Had enough yet? — Anything Else on True Nudists

DanandJanetteOriginal Poster

Aug 14, 2010

Obama gives two thumbs up to ground zero mosque. Had enough yet, America?

ReactReplySubscribe

Replies

RO
Roosterock
Aug 19, 2010
I'm thankful that you live in America Nakednlouisville. So that you are able to visit the porn shops and strip places that are your hobby. But I still do not want the mosque, as most Americans ,built where they want to build it.
ReactReply
LI
LifeHappens
Aug 20, 2010
Thank you for those interesting links.....but...just one more time for you...............I am discussing occurences within AUSTRALIA......I have no knowledge of events that have happened outside of my country, therefore I can not nor will not make comments. But as you supplied me with some reading material, I shall return the favour. And this will be my last comment on this particular topic, because sometimes you just can't make a point concerning your own country and the events occuring in your own country to those that do not wish to listen. http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2006/crime-australia.htm PS I shall have a nice day thank you very much, it is going to be extremely warm in beautiful Queensland today, sunshine and happiness.[/quote] I love to learn new things. It is so much better to get links showing where people get their information so that we can all broaden our horizons. A question, though: Did you know that the Mackenzie Institute is located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada?
ReactReply
OL
OliverTan
Aug 20, 2010
[quote]Yes I did as a matter of fact, however the author is an ex Police Officer from Sydney New South Wales Australia.[/quote] Thanks for educating me on the rising crime in Australia. I am sorry that it has become so dangerous over there. Unfortunately, that article does not justify the comment that "honest, hard-working Muslims are in the minority". Your words, not mine. The article also does not compare crimes committed by Muslims to crimes committed by non-Muslims. Now that would be an interesting study, wouldn't you say?
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Aug 21, 2010
[quote]Each group wants the rest of us to believe that they are the ones to follow for peace and happiness, yet they have not given us one example of where they have been able to peacefully co exsist with anyone of a different interpertation of their meta physical belief, and not only with those of a different faith but also with those of a different branch of the same faith.[/quote] OK, here's one. AA. The members may call their "higher power" by any name they choose, and by any interpretation or understanding. There are members of ALL faiths, and no faith, all coming together for the same fellowship and unity. God, Allah, the Great Spirit, Mother Nature, all names for the same him/her/it. ( the name seems to be dependent on the local majority. Evident that "God" doesn't really care what you call him/her/it as long as you do ) There is a suggestion that although AA may not be the only way for one or three, it's the only way for millions, and it works ! Peaceful co-existence, and oneness of purpose, regardless of interpretation or branch thereof. The best example I know of, where religious tolerance of and by EVERY member WORKS ! Also true of Al-Anon. Note that I am a member of neither, though I attend occasionally as a source of spiritual inspiration, particularly the discussion meetings work for me.
ReactReply
GE
Gerry-4
Aug 21, 2010
[quote][quote][quote] (snip)[/quote].[/quote] He is consistent. The cases you refer to are the government placing religious symbols on public property: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (US Constitution). The mosque in lower Manhattan isn't a US government building, it is a private construction. And you can call it a Winter Break, Xmas Break, Christmas Break, Solstice Break, whatever you want. No one wanted to "ban the 10 commandments in a small down in the south" (sic). You may still follow the 10 commandments or pick and choose which of the 10 to follow, just don't use my tax money to put it on my tax purchased and supported property. Hey, I have a great idea! How about everyone who wants the 10 Commandments displayed put them in their front yard! Everyone is happy, the Xtians, the courts, etc. Apologies for getting a bit off topic.[/quote] I am totally amazed that so many AMERICANS don't know what their own constitution says about keeping church and state separate. It's not exactly rocket science.
ReactReply
GE
Gerry-4
Aug 21, 2010
The previous poster said:you had better check the consti. the original intent was to keep the state out of the church. not the other way around. this is factI won't argue "originalintent." However, the result is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Establishment of religion means, in its most extreme form, declaring an official state religion. The wording is such that congress must be fully neutral. I'd like to think that the people who drafted it knew what they were doing. To say that the State was to stay out of religious affairs and not the way around is to ignore the history of religious wars on the European continent which weighed heavily on the minds of the Americans who worked on the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights that followed.
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Aug 21, 2010
