Republican wants the US to be more like Saudi Arabia

[punked]

Seems like a dumb plan to me, it certainly isn't want the founding fathers wanted, and it isn't what made America the world power house it is today. I guess that it is just the Republican plan for intolerance.

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

http://www.salon.com/news/newt_gingrich/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/07/21/gingrich_we_should_be_like_the_saudis

[bloodyminded]

Seems like a dumb plan to me, it certainly isn't want the founding fathers wanted, and it isn't what made America the world power house it is today. I guess that it is just the Republican plan for intolerance.

http://www.salon.com/news/newt_gingrich/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/07/21/gingrich_we_should_be_like_the_saudis

So Gingrich believes that religious freedom should be based on whether Saudi Arabia has religious freedom.

Wow, that's fucking brilliant.

Even Sarah Palin didn't go that far, and she endorses fascist literature.

[bush_cheney2004]

Seems like a dumb plan to me, it certainly isn't want the founding fathers wanted, and it isn't what made America the world power house it is today. I guess that it is just the Republican plan for intolerance.

Nope...it's exactly what the "founding fathers" intended, and has very little to do with the rise of American power. As for your guessing....keep it up.

[punked]

Nope...it's exactly what the "founding fathers" intended, and has very little to do with the rise of American power. As for your guessing....keep it up.

Yah they must have been joking when they wrote that first amendment right?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It is like you know nothing.

[punked]

So Gingrich believes that religious freedom should be based on whether Saudi Arabia has religious freedom.

Wow, that's fucking brilliant.

Even Sarah Palin didn't go that far, and she endorses fascist literature.

Yep he thinks if it doesn't work in Saudi Arabia it will be a sure hit in America because Republicans have no new ideas only ideas from the 1500's.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yah they must have been joking when they wrote that first amendment right?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It is like you know nothing.

And it's like you wish you knew something about American history and religious freedom. Invoking the "founding fathers" as some hallmark of virtue (out of context) is your specialty. Go back and do some more homework with yet another American tool called "Google" or "Bing" on the state of Connecticut, Danbury Baptists, and the calendar year.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep he thinks if it doesn't work in Saudi Arabia it will be a sure hit in America because Republicans have no new ideas only ideas from the 1500's.

...except for one very important one called "abolition of slavery". But how could you know that?

[punked]

And it's like you wish you knew something about American history and religious freedom. Invoking the "founding fathers" as some hallmark of virtue (out of context) is your specialty. Go back and do some more homework with yet another American tool called "Google" or "Bing" on the state of Connecticut, Danbury Baptists, and the calendar year.

Still does not negate the idea of religious freedom in the US.

Edited July 25, 2010 by punked

[punked]

...except for one very important one called "abolition of slavery". But how could you know that?

From a much different republican party. Sorry.

[bush_cheney2004]

From a much different republican party. Sorry.

Same party....same country. Sorry.

[bush_cheney2004]

Still does not negate the idea of religious freedom in the US.

Sure doesn't....it's not like the US Constitution has specific language protecting Roman Catholics and Protestants as in Canada! LOL!

[punked]

Same party....same country. Sorry.

Remind me who opposed civil rights again and came up with something called the "southern strategy" which was just scare white people blacks would take over? No need it was the intolerant republicans.

[bush_cheney2004]

Remind me who opposed civil rights again and came up with something called the "southern strategy" which was just scare white people blacks would take over? No need it was the intolerant republicans.

Sure...after you explain to me what a Dixiecrat is. You wouldn't know that unless it was Googled!

[Pliny]

The big problem with Islam is that it is a theocracy that does not believe in the separation of Church and State. So not until Islam is a religion separate from the State should it be considered a religion. Laws against Islam are directed against the fact it is a governing body and not any religious aspect of it's beliefs.

Until it divests itself of theocratic ambitions laws should be made regarding it.

The Constitution need only be presented and defended to ward off threats to it's existence that propose other forms of government such as communism, fascism or theocracies. As soon as Islam becomes non-political it can have a place of protection under the Constitution. Individual Muslims and the non-political practice of Islam should have protection under the first amendment. Anything that threatesn to destroy or override the Constitution has no such protection.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Pliny

[Sir Bandelot]

I agree Pliny, but dose that mean all islam is political?

What about other religions, are they truly non-political?

And if we were to use that criteria, then all political groups that are non aligned to the current system or party in power, could be deemed a threat. That includes socialists, anarchists, libertarians, communists, neo nazis etc. Yet they are still allowed to gather in groups and hold rallies.

It's a fine line to cross, and in some cases, one could argue, some of these do pose a threat. So looking back at muslims, in particular the ones who want this mosque, can we say they are more threatening than any of these groups? Seems to me that Mr. Gingrich has insulted a lot of law abiding US citizens.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Topaz]

I have a question... who actually started the problems between Islam and the US? I asking for the very first conflict? When and where?

[bush_cheney2004]

I have a question... who actually started the problems between Islam and the US? I asking for the very first conflict? When and where?

