"Christians" try to stop (muslim) prayer in public school

[jmdrake]

I put "Christian" in quotes because these are Christians in name only. To be a Christian you have to have faith in Christ. That includes faith in His ability to draw people unto Him. I believe one way to reach Christians is to point out that faith in Christ and fear over Islam or anything else is incompatible.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120805/NEWS06/308050052/Fight-against-Islam-stretches-beyond-Murfreesboro-mosque?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE&gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

For more than two years, Rutherford County has been in the middle of a perfect storm over Islam.

While furor over the “ground zero” mosque in New York has faded, the dispute over the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro — which began around the same time — has only grown more intense.

Fueled by fears that Muslims are gaining influence while Christians are losing clout, activists have battled to block construction of the Murfreesboro mosque. They’ve argued over the minutia of county zoning laws and whether Islam is a religion.

And the fight is unlikely to end anytime soon.

Mosque opponents say they are fighting for the soul of America. Now that the mosque is set to open this month, they are changing their tactics and broadening the scope of their complaints against Islam.

Their latest tactic is to protest requests for accommodations for Muslim students to pray in local schools. Dozens of critics of Islam showed up at a recent Rutherford County school board meeting to voice their disapproval.

And they plan to oppose any attempts by local Muslims to influence life in Rutherford County.

“We are going to closely scrutinize everything they do,” said the Rev. Darrel Whaley, mosque opponent and pastor of Kingdom Ministries Worship Center in Murfreesboro.

Long under the radar
From the outside, Rutherford County seems an odd spot for a fight over Islam.

There’s one local mosque with about 500 adherents, according to the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies.

Local Muslims have held Friday prayer services for decades but were mostly under the radar.

Until the new Islamic Center was approved in 2010, “I didn’t know that there were any Muslims in this community,” said Pete Doughtie, owner of the Rutherford Reader, a local free newspaper.

His thoughts on Muslims are summed up in the headline of a recent column: “They have nothing positive to add to America.”

In person, Doughtie, 71, is genial rather than blunt. He moved to Rutherford County 13 years ago to be closer to his grandkids and started the Reader to keep busy in retirement.

His opposition to the mosque is a mix of God-and-country patriotism and tea party distrust of government.

His latest column slammed local school board officials for attending training about Islam in 2011.

“All it takes for those Islamic warriors is to get enough foothold in one area such as our government in order for them to feel they are on a roll,” he wrote. “Our schools are vulnerable and are sitting ducks right now.”

Aisha Lbhalla, chairwoman of the women’s committee at the Islamic Center of Tennessee, said she is often frustrated when people stereotype the believers as being radicals.

“I like to say there isn’t a war against Islam in Christianity. The war is good people versus evil people,” she said. “When you see a person that happens to be Muslim doing something atrocious, think of that as an evil person, not a representation of Islam.

“As citizens here, we should be working together to ward off any type of evil and amoral behavior in our society, not brand a whole people.”

'Stealth jihad' seen
Doughtie also worries about a so-called “stealth jihad.”

He learned that term from a book by the same name by author Robert Spencer, who runs a blog called Jihad Watch. The book says that Muslims want to undermine America from within.

Since at least 2009, that claim has been repeated by local activists meeting in churches and community groups in Middle Tennessee.

Those meetings have regularly featured anti-Islam speakers and authors like Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel of Act for America, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and Bill French, a former Tennessee State University professor who goes by the pseudonym Bill Warner.

They’ve persuaded activists like Doughtie to see almost every action by Muslims with suspicion.

So when a Muslim student asks for permission to pray at school — which is allowed under the First Amendment — critics see it as an attempt to infiltrate schools with Islam.

Imam Ossama Bahloul of the Islamic Center says critics are wrong. He and his congregation members want to live out their faith just like any other Americans. They’ve followed the laws to get approval of their site plan and want to be good citizens.

But he says some activists refuse to believe them.

“It’s very tough to make sense of nonsense,” he said. “It’s very hard to answer a question so many times and you intend not to listen.”

Bahloul moved to Murfreesboro in 2008 from Texas, where he was the imam of a mosque in Corpus Christi. He never expected the uproar that the mosque construction has caused.

“I came to Tennessee and chose a small place and thought it would be a quiet place,” he said. “And it got very busy.”

A focus on schools
The latest target for mosque foes is the school system.

Currently one Muslim student at Central Magnet School in Murfreesboro is allowed to pray in an empty room during lunch, said James Evans, spokesman for Rutherford County Schools.

Evans pointed out that Christian students hold a lunch Bible study at the same school and that a Christian club there called First Priority has several hundred members.

Doughtie said Muslim students should assimilate to Christian culture. Rather than allowing Muslim students to pray, he’d rather see all students take part in a Christian prayer each day at school.

“We have been a strong Christian country, and if we don’t get back to it, the whole face of this nation is going to change,” Doughtie said.

Amy Binder, an associate professor of sociology at the University of California at San Diego, said mosque critics seem similar to other conservative groups, like supporters of teaching creationism at school.

Both groups are worried about something called “status threat,” the idea that they are losing influence in American culture.

“People understand the world to be a zero sum game — so if someone else is winning, they are losing,” Binder said.

She said that when creationists have lost court battles, they regrouped and tried a new strategy.

That appears to be the case with mosque critics. Lawyers for anti-mosque plaintiffs recently filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit filed by the mosque and did not dispute that Islam is a religion.

Binder said that losing in court might re-energize mosque opponents by making them feel like a persecuted minority standing up for what they think is right.

“Once you have that persecution complex, you want to hang together and you can’t hear what anyone else is saying,” she said.

A hell-bound matter
An evangelical Christian pastor, Whaley believes Muslims will go to hell if they don’t leave their faith and become Christians.

He says that he’s not a bigot and doesn’t hate Muslims.

But he can’t stand their religion and will do whatever he can to limit the spread of Islam in Rutherford County and in the United States.

“We are not against Muslims praying in a mosque,” Whaley said. “We are against Islam.”

Lbhalla said Islam has many commonalities with Christianity.

“Although there are some differences, there are much more things that bind us than separate us,” Lbhalla said.

The religious practice of fasting, which Muslims are now doing during Ramadan, is an example of that commonality, she said, noting that Jews and Christians also fast to attain righteousness.

“Many don’t know that we have reverence for Jesus — peace be upon him,” Lbhalla said. “We can’t even be believers unless we accept him. We accept him of the virgin birth, and his mother, Mary, is a leading woman for Muslim women to aspire to be like. These are things we have in our holy book, the Quran.”

A double standard?
Rutherford County’s handling of the mosque project has fueled the controversy by giving critics the impression that the mosque got special treatment.

Two years earlier, the planning commission treated another controversial religious-themed project differently. A developer wanted to build a Bible theme park in Rutherford County. Because the project needed a zoning change, there were public meetings with plenty of notice before the park was eventually voted down.

Because the site for the Islamic Center was already zoned for a religious building, there was no need for a public hearing. And county officials did not post the meeting agenda for the May 24, 2010, meeting during which the mosque was approved on their website. They said they forgot.

“Something that big and something that important should have been on the agenda,” Doughtie said.

Even when Judge Robert Corlew ruled that mosque opponents were right and that proper notice had not been given for the planning commission meeting during which the mosque was approved, Rutherford County did not stop construction of the mosque. Corlew’s ruling didn’t order the construction to stop, and county officials believed if they halted it, they would have violated federal laws.

But the continued construction angered opponents like the Rev. Whaley.

He believes that the county should have stopped the project and that mosque leaders should have halted construction until the site plan was reapproved.

“If they were as good of citizens as they say they are, they would have stopped the mosque,” he said.

Bloggers step up
In recent months, two bloggers with local ties have stirred up continued controversy. One is Eric Allen Bell, a former mosque supporter, and the other is Cathy Hinners, a retired police officer and Albany, N.Y., transplant.

Bell runs Globalinfidel.tv and Mosqueconfidential.com, two sites that criticize Islam. Hinners runs a site called the dailyrollcall.com, which has been active in the recent school board controversy in Murfreesboro.

She has become a regular on conservative Michael DelGiorno’s talk radio show, warning of the threat of Islam.

Recently she appeared on DelGiorno’s show to complain that local Muslims were demanding special privileges at local schools.

At issue was a handout called “A Teacher’s Guide to Muslim Students,” which was emailed to the Rutherford County School Board in 2008 by a board member of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, as well as a cultural awareness training for teachers and administrators run by the Department of Justice in 2011.

School officials say they get information from different faith groups all the time. Their policy allows students to ask for religious accommodations.

But Hinners, who did not respond to requests for comment, and DelGiorno see the handout as a demand for special treatment.

“They are not asking anymore,” Hinners said on the air. “They are telling you.”

Lobna “Luby” Ismail disagrees.

Ismail is the founder of Connecting Cultures, a company based in Silver Springs, Md., that led the training for Murfreesboro school officials. She said her company was asked to do the training because there were concerns that Muslim students had been bullied over the mosque controversy.

The training was designed to help create a safe environment for kids, she said.

“There were no demands for any accommodations,” she said.

A boost from court
Local Muslim leaders say they want the same religious rights as anyone else, and they are undeterred by critics.

Iman Ossama Bahloul said the mosque’s wins in court show that the Constitution applies to all Americans.

The opening of the new center — which could happen as early as this week, if required inspections are completed — will be a great day for Murfreesboro, he said.

“I think it will be a day of celebration for all of us that religious freedom is a fact existing in this nation,” he said.

“People can fight as much as they want, but what is right will prevail in the end. American values will prevail in the end.”