[quote] I won't argue "originalintent." However, the result is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Establishment of religion means, in its most extreme form, declaring an official state religion. The wording is such that congress must be fully neutral. I'd like to think that the people who drafted it knew what they were doing. [/quote] That's a tad incomplete. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the 60's the liberal supreme court interpreted this to mean "Congress shall make many laws disrespecting established religion, especially Judeo-Christian religions, and prohibiting the fee exercise thereof." It's pretty obvious the intent, both original and subsequent until recently, was to keep the state out of religion altogether, while at the same time allowing religious freedom in almost any established form, and NEVER to keep religion out of the state. The framers were very religious men, and their beliefs VERY much influenced what they wrote, and why they wrote it the way they did. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a "separation of church and state" in these United States according to law. In practice, we very much have a state religion. Secular humanism, and atheism, are quite the State Religion these days.
ReactReply
OL
OliverTan
Aug 22, 2010
[quote]regardless of freedom of religion, its wrong. they shouldnt build the damn thing. the japanese didnt build a japanese cultural center at pearl harbor after they bombed it did they? no.[/quote] No but Americans have made the Japanese rich by buying Honda, Toyota, Sony, Canon, Nintendo, etc., etc., etc. . . .
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Aug 22, 2010
[quote]Freedom of religion, must also mean freedom FROM religion. One may be free to believe what they believe, but they are NOT free to pressure me into believing it, or keep their belief in my face uninvited.[/quote] HEAR ! HEAR !
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Aug 22, 2010
The general appearance of this page will self-correct on the next page, if the malformed quotes don't carry over.
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Aug 22, 2010
As such, two useless off-topic posts just to get the next clean page started.
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Aug 22, 2010
[quote]Whatever you want to call the Supreme Court, it's the law of the land.[/quote] It's merely the current interpretation of the law, subject to change by that same court. So long as the court consists of political appointees, it's somewhat unpredictable what the next court will decide is the correct interpretation. [quote]And your quotation marks show that this is a quote ( "Congress shall make many laws disrespecting established religion, especially Judeo-Christian religions, and prohibiting the fee exercise thereof."). Where is the quote taken from? What are the sources?[/quote] I'm quoting me. I apologize if my choice of punctuation marks is incorrect. [quote]Yes, the constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...." The issue isn't the religious position of the framers of the Constitution and we do not know their "beliefs" as applied to the Constitution.[/quote] It kinda is, but I'll give you this one, as it's a bit off-topic. [quote]I could just as well say that they knew that their beliefs should not be used as the norm and that the citizens could be free to worship as they see fit, be it Catholic, Presbyterian, Muslim, etc.[/quote] And a reasonable man acting reasonably would agree ! ( as do I ) [quote] So, tell me where/when is a person is told to practice secular humanism or atheism.[/quote] Every time a government enforces the taking down of a Christmas nativity display, anywhere, ( but especially off government property ) for just one example. We're drifting quite a ways off-topic, so I'll desist in this line here. My bottom line opinion is that reasonable men acting reasonably would not attempt to build a mosque at that location in light of the public outcry against what is being perceived as a direct affront to the American people. Reasonable moslems would voluntarily move it in a spirit and showing of sympathy for the American people, as well as a showing of disagreement with the radical fundamentalist elements within Islam. Although perhaps it *should* not be, it *is* being interpreted as a showing of support of the murder and the murders perpetrating the 911 terrorist attacks. That alone should tell them what they should do, and what they do will be seen as a quite public showing of their position on those terrorists and the attacks on these United States, and our way of life. Further, it is my opinion that the FEDERAL government is constitutionally prohibited from taking a stand on this issue either way. The individual members of the Federal government, such as the person of the president, are not prohibited from having a personal opinion, and/or stating that opinion, popular or not.
ReactReply
WA
Wayne
Aug 22, 2010
My, my. With sites like this it's rare that you see people chatting about religion or politics, but here you have informed, misinformed, and highly opinionated people smashing the two together. lol. It has made for an interesting read though. All of this talk is just pointless chatter unless people are willing to do something -ANYTHING- about it. You will state your point, it will be responded against, all will sound mind-numbingly retarded trying to sound sophisticated. All-in-all it will go ignored and they will have their building, unless the people make themselves heard. Turn off your comupter, herd together and let them hear your voice as 1. Otherwise, love each other here and play nice. Now kiss and make up and go make a difference for the better please. :)