Barbary Pirates.....Jefferson sent over the Navy/Marines to "negotiate" with extreme prejudice.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/barbary.htm

From the Halls of Montezuma

To the Shores of Tripoli;

We will fight our country's battles

In the air, on land and sea;

First to fight for right and freedom

And to keep our honor clean;

We are proud to claim the title

of United States Marine.

Tripoli is not in New Jersey.

Edited July 26, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

I have a question... who actually started the problems between Islam and the US? I asking for the very first conflict? When and where?

I dunno if it can really be pinpointed so precisely. In both WWI and WWII, US forces helped to fight against Muslim armies that sided with the wrong side. Throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Union exerted its influence over many Muslim nations, elevating hostilities between them and the US. And of course there are the various pirate incidents.

Going back further, Europe and Islam had been periodically in conflict for centuries, and of course the US is derived from the Europe, among its heritage is the age old conflict with Islam.

One could even make the argument that the conflict goes back to long before Islam existed. The Romans and the Greeks before them each fought the Persians and the Arabs. Even earlier, the ancient Hebrews had hostilities with these peoples. And the West has much cultural and historical heritage from all three of these groups.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

I agree Pliny, but dose that mean all islam is political?

What about other religions, are they truly non-political?

As I said, "Individual Muslims and the non-political practice of Islam should have protection under the first amendment." It must be non-theocratic. That means it cannot force itself upon others.

And if we were to use that criteria, then all political groups that are non aligned to the current system or party in power, could be deemed a threat. That includes socialists, anarchists, libertarians, communists, neo nazis etc. Yet they are still allowed to gather in groups and hold rallies.

Socialism, Nazism, anarchy are all antipathetic to the Constitution. Some Libertarian anarchists maybe as well. They can do what they want but they are not about preserving the Constitution and are thus a threat to the nation. Proposing they form the government should be looked at with a jaundiced eye.

It's a fine line to cross, and in some cases, one could argue, some of these do pose a threat. So looking back at muslims, in particular the ones who want this mosque, can we say they are more threatening than any of these groups? Seems to me that Mr. Gingrich has insulted a lot of law abiding US citizens.

Building a mosque on the site of Islamic conquest, or what could be considered an Islamic triumph, is political and not religious. Islamacists were responsible for the disaster and any symbology that might be construed as a triumph over the west should not be permitted. It could never be understood as a tribute to the 3000 dead.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I have a question... who actually started the problems between Islam and the US? I asking for the very first conflict? When and where?

Bonam points out the European Christian origins of the conflict but ever since Mohammed established Islam the culture gradually deteriorated and became stultified. Persians contributed much to the world in the way of invention and innovation before it became stuck in the twelfth century and began hating the infidel.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Bonam points out the European Christian origins of the conflict but ever since Mohammed established Islam the culture gradually deteriorated and became stultified. Persians contributed much to the world in the way of invention and innovation before it became stuck in the twelfth century and began hating the infidel.

The Islamic empire reached it's height and Golden age several hundred years after Muhammad died. They didn't start to deteriorate until the sack of Baghdad in the mid 13th century. I'm wondering how they simultaneously managed to deteriorate and at the same time create the largest empire in the world at the time?

[dre]

I have a question... who actually started the problems between Islam and the US? I asking for the very first conflict? When and where?

People have pointed out that theres been various conflicts going back centuries, but I dont think thats the real issue. I dont think Islam is the real issue either.

I think the main issue is natural resources.

Basically we have the following relationship with the middle east...

They are the scrawny unscrupulous crack dealer... And we are the brawny addict that will do anything to get a fix.

Youll notice that we dont just have problems with Arabs or Muslims... we have problems with the populations of many of the countries we get natural resources from, whether those resources are gold, daimonds, oil, etc.

If the west didnt have this dependence on oil then the relationship would be a lot different. Most of these people would barely know who we are, and there would be a lot less water under the bridge.

Its not too tough to see why they dont like us really. Just make an honest attempt to put yourself in the shoes of an Arab in the middle east. Imagine how for example Americans would react to a foreign super power constantly maintaining a military presense in the US to facilitate the removal of natural resources. Imagine how Americans or Canadians would react to a foreign super power keeping large nuclear fleets parked off of our shores. Imagine how Americans or Canadians would react to that foreign super power enabling and funding oppresive elements in our own society.

These people would be IDIOTS if they didnt hate us.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Imagine how for example Americans would react to a foreign super power constantly maintaining a military presense in the US to facilitate the removal of natural resources. Imagine how Americans or Canadians would react to a foreign super power keeping large nuclear fleets parked off of our shores. Imagine how Americans or Canadians would react to that foreign super power enabling and funding oppresive elements in our own society.

It's not hard to imagine at all. See the American Revolution. That's how the Americans reacted. Any questions?

[dre]

It's not hard to imagine at all. See the American Revolution. That's how the Americans reacted. Any questions?

Good point.

[eyeball]

Good point.

It is good to see it pointed out how much in common American terrorists from the 18th century are to Islamic revolutionaries of the 21st.

They even worship the same god. They're natural born allies.