They won't build it! Hardhats vow not to work on controversial mosque

seashale76

Unapologetic Iconodule
Dec 29, 2004
14,001
4,395
✟171,309.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If you are talking about the Founding Fathers, they were mostly Deist and driven by Enlightenment humanism. If you're talking about the small colonies of Christian groups who arrived on US shores. Almost the first thing they did was to pass laws attacking other groups of Christians.

And they were taxed to support a state church in those colonies too. Hence the reason for: "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."
 
Upvote 0
A

armyman_83

Guest
What rights would those be? Saudi Arabia doesn't have the same First Amendment that the US does.

Your right, because its lawful doesn't make it right. I think there have been a few countries where it was lawful to kill certain ethnic groups...but it was legal....so it must be ok!:doh:


Why stop there? why not just round them all up and put them in camps?

Deportation is much more humane than rounding them up and putting them in camps. Plus camps cost money.;)



You see, the problem with claiming to be better than your enemies is that you actually have to be better than your enemies... and nobody said that would be easy.

All I am saying is--as of right now--we have Churches and Mosques in America. In Saudi Arabia--they don't. Honestly it would be fine with me if we had no Churches in Saudi Arabia if there weren't Mosques in America.



So Saudi Arabia is your new role model... I guess you're right; religious freedom is for chumps.

I am for religious freedom for Christians and Jews among other groups.
 
Upvote 0
A

armyman_83

Guest
Jihad means struggle, and I can't see how you respect the Taliban or Al Qaeda with thier ability to intentionally kill civilians to make a statement. Then of course, military leaders have intentionally blown up civilian targets to make a statement. So I guess I can see your viewpoint; the deaths of civilians are justified so long as your statement is understood by the rest. Just like they're willing to restrict freedom of religion against non-Muslims(something not permitted in Islam), you are willing to do the same. Well, you're downright for no Muslim to live in the United States.

I respect the fact that they are willing to take up arms--I never said that I respected the fact that they kill innocents. They really aren't too good at taking on real conventional troops.

I am pretty sure restricting freedom of religion of Non-Muslims is status quo for Islam.

1)
Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. "Old churches" are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
2) Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
3) Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.
4) Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
5) Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
6) Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
7) Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.
Non-Muslims recieve second class citizenship in Islamic states.

Let me ask--do you want non-Muslims to live in Mecca?
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Your right, because its lawful doesn't make it right. I think there have been a few countries where it was lawful to kill certain ethnic groups...but it was legal....so it must be ok!:doh:

Okay... if you're not interested in discussing the real world, and responding to things people actually say, as opposed to your own rehearsed talking points, this conversation is going to be both futile and pointless.

Deportation is much more humane than rounding them up and putting them in camps. Plus camps cost money.;)

Executions cost less than deportations... bullets cost less than planes.

All I am saying is--as of right now--we have Churches and Mosques in America.

Because most of us in America believe in freedom of religion... it would be refreshing if folks such as yourself got with the program.

In Saudi Arabia--they don't.

Because Saudi Arabia is not America... which seems to be a problem you're looking to solve.

Honestly it would be fine with me if we had no Churches in Saudi Arabia if there weren't Mosques in America.

So honestly it would be fine with you if we were more like them... you know, as long as you're going to call yourself "armyman," you should know that real army men swear an oath to defend the Constitution in its entirety... not just the parts they choose to agree with.

I am for religious freedom for Christians and Jews among other groups.

Just not for the Muslims... we get it. "One set of rules for us, another set for them," is not one of the principles that made America great.

But your disdain for American principles is your business... enjoy it.
 
Upvote 0
A

armyman_83

Guest
Okay... if you're not interested in discussing the real world, and responding to things people actually say, as opposed to your own rehearsed talking points, this conversation is going to be both futile and pointless.

Because I say they don't meet our standard I am wrong, but because you put them in a different group--your right? How does that work?

Germany didn't have the freedoms we enjoyed during WWII--does that mean that the murder of Jews and other "undesireables" was ok? After all, they don't have the first Amendment--so they can't be breaking it.

Executions cost less than deportations... bullets cost less than planes.