Love ya!
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Aug 22, 2010
[quote]Sorry about the long message but I'm unsure about deleting some of the quote, but I'll try.[/quote] Yeah, the WYSIWYG editor isn't. [quote] And I don't think any part of this discussion has been "off-topic". We are discussing the lower Manhattan Mosque, the Constitution, and religion in the USA. I find this discussion interesting and that it has gotten away from the typical flame war posts. Now if only I would proof my messages better....[/quote] Sounds like three different topics to me. ( not counting the flame wars ) I merely wish to not have it wander TOO far, and provide more amunition for the intolerant, opinionated, who seek confrontation above communication and understanding. [quote]Yes, the Supreme Court is appointed but what they rule on is still the law-of-the-land. If it is changed that becomes the law-of-the-land. That's how our system works. [/quote] And perhaps we'll see yet another court ruling, if/when they are asked. [quote]When has the government forced a private individual to remove a nativity scene from private property? One reason I ask this is I teach an International Baccalaureate class called Theory of Knowledge. In the class I challenge what the students say so that they learn to look and listen to what they say and are able to make clearer statements of knowledge. I can't let unsubstantiated statements go by. [/quote] OK, it wasn't the Federal gubmint per 'se, it was a local city government. A Cleveland suburb, maybe ? Detroit, perhaps ? It was all over the news a few years ago, but at my age, specifics are lost under hundreds of feet of sediment accumulated over the eons. [quote]And for all you who think we are off topic: what do we do with the two Mosques already in the area of Ground Zero? Make them leave, convert?[/quote] IMHO, leave well enough alone. There's no issue with what's already there, only with what's proposed to be built, and WHY ! Unfortunately, the media has slanted it way too far. 1. It's NOT a mosque ! It's a culteral center. The stated intent of which is to resolve differences, and promote understanding. 2. The folks building it ARE sensitive to the issues, and working to resolve them with the folks ( such as those who lost loved ones in the attacks ) pertinent to the discussions. 3. There is NO constitutional issue. Merely one of good taste and decorum, which the media has fanned into a highly emotionally charged non-issue. 4. It *may* become a local legal issue if the politicians make it so. 5. Public opinion will change. It may take 30 years, but it will. [quote] Clearly, there is more to this situation than building a mosque. And the Republicans are making political hay out of the situation.[/quote] Not just republicans ! Too many on all sides of the isle are using this as a forum on which to grind their own ax, whether relevant or not. ( but what do we expect from Republicrats ? ) [quote] And as usual, many people think that religious freedom in the USA only applies to them.[/quote] Sad, but too true.
ReactReply
LI
LifeHappens
Aug 22, 2010
[quote][quote]If they have 2 mosques in the area,THERE IS NO NEED FOR A THIRD ONE.[/quote] I can't argue with your logic.[/quote] Correction: There is one mosque and one community center. The location of the proposed center is already used for those same purposes. They are only planning on building a new center to replace the one that is currently present. Also as a point, construction in relation to Islam usually takes some time as this religion does not allow for the paying of monetary interest to a person or bank.
ReactReply
LI
LifeHappens
Aug 22, 2010
[quote][quote][quote][/quote] OK, it wasn't the Federal gubmint per 'se, it was a local city government. A Cleveland suburb, maybe ? Detroit, perhaps ? It was all over the news a few years ago, but at my age, specifics are lost under hundreds of feet of sediment accumulated over the eons..[/quote] But that comes under the Constitutional protection of government establishing a religion. It doesn't have to be the Federal government.[/quote] Was this perhaps a deed restricted neighborhood? Yes, they may have asked the individual to pull down the ornamentation; but the question that I would ask is, "Do they require EVERYONE to keep their yard and home free of ornamentation?" I have lived in several communities that are like that.
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Aug 22, 2010