[moostraks]

Local Muslim leaders say they want the same religious rights as anyone else, and they are undeterred by critics.

Looks like they are getting the same religious rights as any other minority belief in a community is treated. I was not Baptist in a community in Alabama but am Christian. DFCS said we claim to be Christian and argued that our beliefs since contrary to local custom were suspect of poor parenting and my children needed to be seized and mainstreamed. In Ohio, my beliefs are questioned much less because we are closely aligned with Mennonite beliefs. My heart goes out to anyone who strives to have their religious beliefs respected when they aren't being used to abuse the rights of others.

[jmdrake]

Looks like they are getting the same religious rights as any other minority belief in a community is treated. I was not Baptist in a community in Alabama but am Christian. DFCS said we claim to be Christian and argued that our beliefs since contrary to local custom were suspect of poor parenting and my children needed to be seized and mainstreamed. In Ohio, my beliefs are questioned much less because we are closely aligned with Mennonite beliefs. My heart goes out to anyone who strives to have their religious beliefs respected when they aren't being used to abuse the rights of others.

Seriously? :eek: When did that happen? Sometimes Christians are our own worst enemies. :(

[oyarde]

WTF ??

[donnay]

These so-called 'Christians' need to go back and read the first amendment!!

Do unto others as you would like to be treated...

[ronpaulfollower999]

Getting rid of public schools would easily solve this problem.

[RickyJ]

Not surprising at all especially considering many think it is OK to kill them since their government and media said Muslims did 9/11.

[oyarde]

Getting rid of public schools would easily solve this problem. Or , the vey least , a different way to fund them other than property tax !

[KingNothing]

Getting rid of public schools would easily solve this problem.

Yes.

That would, however, only solve the symptom of the real problem -- prejudice and intolerance. These morons need to lose this attitude that Their Religion Is Right, and Anyone Who Doesn't Practice It Is Lesser and Immoral. And I'm not just blaming these Christians. We see it time and time again from all sorts of groups, even those outside of Religion. It's just silly.

Full disclosure: I'm an agnostic who recognizes the general value of religion. I respect those who are willing to live by a code dedicated to doing good by their fellow man, and hold no ill-will to people who practice their faith without trying to force others to buy into their iteration of morality. When things like this pop up, when one group tries to silence another because they disagree with the message, it strikes me as something that just shouldn't happen in a civilized country.

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, that's not right. The state cannot recognize one religion over another. Just let people pray in silence. How is that so hard?

[jmdrake]

Or , the vey least , a different way to fund them other than property tax !

How would funding them through sales taxes or state income taxes be any different?

[jmdrake]

Yes.

That would, however, only solve the symptom of the real problem -- prejudice and intolerance. These morons need to lose this attitude that Their Religion Is Right, and Anyone Who Doesn't Practice It Is Lesser and Immoral. And I'm not just blaming these Christians. We see it time and time again from all sorts of groups, even those outside of Religion. It's just silly.

There's nothing wrong with believing that your belief is right. The problem is when you force you belief on others. When it becomes sooo important to convince someone else that they are wrong that you make a jackass out of yourself. And yes, most everybody, including myself, has been guilty of that at one point or another. Even if you never try to convince someone of your position on religion, there's still politics or economics or fill-in-the-blank.

Here's a video by an atheist libertarian on the fine line between expressing a heartfelt personal belief and attempting to impose that belief on other.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsXxUKjklt8&feature=player_embedded

I do think it's okay to go a bit beyond what Jillette advocates. But not much. For example, when I was collecting delegate petitions last year I talked with one person who said he didn't like Ron Paul because of his foreign policy. I brought up the military support for Dr. Paul and he laughed and said his son in the military, supported Dr. Paul, and was trying to get him (the father) to support Dr. Paul as well. By the end of it he was at least rethinking his position. I don't think that was wrong. Yelling at him or calling him names for not supporting Dr. Paul would have been wrong. I think the same goes for religion.

[CaptainAmerica]

call it a lack of faith when a person fears another persons "religion" after claiming it to be the false religion. I know what I believe and I don't need to go around the world stopping others from practicing what they believe in, because what I believe is that my faith is real and I don't need to validate my faith by stomping on others.

[James Madison]

Very sad to see this. I'm both a Christian and a man of Middle Eastern descent. So, I've spent a lot of time around Muslims; very nice, welcoming people.

[jmdrake]

Very sad to see this. I'm both a Christian and a man of Middle Eastern descent. So, I've spent a lot of time around Muslims; very nice, welcoming people.

You mean the way to win Muslims over isn't to first bar them from having their traditional prayers in hopes that they come pray with you by default? I found this part of the article the saddest of all.

Currently one Muslim student at Central Magnet School in Murfreesboro is allowed to pray in an empty room during lunch, said James Evans, spokesman for Rutherford County Schools.

Evans pointed out that Christian students hold a lunch Bible study at the same school and that a Christian club there called First Priority has several hundred members.

Doughtie said Muslim students should assimilate to Christian culture. Rather than allowing Muslim students to pray, he’d rather see all students take part in a Christian prayer each day at school.

“We have been a strong Christian country, and if we don’t get back to it, the whole face of this nation is going to change,” Doughtie said.

[aclove]

For people like the guy quoted above, their narrow interpretation of their faith trumps the Constitution. There is no reasoning with them, only out-organizing them.

[TonySutton]

Good to see it wasn't the gays dragging America down to hell this time...

[phill4paul]

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/joplin-mosque-razed-in-1492055.html

Joplin mosque razed in fire; 2nd blaze this summer

ShareThis PrintE-mail
The Associated Press

JOPLIN, Mo. — A mosque in southwest Missouri burned to the ground early Monday in the second fire to hit the Islamic center in little more than a month, officials said.


A Carl Junction, Mo., firefighter works to extinguish the smoldering remains of the Islamic Society of Joplin mosque, Monday, Aug. 6, 2012, in Joplin, Mo. The fire was the second fire to hit the Islamic center in little more than a month. (AP Photo/The Joplin Globe, T. Rob Brown) MANDATORY CREDIT

Firefighters maneuver debris following a fire at the Islamic Society of Joplin, Mo., Monday, Aug. 6, 2012, in Joplin, Mo. The fire was the second fire to hit the Islamic center in little more than a month.

Imam Lahmuddin holds his hands over his face after a fire destroyed the Islamic Society of Joplin, Mo., mosque, Monday, Aug. 6, 2012, in Joplin, Mo. The fire was the second fire to hit the Islamic center in little more than a month.

The fire at the Islamic Society of Joplin was reported about 3:30 a.m. Monday, the Jasper County Sheriff's Office said. The sheriff's department said the building was a total loss. No injuries were reported and no charges have been filed.

Imam Lahmuddin, who leads the mosque and was in the building until late Sunday, said he was "sad and shocked" about the fire.

"I'm still in front of the building looking at the damage and nothing can be saved," Lahmuddin said in a telephone interview Monday. "But since we are people of faith we just can remember that this is a thing that happened because God let it happen, and we have to be patient, particularly in the month of Ramadan, control our emotions, our anger."

A blaze at the same building July 4 caused minor damage and was determined arson. No arrests were made and the FBI has offered a $15,000 reward for information leading to charges in that fire.

The agency released video footage of what appeared to be a man starting the July blaze that did not cause extensive damage. Sharon Rhine, spokeswoman for the sheriff's office, said the center's security cameras were burned in the Monday fire.

The FBI is investigating the cause of the latest fire and whether or not it was also the result of arson, said agency spokeswoman Bridgett Patton.

A Washington-based Muslim civil rights organization meanwhile called for more police protection at mosques and other houses of worship following the Joplin fire and a deadly attack at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. The Council on American-Islamic Relations also offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of whoever started the mosque fire.

About 50 families belong to the Islamic Society of Joplin, which opened in 2007 as a mosque and community center. The FBI led an investigation in 2008 when the mosque's sign was torched. That crime also remained unsolved.

Lahmuddin, who has lived in Joplin for about four years, said several people were at the center late Sunday. He said despite the attacks, the center's members have good relationships with residents and other churches. He said many are doctors at area hospitals.

On Sunday, a gunman killed six people at a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee. The imam said it was a cause of great concern that both faiths had seemingly come under attack.

"I heard that yesterday, and this morning we see this happen in our place," he said. "We are more fortunate that no one here got hurt in this incident."

[PaulConventionWV]

I put "Christian" in quotes because these are Christians in name only. To be a Christian you have to have faith in Christ. That includes faith in His ability to draw people unto Him. I believe one way to reach Christians is to point out that faith in Christ and fear over Islam or anything else is incompatible.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120805/NEWS06/308050052/Fight-against-Islam-stretches-beyond-Murfreesboro-mosque?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE&gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

For more than two years, Rutherford County has been in the middle of a perfect storm over Islam.

While furor over the “ground zero” mosque in New York has faded, the dispute over the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro — which began around the same time — has only grown more intense.

Fueled by fears that Muslims are gaining influence while Christians are losing clout, activists have battled to block construction of the Murfreesboro mosque. They’ve argued over the minutia of county zoning laws and whether Islam is a religion.

And the fight is unlikely to end anytime soon.

Mosque opponents say they are fighting for the soul of America. Now that the mosque is set to open this month, they are changing their tactics and broadening the scope of their complaints against Islam.

Their latest tactic is to protest requests for accommodations for Muslim students to pray in local schools. Dozens of critics of Islam showed up at a recent Rutherford County school board meeting to voice their disapproval.

And they plan to oppose any attempts by local Muslims to influence life in Rutherford County.