I don't know, you would have to do a cost analysis on it. You have to think, areas to bury the bodies, that takes time and resources, ammunition and troops, oh and then you maintiance costs on weapons, because weapons will break, trucks to move the people to execution grounds, trucks to take troops there, trucks to haul bodies, shovels to dig graves (or you burn them--in which case that costs money) Safety concerns due to so many dead bodies, etc. Its really just a lot more practical to deport them, or issue a "get out of dodge" warning and give them 2 weeks or an alotted time.

And maybe you forgot the fact that I view them as human--I just want them out of the country, I never said anything about wanting them dead.

Because most of us in America believe in freedom of religion... it would be refreshing if folks such as yourself got with the program.

Ok I will be sure to smoke dope and maybe make a human sacrifice or two, just so I can express my rights as an American.

Because Saudi Arabia is not America... which seems to be a problem you're looking to solve.

What I am saying is--Muslims stick to Islamic countries, and Christians stick to Christian countries.


So honestly it would be fine with you if we were more like them... you know, as long as you're going to call yourself "armyman," you should know that real army men swear an oath to defend the Constitution in its entirety... not just the parts they choose to agree with.

Don't worry missy I know about the Constitution, that is why I do defend it. But I also know my Constitutional right to aid in the Amendment process. Or is anyone trying to get the Constitution Amended through legal means a bad guy now?


Just not for the Muslims... we get it. "One set of rules for us, another set for them," is not one of the principles that made America great.

But your disdain for American principles is your business... enjoy it.

Ok, lets invite Kali worshipers over, start the Thuggee cult again....Or some Africian tribal religions maybe? Sorry if my disdain for a particular religious group that has espoused global domination is upsetting.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Because I say they don't meet our standard I am wrong, but because you put them in a different group--your right? How does that work?

What do you care about our standard? You want to lower our standard so it's the same as theirs, remember?

"Honestly it would be fine with me if we had no Churches in Saudi Arabia if there weren't Mosques in America."

You're the one who wants us all on the same level... theirs. How does that work?

Germany didn't have the freedoms we enjoyed during WWII--does that mean that the murder of Jews and other "undesireables" was ok? After all, they don't have the first Amendment--so they can't be breaking it.

And if this conversation were taking place 70 years ago, you'd be arguing in favor of murdering Germans... because after all, that's what they do.

I don't know, you would have to do a cost analysis on it. You have to think, areas to bury the bodies, that takes time and resources, ammunition and troops, oh and then you maintiance costs on weapons, because weapons will break, trucks to move the people to execution grounds, trucks to take troops there, trucks to haul bodies, shovels to dig graves (or you burn them--in which case that costs money) Safety concerns due to so many dead bodies, etc. Its really just a lot more practical to deport them, or issue a "get out of dodge" warning and give them 2 weeks or an alotted time.

You've got all the same issues with deportation... even with the "get out of dodge" warning, you'll need means of monitoring them, enforcing the rules, and dealing with noncompliance.

Perhaps you should look to your friends the Germans... they certainly found a cost-effective way of dealing with their undesirables.

And maybe you forgot the fact that I view them as human--I just want them out of the country, I never said anything about wanting them dead.

Never said anything yet...

Ok I will be sure to smoke dope and maybe make a human sacrifice or two, just so I can express my rights as an American.

And so your disconnect from reality continues... you're not used to talking to actual people, are you?

What I am saying is--Muslims stick to Islamic countries, and Christians stick to Christian countries.

Why stop there? Jews stick to Jewish countries, Italians stick to Italian Countries, blacks stick to black countries...

Which country do you expect to take you in?

Don't worry missy I know about the Constitution, that is why I do defend it.

Very selectively, I see.

But I also know my Constitutional right to aid in the Amendment process. Or is anyone trying to get the Constitution Amended through legal means a bad guy now?

You haven't said anything that I can recall about seeking a Constitutional Amendment... are you looking for a way to legally run the Muslims out of your country?

Ok, lets invite Kali worshipers over, start the Thuggee cult again....Or some Africian tribal religions maybe? Sorry if my disdain for a particular religious group that has espoused global domination is upsetting.

