Good news in a bad economy

[Don T. Lukbak]

Dennis Prager
For the Left, Opponents Cannot Have Decent Motives: The Ground Zero Example

I recently wrote about leftists' hatred for conservatives as people, not merely for conservative ideas. Demonization of opponents is a fundamental characteristic of the left. It is not merely tactical; they believe people on the right are bad. (Here's a test: Ask someone on the left if active support of California Proposition 8 -- retaining the man-woman definition of marriage -- was an act of hate.)

A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives' motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left -- and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs -- to say "There are good people on both of sides of this issue." From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case.
In the left's worldview, conservative opponents of affirmative action cannot be driven by concern for blacks -- opposition is animated by racists; conservative opponents of illegal immigration are animated by racism and xenophobia; opposition to abortion is a function of sexism; President Bush went to war for oil and American imperialism; and conservative supporters of retaining man-woman marriage hate gays.
This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say "There are good people on both sides of the issue" because we actually believe it.
Almost any contentious issue would provide proof of the left's need to attack motives, but the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero provides a particularly excellent example.
I have not come across a mainstream leftist description of opponents of the mosque/Islamic center being built near ground zero that has not ascribed hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted, "Islamophobic" or xenophobic motives to those who oppose the mosque. Contrast this with how mainstream opponents of the mosque describe the proponents of the mosque and you will see an immense divide between right and left in the way they talk about each other.
Here are but a few examples of how mainstream proponents of the mosque describe opponents and their motives:
Michael Kinsley, editor at large, The Atlantic: "Is there any reason to oppose the mosque that isn't bigoted, or demagogic, or unconstitutional? None that I've heard or read."
Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times Blog, Aug. 19, 2010: "The far right wing has seized on the issue as an occasion for fanning hatred against Muslims."
Tony Norman, columnist, Pittsburgh Post Gazette: "... a handful of politicians who cynically conflate the religion of American Muslims with the nihilism of the 9/11 terrorists."
Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic blog: "The pursuit of power through demagoguery."
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York (in a column titled "America Has Disgraced Itself"): "In today's GOP, even bigotry doesn't spare you from bigotry."
"GOP leaders call them (those building the mosque) terrorists because they don't share Benjamin Netanyahu's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
"And oh yes, my fellow Jews, who are so thrilled to be locked arm in arm with the heirs of Pat Robertson and Father Coughlin against the Islamic threat."
And in a Politico column titled "Decency Lost": "Republicans are clawing over each other to demonize Muslims."
HuffingtonPost, Allison Kilkenny: "This mock piety is really a cover for Islamophobia."
"Indeed, America is extremely hostile -- not only to Islam -- but to anyone who gives off the air of being exotic, or different."
"Xenophobia is really a convenient cover for a deeper bigotry."
HuffingtonPost, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute: "Shame. Your bigoted appeals to fear and intolerance disgrace us all and put our country at risk in the world."
HuffingtonPost, Michael Hughes: "Even more hideous is the way in which these bigots try to hide their overt prejudice in the emotional guise of love and caring, purportedly because they believe we must be 'sensitive' to the families of the victims of 9/11."
New York Times editorial: "Republican ideologues, predictably ... spew more of their intolerant rhetoric.
"The country ignores such cynicism and ugliness at its own peril."
"Too many Republican leaders are determined to whip up as much false controversy and anguish as they can."
New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof: "Why do so many Republicans find strip clubs appropriate for the ground zero neighborhood but object to a house of worship?"
"(They) are cynically turning the Islamic center into a nationwide issue in hopes of votes. ... They're just like the Saudi officials who ban churches, and even confiscate Bibles, out of sensitivity to local feelings."
"Today's crusaders against the Islamic community center are promoting a similar paranoid intolerance."
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: "(The) country has begun to run on a horrible fuel of hatred -- magnified, amplified, multiplied, by politicians and zealots, within government and without."
New York Times columnist Frank Rich: "This month's incessant and indiscriminate orgy of Muslim-bashing."
"So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right -- abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League ..."
"The ginned-up rage over the 'ground zero mosque' (was motivated) by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season."
It started with "a New York Post jihad."
"The Islamophobia command center, Murdoch's News Corporation..."
Why does the left attribute only nefarious motives to those who believe that the Islamic center does not belong near ground zero?
Because leftism holds these beliefs:
1. Those who hold leftist positions are, by definition, better people than their opponents.
2. Those who hold leftist positions have, by definition, pure motives; therefore, the motives of their opponents must be impure.
I conclude with this: I believe that a wiser man than the present imam would have decided to avoid precisely what he has inspired -- intense division in America -- and would have immediately retracted his decision to erect an Islamic center and mosque right by the slaughterhouse of 9/11 which happened to have been caused by his co-religionists.
But I also believe that there are good arguments and good people on both sides of this issue.
I can say that, however, for one reason.