“We are going to closely scrutinize everything they do,” said the Rev. Darrel Whaley, mosque opponent and pastor of Kingdom Ministries Worship Center in Murfreesboro.

Long under the radar
From the outside, Rutherford County seems an odd spot for a fight over Islam.

There’s one local mosque with about 500 adherents, according to the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies.

Local Muslims have held Friday prayer services for decades but were mostly under the radar.

Until the new Islamic Center was approved in 2010, “I didn’t know that there were any Muslims in this community,” said Pete Doughtie, owner of the Rutherford Reader, a local free newspaper.

His thoughts on Muslims are summed up in the headline of a recent column: “They have nothing positive to add to America.”

In person, Doughtie, 71, is genial rather than blunt. He moved to Rutherford County 13 years ago to be closer to his grandkids and started the Reader to keep busy in retirement.

His opposition to the mosque is a mix of God-and-country patriotism and tea party distrust of government.

His latest column slammed local school board officials for attending training about Islam in 2011.

“All it takes for those Islamic warriors is to get enough foothold in one area such as our government in order for them to feel they are on a roll,” he wrote. “Our schools are vulnerable and are sitting ducks right now.”

Aisha Lbhalla, chairwoman of the women’s committee at the Islamic Center of Tennessee, said she is often frustrated when people stereotype the believers as being radicals.

“I like to say there isn’t a war against Islam in Christianity. The war is good people versus evil people,” she said. “When you see a person that happens to be Muslim doing something atrocious, think of that as an evil person, not a representation of Islam.

“As citizens here, we should be working together to ward off any type of evil and amoral behavior in our society, not brand a whole people.”

'Stealth jihad' seen
Doughtie also worries about a so-called “stealth jihad.”

He learned that term from a book by the same name by author Robert Spencer, who runs a blog called Jihad Watch. The book says that Muslims want to undermine America from within.

Since at least 2009, that claim has been repeated by local activists meeting in churches and community groups in Middle Tennessee.

Those meetings have regularly featured anti-Islam speakers and authors like Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel of Act for America, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and Bill French, a former Tennessee State University professor who goes by the pseudonym Bill Warner.

They’ve persuaded activists like Doughtie to see almost every action by Muslims with suspicion.

So when a Muslim student asks for permission to pray at school — which is allowed under the First Amendment — critics see it as an attempt to infiltrate schools with Islam.

Imam Ossama Bahloul of the Islamic Center says critics are wrong. He and his congregation members want to live out their faith just like any other Americans. They’ve followed the laws to get approval of their site plan and want to be good citizens.

But he says some activists refuse to believe them.

“It’s very tough to make sense of nonsense,” he said. “It’s very hard to answer a question so many times and you intend not to listen.”

Bahloul moved to Murfreesboro in 2008 from Texas, where he was the imam of a mosque in Corpus Christi. He never expected the uproar that the mosque construction has caused.

“I came to Tennessee and chose a small place and thought it would be a quiet place,” he said. “And it got very busy.”

A focus on schools
The latest target for mosque foes is the school system.

Currently one Muslim student at Central Magnet School in Murfreesboro is allowed to pray in an empty room during lunch, said James Evans, spokesman for Rutherford County Schools.

Evans pointed out that Christian students hold a lunch Bible study at the same school and that a Christian club there called First Priority has several hundred members.

Doughtie said Muslim students should assimilate to Christian culture. Rather than allowing Muslim students to pray, he’d rather see all students take part in a Christian prayer each day at school.

“We have been a strong Christian country, and if we don’t get back to it, the whole face of this nation is going to change,” Doughtie said.

Amy Binder, an associate professor of sociology at the University of California at San Diego, said mosque critics seem similar to other conservative groups, like supporters of teaching creationism at school.

Both groups are worried about something called “status threat,” the idea that they are losing influence in American culture.

“People understand the world to be a zero sum game — so if someone else is winning, they are losing,” Binder said.

She said that when creationists have lost court battles, they regrouped and tried a new strategy.

That appears to be the case with mosque critics. Lawyers for anti-mosque plaintiffs recently filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit filed by the mosque and did not dispute that Islam is a religion.

Binder said that losing in court might re-energize mosque opponents by making them feel like a persecuted minority standing up for what they think is right.

“Once you have that persecution complex, you want to hang together and you can’t hear what anyone else is saying,” she said.

A hell-bound matter
An evangelical Christian pastor, Whaley believes Muslims will go to hell if they don’t leave their faith and become Christians.

He says that he’s not a bigot and doesn’t hate Muslims.

But he can’t stand their religion and will do whatever he can to limit the spread of Islam in Rutherford County and in the United States.

“We are not against Muslims praying in a mosque,” Whaley said. “We are against Islam.”

Lbhalla said Islam has many commonalities with Christianity.

“Although there are some differences, there are much more things that bind us than separate us,” Lbhalla said.

The religious practice of fasting, which Muslims are now doing during Ramadan, is an example of that commonality, she said, noting that Jews and Christians also fast to attain righteousness.

“Many don’t know that we have reverence for Jesus — peace be upon him,” Lbhalla said. “We can’t even be believers unless we accept him. We accept him of the virgin birth, and his mother, Mary, is a leading woman for Muslim women to aspire to be like. These are things we have in our holy book, the Quran.”

A double standard?
Rutherford County’s handling of the mosque project has fueled the controversy by giving critics the impression that the mosque got special treatment.

Two years earlier, the planning commission treated another controversial religious-themed project differently. A developer wanted to build a Bible theme park in Rutherford County. Because the project needed a zoning change, there were public meetings with plenty of notice before the park was eventually voted down.

Because the site for the Islamic Center was already zoned for a religious building, there was no need for a public hearing. And county officials did not post the meeting agenda for the May 24, 2010, meeting during which the mosque was approved on their website. They said they forgot.

“Something that big and something that important should have been on the agenda,” Doughtie said.

Even when Judge Robert Corlew ruled that mosque opponents were right and that proper notice had not been given for the planning commission meeting during which the mosque was approved, Rutherford County did not stop construction of the mosque. Corlew’s ruling didn’t order the construction to stop, and county officials believed if they halted it, they would have violated federal laws.

But the continued construction angered opponents like the Rev. Whaley.

He believes that the county should have stopped the project and that mosque leaders should have halted construction until the site plan was reapproved.

“If they were as good of citizens as they say they are, they would have stopped the mosque,” he said.

Bloggers step up
In recent months, two bloggers with local ties have stirred up continued controversy. One is Eric Allen Bell, a former mosque supporter, and the other is Cathy Hinners, a retired police officer and Albany, N.Y., transplant.

Bell runs Globalinfidel.tv and Mosqueconfidential.com, two sites that criticize Islam. Hinners runs a site called the dailyrollcall.com, which has been active in the recent school board controversy in Murfreesboro.

She has become a regular on conservative Michael DelGiorno’s talk radio show, warning of the threat of Islam.

Recently she appeared on DelGiorno’s show to complain that local Muslims were demanding special privileges at local schools.

At issue was a handout called “A Teacher’s Guide to Muslim Students,” which was emailed to the Rutherford County School Board in 2008 by a board member of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, as well as a cultural awareness training for teachers and administrators run by the Department of Justice in 2011.

School officials say they get information from different faith groups all the time. Their policy allows students to ask for religious accommodations.

But Hinners, who did not respond to requests for comment, and DelGiorno see the handout as a demand for special treatment.

“They are not asking anymore,” Hinners said on the air. “They are telling you.”

Lobna “Luby” Ismail disagrees.

Ismail is the founder of Connecting Cultures, a company based in Silver Springs, Md., that led the training for Murfreesboro school officials. She said her company was asked to do the training because there were concerns that Muslim students had been bullied over the mosque controversy.

The training was designed to help create a safe environment for kids, she said.

“There were no demands for any accommodations,” she said.

A boost from court
Local Muslim leaders say they want the same religious rights as anyone else, and they are undeterred by critics.

Iman Ossama Bahloul said the mosque’s wins in court show that the Constitution applies to all Americans.

The opening of the new center — which could happen as early as this week, if required inspections are completed — will be a great day for Murfreesboro, he said.

“I think it will be a day of celebration for all of us that religious freedom is a fact existing in this nation,” he said.

“People can fight as much as they want, but what is right will prevail in the end. American values will prevail in the end.”

I commend you for drawing that distinction because you know some people here are going to say, "This is what Christians do", and tell us that, collectively, this is what they believe in.

[RickyJ]

Yeah, that's not right. The state cannot recognize one religion over another. Just let people pray in silence. How is that so hard?

But they do every day. The religion of secularism is taught, practiced, and preached daily in our nation's public schools, major media outlets, and governments.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes.

That would, however, only solve the symptom of the real problem -- prejudice and intolerance. These morons need to lose this attitude that Their Religion Is Right, and Anyone Who Doesn't Practice It Is Lesser and Immoral. And I'm not just blaming these Christians. We see it time and time again from all sorts of groups, even those outside of Religion. It's just silly.

Full disclosure: I'm an agnostic who recognizes the general value of religion. I respect those who are willing to live by a code dedicated to doing good by their fellow man, and hold no ill-will to people who practice their faith without trying to force others to buy into their iteration of morality. When things like this pop up, when one group tries to silence another because they disagree with the message, it strikes me as something that just shouldn't happen in a civilized country.

Government is the problem, not some sort of widespread intolerance. Intolerance can always be dealt with as long as private individuals don't have the ability to enforce their views on others with government.

You may think you are a libertarian, but the beliefs you hold about where these problems originate is contrary to the roots that Ron Paul strikes at. It is contrary to the message of liberty because it treats people as if they need to be molded into some universal worldview before change can happen. People are people, and their views are not going to change. The only thing we can change is the role that government plays in society and in educating our children.