That's the price we pay for freedom of religion... this country took a chance on a particular religious group that espoused global domination before... and now we Christians are welcome here.
 
Upvote 0

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,457
267
✟28,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So does Christianity. After Rome became Christian, lots of pagan temples were transformed into churches, usually to the dismay and horror to the local pagans. Likewise, when Christianity came to England (and northern Europe in general), churches and cathedrals were erected on sites where Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons had previously worshipped their gods. Heck, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest site in Christianity, was at first a Roman temple.

Christianity has as much a history of erecting places of worship on others' holy sites as Islam does; Islam may be less discreet about it, but both religions have a history to be guilty about in that respect.
Stop bringing facts into this. Just because Islam is where christianity was 200-300 years ago does not mean we should remind people of the terrible sins of christianity. I mean where are the massive protests from christians against the unbiblical way child abuse scandals within the church are being handled. Oh yeah we just turn a blind eye to that. I'm sure that is the christian thing to do. oops broke the sarcasm detector again!
 
Upvote 0

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,457
267
✟28,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I can't believe the nerve of some people, the Muslims who are behind this mosque are dangerous and want to hurt us. this is no accident, its a bold statement to put a mosque feet away from where those twin towers stood. we as Americans have every right to speak out about this disgusting display of evil.
pure opinion and speculation here. When asked
Any evidence to support this claim?
you just quote someone else's opinion. In that opinion piece their conclusion from evidence (and I use that term very loosely) just isn't supported from what is said.
So there is a poster at a protest or perhaps it was that community forum where objectors to the community centre tried to drown out other people exercising freedom of speech.
 
Upvote 0

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,457
267
✟28,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I wonder why there hasn't been more articles on why Churches aren't allowed in the ENTIRE country of Saudi Arabia......

"Let there be a Mosque in America when there are Churches in Mecca."
do you really think the actions of others should be a good way to judge right from wrong??? lets face it if you think actions of other countries is a good measuring stick then perhaps we should bring back more widespread slavery than what we have now

Oh yeah and don't forget your country (and mine) abuse human rights this very day.

Also please explain why christianity should not be banned in the US. After all they were treating people the exact same way (and sometimes worse) than the way your complaining about treatment in other countries.

We do have much more religious freedom compared to most of the world, but there are always limits. Remember it was Christians who founded America, so naturally there is a bit more inclination toward the Judeo-Christian faith system.
Really! I didn't know the Indians were christian. I don't believe they were and I doubt any expert on the subject would back you up on that claim.

Just because it was the british who invaded the US does not mean that they were christian. Sure some people who travelled with them were apparently.

I just feel that we should stop the followers of Mohamet from entering our country, and kick out those who do adhear to Islam. Islam is a threat, in my view. If Islamic countries want to ban Christianity--that is their right as a nation, just as it is America's right to ban Islam. Why blur lines? We know where each other stand, each one on the other side of the line--with drawn swords.
Actually you don't have that right unless you change the basic documents that your entire system is based on like the constitution and bill of rights. If you go down that path be very careful they may take away your right to be a christian one day.

Yeah it was a Coptic Chrisitan lawyer that started the ball rolling, not some lovey dovey Mohametean......

"The decision was a response to a complaint filed by Coptic lawyer Naguib Gobrael, head of Egyptian Union for Human Rights...."
and you really think if muslims didn't want it to go ahead then it would????
 
Upvote 0

Kamrian

Regular Member
Aug 25, 2010
115
4
Canada
✟15,261.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
It's quite terrifying the tags on this thread include "islam conquest of USA" and that one poster is a self-described "Crusader".

Religious freedom for all, except for Muslims, African polytheism, European paganism, Wicca, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, and the list goes on...

Every single Muslim did not get together and decide to wage war. It was a small group of extremists who do not represent the Muslim religion.

Just like the Crusades, it was only a small gro--oh, no it wasn't! It was SANCTIONED BY THE POPE!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seashale76

Unapologetic Iconodule
Dec 29, 2004
14,001
4,395
✟171,309.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Just like the Crusades, it was only a small gro--oh, no it wasn't! It was SANCTIONED BY THE POPE!

