Well, Bush, Obama, the FBI, all the agencies and individuals that vetted and worked with the guy, etc. Or, perhaps they know a lot more about him than some crazy site on the internet.
Feisal Abdul Rauf In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. You can read the full text of his remarks on the B'nai Jeshurun website, but here is an especially relevant portion:
I was going to say that many people already looking for reasons to distrust him will find reasons to discount or disregard that evidence, but tallanvor beat me to it. Of course, that's exactly what others do with the "evidence" that he is radical, so all you can really do is identify which explanation seems most rational to you and try to present that case to those who disagree.
The same people who think this guy is a radical are also the same people that think opponents of the Iraq War are traitors, that Obama is a Nazi, that Democrats are Communists, that people who live in blue places aren't real Americans, that gays are the work of the Devil, that science is against God, that torture opponents are terrorist symps.
Liberty is a relative metric. I have to pay taxes. I am not free to do anything else with that money. I am not allowed to hit somebody with my car when I disagree with them. I cannot go into a crowded theater and yell "fire." All of these are restrictions on my liberty. We give up our natural liberties in order to live in a nice and safe environment. To pretend that liberty is absolute in any society is a farce.
The Imam working directly with the FBI on counter-terrorism measures doesn't make him peaceful and not a radical? It just amazes me what some people will expect from a man that's "different" before they'll start to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Paying taxes is not what Liberty is about. I'm talking about Liberty my man, not Anarchy. There' s a big difference. Liberty from a Thomas Hobbes sense is about being free of sexism, class-ism and racism. Early americans sought it out because the people who colonized America were often oppressed groups (like the Puritans and Quakers). The whole tax thing is a libertarian / ultra conservative bastardization of the concept by taking the word literally instead of considering it's roots in the 18th century. I don't give up any liberty mind you. I have never been coerced into doing something. Paying taxes you say? That's not what defined liberty to the founding fathers - it was "no taxation without representation". They didn't take liberty to mean freedom from obligation. Liberty may be an ideal and never perfectly achievable due to the nature of society and human prejudices. But you are comparing us to those behind us instead of ahead, and never against the ideal. That's dangerous because it means you can be "better" than everyone else by just being 1% better even if in reality no one has any liberty at all
That's right, every Muslim who wants to build a Mosque is cup able to 9/11 and in league with Al Qaeda. How can we be so sure - why, just look at OJ.
Yes I completely agree. I have said for years that If wilders becomes part of the government I would move to another country . I will stay, since I do not believe the next government will be there long. I really hope that the minority government does not happen, because like we stated before, that would be teh ideal situation for wilders, he has power but no responsibility. Unfortunately I have no faith in the Liberal and the Christian parties. Wilders used to be from the Liberal party, and they are just not that social. The Christian party will throw away all their morals in order to get power.
Add a Kentucky mosque to the list: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...ject_comes_under_fire_in_kentucky.php?ref=fpb "Everyone needs to contact Florence City Council to have this stopped," the flier reads in part, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal. "Americans need to stop the takeover of our country." But of course, they aren't bigots. Just understandably scared Americans that are willing to trash religious freedom, so we should indulge them. Right?
First, I just love how you hooked onto the tax example and ignored the rest of my post. As for liberty meaning being free of prejudice, that is only true to the extent that you ignore the First Amendment. Part of our liberty is to believe what you wish. The ironic thing is that in your definition of liberty you ignore the freedom of speech that is part of the amendment that gives the freedom of religion...the right the possible abrogation of which has caused your outrage. Interesting dichotomy.
When have I ever questioned anyone's right to say their opinion on this matter? How have I ignored the 1st Amendment? No one has questioned Sarah Palin's right to spew her bigoted idiocy. Or that of the Tea Party. But all these "protests" against mosques around the country are more than just expressing an opinion, it amounts to harassment. Do you think people have the right to harass someone on their way into church on Sunday? Maybe they do. But how do you really feel about that. What if on your way to Church or whatever, people yelled at you and screamed that you were the devil and to go away and take your Church with you. Do you think that your liberty was being respected?
Ummm...in your own Hobbesian definition of "liberty." This would indicate that you believe that liberty means being free of those very abhorrent views that the 1st Amendment protects. So, through that lens, liberty means ignoring the protections to be a sexist, racist or other type of bigot guaranteed by the Fist Amendment. Therefore, liberty would require that we repeal the First Amendment so we can be free of those types of beliefs and truly have liberty. Yes. Being Catholic, I have been harassed on my way to church. I have been harassed by groups claiming that I am complicit in child molestation for being Catholic. I have even had groups come to my door to welcome me to their church service. When I told them nicely that I am Catholic, I was told that all Catholics are going to hell. You probably want to ask that question to somebody else. Try in my own home. See me recount that experience above. I was upset, but did not feel that my Constitutional rights were being violated. I wasn't about to make a federal case of it. You know...since it wasn't the government doing it and the Constitution makes no guarantee that some random asshat won't come to my door and harass me. The Constitution guarantees that the government won't do it.
You are making all sort of false assumptions. Of course I am not saying we should repeal the 1st amendment. Only that tyranny can take many forms, and one of them is using speech. I am not saying that such speech should be banned, on the contrary, I totally am fine with people having the right to do that. But it's still oppression. And it flows against the spirit of liberty. That's all I am saying. As for your Catholic experiences, the stupid people who said that to you are just idiots. But imagine you had to deal with that kind of hostility from many angles. Imagine if they told your children they were going to be molested while in church! Wouldn't that be crossing the line? Look, I want to know if there is a line. Can people say anything they want to a child as a form of free speech (so long as it is not a threat to harm or put the child's welfare in danger). But are they allowed to say things that are just despicable? When I grew up my parents sent me to a Catholic school because the public schools in the area were considered to be very 2nd rate and were located in a poor area. The teachers told us we were going to hell because we were not catholic. It was very upsetting, and my parents took us out. I am just saying, tyranny can exist in many forms, and in some cases, yes, it must be protected because the 1st Amendment is the 1st Amendment for a reason. But that does not mean I am trying to shut them up, but I can oppose them. I can exercise my own 1st Amendment rights to call them out for the bigots that they are.
Again, the Constitution protects people from government. To the extent that government seeks to quell speech to exercise tyranny, then the Constitution protects. Your stated definition of liberty seeks to quash private speech. Quashing private speech would be required to be free of sexism and racism which is central to your definition of liberty. There are no false assumptions there. It is precisely what you said. It is not particularly ambiguous. Sure you are. Until we are without such speech, according to your definition, we are without liberty. The line of what is right? Sure. The line of what is legal? No. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear that despicable speech is protected. That is well settled law. Your parents took the right approach. The teachers took the wrong approach. As wrong as they may have been, their speech was still protected. In most cases. The First Amendment protects speech, period. It does not protect just likeable speech. My understanding is that courts will err on the side of protection...in the interests of liberty. At what point does your exercise of liberty become a de facto attempt to deny somebody else the exercise of their liberty?
I was directly responding to Lou's questions. I was not bellyaching about it. I realize that everybody has the right to be a jackass...even you.