Prejudice and intolerance will always be around and there is nothing you can do about it. Getting rid of public schools is the best solution, not some sort of widespread societal reform. I don't know how you would achieve that, but rest assured, it wouldn't solve a thing because people are going to believe what they want to believe, and the only way to achieve maximum peaceful cohabitance among members of society is to reduce governmental involvement in our lives.

[Todd]

I do think it's okay to go a bit beyond what Jillette advocates. But not much. For example, when I was collecting delegate petitions last year I talked with one person who said he didn't like Ron Paul because of his foreign policy. I brought up the military support for Dr. Paul and he laughed and said his son in the military, supported Dr. Paul, and was trying to get him (the father) to support Dr. Paul as well. By the end of it he was at least rethinking his position. I don't think that was wrong. Yelling at him or calling him names for not supporting Dr. Paul would have been wrong. I think the same goes for religion.

I agree. Freedom does not meanthe absence of people proselytizing to you.

[PaulConventionWV]

But they do every day. The religion of secularism is taught, practiced, and preached daily in our nation's public schools, major media outlets, and governments.

This is true. There was a time when racism was taught in accordance with evolution in our public schools, quite blatantly so. They've tried to disassociate themselves from the things that carry a negative connotation today, but the message still remains, the implications hidden but still present. It's no secret that secularism is the only acceptable conclusion to reach when conducting scientific experiments. The goal is not to find the truth, but to find the best secular explanation for any phenomenon.

[KingNothing]

Government is the problem, not some sort of widespread intolerance. Intolerance can always be dealt with as long as private individuals don't have the ability to enforce their views on others with government.

You may think you are a libertarian, but the beliefs you hold about where these problems originate is contrary to the roots that Ron Paul strikes at. It is contrary to the message of liberty because it treats people as if they need to be molded into some universal worldview before change can happen. People are people, and their views are not going to change. The only thing we can change is the role that government plays in society and in educating our children.


If you think every problem in the world today is a result of government action, and not human frailty, you're off base. You can't lose sight of the fact that people need to be driven by the right things to make government-less or small government society work. A people who wish to dominate others will do so, either by assuming the moral high-ground and using modern government as their tool, or by eschewing that method and reverting to the more barbaric raping and pillaging of ancient times. There's a reason that Ron Paul tells us that ideas matter, and that he is personally driven by a desire to pursue "virtue and excellence." That pursuit of virtue and excellence, the caring for one another and will to self-reliance it entails, is a prerequisite for small government.

You're being narrow-minded and myopic in your choice of ideals. Yes, we should work to pull back government. Yes, government creates problems. Yes, in many cases government IS the only problem. But why is that? What has allowed government to grow? Why have so many people looked to it to solve their problems? Until you tackle those problems, any effort in beating back government is just temporary.

[KingNothing]

People are people, and their views are not going to change.

Prejudice and intolerance will always be around and there is nothing you can do about it.


You realize that this is almost complete nonsense, don't you? Societal norms have changed drastically over the last 50 years, let alone the last 5,000.

[jmdrake]

You realize that this is almost complete nonsense, don't you? Societal norms have changed drastically over the last 50 years, let alone the last 5,000.

And to show disdain for so called "intolerance" someone drove through a Chick-Fil-A, ordered a "free water" and berated a woman who did nothing wrong but work for a company who's part owner dared say he supported traditional marriage and donated money to groups that support traditional marriage. The more things "change" the more they stay the same. Same intolerance, different targets.

[KingNothing]

And to show disdain for so called "intolerance" someone drove through a Chick-Fil-A, ordered a "free water" and berated a woman who did nothing wrong but work for a company who's part owner dared say he supported traditional marriage and donated money to groups that support traditional marriage. The more things "change" the more they stay the same. Same intolerance, different targets.


I don't think any group of people I've ever come across deserves to be yelled at less than the teenage girls who typically work at Chick Fil As. They're always as kind as anyone you're likely to come across during your day. The guy is a simpleton. But his reaction was predictable- its what people do when they're put on the defensive and in a position of weakness.

[KingNothing]

The goal is not to find the truth, but to find the best secular explanation for any phenomenon.


Can you cite just one example of a failure of the scientific method that has been accepted as true, in spite of a theological argument that contradicts the failure of science?

I can list dozens of examples of the failures of faith that resulted in many deaths that were proven wrong by the scientific method. I mean, people have been killed for stating what science made self evident because the ruling theological class disagreed.

[jmdrake]

I don't think any group of people I've ever come across deserves to be yelled at less than the teenage girls who typically work at Chick Fil As. They're always as kind as anyone you're likely to come across during your day. The guy is a simpleton. But his reaction was predictable- its what people do when they're put on the defensive and in a position of weakness.

The guy in question says he's not gay. So how was he "defenseless" or "put in a position of weakness"? And "defenseless" against what exactly? And why are you promoting such a "victimhood" mentality? The behavior of someone who's not gay is explained away because of a rather mild statement by the owner of Chick-Fil-A? Well I guess then the behavior of the Westboro Baptists is because Christians feel "defenseless" and "put in a position of weakness".

[moostraks]

Seriously? :eek: When did that happen? Sometimes Christians are our own worst enemies. :(

IIrc it was 2005. Eldest child was turning 13 and full of herself. They disagreed with my choice of clothing (feminine for girls and masculine for boys nothing that would be considered revealing for either party) because 13 year old wanted to dress to impress the 18 year old down the road from us. They were freaked out about my cap (I call it a swear cap :p as it reminds me of my worst fault which is my tongue when I get mad!) and thought we were some sort of cult because we homeschool and didn't have cable television (never you mind we couldn't even get cable where we lived and had an array of acceptable programing they could watch!). They demanded we follow all their demands which were things such as provide them access to cable television and dress them the way the children demand to be dressed, kept the eldest child for almost a year and tried to keep her forever on a technicality (if Alabama has a child for over a year in their custody they can demand immediate forfeiture of parental rights). They returned her dressing completely inappropriately (and it was the judge finally seeing how ludicrous the state was being in regards to clothing that things started to turn around for us) and psychologically she is a disaster. Now at almost 19 she is expecting her first child and comes over here almost every night (we had to demand she leave at 18 she was so violent and disrespectful to everyone). I am trying to turn the other cheek but some days it's tough.

[moostraks]

You mean the way to win Muslims over isn't to first bar them from having their traditional prayers in hopes that they come pray with you by default? I found this part of the article the saddest of all.

Currently one Muslim student at Central Magnet School in Murfreesboro is allowed to pray in an empty room during lunch, said James Evans, spokesman for Rutherford County Schools.

Evans pointed out that Christian students hold a lunch Bible study at the same school and that a Christian club there called First Priority has several hundred members.

Doughtie said Muslim students should assimilate to Christian culture. Rather than allowing Muslim students to pray, he’d rather see all students take part in a Christian prayer each day at school.

“We have been a strong Christian country, and if we don’t get back to it, the whole face of this nation is going to change,” Doughtie said.

agreed...and they will feel they are completely justified in what ever vile abuses they commit in using the government to impose their religous views upon others. All because they believe they have some holy mandate.

[BSU kid]

This whole problem would be eliminated if people just didn't pray at all in public schools, it's basic Church vs. State.

[cajuncocoa]

This whole problem would be eliminated if people just didn't pray at all in public schools, it's basic Church vs. State. People praying in public school (voluntary prayer by students) is not a Church vs. State issue....it's actually a Freedom of speech issue.

It becomes a Church vs. State issue if students are being led in a prayer by a school administrator or teacher.

[jmdrake]

IIrc it was 2005. Eldest child was turning 13 and full of herself. They disagreed with my choice of clothing (feminine for girls and masculine for boys nothing that would be considered revealing for either party) because 13 year old wanted to dress to impress the 18 year old down the road from us. They were freaked out about my cap (I call it a swear cap :p as it reminds me of my worst fault which is my tongue when I get mad!) and thought we were some sort of cult because we homeschool and didn't have cable television (never you mind we couldn't even get cable where we lived and had an array of acceptable programing they could watch!). They demanded we follow all their demands which were things such as provide them access to cable television and dress them the way the children demand to be dressed, kept the eldest child for almost a year and tried to keep her forever on a technicality (if Alabama has a child for over a year in their custody they can demand immediate forfeiture of parental rights). They returned her dressing completely inappropriately (and it was the judge finally seeing how ludicrous the state was being in regards to clothing that things started to turn around for us) and psychologically she is a disaster. Now at almost 19 she is expecting her first child and comes over here almost every night (we had to demand she leave at 18 she was so violent and disrespectful to everyone). I am trying to turn the other cheek but some days it's tough.

Wait a minute. You were considered a bad parent because you didn't provide cable TV and you didn't want your girl to dress trashy? That's insane. There's no other word for it but insane. This makes some of the horror stories Alex Jones tells about CPS tame by comparison. Unelected "civil servants" should never have that kind of power. :mad:

[AGRP]

Getting rid of public schools would easily solve this problem.


Much too simple of a solution. Its more effective to fight, debate, scream, and call Hannity.

[jmdrake]

This whole problem would be eliminated if people just didn't pray at all in public schools, it's basic Church vs. State.


People praying in public school (voluntary prayer by students) is not a Church vs. State issue....it's actually a 1st Amendment issue.

It becomes a Church vs. State issue if students are being led in a prayer by a school administrator or teacher.