And here, your argument breaks down. Interesting, isn't it, that the fourth Crusade was against Christians? Go back and review the history. The Pope has never been the patriarch of all of Christendom. As a matter of fact, at the Great Schism, there were four other patriarchs who didn't go along with Rome (yet still have communion with each other). The teaching of history in the West is severely lacking, and completely and conveniently ignores loads of things.

I just realized I ranted at you- it is a pet peeve of mine that has nothing to do with you.
 
Upvote 0

Kamrian

Regular Member
Aug 25, 2010
115
4
Canada
✟15,261.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
And here, your argument breaks down. Interesting, isn't it, that the fourth Crusade was against Christians? Go back and review the history. The Pope has never been the patriarch of all of Christendom. As a matter of fact, at the Great Schism, there were four other patriarchs who didn't go along with Rome (yet still have communion with each other). The teaching of history in the West is severely lacking, and completely and conveniently ignores loads of things.

I just realized I ranted at you- it is a pet peeve of mine that has nothing to do with you.


Perhaps as you said it was how it is taught. Here in my part of the world we are taught that the Crusades were papal-sanctioned against the "infidels".

Did Urban not give his famous Council of Clermont calling them to war? I'm not saying all Christians answered, but a large number did. Then they fought among themselves in the fourth crusade for reasons I'm still not sure of.
 
Upvote 0

Gishin

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2008
4,621
270
37
Midwest City, Oklahoma
✟6,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Adultry and Homosexuality are expressly prohibited by the UCMJ--Freedom of speech and the ability to demonstrate is not.
Homosexuality is not, sodomy is.

But thank you for highlighting how out of touch the UCMJ is.
 
Upvote 0

seashale76

Unapologetic Iconodule
Dec 29, 2004
14,001
4,395
✟171,309.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps as you said it was how it is taught. Here in my part of the world we are taught that the Crusades were papal-sanctioned against the "infidels".

Did Urban not give his famous Council of Clermont calling them to war? I'm not saying all Christians answered, but a large number did. Then they fought among themselves in the fourth crusade for reasons I'm still not sure of.

Urban did, but Christendom was much more than Rome. Considering the Great Schism occurred in 1054 (though there were factors that preceded the formal break) and the Fourth Crusade, in particular, began in 1202- one must understand who the particular Christians were that Urban was calling to action. In effect, it was only those Christians who were in his See (which was only a drop in the bucket). The other Sees were not even in communion with Rome at that point (though they were with each other)- and communion is and was everything to the Church. The disagreement between the other Christian patriarchs and Rome was such that they considered themselves to practically be following different religions (if one looks at it simply- it isn't quite that simple). It is and was a serious enough issue that we're still not united by communion. (As an Orthodox Christian, I couldn't go to a Roman Catholic Church and receive communion, much less any other type of Christian church that is one of the many schisms from Roman Catholicism- which is practically all of the denominations one hears about and is familiar with- and with these groups our theology has very little in common.) From an Orthodox perspective (no offense to anyone) Rome went rogue.

The biggest issue I see is that people are only taught that there was the Early Church and then there was Rome, and this is simply not the case.
 
Upvote 0

Kamrian

Regular Member
Aug 25, 2010
115
4
Canada
✟15,261.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-NDP
Urban did, but Christendom was much more than Rome. Considering the Great Schism occurred in 1054 (though there were factors that preceded the formal break) and the Fourth Crusade, in particular, began in 1202- one must understand who the particular Christians were that Urban was calling to action. In effect, it was only those Christians who were in his See (which was only a drop in the bucket). The other Sees were not even in communion with Rome at that point (though they were with each other)- and communion is and was everything to the Church. The disagreement between the other Christian patriarchs and Rome was such that they considered themselves to practically be following different religions (if one looks at it simply- it isn't quite that simple). It is and was a serious enough issue that we're still not united by communion. (As an Orthodox Christian, I couldn't go to a Roman Catholic Church and receive communion, much less any other type of Christian church that is one of the many schisms from Roman Catholicism- which is practically all of the denominations one hears about and is familiar with.) From an Orthodox perspective (no offense to anyone) Rome went rogue.