I am not on the left.
http://townhall.com/columnists/Denni...?showfull=true

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by 90c2cab

Liberals think that that the way to deal with bullies is to appease them.

I remember the "quotable quote": "I'd rather be Red than dead."

Next thing you know, there will be a movement to amend the Constitution:

"In ALLAH we trust"...........

And this is extremely sad:

"HuffingtonPost, Michael Hughes: "Even more hideous is the way in which these bigots try to hide their overt prejudice in the emotional guise of love and caring, purportedly because they believe we must be 'sensitive' to the families of the victims of 9/11."

I remember a firefighter describing the stench of a still smoking body sitting on the ground in the aircraft seat with the seat belt still intact as he ran toward a building to help folks escape from the collapsing building. Where was "Hughes"?

And, I wonder if Michael Hughes would scream while his head was being sawed off on an Arabic cable network? Just wondering.

http://www.allah.org/

A suggestion: Don't "hobby" near stones.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Toolman

1. Who is RebeccaRothko? Is she ......

I got the impression "Rebecca" is not a "she"!

[ness]

Originally Posted by DRSlut

Remember, we are One Nation, Under God and not one nation under (insert your fucktard belief here) __________.

Wow so "One nation Under God" somehow represents the ideals of our nation? The phrase that was added to the pledge in 1954. Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Franklin were all diest and not Christians. The Christian clergy was some of the most vocal opponents of both our Revolution and the ratification of our Constitution. The Anglican clergy was still loyal to the crown and basically sat out. The Calvinist opposed the concept of the Bill of Rights because their concept of "total depravity" was not compatible with man having liberty by default. They also wished to institutionalize religion into the government and so concepts like Jefferson's "wall of separation" were not welcome at all, both as the establishment clause or section 6. Those were by far the two largest churches of the day.

Here's a nice quote from Jefferson written to Adams:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

Sorry to say the dawn of reason and freedom of thought hasn't quite made it to our United States.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Next thing you know, there will be a movement to amend the Constitution:

"In ALLAH we trust"...........

Here is the Constitution, read it, the word god does not appear, but religion does twice, both times limiting religious encroachment into government and once establishing religious freedom for the people.



This is a an odd discussion cause most that are opposed will state that they have the right to build the mosque, but something should be done or they ought not build it. It's just political correctness, trying to force a De facto policy to prevent being socially offended. If you believe in liberty of men you are going to be offended by how some men practice their liberty.

There has been a lot of media fishing for public outrage, at first I didn't even catch that the mosque was 2 blocks from ground zero because it was being reported as "on ground zero". It does beg the question how far away from ground zero would no longer be offensive? Would 3 blocks be ok, maybe 6? No mosque on the island? When is it no longer offensive?

Of course the other side is going to the your bigoted against Islam if you don't support this. That's funny to me, I see being bigoted against Islam as a reasonable response to people that believe in worshiping a tyrannical man in the sky, practicing a backwards ass system of law and all the other nonsense that goes along with Islam. Being called bigoted against Islam is a compliment as far as I'm concerned.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ness

Here is the Constitution, read it, the word god does not appear, but religion does twice, both times limiting religious encroachment into government and once establishing religious freedom for the people.

