in reality.  And like most lefties, when that delusion is threatened, you strike out like a wounded animal.  Without rational thought, just to damage the person picking apart your delusion.  It is sad, but far from unprecedented.