Cajuncocoa, I agree with you 100%. But I see BSU kid's point. The sad irony is that by being such douches these "Christians" are putting their own children's rights to pray in jeopardy. The "Good News Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Club_v._Milford_Central_School)" SCOTUS ruling was that barring religious clubs from using school property when non religious extracurricular clubs were allowed to use it, simply because the club was "religious" violated free speech rights. However, say if a school held that it banned the Christian club because those behind it were attempting to discriminate against Muslims? Now the school system would have a legitimate reason not connected with religion to ban the Christian club. With freedom comes responsibility.

[Danke]

People praying in public school (voluntary prayer by students) is not a Church vs. State issue....it's actually a Freedom of speech issue.

It becomes a Church vs. State issue if students are being led in a prayer by a school administrator or teacher.

Yes, but schools already restrict speech via some books, porn, etc. I'm not sure freedom of speech really applies to minors.

The 2nd amendment doesn't apply in government buildings, nor the 1st as in telling the judge and prosecuting attorney to fuck off.

[tod evans]

Simply reverse the named religions in the title and if the same people aren't outraged then they've got some soul searching to do.

Personally i don't mind kids practicing their religion during school hours ON THEIR OWN TIME...

School curriculum should not be altered to accommodate ANY religion.

If a given district has enough students to justify adding or amending a holiday such as Christmas/Hanukkah to share time with Ramadan or some other holiday then that should be up to the parents and school board in that district NOT some joker in Washington.

[James Madison]

Yes, but schools already restrict speech via some books, porn, etc. I'm not sure freedom of speech really applies to minors.

The 2nd amendment doesn't apply in government buildings, nor the 1st as in telling the judge and prosecuting attorney to fuck off.

Bull. I have rights because I'm a free human being. If I wanna pray during school hours, I will do it. Conversely, if I object to someone else's prayer I have the right to abstain from participating. Just because the government passes a law doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

[BSU kid]

Yes, but schools already restrict speech via some books, porn, etc. I'm not sure freedom of speech really applies to minors.

The 2nd amendment doesn't apply in government buildings, nor the 1st as in telling the judge and prosecuting attorney to fuck off.

At least when I way at the K-8 level...so like 7 years ago, the teachers would emphasize that there is no free speech in public schools. I had a high school teacher once say, "once you come through these doors, you are no longer citizens."

[James Madison]

At least when I way at the K-8 level...so like 7 years ago, the teachers would emphasize that there is no free speech in public schools. I had a high school teacher once say, "once you come through these doors, you are no longer citizens."

Well, the same principle applies to the teachers, as well. Try to steal their wallet or their cell phone and see if they get upset...we're no longer citizens so I guess property rights are no longer rights anymore.

[jmdrake]

At least when I way at the K-8 level...so like 7 years ago, the teachers would emphasize that there is no free speech in public schools. I had a high school teacher once say, "once you come through these doors, you are no longer citizens."

Yeah. People in authority often tell their charges things that aren't true. What are you going to do when you find out the SCOTUS long ago said otherwise. Ask for your money back? :p

[robmpreston]

LOL I just moved to Rutherford County... thankfully I haven't encountered any of these intolerant pricks yet.

[cajuncocoa]

Cajuncocoa, I agree with you 100%. But I see BSU kid's point. The sad irony is that by being such douches these "Christians" are putting their own children's rights to pray in jeopardy. The "Good News Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Club_v._Milford_Central_School)" SCOTUS ruling was that barring religious clubs from using school property when non religious extracurricular clubs were allowed to use it, simply because the club was "religious" violated free speech rights. However, say if a school held that it banned the Christian club because those behind it were attempting to discriminate against Muslims? Now the school system would have a legitimate reason not connected with religion to ban the Christian club. With freedom comes responsibility.I agree with this, too...and have long realized that most Christians would be as intolerant about other faiths as described in the OP story

[PierzStyx]

Yeah, that's not right. The state cannot recognize one religion over another. Just let people pray in silence. How is that so hard?

It goes even deeper than that for Muslims though. The salah, praying five times a day towards Mecca, is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Theologically its about as important to Islam as the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Sacrament/Communion is to Christianity. And the formal bowing is an important and essential part of the prayer ritual.

[BSU kid]

Somebody mentioned it a page or two ago, but if the Christians had just let the Muslims Pray then this whole thing would have been averted. Now both sides risk losing their ability to pray, and at this rate it won't be long before Holder et al. come in and call a civil rights violation. The whole thing is a mess, and it all stems form an uneducated view on Islam...just leave each other be and everything will be fine.

[PaulConventionWV]

If you think every problem in the world today is a result of government action, and not human frailty, you're off base. You can't lose sight of the fact that people need to be driven by the right things to make government-less or small government society work. A people who wish to dominate others will do so, either by assuming the moral high-ground and using modern government as their tool, or by eschewing that method and reverting to the more barbaric raping and pillaging of ancient times. There's a reason that Ron Paul tells us that ideas matter, and that he is personally driven by a desire to pursue "virtue and excellence." That pursuit of virtue and excellence, the caring for one another and will to self-reliance it entails, is a prerequisite for small government.

You're being narrow-minded and myopic in your choice of ideals. Yes, we should work to pull back government. Yes, government creates problems. Yes, in many cases government IS the only problem. But why is that? What has allowed government to grow? Why have so many people looked to it to solve their problems? Until you tackle those problems, any effort in beating back government is just temporary.

That is probably true regardless of what views people hold. You can't change people. I defy you to tell me how you would do this without government force. Telling everyone they have to agree with you or be doomed is not going to work, and it is not the best way to solve anything. What's more, it is arrogant and assumes the infallibility of your own worldview.

I'm not being narrow-minded; I'm being realistic. Government is the root of the problem. The only requirement for people is that they be educated to be mindful of government, not that they acquiesce to a certain ideal morality that you hold. People will hold their own views on that, but as soon as we can get everyone to agree that it's in their own best interest to always be suspicious of government, then maybe we can make some progress. The good moral character of society is simply a symptom of how people interact through government and enforce the laws. The moment we can agree that we should all stop trying to patronize people for holding a different view and focus on limiting government for everyone's mutual benefit, that is when we can make progress toward a freer country.

The beauty of this is that, if government can't enforce morality, then the moral character of the people becomes a non-issue.

[PaulConventionWV]

You realize that this is almost complete nonsense, don't you? Societal norms have changed drastically over the last 50 years, let alone the last 5,000.

Ok, but how do you plan on influencing these vast shifts? More importantly, how will you react when it doesn't work out the way you want it to? It is almost guaranteed that you won't get what you want, and therefore, according to you, we will never be able to limit government because people just won't bend to your view.

How ignorant. How pompous. How arrogant of you to think that your view is the best one and people should acquiesce to it before they can evolve to a better state of being. Hogwash.

[KingNothing]

That is probably true regardless of what views people hold. You can't change people. I defy you to tell me how you would do this without government force. Telling everyone they have to agree with you or be doomed is not going to work, and it is not the best way to solve anything. What's more, it is arrogant and assumes the infallibility of your own worldview.


You can most certainly do it without government force. All it requires is a market place of ideas, and men like Ron Paul who are willing to lead by example. Really, it is how almost all positive change occurs - societal mores change, and government later catches up to those changes.




I'm not being narrow-minded; I'm being realistic. Government is the root of the problem. The only requirement for people is that they be educated to be mindful of government, not that they acquiesce to a certain ideal morality that you hold. People will hold their own views on that, but as soon as we can get everyone to agree that it's in their own best interest to always be suspicious of government, then maybe we can make some progress. The good moral character of society is simply a symptom of how people interact through government and enforce the laws. The moment we can agree that we should all stop trying to patronize people for holding a different view and focus on limiting government for everyone's mutual benefit, that is when we can make progress toward a freer country.


You have it backwards, though. Liberals won't accept less government until we have a people moral enough to provide for the poor(and ultimately productive enough to eliminate poverty altogether), among other things. Conservatives won't stop asking for more government until we can eliminate crime and any hint of a foreign threat, among other things. Until we can sincerely address those concerns we will have government. My goal is to work to achieve a sustainable anarchy, not just small government. I want our people to be so respectful of one another and themselves that government can be a thing of the past. It's a long, loooong, term goal. In the short term, I completely agree with beating government back by convincing people that the proper role of government is a limited one, and that in a pragmatic sense less government means better things for all people.



The beauty of this is that, if government can't enforce morality, then the moral character of the people becomes a non-issue.

An interesting aside is that in areas in which government force is required to provide for a people and to keep them orderly, peaceful, and respectful you have the most chaos when government collapses. This, I think, shows one of the most dire things Ron Paul preaches - that large government creates dependency.... and not just in an economic sense.

[PaulConventionWV]

This whole problem would be eliminated if people just didn't pray at all in public schools, it's basic Church vs. State.

That wouldn't solve the problem because people should be allowed to pray where they want. I guess the problem of people being arrested for smoking pot would be eliminated if people just didn't smoke pot, but then the injustice would be that the law has altered our choices and limited our freedom because if we dare venture outside of the law, we will be punished. The solution is to eliminate public schools and let kids go to whichever school that best fits their worldview and pray there.

And like cajuncocoa said, it's not a church vs. state issue, it's a freedom of speech issue. Besides, the separation of church and state is found nowhere in the Constitution. It is not a Constitutional concept because the founders wanted the people of the states and local precincts to have the freedom to create the kind of government they wanted within state constitution guidelines.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, but schools already restrict speech via some books, porn, etc. I'm not sure freedom of speech really applies to minors.

The 2nd amendment doesn't apply in government buildings, nor the 1st as in telling the judge and prosecuting attorney to fuck off.

They should.