Let me repeat what I wrote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover
Next thing you know, there will be a movement to amend the Constitution:

"In ALLAH we trust"...........
______________________________ ________________________

As for the discussion about "Ground Zero" ....

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.html

"The number of people believed to have been killed in the World Trade Center attack hovers around 2,780, three years after the attack. 1 2 No trace has been identified for about half the victims, despite the use of advanced DNA techniques to identify individuals. Six weeks after the attack only 425 people had been identified. 3 A year after the attack, only half of the victims had been identified. 19,906 remains were recovered from Ground Zero, 4,735 of which were identified. Up to 200 remains were linked to a single person. 4 Of the 1,401 people identified, 673 of the IDs were based on DNA alone. Only 293 intact bodies were found. Only twelve could be identified by sight. 5 "

In the website there are sections on photographs showing debris blocks from the "points of impact" ....

Quibbling about "Ground Zero" being "2 blocks away" is ridiculous. Part of one of the planes went into the building where the "community center" is planned to be built.

[enderwiggin]

Originally Posted by ness

Here is the Constitution, read it, the word god does not appear, but religion does twice, both times limiting religious encroachment into government and once establishing religious freedom for the people.

Granted. However, here's a copy of the Declaration of Independence, our nation's founding document, where our founding philosophers introduce enlightenment thinking into governance, speaking of ideas like "inalienable rights endowed by a Creator" and "Nature's God". You seem to conclude that our founding fathers envisioned a nation whose government was completely divorced from God and religion and that's not the case. In fact, the very principles that led our revolutionary fathers to break with England were predicated on a belief in God.

You are correct that many of our founding fathers were deists, but how that is separate from christianity is mystery to me. They were by-and-large Protestants who rejected the Roman Catholic Church and the idea of divinely-chosen monarchs. They had adopted deism to have a religious worldview that more easily meshed with their enlightenment principles of reason, liberty and free-will. Ideas like prophecy, miracles and divine mystery were what they rejected, not Christ and christianity. You're attempting to rewrite history giving our nation a more secular founding than it actually had.

Originally Posted by ness

Sorry to say the dawn of reason and freedom of thought hasn't quite made it to our United States.

Statements like this always confuse me. The "freedom of thought" you lament our nation not possessing actually includes the freedom to believe in God. This is "ivory tower" rhetoric typical of the liberal intellectual elite. They make a broad, general statement such as this attempting to portray our nation as one of intolerance, ignorance and superstition when reality couldn't be farther from the truth. I'd like to suggest you visit a country that actually rejects enlightenment ideas of reason and freedom of thought. Witness the wide-scale authoritarian elimination of thinkers, writers, creators and dissenters in places like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea or Sudan. Then return to the U.S. and try your statement again.

What you're really saying is, "Sorry to say the dawn of my version of reason and freedom to think exactly like I do hasn't quite made it to our United States."

Originally Posted by ness

This is a an odd discussion cause most that are opposed will state that they have the right to build the mosque, but something should be done or they ought not build it. It's just political correctness, trying to force a De facto policy to prevent being socially offended. If you believe in liberty of men you are going to be offended by how some men practice their liberty.

There has been a lot of media fishing for public outrage, at first I didn't even catch that the mosque was 2 blocks from ground zero because it was being reported as "on ground zero". It does beg the question how far away from ground zero would no longer be offensive? Would 3 blocks be ok, maybe 6? No mosque on the island? When is it no longer offensive?

You make a fine point which reflects not having read anything many of us have already pointed out in this thread, and what many of those who oppose the mosque have been stating from the beginning. It's not the building of the mosque that is so troubling; its the callowness of our political leaders when dealing with Islam, of which this mosque is only the most recent example. I'll cite again the rebuilding of the Greek Orthodox Church and the political log-jam that the 9-11/WTC memorial at Ground Zero has become. Why are these projects so mired in political confusion and zoning regulations and union negotiations and Port Authority minutiae, while the mosque gets greased right through?

