Glenn Beck Meetup Tries To Stop Mosque From Being Built

[Matt Collins]

The local Glenn Beck Meetup in Nashville is putting forth an organized effort to stop a mosque being built in the area.


From their list:


Hello Patriots,

The Site Plan for The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro was approved yesterday because no one came from the community to oppose this development. Somehow they slid this through, and we have one Hail Mary that we can attempt. This mosque has to be approved by the Board of Commissioners, and this subject will be on the agenda on Thursday, June 17 at 6 pm. We need every single person in our community at that meeting, especially the people who live on Bradyville Pike. We have to oppose this in a huge way!

For those of you interested in being on a task force to get the word out to the community, please let me know. We will need all of the volunteers we can get. For those of you who say, "What does this have to do with me?" please read on the Islamic Center of Mboro's website and read the "History" section. Interesting that their agenda is right there for everyone to see. See direct quote below:


"When asked, "What would you like to see in the future?" the responses were unbound. The main focus is to insure the masjid's stronghold of our community and to expand beyond religious teachings into an Islamic social institution to include all ages. We must work hard so that the ICM have a prominent role in the development and progression of not only Murfreesboro, but of Middle Tennessee. And to add one more, the Rutherford County school system currently offers French, Latin, German, and Spanish as a second language, to see our community work with the school board to establish a program that also offers Arabic as a second language would be a great achievement in the name of Allah. "

Here is the link:
http://icmtn.org/cgi-bin/links/page.cgi?g=Detailed%2F5.shtml;d=1


For those of you who say,"I don't live on Bradyville or right around the area, how does this affect me?" Please read their opening statement on their website below:


"As Salam Alykum (Peace be upon You)
This is the official home for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro located in Murfreesboro, TN. The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro serves the following Cities in Middle Tennessee primarily: Murfreesboro, Shelbyville, Christiana, Manchester , Tullahoma, Lebanon, Lavergne, Bell Buckle, Smyrna, Woodbury, Eagleville, and Beech Grove. "

I would submit to you, if you live in Middle TN, this has everything to do with you. Get involved!

See the list of County Commissioners below that are on the Board of Commissioners that will be present at the meeting on June 17 at 6 pm. Contact your district's commissioner via email and phone and let them know how you feel. Invite everyone who is breathing (and not Muslim) to this meeting on June 17.

Here is a story of another previous effort:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100523/NEWS06/5230369/1023/NEWS01





.

[AuH20]

Do these people even listen to Glenn Beck? He said while he's considers this project to be insensitive to the people of New York, no one should prohibit them from exercising their free enterprise rights.

[dannno]

Amazing.

[tmosley]

Dey gon tech or kids tuh spik turrurist?

[BlackTerrel]

Do these people even listen to Glenn Beck? He said while he's considers this project to be insensitive to the people of New York, no one should prohibit them from exercising their free enterprise rights.

This isn't New York. And yeah they're not even trying to hide it.

How dare Muslims practice their religion :rolleyes:

[specsaregood]

Some of those murfreesboro girls could use a little islamic morality training. I had some good times in that town earlier in my life.

Oh and these people disgust me.

[Matt Collins]

Some of those murfreesboro girls could use a little islamic morality training. I had some good times in that town earlier in my life.You too, eh? :D

When I was at MTSU, it was one of the top party schools in the US! :p;)

[Matt Collins]

Below are some selected correspondence I've had with the list:




FROM MATT COLLINS:
Do the people on this list believe in private property rights, or do they not?
I am just curious.



FROM JAKE:
i think Islam and what it stands for trumps a skirmish in the planning comission... take a gander at Act for America and get back to me... jake



FROM MATT COLLINS:

So you are saying you only accept property rights for those with whom you agree?




JAKE WROTE:

I understand the ultimate goal of Islam: Caliphate...

when they become successful in this goal you will no longer have rights. period.

You will be subjugated as a 2nd class citizen and will be allowed to remain under Sharia Law as an infadel...

just sayin'


MATT COLLINS WROTE:

Jake,
Perhaps but that's why as Jefferson said we should have strict separation between church and state. It protects us from the government being used to push someone's religious agenda, whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc. The government is supposed to remain neutral. If you inject religion into politics, you shouldn't be surprised when politics is injected into religion. It's also why we don't live in a democracy where the majority can trample the rights of the minority. Instead we live in a Constittuional Republic where our rights are individual, do not come from the government, and the rule of law is expected to be upheld for everyone who has not been convicted of causing harm to others.

We as Christians should be winning over their hearts and their minds, not using the force of government to deny their rights. The position that seems to be advocated here is a very big-government liberal position in which the force of government is desired to be used to control people with whom you disagree.

A few points to ponder...

Government never stops and never limits itself to just what you want it to do. It always grows beyond its parameters and expands towards the authoritarian side of the spectrum.

Government strong enough to take something from others to do what you want is strong enough to take from you too! Would you like the government to prohibit your church from constructing a new building because the Muslims outnumbered your church members at the local council meeting? I would guess not.

In a free country the government doesn't tell you when and where you can build a church, mosque, or synagogue. If the government is oppressive enough to determine where you can worship it can do a myriad of other liberty stifling activities. Besides one of the pillars of the Republic is the ability to worship as you please.

Big government allows one group of people to inflict its values on others which tends to make us scared of each other because we are fearful that the other group will get control of the government. The solution is to keep government as minimal as possible so that there is not an incentive for any group to gain control over the government and impose its will on us. Conservatives should be asking how to limit government, not how to make it more powerful.

I find it inconsistent that people who claim to be so distrustful of the government are willing to grant it so much power to stifle their perceived enemies. If you give the government weapons to fight your enemies those weapons will eventually be used against you. If you give the government power to implement God's law, then next year someone will use it to try and impose the Devil's law. We don't win over people of different faiths by stomping them out, we do it by changing their hearts and minds.

And also, it's my understanding that Glenn Beck disagrees with this course of action seeing as he has defended the NY mosque to be constructed at Ground Zero. I believe he says it might be insensitive, but that if we are to uphold private property rights, then we must respect private property rights for everyone, regardless of whether we "like" them or not.

-Matt

JAKE WROTE:

1) show me in the constitution "Seperation of Church and State" - if you want to quote glenn on that one you will see the government when it was founded was 'full' of church, prayer, services in Congress etc...

2) Islam is not just a religion - it is an all-encompassing political systerm... you will not win their hearts and minds as they reject all other religions... When their holy scripture requires that Islam rule the world - and a local mosque can have a religious aspect but it also has a politiical aspect...

so my question to you, is if the muslim system has a desire to displace our current goverment with Sharia law - then how would you handle that?

By the way, please point out chapter and verse where Jefferson says a person cannot express their religious views in respect to Government business...

the constitution protects the Free exercise of not 'from'...

another liberal idea taken to it's extreme...

I do struggle with the idea of denying a 'church' or 'religious' group the ability to build what they want.. my question is - are their intentions religious or political? Do they want to replace our Representative Republic with Sharia Law?

Do they want to truly assimilate into our culture or just carve out their culture as a sub-culture and creating barriers between our culture?

Have you read "While Europe Slept" ?
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=while+europe+slept+by+bruce+bawer&oe=utf8&hl=en&cid=3200939693975596943&ei=OYT9S_e-EoW62AS7t_WrCA&sa=title&ved=0CAgQ8wIwADgA#p


MATT WROTE:

Jake,

I never said that the phrase of "separating church and state" was in the Constitution, I attributed it to Jefferson. But it is noteworthy that the 1st Amendment does solidify this concept, at least at the federal level. And don't confuse church and religion, with faith and reverence. They are not all one in the same.

And perhaps Islam is also a political system, but in the US which is (supposedly) a free and open society, they should be able to practice their faith, or even advocate their political ideologies, without being persecuted by the government. We don't throw communists or socialists in jail for advocating their political ideologies now do we? Of course not! We don't want to deny rights to Democrats or those who lean left even though everyone here agrees that their ideologies, if implemented, would be damaging to our society. Speech that we don't agree with should be countered with more speech, not violence or persecution, or oppression, or censorship; it's called the free market of ideas.

Again, if we want to win over their hearts and minds, we have to do it without the force the government.

-Matt


STEPHEN WROTE:

I feel I must weigh in on this issue, and not be too verbose. Islam is a total system, with the POLITICAL aspect being the most important aspect of the ideology. It is supremacist, totalitarian, discriminatory against non-Muslims, and promotes sharia (Islamic law) which is seditious against our Constitution. There are no individual rights in Islam as we know here, no democracy, no equality under the law. Muslims have the doctrine of taquiya, which is "sacred deception", and are allowed to lie and deceive the infidel about the true intent and nature of Islam in order to remove obstacles to its spread. There is no "golden rule" in Islam. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson helped create our Navy which defeated the Barbary pirates, who were Islamic jihadists of the late 1790's and early 1800's. Our first amendment to the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and we must understand the political nature of Islam in order to protect our true rights, liberty, and security. Check out www.politicalislam.com (http://www.politicalislam.com) to learn the actual doctrines and history of Islam, which means submission, not peace.



CLARENCE WROTE:

Freedom loving people are in constant conflict with an untold numbers of special interest groups who seek world domination by various means. Some pursue their goal in secret and are referred to as conspiratorial. Others are quite open and publish their objectives. Regardless of their mode of operation, if their ultimate intention is the overthrowing , enslavement, or death of those that do not submit to their control, than it becomes treason. Islam, by it's teachings, is a treasonous movement within a freedom based governing unit. We have laws on our books to deal with treason and those involved. Why not enforce them????
Clarence



ANN WROTE:

Excellent point Clarence. La Roza, as well, has openly voiced an overthrow of our government. What I don't think we realize is that we are definitely part of racist discrimination. The latinos, blacks, and arabs have joined against white America, to take it down, whatever the cost. Each one of those believing they will ultimately triumph and become dominate. What they don't realize is that it's all a spiritual battle and the outcome has already been determined.

Ann


MATT WROTE:

Clarence,

Do you think that anyone involved in the construction of the Murfreesboro mosque has committed treason?

-Matt


JAKE WROTE:
Matt,
I do not disagree wtih you on your last statement...

again, i will ask it this way... what do you recommend, when Islam does begin to effect our freedom if Islam becomes a direct threat to our nation...

Would you be happy to live in a nation like Somalia, Pakistan, Syria, to name a few? would you be happy for our country to morph into the demographics that resemble those countries...

I believe our culture is under assault from immigrants who refuse to assimilate into our culture... I oppose 'multiculturlism' - this leads to the breakdown of society.

again, have your read "While Europe Slept"? if you have not you're not fully understanding the threat...

even our early forefathers understood the threat enough to form the Navy you spoke of to go half way around the world to defeat it...

MATT WROTE:
Jake,

The only way that Islamists (or anyone for that matter) can affect our freedoms is to either take control of the government in order to legislate their religious/political agenda, or to use violence. Violence will obviously violate individual rights. However if the government is small and minimal enough, within the parameters of the Constitution for instance, then the government cannot be used to further anyone's religious agenda. The Constitution must be obeyed otherwise it might as well not even exist.

Our government has essentially 3 primary functions:
1- secure individual liberties
2- uphold contracts
3- provide justice

Anytime the government embarks on tasks outside of those 3 functions it tramples liberty by default. Of course the honest truth is that the government doesn't do any of the above very well. Allowing maximum freedom, and by logical extension limited government, prevents any one group, sect, cult, ideology, agenda, etc from using the government to their own ends.

And if people who legally emigrate into this country do not want to "assimilate" isn't it their freedom not to do so? I do not believe setting up a Department of Culture to regulate what are and are not acceptable societal norms would be Constitutional or even desired. Yes I too wish immigrants into the US would meld, mesh, and become part of American culture like was largely done in decades past, however using the force of the government is not an acceptable means to that end.

The root of the issue is that we do not live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional republic. It matters not how many Muslims, Mexicans, Germans, Jews, Buddhists, Cubans, Marxists, Canadians, Chinese, etc happen to move into the country in regards to the rule of law. If the Constitution is followed, and if government is kept to its purpose as described in the Declaration of Independence, then none of those groups will be able to "take over" our society with the force of law. If we elect people who will actually uphold the rule of law, the natural law, and the Constitution, then we don't have to worry about where they are from, or what religion they practice. For instance, let's say that there is a huge increase in Muslim population in the US over the next decade, so much so that Muslims become the majority demographic in the US. They can't institute Sharia law because our system of government, specifically our Constitution, doesn't permit that! The majority DOES NOT RULE because we do not live in a democracy. Sadly most Americans do not grasp the concept of democracy, and if they did they would be a lot less apt to want to live in one. Ensuring that we have not slid into a de facto democracy is contingent upon forcing our elected officials to retain fidelity to both the Constitution and to the ideals of limited government. The way we prevent any take over from any oppressive ideology is to make sure that the government is kept small and limited so that it isn't powerful enough to be used as a an oppressive tool to any ideology.

That is the task which is before us.

-Matt

JOHN WROTE:

To butt into this conversation just a bit ...

Matt ~ Under your hypothetical, allow me to carry it to it's possible ultimate end ... Muslims become the dominate population group in the United States and hold an electoral majority in all states, holding a majority of elected offices in both state and federal government, just as in our history, white Protestants did. This Muslim majority in the US Congress institutes a Constitutional amendment process that in effect would designate Islam as our "state religion" and that Sharia Law overrules all local, state and federal laws.

At that point, are we all in a "love it or leave it" situation?
STEPHEN WROTE:

Also historically Spain was under Muslim rule a bit over 700 years, but the Muslims were never the majority in Spain or Portugal. Non-Muslims were DHIMMIS, a mercilessly oppressed and debased underclass serving the Muslim overlords. The year 1492 is the generally accepted date for completion of the reconquista of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella. More historical proof of the totalitarian, political nature of Islam, which by nature exists for its own propagation, incapable of fundamental change, or it would become something entirely different.

MATT WROTE:
In your hypothetical scenario that would be where liberty and Constitutionalism diverge. Constitutionalists (people who demand strict adherence to the Constitution) and libertarians (people who demand liberty) in today's political climate are parallel to each other. The advocation of liberty and forcing the government to adhere to the Constitution(s) both call for a drastic shrinking of government from it's current size. However just because something is Constitutional does not mean that it is congruent with liberty; the post office is an example of this.