[Danke]

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/american-family-law-and-sharia-compliant-marriages

[KingNothing]

Ok, but how do you plan on influencing these vast shifts? More importantly, how will you react when it doesn't work out the way you want it to? It is almost guaranteed that you won't get what you want, and therefore, according to you, we will never be able to limit government because people just won't bend to your view.


Why is it almost guaranteed to fail? As technology increases want will fade, and people will become more interconnected than ever. The petty differences that tyrants and authoritarians use to drive wedges between people will cease to matter. I think the future is bright and I think a huge reason for that is the wonderful teachings of Jesus, among other people. Jesus, Aurelius, Buddha, Tolstoy, Locke, Plato.... the great thinkers and communicators are the guys who push humanity forward. After them, its up to guys like you and me to put their teachings into practice by being the virtuous and excellent individuals we can, and hope to lead by example enough to maybe move the needle in the right direction within our own circle of friends.

This isn't something we achieve in a lifetime. It is something that comes about through hundreds of lifetimes, each pushing things forward slowly but surely.




How ignorant. How pompous. How arrogant of you to think that your view is the best one and people should acquiesce to it before they can evolve to a better state of being. Hogwash.

Ever look in a mirror? You feel the same way about your beliefs.

[LibForestPaul]

Where do these Muslims work in Tennessee?
What Christians hired these Muslims to work?
Who granted these Muslims green cards?
Were these grantor's Christian?

I easily see these Tennesseen's views. They have been programmed this way. And programmed to react as such to certain situations that have been fabricated?
Or are these "opposition groups" simply fronts for government rabble rouses? Who knows...interesting times.

[PaulConventionWV]

You can most certainly do it without government force. All it requires is a market place of ideas, and men like Ron Paul who are willing to lead by example. Really, it is how almost all positive change occurs - societal mores change, and government later catches up to those changes.



You have it backwards, though. Liberals won't accept less government until we have a people moral enough to provide for the poor(and ultimately productive enough to eliminate poverty altogether), among other things. Conservatives won't stop asking for more government until we can eliminate crime and any hint of a foreign threat, among other things. Until we can sincerely address those concerns we will have government. My goal is to work to achieve a sustainable anarchy, not just small government. I want our people to be so respectful of one another and themselves that government can be a thing of the past. It's a long, loooong, term goal. In the short term, I completely agree with beating government back by convincing people that the proper role of government is a limited one, and that in a pragmatic sense less government means better things for all people.



An interesting aside is that in areas in which government force is required to provide for a people and to keep them orderly, peaceful, and respectful you have the most chaos when government collapses. This, I think, shows one of the most dire things Ron Paul preaches - that large government creates dependency.... and not just in an economic sense.

If liberals won't accept less government until we have a people moral enough to provide for the poor, then they aren't going to get what they want. You can't manufacture a society that fits everyone's social mores, because once you achieved a society that fit the mores of liberals, conservatives would make a public outcry and demand government action. Either way, we all lose. Nobody is going to create the perfect society in which government can stay limited. The only way to do that is realize that it is in all of our best interests to leave government out of legislating morality. That is the only way we will ever achieve it because fighting back and forth over whose society is the best one is futile. We can't satisfy everyone. What's more, it's arrogant to assume that people SHOULD give their hard-earned money to the poor.

For example, why is it wrong to say I don't want to encourage the lazy by giving free handouts? I don't want to make everyone believe that they should blend in with the liberals moral character because we need to fit their bill in order to have less government. Why can't we just all agree that we don't need government to enforce morality?

[BlackTerrel]

Currently one Muslim student at Central Magnet School in Murfreesboro is allowed to pray in an empty room during lunch, said James Evans, spokesman for Rutherford County Schools.

Evans pointed out that Christian students hold a lunch Bible study at the same school and that a Christian club there called First Priority has several hundred members.

Much respect to that kid. Takes guts to be different and not conform.

[PaulConventionWV]

Why is it almost guaranteed to fail? As technology increases want will fade, and people will become more interconnected than ever. The petty differences that tyrants and authoritarians use to drive wedges between people will cease to matter. I think the future is bright and I think a huge reason for that is the wonderful teachings of Jesus, among other people. Jesus, Aurelius, Buddha, Tolstoy, Locke, Plato.... the great thinkers and communicators are the guys who push humanity forward. After them, its up to guys like you and me to put their teachings into practice by being the virtuous and excellent individuals we can, and hope to lead by example enough to maybe move the needle in the right direction within our own circle of friends.

This isn't something we achieve in a lifetime. It is something that comes about through hundreds of lifetimes, each pushing things forward slowly but surely.




Ever look in a mirror? You feel the same way about your beliefs.

Because you're just not going to make people acquiesce to your views. You should know that by now. People are stubborn.

What's more, for someone who believes in the scientific method and objectivity, you sure are making an extraordinary claim when you say that we are somehow going to evolve in the distant future in a society much different than ours when you have absolutely no reason to believe that. People have always held to their beliefs and there's no reason to believe this is going to change. We have to focus on limiting government now and learning to live with people who have differing views. l

You talk about tolerance, but did you ever consider that you should just tolerate people with different views and learn to live with them? It looks to me like you want everyone to think like you, and what's worse is that you don't even consider the possibility that you could be wrong. What if the moral code that you want people to follow is the wrong one? Let people come to their own conclusions through logical discourse and soul-searching and stop trying to get us all to evolve to YOUR standard of higher intelligence as if you should be the absolute standard that people want to work toward. Did it even occur to you how arrogant that sounds?

[PaulConventionWV]

Ever look in a mirror? You feel the same way about your beliefs.

Everyone thinks they are right. But I don't expect people to adopt my view as if it were the only valid belief. I let people believe what they want because I know I can't convince everyone.

What's more, I don't expect them to coalesce to my view in order to satisfy the societal "prerequisites" for smaller government. We can still have small government without everyone believing in the same moral code. We just have to believe that it is in our own interests to limit government. That takes care of it. No need to have everyone conform to a single morality that may or may not be the right morality.

[KingNothing]

For example, why is it wrong to say I don't want to encourage the lazy by giving free handouts? I don't want to make everyone believe that they should blend in with the liberals moral character because we need to fit their bill in order to have less government. Why can't we just all agree that we don't need government to enforce morality?

Yes, we have to come to that agreement. Its the crux of everything I believe. Government can't enforce a morality..... because morality can't be enforced. A society that rewards lazy, slothful people will get more lazy, slothful people. A society that honors self reliance and independence will get more of those things. As Paul always says - laws reflect the morality of a people.

"Virtue and excellence" require people to strive to achieve as much as possible, to be as productive as possible, and to be charitable to care for the sick, elderly and those who cannot care for themselves. Government is not obliged to care for those people. We, productive people, have a moral obligation to do that.

[KingNothing]

That takes care of it. No need to have everyone conform to a single morality that may or may not be the right morality.


Don't kid yourself. You know that the morality I've laid out is best. I basically took it from your favorite chapters of your favorite book. Work hard, care about others, be charitable.

[KingNothing]

What if the moral code that you want people to follow is the wrong one?



So, convincing people to work hard, be charitable, and live and let live.... you think that is somehow wrong? You're entitled to that belief. Its the beauty of the moral code I try live by. I'd never coerce you until following it, and I wouldn't call you a sinner. I'd just call you a guy who hasn't yet figured out how to live according to his nature.



Let people come to their own conclusions through logical discourse and soul-searching and stop trying to get us all to evolve to YOUR standard of higher intelligence as if you should be the absolute standard that people want to work toward. Did it even occur to you how arrogant that sounds?

I don't care if it is arrogant. Ridding ourselves of irrational behavior and petty prejudices, while fulfilling the obligations we have as beings in this Universe is self evident to me.

And I'm just spouting shit on a message board now. I don't normally spit the Gospel According to King Nothing. During the day I work, I'm empathetic and thoughtful and I'm quietly charitable. I'm just being the change, dude. Call it arrogant if you want. Doesn't really matter to me. You're free to believe what you want. And deep down, I think you know our beliefs are really similar anyway.

[bunklocoempire]

Getting rid of public schools would easily solve this problem.

Yep. + rep

Any priority respecting Christian with a clue would figure the best thing to do is to ditch the state and any of it's "help" or "solutions".


I put "Christian" in quotes because these are Christians in name only.

+ rep for the " " 's

My God doesn't need or ask for man's force to accomplish His will. ie: voluntary only.

No surprise and ironic that those "Christian" "parents" voluntarily have their kids in public schools. Yes, voluntarily.

State/Religion vs God/faith Those "Christians" are opting for the former.:(

What the heck kind of almighty God would need the state's help?

Answer: Sinful man's projection of himself on a god. :mad:

[jmdrake]

Where do these Muslims work in Tennessee?
What Christians hired these Muslims to work?
Who granted these Muslims green cards?
Were these grantor's Christian?


Ummm....what difference does that make? Some of those Muslims were born in America. How do I know? Because I have common sense. You have native born Americans, sometimes going back generations, who convert to Islam (blacks in prison for example). And every immigrant group has children that grow up to be adults. Besides, using the "Who was here first" argument, all Americans should be forced only to worship indigenous American dieties. And if we're going with the "first civilized (white people) rule" than Catholics shouldn't be able to practice their religion except in places like Louisiana.

Besides, as "Christians" they should know that inalienable rights, like the freedom to practice the religion of your choice without state coercion and interference, come from God and not from some government bureaucrat who gives you a green card or some employer who gives you a job. Besides, many Muslims own their own businesses. What happens when these "Christians" apply for work from them? Would these "Christians" be happy with an employer that didn't let them pray?