The answer is simple: appeasement. Rather than hold Islam and her followers to the same standards and put them through the same bureaucratic two-step any and every other person, institution and/or religious group in America must go through, our leaders trip all over themselves in their eagerness to demonstrate which of them is more "tolerant" and "friendly" to Islam. Change "Muslim" to "Baptist" and these same leaders all-of-a-sudden grow spines and begin spouting obscure passages from the personal letters of one of our founding fathers (not actual public policy, mind you), and wag their fingers at us all preaching the virtues of secular America.

Your point is well-taken as to wondering how far a respectful distance from Ground Zero would be. Personally, I could care less where they build the mosque. They bought the land, they comply with the zoning restrictions, they do as they will. If, however, they want to extend the hand of friendship to a community still sensitive over an attack by their co-religionists, they might consider purchasing land where debris from that attack didn't land.

I'm not sure where I read it, but it was a poignant statement. A wiser man than this imam, having witnessed the intense division the construction of this mosque has engendered, would simply move it.

[badhusband]

You are 100% correct! People don't realize what it means when they hear "The National Debt" on the news. To boil it down simply, the BANKERS are running the U.S. and the rest of the world. It's a global economy.
And now can you say "Cap and Trade"?

Originally Posted by LittleSpike

It strikes me that we spend far too much time arguing with one another, when the real enemy of our country is the Global Elite and the Bankers, who, by the way, control both sides of our political debates. America is being raped and pillaged while we waste our energies arguing the merits of Conservativism vs Liberalism. Under a police state you will all be treated the same.

LS

[chrome1996]

Has anyone read the Quran or studied Sharia Law? I am reading the q and studying Sharia, so far it looks like a bunch of Natzi crap ... has anyone asked the potus about Sharia law? I would love to hear that answer!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by chrome1996

....has anyone asked the potus about Sharia law? I would love to hear that answer!

Question: Which of the following have you read?

1. Sharia Law
2. Arizona Law
3. ObamCare Law
4. None of the above.

Answer: 4.

[chrome1996]

Actaully, I wrote two briefs on SB 1070, know it by heart.
Obamacare, hell no - has anyone read the entire text? I tried but it was so porely written I gave up. Clearly the potus has lied on numerous occasions regarding the "law"
Sharia - I am reading it now, very interesting. Should cause some serious panic for the liberal establishment when they realize women are shunned and are second class citizens.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by chrome1996

Sharia - Should cause some serious panic for the liberal establishment when they realize women are shunned and are second class citizens.

"second class" .... ???

.... things have improved since I lived among them 45 years ago.

[ness]

Originally Posted by enderwiggin

Granted. However, here's a copy of the Declaration of Independence, our nation's founding document, where our founding philosophers introduce enlightenment thinking into governance, speaking of ideas like "inalienable rights endowed by a Creator" and "Nature's God".

You realize that a "natural religion" such as deism is completely different than a "relieved religion" such as Christianity. I can't even respond because you don't even have a clue what a deist believes, but I'll try. They denied the divinity of Christ, they rejected the concept of the holy trinity, they rejected miracles such as virgin birth. Can you call someone that fits that description a Christian? The most flattering thing any Christian I've known would say about such a person is they are a heretic, but most would use the term Atheist (even though that would not correct). Deist believe in a Creator that gave man reason, they also believed that you were to look to nature for truth and wisdom, hence "Nature's God". Take a look at the link about if you care to know what a deist actually is. Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and also wrote the Jefferson Bible where he had the audacity to edit the bible removing what he saw as useless constructs of artificial Christian control. He's also the one who wrote the wall of separation letter to the committee of the Danbury Baptist association outlining a wall of separation between government and religion, which Madison borrowed from to formulate much of the 1st amendment.