A national postal service is indeed Constitutional however it is the antithesis of liberty and contrary to the free market. When a government attempts to provide a good or service it damages or thwarts the market as it is able to stifle competition due to subsidies or granted monopolies. It is important to differentiate between a position of liberty and a position of Constitutionality.

To borrow a phrase from American Jurisprudence, regarding laws that are unjust or contrary to liberty "...are in reality no law, but are wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose..." Therefore any laws that are unjust or contrary to liberty, should not be obeyed, upheld, or executed. If there was a Constitutional Convention held tomorrow and the document were changed to permit slavery it would be Constitutional but it would be unjust and contrary to liberty and therefore should not be followed.

It's important to recognize that while the Constitution is the law of the land, it is superseded by the Law of Nature. My friend and Fox News judicial analyst Judge Napolitano discusses the Natural Law in most every one of his books, I highly recommend everyone reading them. He explains that our individual rights existed long before the Constitution was written, long before the US federal government was created, and they are not subject to anyone else's approval. Our rights are both inherent to and inseparable from our humanity. I believe that our individual rights are given to us by God, but a belief in a higher power that I share is not necessary to acknowledge the existence of our rights.

At this point you might be wondering what is my point?

Quite directly it doesn't matter what laws Congress passes, or what a Constitutional convention produces, or even what the Supreme Court decides. It doesn't matter what the community as a whole wants, what the majority demands, or what your neighbors vote on. Our individual rights are NOT subject to the approval of any of the above, and are not contingent upon a majority vote. Our rights cannot be voted away, nor can we vote away the rights of other individuals. If Muslims outnumber Christians, they cannot outlaw Christianity and vice versa because either scenario would be an abridgment of our natural individual rights.

If we are to live in a free society then the rights of every individual must be upheld no matter how repugnant we may find the other individuals or their beliefs (so long as they are not infringing on anyone's rights). Taking the rights away of your neighbor, or having them take your rights away, is considered the tyranny of the majority and is just as repulsive as tyranny by monarch, tyranny by dictator, or tyranny by oligarch. Unless the individuals who are building the mosque in Murfreesboro are abridging the rights of others, or are on the verge of doing so, then they have every right to use their property as they see fit.

I want freedom for myself, AND freedom for others. It's just that simple.

-Matt

[Matt Collins]

If you are referring to the current US Supreme Court building, you do realize that wasn't constructed until 1935, right?

[RM918]

Sounds like people have bought the Islam fear tactic hook, line and sinker. Depressing, but expected.

[Matt Collins]

Not sure if I have the inclination to respond to this guy any further....



JAKE WROTE:
and I take your point...

I will "act" like a muslim... when the government comes to me and says, "where are your papers?" (my health insurance papers) to prove that i have it... I will claim I am muslim... because the "healthcare law" (which is unconstitutional and I will not obey it) excluded muslims from having to comply with the law.. since islam considers 'insurance' as a form of gambling they are not required to 'show their papers' and also will not be charged the penalty for not having it... and will be covered for medical care on our dime.

I had decided even before it passed that I would not obey this law... and even after it passed and 'now we get to see what's in it' (thank Nancy Pelosi) we find that, in effect, Dhimmitude is being set up...
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to islam ( http://www.dhimmitude.org/ (http://www.dhimmitude.org/) )

Now, i will 'claim' i am muslim... and I dare any bastard from the Government to prove otherwise...

but isn't is rich that in America I have to claim a foreign faith in order to avoid oppression and to protect my God-given rights that Gov't was only supposed to be in existence to protect - to protect me from the Force of Gov't, like Ron Bloom, Obama's manufacturing Czar, says he agrees with Mao, "Power comes from the point of a gun"

I guess, we will get a de facto rule of islam since they will have been protected by Gov't to violate me and my rights and when I express displeasure with the goals of their religious law (it's not just a religion) I will be held in violation of someone else's rights.

you may want to study islam and their true goals... are muslims instructed that lying to infidels is okay?

from this site: http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Islam_Undressed:_Islamic_Honesty_and_Honor (http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Islam_Undressed:_Islamic_Honesty_and_Honor)

In the Hadith,
"Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell."

Mohammed

This approach to communication and ethics is laudable, but unfortunately for many in the world, that direction appears to be intended as a standard limited to Muslim-to-Muslim relations, and does not necessarily apply to non-believers, whom the Islamic God does not love. Unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not only tolerated, but actually encouraged. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened. The book "The spirit of Islam," by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated:
"Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good."

"The spirit of Islam,by"Muslim scholar, Afif A


so, there are many questions that rise above the basic 'freedom of religion' If the islam religion is bent on total rule of our nation... muslims have no problem using gov't to dictate to an airport that it must invest its money to provide a 'foot bath' so muslim cab drivers can wash their feet before they pray...

muslims and apparently our tyrannical gov't have no problems denying a blind person a cab fare because muslims believe dogs are unclean... let a white cab driver turn down a fare... hello ACLU

muslims and apparently our tyrannical gov't have no problems denying a fare to someone carrying a bottle of duty-free wine because of their religion...

so, islam already is denying rights of others in order to 'flourish' along side other religions...

again, you are viewing this subject from the narrow end of a libertarian view of a cerebral philosophical conversation and I view Islam as a domestic enemy of the state because I have studied their tactics and their beliefs... and you will protect their 'rights' right up until you have no rights and you are paying the dhimmitude tax so they can tolerate your presence... or you can get your head chopped off...

I view Islam just like I view Neville Chamberlain waving his 'treaty' around with Hitler, telling me what a great guy he is... and he almost got his country taken over...

I prefer to look at Islam as a Cold War within our country that has to be fought in order to preserve our Union.... sure, I will still 'have' my God given rights even after the Republic is dissolved... I just don't think I will enjoy defending my rights to a bastardized muslim-run gov't who will not recognize my rights... if they get the chance...

I challenge you, Matt, to read 'While Europe Slept" and then let's have this conversation...

until then you are talking in 2D and I'm looking at this issue with 3D glasses on.. you can't discuss what i'm talking about unless you do some homework.... you can't really understand the threat because you and most other people have been blugeoned with the blunt instrument of Political Correctness to believe Islam is just a 'peaceful religion'...

Have you watched the TV series "V" - they talk a good game on the outside "We come in Peace, Always, in Peace" while plotting the world-wide domination of our planet...

If I am right, and Islam is in fact a domestic enemy bent on a takeover whether violent of otherwise (and I believe they prefer the slow and non-violent method) then all this friendly banter will mean nothing if we both lose our right to express our rights...

what say you? will you inspect, explore, and research to learn if i am a kook or if what i say has merit?

Islam is just as real an enemy as the Nazis were in WWII.

what say you?

[EndDaFed]

Glenn Beck fans are retarded.

[noxagol]

Glenn Beck fans are retarded.

End of thread.

[Nate]

Glenn Beck fans are retarded.

^
yeah, this
that is all

[Fozz]

This is proof that a lot of Glenn Beck fans are f***ing morons.

[Theocrat]

Do not people at the local level have the right to stop what they perceive is a moral/spiritual threat to their community?

Yeah, those of you believe in bottom-up solutions to issues in society until someone actually does it.

To be honest with you, I would be against it, too, but for different reasons than Beck's supporters.

[YumYum]

To be honest with you, I would be against it, too, but for different reasons than Beck's supporters.

Why would you be against it?

[Fozz]

It is quite possible that these people who hate Islam would advocate persecution of Muslims.

What would happen to our country if these bigoted wingnuts get their way; if every Muslim in America is convicted of treason and punished for it, just for practicing Islam?

That Jake moron literally stated that Islam is as much of an enemy of America as the Nazis were.

[Matt Collins]

I know that, but the artist who created the friezes and Congress who supported them obviously thought that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Eastern religions had a part that built this country out of a combination of these religions, and I believe the Friezes were built in the late 1800's but don't quote me.
When did Islam start making its way over to the US? :confused:

[Matt Collins]

Do not people at the local level have the right to stop what they perceive is a moral/spiritual threat to their community?NO!!!! :mad:

It's about private property rights. Unless the people involved have violated someone else's rights, or are about to, then what happens on their property is their business. Remember our individual rights, are not grants from the community!

[Matt Collins]

It is quite possible that these people who hate Islam would advocate persecution of Muslims.

What would happen to our country if these bigoted wingnuts get their way; if every Muslim in America is convicted of treason and punished for it, just for practicing Islam?
They don't think things all the way through. They don't realize that if the government is strong enough to persecute a religion they don't like, then that government is strong enough to eventually persecute THEIR religion. :rolleyes: :mad:

[MelissaWV]

Do not people at the local level have the right to stop what they perceive is a moral/spiritual threat to their community?

Yeah, those of you believe in bottom-up solutions to issues in society until someone actually does it.

To be honest with you, I would be against it, too, but for different reasons than Beck's supporters.

There are ways to go about having something the community considered morally repugnant or otherwise objectionable kept out of the community. Sometimes it backfires, but most times it works for a very long time without being overturned.

There can be bans or restrictions on certain types of buildings in certain areas, or the height of certain things. There are, for instance, places where those godawful signs that tower near interstates are restricted from being over a certain height. In essence, you can play with zoning rules and building codes to ensure this building never gets built. Just be prepared for all of the other proposed buildings in the area to have to abide by the same codes.

Of course, the BEST way to stop this mosque (or the one in NYC that's causing such a stink) is to buy up the land. If the people so worried about proximity in NYC had put together a fund to buy up all the land around Ground Zero, in order to ensure only patriotic, non-Muslim businesses and tenants were to inhabit the vicinity... there would not be a real problem. The media might have made one, but as the property owners it would have been up to the people who contributed/ran the fund to decide what to do with the land (within local codes).

[Theocrat]

NO!!!! :mad:

It's about private property rights. Unless the people involved have violated someone else's rights, or are about to, then what happens on their property is their business. Remember our individual rights, are not grants from the community!

I somehow doubt you would reason that way if a person was opening up a children's brothel or Neo-Nazi Knick Knacks Shop in your community.

I'm sorry, but people do have a right to petition against something they don't want in their community, provided their basis for doing so is itself righteous. We'll just have to disagree on this matter.

[BlackTerrel]

They don't think things all the way through. They don't realize that if the government is strong enough to persecute a religion they don't like, then that government is strong enough to eventually persecute THEIR religion. :rolleyes: :mad:

+1

[Matt Collins]

I somehow doubt you would reason that way if a person was opening up a children's brothel or Neo-Nazi Knick Knacks Shop in your community.A children's brothel violates the rights of the individual children, so of course it should be prohibited. :rolleyes:

A Neo-Nazi souvenir shop is abhorrent, but does not infringe upon any individual's rights so there is no justification for prohibiting it. And by the way, I am part Jewish so don't start any "it's racist" crap because that is irrelevant.




I'm sorry, but people do have a right to petition against something they don't want in their community, provided their basis for doing so is itself righteous. We'll just have to disagree on this matter.Well then it follows that you obviously do not believe in a free society, or individual rights, or the Natural Law. :(


.

[Fozz]

They don't think things all the way through. They don't realize that if the government is strong enough to persecute a religion they don't like, then that government is strong enough to eventually persecute THEIR religion. :rolleyes: :mad:

Good luck trying to reason with morons who think that Islam is comparable to the Nazis, and is an equally threatening enemy :rolleyes:

I'd tell them that terrorism is a legitimate threat to the security of our country, as 9/11 has shown, but the idea that "Islamofascists" will establish a worldwide caliphate to overthrow our Constitution is lunacy.

I would laugh at such an idea, if it wasn't the basis for restricting the rights of a minority.

[Matt Collins]

I am really losing the will to continue to explain things to a brick wall....



JOHN WROTE:

Matt,
I appreciate your "lesson" in man's Natural Rights and fully understand that God given Natural Law precedes any man-made law in the our understanding of rightful governance but it is to a great portion of the world, it is a theoretical argument they do not hold.


My question had nothing to do with the Natural Rights of men but rather with the potential of our Constitution becoming that which it can, a death-knell for our society and country as it was originally intended. Or is the "will of the governed", actually a death-knell?


Our governing documents allows the governed to change the Constitution, and thus society, in an orderly fashion. That is what I was dealing with and not a theoretical discussion of Constitutionalist, Libertarians or any other political ideology beyond the rights of mankind to establish the government they think most reflects the will of God.


My question dealt with the reality of our Constitutional Republican form of government. That form of government, as do the Natural Rights of man, provides that the governed can institute the form of government they deem best suited to them through specific process and that reflects God's will as they understand it. Does that mean that it would necessarily conform to your or my understanding of the God given Natural Rights of mankind? Most certainly not. But again, my question was based on the rightful citizens of the United States, operating under the guidelines expressed in our governing documents, to change the Constitution to reflect their vision and understanding of Natural Law.


Do you think that those who remained in the "loyalist" camp after the signing of the American/British peace treaty continued to think that the English model was best for mankind were struck by the lightening-bolt of God given Natural Rights according to Jefferson, Madison et al, simply because they were told they existed and were right? Thousands left God's land and all it's potential benefits to returned to England. They did not agree with our vision of freedom or of Natural Law.


My point is to simply to show that simply because we see and accept God's Natural Law and the Rights of Man as understood in our Constitutional Republic does not mean that the world sees it the same way or that future Americans would either. If we as a Constitutional Republic lay-out the methods for the governed to change their government and thus society, as is their Natural Right to do, what is to prevent them from installing laws and institutions that reflect their belief and understanding of the Natural Laws coming from God andnot yours and mine?


I agree with you that those who believe in Liberty, Freedom and that God's Natural Law dominates, or should dominate, over all the laws of man would find that which I lay-out abhorrent, untenable but given our system, it does not stop what I describe from potentially becoming a reality.


John

[TNforPaul45]

Ah Murfreesboro,

Quite a town. Enjoyed my time there here recently.

TN45

[waleed]

Its ok for them to build mosques however Islam is a hateful violent religion. Most Muslims are peaceful citizens who dont really follow the core teachings of Islam. For example:
- Quran 4:34 says a man should beat his wife for disobedience
- Muhammad ordered the beheading of 900 Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe and enslaved their women and children
- and so on.

So here are multiple opinions that an educated (see note at bottom) mind should be able to have at the same time:
- Muslims are free to build mosques as long as the mosque leader does not preach hatred/dislike of non-Muslims or non-Muslim culture (a common occurence)
- Islam is a hateful violent religion, with a few exceptions of peaceful hadiths and verses (you have to look at the original sources to know what the religion is about and you have to be aware of what they contain).
- Muhammad was a violent sex-crazed terroristic pedophile by today's standards (he married 9 year old Aisha when he was 54). All of these objectives can be supported by citing Islamic sources (hadith, Quran).
- Most muslims are nice and peaceful civilians, however they often indirectly support terrorism by: 1) Not doing enough or speaking against it. 2) Opposing people (the west) who do something about it.
- In the light of the above, it is possible to dislike Islam and see what it is and at the same time not be racist or phobic towards Muslims, but understand where they are coming from
- and so on


Note: Educated in this case means you've studied all the important verses of the Quran and the hadith. You have to look at the overall picture.

[specsaregood]

//

[waleed]

I'm non-religious. Yes you're right, the Bible has the same kind of stuff that the Quran has.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

... there are Glenn Beck meetups? Seriously? Seriously?

[healthpellets]

From the bible: Luke 19:27 or so...


Christianity sounds pretty violent to me too...

why why WHY do you people do this? first, you're assuming that the person referring to the violent nature of Islam is a Christian. maybe s/he is just an observant person.

second, pointing out that another religion has violent directives contained in the holy texts does not weaken the original argument that Islam is a violent religion. it simply shows that both are bad life choices.

the facts are simple. islamic fundamentalists blow themselves up and try to kill you. there is a reason to be concerned with a mosque going up in your neighborhood. and if you don't think that suicide bombing are going to make their debut in America, then you have your head in the sand.

at what point do we say "your religion is interfering my right to live. so we're going to have to ask you to stop?" one suicide bombing? two? 50? 100?

and no, you don't get to claim that 90% of Islam is a "peace loving religion", because until they clean up their house, they're all part of the violence. and they're all responsible.

[waleed]

there is a reason to be concerned with a mosque going up in your neighborhood.
Thats not possible to police. If people are allowed to stop future mosques, what about existing mosques? If you're arresting people who try to smoke their first cigarette, what about the people who are already smokers? You cant do it. In other words its not a winnable situation.

The right way to use your efforts is to make a system where hateful Imams are reported online (for example) and where hate against the west which may produce terrorism, is outlawed and that Imam would be suspended. When they know they're being watched and can be quoted and reported, they'll be careful.

Stopping a future mosque is not possible. Its freedom of speech and the right to practice their religion (as long as its not hateful; good Imams and muslims do exist). Thats what the laws say right now. Now the ideal situation would be to say that yes, Islam is a hateful religion so its practice is forbidden now and anyone professing belief in Islam will be banned from entrying the country or be deported. An approach like that would be ideal but its not going to happen and we know that. Laws are never right, they have holes and are politically correct and they take a long time to change. Smoking has no benefits and only kills and costs healthcare. When smoking hasnt been banned here, how can you ban mosques? See what I mean about the laws?

I agree they are all responsible but again how are you going to change the laws to make mosques as unlawful and what about existing mosques all over the country?

[healthpellets]

Thats not possible to police. If people are allowed to stop future mosques, what about existing mosques? If you're arresting people who try to smoke their first cigarette, what about the people who are already smokers? You cant do it. In other words its not a winnable situation.

The right way to use your efforts is to make a system where hateful Imams are reported online (for example) and where hate against the west which may produce terrorism, is outlawed and that Imam would be suspended. When they know they're being watched and can be quoted and reported, they'll be careful.

Stopping a future mosque is not possible. Its freedom of speech and the right to practice their religion (as long as its not hateful; good Imams and muslims do exist). Thats what the laws say right now. Now the ideal situation would be to say that yes, Islam is a hateful religion so its practice is forbidden now and anyone professing belief in Islam will be banned from entrying the country or be deported. An approach like that would be ideal but its not going to happen and we know that. Laws are never right, they have holes and are politically correct and they take a long time to change. Smoking has no benefits and only kills and costs healthcare. When smoking hasnt been banned here, how can you ban mosques? See what I mean about the laws?

I agree they are all responsible but again how are you going to change the laws to make mosques as unlawful and what about existing mosques all over the country?

the act of smoking and religion as a whole are not comparable.

here's the problem with reporting hateful religion, or whatever. in regards to Islam, the base of the religion is hate and intolerance. if one reads the texts and acts as a faithful Muslim, then he is committed to acts of violence. so i can't fault those who read the Koran and then determine that it is their faithful duty to carry out the word.

the problem is religion. once we get rid of that, many other things will work themselves out.

[MelissaWV]

why why WHY do you people do this? first, you're assuming that the person referring to the violent nature of Islam is a Christian. maybe s/he is just an observant person.

second, pointing out that another religion has violent directives contained in the holy texts does not weaken the original argument that Islam is a violent religion. it simply shows that both are bad life choices.

the facts are simple. islamic fundamentalists blow themselves up and try to kill you. there is a reason to be concerned with a mosque going up in your neighborhood. and if you don't think that suicide bombing are going to make their debut in America, then you have your head in the sand.

at what point do we say "your religion is interfering my right to live. so we're going to have to ask you to stop?" one suicide bombing? two? 50? 100?

and no, you don't get to claim that 90% of Islam is a "peace loving religion", because until they clean up their house, they're all part of the violence. and they're all responsible.

Right, but your post is entirely the basis for things like "Catholics need to clean up their house, too!" and "Christianity has a lot of violence, too!" The fact remains that there are not articles about people upset there's a Catholic Church going up down the street, or a Catholic School (you know those Catholics just want to put up a school to touch children!). There are not articles about Churches being banned near the site of the OKC bombing, even though the "militiamen" (allegedly) responsible were Christian. Churches are not banned in the regions of the Crusades, by and large.

Mosques are not banned, either, near Ground Zero or in TN. If people feel so strongly, they (once again) could pool their money and buy up the land to ensure its use meets with their moral approval. If not, they could put building codes and zoning ordinances in place to avoid having a mosque nearby, or kid-touchers in their midst, or any number of other things.

I've lived near mosques, and I've lived near churches, and I've lived near nothing but open fields. It seriously isn't a big deal, and pretending all of these Muslims looking to practice near their homes are going to blow you up is JUST as smart as assuming every Catholic wants to touch your child inappropriately.


the problem is religion. once we get rid of that, many other things will work themselves out.

I will put this out there to you, and I hope you give it some thought. The problem is not religion. The problem is zealotry.

You can be overzealous about non-religious things, such as "gay rights" or "women's liberation" or "Affirmative Action" or even a football team. Zealotry is what blinds people and leads to violence. Over the years, religious zeal has been the most powerful and well-armed sort, but nationalism is just a horse of a different color. Atheists and agnostics can be overzealous, too, but simply don't have the ready-made justification most times.

Wanting all religion to cease and vanish is the same solution as wanting everyone to simply convert to Islam so there are no infidels to kill. They're extremist views that have nothing to do with the rights of the individual to do and believe as they please. It's wholly possible to be religious and leave everyone else alone. It's wholly possible to be non-religious and be moral and kind and lead an admirable life. It is impossible, by definition, to be overzealous about things and leave everyone else alone. That person will never cease until they have converted as many people as possible, until they are proven correct, until theirs is the dominant worldview, and they will impose it onto you by law as necessary.

[lester1/2jr]

nice priorities

[waleed]

here's the problem with reporting hateful religion, or whatever. in regards to Islam, the base of the religion is hate and intolerance. if one reads the texts and acts as a faithful Muslim, then he is committed to acts of violence. so i can't fault those who read the Koran and then determine that it is their faithful duty to carry out the word.

the problem is religion. once we get rid of that, many other things will work themselves out.
I agree with everything you said. If you guys can get the Quran banned and mosques banned and Islam banned as a hateful religion, that would be awesome but it will be very hard to do.

[Fozz]

and no, you don't get to claim that 90% of Islam is a "peace loving religion", because until they clean up their house, they're all part of the violence. and they're all responsible.

You are a collectivist. Why are you here?

[BlackTerrel]

I agree with everything you said. If you guys can get the Quran banned and mosques banned and Islam banned as a hateful religion, that would be awesome but it will be very hard to do.

Hahahaha ok good luck with that :rolleyes:

Once they ban all that what's next?

[Matt Collins]

Looks like it flared back up again...



On 6/9/2010 12:04 PM, Ann Calabria wrote:
Kevin Fisher has filed papers with the Rutherford County District Attorneys office opposing the mosque to be constructed on Bradyville Pike, explaining that the citizens of Rutherford Co. were not properly notified about the hearing at the planning commission. No one was able to voice their oppostion. We need everyone to contact the DA, Bill Whitesell and ask that this mosque be stopped. The community didn't receive proper notification, traffic impact, the fact that it is going to be a mega structure of 52,900 sf sitting in the middle of a residential community etc..his number is: 898-8008

Let's make some noise...please call. Send out emails to everyone you know asking them to call the DA.

Kevin's article is on the front page of the DNJ today.

Thanks,
Susan

[Matt Collins]

I wrote:


Nice to see that we (yall) are opposing private property rights.

Onward communism!

[Matt Collins]

Ann C wrote:


We are opposing an onslaught of radical islam determined to overthrow our way of life and if that means opposing them building a mosque under the guise of religion, then so be it. Call it what you want but when it's too late, it's too late!

[Matt Collins]

Jake wrote:


Hmmm, Matt, I guess the normal rights to a public redress is not part of your system?

the planning commission breaking the State law supercedes your opinion?

the fact is, the planning commission is there to address the issues of local planning... and the desires of local residents, the impact of the PC's decisions are relevant and are allowed and promoted by law...

this is not about denying private property rights as it is about the proper appllication of those rights and whether or not the law is being followed...

Onward Anarchy!

[MelissaWV]

Jake wrote:

He has a point insofar as the current system is in place. I disagree with the current system, but within its rules they have to follow specific steps to inform the public and hold hearings and whatnot.

[Toureg89]

its interesting. the neocon right is reluctant to let muslims have rights, and are fearful of legal muslim immigration tilting the power of an american democracy to the point of being able to institute sharia law.

by the same token, they dont want to legalize illegal, christian immigration from the south, for fear of "their jobs".

[John Taylor]

Revive the crusades! Fight off the onslaught of the dark peoples!!!! They're after our women!!!

;)

[constituent]

I agree with everything you said. If you guys can get the Quran banned and mosques banned and Islam banned as a hateful religion, that would be awesome but it will be very hard to do.

Why stop with Islam? Why not ban Christianity (equally violent) and Judaism (don't get me started)?

[constituent]

You are a collectivist. Why are you here?

Well, he showed up right after the whole Gaza flotilla thing to pump Israel's side of the story... make of that what you will.

I think he's just trying to get some diversity posts going so that he can say, "n'uh, I don't just post about Israel!" ;)

[John Taylor]

Why stop with Islam? Why not ban Christianity (equally violent) and Judaism (don't get me started)?

Can we start with Zoroastrianism? We could tie it to Iran because of its traditional link with Persia, and then in one fell swoop destroy it completely like Gideon the Midianites!!!

;)

[constituent]

Can we start with Zoroastrianism? We could tie it to Iran because of its traditional link with Persia, and then in one fell swoop destroy it completely like Gideon the Midianites!!!

;)


Hell yea! Strike the root! :D

[BuddyRey]

Wow, Matt. That's incredibly disheartening. I hope you've had some success in talking some sense into these people.

[Knightskye]

There was an article about a group of protesters at the mosque. Apparently, they told two Egyptian men, who were Christian, to "go home." Maybe they think anyone who looks Middle-Eastern must be a Muslim, and that anyone who is a Muslim is likely a bad person.

And we're the crazy people.

[Matt Collins]

Wow, Matt. That's incredibly disheartening. I hope you've had some success in talking some sense into these people.
Does "brick wall" mean anything to you? :rolleyes: :confused:

[Matt Collins]

I wrote:


Jake,

You might be right about the local zoning board not following proper procedure however isn't centralized planning a basic pillar of communism? Of course it is!

By advocating centralized planning of someone else's ability to use the land that they own, you are advocating government control of private property, which by it's formal name is called Marxism or communism.


If your rights are contingent upon the community, or upon the government, then in reality you are not free because you are subject to the whims of the government or of the community (as being witnessed here).

[Andrew-Austin]

I agree with everything you said. If you guys can get the Quran banned and mosques banned and Islam banned as a hateful religion, that would be awesome but it will be very hard to do.

Even if it were implemented (the ban) it wouldn't "work", meaning there would be all kinds of blow back. For starters I'd imagine it would drive the religion underground and radicalize it.

[Matt Collins]

Russ writes:

Your rights end when you try to undermine the country Mr Collins.




I responded with:

Perhaps (although there are no such thing as community rights - rights only belong to individuals), but can you tell me who involved with the mosque in Murfreesboro has been convicted of any crime?

[Matt Collins]

John wrote:


If I have offended anyone in our group by my following reply to Matt, I apologize. In the past, I generally responded to his and other such assertions in private, not wanting to clog-up your email with my concerns or comments. I have since been shown the error of my thought process, hence my public reply in this instance. If I receive a reply from Matt which is doubtful, I will be sure to respond to him in private.


Matt,


I must first state that I have no first hand knowledge that any of Susan's concerns are valid or if she has any of the facts in this issue but from the way in which you respond to her email, you add nothing to the conversation and only show that you are potentially as uninformed as your comments indicate you think she is.


Are you stating with your blanket condemnation of the group and Susan's comments, "nice to see ya'll are opposing private property rights", and, "onward Communism", that Susan's reason for putting out a call to action in Rutherford County is not legitimate or based in fact? Do you actually KNOW that proper notice was given as I would imagine is required by the zoning ordinances of Rutherford County? Nothing in your email indicates that you possess such knowledge. If you do know her statements to false, why not say so and state the evidence you posses rather than resorting to the sophomoric tactic of throwing yet another one of your unsubstantiated "bombs"? You oft times make rash generalizations and quite regularly take things out of context to the point where it would make MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Media Matters proud. Why would anyone reading your comments think otherwise?


Matt, are you aware that there are zoning restrictions in most communities? Are you aware that in most communities, zoning variations carry with them certain requirements involving the zoning board giving proper notice to the community where the rezoning would take place? Are you aware that such zoning regulations are drawn-up by the citizens who have been duly elected or appointed to the zoning authority by the citizens of those communities and are given lawful and legal authority to act in the communities best interest? Are you aware that the citizens of that community have every right to petition the zoning authority for redress when they have not fulfilled their duties as required? Are you against the citizens of an area having any authority, an authority agreed upon by those citizens, to exert some forms of control over what and where buildings are constructed in that their community?


I have in the past defended your actions and even written email to the state GOP in your defense, Matt. At other times, I have questioned the claims you make and offered other points of view along with references and facts to back them up and substantiate my statement. You have yet to respond or to have even shown the slightest courtesy of replying with a "I could care less about you points", let alone offer any thoughtful response or defense for some of the silly stuff you present. I expect nothing more here. I suppose that the arrogance shown by your non-reply should tell me enough.


I responded with:

John,

My apologies, I never blow anyone off, but my work is sporadic and erratic, and sometimes I get exceptionally busy, and sometimes I have more free time than I know what to do with. The point is that there are times where I am able to respond to every e-mail, and there are other times when I am not.


But to the point.....



Zoning laws are anti-liberty and anti-freedom. If you are conservative or want less government, then it would be philosophically and logically inconsistent to advocate for centralized planning in any manner, especially regarding zoning laws. If you own your own land, then you can do with it what you want so long as you are not infringing upon the rights of anyone else.

Here is an article about how a city can function without centralized planning and zoning regulations:
http://mises.org/daily/3506 (http://mises.org/daily/3506)

And it should be noted that Houston, TX does not have zoning laws and functions just fine.


-Matt

[Toureg89]

but matt, there's no muslims in houston.

[BlackTerrel]

There was an article about a group of protesters at the mosque. Apparently, they told two Egyptian men, who were Christian, to "go home." Maybe they think anyone who looks Middle-Eastern must be a Muslim, and that anyone who is a Muslim is likely a bad person.

That was at the NYC Mosque. The funny thing is the Egyptians were there to protest the Mosque as well.

What goes around...

[Matt Collins]

I wrote:


Again,


Have the people involved in building this mosque been convicted of breaking any laws?

[Matt Collins]

Here we go again:


Matt,
Since the people in this 9-12 group generally agree on their stand concerning radical islam and their assault on America through seemingly peaceful "religion", why don't you go over to the islamic's and harass them on the subject. I'll bet you can make some progress there.
Ann

[Matt Collins]

Ann wrote:


Actually, they have broken a law by burying a dead body on the land without a permit. Whether they have been convicted or not I don't know.


But the bigger question Matt, is why are you so bent on defending people who call a mosque their fortress and a sign of their domination.

If you are concerned about their rights being abused I find you so "politically correct" that you are a serious danger to this country.

In your world of ideals the founding of the United States of America would have been an illegal affront to England.




and I responded with:



I am interested in defending the rights of every individual from oppressive government as is necessary in a free society.


You do realize you are advocating a form of statism, fascism, and communism, right?

It is you who are at odds with the Founders because you are attempting to deny rights to individuals who have not been convicted of any crime. You are attempting to use the force of law, the end of a gun, coercion, intimidation, and violence against individuals with whom you do not agree. You are attempting to trample the rights of individuals who have not caused any harm to any other individuals. You are the oppressor. Instead of using words as persuasion to bring about people whom you oppose, you are trying to use sheer bullying tactics.


Oppression to liberty must be fought at every opportunity, and you are trying to oppress the liberty of individuals who have not caused any harm to others.


-Matt

[Matt Collins]

And so it continues...


Matt,
I really don't have a dog in this fight since I don't live in Murfreesboro. Never-the-less, I think you need to reconsider your opposition. Is it wrong for a person to cry Fire in a crowded theater? It doesn't appear that you have availed yourself of the seminars concerning Islam that have been going on. If all they wanted was a place to worship I would be standing along side you. What you need to consider is their entire agenda and you will understand why people don't want them operating out of a mosque in Murfreesboro or for that matter anywhere else in our nation. Their object is nothing less than to destroy our nation and turn it in as Islamic state. I really don't think you want this to happen either, but it is exactly what your arguing for. What laws have they violated? They have attacked us about a dozen times so far and you are inviting them to have a base of operation in Murfeesboro. Think World Trade Center, Ft. Hood, the shoe bomber and the underware bumber. These all operated out of U. S. Mosque.
Wayne

[Matt Collins]

Ann writes:


Where did anyone state they would use the end of a gun, intimidation, or violence on any issue we have been discussing?

You want to argue for arguing sake. Don't ever tell me I am advocating a form of statism, fascism, and communism, when you have no idea what you are talking about. When you educate yourself on the threat of the domination of a mosque then we may have something to discuss.


Your tactic of accusing me of just what I am opposing is quite like the tactic of the liberal progressive. In fact, I'm wondering if that may be a description of just what you are.

What you are describing as your defense of rights for every individual sort of smells like the womens lib group that can't stand a conservative successful woman.



I responded with:


George Washington writes: "Government is not eloquence, it is not reason, it is force".


By you using the government to deny rights of innocent individuals you are using force; it's just that simple.


If you really think that a mosque being located in Rutherford County is "going to dominate" much of anything, then I question if you truly understand freedom.


-Matt

[Matt Collins]

Matt,
Your lack of knowledge on this issue is only superseded by your misunderstanding that the citizens of a community have within their power the ability to place reasonable restrictions on that which occurs in their community. What part of that do you not understand?


You completely ignore that simple fact and your inability to comprehend what you are being told is at the least frustrating to any thinking individual and at most verging on instability on your part. You assume much and know far less.

Why don't you look into the zoning requirements and the process that was followed in this case? Instead, you want to call people names, continue to make completely unfounded accusations and demand that others waste their time dealing with your ignorance. Get off your lazy ass and do of the home work to find the answers you demand others provide to you if you are so offended.


John

and I responded with:


John -

I ask you where rights come from?

Please tell me where you think rights originate.


-Matt

[Matt Collins]

I have to weigh in. Matt, you feed from the libertarian menu. I understand your appetite. However - if you study, eyes open, we have had the benefit of learning from history (I HOPE!) The folks that weigh in about blind love/peace/rights for all may miss the obvious. We are addressing more than a religion or race (your beef) - we are addressing a political ideology that encompasses family, government and the entire person. Women are 2nd class citizens and since 9.11 we have had over 14K Jihad attacks world wide! All Islamic groups vein back to "The Muslim Brotherhood." This is an extremist group from Egypt.

You may be absolutely drowned by your own political correctness - please consider that you may contribute to LAWFARE: chasing our tails in legal battles, while the entire house burns down! Wake up and be the "water" that put this fire out in the boro!

Sovereignty Now,

Mishelle

www.912ProjectTennessee.com
www.meetup.com/Nine-12-Project-Nashville/



and I responded with:


Mishelle,

Ok - so if the Muslim religion does in fact encompass a political ideology, then they still have that freedom in America no matter how radical it might seem. Political freedom is at the core of American values, even if it is with a flavor of politics which we disagree or find abhorrent.

We can't ban communists, socialists, or Democrats from constructing a building in our town (as much as we'd like to ha ha), that would be completely against the ideals of freedom and liberty, the pillars of a free society. In a free society even those who we disagree with, even those individuals who are fighting against us, must be allowed to be free until such time that they are convicted of violating the rights of other individuals. Rights cannot be abridged by the government until someone has abridged the rights of another.

If the individuals planning to build the mosque are convicted of plotting to blow something up, killing others, stealing, violating the rights of another etc, I will be the first one to say they should be forced to pay the price! But until that time, we cannot infringe the rights of innocent people just because we don't like their religion or politics. That would make us no better than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Castro, Mao, Jong-il, Noriega or any other dictator you can think of - because that's the tactics that they used against their political enemies.

Your signature discusses sovereignty, and if the individual is indeed sovereign, then they are responsible for their own actions, regardless of any group to which they belong. Clumping people into groups and stereotyping them is not just amoral, but it's very dangerous. Just because some Muslims have committed crimes against others doesn't mean that all Muslims are guilty of that crime. Just because some Christians may have committed crimes against others doesn't mean that all Christians are guilty of that crime. Just because some (insert random societal subgroup here) have committed crimes doesn't mean that all members of that group were culpable. Guilt by association isn't!


But in effect what is being said here is "liberty for me, but not for thee". It's hypocritical and contrary to every foundation of freedom and God's law (or the natural law if you will). Speech that we disagree with or even hate should be countered with more speech, not government force.

So let me ask these questions to anyone on the list here who wants the government to abridge the freedom of the land owners building the mosque:

Have you had coffee with any of the individuals trying to build the mosque?
Have you ever met any of them?
Have you tried to win over their hearts or their minds?
Have you even tried to convert them over to Christianity through words and love?
Have you ever talked to any of them about their faith?
Have you tried to persuade them to come around to your faith?


If not, then why not?


-Matt

[Matt Collins]

John writes:



Matt,
You sir are either a person unable to think beyond your myopic understanding of the world or one not worth dealing with. Your email address has been regulated to the "spam" category in my world for you add nothing to any discussion and generally present misrepresented points or make claims completely unsubstantiated by any fact in the real world.


That you completely lack the ability to understand civil law and community regulations only goes to the point that you are either an anarchist or an idiot. In my mind, there is no difference.


Revel in you sanctimonious world where you are the only one with the necessary insight to clearly see liberty and freedom.


"The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles."
--Russian novelist and historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008)



"[W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community."
--Benjamin Rush, letter to David Ramsay, 1788

"You raise your voice when you should reinforce your argument."
-English author Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)


Good-bye Mr. Collins.

[Matt Collins]

John replied that our rights come from God.


I answered with:

Thank you for answering.

Rights are derived from property. Our bodies are our property.
Because we are freely able to exercise our bodies (so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same), we are able to control with our free will what our bodies do. That means if we do not own our body, then we are not able to control it, thus we have no rights. So as long as we own our body, we have rights. Again, rights are derived from property.


Many people believe (as both you and I do) that God gives us life therefore he gave us our property, and by logical extension, He gave us our rights. Although it is worth pointing out that the belief in God or any higher power for that matter is not necessary for the recognition of (property ownership) individual rights. One can be a complete atheist and still recognize individual rights because of property ownership.



But to the main point......

You claim rights ultimately come from God and I agree. That means our rights are NOT contingent upon the consent of others. Our rights are NOT subject to a community vote. Our rights are NOT a gift from the government. Our rights do NOT come from our neighbor. There is no such thing as group rights, collective rights, community rights, black rights, white rights, gay rights, minority rights, or any other type of collectivist concept of rights. Rights ONLY belong to individuals as individuals are the only entities who can be responsible for their actions.


It's also important to understand that rights and privileges are opposites. One does not need to ask permission to exercise their own rights. I don't have to get permission from the government to speak my mind or to write a newspaper column. I do not (should not) have to get permission from the government to keep and bear arms. If something needs permission then it is a privilege, not a right. Privileges are granted or given and can be revoked at any time for any reason. Rights are inherent because they are part of our humanity (and as you and I believe, from God), and cannot be taken away UNLESS we have violated the rights of another human being. Asking for permission to exercise a right is a contradiction in terms. If you think that one must ask permission before they can worship on their own land, then you are in essence advocating that worshiping is not a right but a privilege.That's a DANGEROUS road to lead down (just ask the Jews in Germany)!


The idea that one must first ask permission from the community to be able to worship on their own land is contrary to individual rights and thus contrary to God. We do not start off with a large block of "community" and then shave off slivers of "individual". Individuals have rights regardless of whether or not they are part of a community. The great socialist President, FDR, said "Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree".... DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE SIDING WITH F.D.R. - AN AVOWED SOCIALIST??!?!?!


And this is why the Founders did not grant us a democracy. In a democracy our rights can be voted away by the majority. If the majority wins then the minority loses. If your rights can be voted away then you don't have rights, you only have privileges. In a Republic (which is what we [supposedly] have) rights, and thus property, are not subject to a vote!




But you only need to defend the rights that you want to keep. An often cited quote absolutely applies to the mosque in Murfreesboro: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". If we do not defend the rights of others, even if we dislike or disapprove of them, then we will eventually lose our own rights at a later time.






If you would like to learn more about natural law, God-given rights, privileges, and what the Founders bequeathed us, I suggest the following:


http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/chapter_two.pdf
Badnarik Constitution Class Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4944712480955285875)




-Matt

[Matt Collins]

At least someone else is starting to get it:


I'm going to have to side with Matt on this one. Because although a threat may exist, regardless of how great it may be, we are fortunate enough to live in a country where we don't prosecute people for things that they "might" do.

The theme that I hear around here is:

Freedom of Religion - *as long as it's not Muslim

Freedom of Speech - *except for "fire in a theater" "bomb on a plane" etc..etc..

Freedom to Travel - *but not until proper licenses are granted.....yada yada yada

Pursuit of Happiness - *unless we don't like what you do.


What the hell?!?! We can not be pro freedom if we agree to restrict freedom to others. So yes, I agree with Matt completely. I think some of you are so blinded by your hatred for Islam, that you're willing to sacrifice your moral principles to see them abolished.

Don't get me wrong. I think that some of the things they have done are really messed up. And that's clearly an understatement, but try this:

Try applying this "STOP THE MOSQUE" attitude toward any other culture or religion. Some guys in the black communities drive through neighborhoods and shoot at rival gang members, yet we do not make legislation to deny building permits or things of that nature.

Every culture has their bad apples. And that's not PC BS either. Right now, this stupid mosque issue is the least of our worries.

We're supposed to be trying to weed out candidates for this November, stop all climate change legislation, closing the borders, as well as do what we can to stop the forces of Globalism from seizing control over every facet of our lives. And for God's Sake bring home our freaking troops from a pointless war.

-Paul



and he was responded to:




I have not chimed in on one of these threads in a LONG time, but I can’t resist on this one. Paul…Jake is right. Please answer those questions. Our founding father’s embraced freedom of all religions, freedom of all speech, etc. BUT one thing that is fundamental for our Republic is the sharing of the principles and values. Now that is not to say that all those in Islam are not principled, but it is to say that Islam is far more than just a religion, it is a complete socio-cultural-religious “package.” Ultimately those faithful to Islam do not regard our Constitution, our republic or our principles and values. Sharia law is their law of choice and given the opportunity and chance those faithful to their system would opt for it rather than our law system any day. If Muslims want to live here and quietly practice their religion, and abide by the principles and values of our country, then fine. But the truth is they are denying some of the central tenants of their religion if they do that. I have often said (and I realize I am going to offend some here), that if you have a revival in Christianity you have people coming to salvation and doing good deeds, upholding the law of the land, and living peaceably as a people “not of this world”…but when you have a revival in Islam, you have revolutionary takeovers of whole societies, death grip dictatorial holds on the entire life and ethics of a culture, and suicide bombers.

Tim

[Matt Collins]

So I went to the local chapter of Liberty On The Rocks tonight, and apparently a bunch of these people were there. I didn't realize it but they were all talking about the mosque non-stop. I was thinking to myself "where is liberty when one is trying to use the government to keep someone from practicing their religion or their political philosophy?" They are planning a march, a picket / protest, they are going to organize petitions, they are putting a ton of effort into this, even working on national media. :rolleyes:


Anyway so during the conversation I started to figure out some of these people were who I was talking to, and they started to figure out it was me. Well one lady, and I can't remember her name, came up to me and said "OH YOU'RE THE GUY" and then promptly wrapped her hands around my neck for a few seconds!!! :mad::mad::mad: :eek::eek::eek:

I think it was in jest, I was smiling at it while she was doing it, but I am not totally sure if she was doing it in jest or not. :(


It's great. Where I live closer to the urban area we have liberal authoritarians, and in the suburbs we have conservative authoritarians. :rolleyes:

[Toureg89]

this all reminds me of the Red Scare. we've moved on from Communists to Muslims. and before the Communists, it was the Japanese.

i wonder which subgroup of citizens is next for big-government-conservative attack.

[bunklocoempire]

Thanks for posting this saga, I must have missed it the first time around.

Excellent job, keep at it Matt, trying to reason with those folks as they actually prove your argument time and time again can be maddening, but they have to keep hearing it. We all have our "GBMUGs" to deal with.:)

The point where I usually have to take a break is when the 'conservatives' I'm debating call me a 'lefty':rolleyes:, but I eventually come back.

Yoda: "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Glenn Beck Meet Up Group: "But Yoda, we want you to be scared too, validate our fears, every one else does -and stuff your dangerous courage you liberal green lizard monkey!"

Those folks are a scared bunch, and obviously and ironically some "We know better than yous" ala Obama & Co.:(

Bunkloco

[jmdrake]

So I went to the local chapter of Liberty On The Rocks tonight, and apparently a bunch of these people were there. I didn't realize it but they were all talking about the mosque non-stop. I was thinking to myself "what is libertarian about trying to use the government to keep someone from practicing their religion or their political philosophy?" They are planning a march, a picket / protest, they are going to organize petitions, they are putting a ton of effort into this, even working on national media. :rolleyes:


Anyway so during the conversation I started to figure out some of these people were who I was talking to, and they started to figure out it was me. Well one lady, and I can't remember her name, came up to me and said "OH YOU'RE THE GUY" and then promptly wrapped her hands around my neck for a few seconds!!! :mad::mad::mad: :eek::eek::eek:

I think it was in jest, I was smiling at it while she was doing it, but I am not totally sure if she was doing it in jest or not. :(


It's great. Where I live closer to the urban area we have liberal authoritarians, and in the suburbs we have conservative authoritarians. :rolleyes:

Goodness these folks are retarded. Did you ever point out to them that many of the people that founded America did so because Christianity was then (and is some ways now) just as political as Islam? Did you ask them what they thought of Oliver Cromwell or the IRA and the Catholic / Protestant tensions that still bubble up to the surface in Northern Ireland? Every major religion on earth is a social-cultural-political-religious package. People used to worry about Catholic allegiance to the pope too. Many still do, it's just not politically correct to say that today. Look at how the Catholic church structure worldwide flouted the law in order to show "mercy" to pedophile priests. Imagine the outcry from these mental zombies if mosques ever got caught up in a scandal like that?

Two final points.

1) In Tennessee you now have the right to carry a gun into a bar. A word to the wise is sufficient. ;)

2) Is it really worth it to "swell our ranks" by encouraging people like this to come to our events? This is just a thought that occurred to me. Some are always worried about 9/11 truthers running off potential voters. What about xenophobic Glenn Beck types running off potential voters? As I've said before, I've never been personally asked the question "Why does Ron Paul associate with those 9/11 truthers". I have been asked "Why does Rand Paul associate with those (racist) tea partiers"? I know that numerically it makes sense to work with the 9/12 groups on certain issues. But say if I finally convinced one of my friends that Ron Paul wasn't really like these reactionary biased "love Bush / hate Obama" types they see on Fox News and to come out to an event only to meet a bunch of people talking about "We've got to stop those Islamo-facists"? Something to think about.

[AuH2O]

Well then it follows that you obviously do not believe in a free society, or individual rights, or the Natural Law. :(

I don't mean to backtrack, but I think this is at the crux of the issue. I don't side with these people, but I want to confirm that you are advocating for a fully libertarian government at all levels -- federal, state, and local.

You believe at no level of government should democratic forces have a say in regards to rules and regulations? Can an historic district prohibit certain types of building/construction/decor? Can a homeowner's association? A condo board?

I just want to confirm that is the position you are taking. I don't generally favor those type of restrictions, but at some point I believe we are dealing with a "consensual" arrangement in which democratic outcomes can outweigh die-hard commitment to unbridled freedom.

[Matt Collins]

Thanks for posting this saga, I must have missed it the first time around.My goal here is to ensure that the record is preserved from the GB/912 Meetup e-mail list. That and I want everyone to see secondhand what we are up against in regards to the social con vs liberty oriented mentalities. :(

[BlackTerrel]

Matt I give you credit. I would have given up on these folk a long time ago.

[Matt Collins]

I give you credit Matt, I would not be able to defend the principles of liberty like that. As a Muslim and more importantly as an American I thank you for trying to talk sense into them, please do not back down. Can you tell them there are actual Muslim members of Tea Parties, and Muslims who fought and died in the Revolutionary War? Maybe that'll make them more open.I wish my persuasive abilities were a bit sharper but I think at this point it's just talking to a brick wall. But then again, Ron did say the same things for 20+ years in Congress before anyone listened to him, so maybe there is hope for these people to understand liberty at some point in the future :)

[Matt Collins]

Goodness these folks are retarded. Did you ever point out to them that many of the people that founded America did so because Christianity was then (and is some ways now) just as political as Islam? Did you ask them what they thought of Oliver Cromwell or the IRA and the Catholic / Protestant tensions that still bubble up to the surface in Northern Ireland? Every major religion on earth is a social-cultural-political-religious package. People used to worry about Catholic allegiance to the pope too. Many still do, it's just not politically correct to say that today. Look at how the Catholic church structure worldwide flouted the law in order to show "mercy" to pedophile priests. Imagine the outcry from these mental zombies if mosques ever got caught up in a scandal like that?I think at this point that level of discourse is probably too high for the people involved.


It is interesting that they are all being fed the same talking points. They are all now, almost like bots, saying "but it's not a religion, it's a political system". And maybe that's true, but these guys are just repeating the same talking points. The level of groupthink is really disturbing.








2) Is it really worth it to "swell our ranks" by encouraging people like this to come to our events? This is just a thought that occurred to me. Some are always worried about 9/11 truthers running off potential voters. What about xenophobic Glenn Beck types running off potential voters? As I've said before, I've never been personally asked the question "Why does Ron Paul associate with those 9/11 truthers". I have been asked "Why does Rand Paul associate with those (racist) tea partiers"? I know that numerically it makes sense to work with the 9/12 groups on certain issues. But say if I finally convinced one of my friends that Ron Paul wasn't really like these reactionary biased "love Bush / hate Obama" types they see on Fox News and to come out to an event only to meet a bunch of people talking about "We've got to stop those Islamo-facists"? Something to think about.Very good point. Well the 9/11 truth crowd already gets liberty for the most part in my experience. The 912/GB crowd doesn't get liberty, but we want to win them over. I don't want to ostracize anyone, (almost) everyone is welcome, but you are correct that we have to be careful who we associate with. I have definitely said that enough times :p


There is an excellent debate in July's issue of Reason that discusses the divide between libertarians and conservatism. I think it might be worse than some of us realize. The real test is going to be the 2012 Presidential election.

[Matt Collins]

I don't mean to backtrack, but I think this is at the crux of the issue. I don't side with these people, but I want to confirm that you are advocating for a fully libertarian government at all levels -- federal, state, and local.

You believe at no level of government should democratic forces have a say in regards to rules and regulations? Can an historic district prohibit certain types of building/construction/decor? Can a homeowner's association? A condo board?

I just want to confirm that is the position you are taking. I don't generally favor those type of restrictions, but at some point I believe we are dealing with a "consensual" arrangement in which democratic outcomes can outweigh die-hard commitment to unbridled freedom.Liberty and Constitutional / republicanism are not one in the same. On many issues they are parallel, but on others they are not. In fact the distance seems to widen moreso at the local level.

[AuH2O]

Liberty and Constitutional / republicanism are not one in the same. On many issues they are parallel, but on others they are not. In fact the distance seems to widen moreso at the local level.

I'm just asking you confirm that you are espousing a fully libertarian system of government at all levels.

[MelissaCato]

Hey, did anyone watch Beck last night ? He showed a picture of Putin and his horse ... I love that picture !!! If anyone has a link to it please send it to me ... I'd like that picture as my screen saver for awhile !!! :rolleyes:

[akforme]

I've read thru most but I never saw this touched on. I see two things with this. First I dislike that things even have to be "approved" by some government entity. However, with the rules being as they are people have the same right to speak out against things as well.

In a true free world, they could build whatever they want, but people could protest it every day of the year as long as they were on somebody's private property who allowed them to protest from. But in today's world speaking out is lobbying some fucking government department.

[Matt Collins]

This was just on FOX News from a local report: http://www.fox17.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wztv_vid_4083.shtml


I smell a national story developing here.

[Fozz]

I give you credit Matt, I would not be able to defend the principles of liberty like that. As a Muslim and more importantly as an American I thank you for trying to talk sense into them, please do not back down. Can you tell them there are actual Muslim members of Tea Parties, and Muslims who fought and died in the Revolutionary War? Maybe that'll make them more open.

I don't think it will. These people are full of hate. One of them that Matt quoted even said that anyone who follows Islam is guilty of treason against our country. They would like nothing less than to force Muslim-Americans into prison camps and even legalize the lynching of Muslims.

I know it sounds utterly ridiculous, but that is the logical conclusion of the view that Islam is our country's biggest enemy.

[Fozz]

My goal here is to ensure that the record is preserved from the GB/912 Meetup e-mail list. That and I want everyone to see secondhand what we are up against in regards to the social con vs liberty oriented mentalities. :(

I wonder what these Islam-haters think about the Iraq war and our foreign policy. My guess would be that most of them are rabid neocons.

[Toureg89]

This was just on FOX News from a local report: http://www.fox17.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wztv_vid_4083.shtml


I smell a national story developing here.


"We don't know who's doing the funding. How do we know Al-Qaeda is not funding the building so they can get a foothold into our country."
uh oh...watch out! not a single muslim earns their own money! they are all just in the great big pockets of al qeada. :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

Mosque story is going national and Lou Ann Zelenick is a CFL member:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/controvery-surrounds-construction-mosques/

[Matt Collins]

The stereotype of Southerners being racist, close-minded, and bigoted is not being helped by those fighting to deny property rights to those who want to worship freely and peacefully in their own community.


SEE THIS:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-7-2010/wish-you-weren-t-here

(and no I am not a fan of the liberal John Stewart's propaganda outlet, however he has a very good point in the above link - even a broken clock is right at least twice a day)

[Matt Collins]

Jowanna wrote:

help me out here,

Islam is not just a religion of worship, their are political components to Islam with an agenda to conquer the world, they also are intolerant and discriminate to those outside their religion, dare I say Michigan.

Last time I heard we were at war with radical Islamist, is that not taken into consideration. Aren't our laws "to protect the U.S and it's citizens," from threats domestic and abroad.

I am no expert at Immigration laws, but I am not certain if immigrants that have take an oath to honor our Constitution , taken an oath to relinquish ties to foreign gov etc, and swore to conform to be an American and have allegiance to our country, and then do not uphold the oaths that were taken in the immigration process for their citizenship, well, how are they protected by the laws that are to protect American citizens when they are not becoming American citizens.Shouldn't their citizenship be revoked. What am I missing

I believe in America,I believe in our Constitution,, I'd really like some feed back, we are missing something somewhere, our founders were to detailed and inspired to not have somehow addressed what we see going on with the islamic colonization in America. There has to be an answer somewhere in our Constitution,

For a time is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such to worship him. John 4:23



I responded with:

Jowanna,

Perhaps there are political components to Islam. But political freedom and religious freedom are equitable. In fact freedom is freedom, either one is free, or one is not. Muslims cannot "conquer the world" unless they use violence to do so which of course infringes upon the rights of others and is not allowed. However expressing one's ideas (political or religious) and worshiping freely is of course allowed so long as no one's rights are being violated.


There is however a fallacy with the notion that "we are at war" with anyone. The United States government has not declared war since WWII and despite what drivel may emanate out of politicians mouths, there is no "war". War must first be declared by Congress and it has not been. There was no war with Vietnam, Cuba, the Soviets, or Korea. The government is not at war in Afghanistan or in Iraq. There is no war on drugs and no war on poverty. Calling an idea or a concept or an activity "war" does not actually make it so.


Is there ideological and religious tension between Islam and other religions? Absolutely!
But this is not a military problem as much as it is something that can be dealt with by faith, persuasion, speech, and freedom.


Regarding the oath for US citizenship, you can find it here: [/URL][URL]http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/oathofcitizen.htm (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/oathofcitizen.htm)
(Points 4,5,6 are a bit troubling; a different discussion for a different time though).


But more to the point...

The idea that some members of the community can tell other members of the community what they can and cannot do with their own property is the very core ideology of totalitarianism, communism, fascism, and slavery. It's a mockery of the rule of law and disproves the notion that America is the freest country on earth. The Constitution protects the liberties of all persons, citizens and aliens, domestic and foreign, residnts and strangers, saints and thugs. This is also an abuse of eminent domain. Why? Because it is considered taking someone's private property if the government prohibits the owners from putting it to it's desired use.


US Judge Doumar mentions in an opinion:
"We must protect freedoms of even those who hate us... If we fail in this task we become victims of the precedents we create. We have prided ourselves on being a nation of laws applying equally to all and not a nation of men who have few or no standards. We must preserve our [individual] rights..."



And Judge Napolitano of FOX News in his recent book "Lies The Government Told You (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1595552669/recrll-20/)" mentions that....

Under the natural law (God's law of nature) our fundamental rights cannot be taken away by the government unless it follows due process and also violates the rights of others. Some of these fundamental rights include freedom of speech, freedom to travel, freedom of religion etc. Due process means in part that the government notifies those what they are being charged with, they have a fair trial with a lawyer before a neutral judge and jury. It also means the government must prove its accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by following due process can the government deprive anyone of their natural rights. Rights are inalienable and implicit within our humanity regardless of whether or not they are written down on paper. Among those natural rights are the rights to life, self-expression, to worship, to enjoy one's own property, the ability to contract, the right to reap the benefits of one's own labor, and the right to be left alone. No matter how abhorrent it is, all innocuous speech is absolute protected and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge it.


-Matt

[Matt Collins]

Just now sent out to the list:



Tea Party Democrat candidate debates Nashville Imam on Live Unedited TV

Well folks here they are. I have 7 links attached that comprise the hour of live TV I appeared on here in Nashville on Thursday Morning. The issue revolves around the Approval of the Local Islamic Center by our cowardly County Commissioners without any public notification or public hearings.

The commercials were taken out and the longest segment is about 10:30 in length. These videos demonstrate clearly that Imams and Islamists will intentionally lie and distort facts about their own system and the intentions of Sharia Law.

I would appreciate feedback or a Critique on the event. I hope you enjoy watching this as much as I enjoyed discussing the issues with this man.


Part 1: YouTube - Part 1 Tea Party Democrat Congressional Candidate George Erdel Debates Islam with Nashville Imam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0H0ks-HnQA)

Part 2: YouTube - Part 2 Tea Party Democrat Congressional Candidate George Erdel Debates Islam with Nashville Imam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5CB2PD4KsQ)

Part 3: YouTube - Part 3 Tea Party Democrat Congressional Candidate George Erdel Debates Islam with Nashville Imam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0JTtqkCwAs)

Part 4: YouTube - Part 4 Tea Party Democrat Congressional Candidate George Erdel Debates Islam with Nashville Imam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHqsjnFUEc8)

Part 5: YouTube - Part 5 Tea Party Democrat Congressional Candidate George Erdel Debates Islam with Nashville Imam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW7UlBX0Fc0)

Part 6: YouTube - Part 6 Tea Party Democrat Congressional Candidate George Erdel Debates Islam with Nashville Imam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uWgI7Lbtjk)

Link: 7 http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=George+Erdel&aq=f (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=George+Erdel&aq=f)

You may click on the bottom link and have the results of a search for them posted all on the same page. You may then click on either segment to watch them. Please pass these along to as many people as you can.

Be sure to see my site at www.georgefortennessee.com (http://www.georgefortennessee.com/)

[american.swan]

I haven't read the articles, but from the headline, I'm torn.

1. I'm not "against" building places of worship.
2. General Muslims are great, kind people.
3. Koran says, if "they" let you build a temple to Allah the land must be taken for Allah. This is where the radical segments will suicide bomb small town America for Allah. (seeking source)

[Matt Collins]

3. Koran says, if "they" let you build a temple to Allah the land must be taken for Allah. Cite your source please.

[jmdrake]

Cite your source please.

I assume american.swan was joking. The word "mosque" is only used 21 times in the Koran, and none come close to what he was saying.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=Mosque&size=First+100

[Matt Collins]

I assume american.swan was joking. The word "mosque" is only used 21 times in the Koran, and none come close to what he was saying.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=Mosque&size=First+100 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=Mosque&size=First+100)
Yeah but there can be other words that describe a place of worship in the book besides "mosque".

[Matt Collins]

This is an ad for a CFL member running in this district:

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CMC3qIKiktyuPBCgARjCBDIIMxsz74s5Emw

[Matt Collins]

Apparently they purchased some billboards in the area:



http://wkrn.images.worldnow.com/images/12815202_BG1.jpg
http://wkrn.images.worldnow.com/images/12815202_BG2.jpg


SOURCE:
http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=12815202

[Liberty Star]

I hope they build a really big one right next to his house. This is the guy who made that infamous video about Iraqi muslims when Bush was liberating them.

[Matt Collins]

Lt. Governor of TN (running for Governor) ponders if "Islam is a cult":

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40328.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/US-Tenn-Candidate-Islam/2010/07/27/id/365813

[BlackTerrel]

The billboard, paid for by former Muslims, reads, "Stop the Murfreesboro mosque" and lists the Web site of Former Muslims United, an organization made up of people who used to be Muslim, sharing their opposition to Islam.

Interesting that this tends to happen a lot. People who convert from one religion to another are usually the most zealot. Doesn't matter which religion it is.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082202895_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010082202944

[Fozz]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082202895_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010082202944
These are some abhorrent people.

[YumYum]

These are some abhorrent people.

I agree. I know some of them personally.

[BlackTerrel]

A Time magazine poll released Thursday found that 43 percent of Americans hold unfavorable views of Muslims, far outpacing the numbers for Mormons (29 percent), Catholics (17 percent), Jews (13 percent) and Protestants (13 percent).

BTW leaving aside Muslims for a moment does anyone else find the numbers for Jews, Catholics, and Protestants to be extraordinarily high? You're telling me almost one in five Americans are anti-Catholic?

I find those numbers harder to believe than the ones for Mormons and Muslims.

[MN Patriot]

Let's build a gay bath house on one side of the mosque, and a strip club and bar on the other side. We'll find out who's tolerant and who's not in no time.

[HOLLYWOOD]

This country is so much down the shitter.

Here's all your so-called TEA PARTY members at RESISTNET.com

What a much of TV indoctrinated fools... AnyHoo, the comments, lot's of Moronic/indoctrinated Tea Partiers dissing Ron's letter/speech on the NYC mosque and even Rand Paul.

Silly Fools following the program, as dictated.

RESISTNET even went to RonPaul.com for the Transcript.

http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/angry-ron-paul-defends-ground?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A2519766&page=1#comments

Here's one comment in reference to RON:

"He thinks he is qualifiied to be President?? I seriously doubt it ...nor do I support his son, who is app to change his mind at any given moment.."

:rolleyes:

[YumYum]

I just read that woman's hateful comment and that is the way all neocons and the majority on tea partiers feel about Ron. Doesn't anybody feel the rage inside?

[Matt Collins]

Another Daily Show episode:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/08/26/tennessee-the-daily-show-punchline-state/

[Imperial]

to add one more, the Rutherford County school system currently offers French, Latin, German, and Spanish as a second language, to see our community work with the school board to establish a program that also offers Arabic as a second language would be a great achievement in the name of Allah

That would be great for a school district to start teaching Arabic. It is a language that is practical to learn, since it is used all over the globe.

[Matt Collins]

Apparently someone set fire to the mosque construction site here in TN yesterday:

http://www.dnj.com/article/20100828/NEWS01/100828009/UPDATED-Arson-at-future-Islamic-Center-site-takes-it-to-a-whole-new-level- (http://www.dnj.com/article/20100828/NEWS01/100828009/UPDATED-Arson-at-future-Islamic-Center-site-takes-it-to-a-whole-new-level-)

[Matt Collins]

Shots fired at TN mosque construction site:
http://www.dnj.com/article/20100830/NEWS01/8300304/Shots+report+checked+at+site

[Daamien]

I would mention the First Treaty of Tripoli (1796), specifically because he brought up the Barbary Pirates (who were not committing jihad, they were committing piracy and simply demanded tribute for safe passage):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Article 11:

Art. 11. 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 Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.murfreesboropost.com/lawsuit-filed-to-stop-mosque-as-supporters-speak-up-cms-24454


http://www.dnj.com/article/20100917/NEWS01/9170331/1002/County+commended++sued+over+mosque+in+same+night

[Liberty Star]

I hope some Iraqi refugees build one right next to his house.

[virgil47]

They are not attempting to build a "mosque" in NY. They intend to build a "rabat". If you don't know what that is look it up and learn why they are calling it the "Cordoba" house. If it was simply a mosque it would not be as voraciously opposed.

[LibertyVox]

They are not attempting to build a "mosque" in NY. They intend to build a "rabat". If you don't know what that is look it up and learn why they are calling it the "Cordoba" house. If it was simply a mosque it would not be as voraciously opposed.

OMFG!!They want to build a Rabat???!!! HOLY Tap Dancin Monte Christo!!
They want to Build The Capital of Morroco there? I guess the day of reckoning is finally here. It's time to clean house, Did you buy your machete yet paisan?








Oh and BTW, the anti -park 51 cultural center's protest have nothing to do with ome conspiracy; only the one which exists in the minds of dim witted bigots. And since, you clearly missed it, this OP by Matt wasn't about NYC park 51 at all. It was about Murfeesboro. You have similar insanity brewing in other parts of the country including Florida, California, Kentucky, Texas etc...
...and you're apparently part of that insanity.

[virgil47]

OMFG!!They want to build a Rabat???!!! HOLY Tap Dancin Monte Christo!!
They want to Build The Capital of Morroco there? I guess the day of reckoning is finally here. It's time to clean house, Did you buy your machete yet paisan?








Oh and BTW, the anti -park 51 cultural center's protest have nothing to do with ome conspiracy; only the one which exists in the minds of dim witted bigots. And since, you clearly missed it, this OP by Matt wasn't about NYC park 51 at all. It was about Murfeesboro. You have similar insanity brewing in other parts of the country including Florida, California, Kentucky, Texas etc...
...and you're apparently part of that insanity.



You obviously have no idea of what a rabat is or what it stands for in the Muslem world. If you did I would hope that you would not be so glib in your reply. If you are not capable of actually looking up the word "rabat" I'm sure your parents could show you how to do it.

[Liberty Star]

Why the **** they have Glenn Beck meetups?

The guy is a disaster.

[LibertyVox]

You obviously have no idea of what a rabat is or what it stands for in the Muslem world. If you did I would hope that you would not be so glib in your reply. If you are not capable of actually looking up the word "rabat" I'm sure your parents could show you how to do it.

Oh I must be glib :rolleyes:, and since you seem to know it all be smug, why don't you enlighten me what it stands for in the "Muslim World". It must be something really well known in the "Muslim World". Tell me if it's an acronym, or some insidious protocol to kill and conquer the world. You still haven't acknowledged that this OP had nothing to do with Park 51, but with Murfeesboro. And the cheap thug inciting this rally is Glen Beck: the disgusting charlatan.

And I warn you to keep my parents out of this.

[Fozz]

Oh I must be glib :rolleyes:, and since you seem to know it all be smug, why don't you enlighten me what it stands for in the "Muslim World". It must be something really well known in the "Muslim World". Tell me if it's an acronym, or some insidious protocol to kill and conquer the world. You still haven't acknowledged that this OP had nothing to do with Park 51, but with Murfeesboro. And the cheap thug inciting this rally is Glen Beck: the disgusting charlatan.

And I warn you to keep my parents out of this.

Toothless morons seem to like making up Islamic-sounding words to talk about how much they "know" about these insidious stealth Jihadists.

[LibertyVox]

Toothless morons seem to like making up Islamic-sounding words to talk about how much they "know" about these insidious stealth Jihadists.

Seriously Fozz, I am a guy of very very ordinary standing. I know very little. But my god, sometimes it feels like talking to kids . Unruly, angry kids with a lot of body piercing and beef. And the sad and alarming part is that many of these Islamophobe bigots aren't kinders. I mean no wonder we are out butchering, occupying and dictating and intervening because somehow many of us in our zealotry are convinced that over there (whereever "there" is) is a big sign hangin HERE BE DRAGONS. THERE BE DRAGONS. And the latest dragon is a moslem.
It's almost embarrassing thinking that some foreigner might read some of these posts by my compatriots.

You know what it is though? I think this is a classic case of culture of projection. Seriously, I am increasingly becoming convinced that at least for some this is some kind of a guilt coping mechanism, because everyone wants to believe that they are on the right side. That the fault must lie with the other side. No one likes to be shown the mirror: http://www.adab-arz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/us-lk083110dAPR-399.jpg So it's extremely sad. And unfortunately since we have the weapons, technology, means and a fucked up state philosophy (and bucket loads of militant low intellect sheeple) also dangerous. So we bomb the bejeezus out of third world countries, extremely poor and beset by a myriad of problems none least by incompetent rulers many of whom cherry picked and imposed by us, and then think we are the victims. That "they" are out to get us. That "they" have the means and motives to get us. That "they" are unreasonable and violent. "Them". Whatever "them" is. Quite remarkable actually. I would ROTFLMGDMFAO at this repulsively vitriolic hypocrisy if it weren't so somber a matter. And I am inextrcably part of it.
Coming back to the motives and means: Well we've certainly given "them" the motives to dislike us due to self-fulfilling prophecies, and quite justifiably in certain cases. But even a cursory bit of intelligence would show that "they" don't have the means. We should be very thankful for that, for there may still be a chance for honorable rectification. There still may be an opportunity. But as disgusting as the local climate in this country is becoming day by day, I feel that this country has peaked. And as always it was not the immigrants or some foreign army, but domestic decay responsible for that .