I easily see these Tennesseen's views. They have been programmed this way. And programmed to react as such to certain situations that have been fabricated?
Or are these "opposition groups" simply fronts for government rabble rouses? Who knows...interesting times.

They are 912ers "programmed" by Glenn Beck. Is he a government agent? Quite possibly.

[PaulConventionWV]

Don't kid yourself. You know that the morality I've laid out is best. I basically took it from your favorite chapters of your favorite book. Work hard, care about others, be charitable.

Yeah, but not the part where we all decide homosexuality is okay. If I don't want to believe that it's okay and I don't believe that it's okay, there's nothing wrong with that. The way I see it, it's completely acceptable to have different moral standards in which certain lifestyles are looked down upon by certain people. We don't need everyone to endorse everyone else's lifestyle as long as we can agree we should not use government force. What's more, I do not believe that saying these lifestyles are morally wrong is in any way hateful or intolerant. I am completely tolerant of gays. In fact, I was friends with one. I let him know how I felt about the way he lived, and he was okay with that. But tolerance doesn't mean you have to approve of what they do. Tolerance simply means you understand that you can't force them to conform to your way of life, and you don't try.

That's the part I don't like. People jump on Dan Cathy like he's some evil lord in a castle serving hate to the people. What he said wasn't hateful, what he does isn't hateful. We need to accept the idea that people can express their disdain for somebody's lifestyle and still be tolerant.

[PaulConventionWV]

So, convincing people to work hard, be charitable, and live and let live.... you think that is somehow wrong? You're entitled to that belief. Its the beauty of the moral code I try live by. I'd never coerce you until following it, and I wouldn't call you a sinner. I'd just call you a guy who hasn't yet figured out how to live according to his nature.



I don't care if it is arrogant. Ridding ourselves of irrational behavior and petty prejudices, while fulfilling the obligations we have as beings in this Universe is self evident to me.

And I'm just spouting shit on a message board now. I don't normally spit the Gospel According to King Nothing. During the day I work, I'm empathetic and thoughtful and I'm quietly charitable. I'm just being the change, dude. Call it arrogant if you want. Doesn't really matter to me. You're free to believe what you want. And deep down, I think you know our beliefs are really similar anyway.

Perhaps, but it is still ridiculous to assume we need to coalesce all the beliefs in the world to a single morality before we can have limited government. What's more, you seem to think that we are magically going to evolve to this better state that you are apparently already at and everyone else is just catching up. When I say it's arrogant, I don't just mean self-righteous. It's downright absurd to believe you already occupy a state of higher being and something that can never be determined, and you you are adament in your belief that you have already figured it out. Even if the way you believe is similar to mine, there are still some key differences, and I have actually come to accept the idea that there will always be different beliefs, but apparently, you don't think so.

[jmdrake]

You can most certainly do it without government force. All it requires is a market place of ideas, and men like Ron Paul who are willing to lead by example. Really, it is how almost all positive change occurs - societal mores change, and government later catches up to those changes.

You have it backwards, though. Liberals won't accept less government until we have a people moral enough to provide for the poor(and ultimately productive enough to eliminate poverty altogether), among other things.


Ummm.....you talk about Ron Paul, but how much have you listened to him? Have you ever listened to him talk about healthcare prior to government intervention and how people took care of each other? People were already that moral long ago. And you can't eliminate poverty simply through productivity because there are some people who don't want to work.

On the flip side, more government has decreased people's generosity. Why should I care about "helping the poor" when the government is picking my pocket to "help the poor" buy wants instead of needs? Government paid for cell phones? EBT cards used to buy cigarettes? Government intervention lessens the morality of both the people receiving the government's largess and those being robbed to pay for it. If you want to find people who hate welfare talk to African Americans in the middle class. But most will still vote democrat because they think it's the "right thing to do" because the "republicans just don't like black people." Republican insistence on pushing for the police state and foreign wars doesn't help either. Sure the dems do the same thing, but they are currently perceived as being for civil liberties and against war. We need to change that perception.



Conservatives won't stop asking for more government until we can eliminate crime and any hint of a foreign threat, among other things. Until we can sincerely address those concerns we will have government. My goal is to work to achieve a sustainable anarchy, not just small government. I want our people to be so respectful of one another and themselves that government can be a thing of the past. It's a long, loooong, term goal. In the short term, I completely agree with beating government back by convincing people that the proper role of government is a limited one, and that in a pragmatic sense less government means better things for all people.


And how do you eliminate "foreign threats" through "sustainable anarchy"? All I can realistically see doing is what this movement is trying to do which is to help people see that those foreign threats aren't as bad as they've been led to believe and that our government is, through it's policies, actually making the real threats worse.



An interesting aside is that in areas in which government force is required to provide for a people and to keep them orderly, peaceful, and respectful you have the most chaos when government collapses. This, I think, shows one of the most dire things Ron Paul preaches - that large government creates dependency.... and not just in an economic sense.

That is true.

[jmdrake]

Don't kid yourself. You know that the morality I've laid out is best. I basically took it from your favorite chapters of your favorite book. Work hard, care about others, be charitable.

It's ironic that you start off saying that people who think their beliefs are best are the problem, then you basically become the problem.

[moostraks]

Wait a minute. You were considered a bad parent because you didn't provide cable TV and you didn't want your girl to dress trashy? That's insane. There's no other word for it but insane. This makes some of the horror stories Alex Jones tells about CPS tame by comparison. Unelected "civil servants" should never have that kind of power. :mad:

Yes, this was a large part of what the state ran on in Alabama when we had to deal with them. Foster parents are a nightmare. Our experience were that there are some decent people who can't have their own children so they are bribed by the state with the potential for a baby of their own some day. Then there are pervs and then there was the theives. She was moved around a good deal in part because they screwed themselves by blaming me for her attitude problems and when she displayed problems with foster parents not giving her everything she wanted, they had to move her or their case fell apart. The end goal is to take all the children because of the payoff in bonuses and federal dollars for the branch that does the theiving. The view is one bad apple for several adoptable, well behaved children to the foster parents they string along who want their own children. The type of psychological damage they inflict is astounding. Contrary to stated policies of reuniting a family, foster parents in our experience do not have that intention nor do the social workers who told our daughter to stir the pot and call them if I so much as raised my voice when she returned home to us.( Our experience is the only rightful people, according to the state, to punish children is those who are state agents and then they may take whatever extreme measures are necessary to insure a child cooperates with them....) Then we moved to Ohio and after learning to play the game, eldest child played them here through psych services. Trust me she had issues, but you can't really "fix" narcissistic personality disorders and a good doctor in either state should have looked at her track record towards others and known what her problem was especially considering her biological father's problems. Now she is on her own, and stills tries to game me some. I am between a rock and a hard place with her having a baby on the way as I am not quite sure of the "right" way to handle things considering her issues.

The unelected officials not only get unreasonable power to inflict tremendous damage on the family but they get immunity for whatever poor decisions they make. So the only punishment that might occur is they lose their job. In our case, we were able to get the judge to finally see some of what was going on and the three main players lost their jobs or were pushed into retirement. Nothing really changed though, because when we called trying to retrieve some of her belongings that were stolen by the last foster family, the new players tried to see to it we shut up by trumping up charges and sending a different state after us. We however had become wise enough by then to know not to allow them in and it ended there at that point. We did not ever get those belongings back though...

[pochy1776]

Getting rid of public schools would easily solve this problem.
Private schools are much better anyways.

[KingNothing]

Perhaps, but it is still ridiculous to assume we need to coalesce all the beliefs in the world to a single morality before we can have limited government. What's more, you seem to think that we are magically going to evolve to this better state that you are apparently already at and everyone else is just catching up. When I say it's arrogant, I don't just mean self-righteous. It's downright absurd to believe you already occupy a state of higher being and something that can never be determined, and you you are adament in your belief that you have already figured it out. Even if the way you believe is similar to mine, there are still some key differences, and I have actually come to accept the idea that there will always be different beliefs, but apparently, you don't think so.


You know how Libertarians don't really have a good answer when asked to provide an example of their ideals put to practice? We've got medieval Iceland and colonial America.... but Iceland had "kings" and America had slavery, and a desire to toss its Constitution aside and undermine it about five minutes after ratifying it. There is a reason for that. People have to be willing to embrace the responsibility that freedom entails. And through most of human history they haven't been, for a variety of very complicated reasons- not the least of which was resource scarcity and the fear of "outsiders," among other things that it inspires.

And I'm not claiming to be the only person who occupies this "arrogant" morality- Jesus, Aurelius, Buddha,Tolstoy, Thoreau, Zeno, Plato, etc all preached some variant of it. It's a belief system that works because I sincerely don't concern myself with the actions of others, and understand that the elimination of want and need , as well as irrational hate and prejudice, through technological advancement will put an end to most of the negative interactions people have with one another. It's so clear to me that this is what humanity is advancing towards that I'd be shocked if future generations aren't living in some sort of utopia eventually. With that said, I do as Aurelius suggested and believe that those who haven't embraced this notion and desire to seek it just haven't stumbled upon it and are no worse or better than me for it. Eventually they'll cone to live in accordance with their true nature... or they won't. I'm staking my beliefs on the theory that over time the things that prevent people from being able to do that will fade and humanity will continue to move in the right direction.


Hey man, you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one.

[pochy1776]

You know how Libertarians don't really have a good answer when asked to provide an example of their ideals put to practice? We've got medieval Iceland and colonial America.... but Iceland had "kings" and America had slavery, and a desire to toss its Constitution aside and undermine it about five minutes after ratifying it. There is a reason for that. People have to be willing to embrace the responsibility that freedom entails. And through most of human history they haven't been, for a variety of very complicated reasons- not the least of which was resource scarcity and the fear of "outsiders," among other things that it inspires.

