Wind-Up Rubber Finger - Latest Comments on Nine Years Ago; Would Anyone Have Believed This Could Be An Issue? http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php?disp=comments en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 OGRE [Member] in response to: Nine Years Ago; Would Anyone Have Believed This Could Be An Issue? Sat, 21 Aug 2010 05:03:30 +0000 OGRE [Member] c289@http://winduprubberfinger.com/ Greg:<br /> <br /> Indeed.
Indeed.]]> http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php/2010/08/19/would-anyone-have-believed-this-nine-yea#c289 OGRE [Member] in response to: Nine Years Ago; Would Anyone Have Believed This Could Be An Issue? Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:30:25 +0000 OGRE [Member] c287@http://winduprubberfinger.com/ Hollie,<br /> <br /> You must have read NONE of the articles I referenced.<br /> <br /> Another great explanation of rights I've heard heard from Walter E. Williams: The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another.<br /> <br /> As I said before the mosque is NOT a rights issue. It is a common sense issue.<br /> <br /> If I came to you and said that I wanted to paint your house for you as a gesture of good faith, what would you say? Yes I suppose. Now what if I told you that I was going to paint it florescent yellow. You would probably say, "I think I'll pass on that, but thanks for the offer." That is what is going on with this mosque. The imam pushing to have the building erected claims that he is trying to bridge a divide, and allow for a greater understanding of Islam. The only problem is that the people of New York DON'T want the mosque right next to the site of Ground Zero. What divide is he going to bridge by angering the public?<br /> <br /> Another point is that the mosque will be in a financial district of the city. It just doesn't make since.<br /> <br /> Here's a quick history lesson. Whenever Muslim conquerors took control of a city, country or whatever, they would turn the largest church into a mosque. It served as a message to all who lived there that Islam was the only true religion.<br /> <br /> If you really want to know what it's about, just pay attention to what the imam references. The Cordoba Initiative is what they are calling the building project. The Cordoba mosque in Spain used to be a church. When Muslims conquered Cordoba they converted the church into a mosque.<br /> <br /> But remember it's just a peaceful little mosque right... Good Ole' peaceful Islam... ha ha ha!
You must have read NONE of the articles I referenced.

Another great explanation of rights I've heard heard from Walter E. Williams: The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another.

As I said before the mosque is NOT a rights issue. It is a common sense issue.

If I came to you and said that I wanted to paint your house for you as a gesture of good faith, what would you say? Yes I suppose. Now what if I told you that I was going to paint it florescent yellow. You would probably say, "I think I'll pass on that, but thanks for the offer." That is what is going on with this mosque. The imam pushing to have the building erected claims that he is trying to bridge a divide, and allow for a greater understanding of Islam. The only problem is that the people of New York DON'T want the mosque right next to the site of Ground Zero. What divide is he going to bridge by angering the public?

Another point is that the mosque will be in a financial district of the city. It just doesn't make since.

Here's a quick history lesson. Whenever Muslim conquerors took control of a city, country or whatever, they would turn the largest church into a mosque. It served as a message to all who lived there that Islam was the only true religion.

If you really want to know what it's about, just pay attention to what the imam references. The Cordoba Initiative is what they are calling the building project. The Cordoba mosque in Spain used to be a church. When Muslims conquered Cordoba they converted the church into a mosque.

But remember it's just a peaceful little mosque right... Good Ole' peaceful Islam... ha ha ha!]]> http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php/2010/08/19/would-anyone-have-believed-this-nine-yea#c287 Hollie [Visitor] in response to: Nine Years Ago; Would Anyone Have Believed This Could Be An Issue? Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:01:29 +0000 Hollie [Visitor] c286@http://winduprubberfinger.com/ Imam is a new word for me. Well, I can see the imam's point in that it would be unfair to sterotype an entire people group based on a portion of said group's purported actions. Once the mosque is built, -- I'm sure this could be done sans American union workers! -- and at some point down the road, there will be a change in leadership. Hopefully, its occupants will remain peaceful, but if they do not? The government, under current law, could only intervene AFTER some law is broken.<br /> <br /> Here is my biggest concern (quote taken from http://www.nccs.net/articles/ril71.html):<br /> <br /> &#8226;Departure From The Basic Values To Which The Founders Subscribed <br /> <br /> Although the word "rights" remains an important part of the political and social vocabulary, the perception that individual rights are of divine origin has been largely excluded from public discourse. What was once the very cornerstone of the philosophy of freedom expounded by the Declaration of Independence-that a Creator endow&#173;ed human beings with rights and the liberty to enjoy those rights - has virtually disappeared from the textbooks of the nation and from the public statements of many leaders. Indeed, rights are now thought of as man-made and emanating from government. As such, the concept of rights not only has been secularized but trivialized as well. After all, what is the authority for such rights? Any self-proclaimed entitlement to special treatment, privilege, status, or benefit conferred by government can, by inference, be withdrawn. Moreover, the modem no&#173;tion of man-made rights does not embody the natural law injunction that the exercise of a right embodies a corresponding obligation to observe the rights of others, nor does it recognize the "laws of nature and of Nature's God" described by the Declaration of Independence. <br /> <br /> In this connection, the rights specified in the Bill of Rights frequently have been interpreted in an arbitrary manner without regard to the tradition or values which they were designed to protect and preserve. For instance, the First Amendment's provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has been 'inter&#173;preted' in a manner not in keeping with Jefferson's idea that the "liberty to worship our Creator" had been "pro&#173;ved by our experience to be its [government's] best support." In this and other areas, rights are upheld quite apart from the Framers' concerns for civil or ordered liberty, or for the ends of government, especially those set forth in the Preamble. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's scathing critique of Western moral values, and those which have gained currency in the United States in particular, drives this point home: <br /> <br /> "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror." <br /> <br /> Professor Lino Graglia, a harsh critic of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Bill of Rights, makes much the same point in another context: "The Court has created for criminal defendants rights that do not exist under any other system of law-for example, the possibility of almost endless appeals with all costs paid by the state &#173; and which have made the prosecution and conviction of criminals so complex and difficult as to make the at&#173;tempt frequently seem not worthwhile...By undermining effective enforcement of the criminal law...the Court has diminished our liberty to walk the streets of our cities with a degree of security". <br />
Here is my biggest concern (quote taken from http://www.nccs.net/articles/ril71.html):