Originally Posted by enderwiggin

You seem to conclude that our founding fathers envisioned a nation whose government was completely divorced from God and religion and that's not the case. In fact, the very principles that led our revolutionary fathers to break with England were predicated on a belief in God.

Wow did you ever read Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason". You do know that Paine's "Common Sense" was the primary reason the Colonies ended up supporting the Declaration of Independence? What sources can you site, other than just making some random blanket statements on the error.net?

Originally Posted by enderwiggin

You are correct that many of our founding fathers were deists, but how that is separate from christianity is mystery to me. They were by-and-large Protestants who rejected the Roman Catholic Church and the idea of divinely-chosen monarchs. They had adopted deism to have a religious worldview that more easily meshed with their enlightenment principles of reason, liberty and free-will. Ideas like prophecy, miracles and divine mystery were what they rejected, not Christ and christianity. You're attempting to rewrite history giving our nation a more secular founding than it actually had.

Your trying to define deist as being able to be a Christian which is totally ignorant of what a deist is. How can you say with a straight face that the colonist was rejecting the Catholic Church when the crowns church was the Anglican Church aka the Church of England? WTF? The largest Church in the Colonies was the Anglican Church followed by the Calvinist. I've even given a quote of Thomas Jefferson comparing the divinity of Christ and the concept of the holy trinity to Roman mythology and you think that's the words of a Christian? Really what is a Christian then, is there any standard? Please enlighten me?

Originally Posted by enderwiggin

Statements like this always confuse me. The "freedom of thought" you lament our nation not possessing actually includes the freedom to believe in God. This is "ivory tower" rhetoric typical of the liberal intellectual elite. They make a broad, general statement such as this attempting to portray our nation as one of intolerance, ignorance and superstition when reality couldn't be farther from the truth. I'd like to suggest you visit a country that actually rejects enlightenment ideas of reason and freedom of thought. Witness the wide-scale authoritarian elimination of thinkers, writers, creators and dissenters in places like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea or Sudan. Then return to the U.S. and try your statement again.

What you're really saying is, "Sorry to say the dawn of my version of reason and freedom to think exactly like I do hasn't quite made it to our United States."

Since you didn't notice I'll give you the cliff notes version, I was paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson. Does that make him the typical "liberal intellectual elite"? I gotta bring that one up every time I hear the phrase "Jeffersonian Conservative". Now there is a lot of irony there. Context my friend.

I do find it funny that you called me a liberal. I guess that just makes me persona non grata cause no liberal will put up with my libertarian conservative views.

I have to ask, why do you feel compelled to put people in neat little boxes such as "liberal elite" or such nonsense? Is it just a form of name calling that you feel is somehow acceptable? Or does it make you feel better to classify someone in a neat little package which you do not respect so you can dismiss whatever they have to say?

Originally Posted by enderwiggin

You make a fine point which reflects not having read anything many of us have already pointed out in this thread, and what many of those who oppose the mosque have been stating from the beginning. It's not the building of the mosque that is so troubling; its the callowness of our political leaders when dealing with Islam, of which this mosque is only the most recent example. I'll cite again the rebuilding of the Greek Orthodox Church and the political log-jam that the 9-11/WTC memorial at Ground Zero has become. Why are these projects so mired in political confusion and zoning regulations and union negotiations and Port Authority minutiae, while the mosque gets greased right through?

The answer is simple: appeasement. Rather than hold Islam and her followers to the same standards and put them through the same bureaucratic two-step any and every other person, institution and/or religious group in America must go through, our leaders trip all over themselves in their eagerness to demonstrate which of them is more "tolerant" and "friendly" to Islam. Change "Muslim" to "Baptist" and these same leaders all-of-a-sudden grow spines and begin spouting obscure passages from the personal letters of one of our founding fathers (not actual public policy, mind you), and wag their fingers at us all preaching the virtues of secular America.

You really are just upset about zoning and bureaucratic red tape that isn't consistent? Come on, that strikes me as disingenuous. So if this public outrage locks up the process for another 5+ years but they still build on the proposed site would you be happy because they were inconvenienced for 5 years? Wouldn't the net outcome be the same? I think your being intellectually dishonest.

Ohh nice play to try to tie me to the $random bureaucrats that your blaming this on. I have nothing to do with this issue, I'm just some guy that rattled your cage on the error.net.

I did mention the Constitution which is the law of the land and gave some history on where the concepts came from, but I'm just wagging my fingers. Uhh wait was that me or some $random bureaucrats, wait I'm confused now. You did notice it was a letter from the 3rd President to the 2nd President of the United States? You also noticed it was in context to give perspective to what the men who founded our nation believed? Your trying so hard to connect two things that have no connection at all. I wonder why? What fallacy is that again? I know but it was so poorly constructed I won't say anything more.

Originally Posted by enderwiggin

Your point is well-taken as to wondering how far a respectful distance from Ground Zero would be. Personally, I could care less where they build the mosque. They bought the land, they comply with the zoning restrictions, they do as they will. If, however, they want to extend the hand of friendship to a community still sensitive over an attack by their co-religionists, they might consider purchasing land where debris from that attack didn't land.

Yea they don't want to extend a hand of friendship. I though that was obvious, it's Islam.

Originally Posted by enderwiggin

I'm not sure where I read it, but it was a poignant statement. A wiser man than this imam, having witnessed the intense division the construction of this mosque has engendered, would simply move it.

Bill O'reilly said that 3 days ago? I know he did say that but I can't remember what day exactly.


Ok back to the media fishing for public outrage. Yesterday some woman filled in for Bill O'reilly yesterday started in on a segment with Alan Colmes about this iman opining that America had blood on it's hands because of supporting the Iraq sanctions. You know how it is, a lot of yelling over the opposition view, typical Fox News faux outrage. But I really wonder if that woman would have made out the American Mennonites and Quakers that protested, lobbied against and criticized the same sanctions as murderous back in 2000 the same way? Obviously not.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Can somebody point me to the links of imams, caliphates or other Muslim leaders apologizing for 9/11, condemning fellow Muslims for their terrorism or renouncing the various groups that have declared Jihad on the US?

Anyone? Anyone? As some like to say: "The silence is deafening."

You libs are appeasing enablers, just like the immigration policy that allowed the 9/11 highjackers into the country and the policy that directed the pilots to give up their seats to them. The country is being laughed as the Caliphate Obama went on his failed "Charm Offensive" in the Middle East at the beginning of his only term.

If you think this is just a 'freedom of religion' issue, you are a 'useful idiot.' There is a reason you won't find the above links. It has to do with the Muslim's disdain for the non-Muslim.

[enderwiggin]

Originally Posted by ness

You realize that a "natural religion" such as deism is completely different than a "relieved religion" such as Christianity. I can't even respond because you don't even have a clue what a deist believes, but I'll try. They denied the divinity of Christ, they rejected the concept of the holy trinity, they rejected miracles such as virgin birth. Can you call someone that fits that description a Christian? The most flattering thing any Christian I've known would say about such a person is they are a heretic, but most would use the term Atheist (even though that would not correct). Deist believe in a Creator that gave man reason, they also believed that you were to look to nature for truth and wisdom, hence "Nature's God". Take a look at the link about if you care to know what a deist actually is. Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and also wrote the Jefferson Bible where he had the audacity to edit the bible removing what he saw as useless constructs of artificial Christian control. He's also the one who wrote the wall of separation letter to the committee of the Danbury Baptist association outlining a wall of separation between government and religion, which Madison borrowed from to formulate much of the 1st amendment.

Long post and I'd love to address each of your statements individually, but I don't have the time or inclination. You seemed to take a good deal of umbrage to some of my statements and I regret that. I have a tendency to be snide and make subtle digs when I'm discussing something of which I have strong opinions. Its not the most tactful thing to do, but there it is.