[quote][quote][/quote]But that comes under the Constitutional protection of government establishing a religion. It doesn't have to be the Federal government.[/quote] The Constitution doesn't have ANY language as you suggest. The language is as I quoted on the previous page, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" which certainly restricts Congress ONLY, so by extension the Federal gubmint, not the States nor local municipalities, as Congress is the ONLY body that is empowered to make law universally applicable to the entire country. Several States and municipalities have laws respecting established religion(s). If there is a constitutional clause restricting States and municipalities from doing so, ( and there may be ) I am not aware of it.
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Aug 22, 2010
[quote][quote][/quote] Was this perhaps a deed restricted neighborhood? Yes, they may have asked the individual to pull down the ornamentation; but the question that I would ask is, "Do they require EVERYONE to keep their yard and home free of ornamentation?" I have lived in several communities that are like that.[/quote] No. The homeowner's defense was that the display was the same one they'd been doing for some 20 years,or some such. As I say, I don't remember many of the details, save that it was a big deal at the time. I seem to recall that other "holiday" displays in the same neighborhood were allowed, while a Nativity seen was not, and that THAT was the problem.
ReactReply
JA
jason
Aug 22, 2010
how come the seperation of church and state doesn't apply to the courtroom? what if someone is atheist or agnostic and they are called as a witness? should they have to swear to something they don't believe in?
ReactReply
ME
Member
Aug 22, 2010
Bush bombed the terrorists
Obama built them a mosque
ReactReply
CO
Curt, or Cowboy
Aug 22, 2010
[quote]how come the seperation of church and state doesn't apply to the courtroom?[/quote] Again, there is NO SUCH THING as separation of church and state ! There is merely a constitutional prohibition against a state church. [quote]what if someone is atheist or agnostic and they are called as a witness? should they have to swear to something they don't believe in?[/quote] YES !! When in Rome....
ReactReply
JA
JackNeilson
Aug 22, 2010
You may normally make a choice to swear or affirm, both or which carry the same (legal) strictures regarding perjury.
ReactReply
NA
NakedBuck
Aug 22, 2010
If most Muslims are truly peaceful, then why do we have Ahmadinejad running Iran, why do we have Libyans giving Megrahi a hero's welcome? Why did the Palestinians elect Hamas to be their leader? Why aren't there more churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia? Why are Muslims demanding that India give up Kashmir?
Why does the NYC Imam refuse to call Hamas a terrorist organization?
Liberals can be very, very naive. If a Christian ever committed an honor killing or mutilation, liberals would go crazy, yet they shrug their shoulders when Muslims do so. Why the double standard? Do liberals think so little of Muslims that they refuse to see them as worthy of the standards they apply to Christians and Jews? It shows far greater respect to Muslims to hold them accountable for their actions and beliefs.
Finally, why do feminists and gay rights activists refuse to speak out against oppression of women and gays in Muslim societies?
ReactReply
OL
OliverTan
Aug 22, 2010
[quote]If most Muslims are truly peaceful, then why do we have Ahmadinejad running Iran, why do we have Libyans giving Megrahi a hero's welcome? Why did the Palestinians elect Hamas to be their leader? Why aren't there more churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia? Why are Muslims demanding that India give up Kashmir? Why does the NYC Imam refuse to call Hamas a terrorist organization? Liberals can be very, very naive. If a Christian ever committed an honor killing or mutilation, liberals would go crazy, yet they shrug their shoulders when Muslims do so. Why the double standard? Do liberals think so little of Muslims that they refuse to see them as worthy of the standards they apply to Christians and Jews? It shows far greater respect to Muslims to hold them accountable for their actions and beliefs. Finally, why do feminists and gay rights activists refuse to speak out against oppression of women and gays in Muslim societies? [/quote] Who shrugged their shoulders at honor killings or mutilation? I have only seen shock and abhorrence in response to these atrocities.[quote]W.T.F Has this got to do with the OPStay happy, stay nude,A Nude world is a happy world.[quote] You don't sound very happy to me, LOL.
ReactReply