•Departure From The Basic Values To Which The Founders Subscribed

Although the word "rights" remains an important part of the political and social vocabulary, the perception that individual rights are of divine origin has been largely excluded from public discourse. What was once the very cornerstone of the philosophy of freedom expounded by the Declaration of Independence-that a Creator endow­ed human beings with rights and the liberty to enjoy those rights - has virtually disappeared from the textbooks of the nation and from the public statements of many leaders. Indeed, rights are now thought of as man-made and emanating from government. As such, the concept of rights not only has been secularized but trivialized as well. After all, what is the authority for such rights? Any self-proclaimed entitlement to special treatment, privilege, status, or benefit conferred by government can, by inference, be withdrawn. Moreover, the modem no­tion of man-made rights does not embody the natural law injunction that the exercise of a right embodies a corresponding obligation to observe the rights of others, nor does it recognize the "laws of nature and of Nature's God" described by the Declaration of Independence.

In this connection, the rights specified in the Bill of Rights frequently have been interpreted in an arbitrary manner without regard to the tradition or values which they were designed to protect and preserve. For instance, the First Amendment's provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has been 'inter­preted' in a manner not in keeping with Jefferson's idea that the "liberty to worship our Creator" had been "pro­ved by our experience to be its [government's] best support." In this and other areas, rights are upheld quite apart from the Framers' concerns for civil or ordered liberty, or for the ends of government, especially those set forth in the Preamble. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's scathing critique of Western moral values, and those which have gained currency in the United States in particular, drives this point home:

"Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror."

Professor Lino Graglia, a harsh critic of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Bill of Rights, makes much the same point in another context: "The Court has created for criminal defendants rights that do not exist under any other system of law-for example, the possibility of almost endless appeals with all costs paid by the state ­ and which have made the prosecution and conviction of criminals so complex and difficult as to make the at­tempt frequently seem not worthwhile...By undermining effective enforcement of the criminal law...the Court has diminished our liberty to walk the streets of our cities with a degree of security".
]]> http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php/2010/08/19/would-anyone-have-believed-this-nine-yea#c286 OGRE [Member] in response to: Nine Years Ago; Would Anyone Have Believed This Could Be An Issue? Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:31:09 +0000 OGRE [Member] c285@http://winduprubberfinger.com/ Hollie:<br /> <br /> The interesting thing is that <b>nobody</b> on either side of the issue has said that the government should intervene with the building of the mosque. The Muslims have a constitutional right to build wherever they want. Everyone knows that. The president's response to the issue was completely pointless. There was never any question of rights! Obama also tried to back pedal on what he said the following day, as soon as he found out that it was unpopular. The only conflict when it comes to the constitutionality of the issue lies within the Obama administration.<br /> <br /> With that said, there is far more at play here than what I listed in the article. For example, the imam who's behind the plan to build the mosque refuses to consider terror organizations --terror organizations...<br /> <br /> <b><a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabL">Take a peek at this New York Times article.</a></b><br /> <br /> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabL<br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <b>The imam behind plans to build a controversial Ground Zero mosque yesterday refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization.</b><br /> <br /> According to the State Department's assessment, "Hamas terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets."<br /> <br /> Asked if he agreed with the State Department's assessment, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf told WABC radio, "Look, I'm not a politician.<br /> <br /> "The issue of terrorism is a very complex question," he told interviewer Aaron Klein.<br /> <br /> "There was an attempt in the '90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that."<br /> <br /> Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn't budge.<br /> <br /> "I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy," Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in Israel between Jews and Arabs.<br /> <br /> Rauf also would not answer a question about Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.<br /> <br /> "I have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. My father was never a member of the Muslim Brotherhood," he said, disputing a rumor.<br /> <br /> <b>Rauf's position has come under a microscope as he leads an effort to build a $100 million mosque and community center at 45 Park Place, near Ground Zero.</b><br /> <br /> Meanwhile, a pastor on Staten Island who signed off on a controversial plan to sell a former convent to the Muslim American Society has changed his mind.<br /> <br /> St. Margaret Mary R.C. Church Pastor Keith Fennessy sent a letter to Archbishop Timothy Dolan saying that, "after careful reflection," he has withdrawn his support for the convent sale.<br /> <br /> But New York Archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling told the Web site SI Live, "The contract was signed, and [Fennessy's withdrawal of support] does not cancel that."<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> This imam is going to "possibly" (more than likely) take funding from terror organizations to build a mosque in New York. I don't think this should be taken lightly.<br /> <br /> Should the government intervene, what do you think? I don't think the Muslims will be able to build it because there isn't a union employee within 1,000 miles who would be caught dead working on the site!<br /> <br /> Did you read this?<br /> <br /> <b><a href="http://haveabadone.homedns.org/blog1.php/2009/05/28/conspiracy-theorists-advocate">This is an earlier post I did related to the whole question of Obama's religious beliefs.</a></b><br /> <br /> It might help you to understand.
The interesting thing is that nobody on either side of the issue has said that the government should intervene with the building of the mosque. The Muslims have a constitutional right to build wherever they want. Everyone knows that. The president's response to the issue was completely pointless. There was never any question of rights! Obama also tried to back pedal on what he said the following day, as soon as he found out that it was unpopular. The only conflict when it comes to the constitutionality of the issue lies within the Obama administration.

With that said, there is far more at play here than what I listed in the article. For example, the imam who's behind the plan to build the mosque refuses to consider terror organizations --terror organizations...

Take a peek at this New York Times article.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabL


The imam behind plans to build a controversial Ground Zero mosque yesterday refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization.

According to the State Department's assessment, "Hamas terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets."

Asked if he agreed with the State Department's assessment, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf told WABC radio, "Look, I'm not a politician.

"The issue of terrorism is a very complex question," he told interviewer Aaron Klein.

"There was an attempt in the '90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that."

Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn't budge.

"I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy," Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in Israel between Jews and Arabs.

Rauf also would not answer a question about Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

"I have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. My father was never a member of the Muslim Brotherhood," he said, disputing a rumor.

Rauf's position has come under a microscope as he leads an effort to build a $100 million mosque and community center at 45 Park Place, near Ground Zero.

Meanwhile, a pastor on Staten Island who signed off on a controversial plan to sell a former convent to the Muslim American Society has changed his mind.

St. Margaret Mary R.C. Church Pastor Keith Fennessy sent a letter to Archbishop Timothy Dolan saying that, "after careful reflection," he has withdrawn his support for the convent sale.

But New York Archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling told the Web site SI Live, "The contract was signed, and [Fennessy's withdrawal of support] does not cancel that."


This imam is going to "possibly" (more than likely) take funding from terror organizations to build a mosque in New York. I don't think this should be taken lightly.

Should the government intervene, what do you think? I don't think the Muslims will be able to build it because there isn't a union employee within 1,000 miles who would be caught dead working on the site!

Did you read this?

This is an earlier post I did related to the whole question of Obama's religious beliefs.

It might help you to understand.]]> http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php/2010/08/19/would-anyone-have-believed-this-nine-yea#c285 Hollie [Visitor] in response to: Nine Years Ago; Would Anyone Have Believed This Could Be An Issue? Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:35:51 +0000 Hollie [Visitor] c284@http://winduprubberfinger.com/ As you know I do not often watch the news or keep up with politics. I read one article about this because my husband had seen a TV spot and brought it up. I think the article I read was from The Washington Post (if that matters).<br /> <br /> Here is what I gathered from that article: the Muslims intend to build on a site that is about 2 blocks from ground zero, it is private property, Obama made a comment about the rights of the the Muslim people to build there as they have freedom of religion too.<br /> <br /> Now, the article went on to say that many people read into that comment saying that Obama feels no qualms about the proximity of the mosque to ground zero.<br /> <br /> When did Obama say he felt it was a tactful thing to do? From what I read, he simply stated that they have a right to build there according to the law. I have to agree with that. As bad as it sounds, we can't deny one religion that right or else all other religions would be subject. America did not force Christianity upon its people, you see. Religion remains free.
Here is what I gathered from that article: the Muslims intend to build on a site that is about 2 blocks from ground zero, it is private property, Obama made a comment about the rights of the the Muslim people to build there as they have freedom of religion too.

Now, the article went on to say that many people read into that comment saying that Obama feels no qualms about the proximity of the mosque to ground zero.

When did Obama say he felt it was a tactful thing to do? From what I read, he simply stated that they have a right to build there according to the law. I have to agree with that. As bad as it sounds, we can't deny one religion that right or else all other religions would be subject. America did not force Christianity upon its people, you see. Religion remains free.]]> http://winduprubberfinger.com/blog1.php/2010/08/19/would-anyone-have-believed-this-nine-yea#c284