Regarding deism, I'm willing to admit that I may not know as much about it as you. What I do know is recalled from my U.S. History courses taken in college over ten years ago. I recall deism being a fundamental belief in God, but not an interventionist God, typified in the image of the "clockmaker God" creating the universe and setting it into motion, but not taking a direct hand in the temporal, everyday goings-on. I don't recall deism being strictly antithetical to christianity, I was under the impression that any person of faith could have deist beliefs despite the foundation of their religious beliefs. Again, I don't claim to be an expert on the subject and clearly you have stronger opinions with regard to this matter than I.

I don't know how we became fixated on Thomas Jefferson. He was one president, one statesman, one thinker involved in the founding of our nation and, by his own admission, his beliefs were not representative of the mainstream beliefs of his day or even of his revolutionary peers. My understanding of the 18th century in context of the American Revolution was that a "Great Awakening" of religious fervor in the 1730s provided much of the impetus for democratic thought. European Enlightenment was based very much on ideals of social stratification similar to that of Rome. The religious fervor of the American colonies was viewed as problematic to those ends as the Bible taught that all men were equally capable of being saved and his true value rested in his moral behavior, not in his class. Those are the reasons for my statement that the founding of nation was predicated on christian beliefs.

His letter to the Danbury Baptists was actually written 13 years after the 1st Amendment, so what role it could have played in Madison's authorship I'll leave for you to explain. Despite that, the letter was a response to a congratulatory note he received from the church leaders in Danbury after his inauguration. The church leadership expressed concern over government interference in their congregation as Connecticut was a predominantly Congregationalist state. In that context, its plausible that Jefferson was less concerned with religious influence of government, but the opposite. I don't claim to know Jefferson's mind at the time he wrote it though; this is speculated based on the actual text of their correspondence, nothing more.

I'm not very well read on Thomas Paine and hadn't even brought him up. I read Common Sense in high school and probably skimmed most of it. However, I resent the implication that I am just regurgitating something I read on the internet; this is what I was taught. I'm willing to cede the point that my education may be incomplete or erroneous. I can't cite my sources because they are mostly textbooks that I'm sure are out of print or updated at this point.

I didn't identify you as a liberal; you did that yourself. I said your comment was typical of the liberal elite. That you identified yourself in that group is your own doing. And I put people "in neat little boxes" because most people make a bee-line straight for those boxes with no help or encouragement from me. If you don't, I congratulate you, but that has little bearing on my life experience. That I don't respect liberal thought and ideas has no bearing on my opinion of liberals in general. My own brother is a die-hard democrat and self-professed "Obamanaut". I love him and will readily admit he's one of the most intelligent people I know. I abhor most of the ideas he champions though.

The irony here is that I identify myself as libertarian conservative as well, so most likely we'd actually see eye-to-eye on many things.

I also resent the implication that I'm being "intellectually dishonest" and "disingenuous". If I typed it, I mean it. I'm not just making an argument for the sake of arguing a point. I really do believe that our leadership's policy of pacifism and appeasement towards militant Islam is stupid and dangerous. This mosque provides an excellent example, but its not the only one. That the mosque would be built anyway just 5 years later is beside the point. Why are they being given preferential treatment? If you were to substitute "imam" and "mosque" with "CEO" and "financial institution", the same people, who lambast the opposition of this mosque as bigots and racists, would turn around and be on the attack and probably use the same rhetoric except they'd throw in an occasional "capitalist".

And this imam and his supporters and muslim interest groups have been representing the construction of this mosque as a hand of friendship, not a middle finger. This causes me to wonder about their true motives. If they are saying they want to build on that specific plot of land to foster open communication and friendship between two communities and the result has been the exact opposite, yet they REFUSE to do anything differently, what else are we left to conclude?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Toolman

A friend of mine just started his own business, making landmines that look like prayer mats.

Is he offering whole sale pricing yet?

There is a "space" next to the 600 count-sheet table down the street!

Back to the thread topic!