Seriously the only difference between us and the Soviet Union is one of a minor degree; such as our government is still quite magnanimous towards us. Much thanks and adulations to our rulers for this mercy and kindness they bestow upon us :rolleyes: even as they venture out being the biggest health hazard to mankind. Soviet Union didn't differ between who got fucked.

[LibertyVox]

LMAO!

YouTube - Hitler wants a united Eid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBmahC_uvbk)

[libertygrl]

Good luck trying to reason with morons who think that Islam is comparable to the Nazis, and is an equally threatening enemy :rolleyes:

I'd tell them that terrorism is a legitimate threat to the security of our country, as 9/11 has shown, but the idea that "Islamofascists" will establish a worldwide caliphate to overthrow our Constitution is lunacy.

I would laugh at such an idea, if it wasn't the basis for restricting the rights of a minority.

I'm having the same debate over at another forum. Exactly how would these "Islamofascists" accomplish such a takeover?? People are reacting out of ignorance and fear. When I suggest reading the book "Islam - a short history" by religious scholar Karen Armstrong, they react in defiance as if I'm asking them to study something Satanic. :rolleyes:

[virgil47]

Oh I must be glib :rolleyes:, and since you seem to know it all be smug, why don't you enlighten me what it stands for in the "Muslim World". It must be something really well known in the "Muslim World". Tell me if it's an acronym, or some insidious protocol to kill and conquer the world. You still haven't acknowledged that this OP had nothing to do with Park 51, but with Murfeesboro. And the cheap thug inciting this rally is Glen Beck: the disgusting charlatan.

And I warn you to keep my parents out of this.

Well for those of you that are to stupid or lazy or complacent to look and learn a "rabat" in the Muslim world is a "house" of training. They are built as close to the center of an area of conquest as possible as a sign of superiority. The rabat has a mosque as one feature but the primary reason for the "house" or rabat is to teach fellow Muslims and to aid in continuing to conquer the infidels of the area. If you have been paying attention you would realize that the leaders of the project to build the "Cordoba House" have consistently denied that they are building a mosque. They have insisted it is a "cultural" center or in other words a "RABAT".

[virgil47]

Seriously Fozz, I am a guy of very very ordinary standing. I know very little. But my god, sometimes it feels like talking to kids . Unruly, angry kids with a lot of body piercing and beef. And the sad and alarming part is that many of these Islamophobe bigots aren't kinders. I mean no wonder we are out butchering, occupying and dictating and intervening because somehow many of us in our zealotry are convinced that over there (whereever "there" is) is a big sign hangin HERE BE DRAGONS. THERE BE DRAGONS. And the latest dragon is a moslem.
It's almost embarrassing thinking that some foreigner might read some of these posts by my compatriots.

You know what it is though? I think this is a classic case of culture of projection. Seriously, I am increasingly becoming convinced that at least for some this is some kind of a guilt coping mechanism, because everyone wants to believe that they are on the right side. That the fault must lie with the other side. No one likes to be shown the mirror: http://www.adab-arz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/us-lk083110dAPR-399.jpg So it's extremely sad. And unfortunately since we have the weapons, technology, means and a fucked up state philosophy (and bucket loads of militant low intellect sheeple) also dangerous. So we bomb the bejeezus out of third world countries, extremely poor and beset by a myriad of problems none least by incompetent rulers many of whom cherry picked and imposed by us, and then think we are the victims. That "they" are out to get us. That "they" have the means and motives to get us. That "they" are unreasonable and violent. "Them". Whatever "them" is. Quite remarkable actually. I would ROTFLMGDMFAO at this repulsively vitriolic hypocrisy if it weren't so somber a matter. And I am inextrcably part of it.
Coming back to the motives and means: Well we've certainly given "them" the motives to dislike us due to self-fulfilling prophecies, and quite justifiably in certain cases. But even a cursory bit of intelligence would show that "they" don't have the means. We should be very thankful for that, for there may still be a chance for honorable rectification. There still may be an opportunity. But as disgusting as the local climate in this country is becoming day by day, I feel that this country has peaked. And as always it was not the immigrants or some foreign army, but domestic decay responsible for that .


Seriously the only difference between us and the Soviet Union is one of a minor degree; such as our government is still quite magnanimous towards us. Much thanks and adulations to our rulers for this mercy and kindness they bestow upon us :rolleyes: even as they venture out being the biggest health hazard to mankind. Soviet Union didn't differ between who got fucked.


You my friend are so complacent as to be a danger to his fellow man. The Muslims have been working on world conquest since this so called religion began.

[Fozz]

....

[virgil47]

I'm having the same debate over at another forum. Exactly how would these "Islamofascists" accomplish such a takeover?? People are reacting out of ignorance and fear. When I suggest reading the book "Islam - a short history" by religious scholar Karen Armstrong, they react in defiance as if I'm asking them to study something Satanic. :rolleyes:

Through fear and intimidation. Simply look at the streets of NY city on any afternoon. The Muslims that will not fit into one of the existing 60 mosques simply move out into the streets. They then face Mecca and pray. In so doing they stop all traffic for however long they wish to do so with absolutely no objection from the fearful authorities. Name one other group that can do this and not only get away with it but be praised by the local government. If that isn't enough look to Virginia, Michigan or many other states where large communities of Muslims have congregated. They absolutely refuse to become part of "OUR" culture because they want us to become part of their culture or at least become "dhimmis". Conquest of a culture does not have to be rapid. It can be slow but steady.

[virgil47]

....

Well said!

[LibertyVox]

Well for those of you that are to stupid or lazy or complacent to look and learn a "rabat" in the Muslim world is a "house" of training. They are built as close to the center of an area of conquest as possible as a sign of superiority. The rabat has a mosque as one feature but the primary reason for the "house" or rabat is to teach fellow Muslims and to aid in continuing to conquer the infidels of the area. If you have been paying attention you would realize that the leaders of the project to build the "Cordoba House" have consistently denied that they are building a mosque. They have insisted it is a "cultural" center or in other words a "RABAT".

oh wow dumdum, you figured it all out

http://birdonthemoon.com/you_win_the_prize-thumb.jpeg

[virgil47]

oh wow dumdum, you figured it all out

http://birdonthemoon.com/you_win_the_prize-thumb.jpeg

Oh wow, do your parents know what you are doing? You obviously are a child as your child like response would indicate. When you grow up and are willing to have an educated, knowledgeable discussion please reply. Until that time turn on your X" box and live in your make believe world.

[Toureg89]

so because muslims pray in public, they are "intimidating" people?:confused:

bending over a rug and chanting in arabic is the equivalent of threatening someone with force?

you have a worped understanding of the 1st amendment.

[virgil47]

so because muslims pray in public, they are "intimidating" people?:confused:

bending over a rug and chanting in arabic is the equivalent of threatening someone with force?

you have a worped understanding of the 1st amendment.

NO! Praying in public is not the implied threat. Stopping traffic in order to pray and doing so on a continuing basis and getting away with it is a sign of that threat. Name one other group that can and does stop traffic flow in a large U.S. city on a regular basis that the municipal authorities do not stop. You can't because most other groups will not riot if not granted their wishes. If a Christian congregation of just one church spilled out onto the streets and did as the Muslims in N.Y. city do the authorities would bring out the dogs, ticket books and perhaps the fire hoses. This does not happen with the Muslims because they have intimidated the local authorities into kissing their collective butts.

[Fozz]

NO! Praying in public is not the implied threat. Stopping traffic in order to pray and doing so on a continuing basis and getting away with it is a sign of that threat. Name one other group that can and does stop traffic flow in a large U.S. city on a regular basis that the municipal authorities do not stop. You can't because most other groups will not riot if not granted their wishes. If a Christian congregation of just one church spilled out onto the streets and did as the Muslims in N.Y. city do the authorities would bring out the dogs, ticket books and perhaps the fire hoses. This does not happen with the Muslims because they have intimidated the local authorities into kissing their collective butts.

OMG....the Muslims are threatening our freedoms...we must kill them all!!1!!1!!!!!!11!!

[Toureg89]

NO! Praying in public is not the implied threat. Stopping traffic in order to pray and doing so on a continuing basis and getting away with it is a sign of that threat. Name one other group that can and does stop traffic flow in a large U.S. city on a regular basis that the municipal authorities do not stop. You can't because most other groups will not riot if not granted their wishes. If a Christian congregation of just one church spilled out onto the streets and did as the Muslims in N.Y. city do the authorities would bring out the dogs, ticket books and perhaps the fire hoses. This does not happen with the Muslims because they have intimidated the local authorities into kissing their collective butts.
i have never seen a muslim pray in a literal street meant for automotive traffic.

and if you want to talk about people of religion stopping traffic, i can point you to a local orlando church whose congregation hires off duty leos to stop traffic periodically because the members dont want to cross at the proper street junction.

[LibertyVox]

Oh wow, do your parents know what you are doing? You obviously are a child as your child like response would indicate. When you grow up and are willing to have an educated, knowledgeable discussion please reply. Until that time turn on your X" box and live in your make believe world.

lol irony!

You know what, keep posting. Your comments should be preserved as a testament to the mental caliber of bigot and warmongering idiots. I mean it. Do keep posting.

[virgil47]

i have never seen a muslim pray in a literal street meant for automotive traffic.

and if you want to talk about people of religion stopping traffic, i can point you to a local orlando church whose congregation hires off duty leos to stop traffic periodically because the members dont want to cross at the proper street junction.

Perhaps you should go to N.Y. city and observe.

[virgil47]

lol irony!

You know what, keep posting. Your comments should be preserved as a testament to the mental caliber of bigot and warmongering idiots. I mean it. Do keep posting.

Again your response is that of a child that truly has nothing of substance to add to the discussion. I do intend to continue posting as these matters are much to important to leave to the infantile ramblings of someone of your mental abilities.

[Minuteman2012]

Reminds me of this quote...
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Ben Franklin

[virgil47]

Reminds me of this quote...
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Ben Franklin

May I ask what it is that reminds you of that famous quote?

[Toureg89]

Perhaps you should go to N.Y. city and observe.

i've been to NYC. i was there 2 or 3 times and never saw muslims stop traffic to pray in the street...:confused:

[orafi]

i've been to NYC. i was there 2 or 3 times and never saw muslims stop traffic to pray in the street...:confused:

You must not have visited 5th and Virgil's Mind St

[Minuteman2012]

May I ask what it is that reminds you of that famous quote?

The fact that the people in this group believe majority opinion trumps natural rights like free expression.

[Minuteman2012]

They are not attempting to build a "mosque" in NY. They intend to build a "rabat". If you don't know what that is look it up and learn why they are calling it the "Cordoba" house. If it was simply a mosque it would not be as voraciously opposed.

What is wrong with calling it Cordoba House? Cordoba was the capital of Islamic Spain, and a center of art and scholarship for people of all faiths. In fact, what is considered the golden age of Iberian Jewish culture occurred under Islamic rule. It fits in with the idea of interfaith and cultural dialogue this cultural center hopes to bring about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus#Legacies_of_Al-Andalus

[erowe1]

Reminds me of this quote...
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Ben Franklin

I had hear the first part attributed to Franklin before. But when I saw the second part I thought to myself, there's no way that part's genuine. It turns out, the first part isn't genuine either.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Misattributed

[Minuteman2012]

Through fear and intimidation. Simply look at the streets of NY city on any afternoon. The Muslims that will not fit into one of the existing 60 mosques simply move out into the streets. They then face Mecca and pray. In so doing they stop all traffic for however long they wish to do so with absolutely no objection from the fearful authorities. Name one other group that can do this and not only get away with it but be praised by the local government. If that isn't enough look to Virginia, Michigan or many other states where large communities of Muslims have congregated. They absolutely refuse to become part of "OUR" culture because they want us to become part of their culture or at least become "dhimmis". Conquest of a culture does not have to be rapid. It can be slow but steady.

what is our culture? It is rather presumptuous to assume that all the people who occupy the North American landmass have the same culture? What is your culture? How do you know I follow the same culture as you? And why do I have to adhere to your cultural values? That it collectivist and self centered of you.

[Toureg89]

well, even if muslims do stop traffic to pray in the streets, imo, its not much different than a large church group of people stopping traffic to walk across the street for 2-3 minutes at a time, several times an hour, cuz they are too lazy to use a cross walk to properly walk across the street.

last time i say my aunt pray, it took less than 10 minutes to do so.

i dont see anything wrong other than economically speaking, theres a large supply of muslims, and a large demand for mosque space, and little supply of mosques, in the new york area.

the answer to solving the problem of muslims stopping traffic in nyc, is to let them build as many mosques as they can afford, or stop letting muslim step foot in to nyc.

only one of those solutions is constutitional.

[virgil47]

The fact that the people in this group believe majority opinion trumps natural rights like free expression.

Ahh, I agree.

[virgil47]

What is wrong with calling it Cordoba House? Cordoba was the capital of Islamic Spain, and a center of art and scholarship for people of all faiths. In fact, what is considered the golden age of Iberian Jewish culture occurred under Islamic rule. It fits in with the idea of interfaith and cultural dialogue this cultural center hopes to bring about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus#Legacies_of_Al-Andalus

If you wish to be ruled by the Muslims please move to the middle east. I much prefer to vote in my gov. I have no desire to become a dhimmi as you apparently would like. Ah yes the golden age of Muslim rule! It just so happens to coincide with the most brutal 700 years of Spain's history. If the Muslims were so kind, gentle and enlightened why did the get thrown out of Spain?

[Matt Collins]

Feds will intervene (http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/feds-intervene-mosque-lawsuit?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) in the Murfreesboro mosque case, the Intrepid CP Staff Reports reports:
Middle Tennessee U.S. Attorney Jerry E. Martin this morning announced plans to make a filing “in relation to the case” today in Rutherford’s Chancery Court today. The announcement did not say what position the government would take in regard to the lawsuit.