And I'm not claiming to be the only person who occupies this "arrogant" morality- Jesus, Aurelius, Buddha,Tolstoy, Thoreau, Zeno, Plato, etc all preached some variant of it. It's a belief system that works because I sincerely don't concern myself with the actions of others, and understand that the elimination of want and need , as well as irrational hate and prejudice, through technological advancement will put an end to most of the negative interactions people have with one another. It's so clear to me that this is what humanity is advancing towards that I'd be shocked if future generations aren't living in some sort of utopia eventually. With that said, I do as Aurelius suggested and believe that those who haven't embraced this notion and desire to seek it just haven't stumbled upon it and are no worse or better than me for it. Eventually they'll cone to live in accordance with their true nature... or they won't. I'm staking my beliefs on the theory that over time the things that prevent people from being able to do that will fade and humanity will continue to move in the right direction.


Hey man, you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one.

I wish your wer wrong, but you are right. The responsibility that comes with preserving freedom and liberty is a very hard cost on the human soul. Thats why i'd rather spend time with my girlfriend.

[KingNothing]

It's ironic that you start off saying that people who think their beliefs are best are the problem, then you basically become the problem.


I'm not the problem. I've merely asked people not to be irrational and ask them not to preclude others from an activity only because of who those others find attractive.

And if I didn't believe that my outlook is the best, and if I hadn't spent years forming it by burying my face in classic lit and living life as aggressively as I could, I'd be willing to embrace other schools of thought. Fact is though that I've yet to come across anyone better read versed philosophically who could offer rational alternatives. Call it arrogance if you want. I don't particularly care.

[KingNothing]

Yeah, but not the part where we all decide homosexuality is okay. If I don't want to believe that it's okay and I don't believe that it's okay, there's nothing wrong with that. The way I see it, it's completely acceptable to have different moral standards in which certain lifestyles are looked down upon by certain people.



Yes, you're allowed to have that opinion. That doesn't mean it is valid as one that isn't rooted in absurd prejudice and irrationality though. Eventually you and people like you will come around, just as most people have on interracial marriage. You know two generations ago that was as disapproved of as homosexuality. Mores change.



We don't need everyone to endorse everyone else's lifestyle as long as we can agree we should not use government force. What's more, I do not believe that saying these lifestyles are morally wrong is in any way hateful or intolerant. I am completely tolerant of gays. In fact, I was friends with one. I let him know how I felt about the way he lived, and he was okay with that. But tolerance doesn't mean you have to approve of what they do. Tolerance simply means you understand that you can't force them to conform to your way of life, and you don't try.

That's the part I don't like. People jump on Dan Cathy like he's some evil lord in a castle serving hate to the people. What he said wasn't hateful, what he does isn't hateful. We need to accept the idea that people can express their disdain for somebody's lifestyle and still be tolerant.

Yes, there is definitely a fine line between tolerant stupidity and hatred. Good point.

[jmdrake]

I'm not the problem. I've merely asked people not to be irrational and ask them not to preclude others from an activity only because of who those others find attractive.

And if I didn't believe that my outlook is the best, and if I hadn't spent years forming it by burying my face in classic lit and living life as aggressively as I could, I'd be willing to embrace other schools of thought. Fact is though that I've yet to come across anyone better read versed philosophically who could offer rational alternatives. Call it arrogance if you want. I don't particularly care.

That zooming sound you hear is the point going over your head. Earlier you said that people shouldn't think their belief was better than someone else's. Then you claim your belief is better. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with criticizing others for what you are doing yourself. And while it's been pointed out ad naseum, I'll point it out yet again. The people you are arguing with are not trying to prevent anyone from any activity. Your disagreement with us is that we are pushing the Ron Paul approach of disentangling marriage from federal benefits and leaving everything else to the states (which is basically nothing except what people can do for themselves via contract) instead of the "Let's equalize marriage" approach of the gay lobby. Is Ron Paul's approach better? I think so. You're free to disagree. But I don't see how you can honestly say it's not valid.

[KingNothing]

The only thing not valid is a condemnation of gay people , and working to write laws to prevent then from marrying. As far as I can tell, you guys only approve of the former and disapprove of the latter. You aren't the biggest problems, that's for sure.

[AFPVet]

I am a spiritual Christian and I am embarrassed by what the established 'so called Christians' deem appropriate or inappropriate. Since Yeshua's (Jesus') time, we have seen so many of His words being taken out of context and misused by the state. If people from other beliefs wish to engage in prayer, that is their right!

[moostraks]

It's a belief system that works because I sincerely don't concern myself with the actions of others, and understand that the elimination of want and need , as well as irrational hate and prejudice, through technological advancement will put an end to most of the negative interactions people have with one another. It's so clear to me that this is what humanity is advancing towards that I'd be shocked if future generations aren't living in some sort of utopia eventually. With that said, I do as Aurelius suggested and believe that those who haven't embraced this notion and desire to seek it just haven't stumbled upon it and are no worse or better than me for it. Eventually they'll cone to live in accordance with their true nature... or they won't. I'm staking my beliefs on the theory that over time the things that prevent people from being able to do that will fade and humanity will continue to move in the right direction.


Hey man, you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one.

Technology is not some savior that is going to usher in utopia on earth. People aren't becoming less selfish with the technological advancements they are becoming more selfish, self absorbed, and demanding that others embrace the ideals they want to impose upon them. Take a waltz over on a birth board some day and see an argument on vaccines and the right of parents to be non-vac for example. The web has become the ultimate tool of peer pressure. Why do you think facebook is pushed so heavily?

Elimination of want and need sounds like the mantra of socialism. As well as to eliminate irrational hate and prejudice means that one party feels they have the corner market on ideas which usually carries with it the bias against opposing viewpoints. Just because someone disagrees with another party's choices does not then mean they are filled with irrational hate or prejudice. It means they are individuals with a different calling.

[KingNothing]

Technology is not some savior that is going to usher in utopia on earth. People aren't becoming less selfish with the technological advancements they are becoming more selfish, self absorbed, and demanding that others embrace the ideals they want to impose upon them.


There's no proof of this. What their is proof of is gradual and continued drops in violent crime, coupled with a drop in the number of people held as slaves, the number of people killed in wars, and the number of people living under oppressive regimes.

What we're guilty of on this board is highlighting all of the negatives in the world today and railing against them, without noticing all the good that has happened -in spite of government- over the last hundred years or so. Things are getting better for humanity. There's no reason to be as negative as many here are.




Elimination of want and need sounds like the mantra of socialism.


Technological advancements, thanks to freer markets and increased leanings towards capitalism, ushering in an era of plentiful, cheap, and sustainable energy is socialistic? Really? As the cost of energy, and everything else, falls people will be able to obtain the things they want and need with little effort. Want and need will eventually become a thing of the past.



As well as to eliminate irrational hate and prejudice means that one party feels they have the corner market on ideas which usually carries with it the bias against opposing viewpoints. Just because someone disagrees with another party's choices does not then mean they are filled with irrational hate or prejudice. It means they are individuals with a different calling.

Are you actually coming out in favor of prejudice and disliking or distrusting people just because they're gay, or brown, or practicing a different religion? Really? That nonsense will eventually end, and it will end because technology is pushing us together and allowing us to integrate. I can't help but think that increased interaction with one another will eventually, in the very long run, bring most of these problems to an end. It's just going to take time.

[KingNothing]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/cheerios-burning-protest-567341

Also, there's that.


In the above video, Michael Leisner, 65, can be seen outside the General Mills corporate campus in Golden Valley. He is carrying a box of Honey Nut Cheerios in one hand and a blowtorch in the other.

Leisner announces that he is there to protest the company’s advocacy of gay marriage, a reference to the food conglomerate’s June announcement that it opposes a November ballot initiative banning such nuptials. “So we are going to torch some cereal,” Leisner says, as cars can be heard zooming past on nearby Interstate 394.

On Michael Leisner’s YouTube page (Live4Chr1st) he can be seen attacking Representative Barney Frank and Bill Maher, while noting that President Barack Obama has “bent forward to accommodate the sodomites of New York.” He also makes reference to "gay perverts," "fierce ******s," and the "depraved, debasing debauchery of gay activists."

Leisner told TSG that he has previously taught the Bible on radio shows and has done “campus preaching with some notorious right wing Holy Ghost preacher types.”


Christians would never spread hate and intolerance! Neither side in this debate has a monopoly on stupidity. Keep that in mind when you see liberals doing dumb things.

[jmdrake]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/cheerios-burning-protest-567341

Also, there's that.



Christians would never spread hate and intolerance! Neither side in this debate has a monopoly on stupidity. Keep that in mind when you see liberals doing dumb things.

I actually heard a Christian radio morning show host ridiculing this guy. So Christians aren't above pointing out the stupidity of other Christians. Let me know when DailyKos points out the stupidity of the Chick-Fil-A drive in protestor.

[jmdrake]

There's no proof of this. What their is proof of is gradual and continued drops in violent crime, coupled with a drop in the number of people held as slaves, the number of people killed in wars, and the number of people living under oppressive regimes.

War has become a lot more one sided lately. The number of Americans killed is at an all time low. I'm not sure if that translates to the number of people killed in general. Some estimates are that U.S. policy killed 500,000 Iraqi children between wars. As for the number of people living under oppressive regimes....all I can say is that the U.S. is clearly becoming more oppressive. So I should be happy because Iraq is no longer under Saddam and Libya is no longer under Khaddafi? I guess I should just support the neocons and hope for the best.