The biggest issue I see is that people are only taught that there was the Early Church and then there was Rome, and this is simply not the case.

Ahh...fair enough.
What about when the Church was basically in control of the former Roman Empire? Were they united then when they had control then and ran roughshod over the Roman Pagan's rights to worship? Or during the fall of the Empire, or were there schisms before that?

just curious, is all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seashale76

Unapologetic Iconodule
Dec 29, 2004
14,001
4,395
✟171,309.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Ahh...fair enough.
What about when the Church was basically in control of the former Roman Empire? Were they united then when they had control then and ran roughshod over the Roman Pagan's rights to worship? Or during the fall of the Empire, or were there schisms before that?

just curious, is all.

While most people point to Constantine I as the big bad- there are a few things to mention, I think (he had nothing on Julian the Apostate for instance). With the Edict of Toleration in 311 (before Constantine), Christians weren't killed just for being Christian anymore. In 312, Constantine came to power, and it is obvious that his mother Helen (who was a Christian) was a big influence on him. There is a lot of disagreement as to when he actually officially converted- one account I've heard is that he had priests follow him around to baptize him in case of an emergency. So while he may have believed, it is debated that he actually wasn't baptized and communed until much later. When he issued the Edict of Milan, it made the Roman Empire officially a government that didn't endorse any religion over another- so anyone could follow whatever religion they pleased. It is known that he had pagans placed in high positions, though he himself stopped following the pagan rites, and this likely resonated negatively with a lot of people in the Empire, especially when they saw him embracing a religion that had been extremely and officially persecuted at the highest levels not long before.

As he aged, he became more defined in his Christian beliefs, and did favor Christianity. So, as Christianity gained in influence under Constantine's endorsement, some pagan temples were destroyed and some of their priests exiled, yes. It is much more likely that whatever the Emperor was doing became the thing to be as far as everyone else was concerned. Overall, he was actually a very mild ruler, especially regarding those who didn't share his faith. There is no doubt that he was instrumental in helping to spread Christianity across the Empire.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Drekkan85

Immortal until proven otherwise
Dec 9, 2008
2,274
225
Japan
✟23,051.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Liberals
If you want a pretty dang good account of the late Roman Empire (no self-respecting citizen of Constantinople would call themselves a "Byzantine" - a title applied to them by Western enlightenment thinkers to underplay the importance of the Eastern Roman Empire to safeguarding Europe and Classical thought), I'd check out "Lost to the West".
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
The people that are commanded to be destoryed generally broke the law--wereas--with Islam, it is merely a matter of taking over non-muslims.
Love the double standard. The Koran only justifies killing people IT regards as being law breakers as well.
Since the rise of Mohamet, Islam has been spreading itself by the sword. I am not saying that Christendom hasn't done the same--only that Islam is wrong. Do you, as a Christian, believe that Islam is a way to eternal life?
Of course not. Nor do I believe that Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism, Ba'haism or voodoo are. But that isn't valid grounds to restrict the rights of followers of those religions in a secular society.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
And here, your argument breaks down. Interesting, isn't it, that the fourth Crusade was against Christians? Go back and review the history. The Pope has never been the patriarch of all of Christendom. As a matter of fact, at the Great Schism, there were four other patriarchs who didn't go along with Rome (yet still have communion with each other). The teaching of history in the West is severely lacking, and completely and conveniently ignores loads of things.

I just realized I ranted at you- it is a pet peeve of mine that has nothing to do with you.
The 4th Crusade was raised to be an assault on Egypt. However, once the Venetians organising the thing had their hands on their backer's money, the Venetians more or less announced that they were off to Constantinople instead. And the backers and French nobility who'd already signed up stood to loose massive fortunes if they didn't go. So, they went.

And NOT with Papal authority, either. In fact, Dandolo was excomunicated for the whole stunt.

MY pet peeve. Historical revisionism, particularly of mediaeval history.

You want an example of a Christian Crusade against Christians that was, you know, an actual bonafide, blessed, Papal bannered Holy War? Go for the Bogomils, or the Albigensians or the Cathar Crusades.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums