libertygrl
10-05-2010, 01:36 PM
I know you guys are probably getting sick and tired of my asking for advice in my ongoing forum debate with a tea party member over Constitutional rights and the NYC Mosque. I apologize! While I am becoming more educated about certain issues and gaining more confidence, I'm still a bit shaky when it comes to defending my position and I sheepishly admit that I do rely on these forums for some excellent feedback!
I know convincing a tea party member over this issue is probably a lost cause, but more people are starting to jump into the conversation against me (which of course is their right). It's just that I find some of their remarks very confusing. They don't seem to make any sense. A new tea party member just jumped into the fray and is somehow equating ICLEI - International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives - (the UN's secret Agenda 21) with the supposed secret agenda of Muslims to implement Sharia Law here. I think she's basically calling me a hypocrite because I have defended the right of freedom of religion yet I won't defend the right of local governments/ school districts to practice implementing the UN's secret agenda. What??? Does that make any sense? So, if you have the patience and don't mind reading this, here's how the conversation went. The tea party member is dark red, I'm blue. THANKS!
But you have passionately advocated against the UN and programs like IB. If I use your logic should I say that such programs are protected under the constitution and you shouldn't be so bigoted to try and stop them?
Well, you could say that if you want to but that's just plain... illogical. Agenda 21 is not protected under the constitution. PEOPLE ARE. Agenda 21 is unconstitutional. The reason being that four of our presidents have signed treaties and international laws without oversight from Congress or the American people.
What I think we (tea party members) have been trying to argue, is Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf and his organization are nothing more than foxes in sheep clothing. We strongly believe the constitution protects both foxes and sheep. We strongly disagree it is there to protect foxes in sheep clothing. I believe Jefferson and all the other founding fathers would agree. They would argue common sense over political correctness. They would recognize an imposter.
Unless there is proof that some crime was committed or law broken then yes, even the foxes in sheeps clothing are protected. Remember - innocent until proven guilty? It has NOTHING to do with political correctness because under the constitution an individual's natural rights are protected - NOT a cultural philosophy such as political correctness. And NO WAY would Jefferson and the founding fathers EVER, EVER, sacrifice an individual's rights guaranteed under the Constitution for a little bit of safety.
What the foxes in sheep clothing are banking on is that we continue to have theoretical constitutional debates while they raid the henhouse. They did this in Europe, why not try it in the US. It is time to stop arguing the fine details of the constitution here on this thread. Why? Because we are all in agreement! What we need to come together on is how do we get rid of the foxes in sheep clothing? Whether it be Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf and his Ground Zero mosque, Agenda 21, the IB program, etc.
I agree - to a certain extent. Remain vigilant but not at the expense of the constitution. Once we make exceptions to the protections under the constitution out of fear, all is lost - because then WE the American people would pay the ultimate price and suffer the same fate as Fascist Germany.
Here's what I feel is our major disagreement: People here feel that radical Muslims will attempt to usher in a Sharia government in this country and will use the constitution as a means of reaching that goal.
Based on my research, I believe is that this is an intentional distraction in order to keep us living in FEAR of terrorism so that we will continue to give up our liberties and continue to support never ending wars. While we are viewing all Muslims as potential enemies, the real sheep in wolf's clothing are behind the scenes in Washington turning this country into a police state.
Thomas Jefferson: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
We have plenty of foxes in sheeps clothing and they are mostly in our government. If you want something to fear about, I think that's what we should really be concerned with. Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf is an American citizen. He is a moderate Muslim and has been head of another Mosque in NYC for 27 years without any problems. As a moderate, he has been hired by the FBI and the US State Department to promote religious tolerance overseas from a moderate perspective of being a Muslim in America. I would think the FBI has a pretty good background check on him, don't you? So unless there are proven crimes committed, laws broken, etc., then we have to assume he's innocent until proven guilty of some sort of crime.
LAST RESPONSE FROM TEA PARTY MEMBER:
You have argued that IB programs, memberships in ICLEI groups, etc are all ruses for the UN to implement their Agenda 21 in the United States. Treaties that are signed by Presidents but not approved by Congress our not in effect. The fact that local municipalities are implementing smart growth programs or IB programs are not unconstitutional. They were approved by the appropriate elected boards. These programs operating today are totally within our constitution. Why are you speaking out against them? Are you spreading fear? Are you just a UN hate-monger?
You have a right to argue that these programs are all just a ruse to get Agenda 21 implemented in the US. You can argue that Agenda 21 is dangerous because you believe that its ultimate goal is to destroy personal property rights and individual freedoms that are afforded to Americans under our constitution. But you can't prove it. You can't say that these programs are unconstitutional. What you do ask the reader to do is connect the dots.
Your belief that he is a moderate just trying to build a place of worship. We do not agree. A moderate would have backed down by now and would have been sensitive to the community concerns. A moderate would have jumped at Gov. Patterson's offer. He is no moderate.
I also ask you do more research. LOOK AT EUROPE and you will see what the US will look like in 20 years if we are not careful. Many months ago we had a troll on the RVC Tea Party site. He argued the same as you. Why would we be protesting the mosque since it is not unconstitutional to build one? I thought it was a logical post and question. I spent an entire day googling this Iman and reading. I found many things that made me uneasy about him. I also found the below you tube video that really hit a cord. Why? Because it wasn't some pundit or group - it was just a kid in Europe who was frightened to death of his own neighborhood. I do not want this to happen here. I have friends in the UK and they confirm things are getting out of hand and Sharia law IS being implemented. Why do you not think it can happen here in the US? Do some more research. Connect the dots.
Perhaps at the end of the day the dots won't connect for you. That's okay, because at the end of the day many people won't see how the dots connect for Agenda 21. But for you to marginalize our concerns is not okay. For you to insinuate that we are not keeping with the constitution to be against this mosque is not okay. But somehow believing that speaking out about smart growth initiatives and IB programs is somehow different is just hypocritical.
The mosque issue is the same. No one here has argued that they do not have a right under the constitution to build this mosque. What has been argued is that this mosque is not really being built to serve the needs of the American Muslim community that needs a place to worship. We are arguing that keeping with its original name "The Cordova Initiative" that it is nothing more than a victory monument to Islam and its quest for world dominance. We are arguing that Islam is more than just a religion, it is a political state. We are arguing that 9/11 is bigger than just a few nuts in caves in Afghanistan. We are arguing that Sharia Law is dangerous and is not consistent with the US Constitution. We are asking you to connect the dots.
I know convincing a tea party member over this issue is probably a lost cause, but more people are starting to jump into the conversation against me (which of course is their right). It's just that I find some of their remarks very confusing. They don't seem to make any sense. A new tea party member just jumped into the fray and is somehow equating ICLEI - International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives - (the UN's secret Agenda 21) with the supposed secret agenda of Muslims to implement Sharia Law here. I think she's basically calling me a hypocrite because I have defended the right of freedom of religion yet I won't defend the right of local governments/ school districts to practice implementing the UN's secret agenda. What??? Does that make any sense? So, if you have the patience and don't mind reading this, here's how the conversation went. The tea party member is dark red, I'm blue. THANKS!
But you have passionately advocated against the UN and programs like IB. If I use your logic should I say that such programs are protected under the constitution and you shouldn't be so bigoted to try and stop them?
Well, you could say that if you want to but that's just plain... illogical. Agenda 21 is not protected under the constitution. PEOPLE ARE. Agenda 21 is unconstitutional. The reason being that four of our presidents have signed treaties and international laws without oversight from Congress or the American people.
What I think we (tea party members) have been trying to argue, is Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf and his organization are nothing more than foxes in sheep clothing. We strongly believe the constitution protects both foxes and sheep. We strongly disagree it is there to protect foxes in sheep clothing. I believe Jefferson and all the other founding fathers would agree. They would argue common sense over political correctness. They would recognize an imposter.
Unless there is proof that some crime was committed or law broken then yes, even the foxes in sheeps clothing are protected. Remember - innocent until proven guilty? It has NOTHING to do with political correctness because under the constitution an individual's natural rights are protected - NOT a cultural philosophy such as political correctness. And NO WAY would Jefferson and the founding fathers EVER, EVER, sacrifice an individual's rights guaranteed under the Constitution for a little bit of safety.