[Matt Collins]

Rutherford Co. judge won't stop mosque construction:


http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=13520450

[Matt Collins]

Looks like a judge just halted construction of the mosque half-way through it:

http://www.wsmv.com/story/18646518/construction-of-murfreesboro-mosque-must-stop-says-judge#.T8UQkgHEpEU.facebook

[Lishy]

Hey Glenn Beck, since you have a Jew-fetish, hopefully you will listen to my words at least: Stop this Islamophobic bullcrap! Those people probably embody American values more than you!

[Tod]

Matt wrote:
Our rights cannot be voted away, nor can we vote away the rights of other individuals. If Muslims outnumber Christians, they cannot outlaw Christianity and vice versa because either scenario would be an abridgment of our natural individual rights.

I disagree with this statement. Muslims, should they one day obtain sufficient voters, CAN outlaw Christianity and vice versa. Just because it would be an abridgment of our natural rights doesn't mean they couldn't and wouldn't do it. Happens all the time. Abridgments of natural rights happen all the time. It is the difference between "shouldn't" and "wouldn't".

At some point, this difference may/will mean "refreshing the tree of liberty". Generally, most people will not respect natural rights if they can get away with it.

[Matt Collins]

Matt wrote:

I disagree with this statement. Muslims, should they one day obtain sufficient voters, CAN outlaw Christianity and vice versa. Just because it would be an abridgment of our natural rights doesn't mean they couldn't and wouldn't do it. Happens all the time. Abridgments of natural rights happen all the time. It is the difference between "shouldn't" and "wouldn't".Yes, I think we both agree, but further to my point, our natural rights are NOT contingent upon the approval of others; they exist whether or not other people think they exist.

[DerailingDaTrain]

why why WHY do you people do this? first, you're assuming that the person referring to the violent nature of Islam is a Christian. maybe s/he is just an observant person.

second, pointing out that another religion has violent directives contained in the holy texts does not weaken the original argument that Islam is a violent religion. it simply shows that both are bad life choices.

the facts are simple. islamic fundamentalists blow themselves up and try to kill you. there is a reason to be concerned with a mosque going up in your neighborhood. and if you don't think that suicide bombing are going to make their debut in America, then you have your head in the sand.

at what point do we say "your religion is interfering my right to live. so we're going to have to ask you to stop?" one suicide bombing? two? 50? 100?

and no, you don't get to claim that 90% of Islam is a "peace loving religion", because until they clean up their house, they're all part of the violence. and they're all responsible.

Horrible post is horrible. I'm seriously not going to argue about this but...you're wrong.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

Lights are flashing—sirens are blasting,
The religious police are chasing.
Muslims should have thought about it twice,
Didn’t realize that Mr. Beck'd tighten the vise.

Will they warn them not to do it again,
Or does this offense rile Beckians to forfend?
I pray not the fabrication of a war grievance,
For practicing religion with the wrong license.

T Kosciuszko

If hear them say “the world has gone to the dogs,” do not discount the theory, that it might bode well for humanity.

[satchelmcqueen]

sort of relevant...but as ron paul has said countless times..."what if another country came to ours and did to us what weve done to them? how would we feel?"

what of it america sheep? do you get it now??

[JK/SEA]

Hey Virgil47..see ya at the Landmark Inn near the dome thursday?...

[Acala]

This is why it is so critically important that we get government back under its original restraints - and then some. This is why we must oppose using government to promote CHRISTIAN morality now because the same retraints will protect us against having other moral systems promoted by government down the road.

[jmdrake]

why why WHY do you people do this? first, you're assuming that the person referring to the violent nature of Islam is a Christian. maybe s/he is just an observant person.

second, pointing out that another religion has violent directives contained in the holy texts does not weaken the original argument that Islam is a violent religion. it simply shows that both are bad life choices.

the facts are simple. islamic fundamentalists blow themselves up and try to kill you. there is a reason to be concerned with a mosque going up in your neighborhood. and if you don't think that suicide bombing are going to make their debut in America, then you have your head in the sand.

at what point do we say "your religion is interfering my right to live. so we're going to have to ask you to stop?" one suicide bombing? two? 50? 100?

and no, you don't get to claim that 90% of Islam is a "peace loving religion", because until they clean up their house, they're all part of the violence.
and they're all responsible.

I missed this post the first time through, but anyone who thinks that Islamic terrorism of today is that different from Christian terrorism from a few years ago is kidding himself.

http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/plo.ira.jpg

Any desperate group will take desperate means. And Christians who don't think our religion can compete in the free marketplace of ideas against a mosque lack faith in Jesus.

[jmdrake]

Looks like a judge just halted construction of the mosque half-way through it:

http://www.wsmv.com/story/18646518/construction-of-murfreesboro-mosque-must-stop-says-judge#.T8UQkgHEpEU.facebook

Ignorance won the day based on procedural grounds. When's the next hearing? We should flood the meeting with Ron Paul republicans speaking up for the constitution and against anti-Christian fearmongering.

[Xhin]

I'm about halfway through this thread, but I just want to say:


You believe at no level of government should democratic forces have a say in regards to rules and regulations? Can an historic district prohibit certain types of building/construction/decor? Can a homeowner's association? A condo board?

I just want to confirm that is the position you are taking. I don't generally favor those type of restrictions, but at some point I believe we are dealing with a "consensual" arrangement in which democratic outcomes can outweigh die-hard commitment to unbridled freedom.

Liberty has no problem with consensual arrangements. It does, however, have a problem with a consensual arrangement seeking power over those who are not a part of it. In this case, if the mosque is a member of this association (and is free to leave it at any time), then the people have the right to prohibit it from being built. However, that is obviously not the case.

[Xhin]

Dammit, I didn't realize how old this thread was.

[Vessol]

You can't logically argue with these people. They believe fully that there is an evil Muslim conspiracy that wants to rebuild a Caliphate(and they don't understand what the hell a Caliphate was in history, but w/e) and every muslim is in on it. I've tried having debates with these people. They believe that everything is permissive against Muslims, including mass genocide. There are tons of websites and email groups out there for this crap.

[jmdrake]

Dammit, I didn't realize how old this thread was.

It got bumped because this week a judge temporarily halted construction on the mosque. Yea for freedumbs! :(

[PaulConventionWV]

why why WHY do you people do this? first, you're assuming that the person referring to the violent nature of Islam is a Christian. maybe s/he is just an observant person.

second, pointing out that another religion has violent directives contained in the holy texts does not weaken the original argument that Islam is a violent religion. it simply shows that both are bad life choices.

the facts are simple. islamic fundamentalists blow themselves up and try to kill you. there is a reason to be concerned with a mosque going up in your neighborhood. and if you don't think that suicide bombing are going to make their debut in America, then you have your head in the sand.

at what point do we say "your religion is interfering my right to live. so we're going to have to ask you to stop?" one suicide bombing? two? 50? 100?

and no, you don't get to claim that 90% of Islam is a "peace loving religion", because until they clean up their house, they're all part of the violence. and they're all responsible.

Whenever someone brings up the violence of Islam, enemies of Christianity are quick to fire back, criticizing the Bible's content without really knowing what they're talking about. Islam and Christianity are in no way the same thing. However, the reason many atheists will respond with a post attacking Christianity, even with no mention of it, is because they view it as a threat more so than any other religion. It's no coincidence that the Bible just happens to pop into their heads and they simply HAVE to criticize it whenever the topic of 'righteous violence' comes up. Anyone can tell, with even a superficial look, that the Bible does NOT teach violence, but they criticize it because they fear its influence.

[MelissaWV]

Whenever someone brings up the violence of Islam, enemies of Christianity are quick to fire back, criticizing the Bible's content without really knowing what they're talking about. Islam and Christianity are in no way the same thing. However, the reason many atheists will respond with a post attacking Christianity, even with no mention of it, is because they view it as a threat more so than any other religion. It's no coincidence that the Bible just happens to pop into their heads and they simply HAVE to criticize it whenever the topic of 'righteous violence' comes up. Anyone can tell, with even a superficial look, that the Bible does NOT teach violence, but they criticize it because they fear its influence.

If you gave the Koran a similar shake, you'd notice there is plenty to find of merit within the book(s).

Any religion that confines itself to books, though, is not really giving God a fair shake (just my opinion). I'm not sure about others, but the God I believe in cannot be explained in a few thousand pages.

[jmdrake]

Well I'm not an enemy of Christianity. I'm a Christian. And I don't have to go to the Bible to see violence done in the name of Christianity which is just as bad as violence done in the name of Islam. For that matter I don't have to look far to see violence done in the name of atheism. People don't have to be part of some "strange religion" to engage in unspeakable violence. When we try to make it an "us" versus "them" where we are the "good guys" just reacting to "their violence" we do our own religion (or non-religion) a disservice.

Edit: And the Old Testament is about as "non violent" as the Koran. Just ask the people of Jericho.


Whenever someone brings up the violence of Islam, enemies of Christianity are quick to fire back, criticizing the Bible's content without really knowing what they're talking about. Islam and Christianity are in no way the same thing. However, the reason many atheists will respond with a post attacking Christianity, even with no mention of it, is because they view it as a threat more so than any other religion. It's no coincidence that the Bible just happens to pop into their heads and they simply HAVE to criticize it whenever the topic of 'righteous violence' comes up. Anyone can tell, with even a superficial look, that the Bible does NOT teach violence, but they criticize it because they fear its influence.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Disagree with using political means. Agree with using private means. I am not tolerant of Islam personally by any stretch.

[jmdrake]

Disagree with using political means. Agree with using private means. I am not tolerant of Islam personally by any stretch.

And what "private means" can you think of to stop someone from building a mosque on land they already own? Anyway Jesus was tolerant of all religions. He told his disciples to simply "shake the dust off their feet" when someone didn't want to accept what they were teaching and move on. That's the best endorsement of the "free marketplace of ideas" I've ever seen.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

And what "private means" can you think of to stop someone from building a mosque on land they already own? Anyway Jesus was tolerant of all religions. He told his disciples to simply "shake the dust off their feet" when someone didn't want to accept what they were teaching and move on. That's the best endorsement of the "free marketplace of ideas" I've ever seen.

Trying to buy the land, surround it with BBQ joints, organized marches, etc.

Jesus was tolerant in terms of not fighting with other religions, but he knew they were a lie and a lie he would not tolerate.

[PaulConventionWV]

If you gave the Koran a similar shake, you'd notice there is plenty to find of merit within the book(s).

Any religion that confines itself to books, though, is not really giving God a fair shake (just my opinion). I'm not sure about others, but the God I believe in cannot be explained in a few thousand pages.

The goal of the Bible is not to "explain God". I don't mean to offend you, but this is what I mean when I say that people criticize it without really knowing what they're talking about. The purpose of the Bible is to tell us where we come from and what we must do in our time here. None of that includes violent oppression, although some people may use it as a front for that. I really am not trying to attack you because I can see where you're coming from. However, I think you have a misconception about what the Bible is for. Here is an acronym for you:

Bible: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

[jcannon98188]

The goal of the Bible is not to "explain God". I don't mean to offend you, but this is what I mean when I say that people criticize it without really knowing what they're talking about. The purpose of the Bible is to tell us where we come from and what we must do in our time here. None of that includes violent oppression, although some people may use it as a front for that. I really am not trying to attack you because I can see where you're coming from. However, I think you have a misconception about what the Bible is for. Here is an acronym for you:

Bible: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

Sorry but no. The Bible is not the "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth" if it was it would be 1 page and simply read "Love God, and love everyone else too". The Bible is a record of the "people of god"

Further more, people who said the Bible has just as much violence is correct. I mean the Bible says to stone the gays. It also authorizes us to go to war if we want other people's land. The Bible is nothing. If you listen to "The Bible" you will lose. But if you listen to Jesus, you will find out something. Jesus believes in freedom, and you should too.

[jmdrake]

Trying to buy the land, surround it with BBQ joints, organized marches, etc.

They already owned the land before they announced their intention to build. Middle TN is already full of BBQ joints. And if you really believe these "evil mooselums" want to take over then you know they won't be dissuaded by a few silly marches. Of course you could start open Christian porn shops.



Jesus was tolerant in terms of not fighting with other religions, but he knew they were a lie and a lie he would not tolerate.

What part of "shake the dust off your feet and move on" do you not understand? When Jesus met the woman at the well He engaged her in discussion. He didn't bring up the fact that her religion was fake until she brought it up, and then He was still polite to her.

[ClydeCoulter]

The answer, have more babies, teach them and love them, else the majority will be another people and then the constituion can be changed to whatever.
But we need sound money so we can afford more children, unless you want to do it on welfare, which would not allow for a good role model.

[Fayt]

Trying to buy the land, surround it with BBQ joints, organized marches, etc.

Jesus was tolerant in terms of not fighting with other religions, but he knew they were a lie and a lie he would not tolerate.

A lie he would not tolerate? Luke 9:52-56: "...they did not receive him...And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

He was a pretty tolerant dude. I'm not a Christian, but it's easy to respect what Jesus taught, and intolerance wasn't something I recall him preaching.

[HigherVision]

Do not people at the local level have the right to stop what they perceive is a moral/spiritual threat to their community?

No

[Xhin]

I have no problem with Christianity or Islam. There's a lot of good to be found in religions, even if I do not belong to any of them. I do have a problem with religio-political moements trying to change the political structure we have set up to pander to their beliefs alone. Perhaps if these people fear some kind of Islamic takeover of the US, they should fight it when it actually starts happening rather than cause animosity by fighting other people of the religion that just want to assemble peacefully.

[specsaregood]

..

[Aratus]

if haslam stands up for her, he indeed has true grit and is an honest man

[Athan]

They should wait for their "Beck-Stab" it's coming!

[dean.engelhardt]

Do these people even listen to Glenn Beck?

I'd be suprised if anyone listens to Beck

[Keith and stuff]

http://www.wkrn.com/story/18778471/anti-muslim-group-attacks-tenn-economic-official

Wow. That group really hates freedom. I wonder what crawled up their butts?