Classic and TW, these latest are not showing the best of either of you.
Can each get some new thoughts - without personal attacks ?

Sure as long as its a two way street.

Why are all the liberal tit suckers suddenly worried about the freedom of religious expression when they continually hammer Christians? Just wondering.

Not being a tit-sucker myself, I'll leave that question to those it is directed at.
The 'rents' right wing paper is on the case now (as up to date as always!)
There were two letters yesterday from people saying it was an insult to the memory of those who died. One from someone who lost a son on 9/11. Really.

I drafted a letter in response, but caught myself in time. There's no point.

Not wanting to impose any degradation on any religion, I have to suppress my words but then this "religion" might be the most pathetic and useless term that human culture has raised. Its really bemusing to see a race of certain people compiling one of the largest religious group in the world fail to see that there's nothing sacred about shedding the blood. You don't kill in name of good. Plain, simple, full-stop. Perhaps we should have done better without "gods" and there "non-existent" interference with humans.

Its clear to see that the profound religions on earth are more a product of the politics than the divine interference of some brighter-than-stars entity. You don't have to go beyond wikipedia to notice this. And of course there are better research works if anyone is interested in details.
Perhaps the backward societies still have ample time to sit and wander and create there plethora of meaningless "jihads" when we are busy getting into the our daily races to win the bread. You may keep a man in desert with few others of his type with nothing to do. And besides eating, fucking and shitting, he will come up with his beliefs after a time. True if you go n hit him when he's still coming to terms with rest of the world, he will become angered. But then is this malice justified when the rage becomes meaningless fire in the wind.

The point is........they are not at all in the desert, they are not at all just eating, fucking and shitting around, they have got some logic inside their dated minds too. So how does it become so plaintively simple for them to spread violence everywhere?
Or is it greed that drives them. A dream to rule the world? And that too on the name of God. There's been crusades and jihads, wars and bloodsheds. Perhaps we will never learn.
Sorry guys if this has been like another one of my ramblings. But I have personal reasons to never forget that doom of 9/11.

The 9-11 crew, and many of the imported al-Qaida fighters in Iraq, seem to be recruited from middle class families. Teenage angst, and twenty something disappointment with what they see their lives ahead will be, I guess.

I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody...

'Most any LTS will tell you that the 1st Amendment covers both activities. The thing is going to be on private property, we have no say. We all have a say about what they do in the public sphere. You've seen how worked up the LTSs get over Baby Jesus on the court house steps, just imagine the response if they tried to put burkas on our daughters. LTSs are your allies in this. Next time you see public dollars going to some Christian outfit and the LTSs get bent out of shape just replace First Podunk Christian Church with First Reformed Shiite Mosque and see if you're being consistent. We can kick Islams ass in the war of ideas but to do it we must remain true to our ideals.

Dear Griff

Well put, but I hasten to add that you underestimate, nay, overlook entirely the flexibility of such double standards. Every opinion that I've seen that opposes this building plan *IS* consistent, but the frame of reference doesn't extend beyond their own individual interests, despite dressing such interests in constitutional clothes.

Yours,

LTS #59,196,140

Irrationality is hammered. Christianity bears the brunt because there are more of them in the US, and they are more often the ones trying to make their religion into law. Any Muslim attempting to push for Sharia would (if he weren't simply laughed off the stage) be hammered just as hard.

In this case, what they are trying to do is build a properly zoned building on their own property. What's to hammer?

I've heard it will be visible from the WTC site. It won't. It's in the middle of a block on a road that does not intersect the site. If they ever build the tower, you probably will be able to see part of the roof, but that's true of most of Manhattan.

I've heard it will cast a shadow on the WTC site. It won't. At least one building between it and the WTC site is taller than it.

It's not even on a route to the WTC, unless you are zigzagging through the blocks.

I've heard it's too close. But mosques across the country are protested.

I've heard the guy in charge is a terrorist sympathiser. But he's been sent overseas by the US government as a goodwill ambassador. The quote used to paint him as a terrorist sympathiser is essentially saying that US foreign policy has made things worse in the Middle East.

The argument against the building could be used to say that a Baptist church shouldn't be built near a daycare center because some Catholic priests molested children, and Catholic priests are Christian, and so are Baptists, so the Baptist church is insensitive to area parents.

That's the best response yet, HM.

Seconded. I like thinking people.

HM, that was part of my drafted response (see above). I suggested that no Catholic churches could be built in Birmingham, Manchester, Omagh etc because of the IRA bombs there.

Good point, better made than my drafts anyway..

Well... Um... Ya think? :lol2:

This article has more to do with the recent flood that put 1/5 of Pakistan underwater but it has some relevance to the mosque debate. I am not posting it as a guilt trip but this flood has the potential to be a very large national security risk. If the US or Pakistan does not provide relief......guess who will (and has been).

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/post..._help_pakistan

And maybe his presumption that the response has "not yet been commensurate", stems from the fact that the world can't afford it. And if he thinks Bush is so good at this shit, send him.