What the foxes in sheep clothing are banking on is that we continue to have theoretical constitutional debates while they raid the henhouse. They did this in Europe, why not try it in the US. It is time to stop arguing the fine details of the constitution here on this thread. Why? Because we are all in agreement! What we need to come together on is how do we get rid of the foxes in sheep clothing? Whether it be Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf and his Ground Zero mosque, Agenda 21, the IB program, etc.
I agree - to a certain extent. Remain vigilant but not at the expense of the constitution. Once we make exceptions to the protections under the constitution out of fear, all is lost - because then WE the American people would pay the ultimate price and suffer the same fate as Fascist Germany.
Here's what I feel is our major disagreement: People here feel that radical Muslims will attempt to usher in a Sharia government in this country and will use the constitution as a means of reaching that goal.
Based on my research, I believe is that this is an intentional distraction in order to keep us living in FEAR of terrorism so that we will continue to give up our liberties and continue to support never ending wars. While we are viewing all Muslims as potential enemies, the real sheep in wolf's clothing are behind the scenes in Washington turning this country into a police state.
Thomas Jefferson: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
We have plenty of foxes in sheeps clothing and they are mostly in our government. If you want something to fear about, I think that's what we should really be concerned with. Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf is an American citizen. He is a moderate Muslim and has been head of another Mosque in NYC for 27 years without any problems. As a moderate, he has been hired by the FBI and the US State Department to promote religious tolerance overseas from a moderate perspective of being a Muslim in America. I would think the FBI has a pretty good background check on him, don't you? So unless there are proven crimes committed, laws broken, etc., then we have to assume he's innocent until proven guilty of some sort of crime.
LAST RESPONSE FROM TEA PARTY MEMBER:
You have argued that IB programs, memberships in ICLEI groups, etc are all ruses for the UN to implement their Agenda 21 in the United States. Treaties that are signed by Presidents but not approved by Congress our not in effect. The fact that local municipalities are implementing smart growth programs or IB programs are not unconstitutional. They were approved by the appropriate elected boards. These programs operating today are totally within our constitution. Why are you speaking out against them? Are you spreading fear? Are you just a UN hate-monger?
You have a right to argue that these programs are all just a ruse to get Agenda 21 implemented in the US. You can argue that Agenda 21 is dangerous because you believe that its ultimate goal is to destroy personal property rights and individual freedoms that are afforded to Americans under our constitution. But you can't prove it. You can't say that these programs are unconstitutional. What you do ask the reader to do is connect the dots.
Your belief that he is a moderate just trying to build a place of worship. We do not agree. A moderate would have backed down by now and would have been sensitive to the community concerns. A moderate would have jumped at Gov. Patterson's offer. He is no moderate.
I also ask you do more research. LOOK AT EUROPE and you will see what the US will look like in 20 years if we are not careful. Many months ago we had a troll on the RVC Tea Party site. He argued the same as you. Why would we be protesting the mosque since it is not unconstitutional to build one? I thought it was a logical post and question. I spent an entire day googling this Iman and reading. I found many things that made me uneasy about him. I also found the below you tube video that really hit a cord. Why? Because it wasn't some pundit or group - it was just a kid in Europe who was frightened to death of his own neighborhood. I do not want this to happen here. I have friends in the UK and they confirm things are getting out of hand and Sharia law IS being implemented. Why do you not think it can happen here in the US? Do some more research. Connect the dots.
Perhaps at the end of the day the dots won't connect for you. That's okay, because at the end of the day many people won't see how the dots connect for Agenda 21. But for you to marginalize our concerns is not okay. For you to insinuate that we are not keeping with the constitution to be against this mosque is not okay. But somehow believing that speaking out about smart growth initiatives and IB programs is somehow different is just hypocritical.
The mosque issue is the same. No one here has argued that they do not have a right under the constitution to build this mosque. What has been argued is that this mosque is not really being built to serve the needs of the American Muslim community that needs a place to worship. We are arguing that keeping with its original name "The Cordova Initiative" that it is nothing more than a victory monument to Islam and its quest for world dominance. We are arguing that Islam is more than just a religion, it is a political state. We are arguing that 9/11 is bigger than just a few nuts in caves in Afghanistan. We are arguing that Sharia Law is dangerous and is not consistent with the US Constitution. We are asking you to connect the dots.